Aircraft Carriers and JSF

The F-35 was originally tasked with close air support and bombing duties after the F-22's cleared the airspace and radars.  I don't think the stealth of the F-35 was as important as that of the F-22. 

The F-35 was originally tasked with close air support and bombing duties after the F-22's cleared the airspace and radars.  I don't think the stealth of the F-35 was as important as that of the F-22.

 

Agree - that's correct.  However, what's changed since the original requirement was written is the F-22 production run.  With only 195 (max) of the Raptors, they may need a little help, depending on the adversary and the situation.  If it's Iran - no problem - if it's China I don't think the F-22s are going to be able to do it alone.  Fortunately, the F-35s have an A-A capability that is second only to the Raptors. 

Radar-killing, i.e. the old Wild Weasel role, is probaly better done by the F-35s than the F-22s anyway. 

The F-22 is going to be seen as so unique, valuable and in such short supply that it's going to be carefully husbanded and used only where nothing else will do.  I think the F-35s will do a lot of the grunt work of establishing air supremacy.

 

Harrier was no slouch - could do 600 kts level with good acceleration and supersonic in a dive. Most fighters rarely go supersonic except when running fast from enemy AD/aircraft. Sustained supersonic flight is too expensive for a fighter in terms of fuel, and thus range, even if it can super-cruise (not forgetting it has to accelerate first).

Fast is only good if you are VERY fast, like the SR-71 was fast. Other than that it just means you take the fight to the other guy a bit quicker, but otherwise has limited tactical use. Most fighters are best around 300-500 kts depending on the situation, and turn radius and thrust to weight ratio are far more useful, but still not the whole story.

BVR is only good if you can avoid a merge. F-22 should excel here with its ability to remain quiet in terms of RF emissions, and engage the enemy without being detected. Once it is seen however all bets are off (nearly all combat pilots are shot down by aircraft they never saw, but once they've spotted the enemy, the chances of evasion/survival are significantly increased).

Best regards,
Vulcan.

"Two engines" comes from the idea that they MUST HAVE TWO ENGINES. The F-16 proved that a modern fighter doesn't require two engines, but the idea that all fighters have two engines is still very deeply stuck in the mind of the people at the top.

The F-16 has greater reliability and uses half the fuel of the F-15.

Put the F-15 RADAR in the F-16 and the F-15 is out of a job.

Best regards,
Vulcan.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-14/panetta-says-budget-cuts-may-lead-to-lockheed-s-f-35-termination.html

Nov. 15 2011

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham that defense budget cuts of as much as $1 trillion may lead to the termination of Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-35 jet.

I hope so!!!

Best regards,
Vulcan.

Personally, I wouldn't blame them for preferring two engines, it's not just about engine reliability, it's also about having a reserve engine if the other one gets shot to pieces.

This was the argument at the time for having two engines, but as the F-16 proved, it doesn't work like that, and the F-16 has a far better record than the F-15.

Best regards,
Vulcan.

Uh oh......

They just did the first sea trials of the F-35C landing on a carrier, and they had to abort as it couldn't trap! There is currently an investigation and design review under way into why this was so.

What a fundamental screw-up! This is looking very bad for the F-35.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Abcb29d8f-6a85-40c5-8f1d-c84d20afe997&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

The arrester hook issue has been reported. In the first round of tests, the hook failed to catch the wire once. The QLR notes that tests of a minimal modification - a reprofiled hook with different damper settings - set for April "represent only the initial stages leading into full carrier suitability demonstrations." Studies are already underway of changing the hook's location - the basic problem is that the designers put the hook closer behind the main landing gear than that of any current or recent Navy aircraft, even the tailless X-47B - but that will have "major, direct primary and secondary structural impacts".

Still think I'm being harsh on it?

Best regards,
Vulcan.

I thought they were giving up on the F-35C and were just going to get the Navy boys to throw paper planes off the deck instead

This is for you MoD Procurement ->

Why do we need the carries in the first place? Times have moved on. The threat to our country now is from terrorism, not rogue nations. O.K. Iran is trying to build a nuclear capability but wouldn't you if someone like the Americans had a downer on you and as many nukes as they have. In my opininion, a carrier's only uses are either for agressive reasons or for nationalistic Donk waving. I feel the money would be better spent defending ourselves at home rather than in Afganistan, Iran, Yemen or wherever the next threat is coming from. It's a far more cost effective solution in the long run.

Expatmanc wrote: Why do we need the carries in the first place? Times have moved on. The threat to our country now is from terrorism, not rogue nations. O.K. Iran is trying to build a nuclear capability but wouldn't you if someone like the Americans had a downer on you and as many nukes as they have. In my opininion, a carrier's only uses are either for agressive reasons or for nationalistic Donk waving. I feel the money would be better spent defending ourselves at home rather than in Afganistan, Iran, Yemen or wherever the next threat is coming from. It's a far more cost effective solution in the long run.

i'm afraid i have to partially disagree with that statement, ExpatManc. The reason we need A/C Carriers is far from the "nationalistic donk waving" you refer to and much more to do with having a Force in the right place at the right time. One example being our commitment to the UN role in combating the pirates of Somalia (other East African nations may be involved) - without a/c carriers, the allied UN nations would have nowhere to base their ISTAR a/c used for the task - in this instance the US Navy's 'USS Dwight D Eisenhower' has been used frequently for such operations.

Then we've got the recent Libya mission when the Tornado's flew from RAF Marham and back because we didn't have the harriers out in the Med/Atlantic on a carrier, as would have normally be the case before SDSR! Not to mention The Falklands conflict, without HMS Ark Royal we'd have been overrun and would have lost, although the commander at the time didn't think highly of Air Power nor its impact, but that's another debate entirely.

VulcanB2 wrote: Strange they can find the troops to protect the Olympic sites, but not the borders!!!!

not many are aware of this, but i've been reliably informed by my Sqn Ldr at work (under obligation not to disclose location) that we have a leave ban from may 25th thru August - thats where the 'extra' man power is comming from Vulcan, we've been declined our leave to cover the olympics!