Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Britain should 'scrap F-35 stealth fighter'

f-35 stealth fighter

  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

#1    Still Waters

Still Waters

    Deeply Mysterious

  • 39,831 posts
  • Joined:01 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • "Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better." - Albert Einstein

Posted 18 May 2014 - 01:20 PM

Britain's long-delayed £70 million stealth fighter may need to be cancelled because of its poor performance, according to an analysis by a senior American air force officer.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter being built for British and US forces is based on outdated ideas of air warfare, it is claimed. The aircraft could be unable to evade enemy radar and be too expensive for long campaigns.

http://www.telegraph...th-fighter.html

Posted Image

#2    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,454 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southampton, Blighty!

Posted 18 May 2014 - 02:40 PM

I totally agree with this. Having worked on the VTOL version of the aeroengine all I can say is that it is overpriced, overhyped, not capable of meeting ANY of its performance claims and as far as being "stealthy" - don't even get me going... Long Wave radar can detect it as easily as a Lancaster (WWII) bomber!!

Waste of money, simple. 5th Generation Aircraft? That doesn't have any meaning whatsoever. The avionics are outdated, its range is pitiful, its armament carrying capability is severely compromised.

I also think that 70Mn per aircraft is not even close to the true cost... but, whatever, the UK Govt will support LM and BaeSystems (prime contractor) and give the UK an underperforming aircraft that they are stuck with for 3 decades!!

Edited by keithisco, 18 May 2014 - 02:41 PM.


#3    Norbert Dentressangle

Norbert Dentressangle

    misanthropic nihilist

  • Member
  • 26,148 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tanybwlch

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 18 May 2014 - 03:12 PM

There's been a discussion going on here, about the merits of this thing.
What might they ever possibly need it for? Even if (say) at some hypothetical future date it might have to face the People's Liberation Army Navy/Air Force, wouldn't having useful numbers of something highly competent like say Gripen or Rafale be rather more useful than very small numbers of something not really all that very good at anything? But of course, (a) it's a Prestige project that the Government is committed to, and to cancel it now would not be Firm, and ( b ) Britain must be all its military equipment from America, otherwise they won't be our friends any more. :cry:

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#4    stevewinn

stevewinn

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 9,057 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England

  • Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival

Posted 18 May 2014 - 03:35 PM

They use words such as may, the F35 may be no better than current aircraft. it may not be able to do this, that and the other. why is that in every test it came out as you'd expect, obviously teething problems etc. like with such a project.  how can the British pilots say its an outstanding aircraft? with us placing an order for upto 48, and Australia 58 - With nine international partners and orders being placed its far from rubbish as the journalist would have you believe. they take a report and twist it.

what i want to know, which fighter is better today? i hear things such as the payload is limited. only in "stealth" mode. once the first strikes have taken place and the full suite of electronic warfare and jamming aircraft have sanitised the area The F35 can then carry out a more conventional role and carry more than enough ordnance.

I look at it this way, we need STOVL aircraft for the new carriers. we do not have Cats n' Traps installed on the carriers. so unless we go back to the Harrier its full steam ahead for the F35B. the biggest problem with the F35 programme was not the plane itself but the espionage by the Chinese.

time will tell how good or bad it is.

Edited by stevewinn, 18 May 2014 - 03:48 PM.

Posted Image

British by Birth - English by the Grace of God

#5    skookum

skookum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,642 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Sussex, UK

Posted 18 May 2014 - 06:58 PM

View Poststevewinn, on 18 May 2014 - 03:35 PM, said:

They use words such as may, the F35 may be no better than current aircraft. it may not be able to do this, that and the other. why is that in every test it came out as you'd expect, obviously teething problems etc. like with such a project.  how can the British pilots say its an outstanding aircraft? with us placing an order for upto 48, and Australia 58 - With nine international partners and orders being placed its far from rubbish as the journalist would have you believe. they take a report and twist it.

what i want to know, which fighter is better today? i hear things such as the payload is limited. only in "stealth" mode. once the first strikes have taken place and the full suite of electronic warfare and jamming aircraft have sanitised the area The F35 can then carry out a more conventional role and carry more than enough ordnance.

I look at it this way, we need STOVL aircraft for the new carriers. we do not have Cats n' Traps installed on the carriers. so unless we go back to the Harrier its full steam ahead for the F35B. the biggest problem with the F35 programme was not the plane itself but the espionage by the Chinese.

time will tell how good or bad it is.

Good post.

Most new aircraft suffer delays, look at Eurofighter it became a joke at one part.  Now it is operational it is extremely popular among pilots.

The F35 will be excellent, and instead of looking STOVL variant in negative way maybe the advantages should be capitalized on.  If we were to be drawn into a long drawn conflict and the aircraft had to operate on the limits of their range from the carrier, forward airbases could be set up with relative ease.

No need to build long vunerable runways, you can simply clear some forest and off you go.  The US marines picked the Harrier for this very reason and modified it so it could operate in either smaller spaces than originally designed.

If the Falklands had gone on longer it would have been entirely possible that our Harriers would have operated that way.  Especially if the carrier had been damaged.  With Cats 'n' Traps aircraft the airbase would have needed to be captured and repaired.  An old Vulcan bomber disabled the main airbase runway and forced the Argentinian airforce to operate from mainland.  If that airbase had remained operational I wouldn't mind betting our Navy would have been near enough wiped out.

Lets be thankful the Argentinians didn't have STOVL.  If you look at the Dassault Mirage III performance on paper against the Harrier they should have run rings round them.  In true combat it was proved very different.

Edited by skookum, 18 May 2014 - 07:04 PM.

Posted Image

#6    stevewinn

stevewinn

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 9,057 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England

  • Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival

Posted 18 May 2014 - 08:40 PM

View Postskookum, on 18 May 2014 - 06:58 PM, said:

Good post.

Most new aircraft suffer delays, look at Eurofighter it became a joke at one part.  Now it is operational it is extremely popular among pilots.

The F35 will be excellent, and instead of looking STOVL variant in negative way maybe the advantages should be capitalized on.  If we were to be drawn into a long drawn conflict and the aircraft had to operate on the limits of their range from the carrier, forward airbases could be set up with relative ease.

No need to build long vunerable runways, you can simply clear some forest and off you go.  The US marines picked the Harrier for this very reason and modified it so it could operate in either smaller spaces than originally designed.

If the Falklands had gone on longer it would have been entirely possible that our Harriers would have operated that way.  Especially if the carrier had been damaged.  With Cats 'n' Traps aircraft the airbase would have needed to be captured and repaired.  An old Vulcan bomber disabled the main airbase runway and forced the Argentinian airforce to operate from mainland.  If that airbase had remained operational I wouldn't mind betting our Navy would have been near enough wiped out.

Lets be thankful the Argentinians didn't have STOVL.  If you look at the Dassault Mirage III performance on paper against the Harrier they should have run rings round them.  In true combat it was proved very different.

Yes and what people also need to remember is the roll we need the F35B to fulfil. - The UK maintains the ability of an Amphibious force, the F35B's prime roll is to gain air supremacy over any Naval task force and landing forces. multi role fighter - bomber - reconnaissance and weapons platform.

Best thing about F-35 is not the stealth. It's the unsexy stuff only geeks know about, like being a digital weapon able to switch mission modes in-flight, fly all-weather and day or night, having integrated and encrypted communication, navigation and IFF through high-speed data links, capability to communicate via SMS with units on the ground, use its own sensors (EO, IR and AESA radar) - and act as a hub for the sensors of other non-line of sight platforms - to give the pilot as much information as only theatre controllers have previously had, provide terrain-mapping capability comparable to that onboard E-8 JSTARs, show that information to the pilot on a MFD bigger than the computer screen you are reading this on now, see - and automatically identify - threats to the aircraft from any angle through its distributed aperture sensor system, co-ordinate small fleets of UCAVs, guide weapons launched from other platforms, launch a wide-range of its own A2A and A2G weapons, allow off-boresight shooting of missiles, use it's own AESA radar to conduct electronic attacks, diagnose it's own component problems, automatically schedule maintenance cycles, have high-commonality with augmented reality training simulators, have common training regimes between the three variants, and benefit from a lifetime 'service desk' to take the aircraft back to the shop for upgrades and significant maintenance on any of it's three (triple-redundant) computers. Oh and it's got a bit of stealth and some of it is built in the UK. which we've already seen the benefits - with cross over projects utilising the technology which we currently see in the UCAV Taranis.

unlike the Falklands war we now have the US (TLAM) tomahawk missile. which enables us to hit targets just over a 1,000 Nautical miles away, the UK government have ordered 64 of the New Tomahawk block IV which have the ability to loiter in enemy airspace for upto two hours. so for the people who point to the F35B's short range its still impressive at a speed of mach 1.6 has a combat radius of 450 Nautical miles, overall range of 900 nautical miles. and the most important part that always gets over looked is the planes countermeasures - The F-35B is equipped with AN/APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) multi-functional radar built by Northrop Grumman. It also as AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS), Barracuda AN/ASQ-239 electronic warfare system, Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) communication system and missile warning system.

Its worth noting the first Euro fighters or Typhoon Tranche 1's are starting to be retired by the RAF.  some will be shocked by that - that's because they took so long to get into production and then service. currently the RAF plans to retire the tranche 1's by 2018 starting next year 2015

also two F35B's will be here in the UK after they make their first trans Atlantic crossing - ready to appear at Fairford and Farnborough air shows in July.

its all to much to take in i've got nerd overload. im off to bed.

Posted Image

British by Birth - English by the Grace of God

#7    Norbert Dentressangle

Norbert Dentressangle

    misanthropic nihilist

  • Member
  • 26,148 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tanybwlch

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 19 May 2014 - 06:42 AM

View Postskookum, on 18 May 2014 - 06:58 PM, said:

Good post.

Most new aircraft suffer delays, look at Eurofighter it became a joke at one part.  Now it is operational it is extremely popular among pilots.

The F35 will be excellent, and instead of looking STOVL variant in negative way maybe the advantages should be capitalized on.  If we were to be drawn into a long drawn conflict and the aircraft had to operate on the limits of their range from the carrier, forward airbases could be set up with relative ease.

No need to build long vunerable runways, you can simply clear some forest and off you go.  The US marines picked the Harrier for this very reason and modified it so it could operate in either smaller spaces than originally designed.

If the Falklands had gone on longer it would have been entirely possible that our Harriers would have operated that way.  Especially if the carrier had been damaged.  With Cats 'n' Traps aircraft the airbase would have needed to be captured and repaired.  An old Vulcan bomber disabled the main airbase runway and forced the Argentinian airforce to operate from mainland.  If that airbase had remained operational I wouldn't mind betting our Navy would have been near enough wiped out.

Lets be thankful the Argentinians didn't have STOVL.  If you look at the Dassault Mirage III performance on paper against the Harrier they should have run rings round them.  In true combat it was proved very different.
Well, exactly, so wouldn't a new version of Harrier be infinitely more useful and cost effective than an incredibly extravagant Superjet? That's the important point, not STOVL, of course that's useful, but the question is whether they're trying to incorporate everything into one package, stealth, STOVL, strike capability, air superiority, and so whether they're making something that doesn't really exel at any of them. And surely the only point behind developing something so expensive is that it is the best at everything.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#8    skookum

skookum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,642 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Sussex, UK

Posted 19 May 2014 - 07:01 AM

View PostAdmiral Rhubarb, on 19 May 2014 - 06:42 AM, said:

Well, exactly, so wouldn't a new version of Harrier be infinitely more useful and cost effective than an incredibly extravagant Superjet? That's the important point, not STOVL, of course that's useful, but the question is whether they're trying to incorporate everything into one package, stealth, STOVL, strike capability, air superiority, and so whether they're making something that doesn't really exel at any of them. And surely the only point behind developing something so expensive is that it is the best at everything.

A new version of the Harrier would be excellent and something Britain could export.

Problem is it would take at least a decade to develop and probably another 5 years to manufacture.  Even developing a carrier version of Eurofighter was estimated at 10 years.  What do we use up till then?

Posted Image

#9    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 16,546 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 19 May 2014 - 07:20 AM

The F-35 was intended to be the 'cheap' multi-role aircraft complimenting the expensive F-22 in the US's aerial warfare arsenal. It is the F-22 that requires all the expensive add-ons - such as advanced stealth capabilities - because it is the air superiority and 'first-strike' warplane that current US strategic thinking demands. The F-35 should be smaller, cheaper and more capable of multi-role operations.

But the development of the F-35 became so corrupted by the desire of Lockheed Martin to pump ever more unnecessary technology into the aircraft*, ballooning it's cost (and so, their profits), that it is now incredibly cost-ineffective compared to what it should have been.

The UK is buying a turkey with an incredibly short shelf-life. It will not be capable of air superiority against probable modern opponents, that would be the role of the Typhoon, so why do we need to spend so much on the 'second-line' aircraft? The whole idea of a multi-role aircraft is that it is a "jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none", and yet LM have tried (unsuccessfully) to make the F-35 the master-of-all-trades.

The F-35 concept, and it's uptake by the UK, is the result of putting corporate profit over cost-effective capability. I agree with the Admiral, the UK should have taken the concept of the Harrier to the next level - because that is all that was required in a multi-role and carrier-based aircraft.

*This was also partly the result of the different arms of the US military demanding different specs, and that the USMC didn't want to have to rely on the airforce and so wanted a fighter more capable than the multi-role concept could (and should) provide.

Edited by Leonardo, 19 May 2014 - 07:22 AM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#10    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,167 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 19 May 2014 - 09:49 AM

With the price tag on this thing, it needs to be better than current aircraft.  Or just use current aircraft, obviously.   It is about stealth unfortunately because the F-35 has been compromised by it for any mission we can speak of beyond any open-panel repairs or aftermarket band aids.  If it isn't about stealth then this aircraft has been a terrific waste of money.   Computer electronics and weapons and sensors and radar and software, and yada yada.   That's fine.  Put that stuff on a good airplane.

Changing the order from 138 to 48 F-35s looks like the UK is saying no already.   The article sounds like even a complete rejection is being recommended and considered.   The F-35 was a lucrative test bed to see what's possible with a stealthy multi-role fighter.   In actual usage it's a glorified bomb truck.   Best take the lessons learned and incorporate them into wiser and more role-specific future designs.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#11    stevewinn

stevewinn

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 9,057 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England

  • Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival

Posted 19 May 2014 - 11:32 AM

View PostYamato, on 19 May 2014 - 09:49 AM, said:

With the price tag on this thing, it needs to be better than current aircraft.  Or just use current aircraft, obviously.   It is about stealth unfortunately because the F-35 has been compromised by it for any mission we can speak of beyond any open-panel repairs or aftermarket band aids.  If it isn't about stealth then this aircraft has been a terrific waste of money.   Computer electronics and weapons and sensors and radar and software, and yada yada.   That's fine.  Put that stuff on a good airplane.

Changing the order from 138 to 48 F-35s looks like the UK is saying no already.   The article sounds like even a complete rejection is being recommended and considered.   The F-35 was a lucrative test bed to see what's possible with a stealthy multi-role fighter.   In actual usage it's a glorified bomb truck.   Best take the lessons learned and incorporate them into wiser and more role-specific future designs.

The UK's orders will increase the first order is for 8 rising to 48. these are for the carriers. but rising to 128. If the plane is so bad, why would Britain, Australia, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway. Japan and likely South Korea. place orders?

Posted Image

British by Birth - English by the Grace of God

#12    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,454 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southampton, Blighty!

Posted 19 May 2014 - 11:59 AM

This aircraft is SO expensive, that it will eat into other MOD procurement programmes. The Typhoon and a Harrier upgrade would provide all of the troop support needed for the UK, and for any future combat scenarios against any possible combat theatres. A Harrier update would have led to massive overseas orders, but this Cameroon govt totally made this impossible by selling off the entire Harrier fleet to the USMC (at 1Mn dollars apiece) - leaving the UK virtually defenceless in close combat situations

Quote

Newsnight understands that the first 14 aircraft will be bought for £58m ($96m) apiece. However, once spares, maintenance and initial support are included, the price will be much higher.
'Basic weapons range'
There is concern in the MoD that observers will simply divide the approximate £2.5bn cost of this stage of the project by the 14 planes being ordered, whereas this price tag includes certain support costs for the entire, eventual UK fleet.

One Pentagon estimate last year for an aircraft plus support costs for the first few years came out at £154m ($253m) each.

In planning its own buy, Britain has shown a little more caution than the hard-charging US Marine Corps.

It's planned that the 14 aircraft will form the first operational squadron in 2018, and that by 2020 they will be able to fly from HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Justin Bronk, an analyst at the Royal United Services Institute, said that even by then, they might be capable only of "going through the motions" - taking off and landing - and not using the more advanced weapons in the RAF inventory.

LINK (courtesy BBC): http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26124894


#13    Norbert Dentressangle

Norbert Dentressangle

    misanthropic nihilist

  • Member
  • 26,148 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tanybwlch

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 19 May 2014 - 12:52 PM

View Poststevewinn, on 19 May 2014 - 11:32 AM, said:

The UK's orders will increase the first order is for 8 rising to 48. these are for the carriers. but rising to 128. If the plane is so bad, why would Britain, Australia, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway. Japan and likely South Korea. place orders?
politics, of course. All those countries are keen to be good trading and/or defense partners of Uncle Sam. Like S. Korea or Japan would have the choice to buy Swedish or french.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#14    stevewinn

stevewinn

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 9,057 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England

  • Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival

Posted 19 May 2014 - 01:44 PM

View PostAdmiral Rhubarb, on 19 May 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

politics, of course. All those countries are keen to be good trading and/or defense partners of Uncle Sam. Like S. Korea or Japan would have the choice to buy Swedish or french.

I think the only element of politics is buying into the technology and the penalty clauses for abandoning the project. but i don't think it needs abandoning. anyway the UK doesn't have an alternative to the F35B. neither does Italy who also operates VSTOL carriers - the only option available today is the Harrier which is outdated and subsonic. The F35B just like the sea Harrier im sure will show its worth.

Posted Image

British by Birth - English by the Grace of God

#15    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 15,007 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 19 May 2014 - 02:55 PM

One of the points being overlooked about this aircraft is that it has no need to be better in dogfights.  It essentially IS a computer that flies and delivers weapons at far superior distances - and is supposed to do so accurately. Difficult to turn faster and gain an advantage when you've been destroyed without ever seeing your opponent :)

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users