F-35 grounded - again

mikewint said:

One line concerns me "it would neer see in normal operations" the is nothing normal in a war.

Click to expand...

That is not really true. There are still operating limits and those have to be followed in combat as well. Of course in certain situations you have to possibly break those limits, but as FBJ pointed out that is one of the things that is being tested. How far can you go.

FLYBOYJ said:

Well it depends what you think Australia needs.

Click to expand...

I am curious as to what you think Australia needs.

Consider that the plan was to buy 100 and that's be the only fighter/attack aircraft we have.

For my part the roles I think are required are:

Priority A) Air to air - for air defence of Australia
Priority B) Maritime attack - to defend the coast lines of Australis
Priority C) Combat Air Support - support our troops in battle

FLYBOYJ said:

The F-35 is not designed to be a world class air to air fighter

Click to expand...

Therin lies the problem. It is not designed to world class at anything. It is designed to do a bit of this, a bit of that....

FLYBOYJ said:

Even in it's strike role i think you're going to find this aircraft will carry smaller bombs that can be delivered very accurately

Click to expand...

I would think that the accuracy of the bombs would largely depend on the bloke on the ground pointing a laser at the target.

FLYBOYJ said:

As far as the price tag - it's going to depend on the model.

Click to expand...

We woul dbe getting the A model, with a few less of the trick bits that the USA and UK will be getting.

FLYBOYJ said:

It's funny though, the same thing is being said about Canada's participation in the F-35 program (Those guys are the guys that bought into the JSF program sight unseen without an evaluative process. )

Click to expand...

Well I guess the process on selecting it was teh same there as it was here - a lot of political arse kissing.

wuzak said:

Therin lies the problem. It is not designed to world class at anything. It is designed to do a bit of this, a bit of that....

Click to expand...

Yup. Its not good at anything it does. And you're paying a lot of money for a 2nd rate AC.

This is another McNamara nightmare. Only this time, our economy cant handle it.

Well, here is another piece from BBC:

"US President Barack Obama has signed into effect a wave of steep spending cuts which he has warned could damage the US economy.

The cuts - known as the sequester and drawn up two years ago - will take $85bn (£56bn) from the US federal budget this year""


AND

""""""
About half the cuts will come from the defence budget. Incoming defence secretary Chuck Hagel has warned of "significant impacts" on the military.

He said the cuts "will cause pain, particularly among our civilian workforce and their families".

"Let me make it clear that this uncertainty puts at risk our ability to effectively fulfil all of our missions," Mr Hagel said.

"Later this month, we intend to issue preliminary notifications to thousands of civilian employees who will be furloughed [put on unpaid leave]."

Defence officials say 800,000 civilian employees will have their working week reduced. They say they will also have to scale back flight hours for warplanes and postpone some equipment maintenance.

The deployment of a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf has also been cancelled"""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""

Now, what does this now mean? anybody?

With the cost over-runs and the delays, me-think that F-35 could be very close to the edge.

There is another aspect to it: The parallel is SA's defence forces.

We bought a lot of rather sophisticated stuff.

The problem is that the missions right now demand more of:
- trucks to transport troops
- un-sophisticated and simple rifle
- more ammo for the basic stuff
- APC's (like Caspir's will do just fine)
- better uniforms

Those simple and rather pedestrian things.

Now, look at what US is really involved in: Police actions? feet on the ground?

Is this the same scenario? We go for the wow-factor and the dazzle, where we really need something so stupid as a truck to get to the action.

Is it a fair comparison? Have got ourselves into a technology "black hole" where we simply hurl money and technology at an imaginary problem and overlooking the basic needs of the defence forces?

On a different note, which I have high-lighted before:

I do believe that the development times for a new aircraft is simply too long. we are addressing a need 15 years back in time. In essense, 15 years ago, we predicted how our world would be now. And that is what we cling to due to the specs being "frozen".

Imagine a world where we have a development time of 3-4 years? What if soembody comes up with a plan where there is less "development" but higher usage of existing technology applied in more innovative ways? It is called paradigm shift, I believe.

Of course there are tons of arguments why it is not possible at all. BUT as someoen said, if we can imagine it, it can happen - something like that.

Parallel for this:
SpaceX. Privatise and get industry involved in a new way. Mars is economically viable
Virgin Galaxy

Just a thought on this.

ivan

Lets just make sure this stays relevant to the F-35...

syscom3 said:

Yup. Its not good at anything it does. And you're paying a lot of money for a 2nd rate AC.

This is another McNamara nightmare. Only this time, our economy cant handle it.

Click to expand...

Really? It may not be "best in the world" at anything it does but that's a long way from being "not good at anything it does". I think you're overstating the problem here. I believe the F-35, despite its many problems, will prove to be a highly capable fighter and ground attack platform, and its sensor suite will provide additional ISR capability to air forces that employ it.

I agree buffnut, to state that "its not good at anything it does" is not supported by reality. The capabilities of the F-35 will be world class. Block 5 brings 6 AIM-120, SDBII and full FOV DIRCM. And if I recall correctly, Block 6 brings initial capability for UAS command/control and Block 7 combines FLIR and IRST into the full 3-dimensional electro-optical tracking system. These capabilities on one airframe are not mirrored on any other platform anytime in the near to mid future.

IMHO, I'd like to see the F-35B thrown in the trash - it overcomplicates the programme for no real operational benefit (other than the Harrier mafias of both the RAF and USMC want to retain their "special" skills in the STOVL arena. Unfortunately, with the decision to make the QEII class carriers ramp launch only, I don't see the UK giving up on the F-35B.

ivanotter said:

Imagine a world where we have a development time of 3-4 years? What if soembody comes up with a plan where there is less "development" but higher usage of existing technology applied in more innovative ways? It is called paradigm shift, I believe.

Of course there are tons of arguments why it is not possible at all. BUT as someoen said, if we can imagine it, it can happen - something like that.

Parallel for this:
SpaceX. Privatise and get industry involved in a new way. Mars is economically viable
Virgin Galaxy

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the spectrum of military operations is broad and constantly changing. In the 1980s, military forces in the Western world and the Warsaw Pact were structured for large-scale, force-on-force combat. The Gulf War in 1991 provided such a start example of the superiority of US conventional forces that few countries today would seek to risk a conflict on those terms. So now we have asymmetric warfare involving non-state actors. That change has major consequences for military procurement - reducing need for main battle tanks and traditional ISR and more need for flexible, mobile infantry and special forces, as well as persistent surveillance to identify hostiles (which is, itself, hard). All of these changes hit following the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, in other words well within the past 15 years. One could argue that most of the changes to combat conditions happened as soon as the initial objective of removing the Taliban from power was achieved - the nature of the combat changed within a matter of weeks not years.

Your comparison with commercial space exploration attempts is, unfortunately, not valid. The conditions of space exploration are well-known and they don't change. It's simply a question of money and commercial interest to determine what type(s) of space vehicles will be commercially viable. The requirements don't change much over time - if you want the average Joe (or Josephine) to get into space then you need a vehicle with a carrying capacity that can make money. Technology impacts your ability to do that but designs aren't subject to wildly swinging requirements changes.

...nor the Marines unfortunately. Quite a performance hit for that engine/lift fan combination.

Yep, and it's deadweight in conventional flight. There really is no operational need for a STOVL capability and there hasn't been one since the end of the Cold War (unless you count the RN's carriers being so small that they couldn't support CTOL aircraft). We're not going to be operating F-35s from hides next to straight roads (as per Harrier in the Cold War) nor from forest/jungle clearings. Operation from ships is the closest we'll get to needing a STOVL capability and the USMC operated successfully alongside USN aircraft on the main carriers before Harrier joined the inventory so why not do that again?

Marines say the need it at a smaller expeditionary unit force level. Given how many smaller hotspots we are increasingly involved with, sending a USN carrier is untenable. This is where I do agree with Syscom that this might be a better function for a reaper class UCAV for ground support. But then I see two issues with that, no flexible air-to-air support anywhere in the future and inability of see-and-avoid capability for operations in civil airspace. Both are quite limiting.

Yeah, UCAVs are still some way from being operationally viable as automous killing machines. You still have to get the UCAV to the right point on the earth's surface and, AFAIK, there aren't too many plans for a UCAV solution in the Global Hawk class of UAV (indeed, the requirement for ubiquitous presence militates against a true combat capability, at least in terms of manoeuverability).

Is the US really getting involved in lots of small hotspots? The US has assiduously avoided engaging combat forces in Libya, Syria and Mali. One could argue that it's less likely that US combat forces will be employed at small scale globally given budget constraints for the next decade and the current desire to avoid becoming entrapped in another Iraq or Afghanistan drag-out insertion of democracy.

Global Hawk is on the outs at the Pentagon (with perhaps the exception of BAMS for the Navy). Block 40 is likely to be cancelled. And there is no discussion whatsoever to arm that platform. Ever. Just like U-2. So any next generation platform with UCAV capability will have to be something completely new. And nobody is publicly talking about an offensive air-to-air UAS that is steeped in realism. Nobody. So manned platforms are here to stay for the foreseable future.

Perhaps the "hotspots" term is not proper. I'm thinking of the need for addressing Islamo-Nazi asymmetric threats. Areas like Somalia and other coastal African insurgencies. When I wrote the sentence, my immediate thought was 'perhaps the US should just ignore such low-level threats'... and while that isolationist attitude is an alternative, it has not served us and the remainder of the world well over the last 115yrs.

Perhaps the Chi-Coms could take over the evil role of the US colonists. I'm sure the world would be a better place.

Just to be clear, I wasn't talking about Global Hawk specifically but something in that class of UAV. Anything that's not in that class/size will either need to operate from forward-deployed airfields or from carriers and so offers few advantages over the F-35 (did you see how I got us back on topic there? Sometimes I'm just a genius!).

Global Hawk is the size (wingspan) of a 737 with 8700nm endurance, 3000lb payload and exceptionally high ceiling. Other than 48hr persistance, what do we want from such a UCAV platform. Especially when you get almost the same max payload with a slighly lower dash speed with a commendable persistance duration. The Marines are looking at worst case adversary operations, wherein the airspace is contested. While the likelihood of that occurring without US Navy air support is low, one does have to consider nation defense for worstcase scenario. There are significant tradeoffs in going the cheap route when your constitutional obligation of the federal gov't is to defend our nation is it's virtually only mandate.

Ok here's my train of thought...F-35 STOVL needed 'cos of small carriers and small conflicts. If F-35 is replaced by an UCAV capability, then the only options are carrier-based, forward-deployed conventional airfield or global strike capability. For the latter, you're going to need a large UAV...perhaps something of the size/scale/range of Global Hawk. You need the persistence because, if the UCAV isn't operating from a carrier or nearby airfield, it will take too long to respond to ongoing crises so it needs to loiter and then attack when called upon.

buffnut453 said:

Unfortunately, the spectrum of military operations is broad and constantly changing. In the 1980s, military forces in the Western world and the Warsaw Pact were structured for large-scale, force-on-force combat. The Gulf War in 1991 provided such a start example of the superiority of US conventional forces that few countries today would seek to risk a conflict on those terms. So now we have asymmetric warfare involving non-state actors. That change has major consequences for military procurement - reducing need for main battle tanks and traditional ISR and more need for flexible, mobile infantry and special forces, as well as persistent surveillance to identify hostiles (which is, itself, hard). All of these changes hit following the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, in other words well within the past 15 years. One could argue that most of the changes to combat conditions happened as soon as the initial objective of removing the Taliban from power was achieved - the nature of the combat changed within a matter of weeks not years.

Your comparison with commercial space exploration attempts is, unfortunately, not valid. The conditions of space exploration are well-known and they don't change. It's simply a question of money and commercial interest to determine what type(s) of space vehicles will be commercially viable. The requirements don't change much over time - if you want the average Joe (or Josephine) to get into space then you need a vehicle with a carrying capacity that can make money. Technology impacts your ability to do that but designs aren't subject to wildly swinging requirements changes.

Click to expand...

In "asymmetric warfare involving non-state actors" are the likes of F-35s really required? Aren't F-18Fs more than adequate?

Actually, shouldn't we buying A-10s instead?

Well from a US Marine standpoint, F-18s are large carrier airplanes and thus not compatible with MEU landing ships. For RAAF, F-18Fs have fairly long range strike capability, especially with cruise missles and stand off weapons. But F-18 is no better than F-35 in physical knife fight (and likely MUCH worse with block 5, 6 and 7; and does not have penetration and sensor fusion capability of F-35). Those are the tradeoffs. And they can be rather significant in the increasingly networked battlefield. I think this is why RAAF is looking towards using F-18E/F/G as their electronic fighting platform supporting a future F-35/UAS offensive fleet. Smart money if you ask me as a force multiplier against a nation state with quantity as their primary game 'advantage'.

wuzak said:

In "asymmetric warfare involving non-state actors" are the likes of F-35s really required? Aren't F-18Fs more than adequate?

Actually, shouldn't we buying A-10s instead?

Click to expand...

Maybe but, as always, the problem is wider than that. Who's to say the pendulum of combat operations won't swing back the other way and we'll need something more advanced for the next war, or the one after that, or the one in 20 years from now? The designs for the A-10 and F/A-18 are already more than 30 years old, and there is a limit to the cost-effective life of such platforms. The key risk is that we won't have the capability that's needed in the future when that future, with the best will in the world, cannot be clearly foreseen. Finally, there's the whole military-industrial complex argument - that if we don't keep producing new aircraft, we lose the raison d'etre for comprehensive combat aircraft design, development and production lines. This latter may not be a valid concern in reality but it's certainly present at the political level when there's a public outcry because a Government decision to cut a major programme results in major job losses in a high-tech industry, which is precisely where the western world needs to be investing. Just look at the UK brain-drain after key programmes like TSR-2 and space launch/rocket development were cancelled.