A typical deployment of one 65,000t vessel outside UK territorial waters would include an embarked air wing of 12 short take-off and vertical landing F-35Bs.
Wars can have a bad way of showing up quickly, in the here and not days from now.
For any deployment.
The Boy Scouts have it right: “Be prepared.”
A 6$,000 ton vessel deploying with 12 faulty, short-ranged strike aircraft that have a horrific cost-per-flying hour.
No on-board tanking or proper fixed-wing AWACs.
And if this kind of “force” was sunk outright, quickly, as an object lesson by an aggressor, what would the UK do?
Not much, because they are now officially, a hollow force.
And, the UK taxpayer is getting taken to the cleaners.
As always, best to make buying decisions when looking at a complete go-to-war product. Every potential F-35 customer / partner won’t have intelligent buying-power knowledge until 2019-2020 at the earliest.
27 comments:
Not all is lost.I am sure they could do deal with China.J15 for engine technology,and a ski jump?
Why on earth does the uk need an aircraft carrier on the first place?
I would have to concur in part with both Anon1 and Anon2.
A joint-venture with the objective to employ an alternative aircraft type able to employ a ski-jump-modified carrier would have been a more optimal plan. Whether or not that alternative aircraft could have been a westernized J-15 variant powered by a jointly developed Chinese engine should nonetheless be up for fair debate.
Yet Anon2 brings up a valid question as well. Perhaps additional Destroyers and perhaps a mix between something like nuclear and off-the-shelf conventional attack subs (along with more investment in next-gen stand-off weapon systems) would have been the more prudent, balanced and effective military-industrial plan overall?
The problem seems to me to be twofold:
1. - 12 fighters of any sort seems a tad on the light side for a 65k ton ship.
2. - JSF and its laundry list of problems.
That doesn't stack up very well when the Charles De Gualle seems to deploy with 10 Etendard and approx 10 Rafale.
I wonder what the surge capacity will be 30+ JSF if they can find the airframes and pilots.
12 fighters is the "standard" patrol model. It only has this number as a cost cutting measure. This will be supplemented for normal operations by at least 2 Merlin ASW helicopters and in the early stages by 2 of their AWE&C SeaKings and it's replacement in later years (likely to again be be Merlin) plus some WAH-64 Apaches and in all likelihood, some UAV / UCAV's down the track.
The "normal" complement will therefore be 12 F-35's, 6-10 Merlin, SeaKing and Apache helicopters and several UAV's, with these numbers increased to deal with contingencies as they arise.
The CV design the UK opted for was designed to carry 36 fighters, plus a helicopter sub-unit as standard originally, so surging additional fighters won't be a problem, so long as the UK has the aircraft in it's inventory...
This is the model they've used for 30 odd years now. It is cost based sure, but that doesn't make it useless. I think we all remember how useful 30 odd RN fighters were in the early 80's...
However they were fighters that work and still work.They were competitive with their oppositon.
Comparing the F35B to the coming products of China and Russia is pretty silly.
Don't they say imitation is the most sincere form of flattery?
It appears someone at least thinks the F-35 "works".
http://www.inquisitr.com/384635/china-stealth-fighter-jet-j-31-prototype-tested-in-shenyang-video/
Of course these people aren't the "luminaries" that inhabit this blog. They are just Chinese fighter aircraft manufacturers.
The difference is that they put grossly incompetent program managers in prison.
Or shoot them.
Is this Bonza on the payroll of LM?
Yes what a terrible society we live in, that we require convictions in front of a court before we put people in prison and convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Curious that despite this, some still mistake opinion for fact.
When will we make those responsible for the major mistakes and stuffups by DMO and Defence accountable I wonder?
quote: "Is this Bonza on the payroll of LM?"
He must be if he disagrees with you, right?
"Curious that despite this, some still mistake opinion for fact."
I just did a double take, and nearly fell off my chair. This comment from Lieutenant-Colonel Bonza/A.D., is the funniest quote I've read or heard in a long time.
The King of opinion, vilification, libel and unsubstantiated attacks on various parties, who are obviously more talented and educated than himself.
The same person who ruthlessly culls dissenters from the kiddies site, has to be kidding.
Defend the indefensible.
On the payroll of L-M? One could wish I suppose.
Sorry to disappoint you Anon, it is possible to form a different opinion to the herd on this blog. You should give it a try some time. See if you like it?
Perplexed, one never has to wonder what a broken record sounds like when you're around. "Defend the indefensible" indeed.
Anyway, I don't mind getting back on the topic.
Eric, what do you make of this news?
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx
Brief summation - F-35 can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of up to 150 miles without afterburner, after passing Mach 1 using reheat.
Contrary to some alternate opinion, it's able to pass through mach 1 easily and performs well in the transonic area overall.
In it's typical combat configuration it has a 25% range advantage over the aircraft it's replacing, when they are in a similar configuration.
Interesting and rather specific claims, no?
Quoting said article noted by Lieutenant-Colonel Bonza;
"In a recent briefing for Air Force Magazine, the F-35’s developer offered important new details about the fighter’s stealthy design, employment concepts, modern air combat capabilities, and more."
Keep reading there a lot to get through.
Amazing news, however what is the significance of the comment regarding maintaining Mach 1.2 for a dash of up to 150 miles. If it could fly for 450 miles at Mach 1.2 it might mean something. Amazing that it could perform well in the transonic area, which is obviously beyond current legacy aircraft.
In addition, important fact is that the article is quoting the manufacturer's claims, and I would also think it would be a good idea when quoting information that you think about where it comes from.
I wonder, which claims that Lockheed Martin have made to date have actually been achieved, or likely to be achieved? Price, performance, IOC, the list goes on.
In addition, I attach the following link for the use of one Lieutenant-Colonel Bonza.
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html
This may be of some help, and allow the sensible analysing of published information provided on websites, and the validity of said websites.
Website, interesting, no, propaganda , yes.
My favourite quote still stands.
Let's hope others read John Tirpak's info-tainment article with a little more diligence than Bonza.
"Contrary to some alternate opinion, it's able to pass through mach 1 easily and performs well in the transonic area overall."
Even John had the sense to use the term "fairly easily" when referring to the F-35 passing through the Mach.
However, what he and Bonza fail to tell folks is that, like the Super Hornet, flying through the Mach in the JSF is like flying in treacle.
Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.05 takes more than 40 secs (and that is at altitudes where the jet isn't designed to be able to do very much).
Now, Bonza, if you think 40 secs is not very long, imagine yourself, if you will, in an F-35A JSF with a big nasty like the Su-35S or a T-50 PAK-FA let alone a J-20 bearing down on you. Now, start counting out the 40 seconds - and a one thousand, two thousand, three thousand . . .
Ten seconds is a long time in air combat and twenty seconds seems to take forever while 40 seconds can mean a life time lost, literally.
As for performing well in the transonic region, where's the proof, Bonza?
Last I saw, they were still struggling with the high levels of buffet and TROs being experienced, even at quite low angles of attack.
Speaking of which, how's all that high AoA testing going?
Oh, and do you really think the following is true?
"The Air Force F-35 variant, fully loaded for combat, can pull nine-G turns with a full load of fuel and missiles."
Gotta call BS on this one, John, which makes the rest of your article all that more dubious.
Check the JORD and you will see why this claim is all so wrong, even more so since this part of the spec isn't being met.
Perplexed, if you stop and thought for a second you might begin to grasp the import of this news. The significance is that the F-35 is if this statement is true, capable of maintaining supersonic speed without using reheat.
A capability SAAB for one seems to think is quite important in it's almighty products...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-celebrates-supercruise-test-success-for-gripen-321428/
On top of which, you might consider the F-22A which in it's "standard" mission profile includes around 100nm worth of supercruise capability along with 390nm or so of subsonic cruise.
No current aircraft can fly their entire mission at supersonic speeds for a variety of factors. I do hope you are able to recognise the operational benefit that not using reheat, yet being capable of sustaining, supersonic flight provides?
It is an interesting perspective that such performance is lauded in other aircraft, but dismissed in the F-35.
Horde, you throw out some interesting facts, I assume they are coming straight from Eglin or Lakehurst?
Oh wait, what am I saying? Of course you aren't...
Because the people who ARE actually there and who ARE "flying through treacle" as Peter dramatically (thought wrongly) describes it are not saying these things.
With more than 20 aircraft on the flight line at each of those locations you'd think, surely they aren't all L-M stooges just in it for the moolah?
Someone would have mentioned the terribly performance by now, rather than the glowing reviews we've been receiving?
Other places actually, Bonza, like WashDC as well as closeby SSE and much further WSW of there.
Am still waiting to see your proof.
In the meantime, a 'slight' correction is in order.
Those figures for the F-22 are not from the "standard mission profile", as you claim.
They are from the Combat Radius KPP - one of the eleven KPPs from the F-22A ORD, underpinned by over 400 KPIs.
This is also one of the five (5) KPPs (Radar Cross Section, Radar Detection Range, Supercruise, Supercruise Acceleration, and Combat Radius) where the F-22A exceeds the ORD specification.
For example, the 'Target Objective' specification level for the F-22A Supercruise was 1.5 Mach. The demonstrated performance is more than 1.7 Mach.
Meanwhile, the stated KPPs for the JSF are all at the 'Threshold' specification level - that is, the bare minimum acceptable - which the JSF designs are struggling to meet.
So much so that there is some 'situating the appreciation' going on, with specifications being 're-couched' to meet what has been produced.
And we already know that underlying KPIs are not being met on all variants.
For example, while the F-22 betters its Supercruise Acceleration KPP at the Target Objective level of 54 secs for 0.8M to 1.5M at 30kft ISA, standard weight, the F-35A JSF does not even come close to its Level Flight Acceleration KPI at the Threshold Level which was originally set at 55 seconds for the much smaller speed range of 0.8M to 1.2M @30kft ISA, standard weight, with MAX Power set.
By now, as before, you are likely complaining that your head hurts.
So I will leave you with a final thought.
While there have been many good things done under the name of the JSF Program, the fundamentals of good design and the requisite requirements setting have not been permitted to be followed, starting with the JORD.
As a result, many if not most of the JSF aircraft designs can be described as mediocrity on steroids when compared with what is needed to address the reference threats.
Many are now in what Design Engineers call 'coffin corner' and principally because those calling the shots (the Project Managers) were focused on such things as CAIV, 'excellence/perfection is the enemy of good enough' and 'if it ain't in the contract, it doesn't count and can't be used'.
Damned pity, don't you think?
Lieutenant-Colonel Bonza, outstanding work. Once again you have demonstrated your ability to totally fail to undertake any critical thinking, nor access proper information from the numerous relevant sources.
After indicating to you one way as to how you can validate information, relating to the veracity of such sources, you have failed.
With regards to your, sorry Lockheed Martin's claim of super cruise what is the point? I think even you tell the difference between the mission of the F-22 and the Wirraway Mark 2.
The whole article you quote is merely, reiterating information given by the manufacturer, as that manufacturer has done on many occasions, and that information has turned out to be less than accurate at all stages. (Putting it mildly)
Information provided by, for instance Air Power Australia, amongst others, for many years has been accurate, particularly including such things as cost.
The astonishing point, from people such as yourself, being anonymous, is that nowhere have I ever seen any detailed examination nor comment on the various articles published by such contributors such as Horde. Until you can actually provide some real input into the debate, it really shows your lack of any intellectual ability at all.
With relation to the post by Horde, I would take information provided by someone with real qualifications and experience, than a less than spectacular public servant with no formal qualifications at all. In addition, such information has been published and is widely available.
I did not know that Eglin or Lakehurst, and the pilots, channelled yourself with all relevant information?
The ridiculous argument that because classified information is not available, no one can analyse the performance and other information claimed by the manufacturer.
It is a pity that you fail to read the various audit reports and other critical material available in the public domain.
Another indication as to your distinct lack of any intellectual capability at all.
Oh, and the Saab product actually works, delivered at the quoted price and operates at the quoted costs.
My favourite saying still stands, and you contribute to my belief everyday.
David Axe deals with this bit of BS quite well:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/f-35-gets-stealthier/
When it comes to the overall JSF Program, the last two paras say it all.
Horde, like you I'm not in a position to provide flight test data on the F-35, so both our claims are going to lack the requisite "proof" that you demand. Scour the open source documents to your hearts content. We both know they only contain a version of the truth and that there IS always more than one.
If you'd prefer to listen to conspiracy theories, rather than the voices of the pilots, flight test engineers and commanders of the units actually operating this aircraft on the flight-line today, then the best of luck to you. These voices ARE out there and ironically enough, say different things than your speculation does...
Perplexed, no I don't have access to classified data relating to the F-35's flight performance, it's LO properties, weapons capabilities, sensor or EW systems or indeed a breakdown of cost, both acquisition and TLS for every item on the F-35.
Fortunately however, this is something I share in common with you, Eric, Horde and indeed likely anyone else on this blog. You can debate the merits of the open source documents on this program until the cows come home for all I care.
It doesn't matter to the operators who fly this thing daily and speak in glowing terms of it. They aren't even hard to find.
http://youtu.be/Kshe7-BYfWc
Speaking of program managers as Horde was, and your obvious enthusiasm for this "resume at 10 paces" style of discussion, you might want to check out the resume of the individual who actually made these claims before poo-pooing them too much.
I imagine more than 3000hrs in modern strike fighters, (USMC F/A-18A+ and USN F/A-18C) more than 700 carrier landings, actual combat experience in Iraq, a graduate of the USN Fighter Weapons School and a qualified US Navy SFTI would provide sufficient time and training to gain a modicum of understanding about modern fighter requirements I should think...
Monty,
Those last two paragraphs said nothing at all about the LO material on the F-35.
I get the author thinks it unlikely based on the historical reality of LO used on other aircraft, but he didn't provide a single piece of material challenging the claims either?
Curious.
Lieutenant-Colonel Bonza, after all the trouble I've gone to help you check the suitability and veracity of websites, you post a link to a Lockheed Martin propaganda piece.
In such a piece, what would you expect the star participants to say? They are employees, (in all respects) and I thought even to you this would have been obvious.
This type of reference is totally useless, and unacceptable on any level.
As to "resumes at 10 paces", I guess you can't enter into that one considering the dearth of information that would probably emanate from your efforts.
Once again, you exhibit a total lack of any critical thinking, and are unable to actually bring any facts or relevant information to the discussion, resort to making such inane comments.
Actually it was the US Air Force magazine, not any L-M publication but once again, please don't let facts stand in the way of your opinion Perplexed...
...by a "reporter" doing copy/paste softballs. Gotta keep those junkets and lunches going. Can't risk getting cut off from the industry he "reports" on. Couldn't risk having to do some actual work and research. No Woodward and Bernstein skills of worth.
Bonza,
Defend the Indefensible.
esheenal 26Lieutenant-Colonel Bonza, by the way you listed this link.7 November.
http://youtu.be/Kshe7-BYfWc. when you advised you were not interested in properly researched material.
Where does this come from?
Really.
Post a Comment