More F-35 woes...

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Russ on Thu 02 Mar 2017, 12:13 pm

bigfatron wrote:
vulcan558 wrote:15.1 ratio or 20.1, some conflicting figures.
Agree the A10 in the CAS roll is hard to beat, look how many hits they have encountered from small arms fire.
F35 is an expensive bit of kit to be downed by a 10pence bit of lead from a lucky shot from mr AK47.

Not sure hoe they patch up holes in tye F35, and how safe is the cockpit, we know the A10 jock sits in a titanium
Tub for protection.


As I think has already been said earlier in the thread, chances are that the F-35 (or anything else that's not the A-10 for that matter) wouldn't even try to carry out the CAS fight in the same way as an A-10 does. I doubt an F-16 would fare any better against heavy small arms or AAA fire than an F-35 would for instance. And whilst an F-16 costs less than an F-35, the pilots all cost about the same.

That's exactly it. The F-35 isn't going to get down in the weeds, low and slow like the A-10 and neither does it need to. I've always said the F-35 is not a natural replacement for the A-10 in the CAS role. However, there's no reason why it cannot do the CAS role like the F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, Harrier and Tornado does. Arguably better too, with superior optics and most importantly greater battlefield/situational awareness, it can operate safer at higher altitudes, aided by increasingly smaller, smarter weapons. Then of course if there are credible threats, it's more survivable as well.
User avatar
Russ

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Russ on Thu 02 Mar 2017, 12:23 pm

speedbird2639 wrote:This is a valid point - surely we should be looking to move on from the 20th century idea that the pilot has to be in the plane for the plane to do its job. Originally there was no alternative but now with virtual reality etc can the pilot not be sat in a control room hundreds or even thousands of miles from the combat zone? Drones have been employed for years for taking out cars full of terrorists can a similar technology not be rolled out for fighter jets? Spending all this money on what is basically obsolete technology just seems a huge waste.

No "drone" can do what the F-35 can do, so to suggest the technology is obsolete and the money is wasted is plain wrong. To mirror those capabilities with an unmanned vehicle would cost arguably more as well as largely starting from scratch.

speedbird2639 wrote:The remote pilot could be in a nice comfy chair in a nice air conditioned room where he doesn't have to worry about 'g' forces and he doesn't have to worry about getting injured as he is miles from the action. He would be able to see all the information fed back from the plane on his display and with a selection of HD/ 4k cameras on the plane have as good if not better view of any combat arena(though I'm not sure that is a massive need as missiles have been 'beyond visual range' for years.

Although there's an increasing move towards that, it's clear that countries around the world, such as the NATO partners, Russia and China etc, certainly do not agree that unmanned technology is ready to take over, otherwise they wouldn't still be developing manned combat aircraft. BVR missiles have been used over the last few years and although they may not be as applicable in the recent conflicts, what about the future? Turning your back on that sort of capability would be hugely reckless. Surely, it's also about a deterrent?
User avatar
Russ

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Russ on Thu 02 Mar 2017, 1:57 pm

vulcan558 wrote:F35 is an expensive bit of kit to be downed by a 10pence bit of lead from a lucky shot from mr AK47.


How many legacy platforms have been downed by said "10 pence bit of lead?"
User avatar
Russ

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby vulcan558 on Thu 02 Mar 2017, 5:41 pm

Russ wrote:
vulcan558 wrote:F35 is an expensive bit of kit to be downed by a 10pence bit of lead from a lucky shot from mr AK47.


How many legacy platforms have been downed by said "10 pence bit of lead?"

Many over the years, 3 or 4 months ago was the last to my knowledge, USA F16,

the A10 and Appachie
That get down for CAS, have some protection built in to take such hits.
Triple controls redundancy and armoured cockpit and engines set up out the way.
Blasting a hole in the composite fuesalage of say the F35 wont be a patch job repair. And whats under the skin of the F35. Lots of sensors and stuff to go wrong. Its not been designed to be shot at by small arms fire.
Why they have realised that for most of the missions from the last 30years with troops on the ground in the middle east, they need the A10.
vulcan558

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby cg_341 on Thu 02 Mar 2017, 5:47 pm

vulcan558 wrote:Many over the years, 3 or 4 months ago was the last to my knowledge, USA F16

Source? Struggling to find any in the last decade or so at the moment.
cg_341

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby boff180 on Thu 02 Mar 2017, 6:03 pm

Hampshire Aviation wrote:
vulcan558 wrote:Many over the years, 3 or 4 months ago was the last to my knowledge, USA F16

Source? Struggling to find any in the last decade or so at the moment.


Last recorded F-16 combat loss was on 24th December 2014 and it was Jordanian.

Initially reported to be ground fire, then ISIS claimed the kill saying they used a Manpad (Stinger/Igla)... allies strongly deny the crash was due to being shot down.

I can find no record of any USAF F-16's (or any other nations) being shot down in the CAS mission since 1991.

A USAF example was damaged by small arms fire over Afghanistan on 19th October 2015 - it returned to base safely but did jettison all stores as a precaution.

Andy
User avatar
boff180
UKAR Staff

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby vulcan558 on Thu 02 Mar 2017, 6:45 pm

boff180 wrote:
Hampshire Aviation wrote:
vulcan558 wrote:Many over the years, 3 or 4 months ago was the last to my knowledge, USA F16

Source? Struggling to find any in the last decade or so at the moment.


Last recorded F-16 combat loss was on 24th December 2014 and it was Jordanian.

Initially reported to be ground fire, then ISIS claimed the kill saying they used a Manpad (Stinger/Igla)... allies strongly deny the crash was due to being shot down.

I can find no record of any USAF F-16's (or any other nations) being shot down in the CAS mission since 1991.

A USAF example was damaged by small arms fire over Afghanistan on 19th October 2015 - it returned to base safely but did jettison all stores as a precaution.

Andy

The october one, is a good example of a 10p bit of lead sending that F16 home damaged, in my view he brought it down as it had had to drop its weapons and fuel tanks, and go home with damage,
The 10p lead won.
vulcan558

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby ericbee123 on Thu 02 Mar 2017, 6:47 pm

Surely on page 1 of the F-35 Owners Manual it will say something like -

Congratulations on the purchase of one of the worlds most advanced LO aircraft.
To get the best performance out of LO characteristics of your new aircraft we recommend keeping out of visual range of opponents and using your state of the art long range sensors, missiles and bombs instead.
Avoid getting close enough to your enemy for them to use bullets and other foreign objects (such as manpads, spears, arrows, rocks,etc) as these can scuff the LO paint and invalidate your 5 year Anti-Corrosion Warranty.

We hope you enjoy many years of successful enemy bashing.
Disclaimer-I have spell/grammar checked this post, it may still contain mistakes that might cause offence.
User avatar
ericbee123

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Russ on Fri 03 Mar 2017, 9:22 am

vulcan558 wrote:The october one, is a good example of a 10p bit of lead sending that F16 home damaged, in my view he brought it down as it had had to drop its weapons and fuel tanks, and go home with damage,
The 10p lead won.

Given how many thousands, probably tens of thousands, of CAS sorties have been conducted over Afghanistan in the past 16 years. An F-16 landing as a precaution on a single occasion, hardly lends any weight to your argument.

As I've already said, it won't be flown like an A-10 and doesn't have to fly as low as existing legacy types. It does make your point null.
User avatar
Russ

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby cg_341 on Fri 03 Mar 2017, 10:09 am

According to Wikipedia an A-10 was shot down during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Is it worth pointing that out..?
cg_341

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby ericbee123 on Fri 03 Mar 2017, 11:31 am

Hampshire Aviation wrote:According to Wikipedia an A-10 was shot down during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Is it worth pointing that out..?


A few RAF Typhoons got shown by gunfire while doing low level close in attacks during Operation Goodwood.
Disclaimer-I have spell/grammar checked this post, it may still contain mistakes that might cause offence.
User avatar
ericbee123

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby john001 on Fri 03 Mar 2017, 12:42 pm

Quite true - there were a few US Lightning losses as well during this period
john001

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Brevet Cable on Thu 06 Apr 2017, 10:06 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39501299
Security concerns have been raised about plans to carry out major servicing work on the UK's new F-35 fighter jets in Turkey.

SNP MP George Kerevan is to call for an inquiry into the policy in the light of last year's attempted coup in Turkey and tensions with its Nato partners.

Major repairs to RAF combat jets have previously been carried out in the UK.

The Ministry of Defence said the F-35 was an international project with a global support network.

Turkey was selected by the US department of defence's joint programme office, based near the Pentagon, to provide "deep maintenance" and repair of engines for all F-35 aircraft based in Europe.
Brevet.. Meh !!
Not an enthusiast or a spotter
trollpikken fforwm swyddogol
User avatar
Brevet Cable

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby john001 on Thu 06 Apr 2017, 11:41 am

So an independent Scotland is buying F35s.
john001

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Brevet Cable on Thu 06 Apr 2017, 12:25 pm

:facepalm:
Brevet.. Meh !!
Not an enthusiast or a spotter
trollpikken fforwm swyddogol
User avatar
Brevet Cable

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Talldan76 on Thu 06 Apr 2017, 2:36 pm

Surely proposing the use of somewhere like a "soon to be closed USAF base" in deepest, darkest Suffolk could be a good suggestion?

I agree with the MP's rationale though, why can't we service our own jets, in our own facility?

The F-35 programme just makes even less sense.
User avatar
Talldan76
UKAR Staff

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby john001 on Thu 06 Apr 2017, 3:19 pm

Talldan76 wrote:Surely proposing the use of somewhere like a "soon to be closed USAF base" in deepest, darkest Suffolk could be a good suggestion?

I agree with the MP's rationale though, why can't we service our own jets, in our own facility?

The F-35 programme just makes even less sense.



In the past the government chose not to take the risk of investment in such repair and maintenance facilities - the result is that they are built in Italy and deep engine serviced in Turkey.
john001

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Maccyd on Thu 06 Apr 2017, 5:24 pm

john001 wrote:So an independent Scotland is buying F35s.

No. But a U.K. Member of Parliament is raising a vaild point. I'm assuming that these rather obvious concerns have already been addressed after the coup attempt, if not then I'd suggest more than one inquiry is required.
User avatar
Maccyd

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby lambo17841 on Thu 06 Apr 2017, 5:35 pm

Apart from the recent coup attempt Turkey being so close to Syria which has a high Russian presence plus the terrorist attacks must cause some concern for security issues.

John in Seaford
lambo17841


Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Russ on Tue 02 May 2017, 4:00 pm

I seem to remember a certain UKAR member suggesting we'd never see the F-35 low level. Well four F-35A's have gone through the Mach Loop today on the types first operational European deployment. :whistle:
User avatar
Russ

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Red Dragon on Tue 02 May 2017, 5:20 pm

Russ wrote:I seem to remember a certain UKAR member suggesting we'd never see the F-35 low level. Well four F-35A's have gone through the Mach Loop today on the types first operational European deployment. :whistle:


There were a lot saying "no L/L" on its arrival, then the same people just "happen" to be in the cad pass today, the same ones who also say there is "no clique" in the L/L areas.
Committee Member, Valley Aviation Society

http://www.valleyaviationsociety.net
User avatar
Red Dragon

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Macc on Tue 02 May 2017, 5:55 pm

Red Dragon wrote:
Russ wrote:I seem to remember a certain UKAR member suggesting we'd never see the F-35 low level. Well four F-35A's have gone through the Mach Loop today on the types first operational European deployment. :whistle:


There were a lot saying "no L/L" on its arrival, then the same people just "happen" to be in the cad pass today, the same ones who also say there is "no clique" in the L/L areas.

It happens a lot that people given information in confidence are asked to keep it within their trusted friends. Often, the over publicising of information can lead to these being stopped. The loop is a popular place and you can guarantee there were plenty on that hill that didn't know about it before they left in the morning, granted - some will - but there is certainly no obligation to tell others, especially if they have been asked not to.

People develop relationships with their contacts over time and friendship, it amazes me that people expect to have advance information on everything these days.

:surrender:
User avatar
Macc

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby Russ on Tue 02 May 2017, 6:01 pm

Red Dragon wrote:
Russ wrote:I seem to remember a certain UKAR member suggesting we'd never see the F-35 low level. Well four F-35A's have gone through the Mach Loop today on the types first operational European deployment. :whistle:


There were a lot saying "no L/L" on its arrival, then the same people just "happen" to be in the cad pass today, the same ones who also say there is "no clique" in the L/L areas.

Not sure what that's got to do with this thread? I was pointing out what a UKAR member said a couple of years ago and how wrong he's been proven (again).
User avatar
Russ

Re: More F-35 woes...

Postby BOB.T on Wed 03 May 2017, 8:14 am

Macc wrote:
Red Dragon wrote:
Russ wrote:I seem to remember a certain UKAR member suggesting we'd never see the F-35 low level. Well four F-35A's have gone through the Mach Loop today on the types first operational European deployment. :whistle:


The loop is a popular place and you can guarantee there were plenty on that hill that didn't know about it before they left in the morning


I was there on my third attempt after two blanks, I wasn't expecting to see anything never mind F35! :D
BOB.T

PreviousNext

Return to Aviation Waffle

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests

cron