‘Simply put, there is no alternative to the F-35 program’

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 653
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post07 Jan 2012, 19:37

Here is an F-35 article form David Axe of Wired Magazine.

Trillion-Dollar Stealth Fighter Program Delayed, But Still Tracking

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/jsf-delayed/

‘Simply put, there is no alternative to the F-35 program’
Offline

handyman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 104
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2011, 05:41
  • Location: SFO

Unread post07 Jan 2012, 20:06

And the next paragraph...
Technically, that’s not true. Besides Lockheed’s F-35 assembly line in Ft. Worth, the U.S. has three other fighter factories building upgraded models of the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 — and Lockheed’s F-22 line is still in the process of shutting down following 15 years of production. What Donley meant is that there isn’t another new, fully stealthy fighter that the Pentagon can bring into service within the next few years.

We want the bestest toys money can buy damn it!
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post07 Jan 2012, 21:07

handyman wrote:And the next paragraph...
Technically, that’s not true. Besides Lockheed’s F-35 assembly line in Ft. Worth, the U.S. has three other fighter factories building upgraded models of the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 — and Lockheed’s F-22 line is still in the process of shutting down following 15 years of production. What Donley meant is that there isn’t another new, fully stealthy fighter that the Pentagon can bring into service within the next few years.

We want the bestest toys money can buy damn it!


Exactly why F-22B production in the next decade wouldn't surprise me a bit. And keep in mind the new construction out at Groom Lake...
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4819
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post07 Jan 2012, 21:11

You are missing the point. The US is in the position that it is (the ability to wage war successfully with relatively little loss of life) due primarily to its ability to maintain air-superiority. It did this by producing better fighters, weapons, and pilots than anyone else.

If they canceled the F-35 today and went with more 4th gen assets, then they could not guarantee that air-superiority in the face of emerging threats like T-50, J-20, SA-200/300/400, etc until new 5th gen assets could be produced, 15-20 years from now.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

tacf-x

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 466
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2011, 02:25
  • Location: Champaign, Illinois

Unread post07 Jan 2012, 23:07

We need the F-35 because any other program would take way too long to develop and force us to waste an even larger amount of money. The Lightning II is here, it's in the now and it's the only thing that can give us a global strike capability against the latest air to air and surface to air threats.
Offline

maus92

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1666
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post07 Jan 2012, 23:50

tacf-x wrote:We need the F-35 because any other program would take way too long to develop and force us to waste an even larger amount of money. The Lightning II is here, it's in the now and it's the only thing that can give us a global strike capability against the latest air to air and surface to air threats.


How does F-35 enable global strike?
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4819
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post08 Jan 2012, 00:00

Carrier-borne F-35Cs (I do not think he meant every spot on the Globe).
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

hcobb

Banned

  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 15:31
  • Location: North California

Unread post08 Jan 2012, 00:37

Remember that the F-22s are right sized for the Pacific as in by the time they get out there the Chinese will have bombed all their airfields to moonscapes.
Offline

tacf-x

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 466
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2011, 02:25
  • Location: Champaign, Illinois

Unread post08 Jan 2012, 01:02

SpudmanWP wrote:Carrier-borne F-35Cs (I do not think he meant every spot on the Globe).


Bingo.
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 653
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post08 Jan 2012, 02:01

southernphantom wrote:
handyman wrote:And the next paragraph...
Technically, that’s not true. Besides Lockheed’s F-35 assembly line in Ft. Worth, the U.S. has three other fighter factories building upgraded models of the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 — and Lockheed’s F-22 line is still in the process of shutting down following 15 years of production. What Donley meant is that there isn’t another new, fully stealthy fighter that the Pentagon can bring into service within the next few years.

We want the bestest toys money can buy damn it!


Exactly why F-22B production in the next decade wouldn't surprise me a bit. And keep in mind the new construction out at Groom Lake...


@ Southernphantom, I disgree on the F-22B, but I do think your close. I think there is a four F-119 engine strike aircraft out there with a mach 1.8 cruise speed. Why mach 1.8? I think that is the thermodynamic limit for radar absorbent material before they start to degrade. A while back there were rumors that Northrop might develop the YF-23 into a bomber or strike aircraft but it didn't sound like they won.


I think some thing close to this won:

Image


Also check out the other possibilities.

http://www.yf-23.net/galleries/ATFconceptart.html
Offline

maus92

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1666
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post08 Jan 2012, 02:06

tacf-x wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Carrier-borne F-35Cs (I do not think he meant every spot on the Globe).


Bingo.


That's a relief because when you used "global strike," I immediately thought Global Strike, which is a mission / command that uses long ranged assets like B-2, B-52, ICBM's, and future hypersonic vehicles and NGB/LRS-B.
Offline

tacf-x

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 466
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2011, 02:25
  • Location: Champaign, Illinois

Unread post08 Jan 2012, 02:33

@alloycowboy Rockwell couldn't possibly have won anything as their RFP submission was ranked last of the submissions and they are pretty much out of any sort of competition anyway.

The only strike aircraft that I know the US is working on is this http://www.popsci.com/technology/articl ... lth-bomber
Offline

maus92

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1666
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post08 Jan 2012, 03:03

It seems that the LRS-B will be based on X-47B or X-45Cs.

"Several elements have been identified that will likely be part of the bomber competition. Two competing, low-observable, optionally manned designs will involve teams led by Northrop Grumman and Boeing. Each team will also offer a smaller, low-observable, unmanned, sub-sonic reconnaissance support aircraft. All four designs will have roots in the X-47B and X-45C demonstrator projects. Lockheed Martin’s contribution is expected to be a high-speed intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) adjunct aircraft."

"Boeing will offer a pairing of its Phantom Ray (X-45C derivative) as a supporting unmanned system. A scaled-up version of the design would serve as a manned bomber. Northrop Grumman, which is already working on a stealthy long-range UAV (see following article) will probably offer a bomber based on the cranked-kite configuration of the X-47."

Weapons delivery a secondary role:

"“There is a rapidly growing need to operate in denied airspace for extended periods,” says Lt. Gen. (ret.) Dave Deptula, former head of Air Force intelligence. The combination of a new bomber, the Navy’s Uclass and Boeing’s Phantom Eye concepts “are part of the distributed sensor construct.” In fact, he says that weapons delivery is now a secondary role compared with developing an information warfare capability that would include computer network invasion and electronic warfare.

But Deptula also warns of entrenched bureaucratic opposition to advanced networking schemes.

“The biggest obstacle remains a senior-level civilian mind-set that advanced sensors are there to provide data to the pilot but no one else,” he declares. “The evidence is in the Defense Department’s resistance to buying data links for the F-22 and F-35 that would let them distribute the information they are gathering. That mind-set is what’s holding up finalization of a set of requirements for the bomber.”

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... es&next=10
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 653
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post08 Jan 2012, 03:07

@tacf-x..... Your probably right, you can't exactly fly around an aircraft double the size of the F-22 without some one noticing. Speaking of the B2 this was posted on the Air and Space magazine website, I thought you might find it humorus.

http://blogs.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/2012/01/thirty-hours-no-stops/


Thirty Hours, No Stops


While doing research on the Northrop Grumman B-2, we came across this story from Rebecca Grant’s 2001 book The B-2 Goes to War, about the stealth bomber’s combat debut during the 1999 Kosovo War. During a typical mission the bomber has to refuel four times. The first and last refueling occur over the U.S. East Coast, and are usually done by Air National Guard Units from Alabama, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey.


Across the USA the news media was just breaking word that the B-2s were flying 30-hour missions to Kosovo. “Going east on my first mission, we hook up with a tanker, they’re out of Pittsburgh or somewhere,” said [B-2 pilot Bob] Colella. Coming back home, for refueling number four, they encountered the exact same tanker crew—a calendar day later. “The boom operator goes, ‘Hey, we refueled some of your buddies last night,’ and we say yeah, that was us. The boom operator couldn’t believe it. Give us your tail number, says the boom operator. This is standard procedure, so they can charge the B-2 for the gas; he notes it down and realizes that yes indeed, this was the very same B-2 he had refueled a day earlier. ‘Wow, you guys have been flying for 20 some hours!’ The boom operator teases them: when we got done with you, we went home, went to bed, cut the grass, took the kids to school, came back. Seriously, the tanker crew wants to know: how many guys do you have in the cockpit? Are you augmented 50% or 100%? There are just two of us, Colella says. Dead silence. Then the boom operator says, ‘You guys need a better union.’”

Offline

deadseal

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 357
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2008, 01:17

Unread post08 Jan 2012, 03:25

tacf-x wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Carrier-borne F-35Cs (I do not think he meant every spot on the Globe).


Bingo.


Tankers dude
Next

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest