Norwegian F-35 jets land in Iceland for NATO air policing mission

Two of each I presume in stealth mode for ASRAAM And AMRAAM?

“Lockheed Martin has developed a new weapons rack, Sidekick, that can cram a third AMRAAM missile into each of the F-35’s weapons bays. An F-35 equipped with Sidekick can thus carry a total of six AMRAAMs. Sidekick can fit in the Air Force’s F-35A and Navy F-35C, but the Marines’ vertical takeoff and landing variant, the F-35B has slightly smaller bays that can’t accommodate the new system.

Sidekick was developed internally within Lockheed Martin on the company dime. However, it is not yet scheduled to go onto production aircraft. As Aviation Week & Space Technology points out, a modernization update called Block 4 is currently being hammered out to apply to F-35 jets, and Sidekick could make it into the aircraft then.”

Hopefully without any bugs!

January 4, 2020

The Block 4 upgrades, to take place over this next decade, will include new information technology capabilities, particularly the “Tech Refresh 3” package with an updated integrated core processor and a panoramic cockpit display that is scheduled to be included in Lot 15, officials have previously said. An open-architecture backbone is also expected to be integrated into the F-35 as part of the Block 4 capabilities.

Next you will be saying we need an other 500 of them and 1000 tanks and 6 more aircraft carriers all paid for out of the magic everlasting porrige pot.

You’ve lost me on that one Trevor?

My money would be on additional funding for Tempest. By the time this aircraft reaches any sort of potential, we will most likely see the next-gen aircraft taking to the skies including UCAVs.

Sadly we have tied ourselves in with this aircraft, so the fewer the better as far as I’m concerned.

The MOD is refusing to say what the actual cost per aircraft is, so that should give you a clue.

I would suggest you read the full report!

Lockheed Martin also informed the Committee that following the completion of the SDD phase, the partner nations in the programme “are committed to developing enhancements
to in-service aircraft through ‘Continuous Capability Development and Delivery (C2/ D2)”.

According to Lockheed Martin, they expect the UK to “pay approximately 4.5% of the total cost to develop and integrate new capabilities into the F-35”.

86 The MoD and the cost of the F-35 programme
88. We asked the Minister for Defence Procurement and her MoD colleagues several times about the cost to the UK taxpayer of the F-35 programme. Pressed on the total cost
per aircraft, once support and spares are included, Mrs Baldwin and her colleagues did not answer directly, pointing instead to a recent NAO report which put the total cost of the
programme through to 2026, at £9.1 billion, a sum that includes the first 48 aircraft, spares, support, training and the investment in infrastructure at RAF Marham and elsewhere.87

89. When asked how the £9.1 billion figure equated to a cost per-aircraft, particularly in light of the MoD’s criticism of The Times’s estimate of £130–155 million per aircraft, MoD
Permanent Secretary Stephen Lovegrove attacked that estimate as an “extraordinarily crude and misleading calculation” which, he suggested, was arrived at by taking £7.3 billion from the £9.1 billion (this £7.3 billion figure covers the production, sustainment and follow-on phase of the programme to 2026) and dividing it by 48.88 It should be noted that this is not the calculation process outlined by Alexi Mostrous during his appearance before the Committee (see paras 76–77 of this report).

90. According to Mr Lovegrove, it is not possible accurately to divide the £9.1 billion cost on a unit-by-unit basis due to the inclusion, within that figure, of training and
infrastructure costs and additional costs “associated with the design and total concept of the aircraft”.89Instead, he suggested that one would have to “do a very complicated sum at the end of the life of the programme [the mid-2030s] and divide it by 138. Then you might be able to do it”.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/326/326.pdf

By the time this aircraft reaches any sort of potential?? This aircraft has capability in spades, today, in 2020. Have you chosen to ignore every article or word the RAF and RN is saying about this aircraft. Yes it’s expensive, yes, it will have continual upgrades, but look how long it took Typhoon to release it’s full potential, and still has alot more to come. Tempest will be a fantastic project, and will probably start replacing Typhoon from 2040 onwards. But F35 will be around for another 4 or 5 decades to come. This years edition of the RAF 2020 Official Review magazine has a very interesting article about the F35, and it’s inital entry to service.

Bottom line, Uncle Sam wants his money back and somebody has to pay. The more the merrier!

The program has drawn much scrutiny and criticism for its unprecedented size, complexity, ballooning costs, and much-delayed deliveries. The decision to start buying the plane while it was still in development and testing led to expensive design changes and retrofits.[11] By 2014, the program was “US$163 billion over budget [and] seven years behind schedule”.[12] Critics contended that the high sunk costs and politics made the F-35 “too big to kill”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

“The test reports Defense News obtained also reveal a second, previously little-known category 1 deficiency in the F-35B and F-35C aircraft. If during a steep climb the fighters exceed a 20-degree “angle of attack”—the angle created by the wing and the oncoming air—they could become unstable and potentially uncontrollable.

To prevent a possible crash, pilots must avoid steeply climbing and other hard manoeuvres. “Fleet pilots agreed it is very difficult to max perform the aircraft” in those circumstances, Defense News quoted the documents as saying.

To a great extent, the damage is done. Owing to the Pentagon’s controversial decision to manufacture F-35s while still testing them, Lockheed has delivered around 400 early-model F-35s to the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps and to U.S. allies such as the United Kingdom and Israel.

The Air Force, Marines, and Israel have already deployed their F-35s in combat against lightly-armed militant groups.

More than 100 of those early F-35s are B-models that cannot safely fly fast or manoeuvre hard. They’ll need fixing. It won’t be cheap. The military was already spending billions of dollars modifying older F-35s. That bill could grow to cover the flaws Defense News revealed.

Fixes could take a while. “The services will have to wait five years or more to get a fully functional aircraft if they ever do,” Dan Grazier, an analyst with the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C.”

Well the USAF F35A demo team is pulling some pretty bam hard manoeuvres at 9G, and definitely exceeding 20 degrees angle of attack. So was the RAF F35B practicing over Marham last week. While the programme has definitely had it’s troubles and cost over runs ( name a fighter project that hasn’t) you seem to have a child like dislike of this aircraft, and the game changing capability it will bring to the RAF and carrier strike, which everyone who is involved with the project is very quick to acknowledge. You can see the sheer enthusiasm for this aircraft from the pilots who fly it. Let the alone the billions in revenue it will bring to the treasury, and the thousands of jobs it will sustain in the UK. And yes we are still building and developing Typhoon, and the money is coming into the Tempest project, so it’s not one or the other, we can build, buy and develop all 3, over the next 20 years.

Childlike Robert?

Merely stating facts rather than fiction backed up with actual evidence to support it rather than just my opinion.

The moment you get personal Robert rather than proving your point, you’ve lost!

“In 2010, the ballooning costs — which put the cost per plane more than 89 percent over the baseline estimate — triggered a breach of the Nunn-McCurdy Act, a law that forces the Pentagon and Congress to evaluate whether to cancel a troubled program. But because the F-35 was intended to replace so many legacy fighter jets, military leaders essentially had no choice but to keep going.”

“There soon turned out to be an essential flaw in the grand plan for a single plane that could do everything. Design specifications demanded by one branch of the military would adversely impact the F-35’s performance in another area. “It turns out when you combine the requirements of the three services, what you end up with is the F-35, which is an aircraft that is in many ways suboptimal for what each of the services really wants,” said Todd Harrison, an aerospace expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It is much more expensive than originally envisioned, and the three versions of the plane actually don’t have that much in common.”

“Lockheed has begun fronting its own money to buy spare parts in advance, with the expectation that the Defense Department will repay the company later. It’s also trying to roll all of the F-35’s needs together so that its suppliers can deliver parts for both new aircraft and old. Winter is sceptical that Lockheed’s actions will fix the problem. “Lockheed Martin’s assertion that this will all be done in two years or so was the same thing that was said two years ago,” he said. “It’s always two years to success, every time we talk.” But Lockheed is only partly responsible for the shortage of parts. An April 2019 investigation by the Government Accountability Office found that the Pentagon had a repair backlog of about 4,300 parts, wasn’t managing its inventory properly and often lacked data on the cost and current location of its F-35 components.

Again, it’s a problem that could be compounded by the move to full-rate production. As Lockheed is responsible for building a much larger number of jets and prioritizes delivering those new aircraft to its customers, the F-35s already in operation will face even stiffer competition for spare parts.

Slow and complicated maintenance is not a minor problem. As is generally the case for most weapons systems, maintenance is expected to make up more than 70 percent of the F-35 program’s total cost over the projected lifetime of the program. And managing these costs only grows more critical as more F-35s come online.”

“An important measure of the cost, sustainability and value of the new jet is its total operating cost. In 2018, flying an F-35A cost about $44,000 per hour on average — about double the cost of operating the Navy’s Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Some of the military’s top officials, including Gen. Dave Goldfein, the Air Force’s chief of staff, and former Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, have complained that it is too expensive to fly and maintain the F-35, raising the possibility that the service may have to buy fewer of them if costs don’t shrink.”

And so the list of deficiencies continues into the next decade.

The Pentagon has issued a restriction order for Lot 9 and newer Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighters after the discovery of cracks in the aircraft’s stealth coating following use of the 25mm gun.

Behler’s report into the F-35 program stated, “Although the program is working to fix deficiencies, new discoveries are still being made, resulting in only a minor decrease in the overall number of deficiencies.

“There are many significant deficiencies that should be addressed to ensure the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) baseline configuration is stable prior to introducing the large number of new capabilities planned in Block 4.”

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strike-air-combat/5519-cracks-appearing-on-new-f-35as-due-to-gun-use

At least some good news finally on this topic, apart from incurring additional costs that is, a further two fixes have been found that should fix this problem.

Thank god we have such a large defence budget eh!

“It was a hot day aboard the amphibious assault ship Essex when a pilot brought his F-35B in for what is known as a “mode four” flight operation, where the jet enters hover mode near a landing spot, slides over to the target area and then vertically lands onto the ship.

It’s a key part of the F-35B’s short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing capability, known as STOVL. And normally, everything in a “mode four” landing goes smoothly. But on this day, when the pilot triggered the thrust to slow his descent, something went wrong.

The engine, working hard on a day that temperatures cracked 90 degrees Fahrenheit while trying to lift a plane that was heavier than most returning to base, wouldn’t generate the needed thrust for a safe, ideal landing.
The pilot got the plane down but was shaken enough by the situation to write up an incident report that would eventually be marked as “high” concern by the F-35 program office.

“May result in unanticipated and uncontrolled sink, leading to hard landing or potential ejection/loss of aircraft, particularly in the presence of HGI [hot gas ingestion],” reads a summary of the issue, which was obtained by Defense News as part of a cache of “for official use only” documents that detail major concerns with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.”

The issue could impact future F-35B operations in the Middle East, where temperatures are climbing as summer approaches.

This could also be bad news for industry, as F-35 program head Vice Adm. Mat Winter indicated his belief that the fix, which he called the Marine Corps’ “No. 1 priority” for the F-35 program, should be paid for, at least in part, by the big contractors who designed the aircraft.

When asked if the issue could impact operations in the region, Winter acknowledged it could during “very hot days.”

“I will not go on the record to say that there hasn’t been [an effect on operations]. There has been operational impact — that’s how we found this, and now we are implementing the fix to eliminate that operational impact, and the warfighter right now is mitigating that operational impact through the mechanisms and techniques we’ve provided them,” he said.

And until the fix is fully in place, pilots operating the F-35B can do a few things to mitigate the risk of a hard landing. First, make sure to wash the blades on the engine more frequently to avoid the buildup of salt or dirt that can make the system less efficient. Second, the squadron commander will need to think about load management, making sure aircraft aren’t returning too heavy with fuel and weapons.”

The other future option for high ambient temperature landings would be the short rolling vertical landing (STVL). The SRVL uses. Wing lift to offset the sink rate, thereby allowing either a more controlled “normal” landing or allowing the aircraft to return with a heavier all up weight. All F35Bs will have the software for this procedure. The issue for the USMC is their smaller gator carriers and how they park aircraft on the deck. With SRVL you need a clear runway. The MC currently park aircraft on the bow, so this would need to change.
With the expected deployment of the MC on QE. They will see first hand the benefits of both the ramp and SRVL compared to their normal SOPs. I fully expect them to copy us when deployed on the QE. So for their smaller carriers they may have to adopt the SRVL when operating in high ambient temperatures.

Expect all you are doing is sharing other peoples opinions. You don’t have to travel far around the internet to find somthing negative about the F35 if you already feel that way about the aircraft. Plenty of people with there own Interests in Congress or the US military and the media will tell you what you want to hear. I’m not saying at all that the project doesn’t have problems to over come. But I base my opinions on what the people who fly the thing, and operate it have to say about it. Which is overwhelmingly positive. My experience in the fleet air arm gives me enough in-site as to what really goes on, and what the detractors say, compared to reality. The F35 is here to stay, so you better get over it. And appreciate what capability this aircraft will bring to the Armed Forces over the next 40 plus years.

Not a great deal by the look of it apart from endless costs and further delays.

Feb 6 2020

“The Pentagon’s weapons tester has concerns about the F-35’s new software development process.

Robert Behler, the Pentagon’s independent weapons tester, characterizes the current schedule for C2D2 as “high risk” and said the program office is struggling to stay on schedule, he said in an annual report published Jan. 30 by the Operational Test and Evaluation Office.

“The current Continuous Capability Development and Delivery (C2D2) process has not been able to keep pace with adding new increments of capability as planned,” the office’s director wrote. “Software changes, intended to introduce new capabilities or fix deficiencies, often introduced stability problems and adversely affected other functionality.”

Under the C2D2 construct, F-35s are set to receive software updates every six months. That leaves little time to test out the new code, often resulting in “significant” bugs being discovered in the field, Behler wrote.

To prove out new software, the program office intends to rely more on modelling and simulation tools like the Joint Simulation Environment, which emulates high-end threats. However, the DOT&E report states that the Pentagon needs to adequately fund these simulation tools and that as of the writing of the report, no significant changes to the F-35’s existing laboratories or simulation environments had occurred, the report said.

A spokesperson for F-35 Joint Program Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.”

The next paragraph is just for you Robert, my advice is, look at the facts rather than what your friends tell you. I wonder what Block 4 software will bring with it?

Have an enjoyable weekend.

“In a statement, Lockheed Martin said that the F-35 is “the most lethal, survivable and connected fighter in the world” and that the company was driving down costs and improving reliability.”

Link attached.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/02/06/the-pentagons-weapons-tester-has-concerns-about-the-f-35s-new-software-development-process/

I find it quiet comical that you ignore what our own extremely proffesional service men and women who actually fly and maintain the aircraft say about it’s capabilitys, and what it brings to the UK Armed Forces. The UK Typhoon/F35 mix will be deadly one. My advice to you Nigel. Don’t believe everything you read on the intenet, it will only feed what you want it to say. Especally
from 2nd rate defence news websites, and disgruntled Congress men who don’t have the factory in there state. maybe read what the RAF/RN are saying about it, you might actually learn somthing. Have a good weekend.

I much prefer to hear it from the horse’s mouth including the UK Governments Defence Select Committee, DOD and DOT&E as they are far more likely to possess the facts and figures along with the current and growing fault list.

“The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II has 873 unresolved deficiencies and new problems are being discovered regularly, making reducing the number of issues with the aircraft difficult.

That’s the conclusion of the latest scathing assessment of the stealth fighter from the Annual Report for the US Department of Defense’s (DoD) Office of the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E), released to the US Congress on 30
January” 2020

Pop on to their website and you can read it for yourself!

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/lockheed-martin-f-35-has-873-deficiencies/136481.article

So RAF Fighter pilots aren’t horses mouth enough for you. Like I said, I know the project has problems, and a long way to go. But fundamentally, this aircraft is a game changer in capability. What is it exactly you don’t like about it Nigel ? Apart from the cost over runs and delays, just like every single fighter that has been made it off the drawing board. It’s taken 17 years to get Typhoon to be the aircraft we have today. Is It not pretty enough for you? Doesn’t do back flips at airshows? Can’t you understand what this aircraft brings to the battle space? Do you think we should have soldered on with the Harrier? Or bought the F18? Don’t you want 15% of all 3000 plus airframes built in the UK, do you fundamentaly know somthing the RAF/RN, MOD, BAE Systems doen’t? Of course you don’t Nigel. It’s here to stay, and nothing is going to change that. And the UK Armed Forces, will be a dam site more capable for having it.

“do you fundamentally know something the RAF/RN, MOD, BAE Systems doesn’t?

I think they like me are well aware of the problems and if you understood what I have been pointing out so would you.

So much for partnering with Typhoon at the moment or can you ask your friends if this has addressed?

This is particularly the case as the UK has no capability to convert advanced low probability-of-intercept waveforms such as the Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) “into Link 16 format for transmission to non-stealthy assets”. The US, by contrast, is using a Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) to enable sensitive data to
be transmitted from MADL into Link 16 format.

38. The UK is, therefore, in a situation where, according to Mr Bronk, the Armed Forces “do not have the equipment or processes in place, nor on order, to make use of the F-35’s
data-gathering and data-sharing potential”. Nor does it have the interconnectivity, network bandwidth or operating principles to make use of the data gathered by the F-35.

He drew attention, for example, to the Joint Data Network, a programme to provide enhanced networking capability within the RAF for the F-35 and other assets, which was cancelled
as a cost-saving initiative in 2011.

39. In his oral evidence, Mr Bronk repeated this emphasis on the importance of investing in a secure communications link for the F-35s and the rest of the carrier group.

He believed that if the F-35 is to be able to share data with other UK “assets” without broadcasting on Link 16, and potentially giving away its position while inside defended enemy airspace, then the UK needs “some form of gateway translation node”. This could either be the US BACN, or the Freedom 550, which was the system used during the F-35-Typhoon trials.

40. While Mr Bronk noted that there could be data protection and security issues regarding the use of the MADL, he was nonetheless clear that, unless an advanced data link and translation node were purchased, the UK would be undermining or underusing one of the key capabilities of the F-35: the only secure alternative would be to deploy the
F-35s on their own (they can communicate with one another covertly and securely) rather than using them effectively as a force multiplier.

As for the F/18 Super Hornet, how much longer the F35’s stealth will remain an advantage and building 3000 airframes, try reading this, its a real eye-opener!

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-replace-f-35-meet-advanced-super-hornet-us-navy-60242

3000 aircraft? I doubt it sadly. The F35-B has a shorter range than the F-35 C I understand.

After years of churn, the service is in the midst of a wide-ranging evaluation of its fleet design and future capabilities that will shape the service’s force structure. The evaluation pays particular attention to unmanned systems, unlike previous efforts. In particular, the Navy doubled down on investment for unmanned surface vehicles as part of its Fiscal Year 2020 budget submission.

However, the Navy has lagged in the development of a next-generation, carrier-based combatant since it abandoned a planned unmanned, low-observable strike aircraft program in favor of the simpler MQ-25A Stingray unarmed tanker.

Over the last 10 years, the Navy has moved from an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet replacement, or F/A-XX, to a “family of systems” approach under the banner of the Next Generation Air Dominance program in 2016.

Gilday indicated the Navy is still working on the question of what the next combatant after F-35 will be, or even if it will be launched from an aircraft carrier.

“I do think we need an aviation combatant, but what the aviation combatant of the future looks like? I don’t know yet. I think there’s going to be a requirement to continue to deliver a seaborne launched vehicle through the air that’ll deliver an effect downrange,” Gilday said at U.S. Naval Institute’s Defense Forum Washington conference.
“I do think that that will likely be a mix of manned and unmanned. The platform which they launch from? I’m not sure what that’s going to look like.”

His comments come as the Navy’s carrier fleet is under increased scrutiny from Congress and the White House for the cost of the programs.

The service, in particular, has been questioned for not developing a longer-range air wing to keep up with the increased range of Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles that put the multi-billion capital ships at risk.

Earlier this year, a report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments said in order for a future carrier air wing to be effective in a major conflict with China, it would need to field a combatant that could fly sustained combat air patrols up to 1,000 nautical miles from the carrier. That’s 400 nautical miles beyond the effective combat radius of the F-35C and 500 nautical miles more than a current F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

https://news.usni.org/2019/12/05/cno-gilday-navy-still-mulling-post-f-35c-aviation-combatant-could-be-mix-of-manned-unmanned-aircraft

Maybe that’s why 41 sqn has been over in nevada with the F35 for such interoperability work. You still didnt answere my question as to why you don’t like the F35 so much? And don’t quote another article.

The answer to your question Robert is this, survivability and ability to operate over long ranges.

The advantages of stealth are already being challenged.

No serious analyst has ever claimed stealth makes an aircraft invisible to radar, only that it radically reduces its detection range.

Stealth fighters can be detected at certain points on the electromagnetic spectrum however targeting them is a bit more difficult at the present time.

Ten years from now Russia or China may well have the technology to lock on to a Fifth-generation aircraft.

Just an example.

Sept 20 2019

“TwInvis could be part of a package of complementary systems designed to help detect stealth aircraft.

It is also apparently the only system that can detect the F-35 at 93 miles—it would be a mistake to rule it out just yet. As the radar develops and operators refine their tactics, it could become even more effective.

Stealth aircraft remain far from obsolete. The German aircraft radar imposes costs on the defender, forcing adversaries to buy expensive passive radar systems. It will be a long time before all countries have passive radars. In the duel of stealth versus counter-stealth, TwInvis is a shot off the bow—but the duel is far from over.”

Now take into account the spiralling costs, range, limited G and internal weapons storage capacity, especially on the B variant, speed and acceleration (a full 18seconds slower than the A) one has to ask is it really worth it?

A plethora of software bugs to fix and no doubt more will arise with Block 4 which will allow the aircraft to at least field a wider choice of weapons (2025) including Meteor which will need to reach IOC 2027? when you will already be seeing the introduction of the first 6th generation aircraft.

The smart play, which the USA seems to be doing now, is taking the technology advances gained from the F35 programme and installing it on legacy aircraft creating a 4.5 gen in the short term.

The F15EX, Super Hornet and Growler are fine examples of this at a reduced cost when compared to the F35 as I mentioned earlier.

The US Navy is currently analyzing airframes, targeting systems, AI-enabled sensors, new weapons and engine technologies to engineer a new 6th-Generation fighter plus enhanced stealth coatings for their F/A-XX programme.

China is already fielding an anti-ship missile (DF-21D) capable of striking a target at a range of 1,300 miles with a 1,200-pound warhead one begins to wonder how much use the F35 will be in protecting the fleet?

On a limited defence budget, I would personally allocate more funding for Tempest with a carrier option, UCAVs and either CATOBAR or EMALS at the earliest opportunity to coincide with the above rather than 138 F35 allowing us to increase carrier capability rather than be tied in with only the one option.

I forgot to add:

China’s DF-26B designed to attack moving warships out to a range of 2000 miles, in numbers.

Seel link attached below.

Understanding why America is modernising and upgrading its long-range capability both in terms of aircraft and missiles shows the future threats posed by near-peer countries are very real.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2019/08/07/army-will-soon-begin-testing-precision-strike-missiles-for-a-post-inf-world/

ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS

Military and Security Developments
Involving the People’s Republic of China 2019

They also seek to complete military modernization by 2035 and become a “world-class” military by the second centenary goal of 2049.

See page 13 of the attached report.

The threat posed by China is not as far away from our shores as we might like to think.

In “Special Topic: China in the Arctic,”

China has increased activities and engagement in the Arctic region since gaining observer status on the Arctic Council in 2013. China published an Arctic Strategy in January 2018 that promoted a “Polar Silk Road,” self-declared China to be a “Near-Arctic State,” and identified China’s interests as access to natural resources and sea lines of communication (SLOCs), and promoting an image of a “responsible major country” in Arctic affairs. The strategy highlights China’s
icebreaker vessels and research stations in Iceland and Norway as integral to its implementation. Arctic border countries have raised concerns about China’s expanding capabilities and interest in the region. Civilian research could support a strengthened Chinese military presence in
the Arctic Ocean, which could include deploying submarines to the region as a deterrent against nuclear attacks.

https://media.defense.gov/2019/May/02/2002127082/-1/-1/1/2019_CHINA_MILITARY_POWER_REPORT.pdf

I would seriously question the ability of anyone to target a moving warship from a range of 2000 miles, even 200 miles. People seriously understimate the difficulty and complexity of engaging warships at range. Aircraft carriers my be large, but the ocean is vast. I took part In large scale multi national exercises, and the bad guys couldn’t even find the ship, let alone target it from range, and that was with the Americans playing as the bad guys. And there won’t be any 6th gen aircraft entering service in 2027, maybe, just maybe a technology demonstrator might be flying in 2027, but in service will be post 2035 at the very earliest. You have to be realistic with these time frames Nigel.

“I would seriously question the ability of anyone to target a moving warship from a range of 2000 miles, even 200 miles.”

2000 miles I would agree with, but not 200 miles.

“TEAM TEMPEST TEST AIRCRAFT

The RAF have announced that they have awarded a contract to Leonardo to provide a large-body test aircraft as part of the Team Tempest initiative.

Team Tempest is a co-funded partnership between the RAF’s Rapid Capabilities Office and UK Industry (BAE Systems, Leonardo UK, MBDA UK and Rolls-Royce).

The demonstrator will take the form of a modified Boeing 757 which will be used to conduct airborne technology testing of sensor and system integration for the future. It is expected to come into service in the early 2020s.”

The thing is, these 4.5 gen aircraft are still less capable then the F35. So we would be buying a less capable aircraft, no 1st day of war capability, and robbing our defence industry of the huge value and work the F35 brings to the UK as the only tier 1 partner. And even if we accelerate the Tempest project, that still 15 plus years away. And add into that a interm buy of say F18’s to fill the gap, and our limited defence budget has been stretched even further, and we will have a less capable aircraft for the next 15 years. The QE class with the F35B is the best bang for our buck today. China is still building copied Russian technology, so F35 and Typhoon will keep us ahead over anything the Chinese and Russians have, and Tempest will hopefully counter any post 2035 threats. And don’t forget, the F35 will be a very different aircraft in 15 years time to the one we have today.

If we cancelled the F35 and replaced them with F/A-18 –Block III how would that incur more cost to us above the 48 we have already agreed to buy? It’s cheaper.

The MOD will not even disclose the actual price to the Defence Select Committee.

And as you say, we already have Typhoon which we could increase in numbers.

“China is still building copied Russian technology”

US National Security Adviser John Bolton recently accused China of stealing US technology to make a stealth fighter, a charge Beijing has denied.

On a visit to Ukraine last week, Bolton said an unnamed fifth-generation aircraft “looks a lot like the F-35, that’s because it is the F-35. They just stole it”.

At present China’s only active stealth fighter, the J-20 or Mighty Dragon, looks very different to the F-35 because it has two nose canards – which are not found on any modern US fighters – and it is larger and around 50 per cent heavier.
However, Bolton might have had another fighter in mind – the Shenyang FC-31 Gyrfalcon, which is still in the prototype phase.

LOL, very well copied indeed!

“It was reported to have been in the running to be used on China’s next-generation aircraft carriers, but military sources recently said it would lose out to the J-20 because of its slow pace of development and reports of technological problems.”

How would incur more cost?? Are you for real! Buy a another fighter from scratch, training, I infrastructure at Marham, spares, logistics, do you not understand the basic time frames to introduce a new aircraft type. And yeah lets buy a less capable aircraft. Great idea Nigel. Are we going to build any F18’s in the UK? No, of course not. So the RAF and Navy, will have a less capable aircraft, another 5 plus years with no aircraft to put on the QE class, huge cost to fit cats n traps. Thousands of defence jobs put at risk due to the loss of F35 work, and 15 plus years away from the 6th gen aircraft, that is still nothing more then a computer graphic. You haven’t got a clue Nigel.

Going off on a tangent Robert,

I never suggested buying them in the first place, you did.
Read what I wrote and understand it before commenting.

YOUR POST

“And add into that a interm buy of say F18’s to fill the gap, and our limited defence budget has been stretched even further”

My point is, 48 F35 B that’s it until we find a better solution.

Do try and keep up Robert!

Oh, by the way lol, enjoy the video!

Royal Navy F/A-18 Exchange Pilots (2012)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Fbn5VbcHYw

Nice vid, I do like the looks of the twin seat Hornet.

The solution is more F35B’s, and further development of Typhoon, and Tempest from 2040. Get your head in reality Nigel. The F35 is going to be in service for the next 40-50 years. It brings capabilitys to the UK and its’ allies that we have never had before. New levels of survivability and situational awareness, we have only scratched the surface of what this aircraft will be able to do. 12 countries have it on order or in service, 3100 planned to be built. That’s alot of very clever people who are going to agree with me, and not with you. It isnt all about max G, or top speed, it brings a fundamental change to how we go about modern air combat. I will leave you to figure out what those are. You can say what you like Nigel, or share any article you have found on the internet highlighting the problems, but that is the reality. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday, I’m off for a gin ?

“The solution is more F35B’s” have to disagree clearly.

“Typhoon, and Tempest” I’ve been advocating for this on many occasions, including Gripen E/F as a Tier 2 option depending on the budget constraints. Currently over £7 Billion and counting.

“Get your head in reality Nigel.” It is, hence my concerns in regard to this programme.

Clearly it isn’t when you’re talking about Gripen

At half the cost of Typhoon and as a Tier 2 aircraft, I’d say you would be greatly underestimating its capabilities.
Try doing your homework first before posting!

Eurofighter Typhoon: Maximum speed: Mach 2
range: 1,390 km ferry range: 3,790 km
Hardpoints 13 including 1x 1000 litre fuel tank
Supercruise: Yes

Gripen E: Mach 2
Range: 1,500 km combat range, and 4,000 km ferry range
Supercruise: Yes
Hardpoints: 10

Gripen can take off AND land in 600m, be refuelled and rearmed in ten minutes by 1 technician and 5 conscripts, and can operate from country roads; whereas it takes the Eurofighter 300m take off and well over 900m to land, it takes at least twenty minutes to refuel and rearmed by a team of 10 specialists and has to operate from prepared airfields.

Full engine replacement in one hour the Gripen has some major advantages I’d say!

Unlike the F35B, it has full IOC for Meteor (2025/6) and many other weapons besides.

“The air-to-air missiles on the Gripen E include infrared-guided short-range IRIS-T missile, and the Meteor missile, which is a beyond visual range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM). The aircraft also has the flexibility to be fitted with Sidewinder and A-Darter missiles to replace the IRIS-T, and the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM)missile to replace the Meteor. It can further be fitted with long-range weapons such as R-Darter and Derby, and short-range weapons such as ASRAAM and Python.

The Gripen E can also be integrated with a number of air-to-surface weapons including unguided Mk82, Mk83 and Mk84 bombs, laser-guided bombs such as GBU-12, GBU-16 and GBU-10, and advanced bombs such as GBU-49 and GBU-39. Air-to-surface missiles such as RBS15F ER, TAURUS KEPD 350, AGM-65 Maverick, and MBDA’s dual-mode Brimstone (DMB) can also be integrated into the Gripen E.

The aircraft features a 27mm all-purpose Mauser BK27 high-velocity gun providing both air-to-air and air-to-surface attack capability. It is also equipped with a missile approach warning (MAW) system and is capable of carrying more chaff packets and flares compared with similar aircraft, enhancing its survivability.

Gripen E

The air-to-air missiles on the Gripen E include infrared-guided short-range IRIS-T missile, and the Meteor missile, which is a beyond visual range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM). The aircraft also has the flexibility to be fitted with Sidewinder and A-Darter missiles to replace the IRIS-T, and the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) missile to replace the Meteor. It can further be fitted with long-range weapons such as R-Darter and Derby, and short-range weapons such as ASRAAM and Python.

The Gripen E can also be integrated with a number of air-to-surface weapons including unguided Mk82, Mk83 and Mk84 bombs, laser-guided bombs such as GBU-12, GBU-16 and GBU-10, and advanced bombs such as GBU-49 and GBU-39. Air-to-surface missiles such as RBS15F ER, TAURUS KEPD 350, AGM-65 Maverick, and MBDA’s dual-mode Brimstone (DMB) can also be integrated into the Gripen E.

The aircraft features a 27mm all-purpose Mauser BK27 high-velocity gun providing both air-to-air and air-to-surface attack capability. It is also equipped with a missile approach warning (MAW) system and is capable of carrying more chaff packets and flares compared with similar aircraft, enhancing its survivability.: 2,495 km/h”

Sorry, I forgot to add!

Eurofighter Typhoon G Rating Limits: +9/-3

Gripen E G Rating Limits: +9/-3

“Arguably its most important attribute is the innovative concept applied in the design of its systems architecture, in which flight-critical components are segregated from mission systems.

This partition permits the insertion of new mission capabilities without the need for expensive and time-consuming requalification of flight-critical aspects.

As a direct result, technology and weapons updates can be inserted rapidly as they emerge, and on a rolling basis.

Conversely, most other types typically undergo occasional midlife upgrades that add packages of updates simultaneously, with a major recertification effort required to clear the modified aircraft for service.

With an expected lifespan of more than 40 years, this ability to continually and rapidly update the Gripen E/F is seen as a major capability to meet evolving threats on a timely basis, catering for future threats that have yet to materialise.”

Not that bad for the price when you take into account 20x hardpoints against 12/13!

This isn’t top trumps Nigel. The Gripen is fine aircraft, but it’s no Typhoon. And we aren’t going to buy it, so what’s the point in biging it up.

“Typhoon, and Tempest” I’ve been advocating for this on many occasions, including Gripen E/F as a Tier 2 option depending on the budget constraints. Currently over £7 Billion and counting.

In response to your reply Robert.

“Clearly it isn’t when you’re talking about Gripen”

As I keep saying, do try to keep up I’m simply showing you the facts rather than posting an idiotic comment in reply.

Do you understand what an option means Robert? (a thing that is or may be chosen.)

“And we aren’t going to buy it”

Neither you nor I are in a position to make that call however technologies will no doubt be shared with the Tempest programme including greater engine performance.

“The Gripen is fine aircraft, but it’s no Typhoon.”

I thought that was blindly obvious from my above posts but has other advantages over it.

Anyway, I’ve wasted enough time on this particular thread.

Something to cheer you up from Forces news!

“SPECIFICATIONS

The jet measures 15.6 metres (51.2ft) in overall length, has a wingspan of 10.7 metres (35ft) and a height of 4.36 metres (14.3ft).

Its top speed comes in at 1.6 Mach or 1,200 mph, that is 1.6 times the speed of sound.

The jets will have a maximum thrust tops 40,000lbs, an amazing range of 900 nautical miles and a combat radius of 833km.

The Lightning has a max G rating of 7G which can be compared to the g-force felt in Apollo 16 on re-entry to Earth (7.19g).”

Combat radius 833km lol.

Let’s see where we are in relation to weapons track seven years from now when the Block 4 software is installed, hopefully without endless additional bugs, as I’ve mentioned previously.

“The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II has 873 unresolved deficiencies and new problems are being discovered regularly, making reducing the number of issues with the aircraft difficult.

That’s the conclusion of the latest scathing assessment of the stealth fighter from the Annual Report for the US Department of Defense’s (DoD) Office of the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E), released to the US Congress on 30
January” 2020″

The option Nigel, is more F35’s. We are never in a million years going to buy the Gripen. If the MOD found a few extra billion down the back of the sofa, and decided to spend it on more fast jets, they would buy more Typhoons or F35’s. Never Gripen. I served in Fleet Air Arm for 14 years. You, clearly couldn’t even find your local careers office. You are the classic arm chair admiral, all the talk, none of the common sense and experience. Until the next thread Nigel. Good day.