F35 - Money well spent.

Short answer is yes. At sea, one and one-third squadrons of AV-8Bs supported the 4th and 5th Marine Expeditionary Brigades from USS Nassau (LHA-4) and USS Tarawa (LHA-1).
Source is Osprey Aircraft book AV-8B HARRIER II UNITS OF OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD AND DESERT STORM. PDF is too large to attach.
During Desert Shield and Desert Storm, USMC’s 86 AV-8Bs flew over 3,380 missions and 4,100 hours with a mission availability of over 90 percent.

Five were lost to enemy SAM's with two fatalities. It had an attrition rate of 1.5 aircraft for every 1,000 sorties flown. U.S. Army General Schwarzkopf nominated it as one of the seven weapons that had played a crucial role in the war.
 
Lack of external tanks could be a problem for the few countries that need to routinely operate at long range however.
As you know, I do not advocate the F-35 for Canada. However, what’s important is range and endurance, irrespective of whether a type can carry tanks.

In terms of Canada, you’ve operated the Western type with arguably the shortest legs for almost 40 years. Even without tanks, the F-35A has similar if not superior endurance to the FA-18 ‘classic.’

The fact that the F-35 is a single engine type is, to me, a far more negative point for Canada.

I'm a bit puzzled by your reference to the F-35 possibly depending in long-range missions on tanker support.
Won't the tankers be easily detected on enemy radar, and give the game away as to where the F-35's are?
Not necessarily; F-117s have tanked within Iraqi and Serb IADS coverage previously; all that does is tell you where some jets may be, were or possibly will be. That's particularly true given the large numbers of aircraft tanking on even a medium op. Remember that the enemy (hopefully) doesn't have the ATO.

Two 1,000 bombs doesn't sound much of a payload though. I think the old, regrettably scrapped RAF "Jaguar" could carry far more than that on a longer mission. It wasn't very stealthy, true...
Incorrect.

I’m a great fan of the Jag and it was a highly versatile platform which could be deployed with the minimum of support.

However, by the 90s when it was serving over the Balkans and Iraq, the normal warlord was a single 1000lb LGB between TWO aircraft! Both would carry a pair of external tanks, one Phimatt and one ALQ-101 ECM pod. Then on the centre line, one would carry a LGB (as shown on the nearest jet on the picture below), the other would carry EITHER a TIALD designator pod (second from top), or a Digital Jag Recce Pod (DJRP; second from bottom). Overall, a Jag could carry 10 000lb of stores.

In comparison, an F-35B can carry 18 000lb of stores of which around 5000b is internal.

...Was that why it was got rid of?
No.

That was purely lack of money.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:

mcphee1948

Old-Salt
Thanks MM for your informative post # 10,422, which is very much appreciated.

Possibly I was misled, previously, by a half-remembered passage from one of Bill Gunston's old books, in which he seemed to claim that a modern (at the time the book was written!) Jaguar could deliver a heavier bomb-load than a WW2 Lancaster, on a raid to Germany.

Senile memory, it seems! Best regards
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Thanks MM for your informative post # 10,422, which is very much appreciated.

Possibly I was misled, previously, by a half-remembered passage from one of Bill Gunston's old books, in which he seemed to claim that a modern (at the time the book was written!) Jaguar could deliver a heavier bomb-load than a WW2 Lancaster, on a raid to Germany.

Senile memory, it seems! Best regards
Jaguar, or Tornado?

From memory, a similar point was made about the early-mark F-16: same bomb load as a B-17 but in the time that a B-17 could have undertaken the same mission from the Uk to Germany and back, an F-16 could have done it five times and delivered its ordnance with far greater accuracy.

(All of this typed on the back of a Bank Holiday Sunday spent gardening at the local community pub, then putting the calories back in said pub. But I think the substance of it is true.)
 
As you know, I do not advocate the F-35 for Canada. However, what’s important is range and endurance, irrespective of whether a type can carry tanks.

In terms of Canada, you’ve operated the Western type with arguably the shortest legs of any Western type for almost 40 years. Even without tanks, the F-35A has similar if not superior endurance to the FA-18 ‘classic.’

The fact that the F-35 is a single engine type is, to me, a far more negative point for Canada.



Incorrect.

I’m a great fan of the Jag and it was a highly versatile platform which could be deployed with the minimum of support.

However, by the 90s when it was serving over the Balkans and Iraq, the normal warlord was a single 1000lb LGB between TWO aircraft! Both would carry a pair of external tanks, one Phimatt and one ALQ-101 ECM pod. Then on the centre line, one would carry a LGB (as shown on the nearest jet on the picture below), the other would carry EITHER a TIALD designator pod (second from top), or a Digital Jag Recce Pod (DJRP; second from bottom). Overall, a Jag could carry 10 000lb of stores.

In comparison, an F-35B can carry 18 000lb of stores of which around 5000b is internal.



No.

That was purely lack of money.

Regards,
MM
I assume all ac had Aim 9’s for self defense as well?? Sorry to pester again!
 
I assume all ac had Aim 9’s for self defense as well?? Sorry to pester again!
Correct; 2 x AIM-9L or latterly ASRAAM on the over-wing pylons.

Regards,
MM
 

mcphee1948

Old-Salt
Jaguar, or Tornado?

From memory, a similar point was made about the early-mark F-16: same bomb load as a B-17 but in the time that a B-17 could have undertaken the same mission from the Uk to Germany and back, an F-16 could have done it five times and delivered its ordnance with far greater accuracy.

(All of this typed on the back of a Bank Holiday Sunday spent gardening at the local community pub, then putting the calories back in said pub. But I think the substance of it is true.)
It was definitely the Jag that Gunston referenced., Not Tornado, because at the time the book was written, the "Tornado" was only a drawing board/prototype called the "MRCA". Due to enter service in the Jet Morgan -style future of 1979.

PS added: Gunston also said that the Jag could deliver its bomb -load accurately "through solid clag" . Obviously a reference to the radar. Perhaps my memory is not so senile?
 
Last edited:
...Gunston also said that the Jag could deliver its bomb -load accurately "through solid clag" . Obviously a reference to the radar. Perhaps my memory is not so senile?
The Jag’s Navigation and Weapon Aiming System (NAVWAS) was cutting edge at the time. However, RAF Jags have never had a radar (some Indian jets have Agave for Maritime strike).

Regards,
MM
 

mcphee1948

Old-Salt
Thanks MM, I never imagined the RAF would put a fast jet like the Jaguar into service without a radar set on board. Was it due to cost-cutting? Seems a bit extreme. Did the pilots ever notice and complain?
 
This is probably a naive question, but if the F-35 has to get fitted with external fuel tanks, what will that do to the plane's "stealth" characteristics. I mean won't the fuel tanks bulge out and show up on enemy radar?
Not a problem, all the radar guy will see is two little fuel tanks flying through the air. He won’t have a clue what they’re attached to.
 
Thanks MM, I never imagined the RAF would put a fast jet like the Jaguar into service without a radar set on board. Was it due to cost-cutting? Seems a bit extreme. Did the pilots ever notice and complain?
The Jag was conceived as a CAS and advanced training aircraft, roles in which a radar was at the time not considered essential. Indeed, RAF Jags were considerably better equipped than their French counterparts.

RAF Harrier GR1/3 and second generation GR5/7/9 also lacked radars, as did a number of the Jag’s contemporaries such as the MiG-27, A-10, J-22 Orao.

I’m sure the pilots noticed there was no radar screen but none to my knowledge ever complained.

Regards,
MM
 

Yokel

LE
Thanks MM, I never imagined the RAF would put a fast jet like the Jaguar into service without a radar set on board. Was it due to cost-cutting? Seems a bit extreme. Did the pilots ever notice and complain?
The Harrier GR3 also had no radar, neither did the second generation GR5/7/9 ones. The American AV-8B did not either, until it was upgraded to AV-8B+ by adding APG-65 (for AMRAAM use). Other American types, for example, the A-6 Intruder, had radar without air to air modes.

When the Royal Navy navalised the Harrier GR3 to produce the Sea Harrier, one of the major changes was to install a radar for air to air use, and also for a anti ship role, because these were its intended roles.

A radar involves adding mass to an aircraft, so adding it to an aircraft not designed for add can causes issues.

I imagine they’d notice. :)

Harrier didn’t have a radar, either.
Sea Harrier did! So does the AV-8B+!

Fortunately, F-35 was designed to be multi role from the first moments of its design, and the new technology involved in the B version means it is not struggling with thrust whilst landing.

Looking ahead: 809 Naval Air Squadron | Royal Navy

This fifth generation stealth jet is capable of ground attack, air superiority and air-to-air combat – all of which will be carried out by the expert pilots of 809 Naval Air Squadron.

You're Dead: The F-35 Is Crushing Enemy Fighter Jets in Air War Simulations
 
Forgive me for being thicker than a whale omlette, but how does an aircraft with no A2A radar, however rudimentary, find a tanker in the dark?
 
Forgive me for being thicker than a whale omlette, but how does an aircraft with no A2A radar, however rudimentary, find a tanker in the dark?
Control from AWACS or other C2, data-link, air-air TACAN or prior planning, to name but a few.

Regards,
MM
 

Yokel

LE
I am sure lots of Western aircraft intended for ground attack or anti ship attack either had no radar or at least one without air to air modes:

Buccaneer
A-4 Skyhawk
A-6 Intruder
A-7 Corsair
Super Eterndard

Radar means cast and weight, so unless you need it...

On a more light hearted note:

Did the pilots ever notice and complain?
Big Bob Joylove was an RAF Pilot? Who knew?


Sqn Leader BBJ: Oi mate, where's my radar?
Sgt Bloggs: This is a ground attack aircraft Sir, you do not have radar.
BBJ: Oh - I get your game......
 

Latest Threads

Top