F35 - Money well spent.

Yokel

LE
Some of you may be interested in this - the presentation slides from a talk by the late John Farley.

The story of UK jet VSTOL

The first Pilot to hover in a jet was RN! Did it occur to him that stopping before landing would open the door to safer carrier operations to/from (relatively) small decks?

From early experiments came P1127, from P1127 came Harrier, from Harrier came Sea Harrier, Harrier II, and shipborne STOVL, and from VAAC came UK involvement in the F-35!

Here is a very hard to understand (how can a mechanical system have bandwidth?) PhD thesis: Active Control of V/STOL Aircraft

:
 
Some of you may be interested in this - the presentation slides from a talk by the late John Farley.

The story of UK jet VSTOL

The first Pilot to hover in a jet was RN! Did it occur to him that stopping before landing would open the door to safer carrier operations to/from (relatively) small decks?

From early experiments came P1127, from P1127 came Harrier, from Harrier came Sea Harrier, Harrier II, and shipborne STOVL, and from VAAC came UK involvement in the F-35!

Here is a very hard to understand (how can a mechanical system have bandwidth?) PhD thesis: Active Control of V/STOL Aircraft
:

I still love the whole early Flying Bedstead videos..

 
I had the pleasure of seeing the F35 B this weekend hovering etc this weekend. The transition from full flight to hover was impressive.

I also got a chance to speak to an Osprey crews and they enthusiastically told me the negative press it receives is very undeserved and its safer than a C130!

Red arrows were there as well ( and some fatty RAF police) as were the Blue angels - very tame performance from both ( local rules possibly?)
 

JCC

Old-Salt
Good, to me, article covering Drones and the Su-57. Interested to hear rebuttals...

Maybe would be more suited to a dedicated thread for future defence strategy (only joking) ?
 
Good, to me, article covering Drones and the Su-57. Interested to hear rebuttals...
Firstly, the author(s) strikes me as a bit of a Russian troll; I notice that he makes the somewhat bold statement that '...the F-35 will be a pathetic dogfighter whereas the Su-57 might well be the most capable one out there...' He/she/they also appear to be a tad anti-semitic as well judging by language such as '...the AngloZionists have now reneged on The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty...'

There are also numerous factual errors. For instance:

'...I want to remind everybody that Russia was the first country to deploy airborne phased array radars on her MiG-31s which, to boot, were capable of exchanging targeting data by encrypted datalinks with FOUR (!) other aircraft maintaining EM silence (while using their optoelectronics and relaying that data back). Furthermore, these MiG-31s could also exchange data with airborne (AWACS) and ground-based (SAMs) radars. And that was in the early 1980s, almost 40 years ago!
The truth is that the Soviet armed forces deployed plenty of network-centric systems long before the West...'

The first airborne Passive Electronically Scanned Array (PESA) deployed operationally was probably the E-3A's APY-1 which was in test in 1974 and in service 3 years later. It's true that the MiG-31 was the first fighter with a PESA. However, I'd argue that that's pretty irrelevant given that radars such as the F-14's AWG-9 and F-15's APG-63 significantly outperformed the FOXHOUND's radar, despite pre-dating the latter by some years.

However, it's the comments on 'network-centric systems' that really highlight the author's ignorance and/or bias. Far from the Soviets introducing data links before the West we led them by many years, if not decades.

For instance, the USAF Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) architecture was introduced by NORAD as long ago as 1959. It allowed the exchange of radar and IFF track data by data link between hardened ground-based radars, USN ships and even EC-121 AWACS to build a comprehensive Air Defence picture across the US and Canada.

SAGE was also extended to include data exchange with F-89, F-94, F-101, F-106 and F-4 interceptors as well as Bomarc SAMs. Similar US data links were introduced during the 1950s including the excellent USN Link 4 which remained in service to the 90s, and Link 11, which entered service in the 1960s and remains in widespread use today.

Even RAF Lightnings and Control and and Reporting Centres could exchange tracks and data in the 60s and architecture remained at Neatishead into the 80s.

So, lots of bias, and lots of factual errors in the article.

However, I would not disagree with the authors comments regarding the threat posed by the Russian Kalibr land-attack and anti-ship missile.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
Firstly, the author(s) strikes me as a bit of a Russian troll; I notice that he makes the somewhat bold statement that '...the F-35 will be a pathetic dogfighter whereas the Su-57 might well be the most capable one out there...' He/she/they also appear to be a tad anti-semitic as well judging by language such as '...the AngloZionists have now reneged on The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty...'

There are also numerous factual errors. For instance:

'...I want to remind everybody that Russia was the first country to deploy airborne phased array radars on her MiG-31s which, to boot, were capable of exchanging targeting data by encrypted datalinks with FOUR (!) other aircraft maintaining EM silence (while using their optoelectronics and relaying that data back). Furthermore, these MiG-31s could also exchange data with airborne (AWACS) and ground-based (SAMs) radars. And that was in the early 1980s, almost 40 years ago!
The truth is that the Soviet armed forces deployed plenty of network-centric systems long before the West...'

The first airborne Passive Electronically Scanned Array (PESA) deployed operationally was probably the E-3A's APY-1 which was in test in 1974 and in service 3 years later. It's true that the MiG-31 was the first fighter with a PESA. However, I'd argue that that's pretty irrelevant given that radars such as the F-14's AWG-9 and F-15's APG-63 significantly outperformed the FOXHOUND's radar, despite pre-dating the latter by some years.

However, it's the comments on 'network-centric systems' that really highlight the author's ignorance and/or bias. Far from the Soviets introducing data links before the West we led them by many years, if not decades.

For instance, the USAF Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) architecture was introduced by NORAD as long ago as 1959. It allowed the exchange of radar and IFF track data by data link between hardened ground-based radars, USN ships and even EC-121 AWACS to build a comprehensive Air Defence picture across the US and Canada.

SAGE was also extended to include data exchange with F-89, F-94, F-101, F-106 and F-4 interceptors as well as Bomarc SAMs. Similar US data links were introduced during the 1950s including the excellent USN Link 4 which remained in service to the 90s, and Link 11, which entered service in the 1960s and remains in widespread use today.

Even RAF Lightnings and Control and Control and Reporting Centres could exchange tracks and data in the 60s and architecture remained at Neatishead into the 80s.

So, lots of bias, and lots of factual errors in the article.

However, I would not disagree with the authors comments regarding the threat posed by the Russian Kalibr land-attack and anti-ship missile.

Regards,
MM
There you go, spoiling things with your well researched facts and real world knowledge again.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Good, to me, article covering Drones and the Su-57. Interested to hear rebuttals...

Maybe would be more suited to a dedicated thread for future defence strategy (only joking) ?
I'd stay clear of zerohedge, it's decidedly cranky
 

JCC

Old-Salt
I'd stay clear of zerohedge, it's decidedly cranky
It certainly has its share of fruit loops - but its difficult to find sources that are supplying old-style factual reporting so it's necessary to sift through some fairly dubious places.

It's better to go to several sources, such as AlJaz, RT, BBC, and even some of the more "out there" sources to get a feel of the truth.

That's why I find it useful to run a sanity check with experts such as @Magic_Mushroom, if possible.

I see MSM as fairly politicised nowadays. Not in the sense it that they are reporting lies but they are, possibly unconsciously, reflecting the thoughts and feelings of the reporter; beware sources that use such phrases as "all right-thinking people".

They all, but very noticeably with the BBC, often omit rather than report difficult stories or else report on a different angle cleverly ignoring the elephant. For example in the recent kerfuffle about Naga the story, to me, was BBC employees giving their opinions rather than sticking to factual reporting.

Anyway thanks again for the replies.
 
It would certainly seem that there is no lack of countries willing to take up the slack created by Turkey’s removal from the supply system.

This perhaps indicating customer confidence, and no doubt some sighs of relief from any concerned about security of thenF-35 program in general.

Erdogan certainly seems to have performed a rather large and unfortunate ‘own goal’ with the F-35 program, his relations with the US and NATO.
 
Published by: RAF NEWS, on 14 October 2019.

First UK F-35 Lightning Jets land on HMS Queen Elizabeth

UK F-35 Lightning jets landing, taking off and hovering onboard Britain’s next-generation aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth for the first time.

Flown by Royal Navy and Royal Air Force pilots, the F-35 Lightning jets are embarking in the 65,000-tonne carrier to conduct operational trials off the East Coast of the USA.

This follows successful developmental trials last year with US Lightning jets, where forces conducted 500 takeoffs and landings over their 11-week period at sea.

These trials are aimed at ‘end-to-end’ testing of the aircraft and personnel to ensure the aircraft are compatible with the carrier. The tests involve mission planning, arming the aircraft using the ship’s Highly Automated Weapon Handling System, flying missions and debriefing on completion.

The landings on HMS Queen Elizabeth are part of the ‘WESTLANT 19’ Carrier Strike Group deployment. Once fully operational, the UK Carrier Strike Group will be a formidable force around the world, using a number of platforms to work alongside our allies.

During this time, the aircraft carrier will be escorted by Type 45 destroyer HMS Dragon, submarine hunter HMS Northumberland, tanker RFA Tideforce and Merlins from 814, 820 and 845 Naval Air Squadrons, Wildcats from 815 Squadron and Royal Marines from Lima Company, 42 Commando.

1571091638783.png



BP190035009.jpg


 

P2000

LE
Published by: RAF NEWS, on 14 October 2019.

First UK F-35 Lightning Jets land on HMS Queen Elizabeth

UK F-35 Lightning jets landing, taking off and hovering onboard Britain’s next-generation aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth for the first time.

Flown by Royal Navy and Royal Air Force pilots, the F-35 Lightning jets are embarking in the 65,000-tonne carrier to conduct operational trials off the East Coast of the USA.

This follows successful developmental trials last year with US Lightning jets, where forces conducted 500 takeoffs and landings over their 11-week period at sea.

These trials are aimed at ‘end-to-end’ testing of the aircraft and personnel to ensure the aircraft are compatible with the carrier. The tests involve mission planning, arming the aircraft using the ship’s Highly Automated Weapon Handling System, flying missions and debriefing on completion.

The landings on HMS Queen Elizabeth are part of the ‘WESTLANT 19’ Carrier Strike Group deployment. Once fully operational, the UK Carrier Strike Group will be a formidable force around the world, using a number of platforms to work alongside our allies.

During this time, the aircraft carrier will be escorted by Type 45 destroyer HMS Dragon, submarine hunter HMS Northumberland, tanker RFA Tideforce and Merlins from 814, 820 and 845 Naval Air Squadrons, Wildcats from 815 Squadron and Royal Marines from Lima Company, 42 Commando.

View attachment 422925


View attachment 422927

Nothing to see here. Just the world's most modern jets, operating off the world's most modern carrier, with a world leading air defence destroyer in the background.
 

Yokel

LE
Yeah but it will never fly, carriers without aircraft, all modern wars are on land, state on state warfare is a thing of the past, the money should have been spent on Max Hastings favourite wegiments, nobody who had been to Charterhouse was involved, blah blah blah....
 
Nothing to see here. Just the world's most modern jets, operating off the world's most modern carrier, with a world leading air defence destroyer in the background.
That really is something !! . . . and they're all ours ;) .
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Almost considered obsolete already? They are barely in service. Like computers I guess...

This was featured elsewhere some weeks ago. The emphasis is iteration, iteration, iteration and a plethora of capabilities, rather than single, large, generational shift. Also, it makes it harder for the opposition to deal with because we’ll potentially have numerous different capabilities in service at once, not just one.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
And no, not obsolete. You show me anything out there which currently matches it, or will do soon.

What this new approach also does is address the protracted times needed to get new generations and capabilities into squadron service.
 

Yokel

LE

Is it me or is the Lightning Bolt on the tail not that dissimilar to the Fleet Air Arm one? A reference to the joint RN/RAF nature of what will be Joint Force Lightning?

Good to see progress being made. I look forward to news of the first air defence exercise.
 
...Is it me or is the Lightning Bolt on the tail not that dissimilar to the Fleet Air Arm one? A reference to the joint RN/RAF nature of what will be Joint Force Lightning?...
I had assumed it was a nod to 617...


Regards,
MM
 

Latest Threads

Top