F35 Trials

[sb67]

For those that like aircraft, I enjoyed watching this, one mighty impressive aircraft! 

 

 

Steve

[Gordon A]

I still don't think it is as good as the Harrier.

 

Gordon A

[Kingzance]

A couple of weeks back, HMS QE snuck back into Pompey under the cover of darkness due to a leak into the hull. I wonder if the ship will ever fulfil the promise that Admirals and tacticians claimed for it and how long it would survive in a conflict when we have insufficient escort vessels to prevent state sponsored pirates from seizing ships in major waterways.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 hour ago, Kingzance said:

A couple of weeks back, HMS QE snuck back into Pompey under the cover of darkness due to a leak into the hull. I wonder if the ship will ever fulfil the promise that Admirals and tacticians claimed for it and how long it would survive in a conflict when we have insufficient escort vessels to prevent state sponsored pirates from seizing ships in major waterways.

These are separate problems and best kept separate.

 

The aircraft carrier is going the way of the big gun battleship. Too complex, too vulnerable, in an unrestricted shooting match. Very useful for showing the flag, and restricted operations in the meantime.

 

Eradicating piracy is easy. Destroy the operating bases. Proven method, and the weapons to do this exist. It is the political will that is presently lacking. If the economic impact of this activity becomes large enough globally then it will become possible. More rubble in the middle east. I give it ten years.

[PaulRhB]

2 hours ago, Kingzance said:

A couple of weeks back, HMS QE snuck back into Pompey under the cover of darkness due to a leak into the hull. 

That was over dramatised by the media as usual, it was only brought straight in because it was on trials not deployment according to a RN friend. The damage crews dealt with it in the standard way and there have been much worse dealt with and carried until the ship finished essential duties, it took them months to chip out the concrete from one temporary repair!  

As to the new style ship it needs to be worked with its strengths and weaknesses in mind. So yes it needs careful protection of a small battle group on top of its direct protection but like the Falklands if you contain your enemies dangerous assests it can be very effective. It’s always been down to the technological advantage, skill of those commanding plus some luck. 

[pete_mcfarlane]

Everyone is building new carriers at the moment (UK, India, China) so they can't be that obsolete. I suspect that these claims that our carriers will be sunk within 10 seconds of the outbreak of war are based on publicity brochures from the makers of Russian anti-ship missiles....

[PaulRhB]

Big carriers are very vulnerable to the highly developed forces but how likely are they to go head to head? If it gets to that stage strategic missiles will take over for what the carriers do. Carriers these days are more about projection of power to less powerful countries where the technology we have can effectively reduce the chances of their aircraft and submarines to a reasonable level of risk. 

You cant stop small craft completely but they are unlikely to carry weapons that can  completely neutralise these monsters. Damage is embarrassing, as has happened in the Gulf before, but ultimately like the leaks good damage control can keep the ship operational. 

[Mike Storey]

12 hours ago, Gordon A said:

I still don't think it is as good as the Harrier.

 

Gordon A

 

Not as pretty, but nearly twice the speed, double the take-off payload and much easier to fly (as reported by several test pilots) compared to the Harrier. How is it not as good exactly?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 hour ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

Everyone is building new carriers at the moment (UK, India, China) so they can't be that obsolete...

Let's slightly adjust that sentence for roughly 90 years ago.

 

Everyone is building new carriers battleships at the moment (UK, India, China Germany, Italy, France, Japan, USA) so they can't be that obsolete.

 

In peacetime, it's a good rule that militaries tool up for the previous conflict...

[PaulRhB]

Rose tinted specs  Harrier was brilliant but even the US Marines who kept it going are moving to the F35 as technology moves on. Much like big carriers are no longer the same warship of WW2 they are now more about people knowing you can plonk a fully independent airfield off their nearest coast without having to worry about finding a friendly country nearby. They are multi role and more likely to be tasked as a large helicopter carrier for aid relief than actual combat. 

[PaulRhB]

Just now, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

 

In peacetime, it's a good rule that militaries tool up for the previous conflict...

They have before but you hope they have learnt that lesson to an extent. They know drones etc are making traditional roles redundant slowly and this is expected to be the last generation of manned military fighters but if you look at them as mobile airfields for drones and disaster relief they do meet the current projections for the next 50 years. What actually happens depends on people and technology and as no one has accurately predicted that before you need a bit of conservative insurance. What’s most important as seen in those conflicts before is that the people are trained and ready and can then adapt what they have to work. More focus on the day to day equipment so they can deploy anywhere and quickly have the right basic kit that can be adapted in the field. The series on Invincibles last tour showed how well they could adapt. 

[Allegheny1600]

27 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Not as pretty, but nearly twice the speed, double the take-off payload and much easier to fly (as reported by several test pilots) compared to the Harrier. How is it not as good exactly?

Practically what I was just going to say!

This chap seems to like them;

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/18/f35_uk_test_pilot_interview_sim_flight/

[Gordon A]

58 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Not as pretty, but nearly twice the speed, double the take-off payload and much easier to fly (as reported by several test pilots) compared to the Harrier. How is it not as good exactly?

Not as manoeuvrable in flight and I understand has a very low payload if a vertical take off is the order of the day.

Also the drive to vertical fan has had a number of failures.

As to speed the Harriers manoeuverability ment it could get the best of faster fighters ie the Falklands.

 

Gordon A

[KalKat]

Indeed - the technique of 'viffing' . The Harrier was capable of slamming the anchors on allowing an opposing aircraft to fly by and then shooting at it. The Harriers could also readily go up down or even sideways with no apparent notice. I wonder just how well the F35 can do that kind of thing, especially with all those doors and such to open first?

 

 

Emma

 

 

 

 

[PaulRhB]

But dogfighting was how the Harrier won its spurs because it didn’t have the stand off capability. Without that extreme manoeuvrability their low speed would have been a major vulnerability as the Pucaras demonstrated. F35 is meant to operate differently but still keep the Harriers ability to use ultra short strips. It’s not actually trying to be the Harrier mk 10.

The fan failures during development probably aren’t any worse than the Harriers hiccups at that stage. We don’t have the actual figures for obvious reasons but the telling part will be failures in service. They lost quite a few Harriers because of handling errors at very low speed as at Lowestoft and engine failures. 

 

 

[alastairq]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family_losses

[burgundy]

Single engine aircraft that operate at low level are pretty unforgiving. Watch the video and see just how short the time is between the aircraft becoming unstable and the ejector seat appearing. Also note the time between the parachute canopy opening and hitting the water. 

Best wishes 

Eric 

[lapford34102]

Interesting they're USN F-35's.

 

Stu

[Kingzance]

22 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

These are separate problems and best kept separate.

 

The aircraft carrier is going the way of the big gun battleship. Too complex, too vulnerable, in an unrestricted shooting match. Very useful for showing the flag, and restricted operations in the meantime.

 

Eradicating piracy is easy. Destroy the operating bases. Proven method, and the weapons to do this exist. It is the political will that is presently lacking. If the economic impact of this activity becomes large enough globally then it will become possible. More rubble in the middle east. I give it ten years.

I can’t disagree with your synopsis 34C, I just fear that the costs associated with the QECs could have been allocated to more useful military effect. Sadly the Middle East is already a flashpoint in a religious civil war between the Sunni and Shia factions led by Saudi and Iran and the pirates use religion as a shield. With the popularity of their associated cults globally, it won’t just be a local rubble event!

[PaulRhB]

17 hours ago, alastairq said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family_losses

That bears out the similar numbers in development to what we’ve heard for the F35 so far but it’ll be years before a comparison on service can be made. 

[Kingzance]

21 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

That was over dramatised by the media as usual, it was only brought straight in because it was on trials not deployment according to a RN friend. The damage crews dealt with it in the standard way and there have been much worse dealt with and carried until the ship finished essential duties, it took them months to chip out the concrete from one temporary repair!  

As to the new style ship it needs to be worked with its strengths and weaknesses in mind. So yes it needs careful protection of a small battle group on top of its direct protection but like the Falklands if you contain your enemies dangerous assests it can be very effective. It’s always been down to the technological advantage, skill of those commanding plus some luck. 

As various commanders from the Falklands Conflict have gone on record to say, skill, bravery and an awful lot of luck play their part in any conflict. Battle of Britain was very much the perfect example where Hitler’s strategy to attack cities rather than focus on airfields probably turned the final outcome. And who needs enemies when you have friends providing aircraft and missiles to attack you (France) or to wind up political opposition to defending your protectorates (Spain)?

As a nation, we need to prioritise our national spending and that isn’t just about the defence budget. Can we afford all our defence eggs in one basket of an aircraft carrier in the world today?

[PaulRhB]

Without getting into the politics of it the carriers are hardly our only asset. The submarine force provides the real power of deterrent for the strategic capability with major nations. The carriers as I’ve said above fulfil a different role and aren’t seen as battleships for a war because they would be so vulnerable. The carriers support deterrent for smaller scale conflicts and the hearts & minds benefit of disaster relief on the world stage. Military power has long been about posturing for deterrent and while the Guards and the Blues & Royals have all the fancy uniforms they don’t use them in combat.

I reckon the carriers will see more actual use of their weapon systems than the submarines do so ultimately both work but in different ways. 

[pete_mcfarlane]

19 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

But dogfighting was how the Harrier won its spurs because it didn’t have the stand off capability. Without that extreme manoeuvrability their low speed would have been a major vulnerability as the Pucaras demonstrated.

 

I've read that a Sea Harrier was actually slightly faster than the Argentinian aircraft it was fighting. The Argentinian Mirage and Dagger fighters were unable to refuel in flight, which limited their fuel for combat over the islands and meant they couldn't use their afterburners. A Sea Harrier is slightly faster than a Mirage on dry thrust (and about 400mph faster than a Pucara). They also had the advantage of much better weapons - the Argentinians had a few useless French air-to-air missiles, and cannons. 

 

[jjb1970]

21 hours ago, Gordon A said:

Not as manoeuvrable in flight and I understand has a very low payload if a vertical take off is the order of the day.

Also the drive to vertical fan has had a number of failures.

As to speed the Harriers manoeuverability ment it could get the best of faster fighters ie the Falklands.

 

Gordon A

 

The F35 wasn't intended to be a vertical take off aircraft, it is a short take off and vertical landing one (or at least the B is). Which despite popular image is effectively what the Harrier was as it was dreadfully inefficient if used with vertical take off. That the F35B can take off vertically is an additional capability which was not a key performance requirement. 

The F35 represents a paradigm shift in capability and performance over both the small and large wing Harriers. 

[jjb1970]

On carriers, I think it depends on whether considered in the context of the sort of asymmetric wars of the modern era or a full blown war between high capability military powers. 

In the first case carriers are still immensely useful and open up possibilities which are not there without carriers. 

In the second case I think that they are rapidly becoming too vulnerable to be really useful. 

The USN is moving away from its previously carrier focused doctrine in terms of their approach to a possible war with China or Russia.