the "Dump the JSF" (or "alternate NATO fighter aircraft after 2015") GB

[Leading Observer]

I can see their Lordships at the Admiralty ringing round the various vintage aircraft owners and asking " Can we buy back your Sea Vixen?" etc

[chrisonord]

Lets do something really extravagant and verging on the obsurd.......We could al do some Harriers  lol
Chris.

[Taiidantomcat]

Harriers  lol

Madness I say!

[anthonyp]

If the JSF is cancelled HM Gov will look just a bit daft with two carriers [wellone in mothballs and one .......in mothballs ] and definitly no fixed wing aircraft to fly off them. Better start speaking nicely to the French!

Actually, a recent article on either Aviation Week or Defense Now's websites said the RN may well get both now, with one getting EMALS, and the other outfit as a helo carrier.

As for the GB concept, I'd say what about a full blown competition between all the JSF competitors, except instead of a winner-take-all concept, the USN, USAF, USMC, RN, RAF, etc all are able to compete all three against international options, as well as updated F-16's, F/A-18's, F-15's, Su-35's, Mig-29's, Gripens, Rafales, etc.  The USN could take the McDonnel Douglas design as their new fighter, while the USAF takes the F-35, and the USMC takes the X-32, while the RN takes the Gripen NG Navalised, etc.

I see a lot of possibilities if Planet Pentagon had realized how much "Joint" programs would cost them in the early 90's (different services = different requirements = higher cost per base unit) and let the individual services go with what they wanted and, if they happen to overlap (F-4, A-7), then all the better!

[Weaver]

That's close to what I was about to propose: the "joint" bit of JSF kills it off early, and the "new" idea is:

1. A separate subsonic STOVL CAS/BAI aircraft to replace the Harrier/A-10/Jaguar

2. A Navy/Airforce lightweight multi-role fighter to replace the F-16/F-18 (the extensive land-based use of the latter surely gives the lie to the idea that this bit of "jointism" is unachievable at least)

3. A strike aircraft to replace the F-111/Tornado/F-15E and possibly the A-6, although I suspect that Navy/Airforce differences over range vs weight make agreement on the latter rather more difficult to achieve.

[Thorvic]

That's close to what I was about to propose: the "joint" bit of JSF kills it off early, and the "new" idea is:

1. A separate subsonic STOVL CAS/BAI aircraft to replace the Harrier/A-10/Jaguar

That should be supersonic now, not mach2 but able to get at least mach 1.2, most of the ASTOVL designs envisaged this in some form or another

[Thorvic]

If the JSF is cancelled HM Gov will look just a bit daft with two carriers [wellone in mothballs and one .......in mothballs ] and definitly no fixed wing aircraft to fly off them. Better start speaking nicely to the French!

Actually, a recent article on either Aviation Week or Defense Now's websites said the RN may well get both now, with one getting EMALS, and the other outfit as a helo carrier.

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=17241

This one helps clarify the situation, the QE is too far along on pre-fabrication to be modified to Cat & Traps during build, and needs to be launched in 2014 to allow PoW to be assembled in dry dock without jamming up the shipbuilders who will then start on the Type 26 GCS. Thus QE will actually be completed pretty much like the original design (minus the ski-jump and possibly with the Angled deck extentions to the stern anfwd port sponson), she will then complete first of class trials and allow for any required mods to be made to PoW before her completion. When completed under the current SDSR she would be mothballed and replaced by PoW, but now the govt are looking to revise that for the 2015 SDSR so the ship would then go in to refit and be back fitted with cats & traps thus giving the RN two capable aircraft carriers, with one in service and the other rotating through reserve, refit & work up as always intended just like the Invincibles did and the Assault ships.
Should the F-35C fall victim to the US DoD budget cuts then the govt would just do another study to find an alternative JCA solution, probably matching the USN and go with Super Hornets and a UCAV solution ready for the 2015 SDSR again. Things would get interssting in would the study go for an all Superbug fleet or a FAA wing and a seperate RAF F-35A wing to maintain capability and the work package should the F-35C no longer be available !!

Anyway this might give some GB ideas with a UK split solution for FAA & RAF 

[Weaver]

That's close to what I was about to propose: the "joint" bit of JSF kills it off early, and the "new" idea is:

1. A separate subsonic STOVL CAS/BAI aircraft to replace the Harrier/A-10/Jaguar

That should be supersonic now, not mach2 but able to get at least mach 1.2, most of the ASTOVL designs envisaged this in some form or another

Why?

It isn't neccessary for the CAS/BAI role, it complicates the provision of STOVL and very probably increases the VTOL jet energy to the point where it limits choice of operation locations due to surface erosion. The whole point of separating the requirements is to simplify the individual aircraft: my vote is to keep this one simple by combining the no-nonsense ruggedness of the A-10 with the basing flexibilty of the Harrier.

[Thorvic]

Becuase you dont need STOVL for CAS/BAI you just need STOL

ASTOVL is because you want to operate them where no regular aircraft can operate from so need to be able to defend themselves or their buddies doing the CAS role so need to hold their own in the local environment against other fighters or your CAS aircraft end up like Stukas in the BoB !!!

[Weaver]

CAS/BAI is better for having the "V" though: SHARs in the Falklands made good use of a vertical landing pad and refuelling station at San Carlos, despite the fact that their main operating "base" (i.e. the carriers) was a STOL facility. If you can wind a "Super Harrier" up to mach=1.2 without significant penalty then go for it, but remember, most dogfights end up subsonic in short order and BVR missiles can be fired just as effectively from subsonic as supersonic speed.

Something I forgot to put in the original list was that the F-16/F-18 replacement should have serious STOL (NOT STOVL) capability, along the lines of the Jaguar/Viggen/MiG-23. That gets you supersonic air cover as close as a STOL base can be, and don't forget, these aircraft, unlike the STOVL CAS/BAI type, are going to have much more range/loiter time.

[McColm]

A-10s should so the trick!!

[Taiidantomcat]

Something I forgot to put in the original list was that the F-16/F-18 replacement should have serious STOL (NOT STOVL) capability,

Exactly, I was thinking about adding some serious canards to the F-18H

[McColm]

Could get some Jaguars and use them instead.

[Weaver]

Something I forgot to put in the original list was that the F-16/F-18 replacement should have serious STOL (NOT STOVL) capability,

Exactly, I was thinking about adding some serious canards to the F-18H

Most of the modern, highly agile fighters should have pretty decent take off and landing runs as they stand, given that they have relatively low wing loadings. To exploit it for off-base STOL though, you also need rough-field undercarriage, with lots of travel on the oleos and big, low pressure tires, and all that takes up space (look at how big a Jag's undercarriage bays are relative to it's size). Depending the on the layout of the aircraft, you may also need MiG-29-style anti-FOD screens in the intakes. Thrust reversers arn't mandatory, but they're damned handy and a lot more fun than picking up and re-packing braking chutes...

[Taiidantomcat]

Something I forgot to put in the original list was that the F-16/F-18 replacement should have serious STOL (NOT STOVL) capability,

Exactly, I was thinking about adding some serious canards to the F-18H

Most of the modern, highly agile fighters should have pretty decent take off and landing runs as they stand, given that they have relatively low wing loadings. To exploit it for off-base STOL though, you also need rough-field undercarriage, with lots of travel on the oleos and big, low pressure tires, and all that takes up space (look at how big a Jag's undercarriage bays are relative to it's size). Depending the on the layout of the aircraft, you may also need MiG-29-style anti-FOD screens in the intakes. Thrust reversers arn't mandatory, but they're damned handy and a lot more fun than picking up and re-packing braking chutes...

very true! I am betting that by the time I am done with this is going to look more like an F-18 Caricature than anything else.  ... and it still has to be able to carry a bunch weapons.