House of Commons Select committee discusses UK purchase of F-35 jets
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 апр 2022
- Witness: Air Marshal Richard Knighton CB, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Financial and Military Capability
See article:
www.navylookout.com/uk-to-pur...
48 jets should be available for the carriers, you can’t rely on the US marine corp to bail us out.
The UK can and will put whatever of its aircraft will be needed for the operations concerned. Whats with this fixation on the bloody Yanks? The only reason we had the 10 USMC F-35s on CSG21 was because LM have been deplorably so delivering our original 48 aircraft and we only had 21. We just reached 24. All while Israel and Australia have had double that number after ordering later. I suspect there is US political interference from 'Irish Joe Biden' but we are so committed to the project we have no other choices. Until Tempest.
But we could put 2 USMC sized Squadrons (20) on a carrier right now.
@@davecooke4009 the US was desperate for us to get our carrier capability back, in most circumstances it will either be fighting directly on the same side or covering normal US operations.
United States Marine Corps
The US Marine Corps doesn't "bail us out"... they are our closest ally, using almost identical equipment and with almost identical training, why would be turn down their offer to help just because they're Americans?
@@MKCupra Exactly , this isnt a one way partnership , you can guarantee there will be UK F35`s on US Marine Corps ships in the future .
Years of neglect on defense spending...time you Brits woke up!
Time you read more and wrote less Pal.
The UK defence budget has increased in cash terms every year other than during the US caused global recessio0n in 2008/09 and into 2010. The last increase in 2021 was £16 Bn ($21.6Bn) and we remain in GDP terms by far the 2nd largest defence budget in NATO. Even more so in a per capita basis.
The UK has done with being the USA's patsy every time they decide they need a war to feed more cash to US Incorporated. they do 'coalitions' so they can take all the credit when it goes well and blame others when it goes Pete Tong. This started in WWII.
Maybe if Lockheed Martin and the US Government had delivered the 48 we ordered in 2012 rather than the 24 so far delivered and not preferred to look after other countries like Israel we would have the capability we expected as the only Tier One Partner.
So we will take no lectures thanks ....
@@1chish You used to spend more than 5% of GDP on defense. Then the "rot of the peace dividend" set in and your armed forces shrank although the tasks expected from it by your successive governments didn't - if anything they expanded. As an illustration just look at the numbers of DD/FF you have and are expected to acquire. These are insufficient to effectively support prolonged carrier operations in high tension/wartime environment.
So.......not lecturing friend, just stating the obvious. Spend more!
@@morriganravenchild6613 Forgive me but you seem confused between % of GDP and actual cash spending. They are not the same but I guess seizing on any number that supports your argument is how it goes on YT. We are spending considerably more cash. Like £16 Bn EXTRA currently. But unlike the USa we do not have a bottomless pit of debt. We are coming out of a massive pandemic and facing headwinds in global trade as a result. However we do spend what is required.
But lets look at your number: The last time the UK spent 5% on defence was in 1969. Long before the so called and failed 'Peace Dividend' which started in the late 1980s. As it happens the USA last spent 5% in 1990 AFTER the 'Peace Dividend'. It now spends 3% while the UK spends 2.4%. So not such a big gap in GDP terms. The difference is the US economy is 5 times that of the UK so has massive more cash to spend so maybe compare our real numbers multiplied by 5? Like our 2 carriers is like 10 US carriers. The same.
We reduced our armed forces but still fought expeditionary wars in the Falklands, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan. We punch well above our weight thank you.
As to your suggestion we cannot support CSG operations well maybe you missed CSG21 when QE went to the Indo Pacific accompanied by a bigger support force than a US carrier uses. And by that I mean UK vessels and not including the US DD and Dutch FF. We fund a blue water Navy, a state of the art Air Force and a developing Army for the current threat levels but not expeditionary warfare. Our days of tagging along with US Army are long gone. We were taught the error of our ways by Biden in Afghanistan. There will be no more. The EU loving Biden and the USA can go and ask Germany or France for their next war and see what the support level is.
There is also the difference in mindset. the USA prefers to spend taxpayer cash on defence rather than healthcare and thousands die as a result. We take a different view and have better outcomes. After all we have not been invaded since 1066. Unlike the USA which was invaded in 1812. By the British.
You clearly haven't got a clue what your talking about. The UK is second only to the US when it comes to defence spending in NATO.
AND the UK spends more on its military every year than Russia does. A country which is over 100x larger.
Get your facts right.
@@1chish Sorry but your talking nonsense. The cash terms increases announced by the government are spread over a number of years. They also don't take into account inflation. Full fact reckons the increase to be £6.2bn per annum but inflation reduces that to just over £3bn. Greece spends more as a percentage of gdp than the UK. Estonia basically the same. Both have smaller populations so spend more per capita as a percentage of gdp. Incidentally Russia also spends more as a percentage of its gdp. Analysis of the spending by NATO reveals the UK spends only 24.3% of its budget on actual equipment. A whopping 41% is spent on other expenditure which basically includes operations abroad. Given this fact the original poster is correct in suggesting the UK needs a larger defence budget or it needs to reduce its commitments abroad.
Jesus Christ. Give them enough to surge both carriers and have spares on land.
The deal is you just cannot call up Lockheed and say were going to war and we need 100 fighters by next month. This is not 1940. In peace time it's hard for people to crack open the wallet to pay for a war weapon. Just think if the government has said we like the Supermarine Spitfire but were not at war and we can save some money if we wait.
The Americans are in no way guaranteeing USMC support to UK carrier strike in a routine basis.
If only we could see the actual conversation had by the classified committees
Built both carriers and now trying to cheap out on the bloody planes that will make them world class. Classic government ineptitude…
What sad state this country this country is in, even when it comes to the military it sounds as though we can't even defend ourselves.
These defence committees make me laugh and cry, don't these useless, pointless politicians know how big or how effective the military is, I mean they are the ones who keep slashing away, cutting it reducing its capabilities and making more dependent on unreliable allies. Very sad!
we need at least 100
One would think that these two super carriers, massive investments that they are, would carry more aircraft. It's also rather sad to see the once great RAF talking about sufficient funding for the acquisition of small handfuls of aircraft.
They were designed for 36 F35B. We built 2 to always have 1 available.
You don't need hundreds of "mediocre" aircraft if you can have a handful of extremely capable aircraft. Quality always beats quantity.
There was a study quite a few years back that concluded you could have 51 F35`s in a surge before hampering sortie rates , dont forget you need merlin`s as well as other aviation assets on board at the same time .
@@MKCupra Until you get into a serious war where the enemy has comparable kit. Small numbers of high cost units run out rather quickly.
Size isn't everything - especially with unmanned drones becoming increasingly relevant, 24-36 F-35Bs supported by twice as many drones is probably what they're aiming for operationally speaking.
Basically the RAF is critically short of front line aircraft and so are the Aircraft Carriers. RAF is losing its entire fleet of Lockheed Hercules. Despite all the garbage that Boris Johnson has said, the extra money has NOT produced anything new for any of the services it has just been used to cover massive cost over runs.
How are RAF going to be able to execute its missions then, you need transport aircraft’s for the logistics
Every NATO member will be tearing up its previous military budget forecasts like Germany has.
UK should go to 3.5% of GDP military spending.
Well said cock.
If every NATO member boosted its defence budget to 6% of GDP, the combined NATO defence budget would exceed the total size of the entire Russian economy.
@@ScienceChap And not just NATO members. Japan spends about 1% of GDP or $50 billion.
Imagine 6% or $300 billion.
Would give China plenty to cry about.
74 jets to go with our 150 tanks. Our military strength is pathetic. Makes me hopping mad! 😡
Well done for conveniently forgetting the rest of our air, sea and ground assets.
@@1chish Not all that many of ANY of them.
@@99IronDuke Sufficient to be the 2nd largest defence budget in NATO and 4th globally. Larger than Russia. And sufficient for a defence force. Our days of expeditionary warfare are ended thank god.
The aircraft carriers will be sunk in minutes if we ever went to war. One big target. We have subs yes but not enough to defend a carrier against several at once. Takes 7 years in this country to build a sub. The astute will ready for scrap betime the last of the 7 is built. Too little too late. Cut backs cut backs. Let's spend 38billion on ppe and god knows how much on HS trains.
@@goldenlabradorskye Oh dearie me talk about dragging in unrelated things and your ignorance on them.
1. The carriers would not be 'sunk in minutes' with the strike group they would have around them: 2 x T45s, 2 x T23s, an Astute plus a Dutch air defence frigate. that is as big as a US Navy CSG.
2. Astutes do not defend carriers from air attack they track and kill other submarines.
3. Boat 6 (Anson) is already powered up and 'live' in the water while Boat 7 (Agamemnon) will be testing by 2023. Boat 1 (Astute) was commissioned in 2010 and has a life of maybe 30 years. So you are many years out.
4. 7 Astutes were planned and 7 will be delivered.
5.. The last defence budget gave a huge budget increase of over £16 Bn over 4 years. Some cut that.
6. The spending (and it was not £38 Bn) on PPE was absolutely necessary and you forget that the world and his wife was out there buying PPE so prices and supply went through the roof. Maybe you would have not bothered and had doctors and nurses die.
7. The trains on HS2 will be funded by the private sector. As all trains in the UK are.
Your rant doesn't look so good when faced with facts does it?
140 would be good. What is the point in having carriers of that size if using the same amount of fast air as the invincible class, 12 on each absolute madness.
Well you need to carry 10 helicopters
Them weapons should had been fitted on the f35b from the start as we are level 1 partners .we make some of the part .so I blame the deffence secretary for this problem
Can't even fully equip 2 carriers
We never planned to operate two carriers at any given time. You sort of forgot that part. You also forgot the carriers can be deployed with a range of air assets depending on the operation. So we could deliver one with 20 UK F-35 aircraft and the other with a range of helicopter assets.
@@1chish a 70,000 ton helicopter carrier was always, and remains, a childish and moronic idea.
@@99IronDuke Oh I am sorry Admiral and where did you serve then?
Our carriers have to do many different taskings because of the size of our country. For example the PoW is now the NATO flagship and has just come back from a major amphibious exercise where helicopters not 5th Gen fighter jets are the key assets. Using a carrier for command and control and operating these frees up space on other ships for assault craft and land mobility assets. You seem to have a slightly American mindset where carriers only carry fixed wing aircraft. Unless they are carriers called LHAs that carry helicopters of course.
But thanks for calling me childish and moronic.
How kind.
@@99IronDuke Total straw manning. The flexibility to operate as a helicopter carrier doesn't make it a helicopter carrier.
I know it's embarrassing but that was always the plan. So that's ok. Pass the bucket of sand.
Giving a few things away re op deployment strategy; numbers, disposition, capabilities etc. surely this should all be behind closed doors.
Well I’m not happy that both aircraft carriers can’t operate at same time with just purely fully load British f35’s.
It should be a minimum of 150 “B’s” and another 200 “C’s” that could become carrier based if we modified our carriers to arresting and CATS.
It is an embarrassment!
That’s like £40 billion uno
If are carriers had cats we wouldn'tneed the B version
Stopppppp!!!!
The "Crabs" should never have the responsibility for the F-35B, Let's face it quite rightly they wanted the F-35A, FAA all the way for the F-35B, "Fly Navy".
Sorry My Lord but the RAF never wanted the 'A'. They wanted a better Harrier with 5th Gen bells and whistles and that is what they have.
the 'A' cannot bomb truck anything like a Typhoon and a 'B' can suppress and target as well as an 'A' with the added flexibility of STOVL.
By the way 617 Squadron has an FAA commander.
@@1chish There should be three RN Fleet Air Arm squadrons for F-35B, not the single one standing u this year.
Good to hear that we are buying enough to hit the 36 on a carrier mark.
Strange that I now hope that it as I want Tempest to be a roaring success.
The problem there is that is barely enough
@@verdebusterAP that's a full carrier?
Well, Tempest does not suggest or include a carrier based version in the mix. So, either Harriers, or F35b's are the current choice for the two UK carriers.
But, they had originally stated 48 F35 B models, and they are clearly going to exceed that original plan by quite a bit. While this purchase could in fact allow two carriers to operate, they plan to only run one carrier at a time. However, spares etc. are required, those at base for training etc.
@@Albertkallal The Tempest jet itself isn't being designed for carriers but the larger project includes drones that might be and the MoD has enquired into installing catapults on the carriers.
But it is more that the F35s we have are airforce as well as navy so land based options would allow them to become just navy.
@@davidhouseman4328 Small UAV catapults only.
I can't help but feel some of these questions are rather petty. The more realistic figure was somewhere between 60 and 80 so at least it's closer to the latter. The 138 figure was always a through life number, the carriers are to be in service for 50 years so it will outlive many of these aircraft so we need to spread out the purchase.
74 F 35B's is still more than enough to have a fully loaded QE carrier and most of those will be in service at the same time.
Yeah
@@rockinwackyidk Yeah
You seem to be viewing; (as does the RAF) that the attrition rate will be the same as what it was for earlier 3rd Generation aircraft.
Also with regards to the service life, the latest F/A18E/F Super Hornets are being designed with an airframe Fatigue Life of 12,000 hours. Given that, I believe the F35Bs will likely have a similar long Airframe Fatigue Life. Many of these Airframes will be in service for as long as the Queen Elizabeths will be.
Given the number 138 there should be enough for 6 Squadrons; (3 RAF, 3 FAA), 1 OCU & Trials units and STILL have enough left over in Reserve for Attrition and Rotation for Servicing and Upgrading.
Well, it looks like the F35 A purchase has and will be cut back - those funds will go towards the Tempest program.
However, this is REALLY good news, since they had only planned to buy 48 F35 b models, and this video confirms that they have substantially increased that purchase of carrier models - and well beyond 48 units.
This makes sense - they can fly their typhoons until Tempest is ready, and in the mean time, they are close to doubling their F35 b model purchase.
@@Albertkallal The original intention was to ONLY purchase the F35B variant. It is just recently that the RAF has proposed purchasing the A variant. That idea has not been put about by anybody else within the MoD and the Navy is opposed to it. So they are NOT proposing doubling the F35B order, they're proposing to CUT it.
As for the A variant being more suitable, might I point out that it is incompatable with EVERY RAF Tanker as it uses the USAF Flying Boom and our tankers all use Probe and Drogue. So any supposed advantage of greater range for the A variant is going to be cancelled by it's inability to refuel from RAF Tankers, leaving them dependent on those from other countries equipped with Flying Boom.
Muuuuum?!
Can I borrow one of your planes? 🤣
We have not been a sea/air power since late 1980s when the Ark Royal R09 was scrapped with the Buccs & Phantoms 👎👎🇬🇧🇬🇧
Buccaneers and Phantoms wouldn't last 30 seconds in a modern conflict.
Don't get fixated on the numbers, quality beats quantity every single time.
One F35 can do the work of 5 or 6 Phantoms on its own! Its called "modern technology"
@@MKCupra but to have to ask the US Marines for jets & pilots to make our ships powerful is not right 👍👍🇬🇧🇬🇧
Royal Navy has been a blue water navy for years now
I hope VISITOR has watched this back and decided to change her lifestyle in a positive way.
This RAF character is in training to be a politician. When asked a direct question he avoids answering at all costs, preferring to use percentages, which are flexible. Having halved the original purchase they are chipping away some more. This idea of using another country's military to make up for treasury penny-pinching is what got this country the name of "The Borrowers". I worked with an ex-flight sergeant who served in the 1960's and said that name had currency then. Who remembers when the army had to go cap in hand to the Canadians in Afghanistan for some bullets. I wonder why nobody with any sense wants anything to do with the military. Media studies is a much better option.
You're clueless...
the numbers they're talking about are enough for routine deployments of a soveriegn airwing on one of the carriers
It's a joke still require Americans to land there f35bs on our carriers,
We don't, that's a lie. We have around 40 of our own F-35s with more on order, awaiting manufacture and delivery
This guy is a right plonker. He is the one who said we have to call everyone 'aviators' in the RAF. So he hasn't actually got 26 additional aircraft, he is negotiating for them. Dependant on reduced maintenance cycles and integration of British weapons. Which he also has no time frame for. Any further purchases will be dependant on FCAS. Which will never happen as a British project, not to completion anyway. Its more jam tomorrow. With maintenance and training we might have 36 planes available. That is appalling. Especially given the cuts in Typhoon numbers elsewhere. Oh and we actually only have one carrier available but that was always the plan back when Gordon was in charge so that's ok.
I see he's not even a pilot. Not sure what he is: an accountant? Just the man to be leading the fight in 2022.
You insult a man you clearly know Jack Shit about. Knighton joined the RAF in 1988 and studied engineering at Clare College, Cambridge graduating in 1991 with a first class Bachelor of Arts degree. He served as an engineer officer and worked on Nimrod and Tornado F3 aircraft. He saw active service in the Kosovo War. So while he didn't fly aircraft he made damn sure they did. And when buying new aircraft I would rather have an aerospace engineer making that decision.
And no we have two carriers available. In fact both were at sea last month. One on post refit training and FOST the other was the NATO flagship at major amphibious exercise.
Can I gently suggest you listen again to what the man said: He confirmed he had the budget for the next 26 on top of the current 48. THAT is the critical statement. What he also made clear was that as LM move out of LRIP in 2023 the cost per unit will decrease which changes final agreements. Its not too bright to assume a price, sign a contract and then find out its 10% cheaper afterwards. Well maybe you would do that but I am glad he isn't.
@@fishernz Typical Social Media comment right there. Full of ignorant judgment.
Knighton joined the RAF in 1988 and studied engineering at Clare College, Cambridge graduating in 1991 with a first class Bachelor of Arts degree. He served as an engineer officer and worked on Nimrod and Tornado F3 aircraft. He saw active service in the Kosovo War. So while he didn't fly aircraft he made damn sure they did. And when buying new aircraft (which is his job now) I would rather have an aerospace engineer making that decision.
He is not 'leading the fight' as you put it he is Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Financial and Military Capability). It is the Chief of the Defence Staff who 'leads the fight' and he is an Admiral.
just give the RAF a set budget 1% GDP same with army and navy and stop interfering none of you mps served so stop wasting taxpayers money let the RAF get on with its job
All wold lier just show I'm not want say korea ask 3girl 👈thank you so much 😇🙏
Why should russia tremble????? Its all words. How about now !!!!!! cut backs cut backs, there's no way we could defend ourselves in this country with what we have. But we can spend money on a HS railway.
@@davecooke4009 we are on an island surrounded by allies and the only country with decent amphibious capabilities is one if our closest allies?
Its a massive shame the uk doesn't make home grown fighter jets the usa destroyed the uk aircraft industry.
The RAF sent a non entity who’s not even a pilot 😂
He's an engineer, and Chief of the Air Staff. At the time he was DCom Capability, so the perfect individual to send to this committee meeting to discuss RAF capability.
@@Orbital_Inclination So not a pilot, a chairborne warrior. And being Chief of the air staff isn’t exactly something to boast about.
@@DonWan47Being the head of the RAF is nothing to be proud of? It's literally the top job 😂
The last CAS was a pilot and was terrible. Pilots have virtually no management experience throughout the bulk of their career. Engineers are responsible for large teams of people from their first tours. The idea that pilots make the best leaders is an outdated stereotype that the last few CAS have completely undermined.
Knighton has already done a way better job in 6 months than Wigston managed in his entire tenure. Even Hillier before him oversaw the worst dismantling of military flying training in the history of the RAF.
Pathetic... We should have 250+
72 F35b's - 36 on each carrier
Rest F35a's for the RAF.
Budget Britain as always
Can you let us know what planet you are on and how you communicate with Earth?
@@1chish A far more realistic planet than you obviously you spambot!
Actually the original 138 made more sense
With 30 F-35 per unit, that was 4.6 squadrons
4 squadrons on rotation and the remaining as training unit
The RAF sticks with the Tempests and considers the F-35A a fall back option
The UK carriers only needs a few items and they would be as strong as the a USN CVN
Either V-22s either the MV-22 or CVM-22Bs for the carrier onboard delivery role
The USMC has ARS kit which makes the MV-22 into a tanker which would be the QE organic capabilites
The LRASM is usable on the F-35, P-8 and even the Type-45 as a topside canister launcher
The JSM is light enough for the F-35B to take from the carrier with
The only piece that the QE would lack is AWACS like E-2D
@@verdebusterAP
Well, the AWACS issue?
Pilots now claim that flying F35's gives them better coverage, and better information then a AWACS anyway.
Those 3 blokes in an AWACS flying staring at 3 radar screens gives F35 pilots HALF the information that the F35 ALREADY has!
From a pilot flying the F35:
Quote;
[LtCol. Tucker “Cinco” Hamilton] A:
*_So the thing that always strikes me is the ability to take off as a you know four eight ten ship whatever_*
*_It is and just how much information you have about the battlefield okay right like I don't need the AWACS anymore telling me a lot of information like I have more information than they do Wow. which is really quite phenomenal_*
In other words, the pilot was quite much laughing at the outdated AWACS and how when they attempted to give him information, it was TOO LATE and out of date!!
Other pilots have confirmed and noted the above:
quote:
[USMC LtCol. Dave “Chip” Berke] A:
*_If you were to just take all the sensors, on an f-35 and can't say what the bandwidth is and what the range is I'm not gonna tell you what they cover but if you just take all the sensors, and kind of draw them out I'm like how far they would reach and how wide in a band they would reach and what bands. that are in and lay them down and compare them to any other fighter in the world have F-35 anything else to include the f-22_*
*_the amount of available information in different bands in different bandwidths and in different regimes. it is infinitely greater in an f-35 you have so much more information and then through fusion you're sharing and collaborating with all the other airplanes out there. it is impossible if you are a fourth gen to understand without seeing it from the inside and how much more awareness that you have_*
So, we see again:
The pilot notes that he has MUCH more information than everyone else. And they are starting grasp the concept of networked warfare. It is a new game, and one in which the command and control systems become an inverted pyramid structure.
This so called “network” effect is changing how we fight wars. People do not GET what is going on here.
But, I’ll explain it this way:
The AWACS is an old school outdated command and control center. So just like in those old war movies? You see that central room, they have a big map and they move around things with long sticks on the table with a map of the battle area.
Computers and networking? They turn the command pyramid on its head - inverted!!!
A great example of this? When the IMAX crew was climbing Mount Everest. There was a base camp command and control center. That was radios and information from the mountain flows to this command post. Maps on walls to chart progress of the climb.
But, it turns out people at home half way across the world had a BETTER PICTURE of what was going on the mountain. The reason of course this was one of the first climbs where the climbers on the mountain had small text devices, and they would text about their climb. As a result the people at home sipping tea had a BETTER picture than that military style command and control center RIGHT on the mountain.
You can now see what the above two F35 pilots are starting to note and see!!! That THEY ALREADY have better information than 3 folks in some AWACS staring at 3 silly radar screens.
We also find out that the success of the Israeli army was again based on NOT a central command posts, but those at the front line in the heat of the battle being better off to make the decisions. But you can only make such decisions if each of those people AT THE POINT of contact with the enemy have a networking system in place.
This concept is a game changer. Those F35's SEE MORE then a AWACS.
Lets explain the old way with a AWACS:
So here how the AWACS works:
AWACS: Viper 1, target at 180 - please engage.
Viper 1: I am low on fuel, I have to return to base.
AWACS: Maverick 1 - please engage target at 175
Maverick 1: I don’t have any missiles left rated for that range - someone else will have to do this
AWACS: IceMan 1 - please engage target at 170
Iceman 1: I am already engaging an emery jet. If I have to spend all day talking to you folks I am going to get killed.
AWACS: sorry folks - the enemy aircraft has already dropped it bombs and killed our troops on the ground.
Now, the new way - we turn up-side down the command structure!!!
Now, let’s try the above with F35’s, shall we?
EVERY SINGLE pilot in the area see’s that enemy jet. The pilot with the fuel, and weapons and in the best position to take on that jet? With ONE finger he touches his screen and now has taken and adopted and stated that target is taken, dealt with and is MY target!!! I own that target!!!
Every single other jet in an instant KNOWS that this target is taken care off - so NOW they go off and pick other targets.
Note that ZERO radio communication occurred here. With ONE simple finger touch EVERYONE knows that target is not to worry about, and they will thus move on to working and fighting other targets. (that is a force multiplier - no waste of targeting and allocating one fighter to the one target).
Notice how this is VERY similar to you booking or buying something on-line. You don’t go to a store. You don’t get put on hold on the phone while trying to talk to some clerk about what you want to buy at the store. You just do it “on line” and it not only instant, but you JUST eliminated the central command and control center. As I stated, information inverts and turn the command pyramid structure upside down. And it works MUCH better!!!
Not only do pilots see and share everything, but EVEN when ONE jet fires it missiles? Every other pilot can actually see on their screens the TIME to impact.
And you think 3 folks sitting side by side in that Hawkeye AWACS with 3 radar screens is REMOTE close to what the F35 pilot has and sees? Not even close!
And if you put up just 4 F35's - at 4 coverage corners of the fleet? They now COMBINE all their sensor data - they COMBINE the 4 quadrants. You don't see 3 contacts on a silly radar screen like in the AWACS, but the F35 combines ALL data - into one big battle theater picture - it is seamless integration of all sensor data - and from EVERY f35 flying. One silly AWACS does NOTHING close to this kind of coverage. And if you lose one F35, your network and battle theater information system is still intact. You lose that one AWACS - you are done. Worse yet, the AWACS does not shoot back like a F35 does. One AWACS sees 1/100th of what all the F35 flying can see. but it is the combined data picture that is the magic here. Welcome to the new world of networked information . This is why the internet is so powerful - it takes little bits and parts - and puts them all together. It is like one TV tower vs that of giving everyone in the city a cell phone - they are now all networked.
There is a BIG reason why Japan ordered 45 F35’s. When they figured out what the F35 can do? After they flew them, trained on them, and maintained them? If they were no good, they would not buy more. But they came back and ordered 100 more!
The reason of course is if Japan were to lose all of their command and control centers? With F35’s airborne, you have a flying internet and command and control system that can NOT be destroyed. Losing one F35 is only ONE node in the network.
And unlike an AWACS? F35 also shoot back!!!
The AWACS is an old school concept from the cold war.
Even some of the above pilot quotes don't grasp what is occurring here, but as above quotes show?
The pilots are stating they see more, know more, and get BETTER information from their F35's then what the AWACS are attempting to give to them - this is ALREADY occurring now!!!
so, F35's flying and providing protection to the air space ALSO results in all of them combining their information in to ONE picture - a picture far more complete then the AWACS flying around.
@@Albertkallal Brevity, Al.
So we payed for the carriers so the Americans can use. Outregous
Hilarious comments
How about buying 200 Avro Arrows instead of purchasing American ''high quality'' F35s.
Purchasing an aircraft canceled in 1959 would be what one should expect from a buffoon like Trudeau/Castro.
Because the f35 is better.
UK 🇬🇧Purchased 26 New F-35B Lightning 2s = purchased 26 NEW Play Station 5 Degital version🇺🇸🤝🤑🤔🇬🇧💶🤝🇺🇸🤔🤑
Tempest is on the horizon. Rather us commit to the tempest program, and unmanned drones, than buy a shiit load of f35bs, which will soon be obsolete. So long as we can maintain a fully loaded carrier at sea with f35s, then that's all good. The QE class carriers will eventually become fully automated platforms for unmmaed drones. Manned jets are coming to the end of their shelf life
Sure they are, just like the tank. Believe it if and when you see it...
@@99IronDuke Have you seen the Russian tanks in Ukraine? they are obsolete I'm glad we are cutting to 148 tanks.