Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Old 9th Jun 2013, 12:50
  #2761 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
John Farley,
Have you seen the price of mountain chair lifts in Switzerland? Not even my Swiss relatives can get me a discount.

I wondered whether the F35B could copy the Harrier publicity stunt ?

Were you present at the 40 Hunter formation at Buochs for the Swiss AF Hunter farewell?

Battle damage and maintenance, has been my first thought about the F35B.

Any thoughts about the Boeing VSTOL that lost to the F35?
Stuffy is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2013, 18:00
  #2762 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Stuffy
Any thoughts about the Boeing VSTOL that lost to the F35?
The one with a lower payload margin for a vertical landing?

The one with the need to change wing-form from a modified delta in its "X" version to a conventional wing/tail surface layout for the developmental version (and thus much greater risk of even more delays and cost increases than the Lockheed version has seen)?

Yes, the lift-nozzle scheme was a bit simpler... but its not like the lift-fan in the F-35B has shown reliability issues (once they got the doors sorted anyway).

The one with a MUCH greater vulnerability to FOD, thanks to that ground-scraping maw?
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2013, 22:07
  #2763 (permalink)  

Do a Hover - it avoids G
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 90
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Stuffy

The X32B used the Harrier/Pegasus concept of pure jet lift. The X35B used the shaft driven fan. They both used the same basic engine.

The better propulsive efficiency of any fan versus a pure jet meant that the same powerplant in the 35 was going to produce about a 25% increase in hover thrust compared to the 32. While the 35 had to carry extra weight in order to use the fan this did not anywhere near cancel out such a huge advantage. Additionally the 32 system for keeping the hot exhaust away from the intake when hovering close to the ground was weak compared to the solution with the 35 which proved to be excellent.

The 32 had much going for it in respect of being able to vector all installed thrust in combat and of course in reduced mechanical complexity but this was not in the end sufficient to compensate for the performance and recirculation issues.

Forget Switzerland please it is not relevant to the discussion going on here.

Last edited by John Farley; 9th Jun 2013 at 22:08.
John Farley is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2013, 14:37
  #2764 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,130
Received 317 Likes on 204 Posts
John: Thank you.

Stuffy: why?

ORAC: thanks for the trip down memory lane in re F-111. I suppose that it's problems helped make the Tomcat a great success. Silver linings to the cloud. The EF-111 turned out to be a fine strike package EW adjunct.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 10th Jun 2013 at 14:45.
Lonewolf_50 is online now  
Old 10th Jun 2013, 18:29
  #2765 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
The EF-111 turned out to be a fine strike package EW adjunct.
Using the EW package from the EA-6B the USN handed to the USAF.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2013, 18:57
  #2766 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,565
Likes: 0
Received 50 Likes on 44 Posts
VIDEO: First F-35A In-Flight Missile [AIM-120] Launch

First F-35A In-Flight Missile Launch

"Published on Jun 10, 2013
An F-35A conventional takeoff and landing aircraft completed the first in-flight missile launch of an AIM-120 over the Point Mugu Sea Test Range June 5, 2013. It was the first launch where the F-35 and AIM-120 demonstrated a successful launch-to-eject communications sequence and fired the rocket motor after launch -- paving the way for targeted launches."
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2013, 19:47
  #2767 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 553
Received 21 Likes on 15 Posts
Ownership of Technology

I wondered: new aircraft do push technical boundaries outwards so am I right to assume that even if they get cancelled, the next plane that was designed would almost inevitably benefit from a lot of things developed for or learned on the first one?

An engine, for example, could be the core of many planes. The software which is supposed to be so complex and powerful can presumably be used again too. The radar can be used in a helicopter and so on. In other words the billions spent on research aren't totally wasted.

So what I was wondering is, do the governments involved buy intellectual property rights to the technology that they are getting? Does it all belong to Lockheed (or whoever developed that subsystem) totally at the end?

Last edited by t43562; 10th Jun 2013 at 19:49.
t43562 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2013, 20:32
  #2768 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,565
Likes: 0
Received 50 Likes on 44 Posts
(EO)DAS for Ships

This info (or similar?) has been posted earlier on this forum probably. A good illustration of F-35 tech going to 'fish heads' (and they like it).

Silent Watch EO/DAS
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2013, 21:37
  #2769 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,130
Received 317 Likes on 204 Posts
GreenKnight, USAF liked it because it was faster.

Funny old thing, when EF-111 was put to bed, USAF had to fly Prowlers. Heh, not fast enough, but they seemed to work OK ...
Lonewolf_50 is online now  
Old 10th Jun 2013, 21:39
  #2770 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,130
Received 317 Likes on 204 Posts
So what I was wondering is, do the governments involved buy intellectual property rights to the technology that they are getting? Does it all belong to Lockheed (or whoever developed that subsystem) totally at the end?
Answer is: it depends. In a lot of cases, however, US Gov't has rights to quite a bit of the kit it buys. But I found out that some "proprietary" issues do not get released.

Huh? Yeah, it was a surprise to me twenty odd years ago ...
Lonewolf_50 is online now  
Old 10th Jun 2013, 23:07
  #2771 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bottom line: if the government paid for the technology development they have unlimited rights. If the contractor paid for the technology the government has “limited” rights which means it cannot pass along the technology data to other contractors.
Bevo is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2013, 00:25
  #2772 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So the US government has lowered the performance again.. (Flight International)

All three variants are having problems with their horizontal tails. "Horizontal tail surfaces are experiencing higher than expected temperatures during sustained high‑speed / high‑altitude flight, resulting in delamination and scorching of the surface coatings and structure," the report reads. "All variants were restricted from operations outside of a reduced envelope until the test team added instrumentation to the tailbooms to monitor temperatures on the tail surfaces."

Meanwhile, the F-35B and C variants continue to have issues with transonic roll-off and buffeting. On the F-35B, the program introduced vehicle systems software to reduce rudder and flaperon hinge moment in the transonic/supersonic region. "The program expected to see improvements in transonic wing roll-off with these changes, but results were not available at the end of November 2012," the report reads.

Transonic buffet is more severe on the F-35C compared to the other variants due to its larger wing. "The program is making plans for investigating how to reduce the impact of transonic roll-off in the F-35C with the use of wing spoilers; however, detailed test plans are not complete," the report reads.

Meanwhile, the aircraft's crucial helmet-mounted display still has problems with jittery images and is not meeting specifications for night vision acuity. Additionally, a new problem called "green glow" has been discovered where light from the cockpit avionics displays leak into the helmet-mounted display and degrade visual acuity. However, the image latency is now within tolerances. "Latency of the projected imagery from the DAS [distributed aperture system] is currently down to 133 milliseconds, below the human factors derived maximum of 150 milliseconds, but still requires additional testing to verify adequacy," the report reads.

Perhaps in worst shape is the F-35's software. According to the report, even the initial Block 1 software package is not complete, some 20% remains to be delivered and flight tested. An initial version of the more advanced, but still not combat capable, Block 2A software was delivered four months late to flight test. "In eight subsequent versions released to flight test, only a limited portion of the full, planned Block 2A capability (less than 50 percent) became available and delivered to production," the report reads. "The program made virtually no progress in the development, integration, and laboratory testing of any software beyond 2B. Block 3i software, required for delivery of Lot 6 aircraft and hosted on an upgraded processor, has lagged in integration and laboratory testing."

Meanwhile, structural durability testing continues, but the F-35B has hit a snag. "The program halted testing in December 2012 after multiple cracks were found in a bulkhead flange on the underside of the fuselage during the 7,000-hour inspection," the report reads. "Root cause analysis, correlation to previous model predictions, and corrective action planning were ongoing at the time of this report."

Lockheed could not immediately offer a substantive comment. "Our experts are going through it so it will be a while before we have detailed questions like yours answered," the company says, but adds, "From an Operational Test and Evaluation perspective, we fully expect to deliver a qualified product to OT&E as scheduled."
ITman is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2013, 03:00
  #2773 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,565
Likes: 0
Received 50 Likes on 44 Posts
Six Months Late

Six months late & already debated here AFAIK (14 Jan 2013):

Pentagon lowers F-35 performance bar
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2013, 07:11
  #2774 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: US
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I would hope it is faster than a “supercar”. Other than that, I guess he is easily impressed.

-Bill Sweetman, Just How Super is the F/A-18E/F?, Interavia Business & Technology, April 1, 2000-

-The Navy and Boeing have intensified a propaganda campaign. Unfortunately, the campaign is likely to damage their credibility in the long term, because it focuses on a few basic statements which don’t mean anything like as much as the casual reader is meant to think.

For example: “The airplane meets all its key performance parameters.” This is true. In 1998 — as it became clear that the Super Hornet was slower, and less agile at transonic speeds than the C/D — the Navy issued an “administrative clarification” which declared that speed, acceleration and sustained turn rate were not, and had never been, Key Performance Parameters (KPP) for the Super Hornet. Apparently, some misguided people thought that those were important attributes for a fighter.-

-Bill Sweetman, Watch Your Six Maverick, Interavia Business & Technology, February 1, 2000-

-The Navy’s operational evaluation (Opeval) of the Super Hornet ended in November, and the report is expected late in February. It will probably find the Super Hornet to be operationally effective and suitable, because the impact of any other recommendation would be devastating, but the Navy will have to do some deft manoeuvring to avoid charges that the report is a whitewash.-

-Bill Sweetman, Super Hornet gathers speed, but critics keep pressure on, Interavia Business & Technology, March 1, 1999-

-The Pentagon has conceded that the MiG-29 and Su-27 can out-accelerate and out-turn all variants of the F/A-18 in most operating regimes, and that the E/F in turn cannot stay up with the older C/D through much of the envelope.

Navy data from early 1996 (published in a General Accounting Office report) showed that the new aircraft was expected to have a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the late-production (Lot XIX) F/A-18C/D with the General Electric F404-GE-402 engine. Its maximum speed in a typical air-to-air configuration would be Mach 1.6, versus Mach 1.8 for the smaller aircraft. In the heart of the air-combat envelope, between 15,000 and 20,000 feet and at transonic speed, the Lot XIX aircraft would hold a specific excess power (Ps) of 300 ft/sec out to Mach 1.2, while its larger descendant could not hold the same Ps above Mach 1.0.-

Mind you, if the C flunks its carrier tests next year, all bets are off again, and I suspect that Boeing and the Navy's Rhino/Growler mafia are lighting candles in church and sacrificing goats to Cthulhu in hopes that it will do so.
really? why?
Killface is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2013, 07:42
  #2775 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,565
Likes: 0
Received 50 Likes on 44 Posts
AVM Criss (rtd): Super Hornet Super Dog quote

Ain't the internet grand - what a repository....

Nelson stands by fighter jet decision 15 Mar 2007 Reporter: Mark Bannerman, Australian Broadcasting Corporation | TV Broadcast

7.30 Report - 15/03/2007: Nelson stands by fighter jet decision

"KERRY O'BRIEN: Welcome to the program. When the Government announced it would be spending $6 billion to buy 24 new fighter bombers [Super Hornets] last week, the defence establishment might have been expected to applaud. But, if there was applause, it was seriously muted. The criticism wasn't. The Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, has come under sustained fire from a wide range of experts, including two former senior Air Force officers, who say the billions will be wasted on a poorly performed plane to fill a capability gap that isn't there. Now Mr Nelson is fighting back, saying it's a sound decision, for which he takes full responsibility. Mark Bannerman reports.

MARK BANNERMAN: It's sleek, it's fast. It's called the Super Hornet. And, if you believe the Government, it's the answer to our immediate strategic air needs.
BRENDAN NELSON, DEFENCE MINISTER: The Super Hornet, the Block 2, the most advanced version of it, is a very capable, very stealthy aircraft.
RICK MCCRARY, INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM DIRECTOR, BOEING: The Super Hornet Block 2 is a breakthrough aeroplane. Rugged long-life air frame, with great handling characteristics. It's been truly enhanced. It really makes it a next generation strike fighter.
MARK BANNERMAN: But it seems not everyone loves a Hornet.

AIR VICE-MARSHAL PETER CRISS (RET.): I am absolutely astounded that we're going to spend $6 billion of the taxpayers' money on an interim aircraft.
JOEL FITZGIBBON, OPPOSITION DEFENCE SPOKESMAN: The Super Hornet purchase is a $6 billion taxpayer funded election year fix. It's a patchup job.

MARK BANNERMAN: And it's not just the price that's stunned politicians and aviation experts, it is the plane itself.
PETER CRISS: I have trouble with the word 'super' and 'hornet', perhaps I would call it superdog or superbug, but certainly not a Super Hornet. The sting in the tail is not there.

MARK BANNERMAN: Peter Criss knows a thing or two about fighter planes and aircraft. He flew F 111s for longer than he cares to remember, and by the time he finished in the Air Force he was Air Commander Australia.
PETER CRISS: This thing will not survive in a fight now in our region - now, right now. Not another five years down the track, 10 years down the track. It is a dog...."
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2013, 13:15
  #2776 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pete Criss has no authority on the topic. No one who flies the SH gives any credence to his position, including the ex F111 guys. He is retired for a reason.
ftrplt is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2013, 15:46
  #2777 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Are you saying that if you know nothing about a particular programme, technology or aircraft (by which I mean having flown it, or developed it, and a couple of its contemporaries to arrive at an objective assessment of its capability) - that you really shouldn't express an opinion about it in public?

If only you'd laid that out 140 pages ago we could have saved a whole load of time!
orca is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2013, 18:26
  #2778 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 1,321
Received 98 Likes on 49 Posts
Originally Posted by orca
Are you saying that if you know nothing about a particular programme, technology or aircraft (by which I mean having flown it, or developed it, and a couple of its contemporaries to arrive at an objective assessment of its capability) - that you really shouldn't express an opinion about it in public?
No, everyone is entitled to make oneself look like a fool. Some simply take the opportunity to do so.

I attribute the mentioned statement exactly to this fact. Coupled with emotions related to the loss of a beloved bird.
Yes the SH isn't exactly the best sustained turn rate fighter in existance today. But coming from an F-111 this is ridiculous. The F-111 has some really good capabilities. Turning or A2A combat in any shape or form isn't one of them. At all.

On the other hand, with AESA, AIM120D, double JHMCS and AIM-9x I don't see any fighter aircraft in existance today which the SH really has to fear. It might not utterly dominate but it will absolutely be capable of holding its own against anything out there (bar an F-22).

Last edited by henra; 11th Jun 2013 at 18:27.
henra is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2013, 19:36
  #2779 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As clown club is often quoted here. Is Pete Criss only credible when he baggs the f-35?

henra, I'm hearing the f-35 is snotting the f-22's capability in full system sims, perhaps one day you will use the f-35 as a benchmark too
JSFfan is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2013, 19:44
  #2780 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,130
Received 317 Likes on 204 Posts
JSFFan, wait until they go out to Nellis and have a few 1 v 1 sorties, F-35 V F-22. That will answer questions a plenty.
Lonewolf_50 is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.