F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Taking out the double digits is a UCAV mission if ever I saw one.
Not to say that we can guarantee to do it, today, but if you look at what Neuron is planning for its capstone test, it's not hard to see what they're thinking about for a target.
Not to say that we can guarantee to do it, today, but if you look at what Neuron is planning for its capstone test, it's not hard to see what they're thinking about for a target.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez,
When I started this thread it was for little more than 'what if' conjecture; look what's happened since then...
No-one will ever accuse me of being a gifted mathematician, but surely so much money - and R & D effort - has gone into the F-35,( alright the 'B' may have a slight question mark, personally I think will prove very useful in time ) - the CTOL variants especially would seem a lot too good right now to turn down at this stage ?
The snag of course is if by U.S. standards pitifully low numbers are ordered, making unit price frightening; I would have thought this has already happened to the F-22, are there really enough for a serious war ?
Another thing strikes me; a UK 'advisor' would presumably choose to keep Tornado over Harrier, if there are going to be NO decks to operate from, I understand the POW will not have cat'n trap ?
Making POW a hell of an expensive helicopter carrier and not much point at all now the UK F-35B is gone. I know it's already been said she'll go once the QE is around, but why wait, with no STOVL aircraft of any kind available ?
If that's correct, my original thoughts when the build contract was placed may prove correct, the 'easy to fit cat n'trap facility' is to make her more attractive to foreign buyers, the only look the RN will get will be as she goes past on delivery.
I hope the F-35 survives, but I have grave doubts the UK will get any, unless we somehow get a government in the meantime.
When I started this thread it was for little more than 'what if' conjecture; look what's happened since then...
No-one will ever accuse me of being a gifted mathematician, but surely so much money - and R & D effort - has gone into the F-35,( alright the 'B' may have a slight question mark, personally I think will prove very useful in time ) - the CTOL variants especially would seem a lot too good right now to turn down at this stage ?
The snag of course is if by U.S. standards pitifully low numbers are ordered, making unit price frightening; I would have thought this has already happened to the F-22, are there really enough for a serious war ?
Another thing strikes me; a UK 'advisor' would presumably choose to keep Tornado over Harrier, if there are going to be NO decks to operate from, I understand the POW will not have cat'n trap ?
Making POW a hell of an expensive helicopter carrier and not much point at all now the UK F-35B is gone. I know it's already been said she'll go once the QE is around, but why wait, with no STOVL aircraft of any kind available ?
If that's correct, my original thoughts when the build contract was placed may prove correct, the 'easy to fit cat n'trap facility' is to make her more attractive to foreign buyers, the only look the RN will get will be as she goes past on delivery.
I hope the F-35 survives, but I have grave doubts the UK will get any, unless we somehow get a government in the meantime.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
No-one will ever accuse me of being a gifted mathematician, but surely so much money - and R & D effort - has gone into the F-35,( alright the 'B' may have a slight question mark, personally I think will prove very us......to turn down at this stage ?
.......The aircraft suffered numerous problems throughout its development, especially with the materials, and when the projected cost of each aircraft ballooned to an estimated US$165 million, the project was canceled by then-Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, in January 1991......
After the cancellation of the A-12, the Navy elected to buy the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which replaced the A-7, the A-6, and the F-14.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, I don't know; I expect the TSR2 would have just about got the bugs out about now...
Thing is, surely cancelling at this stage would be something of a blow ( ! ) to industry, and there's the worry of 'other' advanced projects stealing a march; I freely admit I've been following the 'B', so don't know much of how the CTOL's are doing.
Thing is, surely cancelling at this stage would be something of a blow ( ! ) to industry, and there's the worry of 'other' advanced projects stealing a march; I freely admit I've been following the 'B', so don't know much of how the CTOL's are doing.
DZ - We are at the "Houston, we have a problem" stage with F-35.
One immediate issue is that, for not well explained reasons, the program is slipping in flight test, aircraft delivery and (according to the SecDef's flack) software development, all of which are later than anyone thought they were in March. Somewhere along the line, people haven't been telling the boss about the problems.
Another is cost. If the jet does not come down the learning curve as planned, a lot of international partners will watch their affordable force decline through the 30-40 aircraft mark. The USAF won't be able to afford 80 jets a year. Where do costs and numbers settle out?
A lot of money has been spent, true - but much more remains to be spent, in production and operations and support. The B is going to be very costly to maintain, with a lower engine life and lots of hot moving parts - but if we take that out where does it leave us? What's the operational penalty of an F-35A and F-35C that are variants of the STOVL aircraft (they would be very different if there were no B, with two engines, longer and leaner)? The comparison of the C, for example, with a Super Rhino is not the slam-dunk affair that the Fort Worth PowerPoint Rangers would have you believe.
Just my 38 trillion cents worth...
One immediate issue is that, for not well explained reasons, the program is slipping in flight test, aircraft delivery and (according to the SecDef's flack) software development, all of which are later than anyone thought they were in March. Somewhere along the line, people haven't been telling the boss about the problems.
Another is cost. If the jet does not come down the learning curve as planned, a lot of international partners will watch their affordable force decline through the 30-40 aircraft mark. The USAF won't be able to afford 80 jets a year. Where do costs and numbers settle out?
A lot of money has been spent, true - but much more remains to be spent, in production and operations and support. The B is going to be very costly to maintain, with a lower engine life and lots of hot moving parts - but if we take that out where does it leave us? What's the operational penalty of an F-35A and F-35C that are variants of the STOVL aircraft (they would be very different if there were no B, with two engines, longer and leaner)? The comparison of the C, for example, with a Super Rhino is not the slam-dunk affair that the Fort Worth PowerPoint Rangers would have you believe.
Just my 38 trillion cents worth...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The JSF was seen as the last manned bomber as UAVs would form the next generation.
The JSF needs F-18 Growler EW support to penetrate double digit defences, and both need AAR and other support. UAVs will be able to operate in that environment without risking crew, and with expected 48-72 hour endurance.
The problem for the JSF is that it's slipped so far to the right than UAVs able to perform those roles will be available around the same time it's now planned to enter service.
There's a case for a limited JSF buy, to ensure a fallback option if the UAVs prove to problems, probably around the size of the F-22 force.
But I think the majority of the purchase will be scrapped and replaced by the X-45/47 etc.
The JSF needs F-18 Growler EW support to penetrate double digit defences, and both need AAR and other support. UAVs will be able to operate in that environment without risking crew, and with expected 48-72 hour endurance.
The problem for the JSF is that it's slipped so far to the right than UAVs able to perform those roles will be available around the same time it's now planned to enter service.
There's a case for a limited JSF buy, to ensure a fallback option if the UAVs prove to problems, probably around the size of the F-22 force.
But I think the majority of the purchase will be scrapped and replaced by the X-45/47 etc.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC / LO / DZ
A most interesting discussion. As LO so memorably puts it:
Quite!
The case for Dave-A seems clear to me; there are lots of F-16s that will need replacing over the next 15 years, and when the USAF decided to go down an "As Stealthy As Possible" (ASAP?!) policy in the early 90s, it seems to have been decided that the High/Low mix of F-15 / F-16 would be replicated in F-22 / Future Stealthy Attack Jet that became JAST and then JSF. The rationale for an ASAP force seems to be a(n extremely expensive) combination of the USAF determination to maintain "Air Dominance" and also to be able to take on modern IADS beyond S-400 / S-500 without unacceptable casualties. (For the record, good luck with that.)
But once the USAF decided on JSF and not F-16 Block 60/70/80 or whatever, then the die was cast - something the other side of 1,500 Dave-As are required. For the allied F-16 / F-18 (and in Turkey and Japan, F-4 operators) without the domestic capability or willingness to design their own, then JSF became the only game in town - so I expect 250 - 500 export orders, dependent on price, and these will be largely Dave-A.
For the USN, Dave-C seems at once more and less important. It is vital if the USN want to play as equals with the USAF ASAP concept off the CVs, but if F-18G Growler works as advertised, then there is a credible fallback in a F-18E/F/G airwing out to 2030 or so - because not every (indeed, hopefully very few) states of concern will be mounting S-400 / S-500 led IADS, and therefore a legacy Gen 4+ fleet still has a credible role to play. For allied nations in the cat-n-trap game, the same choices apply.
For the UK, this means Dave-C if we want the QE-class airwing to go beyond 2030 - it would be a pretty average return on investment to have to bin the jets after 10 years or so (and no, because it would be a crap decision doesn't necessarily mean that the MoD will make it - it merely increases the change of them making it!
) But the UK is probably unique in this - I can't think of another western ally planning on CTOL CVs without an indigenous CV design.
But the rationale for Dave-B has never stacked up for me - the ConOps of Dave-B in USMC service seem barmy - "we need a stealthy platform to go ashore with a MEU / MAGTAF when the USN can't be arsed to send a CVBG". Really? So unlikely as to be untrue - and madly expensive into the mix. I know that the Italians, Armada Espana and the Israelis may be upset, but with fiscal pressures the way they are, there's just no basis for continuing with Dave-B.
And yes, F-136 is critical in making sure that the F-135 programme stays on track - the 1980s Great Engine War was the best possible advert for competitive selection as both F100 and F110 programmes consistently upped their games.
S41
A most interesting discussion. As LO so memorably puts it:
Just my 38 trillion cents worth...
The case for Dave-A seems clear to me; there are lots of F-16s that will need replacing over the next 15 years, and when the USAF decided to go down an "As Stealthy As Possible" (ASAP?!) policy in the early 90s, it seems to have been decided that the High/Low mix of F-15 / F-16 would be replicated in F-22 / Future Stealthy Attack Jet that became JAST and then JSF. The rationale for an ASAP force seems to be a(n extremely expensive) combination of the USAF determination to maintain "Air Dominance" and also to be able to take on modern IADS beyond S-400 / S-500 without unacceptable casualties. (For the record, good luck with that.)
But once the USAF decided on JSF and not F-16 Block 60/70/80 or whatever, then the die was cast - something the other side of 1,500 Dave-As are required. For the allied F-16 / F-18 (and in Turkey and Japan, F-4 operators) without the domestic capability or willingness to design their own, then JSF became the only game in town - so I expect 250 - 500 export orders, dependent on price, and these will be largely Dave-A.
For the USN, Dave-C seems at once more and less important. It is vital if the USN want to play as equals with the USAF ASAP concept off the CVs, but if F-18G Growler works as advertised, then there is a credible fallback in a F-18E/F/G airwing out to 2030 or so - because not every (indeed, hopefully very few) states of concern will be mounting S-400 / S-500 led IADS, and therefore a legacy Gen 4+ fleet still has a credible role to play. For allied nations in the cat-n-trap game, the same choices apply.
For the UK, this means Dave-C if we want the QE-class airwing to go beyond 2030 - it would be a pretty average return on investment to have to bin the jets after 10 years or so (and no, because it would be a crap decision doesn't necessarily mean that the MoD will make it - it merely increases the change of them making it!
) But the UK is probably unique in this - I can't think of another western ally planning on CTOL CVs without an indigenous CV design. But the rationale for Dave-B has never stacked up for me - the ConOps of Dave-B in USMC service seem barmy - "we need a stealthy platform to go ashore with a MEU / MAGTAF when the USN can't be arsed to send a CVBG". Really? So unlikely as to be untrue - and madly expensive into the mix. I know that the Italians, Armada Espana and the Israelis may be upset, but with fiscal pressures the way they are, there's just no basis for continuing with Dave-B.
And yes, F-136 is critical in making sure that the F-135 programme stays on track - the 1980s Great Engine War was the best possible advert for competitive selection as both F100 and F110 programmes consistently upped their games.
S41
But the UK is probably unique in this - I can't think of another western ally planning on CTOL CVs without an indigenous CV design.
Given that there are probably only two or three nations (four if you count the PRC Flanker knock-offs) on the planet actually producing naval fixed-wing aircraft and no nations producing STOVL carriers (not LHAs) with indigenous aircraft, that's probably not a particularly unique situation, now or in future........
Given that there are probably only two or three nations (four if you count the PRC Flanker knock-offs) on the planet actually producing naval fixed-wing aircraft and no nations producing STOVL carriers (not LHAs) with indigenous aircraft, that's probably not a particularly unique situation, now or in future........
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I know that a number of our antipodean cousins don't have any time for Dr Kopp, but I post this link as a point of discussion of the survivability of the F-35B/C in the pacific basin if the USN ever had to tangle with the PLAAF around Taiwan during the next 30 years.
What China's New J-20 Stealth Fighter Means for the F-35 JSF and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
.......Over the past few days, images have emerged of the new Chinese Stealth Fighter, the J-XX or the J-20. On the 29th January 2010, the Russians first flew the PAK-FA, and the Su-35S, which first flew on 28th February 2008, is expected to achieve IOC in early 2011. Meanwhile, back at the US fighter-farm, the JSF which first flew on 15th December 2006, has experienced continuing difficulties with the STOVL version and is likely to enter a substantial re-design programme in 2011, adding more years and even greater costs to the already frequently-extended development phase.
By the time the F-35 makes IOC (if it ever does) it will be, to use that well-known technical term, ‘toast’.
Even if an extensive redesign produces an aircraft that meets the March 2000 Joint Operational Requirements Document (JORD), the “Su-35S, PAK-FA, J-20 world” of 2015-2020 will be much different than the “Su-27S, MiG-29 world” that existed when the JORD was first released. Most astonishingly, when gross cost overruns forced a review of the program, the JORD specifications were not updated to encompass the 2015 - 2025 air combat environment. Instead, during the ensuing process that followed the Nunn-McCurdy Breach, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) re-verified and re-validated the F-35 JSF Operational Requirements Document of March 13, 2000, as representing a capability “essential to the national security” (refer JROCM 078-10 dated May 20, 2010). And people wonder why some refer to the Nunn McCurdy process as the “codification of silliness, if not mendacity and misfeasance”?
And if the F-35 is ‘toast’ that makes the F/A-18E/F ‘cinders’ – this 1985 ‘old wine in a new bottle’ aircraft has some fancy new electronics, but none that will save it from destruction in combat. Like the distracted car driver, the crews of the F-35 and the F/A-18E/F can be fully informed by watching the dancing digital displays, but they cannot avoid the inevitable crash...........
What China's New J-20 Stealth Fighter Means for the F-35 JSF and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
.......Over the past few days, images have emerged of the new Chinese Stealth Fighter, the J-XX or the J-20. On the 29th January 2010, the Russians first flew the PAK-FA, and the Su-35S, which first flew on 28th February 2008, is expected to achieve IOC in early 2011. Meanwhile, back at the US fighter-farm, the JSF which first flew on 15th December 2006, has experienced continuing difficulties with the STOVL version and is likely to enter a substantial re-design programme in 2011, adding more years and even greater costs to the already frequently-extended development phase.
By the time the F-35 makes IOC (if it ever does) it will be, to use that well-known technical term, ‘toast’.
Even if an extensive redesign produces an aircraft that meets the March 2000 Joint Operational Requirements Document (JORD), the “Su-35S, PAK-FA, J-20 world” of 2015-2020 will be much different than the “Su-27S, MiG-29 world” that existed when the JORD was first released. Most astonishingly, when gross cost overruns forced a review of the program, the JORD specifications were not updated to encompass the 2015 - 2025 air combat environment. Instead, during the ensuing process that followed the Nunn-McCurdy Breach, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) re-verified and re-validated the F-35 JSF Operational Requirements Document of March 13, 2000, as representing a capability “essential to the national security” (refer JROCM 078-10 dated May 20, 2010). And people wonder why some refer to the Nunn McCurdy process as the “codification of silliness, if not mendacity and misfeasance”?
And if the F-35 is ‘toast’ that makes the F/A-18E/F ‘cinders’ – this 1985 ‘old wine in a new bottle’ aircraft has some fancy new electronics, but none that will save it from destruction in combat. Like the distracted car driver, the crews of the F-35 and the F/A-18E/F can be fully informed by watching the dancing digital displays, but they cannot avoid the inevitable crash...........
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A point that does not get much (enough?) airing in these sort of debates is the effect of numbers.
Five modern wonders having expended their weapons (with 100% kills) could still be quite poorly placed if there were 20 more of these oldies still in the area.
Five modern wonders having expended their weapons (with 100% kills) could still be quite poorly placed if there were 20 more of these oldies still in the area.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
I take it that's why people are keen on things like F-18 & 16's, spiffing as long as there ARE large numbers of well equipped versions of those !
I do think the F-22 was produced in too low a number, which looks like being repeated with the F-35; a spectacular example of this sort of thing being the UK Type 45 Destroyer ( seems like a cruiser to me but still, the 'Through Deck Cruisers' looked remarkably like Aircraft Carriers! ) - 12 ordered, cut to 6 delivered at twice the price.
I rather doubt we could actually have got 12 for the same price, but I really hope someone without an agenda actually bothered to find out...
I take it that's why people are keen on things like F-18 & 16's, spiffing as long as there ARE large numbers of well equipped versions of those !
I do think the F-22 was produced in too low a number, which looks like being repeated with the F-35; a spectacular example of this sort of thing being the UK Type 45 Destroyer ( seems like a cruiser to me but still, the 'Through Deck Cruisers' looked remarkably like Aircraft Carriers! ) - 12 ordered, cut to 6 delivered at twice the price.
I rather doubt we could actually have got 12 for the same price, but I really hope someone without an agenda actually bothered to find out...
Perhaps someone might start an F35 fund?! You know, like they had thins like Spitfire funds back in the Second World War. For example, ppruners could get together with people on Fighter Control and UKAR in order to co-ordinate a fund raising campaign in order to buy a F35. That way the R.A.F./R.N. would be sure of getting at least one!
Furthermore, we could have the right to have personalized messages carried on the airframe or something.
FB
Furthermore, we could have the right to have personalized messages carried on the airframe or something.
FB
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Glesga, Scotland
Age: 51
Posts: 230
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there not room for what they did with the Boeing/Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche, scrub it but take what they developled for it and put on currant platforms???
Am I not right saying a lot off the R&D that was done ended up on the Apache etc ! So could some off the F35 systems not end up on the legacy F18's etc ??
Am I not right saying a lot off the R&D that was done ended up on the Apache etc ! So could some off the F35 systems not end up on the legacy F18's etc ??
Last edited by fallmonk; 2nd Jan 2011 at 08:22. Reason: Spelling errors
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Cure for the aux inlet door hinge problem. Let's hope that the result isn't lift-fan door hinge problems! The additional load on the fully open door as speed increases must be substantial.
Hmmm, sideslip issues on a VTOL jet in the hover, how unexpected......
Ares: Lockheed Sneaks Another F-35 Under the Wire
.........To achieve clearance for ship trails, the F-35B must complete 40 vertical landings in a range of conditions. The program has only done 10 since March 2010, seven of which count towards the total required. STOVL-mode testing was suspended in September, when premature wear on auxiliary-inlet door hinges was discovered. Vertical landings are expected to resume in January.
Auxiliary doors are aft of the lift-fan door (here open to 65deg)
Hinge wear has been traced to higher-than-predicted airloads on the auxiliary doors. Components have been redesigned, but the main fix is to change the operation of the large lift-fan door forward of the auxiliary-inlet doors. Flight tests have shown that, when the lift-fan door is fully open, loads on the auxiliary doors are reduced.
Originally, the lift-fan door was scheduled to open to 65deg below 120kt in semi-jet-borne flight, and to 35deg above that airspeed. Now the door will stay fully open to 165kt to reduce the loads on the auxiliary-inlet doors. Lockheed's JD McFarlan, who is now in change of the test program, says the change does not significantly impact short take-off performance.
Investigation of the hinge-wear problem also revealed a lot of variation of the loads on the auxiliary doors caused by aircraft sideslip, so McFarlan says the flight-control software has been adjusted to tailor the slideslip characteristics in semi-jet-borne flight.........
Hmmm, sideslip issues on a VTOL jet in the hover, how unexpected......
Ares: Lockheed Sneaks Another F-35 Under the Wire
.........To achieve clearance for ship trails, the F-35B must complete 40 vertical landings in a range of conditions. The program has only done 10 since March 2010, seven of which count towards the total required. STOVL-mode testing was suspended in September, when premature wear on auxiliary-inlet door hinges was discovered. Vertical landings are expected to resume in January.
Auxiliary doors are aft of the lift-fan door (here open to 65deg)
Hinge wear has been traced to higher-than-predicted airloads on the auxiliary doors. Components have been redesigned, but the main fix is to change the operation of the large lift-fan door forward of the auxiliary-inlet doors. Flight tests have shown that, when the lift-fan door is fully open, loads on the auxiliary doors are reduced.
Originally, the lift-fan door was scheduled to open to 65deg below 120kt in semi-jet-borne flight, and to 35deg above that airspeed. Now the door will stay fully open to 165kt to reduce the loads on the auxiliary-inlet doors. Lockheed's JD McFarlan, who is now in change of the test program, says the change does not significantly impact short take-off performance.
Investigation of the hinge-wear problem also revealed a lot of variation of the loads on the auxiliary doors caused by aircraft sideslip, so McFarlan says the flight-control software has been adjusted to tailor the slideslip characteristics in semi-jet-borne flight.........
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC
Hmmm, sideslip issues on a VTOL jet in the hover, how unexpected....
I can think of no VSTOL aircraft that has a sideslip problem in the hover - but plenty that do during transition.
Airspeed dear boy - it is what brings aerodynamics into the act.
Originally, the lift-fan door was scheduled to open to 65deg below 120kt in semi-jet-borne flight, and to 35deg above that airspeed. Now the door will stay fully open to 165kt to reduce the loads on the auxiliary-inlet doors. Lockheed's JD McFarlan, who is now in change of the test program, says the change does not significantly impact short take-off performance.
Closely followed by problems with the lift fan door and associated mounting/hinge/actuator structure
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave-B under the spotlight
Boeing 747 and Airbus A380 Aircraft News from Flightglobal
Looks like it's going to be tough on Dave-B now.
S41
Looks like it's going to be tough on Dave-B now.
S41