F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/10/08/the-netherlands-to-buy-nine-more-f-35s-for-11-billion/

COLOGNE, Germany – The Dutch government on Tuesday announced plans to purchase nine more of Lockheed Martin's F-35 jets, a move that would bring the country's inventory to 46. The envisioned €1 billion acquisition will “lay the foundation” for a third F-35 squadron in the Dutch air force, a plan that government officials first floated in late 2018, according to a statement posted on the defense ministry website.

The additional aircraft are expected contribute to the air force's objective of having four jets available for NATO missions while also performing homeland defense operations and accounting for training requirements and maintenance downtime. Fully rounding out a third squadron would require 15 extra planes, however, alliance officials have previously told the Dutch, prompting talk in the Netherlands last year of a potentially higher number eventually......

[weemonkey]

Burning through that already reduced airframe life? where are those who claimed that it wasn't an issue due to synthetic training reducing usage...you cant do Q in a sim!!!

Still good for LM!!!

[Finningley Boy]

Well that's almost as many as we have so far committed to. Then we're sharing 'tween the RAF and RN. Any word yet on the remaining potential 90? ie, are some likely to be A's?

FB

[RAFEngO74to09]

Italian AF F-35 x 6 now on the rotational Air Policing task at Incirlik, Iceland:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns1xprVPiBQ

[Harley Quinn]

Pretty sure the last time I went to Incirlik it was very firmly in Turkey. Has it been relocated in the vicinity of Reykjavik?

[RAFEngO74to09]

F-35 Joint Program Office has contracted for Lots 12-14, comprising 478 jets for US Military, Partner Nations & FMS customers: at $34Bn, largest ever; 17x jets for UK; 9% of all production done in the UK; & $80M-benchmark for F-35A delivered by Lot 13, a year earlier than plan.

https://twitter.com/Chf_Eng_Air/status/1189183212972437505

[RAFEngO74to09]

"Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded a $7,027,643,109 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, fixed-price-incentive-firm-target, cost-reimbursable contract (N00019-17-C-0001). This modification provides for the procurement of 114 F-35 aircraft for Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy; non-Department of Defense (DoD) participants, and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers. Specifically the modification procures 48 F-35A aircraft for the Air Force, 20 F-35B aircraft for the Marine Corps, nine F-35C aircraft for the Navy, 12 F-35A aircraft for the government of Norway, 15 F-35A aircraft for the government of Australia, and eight F-35A and two F-35B aircraft for the government of Italy. The above U.S. aircraft quantities are inclusive of fiscal 2019 (Lot 13) plus up aircraft. In addition, this modification adds scope for the Air System Diminishing Manufacturing Sources integration, software data loads, critical safety items, red gear, non-recurring engineering, recurring engineering and the Joint Strike Fighter Airborne Data Emulator. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (57%); El Segundo, California (14%); Warton, United Kingdom (9%); Cameri, Italy (4%); Orlando, Florida (4%); Nashua, New Hampshire (3%); Baltimore, Maryland (3%); San Diego, California (2%); Nagoya, Japan (2%); and various locations outside the continental U.S. (2%), and is expected to be completed in March 2023. Fiscal 2019 aircraft procurement (Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy); non-DoD participants; and FMS funds in the amount of $7,027,643,109 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This modification combines purchases for the Air Force ($2,812,512,346); Marine Corps ($1,297,487,314); Navy ($612,389,812); non-DoD participants ($2,243,321,947); and FMS ($61,931,690) customers. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity."
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2001094/

[RAFEngO74to09]

Contract for durability testing of F-35B to 8,000 flight hours / 30-year service life.

"Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded a $148,417,608 cost-plus-incentive-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee order (N00019-20-F-0301) against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-19-G-0008). This order procures durability testing support for the certification of the F-35B aircraft variant to a minimum of 8,000 flight hours/30 year service life in support of the Marine Corps and non-Department of Defense participants. The effort includes the test article configuration, the test article build, the test plan, the testing itself, and teardown and analysis. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (65%); Palmdale, California (25%); and Samlesbury, United Kingdom (10%), and is expected to be completed in July 2032. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation (Marine Corps) and non-DOD participant funds in the amount of $6,083,023 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity."

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/1999639/

[weemonkey]

Nice to see the longevity issues are already being addressed....

"drippingsarcasmsmiley"

[ORAC]

Not including those delivered in the first few tranches no doubt....

[Nige321]

Leeuwarden fireman selects foam rather than water to welcome Hollands first F-35...:p

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1053x622/73164968_10220616198855352_4360540726371549184_o_ebb4f6e9647 d1fb5e90a4b538beb5a5370f82af4.jpg

[Airbubba]

Folks, you just can't make this stuff up. ;)

Crash trucks at the Royal Netherlands Air Force's Leeuwarden Air Base were supposed to provide a water cannon salute to mark the arrival of the country's first operational F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (https://www.pprune.org/left=https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26424/behold-these-incredible-new-images-of-dutch-f-35s-soaring-over-california) to be based in the country, but covered it in firefighting foam by accident instead. The base firefighters had reportedly responded to an actual emergency involving an F-16 Viper fighter jet earlier and forgot to switch back to shooting regular water for the ceremony.

Amusingly, despite including pictures clearly showing the mixup, the official release makes no mention of the mixup. The foam is seen dripping from the plane as the pilot, Ian Knight, the commander of the 323 Test & Evaluation Squadron, exits the aircraft to greet a crowd including various government dignitaries.

"The air base fire department was on standby for the water salute when they were called to an actual emergency with an F-16," according to Reddit user krijgnog5eurovanje (https://www.pprune.org/left=https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/comments/dpr99c/the_first_operational_dutch_f35_accidentally_got/?utm_source=ifttt) "When they returned for the water salute they forgot to switch from 'foam' to 'water.'"

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30769/whoops-first-f-35a-based-in-the-netherlands-got-a-foam-bath-by-mistake

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1080/https_api_thedrive_com_wp_content_uploads_2019_10_foam_top_f 7b5d2e5121df58795fa3c2261e1ed815aadf860.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x800/https_s3_us_west_2_amazonaws_com_the_drive_cms_content_stagi ng_message_editor_252f1572551495409_thumbnail_d191031jd0004_ e3c88eb7fc418d868f7278d7bd97f0b879e1f169.jpg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x800/https_s3_us_west_2_amazonaws_com_the_drive_cms_content_stagi ng_message_editor_252f1572551480256_thumbnail_d191031jd0003_ 4dd5875e44fb6a55eb85e0d7d5b8741f62eacbd4.jpg
Picture credits: Dutch Ministry of Defence

[Flight Alloy]

Reports radar absorbing coating will need a depot level service after the spraydown.

[BEagle]

How much damage would this idiocy have caused to the aircraft, its stealth finish or engine?

These 'water salutes' really are rather silly.

[India Four Two]

Oh dear!

Scroll forward to 1:04:00

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=FHMKGP6kJyE

[Jhieminga]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/729x412/whatsapp_image_2019_10_31_at_15_38_28_a1522b17dca9db61d3b152 3cb0323efd5c3828a9.jpeg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/723x407/whatsapp_image_2019_10_31_at_15_40_03_44816b5544647ff3459842 55a1b74ed67bd53793.jpeg
Screenshots taken from the livestream.

Initial responses range from 'no problem' to 'Lockheed Martin recommends airframe requires a full teardown and rebuilt if at all salvageable' so the truth is somewhere in between I guess. An engine run with what appears to be a compressor wash was carried out later the same day (see below) so they did have some cause for concern I guess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzTkLkycjpQ

[falcon900]

I can just about buy that one of the fire tenders forgot to switch to water, but both of them........
A few lessons for some of our institutions though: Note to BBC, how to make over an hours TV coverage out of something that usually takes 20 seconds on the news, note to RAF, book a Tina Turner lookey-likey to spice things up next time we have a new aircraft delivered, much more 21st century...
Hat, coat

[AnglianAV8R]

CAPTION COMPETITION ANYONE ?

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1053x622/73164968_10220616198855352_4360540726371549184_o_ebb4f6e9647 d1fb5e90a4b538beb5a5370f82af4.jpg[/QUOTE]

I shall open the bidding with.... "Dutch AF deploys secret weapon and renders Russian AF helpless (with laughter) in one hit"

[Jhieminga]

Looking at the first image in AirBubba's post (and having seen the footage) I would hazard a guess that only one of the fire tenders was using foam, as the two sprays show different characteristics.

[EricsLad]

Caption suggestion - NSFW.

[TEEEJ]

The air base fire department was on standby for the water salute when they were called to an actual emergency with an F-16," according to Reddit user krijgnog5eurovanje. "When they returned for the water salute they forgot to switch from 'foam' to 'water.'

Also video at following link.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30769/whoops-first-f-35a-based-in-the-netherlands-got-a-foam-bath-by-mistake

[Treble one]

CAPTION COMPETITION ANYONE ?

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1053x622/73164968_10220616198855352_4360540726371549184_o_ebb4f6e9647 d1fb5e90a4b538beb5a5370f82af4.jpg

'Dutch Air Force Chief gets far too excited over his new toy'.

[Union Jack]

"Well, here's another *foam* mess you've gotten me into......" (With apologies to Laurel and Hardy)

Jack

[30mRad]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/729x412/whatsapp_image_2019_10_31_at_15_38_28_a1522b17dca9db61d3b152 3cb0323efd5c3828a9.jpeg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/723x407/whatsapp_image_2019_10_31_at_15_40_03_44816b5544647ff3459842 55a1b74ed67bd53793.jpeg
Screenshots taken from the livestream.

Initial responses range from 'no problem' to 'Lockheed Martin recommends airframe requires a full teardown and rebuilt if at all salvageable' so the truth is somewhere in between I guess. An engine run with what appears to be a compressor wash was carried out later the same day (see below) so they did have some cause for concern I guess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzTkLkycjpQ

And so the next candidate for the Caption Competition was unwittingly revealed....!

[Out Of Trim]

"I said Phone me.. Not Foam me!" :sad:

[ORAC]

https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2019/11/deceptive-pentagon-math-tries-to-obscure-100-million-price-tag-for-f-35/

......The Air Force’s fiscal year 2020 budget pays for the 48 F-35As in Lot 11 (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6534902-FY20-Air-Force-Procurement-Justification-Book.html#document/p57/a533438). The current $89.2 million dollar price the Pentagon uses is calculated by separating out just the costs for the airframe and the engine from the larger total procurement cost that includes ALIS, simulators, initial spare parts, and more to get to the artificially low $89.2 million. That is far from the whole story.

The Pentagon’s own budget documents list the FY 2020 procurement cost for those 48 aircraft as more than $101 million, nearly $12 million more than the figure rolled out for press reports. Using the Navy’s charts and the same math shows that the real costs for each F-35C is more than $123 (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6534949-FY20-Navy-Aircraft-Procurement.html#document/p65/a533441) million, while each F-35B costs in excess of $166 million (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6534949-FY20-Navy-Aircraft-Procurement.html#document/p79/a533442). But even that figure doesn’t tell the whole story........

[peter we]

What can you say, they are expensive. India paid $245million for each Rafale, while the French claim they cost 90million.

https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/indias-rafale-deal-what-the-controversy-is-all-about-1.1549975118566

[750XL]

We had the same thing happen at MAN a few years back on the inaugural Virgin ATL service, which subsequently had to be cancelled - They've never done a water cannon salute at MAN since.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3018369/Inaugural-Virgin-Atlantic-flight-cancelled-botched-water-cannon-salute-sees-firefighters-spray-plane-FOAM.html

[Mil-26Man]

Interesting tweet here quoting chief of the Luftwaffe's JG74 at Neuberg AB, who says Eurofighter went up against USAF F-35s in visual fight, and won four of four .

https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/1191728333324718086?s=19

[sandiego89]

Interesting tweet here quoting chief of the Luftwaffe's JG74 at Neuberg AB, who says Eurofighter went up against USAF F-35s in visual fight, and won four of four.

So a fighter in an air defense focused squadron beat a F-35 in a visual fight?.....I would imagine so, good for bragging rights at the bar (and on twitter) perhaps....

[M609]

The RNoAF declared IOC with 332 Sqn today at the end of a two week deployment away from their home base from Orland to Rygge.

[Mil-26Man]

So a fighter in an air defense focused squadron beat a F-35 in a visual fight?.....I would imagine so, good for bragging rights at the bar (and on twitter) perhaps....

Reading the thread, it's.interesting that the USAF pilots were the ones who requested the fight and who stipulated the rules.

[ORAC]

RAAF F-35 obsolete by 2030?

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/australia-s-f-35s-lessons-from-problematic-purchase

In a startling statement (https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/defence/give-raaf-more-s%E2%80%A6e-say-defence-chiefs/news-story/57f41e233a4f591e99593c06f7edb788) reported this month, two recent Air Force chiefs assert Australia has made some grave force structure errors. It seems the RAAF needs a new bomber, as the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter now entering service is inadequate for future strike operations. The chiefs’ intervention raises questions about how this could have happened and, given growing international tensions, how such expensive strategic missteps can be avoided.........

In 2017, USAF reviewed its air combat programs (https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/airpower/Air%20Superiority%202030%20Flight%20Plan.pdf) and determined that, all things considered, the F-35 would be unable to penetrate defended airspace past 2030. The logic underpinning this formal report was later explained publicly (https://warontherocks.com/2017/01/the-future-of-air-superiority-part-iv-autonomy-survivability-and-getting-to-2030/) by its lead author. The recent pronouncements by the retired RAAF chiefs are then unsurprising. They consider that the RAAF’s force structure is now passé, being unable to defend “our lines of communication or prevent the lodgment of a hostile power in the Indo-Pacific region.”

It suddenly seems the Air Force needs major recapitalisation, just as its force structure is being renewed at considerable cost. The retired chiefs are now calling for a “reset”, with significant new spending and possibly acquiring advanced bombers, cruise missiles, and unmanned aircraft – a laundry list reminiscent of the Howard government’s White Paper...........

[ACW367]

An Interesting Parliamentary Question response giving the next three years delivery schedule for the UK Lightning Force.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Lords/2019-10-29/HL520/

[ORAC]

At lest it looks like a possible solution to the comms interconnectivity problems the F-35 MADL and F-22 FDL. Presumably it can also act as an expendable combat node/BACN for L-16 etc.....

Alert 5 » USAF plans to use XQ-58A as datalink node between F-22 and F-35 - Military Aviation News (http://alert5.com/2019/11/13/usaf-plans-to-use-xq-58a-as-datalink-node-between-f-22-and-f-35/)

[Gnadenburg]

RAAF F-35 obsolete by 2030?

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/australia-s-f-35s-lessons-from-problematic-purchase

In a startling statement (https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/defence/give-raaf-more-s%E2%80%A6e-say-defence-chiefs/news-story/57f41e233a4f591e99593c06f7edb788) reported this month, two recent Air Force chiefs assert Australia has made some grave force structure errors. It seems the RAAF needs a new bomber, as the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter now entering service is inadequate for future strike operations. The chiefs’ intervention raises questions about how this could have happened and, given growing international tensions, how such expensive strategic missteps can be avoided.........

In 2017, USAF reviewed its air combat programs (https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/airpower/Air%20Superiority%202030%20Flight%20Plan.pdf) and determined that, all things considered, the F-35 would be unable to penetrate defended airspace past 2030. The logic underpinning this formal report was later explained publicly (https://warontherocks.com/2017/01/the-future-of-air-superiority-part-iv-autonomy-survivability-and-getting-to-2030/) by its lead author. The recent pronouncements by the retired RAAF chiefs are then unsurprising. They consider that the RAAF’s force structure is now passé, being unable to defend “our lines of communication or prevent the lodgment of a hostile power in the Indo-Pacific region.”

It suddenly seems the Air Force needs major recapitalisation, just as its force structure is being renewed at considerable cost. The retired chiefs are now calling for a “reset”, with significant new spending and possibly acquiring advanced bombers, cruise missiles, and unmanned aircraft – a laundry list reminiscent of the Howard government’s White Paper...........

An extraordinary "shopping list" likely to include the B21 Raider and ABM technology. This, after our JSF purchase, required an expensive government intervention and purchase of an interim fighter and a change of mind on needing Growlers to escort JSF. The interim Super Hornet purchase and the unexpected Growler buy, were both deemed unnecessary at early stages by RAAF chiefs.

You have to ask, what's wrong with RAAF leadership? If we are going to be equipped to fight China there's a lot more than big ticket items required. Look at Taiwan for example. Air base hardening and force dispersal. I think the taxpaying public would like to see a more pragmatic RAAF first, before asking for billion dollar bombers!

[flyinkiwi]

CAPTION COMPETITION ANYONE ?

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1053x622/73164968_10220616198855352_4360540726371549184_o_ebb4f6e9647 d1fb5e90a4b538beb5a5370f82af4.jpg

After all these years of waiting, you finally came!

[Asturias56]

An Interesting Parliamentary Question response giving the next three years delivery schedule for the UK Lightning Force.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Lords/2019-10-29/HL520/


So the RAF & the RN will have 35 by end 2022 of which 8 are the early development aircraft? How long will it take to reach the aspirational target of 138? At 8 per year I make it 2035.

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/11/14/the-pentagons-plan-to-save-the-f-35s-automated-logistics-system-is-hitting-roadblocks-over-proprietary-data-rights/The Pentagon plan to save the F-35’s logistics system hinges on whether Lockheed will relinquish data control

[airsound]

I would so like to believe that the F-35 is a wonder weapons system that will serve us as well as the Tornado did, or, in an earlier generation, the Spitfire. But we keep seeing new developments that call the whole concept into further doubt - as other posts just this month attest.

Now, here's another from defense-aerospace.comF-35 Operational Evaluation Suspended, Will Not Resume Before Mid-2020 https://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/207447/f_35-operational-evaluation-suspended-until-mid_2020-as-doubts-grow.html (https://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/207447/f_35-operational-evaluation-suspended-until-mid_2020-as-doubts-grow.html)

Explaining why he's suspending operational testing until next summer, Robert Behler, Director of IOT&E (Initial Operational Test and Evaluation), saysno F-35 variant meets the specified reliability or maintainability metrics. In short, [for] all variants, the aircraft are breaking more often and are taking longer to fix,
So, if we take that alongside the idea from Australia that the whole thing may become useless after 2030, it seems as if we have the most expensive weapons system ever produced, which will actually be in productive service for less than 10 years.

Have we all gone completely barmy?

airsound

[AnglianAV8R]

'Dutch Air Force Chief gets far too excited over his new toy'.


It was most remiss of me to not declare the winner sooner.

Treble One wins for his post. I had considered a similar opener, but bottled out.

[AnglianAV8R]

Explaining why he's suspending operational testing until next summer, Robert Behler, Director of IOT&E (Initial Operational Test and Evaluation), says
So, if we take that alongside the idea from Australia that the whole thing may become useless after 2030, it seems as if we have the most expensive weapons system ever produced, which will actually be in productive service for less than 10 years.
airsound

Which confirms that the F35 is an outright success on a scale that is likely to remain unsurpassed. It has exceeded all design objectives, particularly that of being a sink hole for money.

[weemonkey]

Have we all gone completely barmy?

Airsound

No doubt all those "jobs" and industrial offsets are "good value" as you will no doubt shortly be informed.
However the fact that 72% of the UK's total buy are not upgradeable to the final "base" wargoing standard should tell you all you need to know about "good value".

PS have they started to introduce external fuel carriage alongside finding a magic cure for chronically short fatigue life. :bored:

[golder]

An extraordinary "shopping list" likely to include the B21 Raider and ABM technology. This, after our JSF purchase, required an expensive government intervention and purchase of an interim fighter and a change of mind on needing Growlers to escort JSF. The interim Super Hornet purchase and the unexpected Growler buy, were both deemed unnecessary at early stages by RAAF chiefs.

You have to ask, what's wrong with RAAF leadership? If we are going to be equipped to fight China there's a lot more than big ticket items required. Look at Taiwan for example. Air base hardening and force dispersal. I think the taxpaying public would like to see a more pragmatic RAAF first, before asking for billion dollar bombers!

That article is a load of toss, that the F-35 is obsolete by 2030. ADF/Gov. aren't considering a dedicated bomber. It is wrong on many issues Including as you said, that the super Hornet wasn't to supplement the Legacy Hornets as a gap filler, because of F-35 delays. It was a political decision only, to replace the F-111 that retired. The RAAF made statements in parliament that the Super Hornet acquisition wasn't needed and the F-111 fleet could be retired without major risk.

[Gnadenburg]

The ex- Chiefs are both quoted as saying Australia may need to invest in a strategic bomber - which suggests the B21. May not be the RAAF's public position, but I'd imagine the rapid strategic upheaval and Australia's submarine fiasco, presents an emerging case for more long range firepower.

But as I mentioned above, there's pressing priorities beyond big ticket shopping lists, if China is imposing itself in Australia's part of the Pacific.

[Compass Call]

Sunday Express did an article on the new carrier today. Describing the F-35 that will fly from it they reported that the F-35 has a max speed of mach 6 !!
Is this correct? Or just another journo who has not bothered to check his facts?

[ORAC]

F-35 Demo Seen from Sunrise Mountain

https://youtu.be/mXfFvNAS0yQ

[Bigpants]

If one UK Carrier were equipped with the F35 and the other had the Russian S400 SAM system on its deck which would be the more effective airspace denial weapon?

Nothing fancy by way of integration just a landline from the S400 control cabin into the ships Ops Centre.

[ORAC]

Without a complete redesign to cope with a moving datum and a radar rolling and pitching with no data correction for guidance - the S400 would merely be deck cargo.

Then there is the issue that it designed to rearmed from trucks with special loaders - which won’t be present. It will also immediately start to degrade from the salt laden atmosphere, for which it is not designed.

Finally, of course, everything on a ship, including the bomb and missiles warheads , are designed to burn harmlessly in a shipboard fire rather than explode - and I doubt the relevant design work and tests were done for the S-400. So any sensible Captain wouldn’t allow them in his ship.

[SARF]

Probably not the one that got sunk by a submarine on day three out of port

[weemonkey]

F-35 Demo Seen from Sunrise Mountain



Is the orange light at the back to let everyone know it's not in stealth mode?

[ORAC]

I thought it was a pilot light, showing the gas was on....

[pasta]

If one UK Carrier were equipped with the F35 and the other had the Russian S400 SAM system on its deck which would be the more effective airspace denial weapon?

Nothing fancy by way of integration just a landline from the S400 control cabin into the ships Ops Centre.
Isn't most of that capability (and a lot more) provided by the Type 45 Destroyer(s) that will presumably be deployed alongside the carrier?

[Video Mixdown]

Probably not the one that got sunk by a submarine on day three out of port

The Russians don't use submarines to disable carriers. They just drop a crane on them.

What's big as a house, burns 20 liters of fuel every hour, puts out a ****load of smoke and noise and cuts an apple into three pieces?
A Soviet machine made to cut apples into four pieces.

[Bigpants]

I was suggesting that a SAM system on a ship is a more effective 24/7 air defence or airspace denial weapon than an F35.

I appreciate re the point above that one cannot bolt an S400 to a ship and expect it to work but there are some very effective marine SAM systems out there.

Nothing to stop an aircraft carrier using its own ASW helicopters plus its defensive screen including our own submarines to avoid the threat from enemy submarines.

I feel the F35 at sea is all about its ability to strike at the enemy which brings me back to the issue of cost effectiveness hence remain sceptical about the aircraft and choice of platform.

I would scrap/sell the carriers because we have not the means ($) to militarily deploy them and the UK's appetite for foreign adventures with the USA long gone.

[FODPlod]

I was suggesting that a SAM system on a ship is a more effective 24/7 air defence or airspace denial weapon than an F35.

I appreciate re the point above that one cannot bolt an S400 to a ship and expect it to work but there are some very effective marine SAM systems out there.

One of the principles of layered defence of any maritime force is that it makes much more sense to take out the archer(s) beyond shooting range than have to deal with all his/their arrows at closer range with shorter reaction times. What few leakers remain can then be handled by ASMD hard and soft kill measures and CIWS. That’s what the Type 45s are all about.

[Asturias56]

Problem is the F-35 sacrifices range for stealth.

Nothing wrong with that but it means a USN Carrier Group has to get a lot closer tho' the bad guys than they did 30 years ago - or invest even more in refueling and drones.

In 1976 the average range of a carrier airwing was around 950 miles - an F-35 has a range of around 680/700 miles

[RAFEngO74to09]

the UK's appetite for foreign adventures with the USA long gone.

Apparently not !

AOC 1 Gp has just been discussing Carrier Strike Group Ops in San Diego - including the joint deployment with USMC F-35Bs embarked in 2021.
"A great 2 days spent at NAS North Island with our @USNavy (https://twitter.com/USNavy) and @USMC (https://twitter.com/USMC) colleagues continuing with plans towards our joint Carrier Strike deployment on @HMSQNLZ (https://twitter.com/HMSQNLZ) in 2021. Thanks to our brilliant hosts and to the teams that have been doing great work to bring the whole effort together"

https://twitter.com/AOC_1_Group/status/1197162802831667200

Right now there is a US / UK Defense Conference taking place on HMS QNLZ

"This ship reflects the future... the Atlantic Future Forum exists to deepen the unique Defence and technology relationship between the US and UK” -- Admiral Tony Radakin CB ADC, First Sea Lord & Chief of the Naval Staff"

https://twitter.com/UKdefUS/status/1197555380827643904

There has also been a trilateral agreement just signed between US, UK and Japan

USN CNO "By signing this Trilateral agreement we strengthen our naval bonds & codify our continued dedication to a free & open maritime commons. There is much to celebrate in our trilateral relationship; indeed the whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

https://twitter.com/USNavyCNO/status/1197264610547716096

[BEagle]

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/427x422/new_picture_64168af23e8d41d35f96bf78bc273ebd4b590c62.jpg


The 3 admirals remind me so much of a certain sketch from The Frost Report of 1966:

https://youtu.be/9tXBC-71aZs

[airsound]

Forgive me if this has been covered - I haven’t seen it - but what happens when the (singular) engine fails during a shipborne ski-jump take-off? How is that planned for and handled? Is there, for instance, some equivalent for the V1 of a conventional runway take-off?

airsound

[Bob Viking]

I could never be considered an expert in F35 ops but I’m guessing the answer is to use the EJ seat. Just like every other single engine, carrier borne aircraft that was thus equipped.

For the F35 to have been spec’d with a single engine I feel sure that lots of clever people had to first be sure the engine was safe enough for that situation.

From my, Air Force, perspective carrier ops are inherently risky at any time. I don’t think the F35, of any variant, has ratcheted up the risk level in any appreciable way.

BV

[pr00ne]

airsound,

As this is the exact same criteria for the Sea Harrier, I expect it is planned for and handled in exactly the same way, as BV says, by ejecting promptly.

[safetypee]

air sound, et al,
there is no concept of V1 in a single engined aircraft. With engine failure, the aircraft is ‘no go’ :{, whereas the pilot, in this instance, is ‘go’. :)

As I recall there was discussion, even a requirement for ‘auto eject’ for seaborne STOL aircraft. The late JF presented this in review and history of vertical flight, and indicated that Russian aircraft had the capability, and had used it.
Adopting this for takeoff would be an interesting challenge.

After an interesting ‘pax’ flight off the experimental ramp at Bedford, JF related to an incident where an overseas evaluation pilot forgot to rotate the nozzles at ramp exit - not quite an engine failure, but … .

Is prevention of this aspect automated in the F-35 ?

[Mogwi]

air sound, et al,
After an interesting ‘pax’ flight off the experimental ramp at Bedford, JF related to an incident where an overseas evaluation pilot forgot to rotate the nozzles at ramp exit - not quite an engine failure, but … .

Is prevention of this aspect automated in the F-35 ?


Yes, several people (including me!) have forgotten the nozzles off the ramp. Actually it was no prob as long as you remained wings-level. It didn't half accelerate to wing-borne flight sharpish but picking a wing up would have been tricky.

More exciting was forgetting the flap; this resulted in a very close encounter with the oggin, a certain amount of spray, a change of long-johns and a heart attack for Wings.

Swing the lamp.

Mog

[BVRAAM]

Yes, several people (including me!) have forgotten the nozzles off the ramp. Actually it was no prob as long as you remained wings-level. It didn't half accelerate to wing-borne flight sharpish but picking a wing up would have been tricky.

More exciting was forgetting the flap; this resulted in a very close encounter with the oggin, a certain amount of spray, a change of long-johns and a heart attack for Wings.

Swing the lamp.

Mog

Sir,

Your endeavours in the South Atlantic were nothing short of legendary.

Thank you for your Service.

[NoHoverstop]

That particular "cognitive failure" has been designed out in in the sense that the F-35B has no nozzle lever. It has a throttle and a stick. The former is the means by which the pilot conveys to the aircraft a desire to go faster or slower, the latter does the uppy-downy-letfy-righty stuff (all relative to the pilot's seat, not necessarily relative to the surface of the planet). For ski-jumps, the aircraft detects that it's going up the ramp (there are some suitably unambiguous cues to the control software that this is what is happening) and behaves accordingly when it finds itself no longer supported by its wheels in a situation where it is briefly incapable of steady-state 1g flight.
...
After an interesting ‘pax’ flight off the experimental ramp at Bedford, JF related to an incident where an overseas evaluation pilot forgot to rotate the nozzles at ramp exit - not quite an engine failure, but … .

Is prevention of this aspect automated in the F-35 ?

[safetypee]

NoHoverstop, #12068, informative and interesting.
Would such an ‘intelligent’ system (F-35) be able to differentiate between the aircraft flight path required from a level deck (still aircraft referenced) and that from a downwards pitching deck.

I have no operational experience of such matters, although around the developments many years ago.
A few rides during the expansive ski jumps at large angles, and in the systems Harrier, and simulation and discussions during the development of the control concept.

[Rhino power]

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/01/not-a-straight-shooter-dod-review-cites-fleet-of-faults-in-f-35-program/?fbclid=IwAR3P_gAUnB-vqqmugSTNXE1qOL8TQ01GWKMHIxlBgFVosaCpCCKkOUm3I4A

-RP

[Rhino power]

LM Potentially Mixed Up Structural Fasteners in Most F-35s (https://www.airforcemag.com/lockheed-potentially-mixed-up-structural-fasteners-in-most-f-35s/?fbclid=IwAR1WwvztRYos9DKdC7YXzwTD82XcS22D1cfWyOzdaTCEWtFSpz k-EyEACd8#.XjiS0Ot7t9A.facebook)
Hundreds of F-35s could have the wrong fasteners in “critical areas,” according to the Defense Contract Management Agency. But F-35 builder Lockheed Martin says the problem may not need to be fixed.“All aircraft produced prior to discovery of this [problem] have titanium fasteners incorrectly installed in locations where the design calls for Inconel,” the F-35 Joint Program Office said in an email in response to a query from Air Force Magazine. “Because of this, the engineering safety analysis of the issue has assumed that each critical F-35 joint was assembled with the incorrect fasteners.”

Inconel is an alloy of nickel and chromium, and is supposed to be used in places where greater strength and corrosion resistance are required, while the titanium bolts are used in areas where its strength and lightness helps reduce weight. Titanium, however, has a lower shear strength than Inconel.

Both fasteners are called “eddie bolts” and are similar in appearance except for a number stamped on them. The titanium bolts cost about $5 apiece, while the Inconel parts cost about $20 each. A Lockheed spokeswoman said the two parts are “very difficult to distinguish, visually.”

The Lockheed spokesman said an initial analysis concluded that “titanium has sufficient strength in locations that called for Inconel eddie bolts.” Another Lockheed official said components are built with “twice the strength specified,” but he did not specify whether this was the case with the titanium eddie bolts.
-RP

[tdracer]

Both fasteners are called “eddie bolts” and are similar in appearance except for a number stamped on them. The titanium bolts cost about $5 apiece, while the Inconel parts cost about $20 each. A Lockheed spokeswoman said the two parts are “very difficult to distinguish, visually.”

Maybe not visually, but titanium bolts feel like feathers compared to steel or Inconel bolts - they are much lighter...
I've used both and I can't imagine not noticing the difference in weight - even on small (10/32) bolts.

[weemonkey]

Maybe not visually, but titanium bolts feel like feathers compared to steel or Inconel bolts - they are much lighter...
I've used both and I can't imagine not noticing the difference in weight - even on small (10/32) bolts.


Don't think, just do...what the drawing says..

"Hundreds of F-35s could have the wrong fasteners in “critical areas,” according to the Defense Contract Management Agency. But F-35 builder Lockheed Martin says the problem may not need to be fixed.“All aircraft produced prior to discovery of this [problem] have titanium fasteners incorrectly installed in locations where the design calls for Inconel,” the F-35 Joint Program Office said in an email in response to a query from Air Force Magazine. “Because of this, the engineering safety analysis of the issue has assumed that each critical F-35 joint was assembled with the incorrect fasteners.”

Boeing levels of assumption (not to mention quality controls) being displayed there..slap some paint over the top no one will spot it..

To paraphrase Joe Stalin "corrosion has a quality all of its own"

wonder if the weight reduction program may have led to an proposal drawing actually being adopted???

[tdracer]

Don't think, just do...what the drawing says..

Boeing levels of assumption (not to mention quality controls) being displayed there..slap some paint over the top no one will spot it..


Way to bash Boeing when we're talking about LockMart...
Pick up a steel or Inconel fastener and a titanium fastener of the same size, and tell me you can't tell the difference (and if you're paying for them, your wallet will notice as well)?
LockMart's explanation doesn't pass the sniff test.

[Tashengurt]

Seems to me that if you're relying on your staff to visually identify which fasteners to use you might just have some quality control issues?!

[LowObservable]

To have two parts that are identical in shape and fit but that meet different critical specs is a set-up for a classic Murphy.

[Lyneham Lad]

On Flight Global.

Poland signs F-35 contract worth $4.6bn (https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/poland-signs-f-35-contract-worth-46bn/136476.article)

Poland has signed a $4.6 billion contract to purchase 32 Lockheed Martin F-35As, with deliveries to start in 2024. Signed on 31 January at the Polish air force academy in Deblin, the deal also includes a training package and logistics support services.

To be produced in the F-35’s Block 4 configuration, the Polish aircraft will be equipped with electronic warfare equipment, plus a braking parachute, to increase landing safety in poor weather conditions. Deliveries are scheduled for the 2024-2030 period, at an annual rate of between four and six examples.

An initial six F-35As accepted in 2024 and 2025 will remain in the USA to support the training of pilots and maintenance personnel: most likely at Luke AFB, Arizona. This activity could include preparing 24 pilots and 90 technicians, some to the instructor level.

A subsequent batch of aircraft will be delivered to Poland in 2025 and 2026 to equip a first squadron, which should declare initial operational capability in 2026. Warsaw also will receive eight synthetic training devices for procedural and mission instruction.

Logistics support will be provided until 2030 under the deal, including use of the F-35’s Autonomic Logistics Global Support System and Autonomic Logistics Information System. Poland’s defence ministry says future operational and support costs will be determined after this date.

Warsaw has yet to decide where its F-35As will be based. Its military says candidate locations are the three sites where its current RAC MiG-29s and Sukhoi Su-22s are located (Minsk Mazowiecki, Malbork and Swidwin), plus another facility in central Poland, which has not been operational for more than a decade. Base modernisation work will cost between 700 million and 1.5 billion zlotys ($180-386 million), it adds.

A suite of weapons for the combat aircraft will be agreed by the Polish and US governments, with the potential for Warsaw to select munitions already employed by its Lockheed F-16s, or unique equipment.

Poland has declined possible offset business linked to the acquisition, however, including developing its maintenance capabilities for the F-16 and Lockheed C-130, noting: “The US proposals have not been satisfying considering the cost-effect ratio. Its cost will exceed $1 billion, and that money can be better spent for other modernisation programmes.

“Without being a member of the F-35 programme it would be much more difficult for Poland to acquire any production or maintenance capabilities for this aircraft,” it adds.

[Turbine D]

Don't think, just do...what the drawing says..

"Hundreds of F-35s could have the wrong fasteners in “critical areas,” according to the Defense Contract Management Agency. But F-35 builder Lockheed Martin says the problem may not need to be fixed.“All aircraft produced prior to discovery of this [problem] have titanium fasteners incorrectly installed in locations where the design calls for Inconel,” the F-35 Joint Program Office said in an email in response to a query from Air Force Magazine. “Because of this, the engineering safety analysis of the issue has assumed that each critical F-35 joint was assembled with the incorrect fasteners.”

Boeing levels of assumption (not to mention quality controls) being displayed there..slap some paint over the top no one will spot it..

To paraphrase Joe Stalin "corrosion has a quality all of its own"

wonder if the weight reduction program may have led to an proposal drawing actually being adopted???
weemonkey, your post is most confusing. It has nothing to do with Boeing or are you confused as to which supplier is responsible for design, manufacturing, assembly and testing the F-35 fighter aircraft? The supplier of the F-35 is Lockheed-Martin, LM for short. The program is on going for 20 years or more now, with no end in sight. It is a political aircraft. LM sold their soul to the devil when they agreed to source components in roughly 48 of the 50 States to make Congress happy and be awarded the business plus what was needed to be sourced outside the USA to draw in foreign customers. The result of all of this in 2020 is that none of the three versions are ever going to meet the original LM promised capabilities. As it now stands, there are 873 deficiencies existing that need to be fixed. The problem is, as some of the older deficiencies are fixed, new one are found. The example today being titanium fasteners being placed in critical areas that were supposed to receive Inconel fasteners.

tdracer is correct, a huge difference is weight, titanium lighter, Inconel much heavier. As for visual differences, there is a number stamped on each fastener to distinguish one from another, e.g., titanium from Inconel. Now inserting fasteners seems to me to be a rather boring job on the factory floor, sort of like the repetitive sandblasting job. Nevertheless, training and monitoring the results of training are significant factors in acceptable quality control.

Hopefully, LM is correct in asserting the titanium fasteners will be okay and will not need to be replaced in the critical locations. Then the 874 known deficiencies can be reduced to 873 assuming another new deficiency isn't found right away.

Insofar as Stalin is concerned, hopefully the correct fasteners were used in his coffin to prevent corrosion and early release of the contents.

[Kiltrash]

Heads Up

Just seen on UK tv Yesterday channel a 'new' documentary about the F35 Lightning II. Not expecting anything secret but...
Had not seen it before

K

[RAFEngO74to09]

Weapons integration with Block 4 - including Meteor for UK and B-61 Mod 2 nuke for USAF and relevant NATO partners (see qty 2 in weapons bay at 6:22 in video):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njbYW3sgD2U

[Rhino power]

What was the animation of a B61 being dropped on London all about at 6:50?

-RP

[etudiant]

What was the animation of a B61 being dropped on London all about at 6:50?

-RP
That was the reminder to not have Huawei build the UK 5G network.

Mod Note: For those wishing to continue the F-35 general discussion, please do so in the new thread here. (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/630295-f-35-thread-mk-ii.html)