PDA

View Full Version : The F35 and CAVOK


Cacophonix
15th Jul 2014, 22:12
I am off to Farnborough tomorrow but apart from the whimsical hope of a good bottle of champagne and the certainty of good weather I will not see the F35.

Does this chimera exist? As a British tax payer I want to know.

What do aviation minded PPRuNers think?

If this constitutes a thought crime on PPRuNe's JB I thank you!

Caco

Dushan
15th Jul 2014, 22:23
Shoot a couple of videos and post them here. On second thought, never mind.

con-pilot
15th Jul 2014, 22:30
I am off to Farnborough tomorrow but apart from the whimsical hope of a good bottle of champagne and the certainty of good weather I will not see the F35.


Last I heard the Marine Corps F-35B is supposed to be there.

But I think that changes from minute to minute.

Dushan
15th Jul 2014, 22:36
It is stealth, so even if it is there, you won't see it.

Cacophonix
15th Jul 2014, 22:38
On second thought, never mind.

You should care!

Methinks you Canadian folks have bought some of these things as well. Fly like a swallow or gobble like a Turkey (I leave that you)...

Caco

Fox3WheresMyBanana
15th Jul 2014, 22:55
You thinks wrong Caco - the competition has been put to a review and the field deliberately widened again. The review was due to report a short while ago, but it's all gone very quiet. No firm contracts have been signed.

Friendly media were trailing rumours that the review would recommend F35, but then Government rumour 3 weeks ago was that the PM had pulled it of the Cabinet's Agenda completely. Rumour has it all the rumours are true ;)

The last decision was very badly thought of by the electorate because of a truly crass recommendation process and the cost fudging. I suspect the review is no better, so Harper has put it on ice, probably till after the next election which, rumour has it, will be called early - likely as soon as he's had 3 good months of economic data (which is proving strangely elusive at present).

Cacophonix
15th Jul 2014, 23:04
the competition has been put to a review and the field deliberately widened again.

I am glad that you say that. With respect to you Canadian guys.

This machine may be good but I suspect it is the worst thing since Christmas sold a similar turkey to the US authorities all those years ago.

Christmas Bullet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Bullet)

Here, of course, we sit with one aircraft carrier without aircraft or steam catapults (which the British invented).

If I think, sometimes, that I am mad, I think of these things and realize that I am simply depressed!

Caco

Fox3WheresMyBanana
15th Jul 2014, 23:08
The jet is one argument,the purchasing process another entirely. The original RCAF recommendation turned out to be one side of letter paper with 'F35 please' written on it, which was basically something scribbled on the back of a cigs packet in the corridor because somebody asked what the RCAF actually said (shock horror; how dare they)!

david1300
15th Jul 2014, 23:12
Shoot a couple of videos and post them here. On second thought, never mind.

:D thank you for my morning smile :ok:

Cacophonix
15th Jul 2014, 23:15
thank you for my morning smile

Careful about what you wish for... :p

Caco

Matari
15th Jul 2014, 23:26
Unfortunately she looks like a no-show, Caco...

BBC News - Farnborough Airshow: F-35 will not appear says Pentagon (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28321023)

Cacophonix
15th Jul 2014, 23:29
Thanks for that gen Matari.

I shall watch the Marine Corps Harrier and feel as stupid as any Brit can...! :ok:

What the hell are we doing here?

Caco

Matari
15th Jul 2014, 23:44
You'll just have to enjoy this Lightning instead (as long as you don't forget that the original Lightning was the P-38):

VOaYOL44yIw

Fox3WheresMyBanana
15th Jul 2014, 23:56
Haven't seen any of the F35 test pilots wearing a tie in flight, unlike Roly Beaumont - there's your problem...Standards! ;)

Cacophonix
15th Jul 2014, 23:58
Ah the P-38 (God rest Kelly Johnson).

As for the BAC Electric one I have had the good fortune to see it fly on two occasions. First when me and the current Ms Caco were scaling (OK scambling up) Lions head In CT and one of the Beachyhead machines came in on a low run below us.

A couple of years later she and I bimbled into Stellenbosch airshow in a 172 and later in the afternoon the same outfit came in supersonic and scared the living daylights out of men, women and the cattle.

Sadly a year or two later tragedy occurred at an SAAF airshow and they were grounded. I hear one is now flying again and I wish them all the best.

Great video by the way.

Thanks for posting.

Caco

ehwatezedoing
16th Jul 2014, 00:05
Wallet wise, we would be much better with something like in Canada this instead of the F-35.


http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/76269000/jpg/_76269045_textron_airland_624.jpg

BBC News - Farnborough Airshow: The Scorpion in search of a customer (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28260781)

At list, it is a twin engine :p

Cacophonix
16th Jul 2014, 00:26
Any power that wants to project power needs a bunch of F18s with good electronics... (in my humble opinion).

Here is a Viper designer arguing against the F35. He may have a point!

AAA THE F-35 IS A LEMON PIERRE SPREY (RUNAWAY FIGHTER) FIFTH ESTATE EXTENDED INTERVW - YouTube

I like Mr Sprey's lucidity. He may be partial but he argues intelligently...

Caco

Brian Abraham
16th Jul 2014, 05:31
the original Lightning was the P-38Nah, it was a can opener. C Rations, for the use of.

B Fraser
16th Jul 2014, 06:00
I will be there later today, the burning wheelie bin will not.

http://www.ruthlee.co.uk/shopimages/products/extras/burning-wheelie-bin2.jpg

Wingswinger
16th Jul 2014, 06:34
Thanks very much for the vid, Matari. Great stuff. That machine was 50% of the reason this youngster decided he MUST be a fighter pilot all those years ago. The other 50% was the Hawker Hunter. I made the Hunter but had to make do with just one trip in a "Frightning" T-bird and put up with the Harrier and Tornado instead!

No doubt Lightning Mate will be along shortly to reminisce.

Modern jets just don't have the character or romance. F22, F35, Typhoon? Give me a Phantom or a Lightning any day.

Democritus
16th Jul 2014, 12:42
No doubt Lightning Mate will be along shortly to reminisce.

No, he's still in the naughty corner.:E

con-pilot
16th Jul 2014, 17:21
I like Mr Sprey's lucidity. He may be partial but he argues intelligently...



I do agree with his argument against the F-35, as the F-35, in my opinion, is just an updated version of the TFX, which was a complete disaster in regard for what is was originally designed for, an 'do it all' single aircraft.

However, I do believe that his criticism of the F-15 is sour grapes, after all the F-15 has a 102-0 air to air win ratio against aircraft including the MIG-29 and the SU-27. Hard to argue against that much success and call it a mistake as compared to the F-16, whose air to air wins are 76-1. The one loss was an F-16 operated by the Turkish Air Force.

But then again the F-15 nor the F-16 have not come up against the likes of the MiG-31, Su-30, Su-33 or Su-35.

ChrisVJ
16th Jul 2014, 18:50
I don't approve of purchasing the F35, same arguments as already put forward.

On the other hand we should look at what we actually need the aircraft to do. As far as Canada is concerned the likelyhood of air to air combat between fighters is slim. Not non existant, but slim. Even when Canadian forces are sent with other forces to trouble spots there is not much air to air.

Therefore fully refurbished, (good as new) F18s would do the job of protecting our borders from incursion by the bombers and reconnaissance the Russians keep sending over.

What our forces don't seem to have nearly enough of is ground support, both in helicopters and ground attack fixed wing.

The Canadian forces are also hamstrung by the politics, both Forces and Civilian. Every time they 'modify' the designs with a ton of garbage which also doubles the price to "Canadianise" the equipment. They'd do far better to buy the standard kit and just use it as designed. many of the mods end up doing nothing or not being useable anyway.

con-pilot
16th Jul 2014, 20:09
Probably the best idea is to forget the F-35, then buy updated F-16s/F-18s and start the production line for the A-10 back up. :p

Still not sure about the F-22.

Lonewolf_50
16th Jul 2014, 20:13
:cool:The high low mix.

I daresay the Iraqi Air Force could use a couple of squadrons of them ... :cool:

G-CPTN
16th Jul 2014, 20:15
Every time they 'modify' the designs with a ton of garbage which also doubles the price to "Canadianise" the equipment. They'd do far better to buy the standard kit and just use it as designed. many of the mods end up doing nothing or not being useable anyway.
I believe that Britain bought several (new) Chinooks that were 'unusable' and required many months of rework before they became acceptable.

500N
16th Jul 2014, 20:18
Chris

Sounds like what Australia does (Australianize things) for huge added expense and long delays.

Aust should end up with FA-18, FA-18 Super Hornet, EA-18 Growler (at least wired for ;) :rolleyes:) and the F-35.

ChrisVJ
16th Jul 2014, 20:20
I understood the problem with the Chinooks was a disagreement about the software.

The British would not accept them unless they had control of the software while the manufacturer was not willing to give it up.

Not sure, just a story I read in the newspapers

con-pilot
16th Jul 2014, 20:36
I understood the problem with the Chinooks was a disagreement about the software.

The British would not accept them unless they had control of the software while the manufacturer was not willing to give it up.


That is what I understand as well, the Chinooks were completely 'usable'.

radeng
16th Jul 2014, 20:52
What I do not understand is why the procurement people don't make it a condition of bidding for the contract that the winner guarantees that all source code software will be made available and will be updated. With an enormous penalty if they don't for any reason. If it means Boeing etc won't bid, figure that it is likely to be cheaper in the long run to fund development of an aircraft in the UK.

500N
16th Jul 2014, 21:01
radeng

Before you get to that stage and drastic action, it seems to come back to the writing of the contracts and asking the write questions which is what has caused Defence over here in Aus to come unstuck.

radeng
16th Jul 2014, 21:24
500N,

you really have to ask how experienced and competent the procurement people and their lawyers/contract writers are. My experience as an engineer has been that on several occasions, going into a negotiation, they have proved totally incompetent - but, they say, 'We are the lawyers'. When it goes t*ts up, they claim that it is nothing to do with them. Of course, they quickly move to a different employer, leaving Engineering and the more junior but experienced procurement people to pick up the pieces....

I'll borrow the comment

'Moi? Cynical? Moi?'

radeng
16th Jul 2014, 21:28
BTW,

500N

I expect you know the UK armed forces comment about the deadliest weapon deployed by the UK.

It's an MOD civil servant. It doesn't work and you can't fire it.

500N
16th Jul 2014, 21:40
radeng

:ok:

We have what is called the DMO, Defence Materials Org who do most of the stuff and as was said by one of defences head honchos the other day, if he wants a project NOT to succeed he puts it through the normal system ;) :rolleyes:

Defence Materiel Organisation - DMO Home (http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/)


The only things we do well is when we buy "off the shelf" - FA-18, C17 and a few others. When we build, modify or try to be smart and take 15 year old airframes and make them new (Seasprite - $1 billion down the drain when we could have purchased off the shelf), it turns to disaster.

Anyway, we are drifting off topic so better stop now and get back to the F-35.

radeng
16th Jul 2014, 21:48
500N

What does the optimist call the cynic?

'realist'.

'Nuff said!

Groundloop
17th Jul 2014, 08:23
Modern jets just don't have the character or romance. F22, F35, Typhoon?

That's because they haven't been around long enough yet for nostalgia to creep in.:ok:

Pinky the pilot
17th Jul 2014, 08:35
A friend who is now retired from the RAAF but had attained a fairly high rank once told me that the RAAF definitely wanted the F35.

That was a few years ago. Now??:hmm:

500N
17th Jul 2014, 08:44
Pinky

That is pretty obvious, we paid the money a long time ago and so they would have been talking about it for a few years before that. Have to look back at the white papers.

You have to ask, were the RAAF lucky to get the super hornets and growlers
As an interim ?

Solid Rust Twotter
17th Jul 2014, 08:48
Probably the same there, but in this neck of the woods it's all about getting a bite of the pie. Political cronies and their hangers on want stuff that is not fit for purpose but very expensive to ensure they get a nice slice of the kickbacks. The fact there's no money to operate it and not enough trained crews is beside the point. They've got what they want so if the kit ends up mothballed, who cares?

Pinky the pilot
17th Jul 2014, 08:49
You have to ask, were the RAAF lucky to get the super hornets and growlers
As an interim ?

Next time I see him I'll ask!:ok:

500N
17th Jul 2014, 09:00
Well think back a bit, it seemed a very quick decision that caught a few people off guard.

That is my perception anyway.

The raaf had to get an " interim " aircraft once before when the F-111 was delayed but we didn't buy those.

tartare
17th Jul 2014, 09:58
Just watched that video.
Ahhh - the Frightning.
Now THERE is a tear your balls off, heavy-iron fast jet.
Looks like an extra from a bleedin' Thunderbirds movie.
None of your nancy stealth or helmet mounted night vision bollocks either.
From the days when jets were polished aluminium, and knucks still had proper `taches...!

Thomas coupling
17th Jul 2014, 14:12
After it did it's own internal 're-heat' demonstration on the runway several days ago and melted the engine, all F-35's were grounded.
Yesterday they were allowed to fly again but with a check every 3 HOURS!!! on compressor blade creep in the P and W's???
All of this is yours for just 135 MILLION DOLLARS each (and that is without the engine which is coming in at 16 million each!!!!).

Mmmmmm I'll have two then please - one to land on each of my new carriers which only cost me 6,000,000,000 each....eek. :mad:

ChrisVJ
17th Jul 2014, 16:24
"Checks every three hours,"

Sounds like our Cormorants then, which had to have the tail rotor hub checked every five hours for cracks for quite a while.

I asked but no one would say at whose expense that was. They were maintained by civilian contractors so I'm sure someone had to pay.