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

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Wikiposts
Search
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 ?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 9th Apr 2014, 14:39
  #4261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You'll know when LM issue a press release about fitting JATO bottles
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2014, 17:13
  #4262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: london,uk
Posts: 735
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Australia is likely to commit to buying 58 more Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightnings this month, setting aside the alternative of consolidating its combat aircraft squadrons on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The decision will increase the country's total commitment to 72 F-35s and expand the Royal Australian Air Force's fast-jet fleet, counting a separate order for 12 EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft as additional to, not part of, the fighter force renewal.

The defense department has recommended the F-35 order, probably worth around $8 billion, and the proposal has the endorsement of a leading think-tank. The government shows every sign of accepting the recommendation, says a source closely connected to the authorities. Accordingly, Lockheed Martin has probably escaped the danger of losing one of its largest F-35 customers, one that has already backed away from an original requirement for about 100 of the stealthy fighters. Even the risk that Australia could trim its commitment a little further now looks low, although that option was suggested by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute think-tank.
Australia Likely To Order More F-35s
peter we is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2014, 07:06
  #4263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Westnoreastsouth
Posts: 1,826
Received 33 Likes on 29 Posts
For a plane that is allegedly cancelled, they sure seem to be going into production.

Is the title to this thread now completely overcome by events?
This thread was originally created for the British F35B buy - which at the time was under threat.

It is the F35B which has the highest chance of being a real turkey,the A + C have the potential to be slightly less Turkeyish !
longer ron is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2014, 10:36
  #4264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It is the F35B which has the highest chance of being a real turkey,the A + C have the potential to be slightly less Turkeyish !
Depends on how many shares one has in dry plate carbon-carbon clutch manufacturers.
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2014, 11:48
  #4265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 47 Likes on 23 Posts
Mr Whyte, the clutch is well-engineered and completely integrated into the aircraft systems. I mean, how many other parts can recognise their own failing and automatically fire you out of the aircraft….

Ahh, I see your point.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2014, 19:39
  #4266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes on 45 Posts
F-35 Lightning II jet to make maiden British flight

F-35 Lightning II jet to make maiden British flight
"The F-35 Lightning II will make its international debut in July at the Royal International Air Tattoo in Fairford and in the same month will also fly at the Farnborough International Air Show....

...The Royal International Air Tattoo is open to the public from 11-13 July and Farnborough International Air Show is open to trade visitors from 14-18 July and open to the public 19-20 July."
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/f...british-flight
________________________________

UPDATE 3-F-35 fighter jet to make first trans-Atlantic flight in July 16 Apr 2014 Andrea Shalal
"...Current plans call for several F-35s to participate in the air shows, including at least one of the three F-35 B-model jets already built for Britain, with a UK pilot at the controls.

U.S. and UK officials agreed on the need to bring over a number of aircraft to avoid any technical flight disruptions....

...U.S. defense officials said the overseas flights would be used for additional training and would help the F-35 program office learn how the plane's logistics, maintenance, aerial refueling, and security systems work overseas...."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0N80Y220140416
____________________________

F-35B set to make international debut at RIAT, Farnborough 16 Apr 2014 Flight Global

"...The appearance also represents a logistical challenge for the F-35 flight test team. More than seven years and 15,200 flight hours after first flight in December 2006, the F-35 still has not crossed an ocean.

But the programme has been preparing for the extended trip across the Atlantic. On 25 February, a joint sortie by AF-6 and BF-18 – F-35A and B models, respectively – completed a 5.7h mission.

The nature of the F-35 flying display in the UK has not been announced, but the test team appears to be prepared despite the aircraft remaining at least. In March, an F-35B performed a full aerial display at the MCAS Yuma, Arizona, Air Show, featuring several high-speed passes in normal mode and low-speed passes in STOVL configuration.

In the final pass, the F-35B slowed to a hover about 100m over the runway, pivoted about 45 degrees, and then accelerated to make a final turn and land in normal mode."
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...orough-398334/

Last edited by SpazSinbad; 17th Apr 2014 at 00:28. Reason: 2nd QUOTE & 3rd
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2014, 21:58
  #4267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,580
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
F-35Bs? The tanker crews will be busy bunnies.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2014, 22:05
  #4268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The KC-130Js better be stuffed with spares.
Maus92 is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2014, 22:20
  #4269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They could always deploy on the Wasp and flyoff from the Bristol Channel, Wasp should have enough space for spares.
PhilipG is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2014, 22:54
  #4270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Gotta get the Wasp out of the BAE dry dock first. But maybe something bigger is better...
Maus92 is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2014, 11:43
  #4271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,580
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Bit late to start CV integration...

Fact is that the F-35B (not yet cleared with external fuel) has the shortest range of any fighter that I can think of that has routinely been deployed across the pond. Not that it can't be done but it will need a lot of tanker support to maintain safe fuel levels.

And whatever they do about VLs, rolling VLs, creeping VLs or SLs in the UK will be interesting, one way or another.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2014, 12:20
  #4272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 3,154
Received 101 Likes on 54 Posts
RIAT and Farnborough confirmed

Royal Air Force Charitable Trust Enterprises - News: F-35 Lightning Strikes The Air Tattoo This Summer

Cheers
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2014, 12:59
  #4273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,817
Received 270 Likes on 109 Posts
LowObservable wrote:
F-35Bs? The tanker crews will be busy bunnies.
No worse than trailing Harrier GR3s back from Goose Bay, I would imagine?

Maus92 wrote:
The KC-130Js better be stuffed with spares.
Not KC-130Js, I would venture.....
BEagle is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2014, 13:57
  #4274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is going to be a Marines marketing wet dream, so I'd expect they'll want to use the KC-130Js, even if it wasn't the optimal choice - If they had their MV-22 refuelers working, they'd want to use them. If they go with the KC-130Js, I'd imagine that the USAF *might* detail a KC-10 (not a KC-135 - their basket-to-boom drogues could snap off at the most inopportune time,) just in case... Good thing this is happening now rather than a few years later when the USAF has retired its KC-10s (to afford to buy its F-35As.)
Maus92 is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2014, 15:22
  #4275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,580
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Beags - The GR3 could carry drop tanks and had a higher-bypass engine than the F-35, and the F-35B has about the same internal fuel fraction as an F-16. The B's combat radius, all-hi-alt, is about 450 nm so its ferry range will be around or under 1000 nm. Harriers do better than that.

The F-35B tanked from a KC-10 last summer. You could do it with KC-130Js but it would be a complex little ballet.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2014, 19:34
  #4276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,817
Received 270 Likes on 109 Posts
The issue is not so much the fuel fraction as the availability of en-route abort aerodromes. If Kangerlussuaq and Keflavik are open, then fine.....
BEagle is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2014, 20:55
  #4277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,580
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Right, Beags, and just make sure there's enough gas at all times to reach them.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2014, 23:20
  #4278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Business: Washington Post Business Page, Business News
Bogdan blamed Pratt & Whitney for failing to reduce engine costs as fast as promised, which he said accounts for $1.7 billion of the increase.
“Pratt’s not meeting its commitment,” he said. “It’s as simple as that. They told us years ago that the engine was going to come down at a certain rate in terms of price, and they haven’t met it. Not good. Not good at all.”
Fortunately, GE/RR motor was euthanized.
NITRO104 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2014, 06:32
  #4279 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,421
Received 1,593 Likes on 730 Posts
Fortunately, GE/RR motor was euthanized.
Well, they were warned.....

F-35 Cost Up $7.8B, Bogdan Fires on Pratt

......Bogdan seems frustrated by the lack of leverage he has in dealing with a monopoly engine provider. “There is only one engine on the F-35. Period,” he said. “When you are in a sole source environment it is difficult to find the right leverage and motivation and drive the cost out of a program.”........
ORAC is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2014, 08:06
  #4280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,817
Received 270 Likes on 109 Posts
LowObservable wrote:
Right, Beags, and just make sure there's enough gas at all times to reach them.
Of course. Making some F-35B assumptions concerning fuel burn rates and fuel onload rate, using Gander, Keflavik and Prestwick as abort aerodromes with a 1000 kg fuel on ground requirement, even with a single hose tanker and reasonable weather, a conservative refuelling plan from Bangor to Fairford (across the pond from DOTTY to QQ1, then TACAN route to WD2) would require 6 brackets per receiver assuming internal fuel only and 1200 kg at Fairford. Total flight time just over 6 hours.

Using normal criteria and mounting the trail from Gander, a CC-150T Polaris on an average day could probably trail 5 x F-35B (internal fuel only) on the route, even with a single hose failure, with a flight time of just under 5 hours and about 6500 kg transferred to each F-35B.

Last edited by BEagle; 18th Apr 2014 at 16:53.
BEagle is offline  


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.