F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Fletcher Memorial Home
Age: 59
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes we normally pick the right horse.
C-130's all the way through and now C-17 and C-27J, P-3's now the P-8, F-111 was a classic and followed up with F/A-18 in 1984 and more recently Super Hornet and Growler.
True, Tiger was a bad choice - should have been AH-64D (prob without Longbow), and Blackhawk replacement should have been UH-60M, not MRH-90.
But where is the mistake? Army ordering, your European (French) design/manufacture?
C-130's all the way through and now C-17 and C-27J, P-3's now the P-8, F-111 was a classic and followed up with F/A-18 in 1984 and more recently Super Hornet and Growler.
True, Tiger was a bad choice - should have been AH-64D (prob without Longbow), and Blackhawk replacement should have been UH-60M, not MRH-90.
But where is the mistake? Army ordering, your European (French) design/manufacture?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"But where is the mistake? Army ordering, your European (French) design/manufacture ?"
Pollies sticking noses in to ensure some work is done here in Oz !
Considering the majority of what else we use is US made and with
all the integrated systems now installed plus the good relationship
we have with the US that means we can virtually have access to
anything plus the fact we operate with the US a lot of the time,
going with Euro helicopters just made me shake my head.
Apologize for thread drift. End of discussion.
Pollies sticking noses in to ensure some work is done here in Oz !
Considering the majority of what else we use is US made and with
all the integrated systems now installed plus the good relationship
we have with the US that means we can virtually have access to
anything plus the fact we operate with the US a lot of the time,
going with Euro helicopters just made me shake my head.
Apologize for thread drift. End of discussion.
Apologize for thread drift. End of discussion.
You say.."plus the good relationship we have with the US that means we can virtually have access to anything"...
Not exactly true, as we probably would have preferred F-22 for air superiority, or dominance is the latest buzz word, but US was not going to release that to anyone...not to Japan, Israel, us. But even F-22 would not have solved our "bomb truck" requirement...that is where F-35 comes in, plus we have some insurance fortunately with Super Hornet.
Nostalgia time, takes me back to the day...what will replace the F-111? Well there was never an F-111 replacement.
Tornado could carry half as much, half the distance (the song goes "bombs in a bucket, 25 miles from base!").
I guess that made it a 1/4 F-111.
So Super Hornet was a good call, the only thing else available was a Strike Eagle, but with Hornet already in the inventory, SH was a laydown.
Having lived through the F-111 development problems - and experiencing what a great and flexible aircraft that became - I am keeping my fingers crossed for JSF/F-35, since we are now committed to 72 of them.
There was drama with selection of the F-111 [remember TFX?] then negativity about the F/A-18 both of which history shows turned into great machines. Now negativity about the F-35 [JSF].....am I surprised! It will work...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Italy To Cut F-35 Order By Half: Reports
Italy To Cut F-35 Order By Half: Reports 23 Apr 2014 Source : Our Bureau
Italy To Cut F-35 Order By Half: Reports
Italy To Cut F-35 Order By Half: Reports
"Italy’s new government has decided to halve its procurement F-35 fighters, from 90 to 45, but will stretch out its implementation to limit any losses of related work for its aerospace industry, the Rome daily La Repubblica reported April 22...."
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBadanov
It's a mute point since the F-22 isn't in production. And what if we had asked ?
Either way, we do have access to the majority of things.
F-35 - Heard a retired Australian AVM give it a bit of a caning the other day.
He focused on the "Joint" aspect of it and that as he said, it was supposed
to work in tandem with the F-22 and was concerned about the latest generations
of competition.
It will work, no doubt but as to how superior it is compared to the competition ?
It's a mute point since the F-22 isn't in production. And what if we had asked ?
Either way, we do have access to the majority of things.
F-35 - Heard a retired Australian AVM give it a bit of a caning the other day.
He focused on the "Joint" aspect of it and that as he said, it was supposed
to work in tandem with the F-22 and was concerned about the latest generations
of competition.
It will work, no doubt but as to how superior it is compared to the competition ?
Last edited by 500N; 23rd Apr 2014 at 20:11.
Moot point, perhaps? 
The F-35 reminds me of the Medieval armored knight: in certain fights, a great weapon, but bloody expensive to put together and support.
The F-35 reminds me of the Medieval armored knight: in certain fights, a great weapon, but bloody expensive to put together and support.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 500N
"But where is the mistake? Army ordering, your European (French) design/manufacture ?"
Pollies sticking noses in to ensure some work is done here in Oz !
Pollies sticking noses in to ensure some work is done here in Oz !
MirageIIIs: assembled in Oz
Macchi 326: assembled in Oz
PC-9s: assembled in Oz
F/A-18A/B: assembled in Oz
S70-A9 & S70B: assembled in Oz
Hawk 127: 21/33 assembled in Oz
Note that all of the above had significant parts (like wings, etc) fabricated "down under".
And they turned out soooo bad, didn't they?
It's the design, not the Australian industrial participation.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Green
Fine, but really, why the need ?
Are our requirements THAT different from the US that we need
to re create the wheel ?
Why not let the manufacturer do it or stick with good old off the shelf
purchases ???
Fine, but really, why the need ?
Are our requirements THAT different from the US that we need
to re create the wheel ?
Why not let the manufacturer do it or stick with good old off the shelf
purchases ???
Would it be possible to import the pilots as well? Would the decision not to have any defence aerospace industry/skills be roughly the same as deciding not to have any of the skills to operate them either?
quite likely to lose carriers and F35 if the Scots vote for Independence!
(come on TomJ, have a nibble - we miss your red writing!)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
F-35C Hook Testing Delayed for 2 Months from April - Nose Bleed
...STATEMENT OF: Lt General Christopher C. Bogdan to SASC Program Executive Officer F-35 02 Apr 2014
http://www.airforcemag.com/testimony...0214bogdan.pdf (100Kb)
http://www.airforcemag.com/testimony...0214bogdan.pdf (100Kb)
"...Program Accomplishments in the Last Year
The F-35 program team achieved a number of accomplishments in 2013, including delivery of 35 aircraft; rolling-out of the 100th jet from the production facility in Fort Worth; completion of the Block 3 Critical Design Review; announcing the decision to cease development of an alternate Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS); and resolving lingering technical design shortfalls to include the F-35C Arresting Hook, Night / Instrument (IMC), Fuel Dump, and Lightning Protection....
...The program also saw improvements with the redesigned F-35C arresting hook system on our CF-3 aircraft. In January 2014, the F-35 team accomplished 36 for 36 successful roll-in arrestment tests at Lakehurst, NJ. The aircraft is now at Patuxent River where it is continuing its ship suitability testing. Thus far CF-3 accomplished 8 for 8 fly in arrestments while at Patuxent River; however, testing has been delayed for approximately 60 days as we discovered a minor nose gear issue. These tests are expected to lead to a certification of the F-35C for shipboard flight trials, which are planned to commence fourth quarter 2014.
The program has also made progress on the redesigned fuel dumping seal and port. The F-35 employs a unique fuel dumping port on the underside of the wings in order to maintain its stealthy signature. Early fuel dump testing revealed that fuel was collecting within the wing flaperon cove, which led to significant external fuel wetting and pooling of fuel at the wing/fuselage root. We redesigned the fuel dump port to more efficiently move fuel away from the wing surface and designed a new and improved flaperon seal to minimize fuel collecting in the cove. Fuel dump testing with the redesigned seal and port has been successful and we are incorporating the new design in all three variants...."
The F-35 program team achieved a number of accomplishments in 2013, including delivery of 35 aircraft; rolling-out of the 100th jet from the production facility in Fort Worth; completion of the Block 3 Critical Design Review; announcing the decision to cease development of an alternate Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS); and resolving lingering technical design shortfalls to include the F-35C Arresting Hook, Night / Instrument (IMC), Fuel Dump, and Lightning Protection....
...The program also saw improvements with the redesigned F-35C arresting hook system on our CF-3 aircraft. In January 2014, the F-35 team accomplished 36 for 36 successful roll-in arrestment tests at Lakehurst, NJ. The aircraft is now at Patuxent River where it is continuing its ship suitability testing. Thus far CF-3 accomplished 8 for 8 fly in arrestments while at Patuxent River; however, testing has been delayed for approximately 60 days as we discovered a minor nose gear issue. These tests are expected to lead to a certification of the F-35C for shipboard flight trials, which are planned to commence fourth quarter 2014.
The program has also made progress on the redesigned fuel dumping seal and port. The F-35 employs a unique fuel dumping port on the underside of the wings in order to maintain its stealthy signature. Early fuel dump testing revealed that fuel was collecting within the wing flaperon cove, which led to significant external fuel wetting and pooling of fuel at the wing/fuselage root. We redesigned the fuel dump port to more efficiently move fuel away from the wing surface and designed a new and improved flaperon seal to minimize fuel collecting in the cove. Fuel dump testing with the redesigned seal and port has been successful and we are incorporating the new design in all three variants...."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 25th Apr 2014 at 00:23. Reason: quot
Good old Sir Isaac again.
Need to keep hook on the deck to catch the wire, that has not yet bounced up after being trampled by the wheels, because the hook is too close behind said wheels
=
More pressure in hook damper
=
More upforce to aircraft tail, rotating the aircraft
=
Faster nose-gear impact
=
TWANG
Need to keep hook on the deck to catch the wire, that has not yet bounced up after being trampled by the wheels, because the hook is too close behind said wheels
=
More pressure in hook damper
=
More upforce to aircraft tail, rotating the aircraft
=
Faster nose-gear impact
=
TWANG
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just love how you guys insist on ignoring reality and truth in your desperate quest to malign the aircraft and its designers.
You've been told repeatedly, and shown reports to verify, that the USN is who fouled up the tail-hook design by giving bad data to both LockMart (whose last carrier aircraft was the successful S-3 Viking, first flight 1972) and Northrup-Grumman (X-47B).
Both companies designed their tailhook to work with what the USN told them would work, and both companies had to redesign their hook set-up when it was learned the USN's data was FUBAR.
None of the tailhook's designers were in any way "muppets", but you insist on libeling them in defiance of reality.
You've been told repeatedly, and shown reports to verify, that the USN is who fouled up the tail-hook design by giving bad data to both LockMart (whose last carrier aircraft was the successful S-3 Viking, first flight 1972) and Northrup-Grumman (X-47B).
Both companies designed their tailhook to work with what the USN told them would work, and both companies had to redesign their hook set-up when it was learned the USN's data was FUBAR.
None of the tailhook's designers were in any way "muppets", but you insist on libeling them in defiance of reality.