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

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

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 ?

Old 3rd Jun 2014, 11:49
  #4561 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 808
Actually I wasn't talking about aviation in that context. More along the lines of complex mega engineering projects. Whilst I was doing my PhD, another guy was doing his in regards to the SKA. It was in regards to how mega projects fall of the rails.

I'm not sure how all the latest and greatest designs from airbus or Boeing have gone, but if the 787 is anything to go by then its not all rosy.
rh200 is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2014, 16:48
  #4562 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
Navy Joint Strike Fighter Set for October Tests at Sea

Good ole boy shake rattle and roll - no mention of hook arresting issues. Go you good thing....

Navy Joint Strike Fighter Set for October Tests at Sea 03 Jun 2014 Dave Majumdar
"The Lockheed Martin F-35C carrier-based version of the Joint Strike Fighter is making steady progress towards sea-trials onboard USS Nimitz (CVN-68) in October according to a company official.

“We are working very hard to get the airplane ready for sea trials, DT-1 sea trials, starting in mid-October,” Eric Van Camp, Lockheed’s domestic F-35 business development director, told USNI News on May 30. “The at-sea period I believe extends from roughly the 12th of October to the third of November.”

However, there are still many tasks that the F-35 integrated test force must complete before the C-model jet can make its first carrier launches and arrested recoveries onboard Nimitz.

One of the biggest remaining hurdles is a structural survey of the jet’s landing gear and airframe. “When we say structural survey it sounds like what we’re doing is parking it some place and doing some inspections, but actually what we are doing is we doing a specific set of flight test points that are designed to understand how the airplane reacts both aerodynamically and structurally when we put it in off-nominal conditions,” Van Camp said.

Those off-nominal conditions could include very high excessive sink rates, different aircraft attitudes in all axes or a combination thereof when the jet touches down on the carrier flight deck. The Navy has to test any carrier-based aircraft in those kinds of conditions because of the harsh environment at sea—which could include a pitching flight deck due to weather or other factors including human-induced errors.

“We’re trying to emulate the range of conditions that an airplane might be forced to recover onboard the ship,” Van Camp said.

Those tests are currently underway at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in southern Maryland with shore-based catapults and arresting gear, but Van Camp notes that its not the same as landing on a real carrier. F-35C test pilots will have to check-off 44 separate test points to ensure the JSF is safe to trap onboard a carrier using a specifically instrumented test airframe.

Recently, on May 29, the F-35C demonstrated its ability to land safely at its maximum allowable sink-rate of 21.4 feet per second, Van Camp said. Once the testing is complete, the aircraft would be cleared to make unmonitored carrier landings. “We’ll be pretty close to the point where we’re confident that when we take it to the ship it will be cleared for unmonitored loads,” Van Camp said. “In other words an uninstrumented aircraft.”

The point of DT-1, Van Camp said, is to create an aircraft launch and recovery bulletin for the fleet operators who will fly the jet during routine air wing operations...."
Navy Joint Strike Fighter Set for October Tests at Sea | USNI News
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2014, 19:09
  #4563 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 219
A Canadian report is published entitled "One Dead pilot"
Subtle !

F-35's single engine too dangerous for Canadian military, report says - News - MSN CA
Bannock is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2014, 21:57
  #4564 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,292
Well, it's one of the issues that was discussed at length many years ago. Unfortunately, the requirements lobby were over-ruled by the cost and design lobby. Sad, but true.

Incidentally, there was also an issue with the VTOL (as it was referred to in those days) being twin engined. Assymetric VTOL/VSTOL/STOVL/etc is a bit of an issue, as you might guess. As all the models had to be roughly the same with only the differences necessary to cope with CTOL, VSTOL and real Carrier, single engine became the mantra. Oh, and it made the company bids cheaper and their claims of reliability won faint hearts.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2014, 22:58
  #4565 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
These people are 100% correct. How you could ever hope to be safe on 1 engine Lord only knows.
orca is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2014, 23:23
  #4566 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Yes - the F-80/T-33, F-84, F-86, F-100, F-102/106, F-8 Crusader, A-4 Skyhawk, A-7 Corsair II, Mirage III/V/2000/F1, AMX, Sea Hawk, Hunter, Gnat, G91, Draken, Viggen, Gripen, F-16, etc all show the folly of relying on a single engine.

GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2014, 23:36
  #4567 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 808
F#$k me, not another multi versus single snow job. Its all a cost, benefit analysis, simple.

We can keep moaning about it, but the F35 is what we are going to get, its the only thing with any advanced capability on offer. I personally don't like it, and the whole "all your eggs in one basket" scenario, but thats the cards we have.

And to be perfectly honest, no matter what people may think of the idea, all our countries are basically modeling our defense around being in bed with the US.

Another words, we most likely won't be going up against any significant adversary without uncle Sam being there. Hence our force structure is mainly set up to integrate or complement that scenario. There are some obvious local differences, but from the big picture, thats it.
rh200 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 03:26
  #4568 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 68
Things moving forwards:


The first USAF JSF squadron has received its 26th and final F-35A following the delivery of aircraft AF-45.
The 58th Fighter Squadron (FS) at Eglin AFB in Florida is the USAF element of the 33rd Fighter Wing’s F-35 integrated training center, and is tasked for training USAF instructor pilots and maintainers on the aircraft.
“We’ve been in a growth mindset for the last few years,” 58th FS commander, LtCol Matt Renbarger said in a statement. “We’ve been focused on adapting our training levels to the availability of aircraft as a growing squadron. It’s been exciting to see this mission develop, but we’re more excited to dial-in all of our attention to training our team. We are focusing now on refining our processes and training, improving our tactics, and really optimising our overall program to meet the needs of the Air Force as our Airmen move out to other F-35 missions.”
The RAAF’s first F-35A pilot, SQNLDR Andrew Jackson will begin training on the F-35A with the 58th FS at the end of this year.
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 14:41
  #4569 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 92
Posts: 1,935
Ah, F-35A.

That's the one that works, isn't it?
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 14:47
  #4570 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,292
rh200, I don't disagree with your point at all, the discussion was mearly about the Candian position. It has long been their feeling that they would rather have two engines for the northern areas where survival can be be a real challenge. It may be that they have raised the issue again for other reasons, of course.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 15:04
  #4571 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,889
A bit of a bugger that the F-35A cannot refuel from the RCAF's tankers though..... Whereas the -B and/or -C could. The Lockheed snake oil salesmen would no doubt charge a fortune to fit a 'CF-35A' with a probe rather than a hole.

That said, I gather that the RCAF are very impressed by the Rafale. Which would surely meet their northern needs.
BEagle is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 15:33
  #4572 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 219
GK121 , No one has issues with single engine Zoomy things but If the US deem it unsafe to deploy them to Alaska why should it be so different for Canada ?

The author goes on to state



"The need for a twin-engine fighter jet is very clear, and purchasing a single-engine fighter jet would be a serious mistake," he said.

The government is expected to make a final decision on the replacement for the CF-18 as early as this week.

Although Byers says the F-35 is not the plane for Canada, he has no issues with other countries opting for the strike-fighter.

As an example, he notes the U.S. has a much higher density of airports on its territory — providing greater options for emergency landing in the event of engine failure.

Hedging bets

Byers also says the U.S. has "hedged its bets," by having in its air force fleet the twin-engine F-22.

"The United States bases many of its F-22s in Alaska," he adds. "The F-35s will not be based in Alaska because a single-engine plane is inappropriate for the Arctic — the United States Air Force has decided that."

Byers says the Royal Canadian Air Force has studied the F-35 carefully, and may very well have examined the issue of single-engine versus twin — but the RCAF isn’t making its report public.
Bannock is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 15:38
  #4573 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,897
and fit the tankers, and get Canada back into the fighter manufacturing business, and ...........

what's your source for the RCAF opinion of the Rafale, Beags? and is this just shags or top brass ?
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 16:06
  #4574 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,889
Fitting the CC-150T with a boom, re-modelling the FRS station and training/re-qualifying the FRS for boom AAR would involve substantial cost.

RCAF experience during OP SERVAL changed their earlier opinion of the Rafale; it was reliable, effective and flexible. It also refuels very quickly indeed, unlike the Typhoon.

See: French Aircraft Manufacturers Say Rafale Fighter Can Provide Canada With Lower Long-Term Support Costs | Ottawa Citizen which is a reasonable summary, eh?
BEagle is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 18:41
  #4575 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
Lockheed Outlines Small Surface Combatant Option
10 Jun 2014 OTTO KREISHER, Special Correspondent
"...At Lockheed’s annual media day,...

...Starting the briefings for defense reporters at Lockheed’s Crystal City offices, chairman [LM] Marillyn A. Hewson ...

...She said the F-35C carrier variant being built for the Navy successfully completed shore-based testing for arrested landings and catapult launches and will be tested on a carrier in October.

The 2B software program that is the minimum needed for the Marines to declare initial operational capability (IOC) of the short-takeoff, vertical-landing F-35B version in 2015 is “tracking to be complete by year end,” she said.

The 3i software that the Air Force needs for IOC of its F-35A model started flight test two weeks ago, Hewson said...."
SEAPOWER Magazine Online

Last edited by SpazSinbad; 10th Jun 2014 at 18:42. Reason: frmt
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 18:59
  #4576 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 63
Posts: 371
I think I am slightly confused, 2B to be complete by year end Dec 14 I assume, 2B must be an enabling version of the software for 3i so how is this version in flight test or is this more concurrent development?
PhilipG is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 19:06
  #4577 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
When 2b (or not tobe) is hosted on new hardware (fitted to some new aircraft for the moment) then it becomes 3i (in the eye of the beholder).
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 20:01
  #4578 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
BEags,

The Lockheed snake oil salesmen would no doubt charge a fortune to fit a 'CF-35A' with a probe rather than a hole.
Not as large a fortune that you might imagine. Seriously. When you've an order like the Canadian one, possibly pending on a such a requirement, there's no sense in swinging through the fence on it.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 21:46
  #4579 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,292
No, Spaz. As the new hardware becomes available, the new version can be installed and THAT is 3i. 3i is still in airborne testing and is not the same as 2b. Nice puns, though.

PhilipG, I concur with your thinking.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 21:50
  #4580 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,292
As to the Canadians, they have the sense to question They know what they want from their aircraft and remember they were badly bitten by the US with classified material with the CF18. They are a liberal country that demand compliance with their requirements. Think EU and then some.

Before you jump on that, it's not my view, just my understanding.
Courtney Mil is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.