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 10th Jun 2014, 21:57
  #4581 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,292
Beags, Typhoon's fuel uptake rate is a legacy of the other aircraft that begins with "T" from which much of its fuel system is inherited.


I can confirm your comments about Rafale.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 22:20
  #4582 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
My mother said.... To get things done.... You better not mess with Major Tom...

Straight from the horses ass:
"...Flying from Edwards Air Force Base, an F-35A flew a 1.9 hour mission with the first-ever load of Block 3i hardware and software. Block 3i is the next level of capability and is planned to support U.S. Air Force F-35A IOC in 2016...."
F-35 Achieves Three Major Flight Test Milestones On Same Day · Lockheed Martin
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 22:26
  #4583 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,292
Indeed, yes. It's flying, just like I said. But it's not 2b.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 22:33
  #4584 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,897
Courtney - unfortunately, the current Canadian Government has a fine track record of ignoring the professionals in every field - and muzzling them. Basically, the PM does what the heck he likes as long as it won't lose him the next election, and he luuurves big business. The problem of senior military men going along with whatever the poli's want is a worldwide problem, and Canada is not immune. I don't know whether the current top brass agree with the PM, or disagree and will speak their minds, or will shut up and change the threat to meet the capability. This is why I wondered about Beag's source.

Personally, I'd take the Rafale offer. It fits what Canada needs in almost every respect, and I think we can live without 5th gen.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 22:59
  #4585 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,292
Fox3, yeah, I get that entirely. Hence my remark about another reason. I hadn't really thought about Rafale as a replacement for the CF18, but I'm starting to see the sense of it.

I understand the PM thing, but I don't think it's a new phenomenon in Canada. Not a terrible thing, mind you. An interresting issue to follow, I think.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 23:11
  #4586 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,897
Not terrible, hence the reason he keeps getting elected. After all, we've all still got jobs and the budget goes into surplus sometime later this year. I can think of a lot worse places to be...in fact, I can't think of a better place to be
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 23:13
  #4587 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 645
For Canada, IF you're going to discount single engined ops and go down the twin route instead, the surely Super Hornet makes more sense.

It's cheaper than a Rafale for a start, the RCAF already has support arrangements and relationships with Boeing, US Navy (PMA-265), GE, Raytheon etc for its CF-18 systems, and the jet would be much easier for CF-18 flight and maintenance folks to convert to.

Further, it already has AESA and a near fully-defined spiral upgrade path, plus other notional enhancements coming down the line.

No brainer really...
FoxtrotAlpha18 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 23:16
  #4588 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,897
Super Hornet has got a lot going for it - I just like the manufacturing deal with Rafale. Gives Canada a better 'in' to build its own UAVs in 20 years time.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 23:49
  #4589 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 808
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.
Courtney Mil
Agreed, we went down this road with the F16, F18 acquisition if I remember correctly, and also when the RFDS acquired the PC12, and we had the sky was going to fall in argument.

Whilst each country can be different, they will all have to apply weightings to all the pro's and cons. So I suppose it will come down to the statistical projections of what the failures and outcomes will be against the others.

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
The F-22 and F-35 are two very different beasts, apart from the F35 still being in development, I would think that the F-22's being in Alaska would be to defend against the most likely threat.
rh200 is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2014, 00:20
  #4590 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
I guess I'll have to dig out a reference for the hardware?

DOTE FY 2011 Annual Report | Page 28:
“...Block 2 and Block 3 Software Development Progress
-- The program intends to provide Block 2 capability for production lot 4 and lot 5 aircraft; lot 4 aircraft should begin to deliver in mid-2012. In the new plan, the program intends Block 2 to contain the first mission systems combat capability – including weapons employment, electronic attack, & interoperability.

-- Concurrent with Block 1 development and integration, the program began integration of initial Block 2A software using the Cooperative Avionics Test Bed (CATB) in early October 2011. The development team augmented the mission systems integration lab, which was busy supporting Block 1 tasks, with the CATB as an integration resource. The new plan calls for the beginning of Block 2A flight test on F-35 mission systems aircraft before the end of November 2011. However, initial Block 2 integration task execution has fallen behind the new plan, having completed approximately half of the planned schedule, and leaving approximately 70 percent of integration tasks to go.

-- Block 3 development is slightly behind the new plan with only 30 percent of initial Block 3 having completed the development phase. In the new plan, the program simplified Block 3 to two production releases instead of three in prior planning and schedules. The program plans the first release, Block 3i, to contain no substantive increase in functions or capability. It will re-host the final Block 2 capability on the upgraded “Technical Refresh 2” processor hardware set. The program intends Block 3i capability for production lot 6 and lot 7 aircraft.

Block 3f, the final increment, includes new capability. The program in-tends to deliver Block 3f for IOT&E & the final lots of low-rate production...."
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/...nualReport.pdf (42Mb)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76973783/A...2011-JSF-brief


Last edited by SpazSinbad; 11th Jun 2014 at 00:28. Reason: textad
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2014, 01:46
  #4591 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
Lockheed: Marine Joint Strike Fighter on Final Approach to Initial Operational Capability
10 Jun 2014 Dave Majumdar
"...Meanwhile, the government-company integrated test force has flown five sorties with the Block 3i software–which is the configuration the U.S. Air Force requires for its August 2016 IOC date. Block 3i, with the exception of a new third generation helmet-mounted display, offers the same capability as Block 2B other than the fact it runs on newer, faster computer hardware. The new helmet fixes issues with night vision found on the older version of the hardware.

“We did have some integration issues with the hardware itself,” Martin said.

“Once we ported the software over, we made no software changes to the application software. It ported clean, but we did have some integration issues that are now behind us.”

She said that the hardware and software are performing extremely well thus far.

The Marines do not need the new hardware for their IOC, but eventually their aircraft will be retrofitted with the new processors...."
Lockheed: Marine Joint Strike Fighter on Final Approach to Initial Operational Capability | USNI News
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2014, 04:14
  #4592 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by Bannock
The author goes on to state
.....
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.

Oh, yes - there are so many airports near the &*&^%^$$# aircraft carriers in the middle of the ocean, so the USN doesn't need to worry about its constantly-failing single engine on the F-35C.

That author has his head up his arse, and is completely lacking in credibility, as far as I'm concerned.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2014, 05:17
  #4593 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
'GK121': From same sauce (unprofread) we have this unpooread guffaws:
"...10. F-35 Fleet Will Require Much-Improved Search and Rescue

"...Lockheed Martin argues that F-35s are appropriate for the Arctic because Norway flies F-16s in the Arctic, while the United States flies F-16s off aircraft carriers.[82]...

...The United States uses F-16s in Alaska and off aircraft carriers for one purpose only, namely, to use as mock enemy aircraft during training exercises. Significantly, a large portion of the United States’ F-22 fleet is based in Alaska, providing twin-engine safety to fighter pilots operating in the American Arctic. The F-16s, in contrast, are kept relatively close to the airports and aircraft carriers, where search and rescue is readily available....
I frikin' hope so.

Last edited by SpazSinbad; 11th Jun 2014 at 05:19. Reason: Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before - Antartic?
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2014, 08:24
  #4594 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,292
Yes, Spaz, I get that 3i offers no increase in capability. My point is that it's not idendical code and it is currently in testing with the new hardware that it's designed for. Simple as that. But thanks for the slide.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2014, 09:04
  #4595 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 63
Posts: 371
To sum up the software and hardware situation, 2B it would seem is possibly nearly as per specification, 3i is meant to do the same as 2B on a different hardware platform. Having an aircraft that has flown with 3I does not mean it is tested, implicitly it cannot be signed off till 2B is fully signed off, as it is meant to mimick it. 3I was meant to be a stepping stone to 3F that all users were planned initially to declare IOC with.
Neither version is ready for fleet release.
PhilipG is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2014, 09:39
  #4596 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,292
Exactly, Philip.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2014, 13:00
  #4597 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 63
Posts: 6,995
Whack in MS DOS 5 and it'll go like a rocket

As an aside ... it would appear PDA has now been granted for our man to display at Farnborough and RIAT this year.


Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 11th Jun 2014 at 20:39.
CoffmanStarter is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2014, 13:47
  #4598 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
Well then, apart from assertion, any proof what you say CM is the case? I can assert a bunch of stuff. Your assertions are becoming less believable as they are asserted.
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2014, 14:30
  #4599 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 63
Posts: 371
Spaz, do you have an issue with the post that I put up about 2B and 3i's progress? It seemed to me to be a summation of a number of your posts with a little thought linking them together.
Or do you have irrefutable evidence that 3i is working as well as 2B on new hardware and it has all been proven in under 10 test flights?
PhilipG is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2014, 14:46
  #4600 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 72
Posts: 1,938
'PhilipG' if you need validation then I have no problem with your post. My issue is with 'CM' assertions without any proof. I actually admire the way you are able to provide "...a summation of a number of your posts with a little thought linking them together...." Excellent Outstanding BZ Bravo Zulu Well Read Sir. Got it?
SpazSinbad 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.