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 15th Jun 2014, 10:07
  #4621 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 76
Posts: 6,385
Oh, well, an ill-wind - will give them more time to finish the carriers...hat, coat...............
Wander00 is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2014, 22:16
  #4622 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
A very short-lived "precautionary inspection grounding".

From another board, but a familiar name:
Originally Posted by "SpazSinbad"[INDENT
Nope - an incident was real as reported here. I can only vouch for what I can see at the URL for WSJ and as I'm not a WSJ subscriber I take it on faith that the rest is accurate? I guess other news outlets will have their versions soon enough? Most of the text below came from this page: The trouble with the basement dwellers - General F-35 Forum

F-35 Fighter Jets Temporarily Grounded by Engine Problems 15 Jun 2014 Doug Cameron
"Oil Leak on One Plane Leads to Inspection of 104-Jet Fleet.

The Pentagon temporarily grounded the entire F-35 Joint Strike Fighter fleet at the start of the weekend after one of the advanced jets suffered an engine oil leak and declared an in-flight emergency.

While the suspension of flight and ground testing on Friday was described by F-35 program officials as a precautionary move, it is the second time in 16 months that engine problems have grounded the entire fleet. It comes just two weeks before the plane is due to make its first international appearance.

Engine maker Pratt Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp., said most of the 104-jet fleet had been cleared to resume flying by late Saturday following the safety inspections mandated by the F-35 managers on Friday. The F-35 program office said these revealed potential problems on two more jets.

The incident on June 10 involved an F-35B jet, which can take off and land vertically. The pilot declared an in-flight emergency after being alerted to an engine oil problem, and landed safely back at base at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma in Arizona.

Pentagon officials on Friday ordered engines on all three models of the F-35 to be inspected before they could resume flights.

Pratt Whitney said in a statement that it was working to identify the cause of last week's problem, with jet-by-jet inspections taking around 90 minutes each. Program officials have pointed to problems with an oil-flow-management valve.

The F-35B is one of three variants of the jet built by Lockheed Martin Corp., and scheduled to be the first to be declared combat ready. Program officials last week expressed confidence that it will be ready for the Marine Corps as scheduled in July 2015."

F-35 Fighter Jets Temporarily Grounded by Engine Problems - WSJ
&
U.S. orders mandatory inspections for F-35s after engine issue 15 Jun 2014 (Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Sandra Maler)
"...DellaVedova said the source of that F135 engine oil leak appeared to be a supply line to engine bearings and a fitting that separated from the body of the valve in question. It was not clear if the issue was maintenance-related."
U.S. orders mandatory inspections for F-35s after engine issue | Reuters
&
Business: Washington Post Business Page, Business News
[/INDENT]
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2014, 17:54
  #4623 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 62
Posts: 6,996
Originally Posted by Jane's
Most of the 104 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft delivered to date have been inspected and returned to flight operations following an earlier grounding order that stemmed from an in-flight emergency.
Originally Posted by Jane's
Three F-35Bs are scheduled to fly to the United Kingdom next month for the type's debut outside of the United States. On 4 July one or all of the aircraft is expected to perform a fly-past at the floating of the Royal Navy's new Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier, to be followed from 11 to 13 July with displays at the Royal International Air Tattoo, the following week at the Farnborough International Airshow. It is not thought that these plans will be affected by the grounding order.
More here ...

Jane's : F-35 Flight Ops Resumed

Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 16th Jun 2014 at 18:30.
CoffmanStarter is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2014, 18:40
  #4624 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
Contract for 14 F-35Bs for UK Signing at Farnborough

The F-35B Is Vertically Challenged 16 Jun 2014 Chris Pocock, AINonline
"The F-35B V/STOL version of the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter will not perform vertical landings during its international debut in the UK next month. The maneuver cannot be performed without risk of damage to runway surfaces, unless they have been constructed with high-temperature-resistant concrete....

...An official of the Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT), where the F-35B will debut on July 11, told AIN that the concrete runway at RAF Fairford is covered with an inch-thick layer of permeable asphalt, to aid in runoff of rainfall. This layer would be at risk from the F-35Bís exhaust during a vertical landing or takeoff, he continued. The F-35B would still be able to demonstrate short landings and takeoffs, he noted.

The MoD said last week that the runways at the UKís dwindling number of operational air bases are of asphaltic concrete construction. This type of surface could also prove susceptible to damage by the heat generated by F-35B vertical operations, it is believed....

...The UK has ordered four F-35Bs to date. A contract for 14 more has been negotiated, but the signature has been delayed until the Farnborough Air Show next month for publicity reasons. The UK is planning to acquire a total of 48 F-35s over the next 10 years. The MoDís target of eventually buying 138 F-35s is certain to be dropped in the UKís next defense review in 2015."
The F-35B Is Vertically Challenged | Aviation International News
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2014, 20:42
  #4625 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
When will people understand that even the venerable Harrier did not carry out VLs or VTOs on asphalt as it too would trash the runway. It is a combination of heat, high-pressure air and their combined duration which first melts and then subsequently "distributes" the asphalt to various corners of the airfield that's the issue here - it was no failing of the Harrier that this was the case for 40 years, and is no failing of the F-35 that Physics hasn't change since.

It is for this reason that we built concrete VL/VTOpads (or used the concrete sections of runways thresholds in certain emergencies) to VTO or VL onto. Moreover, the effect of STOVL jet thrust on asphalt was also a reason that you wouldn't see a Harrier VL or VTO at UK air shows, primarily because the routine was set for an asphalt surface and few UK runways were still concrete halfway down at 'crowd centre'. Yes, as LO has been keen to point out, VL and VTO have occurred in the USA but they were invariably made to concrete surfaces - concrete runways are much more commonplace in the USA and in many eastern european countries, especially ex-Soviet Bloc ones.

Anyway, this whole issue should not be such a difficult concept for non-STOVL types to grasp; the situation was ever thus. F-35B can [and will] hover with ease; it can [and will] VL when required to do so; and it won't need to VTO because why would you when you've a short strip, carrier deck or runway available most of the time?!
MSOCS is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2014, 21:52
  #4626 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,897
No fighter jet replacement contract before 2018: government guide - Politics - CBC News

This isn't the Government decision, just a recommendation. There seems to be an undercurrent to push all sorts of decisions till after the 2015 Canadian General Election. There has been talk recently of the possibility this election will be called earlier in 2015 than the mandated date. This would still allow funds to be put down late in 2015 for a 2018 delivery date for F-35. Or the decision could be thrown open. The Conservatives seem quietly confident of winning the election if the timing's right and nothing goes pear-shaped in the meantime. It is likely F-35 would be canceled if any other party wins the election.

In short, who knows?
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2014, 22:08
  #4627 (permalink)  

Do a Hover - it avoids G
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 86
Posts: 2,206
MSOCS

Well said sir.

But this is PPRuNe. Plus the world out there has quite a lot of people who feed their families by getting their editors to print stuff. So we just have to relax and let it all flow by, because such reports do not actually change what happens. Fortunately.
John Farley is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2014, 05:30
  #4628 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
If what MSOCS says is the case, and the F-35B was never intended to land vertically away from the ship, then all the negative publicity could easily have been avoided by a single marketing/comms strategy.

Telling the truth.

After all, the heating issue was clearly defined in the now-infamous Navy spec document four years ago. It would still have been late to need, but a response to the effect that "RVLs are routine in Harrier ops and we believe that an RVL at a speed of >XX knots will avoid any problems" would have ended the controversy.

Instead, the JPO and LockMart insisted that the Navy report was all wrong (it wasn't) and that the ground environment was not different enough from a Harrier to require any changes.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2014, 07:39
  #4629 (permalink)  

Do a Hover - it avoids G
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 86
Posts: 2,206
Sorry to keep repeating myself but well said sir applies again.

With the Harrier an accurate VL was a bit harder to do than an RVL or SL done any old place on a runway. So there were good training and real currency issues in the Harrier days. On land and at sea.

Given the flight control system in the B I don't believe there will be Harrier type currency issues so why bother to do a true careful and accurate VL unless you are looking at a ship? Rolling it on at any old motor car speed will see you get your coffee at least 40-50 secs earlier.

I suspect a lot of people dealing with the B prog in many different capacities over the years (but without personal experience of the reasons behind Harrier ops) sort of drifted into a "its another Harrier and so it will do whatever a Harrier did" mindset, therefore the complete solution that Low mentions just never happened.

Still it has given a lot of people a lot to talk about!

Throw in the need for VL test facilities at Pax (over and over on the same spot) and we can see the concrete teams marching to the meetings with real interest on their faces as after all this bird has now made them the men - "it was never this good with runways eh - where are you off to next week?"
John Farley is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2014, 04:58
  #4630 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
F-35B Cleared for BAKE OFF - Engine Exhausting

F-35B Engine Exhausts 16 Jun 2014 Defence in the Media (Source: UK Ministry of Defence)
"The Sunday Times yesterday reported that the engine exhausts on F-35B jets can become so hot that the tarmac on RAF runways could melt and potentially put the aircraft at risk. The article goes on to report that as a result the Ministry of Defence will be installing three heat-resistant concrete landing pads at RAF Marham in Norfolk where the F-35B will be based at a cost of £7.5 million.

The article failed to recognise that specialist landing surfaces to sustain the downward heat during vertical landings have always been factored into our planning and budget for this project. All F35-B jets, including those used by the US Marine Corps, require this.

The Lightning II F-35B is only required to conduct vertical landings onto the deck of our new aircraft carriers and for training purposes at their main operating base at RAF Marham. We are not aware of any other requirement for vertical landings elsewhere. Naturally the aircraft will also be able to land in the same way as other aircraft at other land bases."
Defence News

RAF?s new fighter gets so hot it melts runways | The Sunday Times

SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2014, 08:34
  #4631 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,276
The designer of the F-16 explains why the F-35 is such a crappy plane

According to the Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the F-16, the F35 is a turkey. Inherently, a terrible airplane. An airplane built for a dumb idea. A kludge that will fail time and time again. Just impossibly hopeless. And judging from the bajillion times the F-35 fleet has been grounded, well, he's probably not wrong. It's a trillion dollar failure. Watch Sprey eviscerate the F-35 in the video below.

ORAC is online now  
Old 18th Jun 2014, 14:22
  #4632 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Regarding Pierre sprey's claims about BVR and F-35 - F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

This link discusses Sprey's history, agendas and personality. Seems like he also hated the F-15 and aspects of his own design in the F-16, especially with radar. Whether the opinions here are totally accurate or not, he doesn't seem to have the credence or kudos he purports to have. By the way, the F-15 still enjoys a 100-0 kill/loss ratio and most would consider the F-16 the most effective lightweight fighter ever produced.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2014, 15:32
  #4633 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,276
....he doesn't seem to have the credence or kudos he purports to have. By the way.....most would consider the F-16 the most effective lightweight fighter ever produced.
According to the Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the F-16..........


Ad hominem....
ORAC is online now  
Old 18th Jun 2014, 16:24
  #4634 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,155
Sprey also declared the F-4 to be "...a total turkey", amongst other unflattering comments!

Go figure...

-RP
Rhino power is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2014, 16:30
  #4635 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
His rather polarised view of what is and isn't a good fighter seems very much out of touch.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2014, 17:19
  #4636 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
"Turn port onto heading 230"
glad rag is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2014, 21:54
  #4637 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
MSOCS, I didn't enjoy the picture he gave us, but his views about the characteristics of fighter aircraft are not out of touch. He raises some very valid points; as it happens, points that have been discussed here months ago, before the thread became a "cut-'n'-paste" website for F-35 test progress reports. Not everyone that states a view is necessarily polarised - myself included, before you assume.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2014, 23:47
  #4638 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 809
His rather polarised view of what is and isn't a good fighter seems very much out of touch.
The world is full of extremely talented people that have narrow viewpoints and can't see the woods for the trees.

The fact is, diversity of capability is a good thing. In a way we have tried to make the F35 all things to all people with accompanied compromises and the inevitable pitfalls.

Time will tell if it turns out to be a good thing, so whoever is still here in 20 years will have a better idea.
rh200 is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2014, 05:20
  #4639 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
First off, MSOCS, you do this forum a disservice by linking to a useless shower of kiddies, mentally ill people, and silly old f**ts posting links to LockMart-supported shill organizations.

Generally: Was Sprey wrong about the F-15? Well, when did the USAF stop buying F-15s that were not primarily bombers? Quite early in the Eagle's career, I think.

Sprey takes a lot of fire for his advocacy of a cold-nose fighter. However, well into the 1980s there was much to be said for the idea that the most lethal air-to-air weapon was still the AIM-9L and equivalents - and today we see the steady rise in the capability of IRST.

RH200 - the F-35 is not "all things to all people" and nor does it offer "diversity of capability". It's dominated by (1) the specific and ill founded requirements of "the navy's army's air force" and (2) the USAF's desire for a stealth deep-strike aircraft, which has meant sacrificing affordability and capability in most of the other missions that fighters are used for.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2014, 07:01
  #4640 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
CM, the point I wished to make (and I stress that it is my own) is that Sprey's mantra of what made a good fighter back in his day is/was valid but it doesn't wholly apply today in the modern arena and, most importantly, for the future. From where I sit, technology advances have changed the game considerably since Gulf War 1; superior SA (combat ID, EW) missile range & lethality and Electronic Attack to name but a few. In the linked piece Sprey uses a number of old-world-of-fighters (no radar, eye-watering manoeuvrability) arguments which I consider invalid to apply directly to the F-35 in the way he has in the video.

LO, many of the points to counter Sprey's arguments are contained in the link I attached - I linked it because, regardless of whether you believe them to be kiddies, devoid of good sense or silly old f**ts, many of the points raised on Sprey's views are valid. Entirely valid, and I say that as a fast jet aviator with 20 years experience flying combat aircraft.
MSOCS 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 © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.