F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
So, let's sum the situation up here.
The plan is to do a transatlantic drag with four single-engine jets, each with a fuel fraction equivalent to an F-16 or Typhoon with no external tanks, and higher wing and span loadings (indicative of cruise efficiency) than either. Hence the northern route and around 10 tankings per aircraft.
The aircraft has very seldom landed anywhere except Fort Worth, the flight-test and training centers and its main operating bases.
There have been two engine-related flight standdowns in the past month.
Given that there will be hordes of senior international air force officers at RIAT and that the U.K. may plan to announce its first large order at Farnborough, there's no pressure on anyone at all.
The plan is to do a transatlantic drag with four single-engine jets, each with a fuel fraction equivalent to an F-16 or Typhoon with no external tanks, and higher wing and span loadings (indicative of cruise efficiency) than either. Hence the northern route and around 10 tankings per aircraft.
The aircraft has very seldom landed anywhere except Fort Worth, the flight-test and training centers and its main operating bases.
There have been two engine-related flight standdowns in the past month.
Given that there will be hordes of senior international air force officers at RIAT and that the U.K. may plan to announce its first large order at Farnborough, there's no pressure on anyone at all.
32klb empty... The B-52H was designed to lift >25klb on each side (two Skybolts and pylon) so maybe that would be the way to go. No GRB-36Js in flying condition, sadly.
LowObservable wrote:
Direct from Pax River to Fairford, routing up the Eastern seaboard to Bangor and thence across the Pond from DOTTY no further north than 57N is over 3000 nm, so around 7 hours flight time with a tanker.
My wet finger guess is that each F-35B (assuming they have 6300 kg / 133885 lb max fuel) would require a minimum of 6 refuelling brackets, with average wind conditions....
Hence the northern route and around 10 tankings per aircraft.
My wet finger guess is that each F-35B (assuming they have 6300 kg / 133885 lb max fuel) would require a minimum of 6 refuelling brackets, with average wind conditions....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
SNAFU.......
Marine, Air Force JSF Flights Stalled; AETC Puts F-35A Under Lock, Key
WASHINGTON: The F-35A struck by fire as it took off from Eglin Air Force Base has been secured and is under armed guard in a secure hangar and the Air Force and Marines are not flying their versions of the Joint Strike Fighter program until they know more about the fire’s causes.
“We will resume flying once we know more about the cause of the F-35A fire that occurred at Eglin AFB earlier this week,” Capt. Richard Ulsh, a spokesman for Marine aviation, said in an email.
The 33rd Fighter Wing, responsible for F-35 training at Eglin Air Force Base, said Wednesday morning that its “commander has decided to continue the temporarily (sic) suspension of F-35A flights at Eglin in the interest of safety as we continue to investigate the cause of the mishap.” First Lt. Hope Cronin said in an email to reporters that “We have no further information regarding the nature or extent of the damage” yet.
The fire-damaged plane, under the control of Air Education and Training Command, has been secured as if it were a production aircraft and this was a problem unlikely to affect the rest of the F-35 fleet. This is the first time all the commands and services have grappled with a potentially serious flight incident and it seems pretty clear from what I’ve heard that no one is sure what the protocols are for a plane that is both in the test phase and in low rate production — call it the curse of concurrency. The difficulty is that AETC’s conduct — which appears to be exactly by the book and is designed to ensure that no one else can influence the investigation — means that neither the other services nor the Joint Program Office know much about what has happened to the aircraft.
Compounding this is the fact the Frank Kendall, head of Pentagon acquisition and the one man who could untie this knot with a single memo, is on vacation. Meanwhile, the JPO and the Air Force’s 33rd Fighter Wing, the Marines and the Navy know almost nothing about what happened to the aircraft. It sounds as if someone at Kendall’s office of acquisition, technology and logistics (ATL) may need to ensure that data, photos and other information from the aircraft is shared by AETC so that if there is a systemic issue that may affect the fleet everyone can know it as quickly possible.
Readers who may be wondering why you haven’t seen the word grounded should know that grounding has a specific meaning for the military and these aircraft have not been grounded — yet. Grounded means the plane won’t fly until further notice or the specific conditions that led to the plane being banned from flight is found and fixed. So far they’re expecting to get the planes back in the sky as soon as they have some idea as to the fire’s cause.
A congressional aide who follows the program said today that Hill staffers had received little new information from the services or the Joint Program Office about the plane’s condition. The assumption is that a problem with the F135 engine, made by Pratt & Whitney, caused the fire. And the engine’s core is the likeliest place for such a problem.
The program does not yet have an initial damage assessment. My understanding is detailed photos of the aircraft have not yet been received by the authorities.
Authorities are choosing subject matter experts to staff the Safety Investigation (SIB) and Accident Investigation boards (AIB) to identify the accident’s causes and any measures need to protect the fleet and its pilots.
The SIB should convene “within days” and is expected to produce an assessment within 30 days.The AIB, said a program official, will begin “its investigation as soon as it can do so without interfering in the SIB investigation.” It should be done in 60 to 90 days. Unless there are classified or personnel issues most of the reports should be released.
Marine, Air Force JSF Flights Stalled; AETC Puts F-35A Under Lock, Key
WASHINGTON: The F-35A struck by fire as it took off from Eglin Air Force Base has been secured and is under armed guard in a secure hangar and the Air Force and Marines are not flying their versions of the Joint Strike Fighter program until they know more about the fire’s causes.
“We will resume flying once we know more about the cause of the F-35A fire that occurred at Eglin AFB earlier this week,” Capt. Richard Ulsh, a spokesman for Marine aviation, said in an email.
The 33rd Fighter Wing, responsible for F-35 training at Eglin Air Force Base, said Wednesday morning that its “commander has decided to continue the temporarily (sic) suspension of F-35A flights at Eglin in the interest of safety as we continue to investigate the cause of the mishap.” First Lt. Hope Cronin said in an email to reporters that “We have no further information regarding the nature or extent of the damage” yet.
The fire-damaged plane, under the control of Air Education and Training Command, has been secured as if it were a production aircraft and this was a problem unlikely to affect the rest of the F-35 fleet. This is the first time all the commands and services have grappled with a potentially serious flight incident and it seems pretty clear from what I’ve heard that no one is sure what the protocols are for a plane that is both in the test phase and in low rate production — call it the curse of concurrency. The difficulty is that AETC’s conduct — which appears to be exactly by the book and is designed to ensure that no one else can influence the investigation — means that neither the other services nor the Joint Program Office know much about what has happened to the aircraft.
Compounding this is the fact the Frank Kendall, head of Pentagon acquisition and the one man who could untie this knot with a single memo, is on vacation. Meanwhile, the JPO and the Air Force’s 33rd Fighter Wing, the Marines and the Navy know almost nothing about what happened to the aircraft. It sounds as if someone at Kendall’s office of acquisition, technology and logistics (ATL) may need to ensure that data, photos and other information from the aircraft is shared by AETC so that if there is a systemic issue that may affect the fleet everyone can know it as quickly possible.
Readers who may be wondering why you haven’t seen the word grounded should know that grounding has a specific meaning for the military and these aircraft have not been grounded — yet. Grounded means the plane won’t fly until further notice or the specific conditions that led to the plane being banned from flight is found and fixed. So far they’re expecting to get the planes back in the sky as soon as they have some idea as to the fire’s cause.
A congressional aide who follows the program said today that Hill staffers had received little new information from the services or the Joint Program Office about the plane’s condition. The assumption is that a problem with the F135 engine, made by Pratt & Whitney, caused the fire. And the engine’s core is the likeliest place for such a problem.
The program does not yet have an initial damage assessment. My understanding is detailed photos of the aircraft have not yet been received by the authorities.
Authorities are choosing subject matter experts to staff the Safety Investigation (SIB) and Accident Investigation boards (AIB) to identify the accident’s causes and any measures need to protect the fleet and its pilots.
The SIB should convene “within days” and is expected to produce an assessment within 30 days.The AIB, said a program official, will begin “its investigation as soon as it can do so without interfering in the SIB investigation.” It should be done in 60 to 90 days. Unless there are classified or personnel issues most of the reports should be released.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few points:
The breaking Defence article shows B's and C's at Pax River in 2011 rather than A's at Eglin. Am I being picky in wondering why they can't get the right aircraft and if the picture is representative of the rest of the article?
LO - to say the jet seldom lands anywhere but Fort Worth is plainly BS given the number of aircraft based at Eglin, Pax River, Nellis, Hill, Edwards and Yuma. I agree however that I am sure there is significant pressure on the program to get the aircraft to the UK.
The A and C have a different back end to the F-135 (obviously) so maybe that's a factor in what is flying and what isn't? I have no actual knowledge of the event but I'm sure it's being looked into appropriately.
The breaking Defence article shows B's and C's at Pax River in 2011 rather than A's at Eglin. Am I being picky in wondering why they can't get the right aircraft and if the picture is representative of the rest of the article?
LO - to say the jet seldom lands anywhere but Fort Worth is plainly BS given the number of aircraft based at Eglin, Pax River, Nellis, Hill, Edwards and Yuma. I agree however that I am sure there is significant pressure on the program to get the aircraft to the UK.
The A and C have a different back end to the F-135 (obviously) so maybe that's a factor in what is flying and what isn't? I have no actual knowledge of the event but I'm sure it's being looked into appropriately.
WO -
The aircraft has very seldom landed anywhere except Fort Worth, the flight-test and training centers and its main operating bases.
I wasn't trying to say that it had only operated at FW.
The aircraft has very seldom landed anywhere except Fort Worth, the flight-test and training centers and its main operating bases.
I wasn't trying to say that it had only operated at FW.
According to AW&ST 23rd June, the four B'ees will be accompanied by two KC-10s and are "expected to refuel around 10-12 times each during their crossing." I assume this (perhaps rather large) number of tankings reflects a prudent requirement to top-off regularly to ensure they will always be within some kind of diversion range.
The party "will be joined by a C-17 and at least one Marine Corps KC-130J in support." I assume the KC-130Js will inter alia provide tactical tanking and airborne security detail during the UK flying.
LFH
The party "will be joined by a C-17 and at least one Marine Corps KC-130J in support." I assume the KC-130Js will inter alia provide tactical tanking and airborne security detail during the UK flying.
LFH
BEagle....
10-12 tankings according to the Brit pilot in Aviationweek......
Priming JSFs For Transatlantic Trip | Farnborough 2014 content from Aviation Week
10-12 tankings according to the Brit pilot in Aviationweek......
Priming JSFs For Transatlantic Trip | Farnborough 2014 content from Aviation Week
On reflection: I think the operation is likely to go off as planned.
What we won't know for a long time, if ever, is to what extent this was the result of luck or planning. I'd have thought that before you did something like this, it would be good to perform (literally) a dry run over a Pax-Eglin-Fort Worth circuit, and I am not sure this has been done.
What we won't know for a long time, if ever, is to what extent this was the result of luck or planning. I'd have thought that before you did something like this, it would be good to perform (literally) a dry run over a Pax-Eglin-Fort Worth circuit, and I am not sure this has been done.
Looks like the "B" is flying and the 4 jets were at Pax River as of friday evening ready for the flight over the pond. Link below points to a "A" specific problem. Seems the A shed a few engine parts in the recent fire.
Agree there is a lot of pressure to get this deployment and display in the UK done properly. Imagine a whole host of engineers and spare parts on hand in that C-17.
Hope the show goes well! I've had the pleasure of seeing the B fly, and the sound on take off is most impresssive! Pretty normal sound when slow- can't hear the lift fan over the jet.
LO the "B's" have flown to and from Yuma a few times, and just did an over 8 hour flight to get ready for the UK deployment. So yes this is pushing the envelope, but they have dome some long cross countries.
UPDATE 3-U.S. Marines resume F-35B flights; F-35A engine parts found after fire | Reuters
Agree there is a lot of pressure to get this deployment and display in the UK done properly. Imagine a whole host of engineers and spare parts on hand in that C-17.
Hope the show goes well! I've had the pleasure of seeing the B fly, and the sound on take off is most impresssive! Pretty normal sound when slow- can't hear the lift fan over the jet.
LO the "B's" have flown to and from Yuma a few times, and just did an over 8 hour flight to get ready for the UK deployment. So yes this is pushing the envelope, but they have dome some long cross countries.
UPDATE 3-U.S. Marines resume F-35B flights; F-35A engine parts found after fire | Reuters
Last edited by sandiego89; 30th Jun 2014 at 15:44. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
According to the mentioned article above:
Priming JSFs For Transatlantic Trip | Farnborough 2014 content from Aviation Week
The Brit pilot is not quoted as saying:
that is a reporter (of three) claim.
Meanwhile there is a claim by a reporter that:
Priming JSFs For Transatlantic Trip | Farnborough 2014 content from Aviation Week
The Brit pilot is not quoted as saying:
"...The F-35s are expected to refuel around 10-12 times each during their crossing, flying direct from NAS Patuxent River, Maryland to Fairford..."
Meanwhile there is a claim by a reporter that:
"...Until June 4, the longest flight in an F-35B was just 5.8 hr., so Marine Corps pilots from Yuma, Arizona, carried out a series of endurance sorties up to 8.5 hr. long in preparation for the overwater flight...."
is there any chance that this abortion of a journey, requiring 45 refuellings to get 4 tactical fighters across the Atlantic, will spur on the development of external tanks for the F-35?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
There are claims that external tanks will gain less than 10% extra mileage on top of what is there already. You should chide the Israelis as they have claimed to be intending to develop some form of external/conformal tanks for their F-35i variant. Have not seen anything about this though for a few years - I guess they like to keep things under wraps.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would be better for the environment, tanking 4 F35s support from a C17 and a C130 etc or sending them over on the USS Wasp? At least if the Wasp was anchored somewhere there would be fewer complaints about the noise.....