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 4th Jul 2014, 16:46
  #4741 (permalink)  

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

the question has to be when does it cease to be a developmental aircraft
In my view the answer to that will depend on the job of the person giving the answer and also what guidance (personal pressures) they are under from their boss. Plus don't forget any answer may be taken out of context by the reporter - who could well have their own agenda.

Personaly I see this as a six decade programme that started for real say in 2000.

The first decade sees the start of flying.

The second decade covers most of the original development and flying machine clearances.

The third decade sees the military really getting to grips with what they can and cannot do with it. Plus the manufacturer is testing significant upgrades.

The forth decade it is the aircraft/system to beat plus upgrades are starting to reach the fleet.

The fifth decade ditto and all the fleet will have reached the final standard.

The sixth is where serious plans for its replacement have started.

Because of these views I am afraid I cannot get excited about which aircraft are doing wot this month. Although I realise a lot of people will not share my approach!

BTW if I were to guess about the fourth decade I would see the USAF A models having their tanks behind the cockpit removed and the space used for a generator to feed an enegy weapon using the now very well proven B power off take used for the fan.

Hey ho.

Last edited by John Farley; 4th Jul 2014 at 16:48. Reason: spelling
John Farley is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2014, 17:35
  #4742 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
F-35B the Laser

Operational Implications of L a s e r Weapons by Richard J. Dunn, III - Sep 2005

Analysis Center [bad url sadly - see explanation] (PDF 345Kb) URLs can be WEIRD (WIRED?) on the interrabble for sure.... [I think the vigilink whatname here mucks fings up - for example 'L a' (without space) becomes '[email protected]' WTF] This URL now will take you to an index page where one should be able to download the named PDF Operational Implications of [email protected] Weapons (PDF - 400 KB)

http://www.northropgrumman.com/About...es/Papers.aspx


Last edited by SpazSinbad; 4th Jul 2014 at 22:14. Reason: link is to a PDF - wot ar broke - now fuxed
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2014, 18:15
  #4743 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
Scroll down on this page to see a video about SRVLs. I think the chap says the aircraft stops in 200 feet? I'll have to watch it again eh.

Queen names new Royal Navy aircraft carrier in Rosyth 04 Jul 2014 BBC News UK
"The BBC's Jonathan Beale looks at how to land a fighter jet on a warship"
BBC News - Queen names new Royal Navy aircraft carrier in Rosyth

CVF LSO Display from Video above:


Last edited by SpazSinbad; 4th Jul 2014 at 18:30. Reason: grfx
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2014, 19:00
  #4744 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
Once you have a [email protected] that can zap incoming missiles at a rate and range enough to make the platform immune to salvo attacks, maneuverability really is irrelevant, but I do want persistence and lots of onboard energy storage, along with speed to prosecute attacks on enemy aircraft. More like a neo-B-58 than an F-35B.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2014, 19:02
  #4745 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
to hold the fuel cells you'll need a C-5 or an A-400 TBH
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2014, 19:31
  #4746 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 215
Would love to be a fly on the walls in Ft Worth and the Pentagon right now!

FWIW my guess would be a relatively small group of engineers are beavering away in FW on failure analysis versus a relatively large group of bigwigs in Pentagon who are working out how best to "spin" the inevitable......

Not much of a 4th July holiday for anyone
andrewn is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2014, 21:01
  #4747 (permalink)  

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

Glad to see Northrop have some good guys!
John Farley is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2014, 22:10
  #4748 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
SRVL Video - "Stop Within 200 feet"


Last edited by SpazSinbad; 24th Jul 2014 at 01:17. Reason: New Version & change the frickin' 'https' into HTTP to show video
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2014, 01:15
  #4749 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
Laser in F-35 PDF broken URL info amended above - meanwhile - back at dat ranch....

Investigators Eye Third-Stage Turbine As F-35 Remains Grounded | Defense content from Aviation Week
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2014, 03:21
  #4750 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by John Farley
Personaly I see this as a six decade programme that started for real say in 2000.

The first decade [2000-2009] sees the start of flying.

The second decade [2010-2019]covers most of the original development and flying machine clearances.

The third decade [2020-2029]sees the military really getting to grips with what they can and cannot do with it. Plus the manufacturer is testing significant upgrades.

The forth decade [2030-2039]it is the aircraft/system to beat plus upgrades are starting to reach the fleet.

The fifth decade [2040-2059]ditto and all the fleet will have reached the final standard.

The sixth [2060-2069]is where serious plans for its replacement have started.
Given the time frames you describe (and I have no argument with them), surely replacement planning must start in at least decade 2 or 3. Otherwise, assuming similar development time, F-35 will have to remain operational to decade 9 or 10 before its replacement is fully capable!
Hempy is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2014, 03:28
  #4751 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 82
Posts: 429
Rear Admiral Kirby said on Thursday that it was unclear whether the grounded F-35 would participate in the Farnborough air show in the UK July 19-20. A final decision will come early next week.

Bob C
Robert Cooper is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2014, 06:13
  #4752 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by andrewn
Would love to be a fly on the walls in Ft Worth and the Pentagon right now!

FWIW my guess would be a relatively small group of engineers are beavering away in FW on failure analysis versus a relatively large group of bigwigs in Pentagon who are working out how best to "spin" the inevitable......
What does Fort Worth (Lockheed/Martin F-35 production facility) have to do with this problem?

It is the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine that failed - (P&W headquarters in East Hartford, Connecticut) and they are produced in Middletown, Connecticut (initial and primary production plant, produced most F135s that have been delivered) and West Palm Beach, Florida (second production location, delivered their first F135 in May this year - engine #137).
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2014, 08:08
  #4753 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
what struck me about JF's intelligent post was that in

1914-18 you could replace "decades" with "weeks"

1920-1945 replace "decades" with "months"

1945-1980 replace decades with "years"

presumably in 2030 onwards it will be replace "decades" with centuries"
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2014, 08:17
  #4754 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,267
What does Fort Worth (Lockheed/Martin F-35 production facility) have to do with this problem?
No engines = no test flying.

The program has already slipped multiple times and tis will almost certainly cause another slip - particularly for the F-35C sea carrier trials. So, yes, I imagine there are a lot of meetings and contingency planning going on...

AW&ST: .....The F-35 flight test program has missed about 30 "flight test opportunities," or scheduled flight test sortie slots, since the fleet remains on the ground after an F-35A caught fire June 23 while preparing for takeoff, says U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the program executive officer overseeing the project........

"Is it a big deal in the big scheme of things? It is not," Bogdan said of the effect of the stand-down thus far. To catch up, testers can simply add a couple of flights weekly for a short period but only if flights resume soon and if no major shortcomings are found in further flight tests.

The F-35C, designed for use on U.S. aircraft carriers, is the variant most sensitive to schedule disruptions at the moment because it is being tightly managed leading up to its initial at-sea trials on an aircraft carrier this fall. "That is the thing to make up the most time on" once aircraft return to flight, Bogdan says, noting carrier schedules are rigid. "Their schedule is not going to flex for us." If the F-35C misses its window for sea operations in the fall, Bogdan says there are backup opportunities for those tests in 2015......
ORAC is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2014, 08:50
  #4755 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610




Originally Posted by John Farley


Personaly I see this as a six decade programme
that started for real say in 2000.

The first decade [2000-2009]
sees the start of flying.

The second decade [2010-2019]covers most
of the original development and flying machine clearances.

The third
decade [2020-2029]sees the military really getting to grips with what
they can and cannot do with it. Plus the manufacturer is testing significant
upgrades.

The forth decade [2030-2039]it is the aircraft/system to
beat plus upgrades are starting to reach the fleet.

The fifth decade
[2040-2059]ditto and all the fleet will have reached the final
standard.

The sixth [2060-2069]is where serious plans for its
replacement have started.

That's an interesting timeline John, and not one I've seen posited before. How does this decades-long cycle marry with Moore's Law though, where computer memory is doubled every six months?

For example, just a decade after entering service the UK's Apaches began struggling with obsolescence issues on account of their basic transistor chips no longer being in production.

If the F-35 programme is spread out over 80+ years, how does it address obsolescence issues such as this. Surely, it will be obsolete and effectively unsupportable decades before it has even entered operational service, no?

It's also interesting to note that the MoD has 2048 as the JSF's OSD (just at the time that the fleet is attaining its final standard, by your timeline), so they're certainly not playing the long-game.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2014, 10:27
  #4756 (permalink)  

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

Many thanks for comments on my post 4744.

First may I say I have no insider info from either side of the pond and what I say is just based on my interpretation of the past and my guess of the future using what is my version of common sense.

In my time development included quite a lot of aerodynamic changes. Today such things are less likely to be necessary. However what is totally different now is the role equipment fit side of life both hardware and software. This applies to both development stages and throughout service life.

Re the point Melmothtw makes about the Apache pains I suspect that a lot of very much brighter people than me are fully aware of such issues and are finding ways of alleviating the problem. Future proofing can be real not just a buzzword.

The quote that MOD have an OSD of 2048 strikes me as so unlikely to happen that I would bet my house on it!

Re Hempy's point about the need to start planning for a successor earlier than my comment he is of course right.

The sixth is where serious plans for its replacement have started.
I should have said something like

The sixth is where work on its its replacement is looking good.
John Farley is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2014, 11:07
  #4757 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Originally Posted by SpazSinbad View Post
Laser in F-35 PDF broken URL info amended above - meanwhile - back at dat ranch....

Investigators Eye Third-Stage Turbine As F-35 Remains Grounded | Defense content from Aviation Week

"The low pressure section of the F-135 has bediveled the program before. The fleet was grounded from Feb. 21- March 1, 2013, due to the discovery of a 0.6 in. crack discovered on a third-stage low-pressure turbine blade on AF-2, an F-35A used for testing, at Edwards AFB, California. Pratt officials attributed it to a one-off manufacturing issue and not related to high-cycle fatigue."
glad rag is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2014, 13:18
  #4758 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 76
Posts: 6,385
Wonder what the USMC would take for a few AV8-Bs.......................hat, coat, running........
Wander00 is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2014, 13:28
  #4759 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,337
What impact does the l a s e r have on the -B variant? The image posted by Spaz and the words in the pdf link ("the concept for integrating a SSL into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would place the [email protected] system in the fan cavity of the short-take-off-and-vertical-landing version of the aircraft and use the fan shaft to power a megawatt-sized generator") suggest you can either a STOVL variant or a l a s e r variant but not both together. Or have I missed something?
Wrathmonk is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2014, 17:07
  #4760 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 91
Posts: 1,885
The idea is that the STOVL becomes a 'C'TOL; it's an 'instead of' not 'as well as' option.
Willard Whyte 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.