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 7th Jul 2014, 13:08
  #4781 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
Stick one in a Galaxy and have it towed up and down past the screaming crowd at Farnborough?
It does make you wonder why, given the PR importance of the aircraft making it to this side of the pond and the challenges of ferrying single-engine and short-legged 'developmental' aircraft over the Atlantic, they didn't opt to ship them over via C-17/C-5 well ahead of time in the first place.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 15:27
  #4782 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
That is quite a succinct question indeed.

Maybe Spaz will viff his way over from the previous page with an appropriate LM press release?
glad rag is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 15:50
  #4783 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 791
Quote:
Stick one in a Galaxy and have it towed up and down past the screaming crowd at Farnborough? It does make you wonder why, given the PR importance of the aircraft making it to this side of the pond and the challenges of ferrying single-engine and short-legged 'developmental' aircraft over the Atlantic, they didn't opt to ship them over via C-17/C-5 well ahead of time in the first place.
Perhaps because it won't fit in a C-17 or C-5. 35 foot span on the B- too big without taking the wings off, and that would be a major reassembly. A smarter move would have been to ferry a few B's over on a LHD as part of an exercise, "training" or a deployment.
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 16:01
  #4784 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
Perhaps because it won't fit in a C-17 or C-5. 35 foot span on the B- too big without taking the wings off, and that would be a major reassembly.
Thanks for stating the blindingly obvious sandiego. Of course the wings have to come off, just as the rotors have to come of a helicopter when that is airlifted also.

http://defensetech.org/2011/08/25/ou...home-in-a-c-5/
melmothtw is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 17:26
  #4785 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 62
Posts: 371
I think that I did ask why they had not put them all on the F35 trial ship USS Wasp, they might have got here, unfortunately I understand Wasp is busy being refitted, so she can carry F35s.
PhilipG is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 17:53
  #4786 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
'glad rag' I will never do your bidding but thought it appropo to suggest that I could not give a rats arse whether youse BritUKcrabs see any F-35Bs soon. What do I care? If anything I would care that if the Bs do travel over water that they do so safely etc.
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 18:34
  #4787 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
fish

Originally Posted by SpazSinbad View Post
'glad rag' I will never do your bidding but thought it appropo to suggest that I could not give a rats arse whether youse BritUKcrabs see any F-35Bs soon. What do I care? If anything I would care that if the Bs do travel over water that they do so safely etc.
OK. I just thought, from your previous postings that you had your finger on the Lockheed PR pulse thats all, an information conduit to the latest from the manufacturer direct to <these> pages.

Obviously not.
glad rag is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 18:39
  #4788 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
You and the other fans might care more if it turns out that, after 12 years and $40+ billion, and a year before supposed "operational" capability, the jet can't manage a very benign deployment with almost unlimited support.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 22:04
  #4789 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
I don't think there's anything "benign" about a trans-atlantic trail in a single-seat, single-engined jet ac, having planned and flown many myself.

Regardless, I'm highly confident that there are many on both sides of the pond making considerable efforts to ensure that whatever can be done to get the ac to the UK is being done and with safety as a priority.

If they don't make it, the right decision will have been made. If they do make it, ditto.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 22:35
  #4790 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
How the thunking goes at moment:

No Decisions Yet On F-35B UK Flights; Tomorrow Looms Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
&
Sources: Engine ‘Definitely’ to Blame for June F-35 Fire 07 Jul 2014 Dave Majumdar

http://news.usni.org/2014/07/07/sour...june-f-35-fire

Last edited by SpazSinbad; 7th Jul 2014 at 22:49. Reason: exta urlage
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 23:43
  #4791 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 809
There are those on here who will blindly think the F35 is the ducks nuts and can do no wrong, also there are those who are of the opposite opinion and are just as extreme.

The fact is its a complex program with many things going on in parallel. Like all complex project management programs, they have to juggle competing interests.

The current issue is nothing more than a blip at a inconvientent time. We are not at war, the free world isn't hanging on a thread waiting for it to help us against the hordes. The piece of sh!t has had a major component failure in the engine. It is only prudent to ground it until the risk and cause is at least partially understood.

It would be complete stupidity to risk, 1) a pilot 2) a expensive airframe, when there is some unknown probability of a catastrophic engine failure.

I do believe this is not an unusual situation, in recent memory we have had A380 grounded, F22 grounded, etc etc.
rh200 is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2014, 01:53
  #4792 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
Most F-35 engines inspected; U.S. contract talks on hold for now 07 Jul 2014 Andrea Shalal
"...Officials investigating the fire have determined what happened to the F135 engine built by Pratt, a unit of United Technologies Corp, but are still trying to understand why it happened, said one source familiar with the program...."
Most F-35 engines inspected; U.S. contract talks on hold for now | Reuters
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2014, 05:17
  #4793 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by MSOCS View Post
I don't think there's anything "benign" about a trans-atlantic trail in a single-seat, single-engined jet ac, having planned and flown many myself.
Did the single seat, single engined aircraft you planned and flew across the Atlantic come in at approx £90,000,000 each?

You'd hope anything worth that amount of coin would indeed be capable of crossing an ocean 'benignly'.....
Hempy is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2014, 06:35
  #4794 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
rh200 has it spot-on! Well said Sir.

Hempy - those aircraft cost way more than the 90M you quote because they are Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) airframes. When Full-Rate Production (FRP) is in full swing you might see them come in at the price you quote (from where btw?!), or it could be higher (or lower, but I doubt it). I think the cost is irrelevant in many ways to this argument, unless of course you can quote an ac cost that would be acceptable in similar circumstances?

If it comes to the UK, great. If it doesn't, the more mature visitors to this forum will understand why.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2014, 09:40
  #4795 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
MSOCS - Maybe "benign" is not the right word. However, an operation with unlimited resources and months of planning, in summer, is not the same as the combat deployments for which this aircraft will supposedly be ready this year.

Flight safety is paramount, and to suggest anyone thinks otherwise without evidence is a strawman argument. The underlying issue is the reliability and maturity of the platform, almost eight years into flight test.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2014, 10:57
  #4796 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Any chance that we can use this to restart development of the F136 Alternative Engine.... after all, competition was a great driver in the F100 / F110 engine war.

S41
Squirrel 41 is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2014, 11:23
  #4797 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 1,549
Already out there...

Alert 5 Poll: Should the Pentagon revive the GE F-136 engine program? - Military Aviation News
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2014, 12:28
  #4798 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
USS Wasp is just out from a long dry docking overhaul period so is in no way fit for any type of aviation right now. That's why that is not an option.

I really hope the aircraft make it across but flight safety comes first and Bogdan is mature enough to make the right call despite the undoubted political and commercial pressures. Whilst the PR of a grounding and missed airshows is bad for the aircraft it is nothing compared to the what would happen if the worst happened mid-Atlantic.

Of note there has been alot less press about the PAK/FA (T-50) that caught fire recently. I'm waiting for the conspiracy theorists to come up with why all these stealth jets keep catching fire!
WhiteOvies is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2014, 12:44
  #4799 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
S41 - The decision to cancel the F136 was rational. Why, the pro-GE side even raised the spectre of an engine-related fleetwide grounding! No way anything like that would happen.

The jets may make it to England - but the way the story is coming out right now reminds me of being stuck at DTW at 2015, and thank you for your patience, folks, we're waiting on maintenance and should have an update for you in another 20 minutes...
LowObservable is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2014, 12:59
  #4800 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Sorry if this has already been posted. Was reading and found it. Seemed relevant although haven't been here yet today.

A current grounding of the entire Lockheed Martin F-35 fleet has no bearing on the UK’s plans to order the fifth-generation type, according to defence secretary Philip Hammond.

Speaking to reporters after attending a naming ceremony for the new Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth at Rosyth dockyard in Scotland on 4 July, Hammond said the grounding – imposed the previous day – was “unfortunate”. However, he notes: “It’s the kind of thing that happens in aircraft development programmes.”

While Hammond says the Ministry of Defence “would very much like it to be here for Farnborough”, he adds that “we are not going to take any chances with safety”. One of the short take-off and vertical landing F-35Bs which has been scheduled to appear at the show after making a debut appearance at the 11-13 July Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) is UK-owned aircraft BK-3.
Oh, and I love the fact that they've now decided that the engine is the most likely cause of the engine fire!
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 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.