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 13th Oct 2014, 09:46
  #5281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I would be confident that the F35 would be up for a 60 year life cycle if the main structure and propulsion units of the project were up to it.

Yes it can be argued that Moore's Law about the power of computers gives the F35 wonderful opportunities to do fantastic things in the next decades.

The ability to do these wonderful things in future decades requires that the stress problems in the B version and serious engine problems in all the versions and as yet uncertified software all get sorted out rather quickly.

I sadly rather doubt that the present apparent problems will be sorted out in time for the USMC to declare IOC in May 2015, what this means for the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers is of course a completely other matter.
PhilipG is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2014, 10:56
  #5282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 553
Received 21 Likes on 15 Posts
I don't want to suggest that engineers/software developers knowingly mis-sell things to customers. It's sort of true and sort of not.

Organisations have all sorts of people in them with differing knowledge and attitudes and motivations. Engineers in one discipline may have faint understanding of the issues facing those in some other group but quit often they don't really get it. People who aren't actually doing the work generally have no idea - always relying on summaries from the do-ers.

In all new work (or just new to the people doing it) optimism/realism plays a role. You ask someone "can you do this" and they look at it and say "sure". If we had no optimism we'd never tackle anything new. People with experience also have caveats and qualifications but they are complicated - e.g. "we should be able do do something like this but it's not been done quite this way before so you can't be totally sure that there will be no problems." Imagine now that there are hundreds of people giving estimates and judgements that form the overall picture.

The management, who are often the people who found they were not good at technical things, are not equipped to sum all of this up into a final summary of probabilities and risk. Plus they are under pressure to assume the best rather than the worst so that they can make a favourable offer.

Even at a low level, managers are under pressure to present a good picture to their bosses and so on up the chain.
t43562 is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2014, 11:43
  #5283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
T43562' "It's sort of true and sort of not." Good point, well made.

Hempy, stopping the bad guys penetrating the AMRAAM screen requires energy manoeuvrability. Performance restrictions do not help. And that's one of my biggest concerns about this platform, especially if they impose further limitations on performance. I'm not talking about post-BVR here, just the long range stuff.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2014, 11:47
  #5284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Ooh, a thought that occurred during a sunny lunchtime aperitif. I think it's time for Sharkey to write one of his "papers" explaining how the FAA is deliberately screwing over the RAF by insisting on this over-priced, under-performing platform, just so the Navy can have some fixed-wing assets on their carriers. D'you think he will?
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2014, 12:01
  #5285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
F4 wrote

"There is no backup plan?
Then the title of the threat gets interesting"

Given the performance of our Lords & masters over the Scottish referendum I am willing to be serious money that there is no backup plan whatsoever

the policos think process is probably:-

1. It may be alright on the night

2. all military stuff drifts to the right

3. It delays actually having to order it in large ££££££££

4. We'll probably be out of office when the brown stuff hits the fan and we can use it to attack the other parties

5. We can always claim we can get EVEN more cheaper helicopters on board without all those nasty, expensive American jets

6. Blame the Yanks and dig up Skybolt, the N bomb debacle in '45 etc etc
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2014, 16:21
  #5286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A report from Defense News. It states that a root cause of the June engine failure has been identified and a deal has been struck for the modification, as well as costings for LRIP 7:


Pentagon, Pratt Cut Deal for F-35 Engines, Modifications | Defense News | defensenews.com

It isn't clear to me from this article how (if) P&W are shouldering some of the cost. It's possible the funding they are to receive includes an offset for their contribution but I can't see that the report actually says that.

LF
Lowe Flieger is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2014, 16:54
  #5287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: U.K.
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We give £20 billion a year to the EU and £12 billion in Overseas Aid. £32 billion a year would pay for Rolls Royce defence. £20 billion would be enough.
hawkeye is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2014, 20:02
  #5288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The "root cause" that the program office and P&W stated in their joint press release is nothing more than what they previously stated, which was that a blade(s) rubbed, they overheated, and eventually shattered - with fragments penetrating the fuel tank and causing a fire. They have NOT officially stated what caused the rubbing in the first place, so it seems to me that the "root cause" has not been determined, or at least released as public information. As far as P&W paying for the fix (or more likely mitigation) seems doable, considering that each F135 in the latest contract costs ~$18.8M each, plus another $7.3M each for sustainment. Of course the lawyer in me would also be asking for damages, specifically the cost of replacing a $120M airframe.

Last edited by Maus92; 15th Oct 2014 at 20:38.
Maus92 is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2014, 20:29
  #5289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 2,006
Received 16 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil
Ooh, a thought that occurred during a sunny lunchtime aperitif. I think it's time for Sharkey to write one of his "papers" explaining how the FAA is deliberately screwing over the RAF by insisting on this over-priced, under-performing platform, just so the Navy can have some fixed-wing assets on their carriers. D'you think he will?

CM - Sharkey's argument (into which he enlisted the late Admiral Woodward in a bid to add credibility to his writings) is that the RAF is screwing over the RN by insisting on having STOVL F-35s rather than the F-35C...

To avoid detracting from the subject of this thread, I'll not go into the detail behind it, but in essence Sharkey is of the view that if the F-35C had been purchased, getting rid of the RAF [a clear necessity in Sharkey's World] would be terribly simple, which is why the light blue fought for the F-35B and managed, yet again, to con the government... So you may be waiting some time.
Archimedes is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2014, 21:05
  #5290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Still signing contracts for the next batch even with no fix for THE engine. My God, the contractors have everyone over a barrel with this concurrent development bollocks. How could we ever have signed up to this?
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2014, 21:11
  #5291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Archimedes, nice rant, but you clearly don't understand sarcasm. Sorry if I misled you. Think of it this way, it would be unthinkable for the bearded tw@t to write such a paper. It would quite the opposite of his position. Could I really expect such irony?
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2014, 21:35
  #5292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 39
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Everybody relax about the engine issue. Lockheed Martin are coming to the rescue....

Compact fusion reactors
Darren_P is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2014, 22:05
  #5293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
could be ready for use in a decade.
Quicker than waiting to P&W to fix the F135?
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2014, 23:02
  #5294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
If their fusion reactor works as well as the F135, it's probably a good time to dump any property you might own in Palmdale, 20 miles around it and 1000 miles downwind.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2014, 23:30
  #5295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Is this a new idea? I took an interest in a program like this a while ago...

A real nuclear bomber
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2014, 23:45
  #5296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One wonders if theres a real break though. Considering the implications if true, and the size of the company and tie in connections with the government, you would expect they would have no shortage of backers. The amount of money that could be expected to be gained from cornering the market is huge.

Mind you if its not wind or sun I suppose Barrys not interested. I think its the usual press release to get some interest and investment along lines of some pet research.
rh200 is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2014, 23:53
  #5297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 2,006
Received 16 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil
Archimedes, nice rant, but you clearly don't understand sarcasm. Sorry if I misled you. Think of it this way, it would be unthinkable for the bearded tw@t to write such a paper. It would quite the opposite of his position. Could I really expect such irony?
Ah. I was being ironic about your irony (I thought it was irony rather than sarcasm). Perhaps I was a little too dead-pan.

I do understand sarcasm, as several generations of Staff College students (some of whom are PPruners) who have read my Loose Minutes on their work can testify...
Archimedes is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2014, 23:53
  #5298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Fusion? Really. We've been promised this for decades. And it was always a decade away. We can't even build huge great fusion reactors for power generation yet. Well, if you're willing to put more energy in than you get out, maybe. Or use fusion as a secondary reaction in a weapon.

Looking forward to the Fusion Refueling Point in the local gas station.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2014, 23:54
  #5299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Archimedes,

I did wonder after I posted. Sorry.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2014, 00:00
  #5300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 2,006
Received 16 Likes on 8 Posts
Oh, no apology required, CM.

My comment was based upon my admiration at the way you'd crafted a scenario which is the exact opposite of his actual views.
Archimedes is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.