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, 12:47
  #5281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
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, 13:01
  #5282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
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, 17:21
  #5283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 70
Posts: 133
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, 17:54
  #5284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: U.K.
Posts: 41
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, 21:02
  #5285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
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 21:38.
Maus92 is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2014, 21:29
  #5286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil View Post
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, 22:05
  #5287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
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, 22:11
  #5288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
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 [email protected] 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, 22:35
  #5289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Everybody relax about the engine issue. Lockheed Martin are coming to the rescue....

Compact fusion reactors
Darren_P is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2014, 23:05
  #5290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
could be ready for use in a decade.
Quicker than waiting to P&W to fix the F135?
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2014, 00:02
  #5291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,528
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 16th Oct 2014, 00:30
  #5292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
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 16th Oct 2014, 00:45
  #5293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 809
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 16th Oct 2014, 00:53
  #5294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil View Post
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 [email protected] 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 16th Oct 2014, 00:53
  #5295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
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 16th Oct 2014, 00:54
  #5296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Archimedes,

I did wonder after I posted. Sorry.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2014, 01:00
  #5297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 1,906
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  
Old 16th Oct 2014, 01:04
  #5298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Thank you.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2014, 06:04
  #5299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,963
Originally Posted by LowObservable
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.
Oh how I laughed!! Bravo
Hempy is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2014, 14:00
  #5300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 606
I was looking at protective cases for the iPhone 6, earlier.

One case had a sticker saying "made to military spec" or "military stds".

That isn't a good thing.

Will the case be trillions over my budget, 7 years late and arrive with flaws?
gr4techie is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.