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 3rd Nov 2014, 23:36
  #5341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
CF-03 on 03 Nov Catches 3 wire

All the threes.... BZ!

SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2014, 02:29
  #5342 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
Deck Movement for Doubters + Nibbles to the roight guvnor

SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2014, 20:03
  #5343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
Noise Clarification from AFA Magazine

On previous page there is a noisy story: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post8724438

Clarification on F-35 Noise 04 Nov 2014 AFA Mag'n
"F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said an engine with the same decibel level of noise as another may be perceived as louder if the character of the noise has a higher or deeper pitched tone. During a press briefing on Oct. 30, Bogdan made an analogy to the F-4 Phantom (see F-35 Noise Good to Go). However, the F-35 engine noise study to which he referred did not compare the F-35’s sound to that of the F-4."
Air Force Magazine
&
ORIGINAL AFA story referenced above:

F-35 Noise “Good to Go” 31 Oct 2014 John A. Tirpak
"Studies of F-35 noise relative to legacy fighters will be released Friday, and will show that “on the ground, at full military power,” which is full power without afterburner, the F-35 is “actually quieter, by a little bit” than legacy aircraft such as the F-15, F/A-18, and F-16, F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said Thursday. That means the F-35 is “good to go” for beddowns in the US, he said. This “real noise data” should dispel rumors that the F-35 will be much louder than its predecessors. Part of the reason is that the F-35 is “very sleek in its outer mold line, without a lot of drag,” Bogdan said. Using afterburner, however, the F-35 is considerably noisier than its predecessors, as it generates 43,000 pounds of thrust. Its noise will be on a par with the old F-4 Phantom, Bogdan reported. Although its character is different, the F-4 noise is deeper than that of the F-35, he said. The differences, however, may be hard to detect with the human ear, which cannot perceive differences of up to three decibels, he reported. The numbers were developed in 2013 and “validate” numbers developed in 2008 with an early, pre-production version of the F-35."
http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive...Go”.aspx

Last edited by SpazSinbad; 4th Nov 2014 at 20:07. Reason: adtxt
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2014, 20:23
  #5344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Spaz, welcome back. Strangely abscent whilst there was no good news to peddle. Now you're over-doing it. I don't want you to strain yourself. I'm concerned about you.

Now, it would be easy to blow this deck landing into some huge celebration of of a wonderful achievement. Something done against all the odds. Not something it was designed to do and should have done a long time ago.

Celebrate, by all means - I do - but don't forget this is actually a recovery from another troubling failure, a delayed milestone, a late success. Fortunately, it is a success and I for one am pleased to see it. But let's not all get carried away with how wonderful it suddenly makes things. Slow progress now, please.

Sorry to interrupt your run of posts. I guess you have lost time to make up for.

Regards,

Courtney
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2014, 20:39
  #5345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
Nothing personal - but - 'abscent' does not make the 'hart' grow fonder - fondeau perhaps. Weird how you get so personal CM but hypo-cry-cy is your forte.
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2014, 20:40
  #5346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Children, please....
MSOCS is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2014, 21:06
  #5347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Age: 26
Posts: 259
Is it just me, or did anybody else notice the irony in a 'stealth plane' being loud enough to be compared to a Phantom, while in full burner?

Unfortunately, I have never heard a Phantom, and I doubt I ever will, however I have heard that at full power, it hurt your ears even with ear protection. I don't know how true that is, but if it is true, then saying that it is a pretty loud aircraft is quite an understatement. So why is something so loud being implemented in to a stealth aircraft?

Also, how is the engine going to cope? How many maintenance hours will this engine need per flying hour (approximately)?
Typhoon93 is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2014, 21:16
  #5348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Nothing personal at all, Spaz. I simply want to keep the sudden spate of "ain't it so wonderful" posts in perspective. As I said, this is long-overdue recovery, not a marvellous achievement. But I'm still glad they finally fixed the hook. I hope they have.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2014, 21:27
  #5349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Typhoon,

To be honest, I'm sure that noise output is that much of a stealth issue, although I take your point. It's been a long time since the Royal Observer Corps listened for aircraft.

Acoustic Radar.

The issue here is how much the MoD will have to pay for sound-proofing houses around its F-35 base(s) because of its noise footprint. That is why interested parties have been known to down-play certain noise footprints. Sadly, the report you may have seen does not fully address the criteria that inquiries setting "compensation boundaries" will wish to consider.

The F-4 was a noisy beast, but the F-3 in combat power was far more intrusive. Not immesdiately obvious from dBA graphs because of the way they are measured. In that case is was the higher frequencies in the noise from the F-3 that caused SOME of the problem.

It's not a simple issue. As ever.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2014, 21:57
  #5350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Age: 26
Posts: 259
Thanks CM.

So, roughly how many Squadrons will be stood up for the F-35? How many more are due to be stood up for the E/Typhoon?

There has been lots of talk about the new Royal Navy carriers being capable of carrying 36 aircraft plus helicopters (I doubt there will be many helicopters?). Although with the enormous cost of each aircraft, and its maintenance, not to mention the cost to train personnel in their maintenance and operation, realistically, are we ever likely to see HMS Queen Elizabeth and her sister ship carrying 72 fast jets between them?

If this is the case, then how many other Squadrons would the RAF have for operating from airfields?
Typhoon93 is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2014, 02:55
  #5351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 791
Typhoon93, final numbers for UK F-35B not fully decided. Original thoughts were about 130/113 in about 5 front line squadrons, plus training, spare and reserve aircraft.

14 ordered. Next term goal is 48 aircraft, the stated minimum to have 2 squadrons, a training element, test, maintenence, spares etc.

I think the final UK order will be above 48, but less than 120.

Load out between B's and helos on new carriers totally depends on the mission. For an air defense or just carrier strike mission you will have B heavy air wing (Kosovo). An Assault carrier mission, evacuation, ASW, etc helo heavy. Falklands II a mix. The scenario of both carriers with a full max load of B's is unlikely.
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2014, 11:26
  #5352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Age: 26
Posts: 259
Thanks SD89.
Typhoon93 is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2014, 14:25
  #5353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 59
Posts: 1,210
F-35 Noise “Good to Go” 31 Oct 2014 John A. Tirpak

Quote:
"Studies of F-35 noise relative to legacy fighters will be released Friday, and will show that “on the ground, at full military power,” which is full power without afterburner, the F-35 is “actually quieter, by a little bit” than legacy aircraft such as the F-15, F/A-18, and F-16, F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said Thursday. That means the F-35 is “good to go” for beddowns in the US, he said. This “real noise data” should dispel rumors that the F-35 will be much louder than its predecessors. Part of the reason is that the F-35 is “very sleek in its outer mold line, without a lot of drag,” Bogdan said. Using afterburner, however, the F-35 is considerably noisier than its predecessors, as it generates 43,000 pounds of thrust. Its noise will be on a par with the old F-4 Phantom, Bogdan reported. Although its character is different, the F-4 noise is deeper than that of the F-35, he said. The differences, however, may be hard to detect with the human ear, which cannot perceive differences of up to three decibels, he reported. The numbers were developed in 2013 and “validate” numbers developed in 2008 with an early, pre-production version of the F-35."
Surely all the above mean quit mean comparisons. I'd have thought there might be significant difference in recorded data between the decibal output of an F-16 and an F-15 in dry power? Also, when comparing the F-35 to an F-4 in reheat, would it make much difference between the Spey engined and J79 engined variety? As I recall the former produced a rather more deep low frequency register while the latter had a more screachy roar like the Lightning, Sea Vixen, Hunter etc. I can't quite recall, but I understand the Javelin's Sapphires had quite a noticeable noise output.
FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2014, 14:37
  #5354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
14 ordered
Not quite. 4 ordered (test/training), another 4 operational jets 'agreed in principle'. Once that 'agreed' deal is signed, that leaves a further 10 from the first batch (Main Gate 4) to be ordered to give you your 14 figure.

First 48 'committed to', of which first 4 have been agreed (see above). Final numbers to be revealved at SDSR15, with final bulk order in 2017 (Main Gate 5).

I think the final UK order will be above 48, but less than 120.
Agreed, though I think it might be split A/B buy rather than solely B.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2014, 15:43
  #5355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,881
however I have heard that at full power, it hurt your ears even with ear protection.
Noisy, but nothing compared to boss after wiring nose wheel steering pot the wrong way round.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2014, 16:10
  #5356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Age: 26
Posts: 259
I think it might be split A/B buy rather than solely B
I think it's just the B variant. The RAF has made no mention on their website of purchasing either of the CTOL variants that I can see. I may be wrong.
Typhoon93 is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2014, 16:44
  #5357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
I meant 'think' in the context of conversations I have had with government officials, programme officials, and serving military who are connected in some way shape or form with the programme. That, and the knowledge of the different variants that I have garnered during visits to the production facility in Texas and to the various military establishments that will house them in the US, rather than 'think' in the context of no knowledge and a cursory glance at the RAF's website.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2014, 17:33
  #5358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,120
But actually you'd go for the C because it goes further and has a probe.
orca is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2014, 17:46
  #5359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
C does have a probe, but not much on the A in terms of range. Although it carries more fuel, it is bigger, heavier, and draggier to the extent that it only has about a 10 n mile radius of operation advantage over the A.

Canada looked at the option of using land-based Cs instead of the As (again, on the premise that its increased range was safer for Arctic ops), and ultimately decided against it.

Also, MoD officials have publicly briefed on a potential A/B mix.

With more and more aircraft types being bought without probes (C17, RC135, maybe P8) perhaps the F35A might be the tipping point for the MOD getting some booms on the Voyagers.

Last edited by melmothtw; 5th Nov 2014 at 18:03.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2014, 18:08
  #5360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,120
MoD have only briefed an A/ B mix because the A is the 'Air Force jet'. It's a common theme. The Canadians also tried to put a probe on the A and were priced out it. If you think back to SDSR the C also managed to cancel DPOC because it fulfilled a range criterion that the A didn't. Not that SDSR should be held up as a totally sound bit of staff work.
orca 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.