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 16th Dec 2014, 21:03
  #5481 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Of course, thanks. It probably sounds better in Mandarin anyway!


Why do we (in the UK) stick to weather related names? Obviously historical connections also play a factor (Typhoon and Lightning at least), I am not sure if this is the case in China also?


Thread drift warning....
WhiteOvies is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2014, 21:22
  #5482 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Weather related names? Because they sound punchy, but maybe they'll follow the decline of our formerly excellent Air Force. Expect the BAES Storm, the Eurofighter Gale, the EADS Wind and the Joint-European Drizzle.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2014, 21:22
  #5483 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Far, far away.
Posts: 77
Unfortunately the mainland Chinese use simplified Mandarin to name their aircraft, which is an affront to any educated person.

Unofficial names are usually much more colourful, referencing Chinese poetry or art.

Although not an air-breathing craft, 'Jade Rabbit' was an example of their creative use of a figure from Chinese mythology which was, at first, unofficial, but was eventually accepted as the formal name.

The Western repetition of aircraft names from the past does suggest that either a) your language is somewhat limited, or b) your imagination requires improvement, or c) you're hoping that the success of the original will instantly transfer itself onto the newest version.
Mr.Noritake is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2014, 21:37
  #5484 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 91
Posts: 1,885
Pretty sure I saw an advert for a 'Jade Rabbit' someplace. Don't think that was an air-breather either.
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2014, 21:58
  #5485 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,897
The MoD A Bit Wet Towards The End Of The Week?
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2014, 22:07
  #5486 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Bradford
Age: 50
Posts: 161
What's unimaginative and limited language about "Dave"
jonw66 is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2014, 02:47
  #5487 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Han Dynasty poets call the rabbit on the Moon the "Jade Rabbit" (玉兔) or the "Gold Rabbit" (金兔), and these phrases were often used in place of the word for the Moon.

Yutu (Chinese: 玉兔; pinyin: Yłtł; literally: "Jade Rabbit") is an unmanned lunar rover that forms part of the Chinese Chang'e 3 mission to the Moon.

So there really has been a "Jade Rabbit" on the moon since 14 December 2013 - although it has been immobile since 25 January 2014 (42 days after landing) and its instruments continue degrading. However, despite having been designed for only a 3-month life-span, it is still able to communicate with Earth radio stations.


We now return you to your regularly-scheduled partisan bickering over the F-35.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2014, 11:07
  #5488 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
That will be quite enough of that, Mr Whyte.

The visible influence of the F-35 design on the J-31 could be the result of sophisticated cyber-espionage. Or it could be the result of looking at public media briefings from 1996. Any real stolen secrets would not be apparent externally from a distance, and would most probably not be incorporated at all on the J-31 prototype. You might find some on the RCS model.

I'd be really surprised to see LRIP 1/2 jets at Luke.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2014, 23:42
  #5489 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 875
RAAF F-35A x 2 Arrive at Luke AFB, AZ

The first 2 x F-35A for RAAF were delivered to Luke AFB, AZ on 18 Dec 14.

Arizona lawmakers tour state military bases - FOX 10 News | fox10phoenix.com

There will be 18 x F-35A at Luke AFB by 19 Dec 14. Training for Italy and Norway is expected to start in 2015. Currently, 144 x F-35A are due to be based at Luke AFB by 2024.

http://www.luke.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123434914

http://australianaviation.com.au/201...s-at-luke-afb/

Last edited by RAFEngO74to09; 19th Dec 2014 at 13:27.
RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2014, 15:06
  #5490 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
Glendale Home Depot needs to stock up on white paint, then.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2014, 23:14
  #5491 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 247
The War Nerd: More proof the US defense industry has nothing to do with defending America | PandoDaily

If the RAAF - or rather the Australian government had an ounce of sense, they'd be offering the USAF to take every last A10 off their hands. Its an aircraft that actually does the job. The F35 is going to be totally useless in the kind of war that we have been and will be fighting. Expecting the UK to see the uselessness of the F35 may be beyond hope, but the Australians have a chance of realising that the aircraft they need is something that can be used really effectively against ground targets.
Royalistflyer is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2014, 13:58
  #5492 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,477
Royalist:
1. Do the RAAF have the tanking assets to deploy A-10's to where you need them to be?
2. How does the RAAF get ahold of the tech data, fixtures, tooling, and spares to keep an A-10 fleet alive and well?
3. Pursuant question 2, how big of an A-10 fleet do you envision as meeting RAAF needs? That answer to that informs how much overhead is represented in establishing the support structure to keep an old (albeit wonderful) aircraft flying into the future.
4. That the F-35 is very expensive, and not getting any cheaper, is not in dispute. What is in question is: what are options, what is to be done about it ... and how do you support and maintain your fleet of whatever for a few decades?

With the F-35, at least, I'd make a wager that spares and maintenance support will be more readily available. For a price, of course.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2014, 15:29
  #5493 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Spot on, Lonewolf. It's the only game in town for sustainability without buying from ex-Soviet scrap metal merchants, Sweden or France. Mind you...
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2014, 15:34
  #5494 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,477
Courtney:
I guess there's a line of inquiry open to considering why the latest Grippen wasn't chosen for RAAF needs.
As I am not from Australia, and do not understand the nuances of their procurement challenges (with a much smaller budget than we have here in the USofA) it may have been a question that answered itself during the requirements definition phase.

Part of Australian strategic posture seems to mirror American strategic posture: we'll do any fighting in the future as part of a coalition or alliance. The advantage to having similar kit may be at the strategic level as well as at an operational level. F-35 in that regard fits a particular strategic need.
For a price, of course.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2014, 16:50
  #5495 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 795
The USMC just got their first "C"

OK, on first blush I thought this must have been a typo saying the US Marines just took delivery of a "C" model. I was not aware that the C for the USMC was this far along. I thought the B was to be the main push by the USMC for years to come, and C only much later. I realize that this pre-dates squadron service by many years, but still caught me by surprise. Article indicates it is the first of 80 for the USMC.

USMC receives first F-35C - 12/23/2014 - Flight Global

Also notes first 2 Aussie deliveries- to Luke AFB for training.

Last edited by sandiego89; 23rd Dec 2014 at 17:02.
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2014, 17:10
  #5496 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Classified
Posts: 315
.............

Last edited by Radix; 18th Mar 2016 at 02:15.
Radix is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2014, 18:30
  #5497 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 50
Posts: 386
OK, on first blush I thought this must have been a typo saying the US Marines just took delivery of a "C" model. I was not aware that the C for the USMC was this far along. I thought the B was to be the main push by the USMC for years to come, and C only much later. I realize that this pre-dates squadron service by many years, but still caught me by surprise. Article indicates it is the first of 80 for the USMC.

USMC receives first F-35C - 12/23/2014 - Flight Global

Also notes first 2 Aussie deliveries- to Luke AFB for training.
Is this not part of the plan to upgrade some of their legacy F/A-18s to support the Fleet air-wings?
Finnpog is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2014, 21:05
  #5498 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
The USMC is mandated to operate a few squadrons off of CVNs, and the Navy is not going to let the Bravos melt their decks (CVNs are not in line to get the new thermal coatings, reinforcements, and equipment relocations needed to operate it) or otherwise interfere with cycles. The agreement with the Navy to acquire 80 Charlies was made prior to the decision to upgrade and SLEP USMC Hornets. Between that decision and the earlier agreement to buy 80 Charlies, the Marines shaved off 13 - now they want only 67 -Cs - and upped the Bravo order by 13.
Maus92 is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2014, 21:50
  #5499 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 62
Posts: 371
Engines

I was wondering what engines are being put in the new build F35s.

Are the engines being put in the new builds ones that will need, replacement or rebuild before being released for normal operations, not needing to be examined every 3 hours, allegedly all repairs to be paid for by United Technologies.
PhilipG is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2014, 21:59
  #5500 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
As of today, no fix has been publicly announced. It was supposed to have completed engineering, at least, by the end of the year. So for now, no fixes have been installed in any engine other than test articles. The inspection cycles have been loosened to 13 hours. Test jets fly the "full envelope," while training aircraft are still somewhat limited for reasons beyond the engine flexing/blade rubbing issue.
Maus92 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.