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 23rd Dec 2014, 21:05
  #5501 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #5502 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #5503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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  
Old 23rd Dec 2014, 22:20
  #5504 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 47
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Aussies would be happy with anything that did that cheesy F-111 dump and burn trick, its not as if they use their aircraft for anything too offensive.
Thelma Viaduct is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2014, 22:25
  #5505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh, those darned Indonesians...
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2014, 10:59
  #5506 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hmmm - the Indonesian Air Force (TNI-AU) isn't that big and most of it is deployed towards the South China Sea

The nearest air base to Australia is Hasanuddin at Unjung Pandang (Makassar) - and that's over 1200 kms from the nearest bit of Australia.

They don't have a major base in the eastern 2000 km of the country - thats like the USAF not having a base west of Wichita.........

Hardly a threat at all.............
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2014, 13:12
  #5507 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Thanks, Maus...

LW50 - The Australian government had a fighter program going in 2001, headed for a competition, but in 2002 (after the PM had been in Washington) announced that the future fighter would be the F-35. The guy who was supposed to be leading the Dassault campaign landed in Melbourne hours after the announcement, with a phone message recalling him to France.

Of course, the F-35 was much cheaper then, weighed 3000 pounds less empty, and was to be in service by 2011. The Gripen E didn't exist and the Rafale and Typhoon still looked wobbly and if you'd suggested that the Chinese would have a stealth fighter in FSD before the F-35 was operational, you'd have been certified.

Since then, successive Oz governments have simply refused to re-evaluate the decision, backed up by phony foundations, a complaisant local media and a platoon of online fankiddies.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2014, 14:39
  #5508 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Low Observable got that right.
Royalistflyer is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2014, 15:58
  #5509 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wasn't seriously suggesting that the Australians get the A-10s, rather I was suggesting that almost anything would be better than the obscene amounts of money spent on the F35. I wonder if in the not too far distant future we will not be hearing whispers about how inadequate the F35 really is - and the likely inability to replace those that do fall out of the sky. I wonder might they not be better getting more F/A 18Es. They have the possibility of extended range missions - which at least as far as home defence is concerned, is all important.
Buying for foreign campaigns in minor support of the Americans seems pointless, but with large and expansive countries in their region, one wonders what their official priorities really are.
Royalistflyer is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2014, 03:55
  #5510 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK, that range bit is strange.

The F-35A has a longer unrefueled range than the F/A-18E/F - and the RAAF has just bought new air tankers that can refuel with both boom and hose, so "extended range missions" are just as possible with either type.

And since the F/A-18E/F is going out of production in a couple of years, how would it be easier to replace those than it would the F-35 - which will be in production past 2030?

And just FYI - the RAAF has no F/A-18Es (single seat) - they have F/A-18Fs (two-seat), and are getting EA-18Gs (two-seat EW versions).
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2014, 03:59
  #5511 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by LowObservable
Since then, successive Oz governments have simply refused to re-evaluate the decision, backed up by phony foundations, a complaisant local media and a platoon of online fankiddies.
And backed by experienced Defense personnel who have evaluated the alternatives with access to far more hard data than you know exists, and who are willing to admit that the only possible alternatives (nothing Russian/Chinese/Indian is politically acceptable) will be out of production before or around 2020, while new F-35s (and improved models thereof) will be coming off the assembly lines past 2030.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2014, 07:38
  #5512 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
GK - "Access to far more hard data than you know exists"

That's a pretty meaningless formulation. And can you perhaps explain to all of us where the Oz civil servants are getting classified-level briefs on the EA modes of Captor-E or the future growth path of Spectra?

And if you have never run into "experienced Defense personnel" in any country who are not locked immovably into their prior positions, you have not spent long in this industry and have not read much history.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2014, 12:46
  #5513 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In the meantime...............

BBC News - Islamic State did not shoot down Jordan plane, says US

stop for a moment, spazz et al and THINK about it......
glad rag is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2014, 14:25
  #5514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Australian Senate Estimates asking hairy questions in June. The RAAF obviously love it...



best bit starts @ 21:00

Last edited by Hempy; 26th Dec 2014 at 03:38.
Hempy is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2014, 20:44
  #5515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by LO
The Australian government had a fighter program going in 2001, headed for a competition, but in 2002 (after the PM had been in Washington) announced that the future fighter would be the F-35.
There was never any instruction that AIR 6000 should be a competition, ever! Much like the UK's FOAS, at that time it was established as a study of future fighter and strike options to replace both the F/A-18A/B and the F-111C/G, for which the F-35 was determined to be the best.

Originally Posted by LO
The guy who was supposed to be leading the Dassault campaign landed in Melbourne hours after the announcement, with a phone message recalling him to France.
Have you independently verified this urban myth with Dassault, or are you just regurgitating a Chinese whispers-like story which has been re-told and embellished at every opportunity?

Originally Posted by LO
Since then, successive Oz governments have simply refused to re-evaluate the decision, backed up by phony foundations, a complaisant local media and a platoon of online fankiddies.
In fact, there have only been two successive governments since then, and one (Labor) of these did a comprehensive study soon after being elected in 07/08 and found the decision to be a sound one.

Phony foundations...care to nominate any and back that up with proof? And Complaisant? Did you mean complacent or compliant? Either way, these are both massive calls which I suggest you are unqualified to make based on the drip feed of clippings you see or get sent from APA.

And the "platoon of fankiddies"...oh dear, I would suggest many of them established themselves online specifically to counter the likes of you and your 'platoon of basement dwellers' who continually insinuate that all pro-F-35 fankiddies or media cannot possibly hold such views unless they are receiving funding from Lockheed or elsewhere.

MODS - if Noritake can get banned for arguing a rather silly aircraft A vs aircraft B point quite respectfully and succinctly but without substantiating his claims, how is it that B..., I mean LO is allowed to continue to make apparently biased, often spurious and sometimes just plain incorrect claims about a far more important subject matter with a far less respectful tone, and yet remain on these pages...?
FoxtrotAlpha18 is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2014, 12:38
  #5516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Be careful what you wish for mate!

gr.
glad rag is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2014, 12:39
  #5517 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Labour in 2007-08 might have carried out some kind of reconsideration, but as you know very well it would have been based on the ludicrously bad information coming out of the JSFPO and LockMart at the time, including a schedule that was at least three years ahead of reality.

By the way, I don't "insinuate". If I point out that anyone is getting contractor money it is because they are getting it.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2014, 12:42
  #5518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
FA18

Sorry to disappoint, but LO is broadly correct on all counts. And in anticipation, yes, I was closely involved.
jindabyne is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2014, 12:56
  #5519 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
An open letter to members...

I, for the record, am vehemently against the UK's purchase of F35B for reasons of cost, operational ability and aircrew survival [as has been dramatically demonstrated this week]

BUT I can and do listen to the coherent arguments put forwards by those who support the program.
There are some bang on members who's contributions both for and against make this an important and current hot topic.
Calling for those who disagree with a particular point to be banned shows the desperation of some F35 supporters as, hopefully, this program publicly continues into the train crash that it already is.

as always

best regards

gr.
glad rag is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2014, 14:32
  #5520 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by LowObservable
ludicrously bad information coming out of the JSFPO and LockMart
Indeed.
I got no horse in this race, but it's just that stuff coming out of the JPO is so amateurish and outright wrong, one can't help but notice.
NITRO104 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.