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 8th Jun 2015, 22:51
  #6221 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 192
Sounds a lot more effective than chucking broken walnut shells down the front of a Spey!

O-P is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2015, 01:24
  #6222 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,158
And given the below, I am indeed surprised there was not a total burn out as I mentioned in post #6217....:
That is because it was just an uncontained engine failure that happened to cause a fuel fire that was quickly extinguished. Note there is no mention of a titanium fire. As I see it, there are two different stories, the Bogdan story and the accident investigation story, take your pick.
Turbine D is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2015, 07:55
  #6223 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,608
Three comments.

1. Another programme timeline that didn't last 2 years. Slippages on schedule. Not worth the paper they're printed on.....

2. At this rate Block 5 won't arrive till after 2035 - if at all.

3. Not being US and competing against their exports, will Meteor be integrated before 2025? And given the current repeated failures to meet deadlines, is 2030 more realistic?

AW&ST: Opinion: Time To Define The F-35 Upgrade Plan

Two years ago, the Pentagon set initial operational capability (IOC) dates for all three versions of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Those dates may be adhered to, but some capabilities may be missing. Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, director of the Air Force’s F-35 integration office, said in late May that there are hardware and software items—all unspecified and some classified—that are running late, so the IOC requirement may have to be amended........

The first post-IOC upgrade, Block 4, has changed shape twice in less than two years. The original plan was to roll out numbered block upgrades at two-year intervals. Early in 2014, Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, director of the JSF program office, disclosed that Block 4 would be split into Block 4A and 4B, the latter reaching IOC in 2024—so that anything post-Block 4 would have to wait until 2026. Apparently, some customers had a problem with this. A new plan was unveiled this spring, dividing Block 4 into four segments, 4.1 through 4.4. Block 4.1, mostly software, arrives in late 2019, two years earlier than 4A would have done—but it seems likely that it will include overspill from Block 3F. Block 4.4 is due for IOC in mid-2025.

The idea is to “accelerate incremental capabilities,” according to a program document. The Pentagon and its partners have many requirements and desires between now and 2027, and a process has been put in place to prioritize them. Common items take precedence over customer-unique upgrades unless the program’s Joint Executive Steering Board decrees otherwise. Priorities include anti-surface warfare, with the AGM-154C-1 net-enabled version of the Joint Standoff Weapon, and moving-target attack with the [email protected] version of the Joint Direct Attack Munition. Block 4 also includes the B61-12 nuclear bomb. There is a long list of other new weapons: cruise missiles from Norway and Turkey, and Britain’s three-phase Selective Precision Effects At Range (Spear) project. The U.K. wants two new MBDA air-to-air missiles (AAM): Meteor and a new version of the Advanced Short-Range AAM.

But the presentation warns that “weapon integration requests are likely to exceed capacity,” even though budget documents show that the Pentagon plans to spend around $700 million annually on JSF research and development as the original development phase winds down. That does not include follow-on development funds from international partners. That makes Block 4 a $5 billion-plus program, which ought to be enough to cover most upgrade needs. Air Force acquisition chief Bill LaPlante also appears to think the upgrade money could be spent more smartly. He has floated the idea of moving toward open architecture in Block 4, with a view to opening Block 5 to competition. Boeing’s defense boss Chris Chadwick doubts whether that will work. Any incumbent, he believes, should have enough of an advantage to beat challengers in a fair competition.

Consider, too, the history of the F-35’s sibling, the F-22 Raptor. A decade ago, when the F-22 was approaching IOC, the contractor and customer expected that the jet would be modernized quickly. By 2012, the Block 40 Global Strike Enabler was to be in service, with added radar side arrays, powerful electronic attack capabilities and two-way satcoms. But even with $5 billion in R&D over the last decade, none of this has been done. Operational F-22s still cannot communicate, other than by voice radio, with anything except another F-22, and they are only just moving beyond the obsolescent AIM-9M Sidewinder AAM. Early production F-22s are not due to be brought up to fully operational standards until the 2020s.

The F-22 and F-35 have some strong similarities when it comes to upgrades. Both are stealthy, which makes it more difficult to add or replace a radio-frequency or electro-optical aperture. Both have a systems architecture that leans heavily on a central integrated processor, with the subsystems as peripherals. That has its advantages but means a dedicated development program for each sensor upgrade rather than just porting technology from another aircraft. Above all, both have shown a big appetite for regression testing—the process of making sure that a change or fix to one system has not resulted in a failure in another—which has been the biggest drag on F-22 upgrade efforts.........
ORAC is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2015, 10:43
  #6224 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
Blocks and Spirals can always lead to this kind of "hidden slippage". For example, the Marines were originally scheduled to reach IOC with Block 2 in 2010, so by that count they are "only" five years late. But at that time Block 1 was supposed to have "warfighter utility" with weapons qualified and Block 2 was a step beyond that; today's Block 2B/3I has envelope limits (40 kft and Mach 1.2/5.5 g for the B model) and no external weapons.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2015, 13:18
  #6225 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 49
Posts: 506
Meanwhile our Dutch friends have found out that 37 might not be enough, so now they're planning to invest in a second (likely M346 or similar), less expensive type, to keep their pilots' flight hours up to spec and give them the ability to train on something a lot cheaper.

Essentially back to 2 types in their main fighter fleet, it's 1970 again.

in Dutch
Luchtmacht wil extra vliegtuigen|Binnenland| Telegraaf.nl
kbrockman is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2015, 13:41
  #6226 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,631
This post contains...sarcasm.

Hmm additional control surfaces req'd.

One wonders, as this was was known in 2009, then in fact it might not be as big a hit as article makes out.

LM may already have made contingency plans in advance for the modification and future incorporation of said surfaces, control systems for said plus integration into the airframes flight control software ?

Maybe the "B" can get round this by having a little "puff" when required, that would be handy [apart from the blindingly obvious stealth implications] indeed.

glad rag is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2015, 14:03
  #6227 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
And the Super just keeps on giving...

Boeing encouraged by possible US Navy, Kuwait Super Hornet deals - 5/19/2015 - Flight Global
Hempy is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2015, 14:54
  #6228 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 44
Posts: 1,016
F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

And why, pray tell, do I hear Yakkety Sax and get the image of spinning bow ties, buttonhole water squirting flowers, custard pies and big shoes whenever I read more gripes with "Dave, WonderJet of the new Millenium"

It's not like this was predicted??
cornish-stormrider is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2015, 11:53
  #6229 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 600
F-35 Delayed After Fourth Prototype Becomes Self-Aware And Has To Be Destroyed
BossEyed is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2015, 12:09
  #6230 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 49
Posts: 1,011
Sky-Net! Classic!
Martin the Martian is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2015, 21:31
  #6231 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 148

Being on a "Pinger" squadron I do remember chuckling when a bit of the demin hose nozzle came off one day while the "Zoomies" were carrying out the evolution you described.
We did it engine running one day and the firesuitmen came running up the deck thinking we were on fire!

Cheers now
oldgrubber is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2015, 22:00
  #6232 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
Who’s afraid of America?

Interesting article in The Economist at Who?s afraid of America? | The Economist

"The military playing field is more even than it has been for many years. That is a big problem for the West"

"Hence the need to come up with a third offset strategy..."

"The programme needs to overcome at least five critical vulnerabilities. The first is that carriers and other surface vessels can now be tracked and hit by missiles at ranges from the enemy’s shore which could prevent the use of their cruise missiles or their tactical aircraft without in-flight refuelling by lumbering tankers that can be picked off by hostile fighters"

"To get its hands on the technologies it needs, the military establishment and the armed forces themselves may have to take an axe to cherished programmes. One possibility would be to scale back plans to buy nearly 2,500 F-35 fighter jets, which have too short a range for many situations, and use the money to buy unmanned combat aircraft and a bigger fleet of long-range strike bombers. The navy might have to give up on two of its fabulously expensive carrier groups in recognition of their growing vulnerability in favour of investments in submarines, both manned and unmanned"

" 'The more successful the offset strategy is in extending US conventional advantages, the more attractive US adversaries will find strategies of nuclear escalation." The enemy always gets a vote"

Makes a lot of sense - to a layman like myself.
artee is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2015, 07:11
  #6233 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,608
Lockheed Keeps Hiking Dividends Despite F-35 Glitches

ORAC is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2015, 18:13
  #6234 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: scotland
Posts: 503
I see the RIAT organisers have confirmed that the F35 will not be at Fairford this year,not a priority, or should that read unable to fly the Atlantic.
KPax is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2015, 23:06
  #6235 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
More important things for the Program right now KPax, like USMC IOC for instance. F-35 is more than capable of flying the Atlantic, and would have done so for last year's RIAT had the fleet not been justifiably (albeit temporarily) grounded after the Eglin engine incident.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2015, 23:36
  #6236 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
USMC, JPO, and the contractors are stretched incredibly thin trying to meet the Marines IOC with their F-35B. Mods to aircraft are continuing while spares are accumulated to meet the July "deadline," not to mention getting a solid, performing version of ALIS up and running (and keeping it from downing an aircraft unnecessarily.) There is simply no spare capacity to support a dog and pony show at RIAT at this time.
Maus92 is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2015, 23:37
  #6237 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
No, the jet needs good publicity right now. If an air show last year was worth the programme's trouble to try to get the jet here (before the engine trouble), RIAT would be equally important.

MSOCS, USMC IOC was just as important last year, but they still thought a UK display was important enough to find room in the programme. So what's stopping them now?
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2015, 23:45
  #6238 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,631
like USMC IOC for instance.
Would you care to detail just what demonstrated capabilities will be required for the aircraft to "pass" IOC?

please fell free to edit your reply as many times as necessary..

Last edited by glad rag; 15th Jun 2015 at 00:34. Reason: tired.
glad rag is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2015, 23:48
  #6239 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 808
So what's stopping them now?
Hmm, lets see now, at aguess I would think teh delta T is a bit smaller and hence any buffereing to compensate is also smaller.
rh200 is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2015, 00:03
  #6240 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Rh200, although you didn't attribute your quote to anyone I think that was something I wrote, so I guess your post is aimed at me? Saying who you're quoting isn't difficult and makes the thread so much easier to follow.

Originally Posted by rh200
at aguess I would think teh delta T is a bit smaller and hence any buffereing to compensate is also smaller.
I would love to respond to that, but I have no idea what you're saying. If that is supposed to explain why it was a good idea to send the jet to an air show in Europe last year, but not this year, your reasoning is lost on me. Unless your're saying the programme has slipped again so much that the will to do so has now become a lower priority that is unaffordable?
Courtney Mil 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.