F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
like USMC IOC for instance.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what's stopping them now?
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.
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?
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.
Remember last year wasn't just RIAT but also the Farnborough show, which industrially/politically would probably have been more important to LM and BAE.
There was also the chance, albeit never confirmed, that it could have taken part in the naming ceremony for HMS Queen Elizabeth.
This year, just RIAT is probably not enough to justify it.
There was also the chance, albeit never confirmed, that it could have taken part in the naming ceremony for HMS Queen Elizabeth.
This year, just RIAT is probably not enough to justify it.
Originally Posted by davef68
Remember last year wasn't just RIAT but also the Farnborough show, which industrially/politically would probably have been more important to LM and BAE.
Maybe the decision not to come to Europe is simply a result of poor appreciation of the public mood. If so, think again. If that is not the case there must be another reason.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM,
I'm sure USMC IOC was indeed just as important last year, however RIAT/F'boro weren't going to be occurring in the same month back then, unlike this year. That's the biggest difference IMHO.
For what it's worth, I also don't consider the decision related to a wrong perception of public mood; rather just a simple case of where the focus of effort should be. The USMC were a huge part of the joint effort to bring F-35B to the UK and supported it wholeheartedly. That sentiment hasn't changed but current priorities within the Program don't make a UK visit feasible this year. If people judge that a mistake, that's absolutely fine. If people judge it as a pragmatic decision to prioritise manpower, money and effort to make IOC, that's fine too.
Not saying anyone's wrong, just stating the facts as I believe them to be.
I'm sure USMC IOC was indeed just as important last year, however RIAT/F'boro weren't going to be occurring in the same month back then, unlike this year. That's the biggest difference IMHO.
For what it's worth, I also don't consider the decision related to a wrong perception of public mood; rather just a simple case of where the focus of effort should be. The USMC were a huge part of the joint effort to bring F-35B to the UK and supported it wholeheartedly. That sentiment hasn't changed but current priorities within the Program don't make a UK visit feasible this year. If people judge that a mistake, that's absolutely fine. If people judge it as a pragmatic decision to prioritise manpower, money and effort to make IOC, that's fine too.
Not saying anyone's wrong, just stating the facts as I believe them to be.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
your reasoning is lost on me
As you get closer to particular milestones depending upon the importance of said milestone, you tend to discard a lot of "love to do's" until you have time.
I would expect them to have their @arses hanging out to make sure they make this one. hence going off to an airshow is not on the radar.
Maybe the decision not to come to Europe is simply a result of poor appreciation of the public mood. If so, think again. If that is not the case there must be another reason.
And afaik - the turkey still has not done a ski jump - how many years into the project ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If people judge it as a pragmatic decision to prioritise manpower, money and effort to make IOC, that's fine too.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What About the As and Cs
If it is a fact that the USMC is having problems getting a squadron of aircraft together out of all the Bs that it has, that is of course a concern about program management, that has been discussed a lot on here.
Last year an A had an engine malfunction that caused the embarrassing non appearance, as I understand it there are more F35As than there are F35Bs and indeed they are simpler aircraft, obvious reasons. Did it not enter the thought processes of either LM or the USAF that sending one or more of their F35As across the pond might not be a bad idea, to make up for last year's non appearance of the B?
Last year an A had an engine malfunction that caused the embarrassing non appearance, as I understand it there are more F35As than there are F35Bs and indeed they are simpler aircraft, obvious reasons. Did it not enter the thought processes of either LM or the USAF that sending one or more of their F35As across the pond might not be a bad idea, to make up for last year's non appearance of the B?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
longer ron,
I personally don't think using the excuse of the Program's maturity, as a metric to judge whether it should be turning up to a couple of UK air shows, is valid in the slightest. To use your line of reasoning, why hasn't a full Tornado display turned up to a UK air show over the last few years, given that it's 40 years old?!! Comes down to priorities.
As rh200 points out, it's because there are more pressing issues. The USMC are the first Service to IOC F-35 so this is a major milestone for the Program writ large, regardless of how late it is coming.
So, not this year sadly, but I'd put money on it being here for the shows next year.
I personally don't think using the excuse of the Program's maturity, as a metric to judge whether it should be turning up to a couple of UK air shows, is valid in the slightest. To use your line of reasoning, why hasn't a full Tornado display turned up to a UK air show over the last few years, given that it's 40 years old?!! Comes down to priorities.
As rh200 points out, it's because there are more pressing issues. The USMC are the first Service to IOC F-35 so this is a major milestone for the Program writ large, regardless of how late it is coming.
So, not this year sadly, but I'd put money on it being here for the shows next year.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney, don't waste your breath. There's "a few 'Roo's loose in the top paddock'" with that one..
MSOCS, I'll take your money, and happy to double up on a 'true' IOC this year..
MSOCS, I'll take your money, and happy to double up on a 'true' IOC this year..
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
MSOCS, I'll take your money and double up on a 'true' IOC this year..
Let alone the sudden angst and desire to switch to an open architecture to reduce the time to introduce a new weapon below 15 years.......
MSOCS posted (quote facility unavailable)
I personally don't think using the excuse of the Program's maturity, as a metric to judge whether it should be turning up to a couple of UK air shows, is valid in the slightest. To use your line of reasoning, why hasn't a full Tornado display turned up to a UK air show over the last few years, given that it's 40 years old?!! Comes down to priorities.
I was using it as an illustration of how bad the situation is vis a vis the actual usefulness/availability of of what should by now be a maturing aircraft,comparing it to a geriatric flying fin is er a little bizarre
Non of the F35 supporters seem to even question why the turkey has still not done a ski jump - surely a key test point for the uk - mon amis.
I personally don't think using the excuse of the Program's maturity, as a metric to judge whether it should be turning up to a couple of UK air shows, is valid in the slightest. To use your line of reasoning, why hasn't a full Tornado display turned up to a UK air show over the last few years, given that it's 40 years old?!! Comes down to priorities.
I was using it as an illustration of how bad the situation is vis a vis the actual usefulness/availability of of what should by now be a maturing aircraft,comparing it to a geriatric flying fin is er a little bizarre
Non of the F35 supporters seem to even question why the turkey has still not done a ski jump - surely a key test point for the uk - mon amis.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
longer ron,
Getting the aircraft to RIAT this year is not about how many F-35B are flying in the USA (availability) or their current capabilities (usefulness). Again, I'm trying to politely suggest to you that it isn't the right comparison to make. I'm suggesting that the USMC putting in the same level of effort which they did for last year's [cancelled] appearance just isn't possible this year because their direction from on high is to focus entirely on IOC in Jul and nothing else.
The alternative situation - in that the USMC were unable to declare their IOC because they didn't put in place what they needed to in time, because they were providing aircraft, manpower and support to a trans-Atlantic trail for RIAT - would be a far more strategic failure than depriving a few thousand spotters the sight of the F-35B for an 8-minute display.
Personally, I would enjoy seeing an F-35B at RIAT this year but I also think that the decision to not expend effort on a month-long UK trip for 2 or 3 F-35Bs plus AAR plus maint/spt pers, thereby risking USMC IOC, is compelling and justified in the circumstances.
Getting the aircraft to RIAT this year is not about how many F-35B are flying in the USA (availability) or their current capabilities (usefulness). Again, I'm trying to politely suggest to you that it isn't the right comparison to make. I'm suggesting that the USMC putting in the same level of effort which they did for last year's [cancelled] appearance just isn't possible this year because their direction from on high is to focus entirely on IOC in Jul and nothing else.
The alternative situation - in that the USMC were unable to declare their IOC because they didn't put in place what they needed to in time, because they were providing aircraft, manpower and support to a trans-Atlantic trail for RIAT - would be a far more strategic failure than depriving a few thousand spotters the sight of the F-35B for an 8-minute display.
Personally, I would enjoy seeing an F-35B at RIAT this year but I also think that the decision to not expend effort on a month-long UK trip for 2 or 3 F-35Bs plus AAR plus maint/spt pers, thereby risking USMC IOC, is compelling and justified in the circumstances.
longer ron: Non[e] of the F35 supporters seem to even question why the turkey has still not done a ski jump
With the B having done over 100 flights off the flat deck on the USS WASP perhaps pressing the ramp mode button and thundering away will be no sweat. Yes I recognize there are software, landing gear, mode issues etc. that have not been verified on the ramp.
IIRC these aircraft have taken to the ramp: Sea Harrier, F-14 (with limitations), F-18, First Gen Harrier, Second Gen Harrier, Mig-29, Su-33, Su-25, S-3?, T-2, Tejas, J-15. I seem to recal E-2 was ruled out. Has Rafale?
Perhaps of interest- a US Air Force paper on ski jump analysis. F-4 Phantom ruled out, but others including F-16 and F-15 deemed OK- this was for a less extreeme, non navy type ramp.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a237265.pdf
Last edited by sandiego89; 15th Jun 2015 at 13:45.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Longer,
Perhaps I can help here. I have posted before on this.
The F-35B was required to be able to carry out a ski-jump, as set out in the JORD. However, this was a UK only requirement. Ski-jump was regarded as a low risk evolution, as most of the mode and flight control issues associated with the launch are similar to (but not the same as) those that have been wrung out for flat deck STOs. In fact, flat deck STOs are the more demanding of the two ship launch modes. So why, you're entitled to ask, haven't they done ski jumps yet?
My guess (and that's all it is) is that it's a result of the UK's decision in 2010 to abandon the F-35B and go for the C. I do know that ski jump trials were originally planned for around 2012, but as soon as the UK opted out of the B, this very probably removed the requirement for the ski-jump. LM and the DoD would have been very quick (understandably so) to remove any extraneous flight test requirements, so ski-jump tests were canned. However, the Pax River ski jump was built by mid 2012 - I would again guess that having committed the money, they went ahead and finished it just in case another export customer wanted the capability. (I could well be wrong here - just a guess, guys).
So, in 2012, the UK comes back and wants the F-35B UK requirements reinstated. Again, I'm not entirely surprised that amongst all the other test points requiring attention for the F-35B, ski jump launches were not way up the priority list on a crowded test plan. Perhaps that fact that the UK doesn't plan to embark the aircraft for some years yet has also influenced flight test planning.
There were a slew of reports in late February this year that ski jumps were on the agenda for the 'next round' of testing, so it should not be too far off. To repeat, gear loads are not an issue - the max rate VL poses by far the greatest strain on the legs and structure. Again, to reiterate - the F-35B gear is fundamentally different to (and much better for ski jumps) than the Harrier's 'bicycle' layout.
I agree with Sandie, I think ski-jumps should be a non-issue for the jet - but I also stress that thorough tests are required on land before the jet does it for real off a pitching and heaving deck.
Hope this helps
Best regards as ever to those working the ramp takeoffs - it will be the most operationally efficient and safest way to launch the jet at sea.
Engines
Perhaps I can help here. I have posted before on this.
The F-35B was required to be able to carry out a ski-jump, as set out in the JORD. However, this was a UK only requirement. Ski-jump was regarded as a low risk evolution, as most of the mode and flight control issues associated with the launch are similar to (but not the same as) those that have been wrung out for flat deck STOs. In fact, flat deck STOs are the more demanding of the two ship launch modes. So why, you're entitled to ask, haven't they done ski jumps yet?
My guess (and that's all it is) is that it's a result of the UK's decision in 2010 to abandon the F-35B and go for the C. I do know that ski jump trials were originally planned for around 2012, but as soon as the UK opted out of the B, this very probably removed the requirement for the ski-jump. LM and the DoD would have been very quick (understandably so) to remove any extraneous flight test requirements, so ski-jump tests were canned. However, the Pax River ski jump was built by mid 2012 - I would again guess that having committed the money, they went ahead and finished it just in case another export customer wanted the capability. (I could well be wrong here - just a guess, guys).
So, in 2012, the UK comes back and wants the F-35B UK requirements reinstated. Again, I'm not entirely surprised that amongst all the other test points requiring attention for the F-35B, ski jump launches were not way up the priority list on a crowded test plan. Perhaps that fact that the UK doesn't plan to embark the aircraft for some years yet has also influenced flight test planning.
There were a slew of reports in late February this year that ski jumps were on the agenda for the 'next round' of testing, so it should not be too far off. To repeat, gear loads are not an issue - the max rate VL poses by far the greatest strain on the legs and structure. Again, to reiterate - the F-35B gear is fundamentally different to (and much better for ski jumps) than the Harrier's 'bicycle' layout.
I agree with Sandie, I think ski-jumps should be a non-issue for the jet - but I also stress that thorough tests are required on land before the jet does it for real off a pitching and heaving deck.
Hope this helps
Best regards as ever to those working the ramp takeoffs - it will be the most operationally efficient and safest way to launch the jet at sea.
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 15th Jun 2015 at 14:32. Reason: Text clarification
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it the software
Picking up on Engines' helpful post, is the reason that launching off the ramp and SSL (Shipboard Short Landings) have not been tried yet a function of the UK Government's decision to change to the C and then back to the B?
What I am postulating is that when to achieve USMC IOC there was no need to tick the box that these two evolutions were possible with 2B software or 3i for that matter as the UK had switched to Cs that the subroutines that dealt with Ramps and SSL were not taken any further forward, if they were actually in the software? Let us hope that the required functionality is developed and appropriately tested in the road to 3F.
Could the reason that there will be no F35s, of any variety, flying to Europe this year be a function of two software problems? The ALICE software does not seem to be providing all the tools that it should at the moment and the 3i software cannot be said to have bedded down if 2B final build as I understand it has yet to be released. Developmental American aircraft with un signed off software displaying, in limited fashion, at European Air Show, could be considered an unacceptable risk by some of the organisers.
What I am postulating is that when to achieve USMC IOC there was no need to tick the box that these two evolutions were possible with 2B software or 3i for that matter as the UK had switched to Cs that the subroutines that dealt with Ramps and SSL were not taken any further forward, if they were actually in the software? Let us hope that the required functionality is developed and appropriately tested in the road to 3F.
Could the reason that there will be no F35s, of any variety, flying to Europe this year be a function of two software problems? The ALICE software does not seem to be providing all the tools that it should at the moment and the 3i software cannot be said to have bedded down if 2B final build as I understand it has yet to be released. Developmental American aircraft with un signed off software displaying, in limited fashion, at European Air Show, could be considered an unacceptable risk by some of the organisers.