F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PhilipG,
Nothing to do with software AFAIK. My understanding is that the jets aren't coming due to Program priorities and effort at this particular time of this particular year. The right call in the circumstances. That news probably upsets the minority of UK tax payers who go to airshows but that's life. Oh, and the jets aren't the developmental ones; they are line aircraft running fully released software (vice test sw).
The reason SSL hasn't been tried is a function of an incomplete QE-Class carrier to complete it on. Those tests happen in 2018 or so, by which time Block 3F sw will hopefully be on the street.
Nothing to do with software AFAIK. My understanding is that the jets aren't coming due to Program priorities and effort at this particular time of this particular year. The right call in the circumstances. That news probably upsets the minority of UK tax payers who go to airshows but that's life. Oh, and the jets aren't the developmental ones; they are line aircraft running fully released software (vice test sw).
The reason SSL hasn't been tried is a function of an incomplete QE-Class carrier to complete it on. Those tests happen in 2018 or so, by which time Block 3F sw will hopefully be on the street.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOSCS
I fully understand that the Bs are not coming to Europe due to the pressure on the B Fleet in achieving the first IOC of any of the F35 Variants.
My point was that with the pressure on the software development program, is the required software in the 2B version? No one has come out and said yes the software has been fully developed but not tested, nor has anyone come up and said, as the UK who wanted these evolutions decided to change to the C the reasonable decision was made to focus on Marine required functionality. So it might have slipped to 3F...
As regards SSL, is there a difference between the SL requirement that the USMC has and the length of a QEC class carrier, I do appreciate that surface friction comes into this as an undefined variable.
My other point was that I fail to see why LM and or the USAF do not feel it is appropriate to send some As over, unless they are worried about ALICE and the support issues this brings and the possibility that an aircraft with an un finalized version of the 3i software might not be acceptable for an aircraft displaying.
Philip
I fully understand that the Bs are not coming to Europe due to the pressure on the B Fleet in achieving the first IOC of any of the F35 Variants.
My point was that with the pressure on the software development program, is the required software in the 2B version? No one has come out and said yes the software has been fully developed but not tested, nor has anyone come up and said, as the UK who wanted these evolutions decided to change to the C the reasonable decision was made to focus on Marine required functionality. So it might have slipped to 3F...
As regards SSL, is there a difference between the SL requirement that the USMC has and the length of a QEC class carrier, I do appreciate that surface friction comes into this as an undefined variable.
My other point was that I fail to see why LM and or the USAF do not feel it is appropriate to send some As over, unless they are worried about ALICE and the support issues this brings and the possibility that an aircraft with an un finalized version of the 3i software might not be acceptable for an aircraft displaying.
Philip
However, given that the LHDs the marines expect to operate off are considerably shorter - and more to the point less beamy at the flightdeck, there tends to be a lot less room available for physical clearance. Air wake will also be different.
Lots of good reasons for the USMC not to want to try it on the ships they have access to.
Agreeing that RIAT 2015 does not have the same pull/desire as Farnborough.
Sending an "A" to RIAT does not make much sence, not yet anyway.
I bet Farnborough 2016 will be the major international show debut for the F-35. Although Paris 2015 might have been attractive in some regards, perhaps a UK venue is more appropriate, and perhaps desired by the UK contingent and contractors. I imagine all the stops will be pulled to get to static and flying birds there from the USA in 2016, even if thay have to go by an LHD (first trial deployment?). The First European assembled ones should also be available by then.
Sending an "A" to RIAT does not make much sence, not yet anyway.
I bet Farnborough 2016 will be the major international show debut for the F-35. Although Paris 2015 might have been attractive in some regards, perhaps a UK venue is more appropriate, and perhaps desired by the UK contingent and contractors. I imagine all the stops will be pulled to get to static and flying birds there from the USA in 2016, even if thay have to go by an LHD (first trial deployment?). The First European assembled ones should also be available by then.
Thanks for the replies guys - (the trouble is and we have discussed all these points before) I am not expecting any airshow appearances anytime soon 
I however disagree that the non appearance is because of the IOC per se - the non appearance is because the 'B' has always been an extremely bad concept as an aircraft and LM have bitten off more than they can chew !Please do not think that I do not understand the hard work being put in by the engineers etc.
But so many years down the road this aircraft is still waist deep in the poo !
I can understand the reasons why no ski jump has been carried out but it might be naive to rely on it being problem free - the rest of the aircraft certainly has not been easy !
rgds LR
I however disagree that the non appearance is because of the IOC per se - the non appearance is because the 'B' has always been an extremely bad concept as an aircraft and LM have bitten off more than they can chew !Please do not think that I do not understand the hard work being put in by the engineers etc.
But so many years down the road this aircraft is still waist deep in the poo !
I can understand the reasons why no ski jump has been carried out but it might be naive to rely on it being problem free - the rest of the aircraft certainly has not been easy !
rgds LR
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the non appearance is because the 'B' has always been an extremely bad concept as an aircraft and LM have bitten off more than they can chew !
SRVL will drop and get tested in the real jet prior to, and during, QE Class ship trials in 2018.
Expect a UK F-35B at a UK airshow next year.
Hi MSOCS
Absolutely agree
If the aircraft was not such a large pile of poo - it would not be so far behind schedule - not sure why you cannot understand that simple concept - happy to disagree in a friendly fashion
It is almost exactly 7 years since our old friend GT took the F35B on its maiden flight !
rgds LR
The same no-show would have happened if we were buying/flying A or C models over.
If the aircraft was not such a large pile of poo - it would not be so far behind schedule - not sure why you cannot understand that simple concept - happy to disagree in a friendly fashion
It is almost exactly 7 years since our old friend GT took the F35B on its maiden flight !
rgds LR
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
Quite probably, and a good catch. I can say with certainty that it wasn't in the original JORD, but may well have been added when the Italians joined the programme, which was around 2002. The USN certainly provided the ramp profiles for the Spanish AV-8Bs and, I suspect, the Italians. Thank you for correcting my omission.
That would be a good explanation for why the ski jump at Pax went forward after the UK called 'halt' on STOVL in 2010.
Incidentally, the QEC has a UK designed ramp that is designed to optimise launch performance and minimise ramp loads, while meeting UK ski jump launch safety criteria (which aren't the same as those used of the USN ramps).
PhilipG, I'm sure I've posted on this before, but deck surface friction isn't an 'undefined variable'. It's a well known figure that can be produced and tested. Landing gear tests are carried out at a number of stages in aircraft development to ensure that braking distance charts provided to users are as accurate as possible, for both land and ship based operations.
Many thanks
Engines
Quite probably, and a good catch. I can say with certainty that it wasn't in the original JORD, but may well have been added when the Italians joined the programme, which was around 2002. The USN certainly provided the ramp profiles for the Spanish AV-8Bs and, I suspect, the Italians. Thank you for correcting my omission.
That would be a good explanation for why the ski jump at Pax went forward after the UK called 'halt' on STOVL in 2010.
Incidentally, the QEC has a UK designed ramp that is designed to optimise launch performance and minimise ramp loads, while meeting UK ski jump launch safety criteria (which aren't the same as those used of the USN ramps).
PhilipG, I'm sure I've posted on this before, but deck surface friction isn't an 'undefined variable'. It's a well known figure that can be produced and tested. Landing gear tests are carried out at a number of stages in aircraft development to ensure that braking distance charts provided to users are as accurate as possible, for both land and ship based operations.
Many thanks
Engines
longer ron: I am not expecting any airshow appearances anytime soon......the non appearance is because the 'B' has always been an extremely bad concept
I fully agree with MSCOS.
Just because it did not make it to your <insert name here> favorite show may not imply anything. Yes they tried real hard to make it to the UK last year, and it was a disappointment to all.
Link to the Yuma airshow demo here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygVlvlvnmTU
title 2015 MCAS Yuma Air Show - F-35B Lightning II Demo
Yes some called it a sedate demo, but note the very short STO, hover, pedal turns, rearward flight, etc. I still think it looks like the "trash bin lid" looks like it should rip off at any time... All this was done at a REAL AIRSHOW (just not "yours")
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As is often the case Engines is spot on. The ramp at Pax was in place well before 2011 and the Italians have always been in the F-35B and Ski Jump game, hence no delay to the SW development and Italian Navy personnel embedded as part of the Integrated Test Force. We officially 'lost interest' in the F-35B in 2010 so the ramp testing moved to suit the Italian F-35B IOC profile while the UK put it's money and manpower into getting F-35C tested on EMALS to de-risk EMALS fitment on QEC (there is YouTube video featuring one of the RN maintainers involved in the EMALS testing).
Come 2012 and the switch back and the F-35B testing schedule was full, but as QEC wasn't going to be ready for First of Class Flying Trials until 2018 everyone agreed that 2015 was plenty soon enough.
Airshows have never been a priority for the F-35 programme, but last year was a great disappointment for the many people both Brits and Americans who worked extremely hard to make it happen. With a programme that everyone says is too expensive already, why waste the money, time and effort that could be better spent on training, testing and development? As MSOCS has said, missing the USMC IOC is not an option for the programme. Note that the I means Initial, FOC (as in Full Ooperational Capability) comes later. There are many programmes that come into service with a limited capability (Tornado F3 with Blue Circle or Typhoon without a cannon and LGB self designating capability anyone??) so why single out F-35?
US airshows even get a Sea Harrier demo... ;-)
Come 2012 and the switch back and the F-35B testing schedule was full, but as QEC wasn't going to be ready for First of Class Flying Trials until 2018 everyone agreed that 2015 was plenty soon enough.
Airshows have never been a priority for the F-35 programme, but last year was a great disappointment for the many people both Brits and Americans who worked extremely hard to make it happen. With a programme that everyone says is too expensive already, why waste the money, time and effort that could be better spent on training, testing and development? As MSOCS has said, missing the USMC IOC is not an option for the programme. Note that the I means Initial, FOC (as in Full Ooperational Capability) comes later. There are many programmes that come into service with a limited capability (Tornado F3 with Blue Circle or Typhoon without a cannon and LGB self designating capability anyone??) so why single out F-35?
US airshows even get a Sea Harrier demo... ;-)
Last edited by WhiteOvies; 16th Jun 2015 at 10:09.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whiteovies,
Thank you - as is often the case, the facts are much better than my somewhat out of date speculation. My bad for forgetting the Italian angle - thanks to everyone for being so understanding.
You make a good point about IOC/FOC et al. In my direct experience, these dates are usually massaged to a quite startling degree to 'achieve' dates set years before. Before people start weighing in on the F-35, watch out for glass houses.
In my direct experience, the UK are particularly prone to doing this. I can't name the aircraft, but I can absolutely assure everyone that there are aircraft that have been publicly declared as 'in operational service' with the RAF that are wholly incapable of carrying out any sort of 'operational' sortie that involves going in harms' way - which the taxpayer would reasonably expect. I'd love to see a more informed UK defence press exposing this sort of stuff, because it's simply rotten behaviour and puts our people at the front line in really bad positions.
Best regards as ever to those below the politics, but doing the really hard yards,
Engines
Thank you - as is often the case, the facts are much better than my somewhat out of date speculation. My bad for forgetting the Italian angle - thanks to everyone for being so understanding.
You make a good point about IOC/FOC et al. In my direct experience, these dates are usually massaged to a quite startling degree to 'achieve' dates set years before. Before people start weighing in on the F-35, watch out for glass houses.
In my direct experience, the UK are particularly prone to doing this. I can't name the aircraft, but I can absolutely assure everyone that there are aircraft that have been publicly declared as 'in operational service' with the RAF that are wholly incapable of carrying out any sort of 'operational' sortie that involves going in harms' way - which the taxpayer would reasonably expect. I'd love to see a more informed UK defence press exposing this sort of stuff, because it's simply rotten behaviour and puts our people at the front line in really bad positions.
Best regards as ever to those below the politics, but doing the really hard yards,
Engines
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hempy,
Sorry if I wasn't clear - but I was trying to make the point that IOC/FOC declarations are being 'massaged' (code for straight fibs) to avoid public scrutiny. I don't think the F-35 programme has been exactly hidden from view.
As far as cost goes, actually, I could (but can't) name one particular UK aircraft that was 'accepted' into service at an eventual price tag in excess of $100m a copy, with significant operational shortfalls.
To my (old and infirm) mind the issue isn't about which aircraft does what - it's the lack of proper scrutiny of our defence programmes in the UK that concerns me. I would offer the view that F-35 has had more scrutiny than any other military programme in history - as is quite right and proper given its significance and high cost.
Best regards as ever to those having to go with the flow,
Engines
Sorry if I wasn't clear - but I was trying to make the point that IOC/FOC declarations are being 'massaged' (code for straight fibs) to avoid public scrutiny. I don't think the F-35 programme has been exactly hidden from view.
As far as cost goes, actually, I could (but can't) name one particular UK aircraft that was 'accepted' into service at an eventual price tag in excess of $100m a copy, with significant operational shortfalls.
To my (old and infirm) mind the issue isn't about which aircraft does what - it's the lack of proper scrutiny of our defence programmes in the UK that concerns me. I would offer the view that F-35 has had more scrutiny than any other military programme in history - as is quite right and proper given its significance and high cost.
Best regards as ever to those having to go with the flow,
Engines
Quite right, Engines. The F-35 programme has had a good deal of public air time. Some has been carefully stage managed, but there has been, probably, more publicity about this one than any previous programme I can recall. Not bad for the most challenging to date - although one could argue that each is more challenging than the last.
My bold.
Oshkosh is certainly very big, but it is still, essentially, true to its roots as a recreational aviation fly-in. Yes, lots of big and heavy hardware attend, but that hardly makes it the same sort of thing as, say, Farnborough or Paris when it comes to representing industry.
My only point point about going to Europe this year was that the programme could use some really good PR right now. Whilst a visit at this point may not win new orders, it couldn't do any harm in the minds of current customers and tax payers. A no show may not been seen as a negative in the same way that last years was, but there remains the inevitable subliminal message that it's not here again.
Yes, I get the reasons and the programme priorities. Those have been well explained here. The USMC declaring IOC will not have the same effect overseas, especially in view of the perception, as Engines rightly points out, that IOC does not always mean what it says on the tin.
Originally Posted by Sandiego
The F-35A is also slated for EAA Oshkosh in July 2015- arguably the most important show in the USA.
Oshkosh is certainly very big, but it is still, essentially, true to its roots as a recreational aviation fly-in. Yes, lots of big and heavy hardware attend, but that hardly makes it the same sort of thing as, say, Farnborough or Paris when it comes to representing industry.
My only point point about going to Europe this year was that the programme could use some really good PR right now. Whilst a visit at this point may not win new orders, it couldn't do any harm in the minds of current customers and tax payers. A no show may not been seen as a negative in the same way that last years was, but there remains the inevitable subliminal message that it's not here again.
Yes, I get the reasons and the programme priorities. Those have been well explained here. The USMC declaring IOC will not have the same effect overseas, especially in view of the perception, as Engines rightly points out, that IOC does not always mean what it says on the tin.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines. Fair enough, and for what it's worth it wasn't a personal 'go at you'. I guess my point is that that F-35 program is broader than those you mention, and involves some of us 'lesser lights', for richer or poorer. And down here, it's a concern..
see above ^^
see above ^^
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hempy, with all due respect to your statement:
Typhoon, at £73.2M per copy, is $114.47M (based on today's exchange rate)
Anyway you look at it, modern Fighter Programmes are big bucks and I echo Engines' sentiments about glass houses. The UK could seriously benefit from a fair amount of self-critique in this regard.
Let's get the facts straight before slinging arrows no?
Typhoon, at £73.2M per copy, is $114.47M (based on today's exchange rate)
Anyway you look at it, modern Fighter Programmes are big bucks and I echo Engines' sentiments about glass houses. The UK could seriously benefit from a fair amount of self-critique in this regard.
Let's get the facts straight before slinging arrows no?
