F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Neverland
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typhoon is twin engine, with rather a lot more flexibility and usefulness than the F35.
The twin engine fact is going to make it more expensive than a single.
The real headline here is that a single engine, limited (single?) role platform is almost as expensive as a twin, multirole platform.
(Yes there are slightly contentious elements to the above
)
The twin engine fact is going to make it more expensive than a single.
The real headline here is that a single engine, limited (single?) role platform is almost as expensive as a twin, multirole platform.
(Yes there are slightly contentious elements to the above
)
Originally Posted by MSOCS
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.
I think we need to be careful about the "glass houses" line because it can start to sound a bit like, "Well, all the other programmes had difficulties, why shouldn't this one?" But the point is still valid.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So many metaphors, I don't know where to start!
Right now the egg basket is planned to have two varieties (or there are two baskets, you choose!); Typhoon and F-35B. That has always been the strategy for the RAF - now for the RN, it will only have F-35B so IF the Program were to fail catastrophically, we would be left with nothing to put aboard QEC. If that was likely, I'd agree with your sentiment. But IMHO I don't see that happening.
Right now the egg basket is planned to have two varieties (or there are two baskets, you choose!); Typhoon and F-35B. That has always been the strategy for the RAF - now for the RN, it will only have F-35B so IF the Program were to fail catastrophically, we would be left with nothing to put aboard QEC. If that was likely, I'd agree with your sentiment. But IMHO I don't see that happening.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hempy,
My sincere apologies if you thought I took your post as a 'go' at me. I certainly didn't.
I was definitely a 'lesser light' all my career, and was always totally committed to delivering the best kit as soon as practicable to the people at the front line. I really do understand why people are concerned. They should be. I am too. But one thing that really gets my ulcers achin' (to quote the estimable Grampaw Pettibone) is seeing people claim credit (and receive reward) for delivering kit to squadrons that can't actually go to war, and claiming 'IOC'. Even worse, the problems are just shovelled on to the front line to sort out. I've been there, worn the T-shirt, eat the s**t. It ain't right, and I wish that the UK press would get it out there.
MSOCS - my (perhaps longer range, i.e. from an older fart) view - the RAF plan was, until not that long ago (2000), 'Typhoon plus a new UK developed stealth Tornado replacement'. They only bought into what was the RN FCBA programme once it was clear that getting the full '232 Typhoon' buy through SDR98 had swallowed so much money that a new UK financed strike aircraft was out of the question.
At that point, FCBA became FJCA and the current games commenced.
For my own part, I honestly believe that the UK's defence interests would best be served by a mixed buy of F-35As and F-35Bs, with RAF commanded As doing the land based stuff and RN commanded Bs doing the stuff at sea. Common training and support systems would help keep costs down. But hey, I'm not trying to square the budgets,
Best Regards as ever to those who are,
Engines
My sincere apologies if you thought I took your post as a 'go' at me. I certainly didn't.
I was definitely a 'lesser light' all my career, and was always totally committed to delivering the best kit as soon as practicable to the people at the front line. I really do understand why people are concerned. They should be. I am too. But one thing that really gets my ulcers achin' (to quote the estimable Grampaw Pettibone) is seeing people claim credit (and receive reward) for delivering kit to squadrons that can't actually go to war, and claiming 'IOC'. Even worse, the problems are just shovelled on to the front line to sort out. I've been there, worn the T-shirt, eat the s**t. It ain't right, and I wish that the UK press would get it out there.
MSOCS - my (perhaps longer range, i.e. from an older fart) view - the RAF plan was, until not that long ago (2000), 'Typhoon plus a new UK developed stealth Tornado replacement'. They only bought into what was the RN FCBA programme once it was clear that getting the full '232 Typhoon' buy through SDR98 had swallowed so much money that a new UK financed strike aircraft was out of the question.
At that point, FCBA became FJCA and the current games commenced.
For my own part, I honestly believe that the UK's defence interests would best be served by a mixed buy of F-35As and F-35Bs, with RAF commanded As doing the land based stuff and RN commanded Bs doing the stuff at sea. Common training and support systems would help keep costs down. But hey, I'm not trying to square the budgets,
Best Regards as ever to those who are,
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 16th Jun 2015 at 15:25. Reason: Correct spelling errors
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Navy should have bought the latest F-18 varient and a carrier with 'cats and traps', then palmed the F-18s off to the RAF once JSF is serviceable and ready to buy with capability, say 10 years from now.
The future of strike is going to be UAV based, catapults and arrestor gear will be a necessity not an option. Not to mention all the other fixed winged assets that could use a proper carrier.
Short sighted muppets pulling the strings.
The future of strike is going to be UAV based, catapults and arrestor gear will be a necessity not an option. Not to mention all the other fixed winged assets that could use a proper carrier.
Short sighted muppets pulling the strings.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PIious,
The "should have" arguments are a bit moot now. Engine's A/B mix would have been a good one too. But we are here now and there is no going back, as we have discussed in the last X pages (where X is a large number).
I'm not quite sure that the F-18 is quite what the RAF needs as a Tornado replacement. As I have opined before, I suspect there may be measures ahead that makes Typhoon the Tornado replacement - sooner than we all may have liked. With B and Typhoon on line, there won't be an RAF market for Super Bug. Sorry about that.
P.S. Maybe there's a future for you as a second hand car salesman.
P.P.S. Glad Rag, I like the way you're thinking. An inquiry would fix everything.
The "should have" arguments are a bit moot now. Engine's A/B mix would have been a good one too. But we are here now and there is no going back, as we have discussed in the last X pages (where X is a large number).
I'm not quite sure that the F-18 is quite what the RAF needs as a Tornado replacement. As I have opined before, I suspect there may be measures ahead that makes Typhoon the Tornado replacement - sooner than we all may have liked. With B and Typhoon on line, there won't be an RAF market for Super Bug. Sorry about that.
P.S. Maybe there's a future for you as a second hand car salesman.
P.P.S. Glad Rag, I like the way you're thinking. An inquiry would fix everything.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumours that Germany "is about" to ground Typhoon due to the 3000 hr stopgap not being approved.....dem holes dem holes dem BIG holes...
No smoke without fire, HEY it is the F35 thread after all........................
No smoke without fire, HEY it is the F35 thread after all........................
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney Mil,
On the contrary matey boy, I can see requiring a back seater (F/A-18G) for deep strike UCAS missions being a likely RAF requirement in say 10 years time, along with carrier borne UCAS assets, also takes some burden away from the then overstretched Typhoon force. Bit of a no brainer, you'd make a good snake oil salesman btw.
Think of it as a modern day Buccaneer in Iraq scenario. Honk honk.
On the contrary matey boy, I can see requiring a back seater (F/A-18G) for deep strike UCAS missions being a likely RAF requirement in say 10 years time, along with carrier borne UCAS assets, also takes some burden away from the then overstretched Typhoon force. Bit of a no brainer, you'd make a good snake oil salesman btw.
Think of it as a modern day Buccaneer in Iraq scenario. Honk honk.
"Matey boy"? As you were, Pious!
Yes, your sales pitch is perfect, but we ain't going to have navs in fast jets much longer, or in anything come to that. If things were different I'm sure that would be a great idea.
Now, how are we going to get from where we are to where you're suggesting?
Yes, your sales pitch is perfect, but we ain't going to have navs in fast jets much longer, or in anything come to that. If things were different I'm sure that would be a great idea.
Now, how are we going to get from where we are to where you're suggesting?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why bother with an F/A18 fix when you could have a two seat Typhoon with CFTs. We haven't got the Navs, so it doesn't really matter!
I just read an article, can't remember where, that the SuperBug can't use the Ford class carrier if loaded with external stores. It appears that the EM C'pult is so powerful that it wrecks the pylons. That'll be a cheap fix...NOT.
I just read an article, can't remember where, that the SuperBug can't use the Ford class carrier if loaded with external stores. It appears that the EM C'pult is so powerful that it wrecks the pylons. That'll be a cheap fix...NOT.
Big fuel penalty with two seat Typhoon. Better to put the CFTs on the aircraft as it was designed. When I was the EF man at AWC, I had to fight very hard to stop VSOs, who did not understand the issues, from trying to turn it into a two seat jet. I would loved to have had a two seat, long range version, but without another redesign in a four nation consortium the only way to do it would have been to take fuel out to put a seat in.
That is why the two-seat version was not considered an operational model.
That is why the two-seat version was not considered an operational model.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 16th Jun 2015 at 21:43.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New England
Age: 83
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O-o
Forgive, if this has already been posted.
Air Force, Marines Cancel F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
It seems applicable to the thread
Duffelblog is always a good read.
Air Force, Marines Cancel F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
It seems applicable to the thread
Duffelblog is always a good read.
O-P I just read an article, can't remember where, that the SuperBug can't use the Ford class carrier if loaded with external stores. It appears that the EM C'pult is so powerful that it wrecks the pylons. That'll be a cheap fix...NOT.
New catapults need fix to launch jets with fuel pods
Actually reading the article indicates it will be a software adjustment. Sounds like they identifed an issue with the big tanks during testing at Lakehurst- exactly why you do testing. I am sure the EMALS will take some tweaking. All catapults are designed to launch a variety of jets at a variety of speeds and weights.
"The Navy understands the issue, views it as low technical risk, and has a funded plan in place to fix it," he said. "The resolution of this issue is straight-forward because the Navy will leverage this inherent capability of the system to tune the catapult forces for these wing tank configurations. There is no impact to ongoing shipboard installation or shipboard testing and this will not delay any CVN 78 milestones."
"No additional hardware or changes to equipment already installed will be required. Similarly, aircraft will not require modification."
I read it more as dialing things in, not as a showstopper, and hardly "superbug can't use Ford class...." panic.
Ford class is quite a big leap in some areas. Arrersting gear issue sounds more troublesome....
Kubarque- Duffelblog is always a good read.
This article gives a glimpse of USMC (and RAF) progress in integrating F-35 operations with legacy 4th and 5th generation aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts