F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
I thought he did OK too, but I didn't get the relevance either. I only watched it because I thought there might be something coming about F-35B on the new carriers.
During my time on exchange at Tyndall the local channel wanted to do something similar. Strangely, every foreign pilot on the base had sub envy disappeared. One was caught and did his (very similar) piece in front of the cameras, but was later saved by one of the Japanese student instructors managing to knock over a 900 foot TV antenna, so it never aired.
Interestingly, the exchange pilot with the Navy on F-14s then was and RAF QFI. Turns out the RAF can do deck landings too.
During my time on exchange at Tyndall the local channel wanted to do something similar. Strangely, every foreign pilot on the base had sub envy disappeared. One was caught and did his (very similar) piece in front of the cameras, but was later saved by one of the Japanese student instructors managing to knock over a 900 foot TV antenna, so it never aired.
Interestingly, the exchange pilot with the Navy on F-14s then was and RAF QFI. Turns out the RAF can do deck landings too.
True enough. But on the other hand no other aircraft, even aircraft that started out as USN aircraft like the A-1, F-4, and A-7 were "joint" by this definition. The USAF version of those USN aircraft could not land on a carrier either. Although technically, the B would be joint by this definition as it can land on a carrier. So while I agree with your point, I'm having trouble seeing its utility. Help me out here shipmate.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's going to actually be Joint, then it has to be able to land on a cv and an airfield. Hence: don't build the A. (And for air superiority, build more F-22's FFS).
KenV
As to your comments on the old Lightning, try telling the NATO nations who flew against it at low level in the late 60s and early 70s that it was badly designed for the job.
Just a humble thought from an ex Lightning, F15, F4 and F3 operator.
As to your comments on the old Lightning, try telling the NATO nations who flew against it at low level in the late 60s and early 70s that it was badly designed for the job.
Just a humble thought from an ex Lightning, F15, F4 and F3 operator.
If the B hadn't existed, the U.K. would be installing catapults right about now
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to your comments on the old Lightning, try telling the NATO nations who flew against it at low level in the late 60s and early 70s that it was badly designed for the job.
You have misunderstood. I said the Lightning was a brilliant design. A brilliant point design, but brilliant nevertheless. IF it later failed to meet real world operational needs, that was not the fault of the designers and builders, but of the government folks who set down the requirements. The same is true of F-35. IF it fails to meet real world operational needs, that's not the fault of the designers and builders. It is the fault of the several governments who set down the requirements.
Look at the T-X program. Several contractors had existing off the shelf trainers available that would just need to have their systems tweaked to do the job. But USAF added a sustained G turn requirement that could not be met by those trainers. Is the requirement realistic? Is it necessary? Is it achievable? Who knows? But the bottom line is that it is a government imposed requirement and now the contractors have to start over with clean sheet designs. Is that smart? Is it cost effective? Who knows, but the bottom line is that if a contractor wants to be a player in this competition, they MUST comply.
Last edited by KenV; 18th Mar 2016 at 13:07. Reason: Added T-X paragraph
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope. The B isn't even needed.
And BTW, if it turns out the Marines were wrong and a STOVL isn't needed after all, that's not LM's fault. The government required LM (and Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas) to design and build a STOVL version. And if it turns out that having both an A and C version is a bad idea (as has been suggested), that's also not LM's fault. The government required LM (and Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas) to design and build different USAF and USN versions.
By the same token, if it turns out that a carrier capable attack jet with a single very large engine is a bad idea, that's not the designer's fault either. The government required LM (and Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas) to design and build a single engine jet. Indeed, that's primarily why McDonnell Douglas's JSF proposal failed. MDC's USAF and USN versions were single engine but their Marine version had a second lift engine. All of MDC's versions were in many ways better than LM's (LM specifically called their design "conservative" in order to "reduce risk"), but because MDC's Marine version had that second engine, they were eliminated early on. So for those who insist a contractor should question a government requirement, think again. The contractor will be slapped down by the government at great expense to the contractor.
Last edited by KenV; 18th Mar 2016 at 13:10.
Good luck convincing our USMC brethren about that. They are the primary reason the B exists at all.
You have misunderstood. I said the Lightning was a brilliant design. A brilliant point design, but brilliant nevertheless. IF it later failed to meet real world operational needs, that was not the fault of the designers and builders, but of the government folks who set down the requirements. The same is true of F-35. IF it fails to meet real world operational needs, that's not the fault of the designers and builders. It is the fault of the several governments who set down the requirements.
The customers are really to blame - they determine who gets the money and their greed prevents them from being sensible. On the other hand I never liked the people I've had to deal with in previous companies whose job it is to provoke that greed.
KenV.... IF it later failed to meet real world operational needs, that was not the fault of the designers and builders, but of the government folks who set down the requirements.....
I think the EE Lightning met the original requirements just fine, it just got surpassed by the passage of time, lack of upgrades and some inherit limitations. You can not blame the government folks who set down the original requirements if the aircraft is no longer first tier decades later.
Yes we can blame the requirements folks for a lot of things, especially if it leads to an unachievable or severely compromised design (and the F-35 may fit that) but operational needs do change over time.
And even a hint of criticizing the EE lightning on a forum with many UK folks is treading into dangerous waters
I do see it is as the iconic RAF cold war jet with blistering power/speed, but with some significant con's as well.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the EE Lightning met the original requirements just fine...
And even a hint of criticizing the EE lightning on a forum with many UK folks is treading into dangerous waters I do see it is as the iconic RAF cold war jet with blistering power/speed, but with some significant con's as well.
I do see it is as the iconic RAF cold war jet with blistering power/speed, but with some significant con's as well.
And about those "inherit limitations" and "con's" you mentioned? Were they the fault of the designer or of the requirements folks? I think it was the latter. Point designs are often brilliant. But they remain point designs that necessarily pay the bills by compromising in areas outside the narrow confines of the point requirements (like fuel load? engine access? no underwing pylons?). If the requirements are a little wrong (as they were for the F-12, B-70, F-104, F-105, F-111B) the result is a brilliant design with no future. If the requirements were a lot wrong (as they were for the F2Y Sea Dart, F-85 Goblin, FV-1 Pogo, Me-163 Komet and many more) the result is often a brilliant disaster. Of course there are also total disasters (like the Percival P.74?)
Last edited by KenV; 18th Mar 2016 at 14:23.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken
I think it is a stretch to say of F35 "it is meeting it's requirements"
It may end up just great, but various of the requirements were a timescale, cost and capability. These have all been "massaged", and not in a positive direction..
I think it is a stretch to say of F35 "it is meeting it's requirements"
It may end up just great, but various of the requirements were a timescale, cost and capability. These have all been "massaged", and not in a positive direction..
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may end up just great, but various of the requirements were a timescale, cost and capability. These have all been "massaged", and not in a positive direction..
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably the only reason. If they hadn't demanded it, it wouldn't have been conceived and no one else would have asked for it.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken,
In my view comparing aircraft from different generations is like comparing cars from different generations, some such as the Ford Edsel and the Austin Allegro were meant to be fantastic profit earners for the company etc but singularly failed. Whilst comparing market leaders from different eras such as a 1960s Austin Mini with a 2016 BMW Mini, is rather like comparing chalk and cheese, technology marches on.
I am not aware of all the contractual details between LM and the DoD however as I understand it the contract is not cost plus, LM are taking some of the risk.
I thus think that your statement that it is all the government's fault if the F35, or indeed whatever government project, turns out to be a lemon is a little wide of the mark.
A large proportion of LM's future profit stream, that will be propping up their share price and paying executive bonus etc is related to the profitability of the F35 production line, a major driver of which is the number of aircraft ordered.
My point is thus that LM's executives and Board are major stakeholders in the F35, they want the F35 to be commercially successful, unlike some of the projects that only made it to prototype stage that you mentioned.
I am sure historically that LM's profit position was not helped by the reduction in the number of F22s for the sole customer the USAF being reduced from c750 to the final 187.
In my view comparing aircraft from different generations is like comparing cars from different generations, some such as the Ford Edsel and the Austin Allegro were meant to be fantastic profit earners for the company etc but singularly failed. Whilst comparing market leaders from different eras such as a 1960s Austin Mini with a 2016 BMW Mini, is rather like comparing chalk and cheese, technology marches on.
I am not aware of all the contractual details between LM and the DoD however as I understand it the contract is not cost plus, LM are taking some of the risk.
I thus think that your statement that it is all the government's fault if the F35, or indeed whatever government project, turns out to be a lemon is a little wide of the mark.
A large proportion of LM's future profit stream, that will be propping up their share price and paying executive bonus etc is related to the profitability of the F35 production line, a major driver of which is the number of aircraft ordered.
My point is thus that LM's executives and Board are major stakeholders in the F35, they want the F35 to be commercially successful, unlike some of the projects that only made it to prototype stage that you mentioned.
I am sure historically that LM's profit position was not helped by the reduction in the number of F22s for the sole customer the USAF being reduced from c750 to the final 187.