F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't it have been easier to build say, two aircraft- rather than try to make ONE aircraft do everything?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again we ignore the synergies of stealth with other mission attributes. A Bucaneer isn't remotely stealthy - more so at 10ft ASL sure - but, what use are your electronics at such a low height? Not much, and I also need to concentrate on not hitting the very-hard-deck as much as, if not more than, the fight.
You make a great point ref design though. The sales pitch was about commonality and affordability was/is a key pillar. As a pillar it's getting more and more eroded as we all know but the family concept was clearly sound in its day. Time has shown the various trades of doing so.
That's said - and I've said this time and again - the aircraft is impressing its pilots bar the odd one or two. It will get through SDD and very soon there'll be more F-35 on the various flight lines than the F-22. It isn't getting cancelled soon, if at all. Ever. But she isn't perfect, which isn't actually possible either.
You make a great point ref design though. The sales pitch was about commonality and affordability was/is a key pillar. As a pillar it's getting more and more eroded as we all know but the family concept was clearly sound in its day. Time has shown the various trades of doing so.
That's said - and I've said this time and again - the aircraft is impressing its pilots bar the odd one or two. It will get through SDD and very soon there'll be more F-35 on the various flight lines than the F-22. It isn't getting cancelled soon, if at all. Ever. But she isn't perfect, which isn't actually possible either.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears that LM can make the $85 million price tag if the government is willing to spend $300 million on “affordability initiatives”.
http://aviationweek.com/
But to achieve the stated goal of reducing the flyaway cost by approximately $10 million by the end of 2019, to $85 million for the conventional F-35A, will require the government customer to begin investing in manufacturing improvements beginning in 2017.
Under the Blueprint for Affordability, industry partners Lockheed, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems agreed to invest $170 million over two years. The initiative assumes the government would provide another $300 million over the following three years to get to an $85 million aircraft.
Under the Blueprint for Affordability, industry partners Lockheed, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems agreed to invest $170 million over two years. The initiative assumes the government would provide another $300 million over the following three years to get to an $85 million aircraft.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MSOCS
So what does the F-35 have, airframe wise, that a Buccaneer hasn't?
You answered already....Stealth!
I'd counter that 'stealth', ie reduced RCS is over rated.
It's like any other measure......soon cometh the counter-measure, and our much wanted and valued 'measure' becomes another expensive overhead.
What Ken V said is correct. Its not Lockheeds fault, or Pratts.
But that does not mean things are ok.
The F-35 is a clunker. Its the A-12 that slipped through the net. At least the Navy had the balls to pull it.
Stealth? Yeah, but so......eventually with LW radar, its worthless.
Clever EW? Yeah, but it could have gone in a pod
Lack of wing? Talk your way out of that one.
Watch my tracer.
So what does the F-35 have, airframe wise, that a Buccaneer hasn't?
You answered already....Stealth!
I'd counter that 'stealth', ie reduced RCS is over rated.
It's like any other measure......soon cometh the counter-measure, and our much wanted and valued 'measure' becomes another expensive overhead.
What Ken V said is correct. Its not Lockheeds fault, or Pratts.
But that does not mean things are ok.
The F-35 is a clunker. Its the A-12 that slipped through the net. At least the Navy had the balls to pull it.
Stealth? Yeah, but so......eventually with LW radar, its worthless.
Clever EW? Yeah, but it could have gone in a pod
Lack of wing? Talk your way out of that one.
Watch my tracer.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AtomKraft, are you saying that, as counters exist, we shouldn't develop new technologies because, in the case of the rubbish qualities of stealth (in your view), it's a waste? That it has no utility? To believe that F-35 rests on the laurels of stealth alone is to miss the woods for the sake of a tree. What's to say you can't put a pod on an F-35? Of course, nothing is absolute. Even if an F-44 Super Raptor existed, one could find fault if pressed and it would probably cost twice what a Raptor costs ($180m-ish).
I did enjoy the Bucaneer bit though. To a point.
I did enjoy the Bucaneer bit though. To a point.
Last edited by MSOCS; 22nd Mar 2016 at 01:30.
Was the windshield bird strike requirement "set" in the JORD? Or was that a later UK requirement and the reason the F-35 now has a bow in the canopy even though it is a one-piece canopy like the F-16 and F-22, neither of which have bows. Was the requirement to include a magic helmet part of the JORD? Was the requirement to have full spherical passive sensor coverage (DAS) part of the JORD? Was the requirement to have a single sensor (EOTS) that functions as both a FLIR and an IRST part of the JORD? Was the requirement to have a stealthy datalink (MADL) part of the JORD? Did these systems add weight, cost, risk, and time to the program? Was the requirement to have an ejection seat capable of safely handling a 103 lb to 285 lb pilot part of the JORD?
Yes. If you look up contemporary accounts you will find almost all these features mentioned. And if you look at the earliest LockMart PWSC images you will see the canopy arch.
Here's a good starting point:
Yes. If you look up contemporary accounts you will find almost all these features mentioned. And if you look at the earliest LockMart PWSC images you will see the canopy arch.
Here's a good starting point:
Last edited by LowObservable; 22nd Mar 2016 at 11:37.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The F-35 variants are all very good aircraft designs. The F-35B cost is mostly due to a more complex and expensive propulsion system ($28M vs $12M for the A & C models). Adding a clutched shaft driven lift fan, swiveling exhaust nozzle, and bleed air roll control system is no small task.
If you consider the F-35B to be a dud, then you must really hate the far less capable Harriers used by the USMC.
Maybe some of you recall how the early models of the F-18 did not meet some requirements for range/payload. Yet it still turned out to be a very good aircraft.
If you consider the F-35B to be a dud, then you must really hate the far less capable Harriers used by the USMC.
Maybe some of you recall how the early models of the F-18 did not meet some requirements for range/payload. Yet it still turned out to be a very good aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Johannesburg
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AtomKraft, are you saying that, as counters exist, we shouldn't develop new technologies because, in the case of the rubbish qualities of stealth (in your view), it's a waste? That it has no utility? To believe that F-35 rests on the laurels of stealth alone is to miss the woods for the sake of a tree. What's to say you can't put a pod on an F-35? Of course, nothing is absolute. Even if an F-44 Super Raptor existed, one could find fault if pressed and it would probably cost twice what a Raptor costs ($180m-ish).
I did enjoy the Bucaneer bit though. To a point.
I did enjoy the Bucaneer bit though. To a point.
Whats that about "new" tech though
If you consider the F-35B to be a dud, then you must really hate the far less capable Harriers used by the USMC.
Not really. It did its job at the time and didn't cost too much.
Now, suppose someone in 1975-80 had decided that we'd only need one fighter and scrapped the F-16 and F-18 in favor of Harrier variants. That would have been a mess.
Not really. It did its job at the time and didn't cost too much.
Now, suppose someone in 1975-80 had decided that we'd only need one fighter and scrapped the F-16 and F-18 in favor of Harrier variants. That would have been a mess.
Keeping in mind what Harrier was designed to do and that the VTOL/VSTOL/STOL/etc really was an engineering compromise against all sorts of other factors, I wonder if Riff Raff is attributing the same capability limitations to F-35 by making the comparison. I hope not.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love the current meme of the fanboys and shills when they attempt to compare the development of the Super Hornet to the JSF. It's not even close to comparable. Super Hornet development funding was about $6B - compare that to $60B for the F-35. The Super Hornet went from program start in 1992 to IOC in 2001 (a one year delay.) The JSF contract was awarded in 2001 and SDD is not scheduled to end until 2018 (~ seven year delay) - so roughly double the development time at 10x the cost. The Super Hornet had a few issues to sort out, but nothing like what is being experienced by the JSF. And the Super Hornet was designed from the beginning to have excess electrical power, interior volume and weight margins. The JSF is basically maxed out prior to IOC with little margin for growth.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think to make that comparison valid Maus you would have to add in the costs and time of the first Hornet development. They may be very different, but the earlier Hornet certainly helped as a prototyping stage.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love the current meme of the fanboys and shills...
The JSF is basically maxed out prior to IOC with little margin for growth.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The JSF is basically maxed out prior to IOC with little margin for growth.
Originally Posted by KenV
A declaration based on data, or assumptions?
-RP
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, suppose someone in 1975-80 had decided that we'd only need one fighter and scrapped the F-16 and F-18 in favor of Harrier variants. That would have been a mess.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure the B was at, or near, maximum specified allowable weight,