Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Old 4th Jun 2016, 15:45
  #9301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,549
It would seem that the Dutch are rather sensitive to noise...

When we had an air force, the RAFG Harriers at Wildenrath were moved to Gutersloh, with F-4s moving in to take their place.

Some local German mayor got wind of this and wrote a somewhat pompous note to his Cloggy oppo, just over the border, something along the lines of "The noise of der Phantom vill be much vorse than it voz mit der Harrier! Can ve ask you to help us complain?"

The reply from the Netherlands was quite brief - "Yes, we know that the F-4 is noisier than the Harrier. But we prefer the noise of either to the noise of the Stuka!".

No further correspondence was forthcoming....
BEagle is online now  
Old 4th Jun 2016, 16:57
  #9302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 779
Ozy,

Perhaps I can help here. Some while back, I was closely involved with F-35 noise studies (all variants).

Of course perceived noise (i.e. the noise a person will hear) will be different for an F-35B hovering to an F-35A in the circuit. The F-35B will be close to the ground, the A will be a few hundred feet up. So, yes, a B in the hover will be noisier than an A in the circuit, as long as you are standing fairly close to the landing area.

The noise emitted from the main engine in the F-35 at max power is very nearly the same for all three types. For the F-35B in the hover, the main engine exhaust is actually delivering about 50% less thrust, as half of the engine power is being sent forward to the shaft driven fan. The noise signature around the jet during landing ops is higher than for the Harrier, but can be managed. I understand that sound insulation is being fitted under the F-35B deck landing areas, much as has been done for many years under CVNs' catapults.

The most severe noise issue with any F-35 variant is for the F-35C and the USN carrier flight deck catapult launch crew, who have to be close to the aircraft while it is at high power before launch. The F-35C's noise signature was found to be very close to 'legacy' jets like the Super Hornet, and was well mapped and understood, especially once the USN had carried out special trials in front of a Jet Blast Deflector (JBD).

For deck launch, F-35B noise is less of a problem than for the C, for much the same reason as landing - less energy is being generated by the very fast hot engine exhaust, and the forward lift fan exhaust is being directed at the deck, where it disperses rapidly.

The whole issue of F-35 noise has been very carefully addressed for many years, with BAE leading the effort in measuring and characterising the aircraft's external environment. This is complicated stuff and the team I worked with were absolutely world class - and recognised as such by their US counterparts.

The biggest problem with noise in the UK is not the aircraft, but the UK MoD's decision to impose limits for noise exposure set out by EU Noise and Vibration legislation. These are FAR more stringent than anything the US required, and have led to very extensive (and successful) efforts to protect QEC carrier flight deck crews.

Hope this helps a little

Best regards as ever to all those trying to keep the noise down,

Engines
Engines is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2016, 07:23
  #9303 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,193
Air Force Plan For 2030 Doesn't Mention The F-35

".....If there is anything that defines the Air Force in 2030, it should be the ubiquity and inadequacy of the F-35....."

http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/document...ght%20Plan.pdf

"....Penetrating Counterair (PCA). Capability development efforts for PCA will focus on maximizing tradeoffs between range, payload, survivability, lethality, affordability, and supportability. While PCA capability will certainly have a role in targeting and engaging, it also has a significant role as a node in the network, providing data from its penetrating sensors to enable employment using either stand-off or stand-in weapons. As part of this effort, the Air Force should proceed with a formal AoA in 2017 for a PCA capability. Consistent with an agile acquisition mindset designed to deliver the right capability on the required timeline, this AoA will include options to leverage rapid development and prototyping in order to keep ahead of the threat......."

"The Air Force’s projected force structure in 2030 is not capable of fighting and winning against this array of potential adversary capabilities
....... "

"Capability development efforts for PCA will focus on maximizing tradeoffs between range, payload, survivability, lethality, affordability, and supportability........"

Last edited by ORAC; 5th Jun 2016 at 09:18.
ORAC is online now  
Old 5th Jun 2016, 13:17
  #9304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
10 year trick pony if that...
glad rag is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2016, 07:17
  #9305 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,193
The "interim" line is a smoke screen for political and work share purposes......

Liberals planning to buy Super Hornet fighter jets before making final decision on F-35s, sources say | National Post
ORAC is online now  
Old 6th Jun 2016, 13:06
  #9306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 1,545
Hmmm. Another F-35 bashing article, which while wailing that the F35 is not mentioned, conspicuously fails to mention that neither is the F22 or any other patform bar the B21.

While it's all very well quoting this :

"The Air Force’s projected force structure in 2030 is not capable of fighting and winning against this array of potential adversary capabilities....... "

What does the author think the response would be to a statement along the lines of "The Air Force’s projected force structure in 2030 is more than capable of fighting and winning against this array of potential adversary capabilities....... "?

The obvious answer to which from a Congress needing to find budgetary savings would be "well no aircraft or system development funding or projects for you between now and the 30s then". Which is fifteen years or so for anyone struggling with arithmetic.

I feel sure that would be a universally acclaimed outcome.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2016, 13:33
  #9307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 788
Regarding noise, I was rather close to several B's at Pax River and thought they were quite similar decibel wise to the F/A-18D chase aircraft on a conventional takeoff- plenty loud. On rolling STOL landings and STOL touch and goes (no hovering the days I saw them) I was surprised how quiet they were. No discernible fan noise- I was expecting some sort of fan whine I guess.
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2016, 17:55
  #9308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Regarding noise, I was rather close to several B's at Pax River and thought they were quite similar decibel wise to the F/A-18D chase aircraft on a conventional takeoff- plenty loud. On rolling STOL landings and STOL touch and goes (no hovering the days I saw them) I was surprised how quiet they were. No discernible fan noise- I was expecting some sort of fan whine I guess.
Sandi - if you listen to this video at 1:08 you will hear the lift fan engaging quite noticeably.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygVlvlvnmTU
MSOCS is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2016, 21:41
  #9309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
Cool Of course those F16's are sooo quiet....

glad rag is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2016, 12:28
  #9310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 248
F35

Life extenaion of Tornado shouldn't be that much of a problem based upon the GAF stating that they wish to operate their Tornado until up to 2040.
However, for the MoD that would be a real climb down on their mid 2019 OSD and you can bet, to save every penny, Tornado spares will have been reduced to as little as possible. a decision needs to be made soonest....
Buster15 is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2016, 14:53
  #9311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,143
RAF/RN 50/50 split between synthetic/real flight training.

UK F-35 training set for equal synthetic/live split | IHS Jane's 360

-RP
Rhino power is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2016, 16:53
  #9312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 788
Voyager/F-35B trials wrapped up

Looks like the Voyager/F-35B in flight refueling trials wrapped up at Pax River. 18 sorties.


https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/0...-a-week-early/
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2016, 21:50
  #9313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
Cameron just pleged another 12 Billion for the NHS live on TV now, where do you think that's coming from?

glad rag is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2016, 22:44
  #9314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 545
Originally Posted by Buster15 View Post
Life extenaion of Tornado shouldn't be that much of a problem based upon the GAF stating that they wish to operate their Tornado until up to 2040.
However, for the MoD that would be a real climb down on their mid 2019 OSD and you can bet, to save every penny, Tornado spares will have been reduced to as little as possible. a decision needs to be made soonest....
My understanding is that the German aircraft don't have anything like the flying hours that the UK aircraft have.
Harley Quinn is online now  
Old 8th Jun 2016, 01:51
  #9315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Probably due the fact that, unlike our Tornado fleet, the GAF Tornado fleet haven't been on continuous ops since 1991. Fins in the ME for 25 years and counting is no small effort.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2016, 06:59
  #9316 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,193
Canadian Fighter-Jet Debate Turns Testy

VICTORIA, British Columbia — Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has slammed the F-35, labeling the aircraft as a fighter that “does not work,” as his government considers the purchase of Boeing Super Hornets instead.........
ORAC is online now  
Old 11th Jun 2016, 17:52
  #9317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 48
Posts: 505
Lockheed Martin warns Canada it will pull $825M in contracts

Lockheed Martin warns it will pull $825M in F-35 contracts if Canada buys another jet - Politics - CBC News
Lockheed Martin warns it will pull $825M in F-35 contracts if Canada buys another jet

U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin is warning Canada that $825 million in aerospace industrial contracts signed with Canadian companies to build and equip F-35 jets would be moved to other partner nations if the Trudeau government decides to buy a different fighter jet.
kbrockman is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2016, 18:42
  #9318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
An oft-missed benefit of being a partner is the industrial work share that comes with it. This reduces the cost of the Program to countries. For instance, the U.K. Will get around £3 back for every £1 put in, provided the total numbers forecast are eventually ordered - clearly that's not guaranteed but there's a way to go yet.

If you no longer want to be a partner, why should you retain the work share? Far better to split that amongst the committed nations and concomitantly reduce the cost of the Program to them.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2016, 07:25
  #9319 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,193
It seems the Danish order will only be a firm order for 21 aircraft, the remaining 6 being an option - depending on what the price and running costs actually turn out to be.......

Agreement for the Acquisition of New Combat Aircraft


(EDITOR’S NOTE:

So, in the final analysis, Denmark does not know what price it will pay for its F-35As, and if the price increases it will buy fewer of them. This is the reason why, instead of the publicized figure of 27, the parties have in fact committed to buy only 21, with the remaining six to be bought only if there is enough money to pay for them.

This, by the way, would bring the purchase in line with the intentions of the Konservative party, which voted against the purchase because it wants to limit the number to 21. Given that this is barely enough to equip a single operational squadron, if it hard to understand why, given the cost, Denmark does not simply do away with fast jets altogether.

All the more so that Danish media, including the Berlingske daily newspaper, puts the lifetime costs of the F-35 fleet at well over 50 billion krone, or about $7.6 billion, while Henrik Dam Christensen, defense speaker for the opposition Social Democrats, puts that figure at 55 billion kroner.

In any case, given the F-35’s history of cost inflation, late delivery and mandatory upgrades, it is more than likely that, like Norway and the Netherlands, it will end up with far fewer aircraft that it initially wanted – in this case no more than 21.
ORAC is online now  
Old 12th Jun 2016, 13:25
  #9320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
Originally Posted by MSOCS View Post
An oft-missed benefit of being a partner is the industrial work share that comes with it. This reduces the cost of the Program to countries. For instance, the U.K. Will get around £3 back for every £1 put in, provided the total numbers forecast are eventually ordered - clearly that's not guaranteed but there's a way to go yet.

If you no longer want to be a partner, why should you retain the work share? Far better to split that amongst the committed nations and concomitantly reduce the cost of the Program to them.

So you support the blackmailing of a NATO ally by LM then?



Last edited by glad rag; 12th Jun 2016 at 13:39.
glad rag is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.