F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps I can help a little here...
The problem seems to be made up of a number of parts - which is the normal position. In my view, they are:
1. The nature of the force being applied to the aircraft on launch, which is a function of the catapult power setting and the release characteristic of the hold back bar
2. The response of the NLG strut to that force
3. The response of the airframe structure and seat between the NLG strut and the pilot
4. The influence of the cockpit design and the pilot's equipment, especially the seat restraints, helmet mass and the pilots position on launch.
Reading the article, it looks as if the USN/LM team are going for part 1 above, by adjusting the power setting of the catapult so as to reduce the NLG response. If that fails, it's on to 2 (likely), 3 (less likely) and 4 (possible). Damn difficult stuff, this cat and trap aviation.
Best regards as ever to all those good people working the naval aviation issues,
Engines
The problem seems to be made up of a number of parts - which is the normal position. In my view, they are:
1. The nature of the force being applied to the aircraft on launch, which is a function of the catapult power setting and the release characteristic of the hold back bar
2. The response of the NLG strut to that force
3. The response of the airframe structure and seat between the NLG strut and the pilot
4. The influence of the cockpit design and the pilot's equipment, especially the seat restraints, helmet mass and the pilots position on launch.
Reading the article, it looks as if the USN/LM team are going for part 1 above, by adjusting the power setting of the catapult so as to reduce the NLG response. If that fails, it's on to 2 (likely), 3 (less likely) and 4 (possible). Damn difficult stuff, this cat and trap aviation.
Best regards as ever to all those good people working the naval aviation issues,
Engines
I see that the date for the RN reforming 809 Sqn has slipped again - it is now listed as 2023.
This 5-year slip will mean quite a few of the RN pilots gaining and maintaining experience abroad may never actually serve on an RN squadron. The plan to have overlapping RoS periods between their current exchange type and F-35B conversion now has a rather large hole in it.
This 5-year slip will mean quite a few of the RN pilots gaining and maintaining experience abroad may never actually serve on an RN squadron. The plan to have overlapping RoS periods between their current exchange type and F-35B conversion now has a rather large hole in it.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/02/17/t...super-hornets/
Trump Eyes ‘Big Order’ of New F/A-18XT Super Hornets
Trump Eyes ‘Big Order’ of New F/A-18XT Super Hornets
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just This Once, 809's reformation has been 2023 for some time - perhaps this changed from a prior declaration but I can't recall such; the SDSR assumption is for 2 front-line UK F-35B squadrons in 2023. Realistically, the training for those destined for the 'Immortals' will have to begin prior, but this will be in the UK, at Marham. Most/all of the current USA cadre are destined for 617 Sqn or the (as yet to be named) Lightning OCU, as both squadrons will be jointly manned through-life (as will 809).
I've been out of the program for a while but back then the RN squadron would reform in 2018 and hit IOC by 2020. My point with the cadre in the US is that most (all?) will be considerably beyond the RoS and their careers, inside or out, are against the usual clock.
With respect to the training location it was accepted back then that the UK would only have the capacity to sustain the steady-state requirement. Before this point the UK would be reliant on US training to do the bulk of the heavy lifting. I would be surprised if that has changed as it would bog-down the UK F-35 force in conversion training for far too long. Clearly I am aware that the bean-counters saw UK training as the cheaper option but back then the impact on IOC, FOC and manpower sustainment was seen as too debilitating.
With respect to the training location it was accepted back then that the UK would only have the capacity to sustain the steady-state requirement. Before this point the UK would be reliant on US training to do the bulk of the heavy lifting. I would be surprised if that has changed as it would bog-down the UK F-35 force in conversion training for far too long. Clearly I am aware that the bean-counters saw UK training as the cheaper option but back then the impact on IOC, FOC and manpower sustainment was seen as too debilitating.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JTO, yes but the plan for a long time has been that UK Pilot and Maintainer trg ceases in the USA in 2019. This was a condition of the Pooling Agreement with the USA. By 2019 the bulk of personnel will already be trained and 617 Sqn will be around 140% of its final size - this will grow to around 170% by the early 2020s and, approaching 2022, a shadow 809 will likely form as seed corn; the remainder being provided, business-as-usual, by the OCU and ITC at Marham between 2021-2023.
Some of the older RN cadre who have hung out in the USA, and who don't feature in the 617 Sqn or OCU manning assumptions, may we'll be too early for 809; as you say. RAF saw that with Case White (Typhoon) personnel.
Some of the older RN cadre who have hung out in the USA, and who don't feature in the 617 Sqn or OCU manning assumptions, may we'll be too early for 809; as you say. RAF saw that with Case White (Typhoon) personnel.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC,
It seems to me Trump is dabbling in areas he shouldn't be dabbling in. With Trump, it is impossible from one hour to the next, one day to the next to determine what his motivations are. Is this pronouncement because an executive of Lockheed-Martin and former Navy SEAL turned him down on the National Security Advisor post, a bit of revenge, perhaps? First he attacks Boeing, the new Air Force One 747 aircraft cost way too much, then he visits Boeing's South Carolina plant and just raves over what a great company it is and the great people that work at Boeing.
While this kind of off the wall crap may have worked sometimes for him in the NYC real estate venue and is part of his "deal book," we are talking here about significant military technology procurements for which he knows little about. It is why we have a Department of Defense stuffed full of experts in this field. The Secretary of Defense has said he is reviewing the F-35 situation, but he hasn't come to any conclusions yet. Sometime when Trump gets a moment and stops the victory touring and campaigning for reelection in 2020, maybe he might visit the Pentagon and see what does go on inside the building. Trump is still the one man band running "Trump, Inc., NYC" instead of letting the people he has selected for his cabinet do their jobs...
Trump Eyes ‘Big Order’ of New F/A-18XT Super Hornets
While this kind of off the wall crap may have worked sometimes for him in the NYC real estate venue and is part of his "deal book," we are talking here about significant military technology procurements for which he knows little about. It is why we have a Department of Defense stuffed full of experts in this field. The Secretary of Defense has said he is reviewing the F-35 situation, but he hasn't come to any conclusions yet. Sometime when Trump gets a moment and stops the victory touring and campaigning for reelection in 2020, maybe he might visit the Pentagon and see what does go on inside the building. Trump is still the one man band running "Trump, Inc., NYC" instead of letting the people he has selected for his cabinet do their jobs...
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto
Age: 79
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
interesting commentary.
most of the fanboys(I have seen no commentary that I could ascribe to fanwomen) seem to be located in the UK,OZ and Texas ,areas that have made major political/profit generating commitments to the F-35.
I have seen little positive comment here in Canada other than from RCAF fanboys who have never flown an F-35 in the arctic with only one engine and no radio communication capability with anyone.
Is the F-35 programme more of a Military/Industrial/Corporate entity to generate 8 figure incomes for executives than a defense option for a countries survival?
KMD
most of the fanboys(I have seen no commentary that I could ascribe to fanwomen) seem to be located in the UK,OZ and Texas ,areas that have made major political/profit generating commitments to the F-35.
I have seen little positive comment here in Canada other than from RCAF fanboys who have never flown an F-35 in the arctic with only one engine and no radio communication capability with anyone.
Is the F-35 programme more of a Military/Industrial/Corporate entity to generate 8 figure incomes for executives than a defense option for a countries survival?
KMD
interesting commentary.
most of the fanboys(I have seen no commentary that I could ascribe to fanwomen) seem to be located in the UK,OZ and Texas ,areas that have made major political/profit generating commitments to the F-35.
I have seen little positive comment here in Canada other than from RCAF fanboys who have never flown an F-35 in the arctic with only one engine and no radio communication capability with anyone.
Is the F-35 programme more of a Military/Industrial/Corporate entity to generate 8 figure incomes for executives than a defense option for a countries survival?
KMD
most of the fanboys(I have seen no commentary that I could ascribe to fanwomen) seem to be located in the UK,OZ and Texas ,areas that have made major political/profit generating commitments to the F-35.
I have seen little positive comment here in Canada other than from RCAF fanboys who have never flown an F-35 in the arctic with only one engine and no radio communication capability with anyone.
Is the F-35 programme more of a Military/Industrial/Corporate entity to generate 8 figure incomes for executives than a defense option for a countries survival?
KMD
Personally I dislike the B because of its complexities, especially in the middle of the oggin, but it is the only machine currently capable of operating from the QE ships that offers modern capabilities. Hopefully no one will die when the software, microswtches, door actuators, fan clutch or weather proves to be unreliable.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the F-35 programme more of a Military/Industrial/Corporate entity to generate 8 figure incomes for executives than a defense option for a countries survival?
Hardly the ‘fanboys' you mention.
Personally I dislike the B because of its complexities, especially in the middle of the oggin,
Hopefully no one will die when the software, microswtches, door actuators, fan clutch or weather proves to be unreliable.
Originally Posted by Just This Once
I see that the date for the RN reforming 809 Sqn has slipped again - it is now listed as 2023.
Its highly likely that a lot of the pilots who get to finally fly this in squadron service wouldn't have even been born when we signed up to the program in 1995
C model will require a new outer wing (outboard of wing fold) to carry AIM-9X.
F-35C Needs New Outer Wings To Carry AIM-9X | Defense content from Aviation Week
F-35C Needs New Outer Wings To Carry AIM-9X | Defense content from Aviation Week
Possibly even more significant than the US Navy not being able to carry the newest (and more advanced) version of AIM-9, is the fact referred to later in the article that:
You couldn't write this stuff for a satire programme.
Another task for the F-35 team is adding a moving target capability, as reported by Aviation Week on Feb. 15. There are currently no plans to install weapons capable of hitting moving and maneuvering targets, such as an insurgent driving away in a pickup truck. These types of weapons were designed for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and can hit targets traveling at speeds of up to at 70 mph. They are now making their mark in the air campaign against the Islamic State group. Because the F-35’s laser designator cannot lead the target, its basic inventory of late-1990s guided bombs will fall short if that target moves briskly.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
That's not a major problem as there is no real weight issue with the F-35C, just the cost of retro-fitting the current 32 aircraft, reinforcing the resistance to a multi-aircraft buy prior to the completion of testing without resolving where the cost of rectification lies.
However, I am more interested in comments later in the article linked above. Especially for an aircraft which is, reputedly, operational as a CAS aircraft with the USMC.....
So, 5 years+ before they can hit a moving truck????
Further to the above, and in an associated article in the same edition, they are looking for a "quick fix", however - and please correct me if I am wrong - they'd all have to be slung as an external load buggering the stealth and reducing range. In which case why bother with the expense if you already have F-16, F-15, A-10 etc which can hit moving platforms?
Ain't politics and face saving wonderful.........
http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircr...hey-don-t-move
However, I am more interested in comments later in the article linked above. Especially for an aircraft which is, reputedly, operational as a CAS aircraft with the USMC.....
Another task for the F-35 team is adding a moving target capability, as reported by Aviation Week on Feb. 15. There are currently no plans to install weapons capable of hitting moving and maneuvering targets, such as an insurgent driving away in a pickup truck. These types of weapons were designed for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and can hit targets traveling at speeds of up to at 70 mph. They are now making their mark in the air campaign against the Islamic State group. Because the F-35’s laser designator cannot lead the target, its basic inventory of late-1990s guided bombs will fall short if that target moves briskly.
The JPO is now working with the U.S. Air Force and Marine Corps to integrate Raytheon’s GBU-49 Lot 5 Enhanced Paveway II, which automatically corrects for target speed and direction as well as wind conditions. The Marines have expressed a preference for the Raytheon GBU-53B Small Diameter Bomb Increment II, but that is not slated for full integration and flight clearance until Block 4.2, around fiscal 2022 or later. It is not clear if GBU-49 will be automatically selected for F-35 or competed against the latest Boeing Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition and Lockheed Dual Mode Plus. Whatever the decision, it cannot delay F-35 Block 3F.
“I’m working to figure out how we can fit that in sooner rather than later, whether it becomes part of Block 3F or if it gets done at the tail end of 3F,” Bogdan told reporters after the congressional hearing. “The big deal there is to get it done before the middle of Block 4, when we get the moving target capability.”
Bogdan says the F-35 was originally due to be fielded with a cluster bomb that could hit moving targets, the CBU-103 Wind Corrected Munition Dispenser. But the Pentagon has pledged to stop using cluster munitions that leave unexploded ordnance by 2018.
GBU-49 can operate through poor visibility but is not an all-weather weapon. “SDB II is the weapon we all want, and that’s an all-weather moving target [glide bomb],” says Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, deputy commandant for Marine Corps aviation.
The JPO is now working with the U.S. Air Force and Marine Corps to integrate Raytheon’s GBU-49 Lot 5 Enhanced Paveway II, which automatically corrects for target speed and direction as well as wind conditions. The Marines have expressed a preference for the Raytheon GBU-53B Small Diameter Bomb Increment II, but that is not slated for full integration and flight clearance until Block 4.2, around fiscal 2022 or later. It is not clear if GBU-49 will be automatically selected for F-35 or competed against the latest Boeing Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition and Lockheed Dual Mode Plus. Whatever the decision, it cannot delay F-35 Block 3F.
“I’m working to figure out how we can fit that in sooner rather than later, whether it becomes part of Block 3F or if it gets done at the tail end of 3F,” Bogdan told reporters after the congressional hearing. “The big deal there is to get it done before the middle of Block 4, when we get the moving target capability.”
Bogdan says the F-35 was originally due to be fielded with a cluster bomb that could hit moving targets, the CBU-103 Wind Corrected Munition Dispenser. But the Pentagon has pledged to stop using cluster munitions that leave unexploded ordnance by 2018.
GBU-49 can operate through poor visibility but is not an all-weather weapon. “SDB II is the weapon we all want, and that’s an all-weather moving target [glide bomb],” says Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, deputy commandant for Marine Corps aviation.
Further to the above, and in an associated article in the same edition, they are looking for a "quick fix", however - and please correct me if I am wrong - they'd all have to be slung as an external load buggering the stealth and reducing range. In which case why bother with the expense if you already have F-16, F-15, A-10 etc which can hit moving platforms?
Ain't politics and face saving wonderful.........
http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircr...hey-don-t-move
Despite being fixated on the GBU-49, the Air Force wants to hear from all weapons vendors that have moving-target weapons that are “mechanically, electrically and logically compatible with the F-35 Block 3F aircraft operational flight program” and could be integrated without disrupting the wider rollout schedule of May 2018. The service is specifically looking for 500-lb.-class types that can hit targets traveling at 70 mph in one direction, or performing maneuvers up to ±0.2g at 40 mph.
While Raytheon’s GBU-49 appears to be the main contender, other options could include an improved 500-lb. Boeing Laser JDAM or Lockheed Martin Dual Mode Plus. All three dual-guidance options are capable of striking targets moving at about 70 mph.
The market-survey notice issued Feb. 10 says the weapons would be purchased and fielded as a “quick-reaction capability” for Air Combat Command, with the first production contract expected in the third quarter of fiscal 2017, with deliveries six months later.
While Raytheon’s GBU-49 appears to be the main contender, other options could include an improved 500-lb. Boeing Laser JDAM or Lockheed Martin Dual Mode Plus. All three dual-guidance options are capable of striking targets moving at about 70 mph.
The market-survey notice issued Feb. 10 says the weapons would be purchased and fielded as a “quick-reaction capability” for Air Combat Command, with the first production contract expected in the third quarter of fiscal 2017, with deliveries six months later.
Last edited by ORAC; 21st Feb 2017 at 19:08.
ORAC,
It seems to me Trump is dabbling in areas he shouldn't be dabbling in. With Trump, it is impossible from one hour to the next, one day to the next to determine what his motivations are. Is this pronouncement because an executive of Lockheed-Martin and former Navy SEAL turned him down on the National Security Advisor post, a bit of revenge, perhaps? First he attacks Boeing, the new Air Force One 747 aircraft cost way too much, then he visits Boeing's South Carolina plant and just raves over what a great company it is and the great people that work at Boeing.
While this kind of off the wall crap may have worked sometimes for him in the NYC real estate venue and is part of his "deal book," we are talking here about significant military technology procurements for which he knows little about. It is why we have a Department of Defense stuffed full of experts in this field. The Secretary of Defense has said he is reviewing the F-35 situation, but he hasn't come to any conclusions yet. Sometime when Trump gets a moment and stops the victory touring and campaigning for reelection in 2020, maybe he might visit the Pentagon and see what does go on inside the building. Trump is still the one man band running "Trump, Inc., NYC" instead of letting the people he has selected for his cabinet do their jobs...
It seems to me Trump is dabbling in areas he shouldn't be dabbling in. With Trump, it is impossible from one hour to the next, one day to the next to determine what his motivations are. Is this pronouncement because an executive of Lockheed-Martin and former Navy SEAL turned him down on the National Security Advisor post, a bit of revenge, perhaps? First he attacks Boeing, the new Air Force One 747 aircraft cost way too much, then he visits Boeing's South Carolina plant and just raves over what a great company it is and the great people that work at Boeing.
While this kind of off the wall crap may have worked sometimes for him in the NYC real estate venue and is part of his "deal book," we are talking here about significant military technology procurements for which he knows little about. It is why we have a Department of Defense stuffed full of experts in this field. The Secretary of Defense has said he is reviewing the F-35 situation, but he hasn't come to any conclusions yet. Sometime when Trump gets a moment and stops the victory touring and campaigning for reelection in 2020, maybe he might visit the Pentagon and see what does go on inside the building. Trump is still the one man band running "Trump, Inc., NYC" instead of letting the people he has selected for his cabinet do their jobs...
I will however admit that if he runs into an F/A-18 QFI who tells him that the Shornet is amazing and the F-35 is terrible, he is liable to base a procurement decision on such heresay.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fonsini,
Speaking about Robert McNamara, here is what President Trump's new National Security Advisor, Lt. General H.R. McMaster, had to say about him relative to the Vietnam War:
I suspect McNamara continued his arrogance when it came to pushing the multi-service role of the to be F-111 as a cost reduction over two separate designs, very foolish. I suppose you could call the F-35 program concept another "business management problem" going back to its very beginning. 
Speaking about Robert McNamara, here is what President Trump's new National Security Advisor, Lt. General H.R. McMaster, had to say about him relative to the Vietnam War:
McMaster portrays Robert McNamara, a former president of the Ford Motor Company who had become Secretary of Defense, as foolish. He said that he viewed Vietnam “as another business management problem” and “forged ahead oblivious to the human and psychological complexities of war.” “McNamara and his assistants in the Department of Defense were arrogant,” McMaster wrote. “They disparaged military advice because they thought that their intelligence and analytical methods could compensate for their lack of military experience and education. Indeed military experience seemed to them a liability because military officers took too narrow a view and based their advice on antiquated notions of war.”