F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, not so much, initial Typhoon deliveries to the RAF (to 17(R) Sqn) began in 2003 under the Case White contract, this provided initial support and training while 29(R) got up to speed and before they moved to Coningsby in July 2005...
Whilst Typhoon's development has also been somewhat glacial, much of that is down to the partner nation's procrastination, Germany in particular in the early years and also a lack of financial commitment, the F-35 on the other hand has never suffered any financial constraints which have impacted it's development, in fact it's more or less had money thrown at it constantly!
-RP
Whilst Typhoon's development has also been somewhat glacial, much of that is down to the partner nation's procrastination, Germany in particular in the early years and also a lack of financial commitment, the F-35 on the other hand has never suffered any financial constraints which have impacted it's development, in fact it's more or less had money thrown at it constantly!
-RP
Not sure about the 2007 delivery date. The RAF's understanding is that deliveries started in 2003 to 17(R) Sqn at Warton, for development and testing. The first Coningsby sqn was activated in 2005, Typhoon took over responsibility for UK QRA in 2007 and was formally declared as an air defence platform on 1 Jan 2008. [EDIT - as Rhino has just said while I was typing. Doh...]
No, not so much, initial Typhoon deliveries to the RAF (to 17(R) Sqn) began in 2003 under the Case White contract, this provided initial support and training while 29(R) got up to speed and before they moved to Coningsby in July 2005...
Whilst Typhoon's development has also been somewhat glacial, much of that is down to the partner nation's procrastination, Germany in particular in the early years and also a lack of financial commitment, the F-35 on the other hand has never suffered any financial constraints which have impacted it's development, in fact it's more or less had money thrown at it constantly!
-RP
Whilst Typhoon's development has also been somewhat glacial, much of that is down to the partner nation's procrastination, Germany in particular in the early years and also a lack of financial commitment, the F-35 on the other hand has never suffered any financial constraints which have impacted it's development, in fact it's more or less had money thrown at it constantly!
-RP
Originally Posted by National Audit Office 2 Mar 2011
Management of the Typhoon Project
The cost of each Typhoon aircraft has risen by 75 per cent. While Typhoon performs some defence tasks now, it won’t take on all roles until 2018...
Among the findings in today’s report are that key investment decisions were taken on an over-optimistic basis and costs have risen at a rate the MOD did not predict. The objectives of four partner nations on the project are not fully aligned and decision-making is slow. There have also been problems with spares and other support which mean the RAF is not flying Typhoon as much as planned.
The cost of each Typhoon aircraft has risen by 75 per cent. While Typhoon performs some defence tasks now, it won’t take on all roles until 2018...
Among the findings in today’s report are that key investment decisions were taken on an over-optimistic basis and costs have risen at a rate the MOD did not predict. The objectives of four partner nations on the project are not fully aligned and decision-making is slow. There have also been problems with spares and other support which mean the RAF is not flying Typhoon as much as planned.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While Typhoon performs some defence tasks now, it won’t take on all roles until 2018...
And as you know perfectly well, the missions for which Typhoon is being developed today are not the mission for which it was originally designed.
Nobody's holding up the Typhoon as a paragon. That's a strawman-fallacy argument, another diversionary tactic. The point is that a direct Typhoon-to-JSF comparison is simplistic and uninformative because of the very different histories of the programs.
Actually, in some respects the F-35 has been better managed than Typhoon: it has a single project office reporting to one DoD point of contact (OSD); it has never had a purely-budget-driven cut to its annual top-line*; and no significant upward change has been made to the JORD requirements since 2000.
All those factors are very good things for program management, but they also eliminate many handy excuses for delays and overruns.
* Such as "there's a war in Iraq/a budget crisis/etc. so we need to give JSF a haircut and slip IOC by XX months."
And as you know perfectly well, the missions for which Typhoon is being developed today are not the mission for which it was originally designed.
Nobody's holding up the Typhoon as a paragon. That's a strawman-fallacy argument, another diversionary tactic. The point is that a direct Typhoon-to-JSF comparison is simplistic and uninformative because of the very different histories of the programs.
Actually, in some respects the F-35 has been better managed than Typhoon: it has a single project office reporting to one DoD point of contact (OSD); it has never had a purely-budget-driven cut to its annual top-line*; and no significant upward change has been made to the JORD requirements since 2000.
All those factors are very good things for program management, but they also eliminate many handy excuses for delays and overruns.
* Such as "there's a war in Iraq/a budget crisis/etc. so we need to give JSF a haircut and slip IOC by XX months."
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken - be fair - you wouldn't start with the F-35 if you want a non-stealthy bomb truck would you?
It's only because there may be nothing else that it's even worth considering
It's only because there may be nothing else that it's even worth considering
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But stealth worth "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING"? Not even remotely true.
It's only because there may be nothing else that it's even worth considering
The Legendary A-10 Warthog vs. the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: Who Wins? | The National Interest Blog
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
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
Subsonic, short-range, completely non stealthy beast mode is maybe why the F35 is also slated for a CAS role to eventually replace the A-10.
The Legendary A-10 Warthog vs. the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: Who Wins? | The National Interest Blog
The Legendary A-10 Warthog vs. the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: Who Wins? | The National Interest Blog
Which is handy as the ballistic trials/testing fell to the wayside under operation "catch up".....which is of course why the IAF is flying them with external lightning 5 pods ..what was that you were saying about attributes again Ken?
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the F-35 is performing a role that does not require it to be stealthy, then the fact that it can perform in ‘beast’ mode is simply another plus to it’s versatility.
A fact that appears to sail right over one or two members of the ‘anti’ brigade.
A fact that appears to sail right over one or two members of the ‘anti’ brigade.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course everyone knows that the F-35 can carry external loads. That's why it's an F-35 and not an F-117. It's not "another plus to it's [sic] versatility", it's one of the basic requirements that have cost $50bn to meet.
The question is whether the 22,000 pound load identified by the teenage-video-player name of "beast" mode is realistic, or even attainable.
The question is whether the 22,000 pound load identified by the teenage-video-player name of "beast" mode is realistic, or even attainable.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kenneth old chap...
Stealth is only ONE of the F-35's unique capabilities. It has others.
Stealth is not unique to the F-35, as you well know. There are aircraft that have been in service for years that match or exceed its stealth characteristics, so why do you even make that statement?
And what other capabilities of the aircraft are actually "unique"?
Stealth is only ONE of the F-35's unique capabilities. It has others.
Stealth is not unique to the F-35, as you well know. There are aircraft that have been in service for years that match or exceed its stealth characteristics, so why do you even make that statement?
And what other capabilities of the aircraft are actually "unique"?