F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,631
Originally Posted by Turbine D
Brat,
You need to come around from the dark side of the moon. The US had all the financial wherewithal to do the total F-35 just as we had to do the total F-22, just as we had to do the total B-2 bomber and just as we will have to do whatever else comes down the pike that is technologically sensitive. The next US Defense spending budget will be over three quarters of a trillion $$$s.
The reason why we search out partners for some programs is mainly to reduce the purchasing price in the long run for the USAF, USN and USMC for that particular program. It's called "Lets Make A Deal!" I know because I helped with some of the F-16 efforts long ago in this respect. The reason we don't search out partners for some programs is because of proprietary technology protections reasons. For the F-35 program putting it into simple words that you wrote, the establishment of the massive collaborative effort of various partners was to suck you in to buying the aircraft and reduce the price to our military users, don't know if you are English or not but thanks for your contributions if you are. If you don't believe this, watch what happens if Canada backs out and buys FA-18s from Boeing instead, probably a good deal for both of them. But I don't think they will be making partner parts for the F-35 if that's their final decision.
You need to come around from the dark side of the moon. The US had all the financial wherewithal to do the total F-35 just as we had to do the total F-22, just as we had to do the total B-2 bomber and just as we will have to do whatever else comes down the pike that is technologically sensitive. The next US Defense spending budget will be over three quarters of a trillion $$$s.
The reason why we search out partners for some programs is mainly to reduce the purchasing price in the long run for the USAF, USN and USMC for that particular program. It's called "Lets Make A Deal!" I know because I helped with some of the F-16 efforts long ago in this respect. The reason we don't search out partners for some programs is because of proprietary technology protections reasons. For the F-35 program putting it into simple words that you wrote, the establishment of the massive collaborative effort of various partners was to suck you in to buying the aircraft and reduce the price to our military users, don't know if you are English or not but thanks for your contributions if you are. If you don't believe this, watch what happens if Canada backs out and buys FA-18s from Boeing instead, probably a good deal for both of them. But I don't think they will be making partner parts for the F-35 if that's their final decision.
However good luck finding a vendor to manufacture those partner parts at the same price,
Last edited by glad rag; 20th Jun 2018 at 22:08.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,631
Originally Posted by Brat
And just where have I intimated otherwise???
You do keep on bringing up these tangents that have little relevance to the ongoing discussion.
However since you mention partners, I think there are one or two aspects that the UK has brought to the F-35 table in order to be a tier1 partner.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-f-35/
You do keep on bringing up these tangents that have little relevance to the ongoing discussion.
However since you mention partners, I think there are one or two aspects that the UK has brought to the F-35 table in order to be a tier1 partner.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-f-35/
Just when Typhoon finally becomes fully multi role too.
Who'd have thought it, # 3.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by glad rag
Remind us what tier one partner is having massive production facility job cuts right at this moment, that's what F35 brings to the table!
Just when Typhoon finally becomes fully multi role too.
Who'd have thought it, # 3.
Just when Typhoon finally becomes fully multi role too.
Who'd have thought it, # 3.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,159
Original posting by Brat:
And just where have I intimated otherwise???
And just where have I intimated otherwise???
Original posting by Brat:
The design engineering, development, technology advances and integration of systems in the F-35 is beyond the financial ability of any single G7 nation
The design engineering, development, technology advances and integration of systems in the F-35 is beyond the financial ability of any single G7 nation
.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
You are indeed correct, and I at fault, Trump has not quite yet left the G7.
And yes, the US is indeed a major economic power, capable of many things, however, would you care to comment on the angled flight deck, landing mirrors on carriers, the F-35B’s vertical lift system, and why the USMC bought Harriers, before you get too carried away with US omnipotence and total capability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_LiftSystem
What qualifies a tier 1 supplier? Care to comment.
The ‘Bill of Goods’ you are so dismissive off appears to been vetted by a number of very much more qualified people than your good self, and approved for purchase by a number of airforces, experience I venture you do not possess.
A large number of senior pilots from various airforces, qualified on the latest front line fighters, have been involved in the acceptance of and integration of the F-35 into those various airforces, and not many have been complaining about being sold a 'Bill of Goods’
Every poster insulted? Don’t think so, your sensitivity aside. Three have certainly been disagreed with. Your suggestions, along with your posts, appear regretfully, to fall short of the authority you appear to credit, and present them.
And yes, the US is indeed a major economic power, capable of many things, however, would you care to comment on the angled flight deck, landing mirrors on carriers, the F-35B’s vertical lift system, and why the USMC bought Harriers, before you get too carried away with US omnipotence and total capability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_LiftSystem
What qualifies a tier 1 supplier? Care to comment.
The ‘Bill of Goods’ you are so dismissive off appears to been vetted by a number of very much more qualified people than your good self, and approved for purchase by a number of airforces, experience I venture you do not possess.
A large number of senior pilots from various airforces, qualified on the latest front line fighters, have been involved in the acceptance of and integration of the F-35 into those various airforces, and not many have been complaining about being sold a 'Bill of Goods’
Every poster insulted? Don’t think so, your sensitivity aside. Three have certainly been disagreed with. Your suggestions, along with your posts, appear regretfully, to fall short of the authority you appear to credit, and present them.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
My suggestion to you is to stop insulting every poster that happens to disagree with your outlook
Good idea in theory, but how's the man going to sustain his virility?
Many would judge it a successful program in any number of ways.
As the snowy owl says, O rly? Pray, what are the measures of program success?
On time and on budget? Hmm, looks and smells like it pooed the bed in those areas.
Delivered capability as promised? That seems to be a question of how much of C2D2 is spent on fixing things that were supposed to be delivered at Block 3. The fact that Block 4/C2D2 is still undefined says a lot.
Good idea in theory, but how's the man going to sustain his virility?
Many would judge it a successful program in any number of ways.
As the snowy owl says, O rly? Pray, what are the measures of program success?
On time and on budget? Hmm, looks and smells like it pooed the bed in those areas.
Delivered capability as promised? That seems to be a question of how much of C2D2 is spent on fixing things that were supposed to be delivered at Block 3. The fact that Block 4/C2D2 is still undefined says a lot.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by George K Lee
Good idea in theory, but how's the man going to sustain his virility?
[/QUOTE] the snowy owl says, O rly? Pray, what are the measures of program success?[/QUOTE]
Obviously some facets beyond any comprehension of yours. Snowy owl?? Really? What have you been sipping?
[/QUOTE] time and on budget? Hmm, looks and smells like it pooed the bed in those areas.[/QUOTE]
Where have I at any time claimed that? I have never disputed that the program is over budget and late, and your scatological preferences, just a little distasteful.
[/QUOTE] capability as promised? That seems to be a question of how much of C2D2 is spent on fixing things that were supposed to be delivered at Block 3. The fact that Block 4/C2D2 is still undefined says a lot.[/QUOTE]
Undisputed by me George, I have simply pointed out that like Sprey, you have ignored successes and focussed on failures, losing sight of the overall program, which, at the moment appears to be ahead of any comparable program of a similar nature, and continue to act rather like a Chinese troll.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,159
Original postings by Brat:
And yes, the US is indeed a major economic power, capable of many things, however, would you care to comment on the angled flight deck, landing mirrors on carriers, the F-35B’s vertical lift system, and why the USMC bought Harriers, before you get too carried away with US omnipotence and total capability.
And yes, the US is indeed a major economic power, capable of many things, however, would you care to comment on the angled flight deck, landing mirrors on carriers, the F-35B’s vertical lift system, and why the USMC bought Harriers, before you get too carried away with US omnipotence and total capability.
When you become as mature in age as I am you will find there isn't much that didn't exist before your time, note the date, 1973:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9730013203.pdf
What qualifies a tier 1 supplier? Care to comment.
A large number of senior pilots from various airforces, qualified on the latest front line fighters, have been involved in the acceptance of and integration of the F-35 into those various airforces, and not many have been complaining about being sold a 'Bill of Goods’
The ‘Bill of Goods’ you are so dismissive off appears to been vetted by a number of very much more qualified people than your good self, and approved for purchase by a number of airforces, experience I venture you do not possess.
Your suggestions, along with your posts, appear regretfully, to fall short of the authority you appear to credit, and present them.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,815
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
A progress Turbine D, that sadly, entertaining as it has been for me, will cease from my side.
There are differing opinions on the program which everyone is entitled to, and has, with their own take on the relative merits or failures of the program.
Despite the title of the thread the aircraft seems to be entering service and it seems that history will be left to tell whether or not it lived up to expectation.
There are differing opinions on the program which everyone is entitled to, and has, with their own take on the relative merits or failures of the program.
Despite the title of the thread the aircraft seems to be entering service and it seems that history will be left to tell whether or not it lived up to expectation.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Originally Posted by Turbine D
...noting four F-35s were in the UK this week, but on the way to Israel...
-RP
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by Rhino power
A small point of order, the 4 F-35As supposedly en route to Israel were NOT in the UK...
A small point of order, the 4 F-35As supposedly en route to Israel were NOT in the UK...
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by George K Lee
History will be left to tell whether or not it lived up to expectation....
No need for that. The facts are proven, and the program has fallen far short of what was promised.
No need for that. The facts are proven, and the program has fallen far short of what was promised.
Over 300 F-35s built to date (compared to 164 Rafales, 195 F-22s and 247 JAS 39 Gripens).
F-35 delivered so far to USA, UK, Netherlands, Australia, Israel, Italy, Norway and South Korea.
F-35 achieved over 120,000 flying hours to date with no crashes or loss of life.
QNLZ conducting F-35B trials this year.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,631
Originally Posted by FODPlod
Over 300 F-35s built to date (compared to 164 Rafales, 195 F-22s and 247 JAS 39 Gripens).
F-35 delivered so far to USA, UK, Netherlands, Australia, Israel, Italy, Norway and South Korea.
Basically 73% of our fleet will be useless for their intended purpose. Which leads to the obvious question, just what IS their purpose???
Out~standing.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by glad rag
Basically 73% of our fleet will be useless for their intended purpose. Which leads to the obvious question, just what IS their purpose???
Out~standing.
Originally Posted by ORAC
I refer you to my post #11473 above......
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Plod,
First of all, you might want to address GR's point (based on the data assembled by di Briganti - the link is quite safe): Most of the UK's initial 48 aircraft will need substantial upgrade work to reach what was once referred to as Block 4 standard. The cost of this work has not been defined. Separately, the USAF has made it clear that the central element of this upgrade, the new TR3 integrated core processor, will be required for future upgrades.
Second, the fact that a lot of aircraft have been built and that none of them have crashed doesn't mean the program has been successful. If you go back to 1996, when the first big contracts were signed, or 2001, when the EMD contract was issued, the declared objective (and the business plan) was to replace a wide range of US and partner fighters one-for-one with 3,000+ stealthy airplanes by the early 2020s, while holding procurement costs to F-16/18 levels and reducing operational costs. This target has been missed.
That's why the USAF is struggling with an aging fleet and the UK is trying to figure out whether it can (or wants to) afford more than the 48 aircraft needed (at a bare minimum) to equip the carriers. This would be a non-problem if the 2001 targets for cost and schedule had been met; and not too bad of a problem had the 2009 schedule been met.
First of all, you might want to address GR's point (based on the data assembled by di Briganti - the link is quite safe): Most of the UK's initial 48 aircraft will need substantial upgrade work to reach what was once referred to as Block 4 standard. The cost of this work has not been defined. Separately, the USAF has made it clear that the central element of this upgrade, the new TR3 integrated core processor, will be required for future upgrades.
Second, the fact that a lot of aircraft have been built and that none of them have crashed doesn't mean the program has been successful. If you go back to 1996, when the first big contracts were signed, or 2001, when the EMD contract was issued, the declared objective (and the business plan) was to replace a wide range of US and partner fighters one-for-one with 3,000+ stealthy airplanes by the early 2020s, while holding procurement costs to F-16/18 levels and reducing operational costs. This target has been missed.
That's why the USAF is struggling with an aging fleet and the UK is trying to figure out whether it can (or wants to) afford more than the 48 aircraft needed (at a bare minimum) to equip the carriers. This would be a non-problem if the 2001 targets for cost and schedule had been met; and not too bad of a problem had the 2009 schedule been met.
Last edited by George K Lee; 22nd Jun 2018 at 12:53.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,815
USMC F-35B Written Off
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...ts-first-f-35/
The Marine Corps has lost its first F-35
An F-35B that erupted into flames caused by a faulty bracket nearly two years ago has been struck by the Marine Corps, making it the first loss of an F-35 for the Corps.
The Corps made the determination that the costs to repair the costly high-tech fighter would not be worth the return on investment. However, the Marines have not put out an official strike message for the F-35B because the Corps has not decided whether the aircraft will be used as a trainer for maintenance or a museum centerpiece.
“With the specific F-35B involved in this discussion, the Marine Corps’ cost-benefit analysis determined the repair costs would not yield a sufficient ROI [return on investment] to justify the expenses,” Capt. Christopher Harrison, a Marine spokesman, told Marine Corps Times. “The decision was made to strike the F-35B; however, there has not yet been a strike message as the disposition decision has not yet been made.”.........
The Marine Corps has lost its first F-35
An F-35B that erupted into flames caused by a faulty bracket nearly two years ago has been struck by the Marine Corps, making it the first loss of an F-35 for the Corps.
The Corps made the determination that the costs to repair the costly high-tech fighter would not be worth the return on investment. However, the Marines have not put out an official strike message for the F-35B because the Corps has not decided whether the aircraft will be used as a trainer for maintenance or a museum centerpiece.
“With the specific F-35B involved in this discussion, the Marine Corps’ cost-benefit analysis determined the repair costs would not yield a sufficient ROI [return on investment] to justify the expenses,” Capt. Christopher Harrison, a Marine spokesman, told Marine Corps Times. “The decision was made to strike the F-35B; however, there has not yet been a strike message as the disposition decision has not yet been made.”.........
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,631
"new TR3 integrated core processor"
Ahh it has a name now.
Has design work started ?
What about the coding then??
And let's not forget about the testing.
How can it be said that the upgrades will be in place for production in 2023 (5 years or so) when the core element is just a figment on a power point slide.....
Who'd have thought it, #4
Ahh it has a name now.
Has design work started ?
What about the coding then??
And let's not forget about the testing.
How can it be said that the upgrades will be in place for production in 2023 (5 years or so) when the core element is just a figment on a power point slide.....
Who'd have thought it, #4
