F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Super,
Perhaps I can help here. ‘Hot’ weapon loads (and unloads) are perfectly safe as long as you have:
1. A properly designed and properly installed Master Arming Safety Switch
2. An aircraft layout that allows the weapons to be safely brought in under the aircraft
3. Weapons that are fully tested and cleared for the RF environment around a running aircraft (and for the wider RF environment - not a given on a flight deck)
4. Properly trained and experienced personnel for both day and night conditions
The RN have been doing ‘hot’ loads on helicopters for well over 40 years. Not so frequently on fixed wing, as the Sea Harrier was not an easy aircraft to get the weapons under without getting to close to either air intakes or the exhausts.
F-35 had a firm requirement for ‘hot’ loads right from the outset. The geometry of the weapons bay doors was adjusted a number of times to get all the right clearances, and some ingenious weapons loading kit was devised. Note that at sea almost all F-35 weapons are hoisted into the bays and on to the pylons, as opposed to bring ‘pressed up’ by a weapons loader.
Hope this helps.
Best regards as ever to the people doing the hot liads on a dark wet night on the deck,
Engines
Perhaps I can help here. ‘Hot’ weapon loads (and unloads) are perfectly safe as long as you have:
1. A properly designed and properly installed Master Arming Safety Switch
2. An aircraft layout that allows the weapons to be safely brought in under the aircraft
3. Weapons that are fully tested and cleared for the RF environment around a running aircraft (and for the wider RF environment - not a given on a flight deck)
4. Properly trained and experienced personnel for both day and night conditions
The RN have been doing ‘hot’ loads on helicopters for well over 40 years. Not so frequently on fixed wing, as the Sea Harrier was not an easy aircraft to get the weapons under without getting to close to either air intakes or the exhausts.
F-35 had a firm requirement for ‘hot’ loads right from the outset. The geometry of the weapons bay doors was adjusted a number of times to get all the right clearances, and some ingenious weapons loading kit was devised. Note that at sea almost all F-35 weapons are hoisted into the bays and on to the pylons, as opposed to bring ‘pressed up’ by a weapons loader.
Hope this helps.
Best regards as ever to the people doing the hot liads on a dark wet night on the deck,
Engines
Salute!
The older folks must also know that the MIL-STD-1760 and NATO equivalent for the weapon stations is not like the previous planes.
The store stations have remote interface units that are controlled via a mux bus. So they can cut off all power, control signals and so forth to the station. In the old days, with fixed/dedicated signals and power, some interfaces were powered/active as long as the aircraft electrical system was hot. e.g. the AIM-9 needed volts to keep the seeker head spinning ( note the cover they put on before you shut down - it had magnets in it to keep the head from beating itself to death as it spun down) , the Harpoon needed some volts for whatever, and so forth.
Funny, but the cannon might be the hardest thing to service. And the solid state electronics don't need to warm up like the old things I learned on in the 60's and 70's. I would also be nervous in those weapon bays without a very strong bar to keep the doors open, heh heh.
Gums sends...
The older folks must also know that the MIL-STD-1760 and NATO equivalent for the weapon stations is not like the previous planes.
The store stations have remote interface units that are controlled via a mux bus. So they can cut off all power, control signals and so forth to the station. In the old days, with fixed/dedicated signals and power, some interfaces were powered/active as long as the aircraft electrical system was hot. e.g. the AIM-9 needed volts to keep the seeker head spinning ( note the cover they put on before you shut down - it had magnets in it to keep the head from beating itself to death as it spun down) , the Harpoon needed some volts for whatever, and so forth.
Funny, but the cannon might be the hardest thing to service. And the solid state electronics don't need to warm up like the old things I learned on in the 60's and 70's. I would also be nervous in those weapon bays without a very strong bar to keep the doors open, heh heh.
Gums sends...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,703
Received 2,706 Likes
on
1,147 Posts
US looking at blocking sales of the F-35 to Turkey if they buy Russian s-400, and as of April after months of warnings, the U.S.stopped delivery of F-35 parts to Turkey in retaliation for Ankara’s decision to move ahead with the S-400.
Errr.... Are they not the ones that will overhaul the RAF engines?
https://www.defensenews.com/congress...35-for-turkey/
Errr.... Are they not the ones that will overhaul the RAF engines?
https://www.defensenews.com/congress...35-for-turkey/
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US looking at blocking sales of the F-35 to Turkey if they buy Russian s-400, and as of April after months of warnings, the U.S.stopped delivery of F-35 parts to Turkey in retaliation for Ankara’s decision to move ahead with the S-400.
Errr.... Are they not the ones that will overhaul the RAF engines?
Errr.... Are they not the ones that will overhaul the RAF engines?
-RP
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intergranular corrosion...I bet I can't post URLs...
.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-07/williamtown-joint-strike-fighters-susceptible-to-corrosion/11085220?pfmredir=sm&fbclid=IwAR3YmEn4CtnjrMZPRmrVhqFSyIJeVr kTzjpn9pgBE6kXJT8WgwE_Oz2-pUY
.machinedesign.com/what039s-inside/aluminum-forgings-alcoa-help-joint-strike-fighter-lose-pounds
Yep. Wrong metal used to replace "the" major bulkhead after titanium was too heavy.
Do not wish to incur further wrath of the mod so you may have to adapt above to work. maybe.
tootlepip, and merry groundings; bring back THE FIN.
.machinedesign.com/what039s-inside/aluminum-forgings-alcoa-help-joint-strike-fighter-lose-pounds
Yep. Wrong metal used to replace "the" major bulkhead after titanium was too heavy.
Do not wish to incur further wrath of the mod so you may have to adapt above to work. maybe.
tootlepip, and merry groundings; bring back THE FIN.
Last edited by weemonkey; 10th May 2019 at 14:52. Reason: Further info on scale of possible issues
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Now we know the answer to the question of whether it is feasible, or cost effective, to upgrade early batch F-35s to a combat capable condition. The USAF, at least, isn’t going to waste the money.
Hell of an expensive Aggressor unit mind you.......
https://www.nellis.af.mil/News/Artic...f-35-training/
Hell of an expensive Aggressor unit mind you.......
https://www.nellis.af.mil/News/Artic...f-35-training/
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://theaviationist.com/2019/05/0...messaging-off/
F-35A “Explodes” in New USAF Video Promoting Teamwork......
F-35A “Explodes” in New USAF Video Promoting Teamwork......
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Salute!
Thanks, ORAC. I am not upset with those numbers.
We would have to look at the criteria for all the levels of "capability", huh?
For example, in a very simnple plane like the A-37, we would report 80% or a bit higher as fully mission capable. We would have been 100%, but our X-band beacon used for blind bombing was missing or inop. That doofer was tracked by a ground unit and was like a GCA. Some dude gave us left right and then "pickle" - Combat Sky Spot ( which we called Combat Sky Dump). A great war story surrounds Lima Site 85, which had one of the ground stations and allowed dumps over Hanoi when wx was piss poor. A "company" helo got an A2A kill on a AN2 there!!
Another unit on our plane that kept us from FMC was a broken encryption doofer -KY-28 or 38. We only used it for SAR when up in North VietNam where bad guys heard everything we ever said.
So the F-35 numbers look about right for this stage.
Gums sends...
Thanks, ORAC. I am not upset with those numbers.
We would have to look at the criteria for all the levels of "capability", huh?
For example, in a very simnple plane like the A-37, we would report 80% or a bit higher as fully mission capable. We would have been 100%, but our X-band beacon used for blind bombing was missing or inop. That doofer was tracked by a ground unit and was like a GCA. Some dude gave us left right and then "pickle" - Combat Sky Spot ( which we called Combat Sky Dump). A great war story surrounds Lima Site 85, which had one of the ground stations and allowed dumps over Hanoi when wx was piss poor. A "company" helo got an A2A kill on a AN2 there!!
Another unit on our plane that kept us from FMC was a broken encryption doofer -KY-28 or 38. We only used it for SAR when up in North VietNam where bad guys heard everything we ever said.
So the F-35 numbers look about right for this stage.
Gums sends...
Page 6 of GAO report ...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ks-data-rights
F-35 Spare Parts Funding at Risk as Pentagon Seeks Data Rights
The House panel that approves defense spending intends to withhold half of next year’s funding for F-35 spare parts until the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin Corp. agree on the sale of technical data for spare parts to improve the tracking of items and allow purchases from other suppliers.
Struggling to resolve spare parts shortages and bottlenecks for the fighter plane worldwide, the Defense Department this month requested that Lockheed offer a proposal to sell it cost and technical data rights to the parts. That would give the Pentagon the ability to seek its own suppliers for parts or even produce some at its maintenance depots. But the panel said the department has yet to hear back from Lockheed, the No. 1 U.S. defense contractor.
With the issue unresolved, the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee said it will only allow spending of $364 million of $728 million requested for Navy and Marine Corps jet parts in fiscal year 2020 until the Pentagon has “received an adequate cost proposal” from Lockheed.
“I assume Lockheed Martin will fight this as consensus growth expectations for the company include a healthy increase in revenues from sustaining the F-35 fleet,” said Byron Callan, a defense analyst with Capital Alpha Partners. “If the government gets data rights they can compete spares and software or do some of this at their own depots and software labs.”...........
Air Force Magazine
House Appropriators Scrutinize Air Force Fighter Plans
........ “The plan that has been submitted to the committee requests 48 F-35A aircraft in fiscal year 2020 and every year thereafter through 2024, a reduction of 30 aircraft compared to the 2017 Selected Acquisition Report profile for the F-35 program.” When 18 F-15EXs are added to the mix each year, total fighter procurement would grow to only 66 jets annually—still six short of where the service says it needs to be.
“The Department of Defense, and the Air Force in particular, have sent conflicting and confusing signals with respect to the F-35 program,” appropriators continued. “The fiscal year 2020 request repeats a pattern of shifting aircraft quantities to future years, reducing the planned procurement from 84 to 78. Further, the Air Force submitted a fiscal year 2020 budget request that flattens F-35A procurement at 48 aircraft per year through the future years defense program despite the F-35A program of record remaining stable at 1,763 aircraft.”
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said in February the service can’t afford its 72-jet goal. Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper also noted in early May the F-35 buy plan shrinks over the next few years “in order to align the procurement timeline with capability development and reduce retrofit costs.........
F-35 Spare Parts Funding at Risk as Pentagon Seeks Data Rights
The House panel that approves defense spending intends to withhold half of next year’s funding for F-35 spare parts until the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin Corp. agree on the sale of technical data for spare parts to improve the tracking of items and allow purchases from other suppliers.
Struggling to resolve spare parts shortages and bottlenecks for the fighter plane worldwide, the Defense Department this month requested that Lockheed offer a proposal to sell it cost and technical data rights to the parts. That would give the Pentagon the ability to seek its own suppliers for parts or even produce some at its maintenance depots. But the panel said the department has yet to hear back from Lockheed, the No. 1 U.S. defense contractor.
With the issue unresolved, the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee said it will only allow spending of $364 million of $728 million requested for Navy and Marine Corps jet parts in fiscal year 2020 until the Pentagon has “received an adequate cost proposal” from Lockheed.
“I assume Lockheed Martin will fight this as consensus growth expectations for the company include a healthy increase in revenues from sustaining the F-35 fleet,” said Byron Callan, a defense analyst with Capital Alpha Partners. “If the government gets data rights they can compete spares and software or do some of this at their own depots and software labs.”...........
Air Force Magazine
House Appropriators Scrutinize Air Force Fighter Plans
........ “The plan that has been submitted to the committee requests 48 F-35A aircraft in fiscal year 2020 and every year thereafter through 2024, a reduction of 30 aircraft compared to the 2017 Selected Acquisition Report profile for the F-35 program.” When 18 F-15EXs are added to the mix each year, total fighter procurement would grow to only 66 jets annually—still six short of where the service says it needs to be.
“The Department of Defense, and the Air Force in particular, have sent conflicting and confusing signals with respect to the F-35 program,” appropriators continued. “The fiscal year 2020 request repeats a pattern of shifting aircraft quantities to future years, reducing the planned procurement from 84 to 78. Further, the Air Force submitted a fiscal year 2020 budget request that flattens F-35A procurement at 48 aircraft per year through the future years defense program despite the F-35A program of record remaining stable at 1,763 aircraft.”
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said in February the service can’t afford its 72-jet goal. Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper also noted in early May the F-35 buy plan shrinks over the next few years “in order to align the procurement timeline with capability development and reduce retrofit costs.........
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...easy-fix-60672
The Big F-35 Flaw That Won't Be Easy to Fix
“.........Unfortunately, this process is hampered by a crippling shortage of thousands of spare parts, as described in a new report by the Government Accountability Office. The shortfall has left only half of the brand-new stealth fighters in mission-capable condition, forcing operational F-35 units to cannibalize aircraft as they wait weeks for replacement parts to be delivered. For several years, the Pentagon has attempted to address the shortage, but according to the GAO, these incoherent measures have so far failed to keep up with the increasing pace of new airframe production.........
Another problem afflicting spare part distributions is that F-35 parts are built and used by operators across Europe and Asia, but those parts are reportedly being routed through the United States instead of being deposited to depots in regional hubs. This inefficiency is resulting in overseas F-35 operators having to wait over ten days on average to receive replacement parts, with 28 percent of parts having yet to arrive after thirty days. This will likely to lead to complaints with foreign F-35 operators further confused by clashing protocols over who gets spare parts first based on “business rules” versus operational priorities.
Eventually, a more dispersed network of regional supply depots is intended to alleviate this logistical bind, but the effort to stand up those depots with the necessary parts is reportedly three to five years behind schedule.
Furthermore, the GAO reports claims that although the Pentagon spent $2 billion on F-35 parts since 2016 (including $960 million in 2018 alone), it has no unified accountability as to what that money was spent on, how many parts were acquired, and where those parts are currently located. Only a single program official had been dedicated to parts accounting, and December 2018 a spare parts database had yet to be populated with any data..........”
The Big F-35 Flaw That Won't Be Easy to Fix
“.........Unfortunately, this process is hampered by a crippling shortage of thousands of spare parts, as described in a new report by the Government Accountability Office. The shortfall has left only half of the brand-new stealth fighters in mission-capable condition, forcing operational F-35 units to cannibalize aircraft as they wait weeks for replacement parts to be delivered. For several years, the Pentagon has attempted to address the shortage, but according to the GAO, these incoherent measures have so far failed to keep up with the increasing pace of new airframe production.........
Another problem afflicting spare part distributions is that F-35 parts are built and used by operators across Europe and Asia, but those parts are reportedly being routed through the United States instead of being deposited to depots in regional hubs. This inefficiency is resulting in overseas F-35 operators having to wait over ten days on average to receive replacement parts, with 28 percent of parts having yet to arrive after thirty days. This will likely to lead to complaints with foreign F-35 operators further confused by clashing protocols over who gets spare parts first based on “business rules” versus operational priorities.
Eventually, a more dispersed network of regional supply depots is intended to alleviate this logistical bind, but the effort to stand up those depots with the necessary parts is reportedly three to five years behind schedule.
Furthermore, the GAO reports claims that although the Pentagon spent $2 billion on F-35 parts since 2016 (including $960 million in 2018 alone), it has no unified accountability as to what that money was spent on, how many parts were acquired, and where those parts are currently located. Only a single program official had been dedicated to parts accounting, and December 2018 a spare parts database had yet to be populated with any data..........”
weemonkey,
Marham has ALWAYS looked desolate. It wasn't called El Adem with grass for nothing.
Marham has ALWAYS looked desolate. It wasn't called El Adem with grass for nothing.
Re post # .. 871
Latest news about production and flying hours:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/400t...-flight-hours/
Still wondering when it will be cancelled.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/400t...-flight-hours/
Still wondering when it will be cancelled.
Still think it looks a pig, fat and lumpy.
Really is the Curtiss P 40 of our day, not great, but profitable.
Do not believe a future conflict would last long enough to generate a Mustang or a Tempest.
Really is the Curtiss P 40 of our day, not great, but profitable.
Do not believe a future conflict would last long enough to generate a Mustang or a Tempest.
