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 2nd Jul 2019, 19:05
  #11961 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,013
Is it a totally crazy non-starter to put the probe into an F35A?
IIRC LM say the refuelling probe space has been left vacant on the F-35A and one can be fitted without major modification.

The costs of doing so, and the associated trials, would not be cheap - or shared.
ORAC is online now  
Old 2nd Jul 2019, 19:13
  #11962 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,013
Do the A and C really have the same Combat Radius?
https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...f-35-specs.htm

ORAC is online now  
Old 3rd Jul 2019, 03:04
  #11963 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Whanganui, NZ
Posts: 118
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
That's before you consider the total planned production run of the F-35C is about 320, assuming the USN doesn’t cut its order, as opposed to several thousand planned F-35As, meaning the cost of spares and support will be even more eye watering than the A or B.
Since the USN never really wanted a single-engine airframe for carrier operations, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they bought significantly less than 320. Maybe enough for one squadron in each active Carrier Air Group, plus a training/OCU squadron (or perhaps one on each coast?), plus some attrition spares. Somewhere between 200 and 225, perhaps. Possibly buy some extra F-35Bs for the Marines to partly compensate LM, but buy more FA-18E/F Block 3 to keep airframe numbers up until whatever the Next Generation looks like arrives, which may well be un-crewed or optionally-crewed

Just my $0.02
kiwi grey is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2019, 04:43
  #11964 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
Since the USN never really wanted a single-engine airframe for carrier operations,
Do you have any evidence for that, or is that just the perceived wisdom?

The USN has operated many types of single-engined airframes at a time when engines were a lot less reliable than the F135.

melmothtw is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2019, 05:01
  #11965 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,622
Twin engine vs single engine

I know I have discussed this issue before on a different thread but I think there is some legacy thinking with regards to the safety implications of single engine aircraft.

Taking an example from the USAF produces an example of what I mean. In 2017 the USAF had 7 engine related class A mishaps (incidents costing >$1M and resulting in serious injury/death) on the F15 and none on the F16.

Statistical anomaly? Maybe. Small sample size? Definitely. However, it goes some way to illustrating my point. Sometimes having two engines just increases the chances of a mishap. Since they are very close neighbours, one can easily damage the other.

When your one engine can produce 43000lb thrust in burner and has been highly engineered then I think the old idea that two is better than one is not necessarily true any more.

So, maybe the USN doesn’t like single engined jets and God knows they have a lot more clever people than I working on the problem but things are not always as they seem.

BV
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2019, 06:00
  #11966 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,105
ORAC,

Those appear to be requirements that could have either not been achieved, been achieved or exceeded by a margin - which could be small or significant.

Im sure we agree that the result could also be modelled, actually achieved or achieved whilst subject to real world constraints such as landing allowance and div fuel - for those of that persuasion.

Anyone know what the actual answer is?
orca is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2019, 02:35
  #11967 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 144
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
Some of what I've been informed by careless whispers about the F-35B is pretty amazing. No, I will not explain further.

However its 6000kg fuel load isn't exactly generous.

But will the UK buy the F-35A rather than more F-35Bs? If so, will the tankers be modified or the F-35As? Either option will be rather pricey...
So some of those with enhanced DV Clearances have broken the law...

That's reassuring. Not.
BVRAAM is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2019, 16:36
  #11968 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 770
207 Sqn - the UK Lightning OCU - arriving at RAF Marham - marking the end of the UK training operation in the USA at MCAS Beaufort, SC:

RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2019, 18:18
  #11969 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bourton-on-the-Water
Posts: 871
Thanks for that RAFEng! So, conventional landings - without all those strange hatches open - will be the norm for arrivals at Marham?

airsound
airsound is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2019, 21:40
  #11970 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 540
Originally Posted by airsound View Post
Thanks for that RAFEng! So, conventional landings - without all those strange hatches open - will be the norm for arrivals at Marham?

airsound
VTOL is expensive and to be avoided when possible. So conventional other than the proficiency exercises.
etudiant is online now  
Old 17th Jul 2019, 22:20
  #11971 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,134
Originally Posted by etudiant View Post
VTOL is expensive and to be avoided when possible. So conventional other than the proficiency exercises.
F-35B doesn't do VTOL operationally (well the VT part at least...), it's a STOVL jet, not VTOL, and SRVLs are just as likely as VLs too, for obvious reasons...

-RP
Rhino power is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 07:41
  #11972 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,013
Cross post from Turkey thread - Turkey formally kicked out of F-35 program.

Turkey coup?
ORAC is online now  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 13:05
  #11973 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,213
The first batch all seemed to always do landings with the barn door open, even rolling landings
Davef68 is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2019, 17:41
  #11974 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: london,uk
Posts: 546
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
meaning the cost of spares and support will be even more eye watering than the A or B.
This obsession with the CUURENT operating cost of the F-35. The V-22 costs twice as much per hour as a F-35. You don't hear any complaints about that.
peter we is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2019, 21:15
  #11975 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 126
Originally Posted by peter we View Post
This obsession with the CUURENT operating cost of the F-35. The V-22 costs twice as much per hour as a F-35. You don't hear any complaints about that.
Good pooint.

How many V-22's are planned for UKAF?

Noone.

Now back to the melting appendages, hypoxia and software costs...
weemonkey is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2019, 13:36
  #11976 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 71
Posts: 144
Since when did the RAF become the UKAF ?
Geordie_Expat is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2019, 10:05
  #11977 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 72
Posts: 1,014
F-35 Canopy: New Glue, New Supplier May Boost Readiness

From an article on Breaking Defense:-

Newer A, B and C Variant aircraft are averaging greater than 60 percent mission capable rates, with some units consistently at or above 70 percent.

The government office that runs the F-35 program says the plane should meet the mandated readiness rate of 80 percent by 2020 if the problems with the plane’s canopies and spare parts shortages can be fixed.

As we reported last week, the presumptive Defense Secretary, Mark Esper, said in his written answers to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the F-35 would notmeet the 80 percent readiness rate because, primarily, of problems with the canopies. Here’s a shortened version of the email exchange I had with Brandi Schiff, the F-35 program spokeswoman:

Q1.) What are the problems with the cockpit transparencies?

A1.) The primary source of unserviceable canopies is transparency coating delamination. Delamination occurs when the surface coatings on the canopy separate from the base transparency. Though this condition occurs through normal use, several transparencies have delaminated unexpectedly after only a couple hundred flight hours of use. This issue does not impact the airworthiness of the canopy or aircraft.

The problem is the delamination — that is, the coating peeling away from the plane’s surface — affects the F-35’s stealth characteristics, which may mean the plane’s radar cross section is affected.
Click the link for the rest of the article.
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 00:38
  #11978 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 144
Originally Posted by Rhino power View Post
F-35B doesn't do VTOL operationally (well the VT part at least...), it's a STOVL jet, not VTOL, and SRVLs are just as likely as VLs too, for obvious reasons...

-RP
It's both?
BVRAAM is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2019, 06:48
  #11979 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: au
Posts: 45
It does do a Vertical Take Off. Weight fuel/weapons are the issues to stop it being used offensively. It could be used to hop a short distance and the many reasons why that could be useful.
golder is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2019, 14:32
  #11980 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,988
So stealthy until you use reheat that blisters the stealth coating..

However, the documents obtained by Defense News reported that heat from afterburner exhaust caused an F-35B to experience "bubbling and blistering" of its radar-absorbent materials (RAM) and of its horizontal tail surfaces and boom. Heat damage also "compromised the structural integrity" of the horizontal tail and boom of an F-35C. Sensitive sensors buried inside the skin of the rear tail surfaces could also have proven susceptible to damage.

Since the incident, the Marines have instituted a policy requiring F-35B pilots not to engage afterburners for more than eighty seconds cumulatively at Mach 1.3, or forty seconds at Mach 1.4. Navy F-35C pilots have fifty seconds at Mach 1.3 to ration.To "reset" the afterburner allowance, they must then allow three minutes non-afterburning flight for the tail area to cool down to avert damage.Though looser restrictions on safe afterburner usage exist for other jets, the document apparently acknowledges the restrictions imposed on the F-35B and C are "not practical/observable in operationally relevant scenarios."

After all, a pilot in a combat situation would likely struggle to count exactly how many seconds the afterburners have been cumulatively engaged while attempting to manage the many other tasks demanding his or her attention.An F-35 pilot might still choose to exceed afterburner limits during an urgent combat scenario, accepting the risk that the plane might sustain "degradation of [stealth], damage to antennas, and/or significant horizontal tail damage." However, this could then result in the jet being removed from operations while it awaits depot-level maintenance, which could be especially problematic for carrier-based squadrons.
https://taskandpurpose.com/f35-after...h-tech-problem
NutLoose is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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