F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Is it a totally crazy non-starter to put the probe into an F35A?
The costs of doing so, and the associated trials, would not be cheap - or shared.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Do the A and C really have the same Combat Radius?
Just my $0.02
Since the USN never really wanted a single-engine airframe for carrier operations,
The USN has operated many types of single-engined airframes at a time when engines were a lot less reliable than the F135.
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
That's reassuring. Not.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many V-22's are planned for UKAF?
Noone.
Now back to the melting appendages, hypoxia and software costs...
F-35 Canopy: New Glue, New Supplier May Boost Readiness
From an article on Breaking Defense:-
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,830 Likes
on
1,208 Posts
So stealthy until you use reheat that blisters the stealth coating..
https://taskandpurpose.com/f35-after...h-tech-problem
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.
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.