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 27th Mar 2013, 23:18
  #1421 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 238
TEEJ,

I am aware of the different variants. The F-35C has arrester hook problems and issues with the nose wheel collapsing when fired from a catapult, steam or electro-magnetic.

The F-35B can land vertically, with the engine angled downwards at the rear, and the turbine behind the cockpit driven by a prop-shaft from the engine. This arrangement means it carries half the load of the F-35C. The prop-shaft driven turbine being redundant in forward flight. The very hot gases from the rear of the engine when landing in the vertical mode causes problems where it can land.

The Harrier can land almost anywhere, even landing in an an emergency on the cargo of a small spanish freighter at sea.

The Harrier can also, in all intents and purposes, fly backwards. Vectoring in Forward Flight or 'Viffing'. Which caused massive grief to Argentine pilots.

Trillion-Dollar Jet Has Thirteen Expensive New Flaws
Trillion-Dollar Jet Has Thirteen Expensive New Flaws | Danger Room | Wired.com

The author of the article thinks the F-35 is VTOL, in operation it will be STOVL.


Pentagon says F-35 jet still facing serious problems | The Times of Israel

Last edited by Stuffy; 28th Mar 2013 at 00:23.
Stuffy is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 01:12
  #1422 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
2011 problems, most of which have a fix. I see what's wrong, you guys are living in the past
JSFfan is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 01:19
  #1423 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Lockheed
The funding includes $6.36 billion to build all 29 of the F-35s previously planned for 2014, including 19 of the version designed for the Air Force, six for the Marine Corps and four for the Navy, according to a budget document obtained today by Bloomberg News.The remaining funds would be for continued development and spare parts.

The proposal for the Joint Strike Fighter will be part of a $526.6 billion defense budget that President Barack Obama will propose next month for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1, according to government officials familiar with the budget plan who asked not to be identified discussing it in advance.

...

“The big decision for me on F-35 will be the decision on the FY 2015 budget: Do we ramp up or not?” Kendall told reporters March 12 at a defense conference in Washington.

The Defense Department plans increases to 44 planes in fiscal 2015 and 66 in fiscal 2016, according to figures included last year in its long-range budget plan. A new plan for fiscal 2014 to 2018 will be released next month.

“Overall, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is moving in the right direction after a long, expensive and arduous learning period,” the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in a report this month.

“Going forward, ensuring affordability -- the ability to acquire the aircraft in quantity” that keeps the per-plane price down -- “is of paramount concern,” the GAO said.

Last edited by JSFfan; 28th Mar 2013 at 01:23.
JSFfan is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 01:25
  #1424 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 238
Question

A typical comment is, this programme is too big to fail.

Have you heard the phrase, 'This bank, is too big to fail?

Nothing is too big to fail.

Without doubt, this is a massive, mega zillion dollar project.

If it is fundamentally flawed, which is the contentious part.

If it is, it is not too big to fail.

Then the brown stuff hits the turbine, to put it politely.

If I were some very rich country, and I wanted an effective machine, and the decision was down to me and my cronies.

I would pick a practical reliable solution. Which given a choice, would be the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Some things are too clever for their own good.

It is, after all, a stealthy Yak-141 with a computer.

KISS - Keep it simple stupid. Is still very true.

In the future, who will be your enemy, and do you really need this very very very expensive technology, that can be seen with a crude J-Band radar ?

Last edited by Stuffy; 28th Mar 2013 at 01:34.
Stuffy is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 01:29
  #1425 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
sorry, the UK wont be ordering any more phoons and getting rid of what they have come 2030, from what has been reported
JSFfan is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 01:39
  #1426 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 238
A lot depends on what is called The Kondratiev Long Wave Theory of economics.

A major conflict will not happen until the 'Upwave' begins.

The last time that was 1939/40.

This time it could be 2020-25.
Stuffy is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 01:39
  #1427 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,136
...and getting rid of what they have come 2030, from what has been reported
Dream on...

-RP
Rhino power is online now  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 01:54
  #1428 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
RAF - Typhoon FGR4
A total of 53 Tranche 1 aircraft were delivered, with Tranche 2 contract provisioning for 91 aircraft. 24 of these were diverted to fulfill the RSAF export campaign, leaving 67 Tranche 2 aircraft due for delivery to the RAF. The Tranche 3 contract has been signed and will deliver 40 aircraft. With the Tranche 1 aircraft fleet due to retire over the period 2015-18, this will leave 107 Typhoon aircraft in RAF service until 2030.
JSFfan is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 02:47
  #1429 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
The latest gen I heard was that Tranche 1 will now be kept, of course you won't find an official source because it's not official policy at the moment. But it goes to show you how far off the mark an official plan can be...remember we're all in the organisation your trying to get one-up on us with, JSFfan.
Bastardeux is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 02:48
  #1430 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Stuffy,

I hate to say it but you're making stuff up. F-35C had no issues with the nose gear collapsing on catapult launch, either steam or EMALS. The evidence is on Youtube if you're doubting. Unfortunately only 1 EMALS launch was able to be conducted before the EMALS broke (for an issue not related to F-35C).

The hook issues are true and well documented but successful fly-in arrestments were achieved last year at Lakehurst. Again see the Pax River Integrated Test Force 2012 Review vid.

If you do watch them, please note the substantial UK involvement in the test programme.
WhiteOvies is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 03:39
  #1431 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
It would make sense to keep T1 till at least your f-35b is IOC, 2018 +2 years = 2020?
JSFfan is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 04:26
  #1432 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
F-35C FlyIn Arrests + Slo Mo Snippets Videos

For 'WhiteOvies' reference:

F-35C Flyin Arrests 2012


F-35C Arrest SloMo Orig NOW 1-8slow Again HiDef

__________

Same same SloMo .MP4 (7.7Mb) at PhotoBuckie:

F-35CArrestSloMoOrigNOW1-8slowAgainHiDefYOUtube.mp4 Video by SpazSinbad | Photobucket


Last edited by SpazSinbad; 28th Mar 2013 at 04:54. Reason: FotoBucko URLs
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 11:12
  #1433 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
It would make sense to keep T1 till at least your f-35b is IOC, 2018 +2 years = 2020?
Oh jesus christ. No. To bring it up to full T3 standard, not extend its longevity by a handful of years.
Bastardeux is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 11:21
  #1434 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
I seem to recall that it is a too major of a job, like the early f-22, just too hard
JSFfan is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 12:02
  #1435 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 264
Not so long ago the suggestion that the entire RAF FJ fleet would comprise 6 sqns would have prompted a fair bit of arm waving. Yet with the OSD of Tornado now 2019 that is precisely what the RAF is slated to have, including what will still at that point be at best a limited IOC for the single F35 sqn. I guess the judgement is that that will permit QRA plus deployment of a small number overseas if required, but to say its bare bones seems a bit of an understatement.

In these circs my guess was that the rumour of retaining at least some T1s would make some sense, since even if used mainly in the in the air to air role it would permit an extra sqn or so to be stood up and relieve a bit of the pressure. I suspect structural issues would make it impractical to bring them up to full T3 standard but upgrades such as those currently under way ought to mean they could do a job?

I also struggle with the idea that the T1s have already been flogged to death after such a short time in service, but happy to defer to those better placed to judge.
Frostchamber is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 14:48
  #1436 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 2,146
Stuffy,

As ably pointed out by other posters you are living in the past. You obviously didn't keep up with developments and problem solving such as the hook tests.

You wrote

'Viffing'. Which caused massive grief to Argentine pilots.
What other urban myths are you still clinging on to?

AVM Johnson: During the campaign I read newspaper reports about the Harrier's VIFFing tactic, and some correspondents claimed that if you saw an enemy fighter astern you could VIFF vertically upwards or downwards, and if the enemy helpfully carried straight ahead you easily manoeuvred into a good attacking position. Was this tactic used in the Falklands?

Cdr Ward: No. Although the Harrier is capable of VIFFing it is not a good combat tactic because you lose a lot of energy. The Harrier's success was due to its great manoeuvrability and our sound training.

-- The Story of Air Fighting Air Vice Marshal J.E.`Johnnie'Johnson CB,CBE,DSO and two Bars, DFC and Bar ISBN 0-09-950330-1
TEEEJ is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 17:12
  #1437 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
A typical comment is, this programme is too big to fail.

Have you heard the phrase, 'This bank, is too big to fail?

Nothing is too big to fail.

Without doubt, this is a massive, mega zillion dollar project.

If it is fundamentally flawed, which is the contentious part.

If it is, it is not too big to fail.

Then the brown stuff hits the turbine, to put it politely.

If I were some very rich country, and I wanted an effective machine, and the decision was down to me and my cronies.

I would pick a practical reliable solution. Which given a choice, would be the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Some things are too clever for their own good.

It is, after all, a stealthy Yak-141 with a computer.

KISS - Keep it simple stupid. Is still very true.

In the future, who will be your enemy, and do you really need this very very very expensive technology, that can be seen with a crude J-Band radar ?
I think it more likely that requirements from the block 3 software would be either dropped or elongated into a block 4 delivery. Certain hardware upgrades would be postponed or weapon integration programs would be moved to the right and possible jet purchases would be elongated also by keeping the line running longer to save money now to waste it later. The jets themselves will get delivered.

I have to say stating KISS and the Typhoon in the same sentence in the context of naval aviation is mind bogglingly dumb imho. You have an airframe not designed to take off and land on an aircraft carrier so would need extra avionics, gear strengthening and structural strenghtening to take the violent take off and arrestment pounding they'll be getting and you'll be buying it in tiny tiny numbers compared to other partner nations who will have no interest in the variant. Not to mention it'll take several years to do with both more development and integration cash needing to be spent all while two 65,000 ton aircraft carriers in need of modification to use said jet are sat around like lemons waiting to be squeezed. Factor in that you've gone around this loop once already with another aircraft (of which you already own four of) and are spending lots of money training your maintainers and pilots to fly said aircraft. Seaphoon now would kill UK fixed wing carrier borne aviation deader than a dead thing.

What part of any of that is in anyway KISS. Seaphoon was an option years ago when the French wanted to have the capability in Eurofighter and we nixed it (they buggered off not long after) because we didn't need carrier borne EFA, ooops.....

Last edited by eaglemmoomin; 28th Mar 2013 at 17:15.
eaglemmoomin is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 19:18
  #1438 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 238
The French have navalised the Rafale.


Why the Joint Strike Fighter is a calamity in progress | smh.com.au


Pentagon Downgrades Specs for Its Premier Stealth Jet — Again | Danger Room | Wired.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us...5airplane&_r=0

Last edited by Stuffy; 28th Mar 2013 at 19:38.
Stuffy is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 19:45
  #1439 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,528
Once again - I do not see the C ever becoming the standard version or replacing the A. OEW is a whacking 5500 pounds heavier even without an internal gun, while the bigger wing increases transonic drag. I believe that most of the greater range versus the A can be accounted for by extra fuel, most of which is in space that would otherwise be occupied by the gun and feed system.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 20:17
  #1440 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 238
Exclamation

A navalised Eurofighter has been considered a while ago.

Eurofighter: *News Detail

Naval Eurofighter: An Aircraft Carrier Version Under Development | Navy & Maritime Security News at DefenceTalk

Last edited by Stuffy; 28th Mar 2013 at 22:20.
Stuffy 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.