F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
GK - Singapore is reportedly about to sign up..
If the B gets less costly than the C, it will be because the C gets more expensive in even smaller numbers.
Meanwhile, the B survives only through the lobbying power of the Marines. The AF regards Marine Air as a distraction, and big Navy tolerated it as long as it was relatively cheap, which it no longer is. (Quick, can you mention any US non-Marine uniformed military leader who has come out in public and said how vital the B is to a joint campaign?) Financially it is a very tempting quick kill.
If the B gets less costly than the C, it will be because the C gets more expensive in even smaller numbers.
Meanwhile, the B survives only through the lobbying power of the Marines. The AF regards Marine Air as a distraction, and big Navy tolerated it as long as it was relatively cheap, which it no longer is. (Quick, can you mention any US non-Marine uniformed military leader who has come out in public and said how vital the B is to a joint campaign?) Financially it is a very tempting quick kill.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But LO what do you then do with the 11 odd amphib assault vessels. The US increasingly seems to use them for smaller operations instead of a CVN and the strategy is increasingly airborne based (whether you agree with it or not). It's an intrinsic requirement for the USMC and ultimately their buy is bigger than the C buy and crucially there is no ready alternative unlike the C.
Again call it inter service politics and being a 'bit clever' if you like but the B will be OCU on Block 2B software in 2015 and on excercise in 2017. Production aircraft again at 2B will be being delivered in 2015 to the UK for land based qualification in 2016. That means you have an engaged user base that really want the thing (because their conops, even if you disagree, is totally buggered without it). Meanwhile what does the USN do Greenert bigs up UCAVs, they order more F18 and make noises about a sixth gen manned fighter. Doesn't make you feel the USN F35C love really does it.
As for the CVNs Ford is costing near $15billion. They are struggling to keep all 11 going as many are coming up for their $1.5 billion dollar refit and refuelling periods and are being delayed. Lincoln is sat in dry dock so the next CVN due for refit and refuelling could be impacted and USS Enterprise is not being defuelled as of yet so will need maintaining.
Some are being kept in port instead of going on operations and they are cutting the number of air wings. If anything is in danger it's the C. It has the slowest acceleration of the lot of them, will the last delivered and won't actually get on an actual deck to confirm it's ability to trap until 2014 if the hook change is not good enough and a redesign is necessary then the C will be in major trouble it's a big IF mind as the redesigned hook looks like it works fine on a totally stationary static level strip of land.
I think it's more likely if the project is not protected (I think various senators will stick their oar in) that a salami slicing of each variant will occur or even more likely purchases and the rate of production will be slowed down.
Again call it inter service politics and being a 'bit clever' if you like but the B will be OCU on Block 2B software in 2015 and on excercise in 2017. Production aircraft again at 2B will be being delivered in 2015 to the UK for land based qualification in 2016. That means you have an engaged user base that really want the thing (because their conops, even if you disagree, is totally buggered without it). Meanwhile what does the USN do Greenert bigs up UCAVs, they order more F18 and make noises about a sixth gen manned fighter. Doesn't make you feel the USN F35C love really does it.
As for the CVNs Ford is costing near $15billion. They are struggling to keep all 11 going as many are coming up for their $1.5 billion dollar refit and refuelling periods and are being delayed. Lincoln is sat in dry dock so the next CVN due for refit and refuelling could be impacted and USS Enterprise is not being defuelled as of yet so will need maintaining.
Some are being kept in port instead of going on operations and they are cutting the number of air wings. If anything is in danger it's the C. It has the slowest acceleration of the lot of them, will the last delivered and won't actually get on an actual deck to confirm it's ability to trap until 2014 if the hook change is not good enough and a redesign is necessary then the C will be in major trouble it's a big IF mind as the redesigned hook looks like it works fine on a totally stationary static level strip of land.
I think it's more likely if the project is not protected (I think various senators will stick their oar in) that a salami slicing of each variant will occur or even more likely purchases and the rate of production will be slowed down.
Last edited by eaglemmoomin; 29th Mar 2013 at 15:59.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The campaign against the F-35B is ongoing however...
Counterpunch: Caveataxpayer Emptor - Slimy Double-Talk About the F-35 by Winslow T. Wheeler
Winslow T. Wheeler is director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information, which recently moved to the Project on Government Oversight. For 31 years he worked on national security issues for U.S. senators from both political parties and for the Government Accountability Office.
The same article is repeated in this week's issue of Time.
Counterpunch: Caveataxpayer Emptor - Slimy Double-Talk About the F-35 by Winslow T. Wheeler
Winslow T. Wheeler is director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information, which recently moved to the Project on Government Oversight. For 31 years he worked on national security issues for U.S. senators from both political parties and for the Government Accountability Office.
The same article is repeated in this week's issue of Time.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously because in the UK the F35 is so inextricably linked to our carriers and the 'centrepiece' of our defence strategy and we are a Tier 1 nation anyone with an interest in the F35 would know all this.
As the Yanks don't normally get it
<sarcasm mode on>
GoodPlan
<sarcasm mode off>
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I think it's important that people keep the project on it's toes so it doesn't back slide into the horrible mess it was in a few years back.
Mind you I think Wheeler has gone quite a bit away from analysis now gone into opinion and has gotten so entrenched that when actual progress is made he ignores it.
I've seen articles else where that the USMC has an enormous mock base made up of AM-2 (matting) or whatever it's called right next to the UK ski jump site that has been in use for decades with the Harrier and will be used for the F35B. Also that the USMC tested Thermion coatings in 2011 on USS Wasp due to the self same concerns Wheeler raised and they are going to 'wheel' it out on the LHD/LHA's and they've already worked out how close deck crew can get to the F35B on landing and takeoff again thanks to the USS Wasp trials.
Mind you I think Wheeler has gone quite a bit away from analysis now gone into opinion and has gotten so entrenched that when actual progress is made he ignores it.
I've seen articles else where that the USMC has an enormous mock base made up of AM-2 (matting) or whatever it's called right next to the UK ski jump site that has been in use for decades with the Harrier and will be used for the F35B. Also that the USMC tested Thermion coatings in 2011 on USS Wasp due to the self same concerns Wheeler raised and they are going to 'wheel' it out on the LHD/LHA's and they've already worked out how close deck crew can get to the F35B on landing and takeoff again thanks to the USS Wasp trials.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of which would be fine If
1. It displayed above cutting edge performance
2. It didn't cost so much.
3. It had far less questions against it.
But I doubt it's going to be cancelled, the program is way to far advanced.
Pity the poor buggers who will have to fight it against matching [or above] foes....
1. It displayed above cutting edge performance
2. It didn't cost so much.
3. It had far less questions against it.
But I doubt it's going to be cancelled, the program is way to far advanced.
Pity the poor buggers who will have to fight it against matching [or above] foes....
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right, so as a Tier 1 nation we get to fund the most expensive, least capable varient.
Nope it doesn't go quite as far and carry quite as much as the other two versions (which is a shame) but it has the exact same avionics fit which I think is far far more important given the proliferation of smart weaponery. Basically we've compromised on range and load a bit, to guarantee that we can get two aircraft carriers into service to have a 365 24/7 carrier capability. I'd rather that than have a part time carrier like the French.
Typhoon will have a base model version of CAPTOR-E by 2015 but we don't have any proper funding for all the modes and gucci bits as of yet (hopefully someone will sack up and sort that out) and it won't take off and land on an aircraft carrier.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wheeler needs to update his stance rather given the progress made over the last couple of years.
EagleM - The 'Dummy Deck' at NAS Pax River is made of AM-2 matting. Pax also has a ski jump (for future F-35B testing) and a steam catapult and arrestor wires (used for both F-35C and X-47 testing).
Dedicated facilities such as EMALS at Lakehurst are used for the majority of F-35C cats and traps testing.
USS Wasp trials proved that from a deck crew perspective you can operate F-35B exactly the same as a harrier.
To get to Stuffy's point though (and the thread title) I just cannot see Seaphoon becoming a reality. I saw the brief given to the Indians and while the design work has all been done, it is a lot of work/expense to beef up the undercarriage and fuselage.
If we are forced to pay for cats and traps on the Carriers whether we like it or not (by an F-35B cancellation) we are still better off, as a nation, buying F-35C as we have invested so much already. Remember that BAES builds, in the UK, a significant portion of every single F-35 (A, B and C). By the time we have rebuilt the QEC to be capable, F-35C will be a more mature airframe and off the shelf Rafale or Super Hornet will be distinctly old. Alternatively skip F-35C altogether and go unmanned with an off the shelf UCAS/UCLASS buy (if allowed by the US, which after our comedy involvement in F-35 variant swapping may be an issue).
If the Indians had agreed to front-up the development costs for Seaphoon when they were looking at commonality between land based and sea based fighters, rather than taking the sensible option that they did, then maybe a UK buy would be a possibility. Without it, it's just a fantasy.
EagleM - The 'Dummy Deck' at NAS Pax River is made of AM-2 matting. Pax also has a ski jump (for future F-35B testing) and a steam catapult and arrestor wires (used for both F-35C and X-47 testing).
Dedicated facilities such as EMALS at Lakehurst are used for the majority of F-35C cats and traps testing.
USS Wasp trials proved that from a deck crew perspective you can operate F-35B exactly the same as a harrier.
To get to Stuffy's point though (and the thread title) I just cannot see Seaphoon becoming a reality. I saw the brief given to the Indians and while the design work has all been done, it is a lot of work/expense to beef up the undercarriage and fuselage.
If we are forced to pay for cats and traps on the Carriers whether we like it or not (by an F-35B cancellation) we are still better off, as a nation, buying F-35C as we have invested so much already. Remember that BAES builds, in the UK, a significant portion of every single F-35 (A, B and C). By the time we have rebuilt the QEC to be capable, F-35C will be a more mature airframe and off the shelf Rafale or Super Hornet will be distinctly old. Alternatively skip F-35C altogether and go unmanned with an off the shelf UCAS/UCLASS buy (if allowed by the US, which after our comedy involvement in F-35 variant swapping may be an issue).
If the Indians had agreed to front-up the development costs for Seaphoon when they were looking at commonality between land based and sea based fighters, rather than taking the sensible option that they did, then maybe a UK buy would be a possibility. Without it, it's just a fantasy.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
USS Wasp Testing Cancelled Due Sequestration 2013
Thanks for your input 'eaglemmoomin' but one small point (and I'll look for the news report which of course may change now that sequestration has been modified I believe somewhat)
'eaglemmoomin' said: "...It's [F-35B] scheduled to go back this year and weapons will be involved this time...." however I have read that one early consequence of sequestration kicking in was that this second trial of F-35B on USS Wasp this year (2013) had been cancelled. However things change and change again - as we know.
__________________
Navy to Cut Air Wings, Deployments, Jets 20 Feb 2013 The Virginian-Pilot| by Dianna Cahn and Mike Hixenbaugh
Navy to Cut Air Wings, Deployments, Jets | Military.com
"NORFOLK -- A little more than a week before the first wave of federal budget cuts would take effect, the Navy on Tuesday released an updated list of savings, including canceling the Bataan amphibious ready group's deployment, buying four fewer F-35 fighter jets and nearly halving training programs for midshipmen, flight officers and new pilots.
The $8.6 billion in cuts are a consequence of Congress's failure to pass a new budget and across-the-board reductions demanded by sequestration. Congress has until March 1 to avert the latter....
...The document shows that the Navy plans to cancel construction of a destroyer, saving $1.4 billion. It would scuttle plans for further testing of the Marine variant of the F-35 fighter plane aboard the Norfolk-based amphibious assault ship Wasp and buy four fewer F-35s -- two each of the next-generation Navy and Marine Corps jets. It is also likely the Navy would not purchase a second Virginia-class submarine in 2014...."
'eaglemmoomin' said: "...It's [F-35B] scheduled to go back this year and weapons will be involved this time...." however I have read that one early consequence of sequestration kicking in was that this second trial of F-35B on USS Wasp this year (2013) had been cancelled. However things change and change again - as we know.
__________________
Navy to Cut Air Wings, Deployments, Jets 20 Feb 2013 The Virginian-Pilot| by Dianna Cahn and Mike Hixenbaugh
Navy to Cut Air Wings, Deployments, Jets | Military.com
"NORFOLK -- A little more than a week before the first wave of federal budget cuts would take effect, the Navy on Tuesday released an updated list of savings, including canceling the Bataan amphibious ready group's deployment, buying four fewer F-35 fighter jets and nearly halving training programs for midshipmen, flight officers and new pilots.
The $8.6 billion in cuts are a consequence of Congress's failure to pass a new budget and across-the-board reductions demanded by sequestration. Congress has until March 1 to avert the latter....
...The document shows that the Navy plans to cancel construction of a destroyer, saving $1.4 billion. It would scuttle plans for further testing of the Marine variant of the F-35 fighter plane aboard the Norfolk-based amphibious assault ship Wasp and buy four fewer F-35s -- two each of the next-generation Navy and Marine Corps jets. It is also likely the Navy would not purchase a second Virginia-class submarine in 2014...."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 29th Mar 2013 at 18:18. Reason: INFOmercial
EM - To begin with, what you do with the LHA/LHDs is (drum roll) what they were designed for (the basic hull design of even the newest ships pre-dates the Harrier in USMC service) which is to transport Marines, weapons, and vehicles in a warship-hard hull and get them to shore and support them with LCACs and helicopters.
They do this very well, the LHA-6/7 mongrels without a well deck having already been deemed a mistake before the first one is complete.
They are not very good aircraft carriers because they have inadequate hangar space, JP and weapons capacity, and narrow decks. The not-much-larger UK carriers can support a much bigger air wing - 35 F-35s plus AEW assets, versus 22 on the LHs if you push all the helos overboard.
Also, when the Ministry of Truth at Fort Worth says that the F-35B can carry 15,000 pounds of ordnance, I think that they mean that its various station capacities add up to 15,000 pounds. Real world? Maybe I could load the internal stations (3K), carry the gun pod (makes it 4K) and two 2K bombs on inner pylons (8K) and two AIM-9s (call it 9K). My operational radius will be well under 300 nm, I will be well subsonic and non-stealthy.
Supercruise? No, the F-35 was not designed to sustain >M1.0 without afterburner and contrary to various shills, cannot do so.
Kicks the Harrier into the long grass? Well it should, given that the basic design of the Harrier is now 55 years old and that it has never had a from-the-wheels-up development program - it's still an evolutionary development of the first P.1127/Pegasus.
WhiteOvies - Wheeler raises a perfectly valid point. As you note, the VL pad at Pax is AM-2 mat, but laid over concrete as a heat-shield rather than as a structural surface over dirt or cr@ppy asphalt. The VL pads at Yuma and Beaufort are made of heat-resistant concrete. There's some notion of a "creeping vertical" landing but there is no word as to when that will be demonstrated at all, let alone on the equivalent of a 3,000-foot-somewhere-ending-in-stan runway.
The Thermion coating reflects one of the two LH-related heating questions, which was the effect of F-35 exhaust on non-skid surfaces. The other was the long-term effect (if any) of heat and blast in terms of thermal/mechanical fatigue.
They do this very well, the LHA-6/7 mongrels without a well deck having already been deemed a mistake before the first one is complete.
They are not very good aircraft carriers because they have inadequate hangar space, JP and weapons capacity, and narrow decks. The not-much-larger UK carriers can support a much bigger air wing - 35 F-35s plus AEW assets, versus 22 on the LHs if you push all the helos overboard.
Also, when the Ministry of Truth at Fort Worth says that the F-35B can carry 15,000 pounds of ordnance, I think that they mean that its various station capacities add up to 15,000 pounds. Real world? Maybe I could load the internal stations (3K), carry the gun pod (makes it 4K) and two 2K bombs on inner pylons (8K) and two AIM-9s (call it 9K). My operational radius will be well under 300 nm, I will be well subsonic and non-stealthy.
Supercruise? No, the F-35 was not designed to sustain >M1.0 without afterburner and contrary to various shills, cannot do so.
Kicks the Harrier into the long grass? Well it should, given that the basic design of the Harrier is now 55 years old and that it has never had a from-the-wheels-up development program - it's still an evolutionary development of the first P.1127/Pegasus.
WhiteOvies - Wheeler raises a perfectly valid point. As you note, the VL pad at Pax is AM-2 mat, but laid over concrete as a heat-shield rather than as a structural surface over dirt or cr@ppy asphalt. The VL pads at Yuma and Beaufort are made of heat-resistant concrete. There's some notion of a "creeping vertical" landing but there is no word as to when that will be demonstrated at all, let alone on the equivalent of a 3,000-foot-somewhere-ending-in-stan runway.
The Thermion coating reflects one of the two LH-related heating questions, which was the effect of F-35 exhaust on non-skid surfaces. The other was the long-term effect (if any) of heat and blast in terms of thermal/mechanical fatigue.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
AM-2 Matting Goes AM-X Perhaps in Future?
'WhiteOvies' not only is there AM-2 matting testing at PaxRiver but also there is an humungous lot of AM-2 at '29 Palms' in California which will one day be tested I guess:
'29 Palms' (what is "Psalm 29" I wonder? [ Bible Text: Psalm 29 (CEV) for text ) airfield diagram from: http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1303/03160AD.PDF (100Kb)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...2_May_1994.jpg
Twentynine Palms Strategic Expeditionary Landing Field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_________________________
Some PDF info about USAF use particularly of AM-2 matting (USMC / USN mentioned only):
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_270_07.pdf (0.3Mb)
________________________
AM-X will be the new kid on the block at some point perhaps:
Decks for Rapid Runway Mat Applications Dean C. Foster, P.E., P.S.
Materials and Manufacturing Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a468966.pdf (1.7Mb)
Click thumbnail for bigga pickcha of AM-X:
'29 Palms' (what is "Psalm 29" I wonder? [ Bible Text: Psalm 29 (CEV) for text ) airfield diagram from: http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1303/03160AD.PDF (100Kb)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...2_May_1994.jpg
Twentynine Palms Strategic Expeditionary Landing Field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_________________________
Some PDF info about USAF use particularly of AM-2 matting (USMC / USN mentioned only):
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_270_07.pdf (0.3Mb)
________________________
AM-X will be the new kid on the block at some point perhaps:
Decks for Rapid Runway Mat Applications Dean C. Foster, P.E., P.S.
Materials and Manufacturing Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a468966.pdf (1.7Mb)
Click thumbnail for bigga pickcha of AM-X:
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 29th Mar 2013 at 18:34. Reason: Psalm 29 text URL + AM-X Picture
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
I'm sure everyone will be watching how Yuma gets on with it's pads now they're using them.
A lot of the info garnered from the Wasp sea trials has been fed back to the UK for use in FOCFT with QEC. Significant involvement on the test team at Pax for all the sea trials is one of the benefits of being a Tier 1 partner.
Of course at the time of the first trials in 2011 the UK was still buying the C variant...
I'm sure everyone will be watching how Yuma gets on with it's pads now they're using them.
A lot of the info garnered from the Wasp sea trials has been fed back to the UK for use in FOCFT with QEC. Significant involvement on the test team at Pax for all the sea trials is one of the benefits of being a Tier 1 partner.
Of course at the time of the first trials in 2011 the UK was still buying the C variant...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
NAS Patuxent River has two VL pads with AM-2
For the sake of the conversation about NAS Patuxent River and VL Pads. There are two - one has AM-2 Matting over concrete the other is over asphalt. Location of these VL pads follows in the graphics. Note the asphalt / AM-2 pad has many markings for test purposes. These graphics were made for F-16.net with many other graphics/text indications about these pads and the Ski Jump and whatever else you may find interestin' at the PaxRibber. Location No.4 on the airfield graphic is the asphalt/AM-2 combo whilst Location No.3 is the other VL pad with concrete/AM-2 combo (lower right of photo) near the Ski Jump.
Click thumbnails for a bigger looksee:
Click thumbnails for a bigger looksee:
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 30th Mar 2013 at 09:21. Reason: PaxRibber/Rubber Grafix - Fix Missing Pic - Fanks FotoBuckie
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LowObservable
To begin with, what you do with the LHA/LHDs is (drum roll) what they were designed for (the basic hull design of even the newest ships pre-dates the Harrier in USMC service) which is to transport Marines, weapons, and vehicles in a warship-hard hull and get them to shore and support them with LCACs and helicopters.
USMC Harrier (actually Kestrel, designated XV-6A) trials started in 1965, and continued through 1968, including take-offs & landings aboard USS Raleigh LPD-1 (1966) and USS Independence.
Purchase of 12 Harriers (designated AV-8A) authorized by Congress 20 September 1969, first flight of USMC Harrier 20 November 1970, delivered to USMC February 1971. 102 purchased, plus 8 TAV-8As.
The Tarawa class was approved for production in 1968... 3 years after the USMC began Kestrel evaluations, and concurrent with the formal USMC request for purchase of Harriers for operational squadrons. Construction on the lead ship of the class began 15 November 1971... 1 year after the first USMC AV-8A Harrier flew!
There is only 1 Tarawa-class LHA left in commission!
The Wasp-class LHD, while based on the LHA, was significantly modified internally... the first was ordered on 28 February 1984... 6 months after the first production AV-8B flew (29 August 1983)!
So USMC involvement with, and desire for, the Harrier was concurrent with the designing of the LHA hull, not after it.
Construction of the first LHA hull began nearly a year after the first Harrier was delivered to the USMC, and just after the first AV-8A squadron (VMA-513) was declared operational (May 1971).
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the umptied time, the EODAS/EOTC + AESA point in favor of the F35 is pretty much made redundant by Northrops statements made as far back as 2010 that they can and will implement it partially or entirely on other airframes if customers ask to do so, it is a subsystem, not dependant on the rest of the F35.
also,
I'm not saying that I would prefer a Seaphoon or SH iso a F35B for the UK QEC types, I'm only giving a hypothetical future in case the F35B is offered on the altar of future budget plans/shrinkage.
Cancellation for 1 of the f35 versions (B or C) is still a very real possibility, the technological or operational issues are not the future potential problem, the very likely possibility of a political shift post 2014 election is a much bigger danger for either the F35B or C or both.
I didn't take the possible Singapore order into consideration and if they would sign up for 75 F35B's than that would indeed be a big boost for the B-version.
Also since we're talking about the future, 1 of the many things I'm still want to see answered is how they are seeing the F35 developping in the future beyond its MLU date.
Like its predecessors, the F35 will need to be upgraded which will inevitably lead to more wheight, more volume and more systems.
Contrary to its predecessors which litterally (size) and figuratively (power, W/L) had tons of extra room for growth and did so succesfully, the F35 is already stretched to (or some say even beyond) its limits.
The EF, RAFALE, Gripen NG and SH will fly and fight well into the 21st century, maybe even for 40 more years, I don't see the F35 operating longer either, it will go the way of the F117, stealthy at its conception which gave it an edge but when detection technology caught up it was just too compromised to develop it any further and give it a new lease of life, same goes for the F35. (IR-stealth wise the F117 still outperforms the F35 btw)
PS The idea that the MARINES F35B is an effective CAS platform is just ridiculous.
also,
I'm not saying that I would prefer a Seaphoon or SH iso a F35B for the UK QEC types, I'm only giving a hypothetical future in case the F35B is offered on the altar of future budget plans/shrinkage.
Cancellation for 1 of the f35 versions (B or C) is still a very real possibility, the technological or operational issues are not the future potential problem, the very likely possibility of a political shift post 2014 election is a much bigger danger for either the F35B or C or both.
I didn't take the possible Singapore order into consideration and if they would sign up for 75 F35B's than that would indeed be a big boost for the B-version.
Also since we're talking about the future, 1 of the many things I'm still want to see answered is how they are seeing the F35 developping in the future beyond its MLU date.
Like its predecessors, the F35 will need to be upgraded which will inevitably lead to more wheight, more volume and more systems.
Contrary to its predecessors which litterally (size) and figuratively (power, W/L) had tons of extra room for growth and did so succesfully, the F35 is already stretched to (or some say even beyond) its limits.
The EF, RAFALE, Gripen NG and SH will fly and fight well into the 21st century, maybe even for 40 more years, I don't see the F35 operating longer either, it will go the way of the F117, stealthy at its conception which gave it an edge but when detection technology caught up it was just too compromised to develop it any further and give it a new lease of life, same goes for the F35. (IR-stealth wise the F117 still outperforms the F35 btw)
PS The idea that the MARINES F35B is an effective CAS platform is just ridiculous.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Minimum A/B F-35 Mach 1+ Cruise Quote
'LowObservable' said: "...
Supercruise? No, the F-35 was not designed to sustain >M1.0 without afterburner and contrary to various shills, cannot do so.'..."
F-35A Testing Moves Into High Speeds By DAVE MAJUMDAR : 13 June 2011
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6792072&c=FEA&s=CVS
"...Compare And Contrast
The F-35's ability to carry weapons and a large fuel load inside its own skin makes the plane far less draggy on a combat mission than the F-16 or F/A-18, which sling missiles, bombs and fuel tanks below their wings and fuselage, Griffiths said . Moreover, a combat-laden F-16 loses much maneuverability, whereas the F-35 is barely affected by carrying 18,000 pounds of internal fuel and 5,000 of internal weaponry. "It flies fantastic," he said. Griffiths declined to compare the F-35 to the F-16s he once flew. But he noted the F-16 is only technically an 800-knot and Mach 2.02 aircraft. In practical terms, most pilots will never see speeds above 700 knots or Mach 1.6 because real-world load-outs don't allow it. The F-35 can't supercruise like the F-22 Raptor, but the test pilots have found that once they break the sound barrier, supersonic speeds are easy to sustain. "What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said...." [Lt. Col. Hank "Hog" Griffiths, an F-35 test pilot and director of the integrated Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) test force] (Some shill eh - concession to minimum A/B use however.)
Supercruise? No, the F-35 was not designed to sustain >M1.0 without afterburner and contrary to various shills, cannot do so.'..."
F-35A Testing Moves Into High Speeds By DAVE MAJUMDAR : 13 June 2011
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6792072&c=FEA&s=CVS
"...Compare And Contrast
The F-35's ability to carry weapons and a large fuel load inside its own skin makes the plane far less draggy on a combat mission than the F-16 or F/A-18, which sling missiles, bombs and fuel tanks below their wings and fuselage, Griffiths said . Moreover, a combat-laden F-16 loses much maneuverability, whereas the F-35 is barely affected by carrying 18,000 pounds of internal fuel and 5,000 of internal weaponry. "It flies fantastic," he said. Griffiths declined to compare the F-35 to the F-16s he once flew. But he noted the F-16 is only technically an 800-knot and Mach 2.02 aircraft. In practical terms, most pilots will never see speeds above 700 knots or Mach 1.6 because real-world load-outs don't allow it. The F-35 can't supercruise like the F-22 Raptor, but the test pilots have found that once they break the sound barrier, supersonic speeds are easy to sustain. "What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said...." [Lt. Col. Hank "Hog" Griffiths, an F-35 test pilot and director of the integrated Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) test force] (Some shill eh - concession to minimum A/B use however.)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
CREEPY VLs by F-35Bs (oh - the horror) Apocalypse NOW
'LowObservable' said: "...WhiteOvies - Wheeler raises a perfectly valid point. As you note, the VL pad at Pax is AM-2 mat, but laid over concrete as a heat-shield rather than as a structural surface over dirt or cr@ppy asphalt. The VL pads at Yuma and Beaufort are made of heat-resistant concrete. There's some notion of a "creeping vertical" landing but there is no word as to when that will be demonstrated at all, let alone on the equivalent of a 3,000-foot-somewhere-ending-in-stan runway...."
"...BF-1 accomplished the first F-35 five Creeping Vertical Landings (CVLs) on August 23 [2012]...."
F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts September 5, 2012
http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/20...ber-5-2012.pdf (164Kb)
"...BF-1 accomplished the first F-35 five Creeping Vertical Landings (CVLs) on August 23 [2012]...."
F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts September 5, 2012
http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/20...ber-5-2012.pdf (164Kb)
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 29th Mar 2013 at 20:41.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'LowObservable' also said: "...The Thermion coating reflects one of the two LH-related heating questions, which was the effect of F-35 exhaust on non-skid surfaces. The other was the long-term effect (if any) of heat and blast in terms of thermal/mechanical fatigue."
I had thought this THERMION topic was covered here already. I'll have to check. Anyway IF - as said by many by now - that the F-35B thermal/exhaust footprint is equivalent to the AV-8B then where is the problem? THERMION is a new non skid coating that is slated to be used by all USN flat decks eventually because of all things it is more hard wearing than the current non-skid. But hey the F-35B is going to melt all around it I know.
________________
'GreenKnight121' seems to have the THERMION gen covered here:
Ref1: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7208946
&
Ref2: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7139699
I had thought this THERMION topic was covered here already. I'll have to check. Anyway IF - as said by many by now - that the F-35B thermal/exhaust footprint is equivalent to the AV-8B then where is the problem? THERMION is a new non skid coating that is slated to be used by all USN flat decks eventually because of all things it is more hard wearing than the current non-skid. But hey the F-35B is going to melt all around it I know.
________________
'GreenKnight121' seems to have the THERMION gen covered here:
Ref1: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7208946
&
Ref2: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7139699
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 29th Mar 2013 at 20:40. Reason: 'GreenKnight121' THERMION from forum info added
"What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said...." [Lt. Col. Hank "Hog" Griffiths, an F-35 test pilot and director of the integrated Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) test force] (Some shill eh - concession to minimum A/B use however.)
The increase in fuel burn from max dry power to min afterburner is significant.
Last edited by Easy Street; 29th Mar 2013 at 20:59.
