F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Harrier CL
Not sure why it's really relevant here, but we used to practice conventional (ie nozzles aft until on the ground) landings fairly regularly on the Harrier. Kbrockmans first video may be a CL in a lightweight fit 1 jet but it's not possible for me to tell at that resolution. There seemed to be a flare before touchdown - a CL was the only time you'd flare the jet.
Reasons for a CL? Any fire or hot gas leak - the thought process was that you didn't want to energise the reaction control system by moving the nozzles and potentially worsening the fire/leak. Nozzles stuck aft could be another potential cause, but it never happened in my time.
Flying the CL was never a big deal - "it's just a big Hawk" was the chat on the OCU. Stopping it was the real pain, especially at heavy weights, as the brakes were not really much use above 50kts.
As for a CTO - we did it once on the OCU, and once only. It was a terribly inefficient way of getting airborne and wouldn't work at heavier weights without reaching tyre limiting speed!
Reasons for a CL? Any fire or hot gas leak - the thought process was that you didn't want to energise the reaction control system by moving the nozzles and potentially worsening the fire/leak. Nozzles stuck aft could be another potential cause, but it never happened in my time.
Flying the CL was never a big deal - "it's just a big Hawk" was the chat on the OCU. Stopping it was the real pain, especially at heavy weights, as the brakes were not really much use above 50kts.
As for a CTO - we did it once on the OCU, and once only. It was a terribly inefficient way of getting airborne and wouldn't work at heavier weights without reaching tyre limiting speed!
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know why it only mentions the f-35 in regards to the mods on a ship designed from 2001
It's been reported that the V-22 is giving the most problems with heat and it has a similar weight and a bigger heat footprint with 2 engines wide apart and a large blade clearence, which I assume is the reason the antennas need shifting, most of these mods look more for the v-22 than the f-35b
v-22
Empty weight 33,140 lb (15,032 kg)
Max takeoff weight 60,500 lb (27,400 kg)
f-35b
Empty weight 32,300 lb
Max takeoff weight 60,000 lb class (27,300 kg)
It's been reported that the V-22 is giving the most problems with heat and it has a similar weight and a bigger heat footprint with 2 engines wide apart and a large blade clearence, which I assume is the reason the antennas need shifting, most of these mods look more for the v-22 than the f-35b
v-22
Empty weight 33,140 lb (15,032 kg)
Max takeoff weight 60,500 lb (27,400 kg)
f-35b
Empty weight 32,300 lb
Max takeoff weight 60,000 lb class (27,300 kg)
Last edited by JSFfan; 2nd Apr 2013 at 00:15.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed... the modification to the MV-22 on-deck engine-running procedure for idle running in excess of 10 minutes requires shutting down one engine and either putting a portable heat-shield under the running engine or parking the aircraft with the running engine over the catwalk rather than the deck... thus the need to relocate or protect the items on the catwalk & deck-edge.
These mods are for MV-22 operation, NOT for F-35B operation!
Nearly every heat-related modification to USN LHA/LHD/LPD/LSDs is for MV-22, not F-35B.
These mods are for MV-22 operation, NOT for F-35B operation!
Nearly every heat-related modification to USN LHA/LHD/LPD/LSDs is for MV-22, not F-35B.
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 2nd Apr 2013 at 00:46.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the MV-22 issues have been known and the "fixes" finalized for several years, one might ask why these changes weren't made earlier in LHA-6 construction.
The answer is, simply, money. This question has come up before in regards to all sorts of changes on all sorts of ships (the instance I remember was changes to the LPD-17 class unrelated to aircraft), and those with experience pointed out that in the modern era of pre-outfitted modular construction, making changes during construction was about twice as expensive as making the same changes after construction was completed!
The answer is, simply, money. This question has come up before in regards to all sorts of changes on all sorts of ships (the instance I remember was changes to the LPD-17 class unrelated to aircraft), and those with experience pointed out that in the modern era of pre-outfitted modular construction, making changes during construction was about twice as expensive as making the same changes after construction was completed!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We had V-22 visit us on HMS Ark Royal in 2010, no special mods required. SOP was for the Osprey to slightly move it's nacelles forward and back, spreading the heat. No issues apart from the chains got a bit hot, certainly no melted flight deck, but it wasn't a regular thing.
F-35B sea trials had 1 spot painted with thermion and 1 not. The deck was back in use by AV-8Bs with no repairs needed shortly after the trials were completed, even on the non-Thermion areas.
The trouble with all the posts is that people will believe or disregard what they want. Dismissing various well qualified DoD and military individuals within Navair and the F-35 programme as 'paid advertisers for Lockheed Martin' makes no more sense than believing everything published by other individuals in Think Tanks who have no hands on experience of the programme.
A reminder of recent UK milestones:
The UK has purchased 4 F-35Bs, 2 of which (ZM135 and ZM136) are currently flying regularly in Florida. UK pilots are being trained. RN and RAF maintainers have been gaining hands on experience with the F-35B (and briefly the C) for nearly 5 years at NAS Patuxent River. The first UK engineering courses have taken place at Eglin. The Test and Evaluation Sqn has picked up the 17(R) nameplate. The MOB has been selected and publicly announced (again). The first RAF non-Test Pilot is qualified on the jet (to add to the 3 British industry TPs and 1 RAF TP) with the first RN non-TP pilot to follow shortly. The USMC and RN/RAF are working side by side on VMFAT 501, the Pax River ITF and in other places providing mutual benefits to both sides.
Surely this is good news for the UK? Or does it come too late and at too high a price for the majority of contributors? What would it take to be convinced otherwise?
F-35B sea trials had 1 spot painted with thermion and 1 not. The deck was back in use by AV-8Bs with no repairs needed shortly after the trials were completed, even on the non-Thermion areas.
The trouble with all the posts is that people will believe or disregard what they want. Dismissing various well qualified DoD and military individuals within Navair and the F-35 programme as 'paid advertisers for Lockheed Martin' makes no more sense than believing everything published by other individuals in Think Tanks who have no hands on experience of the programme.
A reminder of recent UK milestones:
The UK has purchased 4 F-35Bs, 2 of which (ZM135 and ZM136) are currently flying regularly in Florida. UK pilots are being trained. RN and RAF maintainers have been gaining hands on experience with the F-35B (and briefly the C) for nearly 5 years at NAS Patuxent River. The first UK engineering courses have taken place at Eglin. The Test and Evaluation Sqn has picked up the 17(R) nameplate. The MOB has been selected and publicly announced (again). The first RAF non-Test Pilot is qualified on the jet (to add to the 3 British industry TPs and 1 RAF TP) with the first RN non-TP pilot to follow shortly. The USMC and RN/RAF are working side by side on VMFAT 501, the Pax River ITF and in other places providing mutual benefits to both sides.
Surely this is good news for the UK? Or does it come too late and at too high a price for the majority of contributors? What would it take to be convinced otherwise?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"What would it take to be convinced otherwise?"
there are a couple of problems
1. don't confuse me with facts, my minds made up and I will twist anything to make the plane look bad
2. it's not fair, UK designed and built the harrier, now we have to fly some US plane
3. Uk designed and built the typhoon, now we have to fly some seppo plane
4. it's not fair that we don't design and build a plane in the UK that's all ours, now we have to fly some US plane
5. in our hearts we know the US plane is better but our nationalistic pride wont allow it
6. europe is out of the major fast jet design, build and sales market and we really don't like it that seppo's have it
7. we got really excited when there was going to be a real air craft carrier like in the 1960's built and not the jump jet rubbish that we went back to.
we long for the days when we sang Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves
there are a couple of problems
1. don't confuse me with facts, my minds made up and I will twist anything to make the plane look bad
2. it's not fair, UK designed and built the harrier, now we have to fly some US plane
3. Uk designed and built the typhoon, now we have to fly some seppo plane
4. it's not fair that we don't design and build a plane in the UK that's all ours, now we have to fly some US plane
5. in our hearts we know the US plane is better but our nationalistic pride wont allow it
6. europe is out of the major fast jet design, build and sales market and we really don't like it that seppo's have it
7. we got really excited when there was going to be a real air craft carrier like in the 1960's built and not the jump jet rubbish that we went back to.
we long for the days when we sang Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves
Last edited by JSFfan; 2nd Apr 2013 at 06:18.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shock! Horror!
JSFFan in Ad Hom attack.
That is probably the most faecetious post yet. You do have a flair for the (melo)dramatic.
WhiteOvies & GK - good updates. Thanks.
JSFFan in Ad Hom attack.
That is probably the most faecetious post yet. You do have a flair for the (melo)dramatic.
WhiteOvies & GK - good updates. Thanks.
Last edited by Finnpog; 2nd Apr 2013 at 05:24.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
guess you don't get sarcasm with a lot of truth in it, it's not directed to anyone personally, unlike LO's last reply to me a page or 2 back.
also I think I deserve a thanks for my post about the V-22 too
also I think I deserve a thanks for my post about the V-22 too
Last edited by JSFfan; 2nd Apr 2013 at 05:41.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Europeshire
Age: 60
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Farewell Thread
...now that the crayoning and personal attacks have started, I'm off. Thanks to those who have genuinely sought to inform, less so to those who sought to opine and no thanks to the xenophobes, the industry trolls and the plain rude & ignorant.
One thing is sure - only time will tell.
One thing is sure - only time will tell.
The discussion on here has turned me into a sceptic. There's a religious quality to it rather like the phone-fanboy arguments one finds on forums. I'm only a programmer and I knew one mobile platform from working for the company that made it but supporters and opponents both had ridiculous arguments about it. Some points were valid and some totally erroneous from both sides. I imagine that it must be similar for all discussions "on the outside" and even within a company or even a team, nobody truly has the whole picture of an immensely complex thing.
None of this matters though because it wasn't the discussed issues which really determined the outcome. Or they were only the symptoms of what was good or bad about the company.
At some point, often repeatedly, you get to the decision to kill something or spend more.
I've certainly seen good things get bulleted. I've also seen many things pushed through at great expense and become good-ish after much time and money but at a point where people thought "who cares anymore?"
My takeaway, FWIW, is that you shouldn't spend so much on one idea, especially one group of people, that you can't pursue other competing ideas at the same time. You also need to throw ideas away and start again with the benefit of the insight gained. Anything you do that commits you in the very long term to one architecture or idea is very risky. Does this apply to Engineering? I can't say - it seems like it might.
None of this matters though because it wasn't the discussed issues which really determined the outcome. Or they were only the symptoms of what was good or bad about the company.
At some point, often repeatedly, you get to the decision to kill something or spend more.
I've certainly seen good things get bulleted. I've also seen many things pushed through at great expense and become good-ish after much time and money but at a point where people thought "who cares anymore?"
My takeaway, FWIW, is that you shouldn't spend so much on one idea, especially one group of people, that you can't pursue other competing ideas at the same time. You also need to throw ideas away and start again with the benefit of the insight gained. Anything you do that commits you in the very long term to one architecture or idea is very risky. Does this apply to Engineering? I can't say - it seems like it might.
Last edited by t43562; 2nd Apr 2013 at 07:29.
A Pointless Piece of Disrespect
Originally Posted by JSFfan
there are a couple of problems
1. don't confuse me with facts, my minds made up and I will twist anything to make the plane look bad
2. it's not fair, UK designed and built the harrier, now we have to fly some US plane
3. Uk designed and built the typhoon, now we have to fly some seppo plane
4. it's not fair that we don't design and build a plane in the UK that's all ours, now we have to fly some US plane
5. in our hearts we know the US plane is better but our nationalistic pride wont allow it
6. europe is out of the major fast jet design, build and sales market and we really don't like it that seppo's have it
7. we got really excited when there was going to be a real air craft carrier like in the 1960's built and not the jump jet rubbish that we went back to.
we long for the days when we sang Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by JSFfan; 2nd Apr 2013 at 07:18.
1. don't confuse me with facts, my minds made up and I will twist anything to make the plane look bad
2. it's not fair, UK designed and built the harrier, now we have to fly some US plane
3. Uk designed and built the typhoon, now we have to fly some seppo plane
4. it's not fair that we don't design and build a plane in the UK that's all ours, now we have to fly some US plane
5. in our hearts we know the US plane is better but our nationalistic pride wont allow it
6. europe is out of the major fast jet design, build and sales market and we really don't like it that seppo's have it
7. we got really excited when there was going to be a real air craft carrier like in the 1960's built and not the jump jet rubbish that we went back to.
we long for the days when we sang Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by JSFfan; 2nd Apr 2013 at 07:18.
Well, your puerile, petulant, teenage outburst certainly answers my question about your credentials. Despite your claim of sarcasm and your rather sensible edit to tone it down, it’s easy to see exactly where you’re coming from and your complete lack of credibility. You’ve certainly dragged this thread down to rock bottom and it doesn’t surprise me that some have decided to leave as a result.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I though it was over LO's comment.... Lies and the lying liars
"And this is on a new ship built from the keel up to handle JSF - so will the same mods suffice for the older LHDs? Lies and the lying liars who tell them..."
I also find it strange that when LO calls american septics..it's fine
when I say seppo..it's the end of the world, but I agree it was over done
after a google search of this forum, I think your criticism is hollow
"site:ht*p://www.pprune.org septic OR septics "
what I think you're most upset about is that the problem is more with the v-22 and not the f-35b
"And this is on a new ship built from the keel up to handle JSF - so will the same mods suffice for the older LHDs? Lies and the lying liars who tell them..."
I also find it strange that when LO calls american septics..it's fine
when I say seppo..it's the end of the world, but I agree it was over done
after a google search of this forum, I think your criticism is hollow
"site:ht*p://www.pprune.org septic OR septics "
what I think you're most upset about is that the problem is more with the v-22 and not the f-35b
Last edited by JSFfan; 2nd Apr 2013 at 09:28.
N20 - And that's exactly what the pro-JSF crowd want. Vandalize a discussion with enough aged spam and fact-free rantings and the reasonable people go away.
Yes, I get heated sometimes because of the systematic lying and misinformation (such as the "melting decks" canard), but mostly I stay on the factual track for many reasons.
t43562 - Up to a point.
But this isn't a phone. It's a question of whether the vast bulk of US+allied air combat investment from 2015 until Cthulhu knows when should go to a single aircraft type, which...
is basically a bomber with a certain, mostly fixed degree of stealth, and flight performance which (at the very best) is comparable to the standards set 40 years ago,
costs so much that smaller AFs will be cut down to a couple of dozen jets,
and by design and intent, eliminates the ability to create a future replacement or substitute without enormous effort and risk.
If that is the wrong answer we are
ed at many levels.
Yes, I get heated sometimes because of the systematic lying and misinformation (such as the "melting decks" canard), but mostly I stay on the factual track for many reasons.
t43562 - Up to a point.
But this isn't a phone. It's a question of whether the vast bulk of US+allied air combat investment from 2015 until Cthulhu knows when should go to a single aircraft type, which...
is basically a bomber with a certain, mostly fixed degree of stealth, and flight performance which (at the very best) is comparable to the standards set 40 years ago,
costs so much that smaller AFs will be cut down to a couple of dozen jets,
and by design and intent, eliminates the ability to create a future replacement or substitute without enormous effort and risk.
If that is the wrong answer we are
ed at many levels.
Last edited by LowObservable; 2nd Apr 2013 at 12:09.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another nail in the coffin of the "deck environment just like an AV-8B":
Other Program Issues
The LHA 6 will incur an estimated $42.4 million in cost growth due to post-delivery rework of the ship's deck to cope with exhaust and downwash from the Joint Strike Fighter. In October 2011, the Navy began at-sea testing on USS Wasp to determine how LHA 6 may need to modify its flight deck and found that approximately 43 items require relocation, shielding, protection, or other modifications. According to officials, modifications include adding below deck stiffeners, moving antennae, weapon systems and other equipment, and adding a cover to fueling stations.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653379.pdf
And this is on a new ship built from the keel up to handle JSF - so will the same mods suffice for the older LHDs? Lies and the lying liars who tell them...
Other Program Issues
The LHA 6 will incur an estimated $42.4 million in cost growth due to post-delivery rework of the ship's deck to cope with exhaust and downwash from the Joint Strike Fighter. In October 2011, the Navy began at-sea testing on USS Wasp to determine how LHA 6 may need to modify its flight deck and found that approximately 43 items require relocation, shielding, protection, or other modifications. According to officials, modifications include adding below deck stiffeners, moving antennae, weapon systems and other equipment, and adding a cover to fueling stations.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653379.pdf
And this is on a new ship built from the keel up to handle JSF - so will the same mods suffice for the older LHDs? Lies and the lying liars who tell them...
Anyway modifications to the older amphibs are in the order of $68 million per ship and there is information about that in the public domain.
I'm pretty sure the quote was about using the F35B in the same manner of the AV8s from a procedure point of view, how that gets interpreted through the chinese whispers of the internet doesn't make someone a liar. Certainly not it my book.
Well, EM, this was the official response after the Navy engineers released the landing-pad specs: Lockheed Martin said that it was based on "worst-case" data and that "extensive tests" conducted with prototype BF-3 in January 2010 (after the report was completed) showed that "the difference between F-35B main-engine exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant CONOPS changes for F-35B."
Qualifies as deceptive at the very least, since the specs remain unchanged.
Thanks for the hint on the older amphibs, link here:
U.S. Amphib Skirts Major Deployments for 8 Years | Defense News | defensenews.com
In any event, however, I still think that the impact on improvised-base ops is more important. As in the case of the AV-8B, I predict that the Marines will do it once per war with a full Public Affairs battalion in support, and a second in reserve.
Qualifies as deceptive at the very least, since the specs remain unchanged.
Thanks for the hint on the older amphibs, link here:
U.S. Amphib Skirts Major Deployments for 8 Years | Defense News | defensenews.com
In any event, however, I still think that the impact on improvised-base ops is more important. As in the case of the AV-8B, I predict that the Marines will do it once per war with a full Public Affairs battalion in support, and a second in reserve.
Last edited by LowObservable; 2nd Apr 2013 at 13:25.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Also USS Wasp Upgrade SSDS Block II extra
Amphib Wasp to get combat system upgrade By Christopher P. Cavas 30 Jun 2012
Amphib Wasp to get combat system upgrade - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times
"...After some modifications, Wasp conducted two weeks of flight tests with the F-35B last October, but no further flight tests are scheduled until 2013. An overhaul to begin receiving more extensive shipboard modifications to fully support the aircraft is scheduled to begin this fall, with more flight tests next summer.
But later in 2013, the ship will be upgraded with the Ship Self Defense System Block II, a significant improvement over ACDS that will effectively coordinate the ship’s self-defense. SSDS is installed on all aircraft carriers and amphibs, and ties together a ship’s Rolling Airframe Missiles, Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles and Cooperative Engagement Capability system.
Sims wasn’t able to provide a cost estimate for the alterations, but one source said it would cost $170 million just to upgrade Wasp’s combat system.
In 2014, with the SSDS installation complete, Wasp will return to the regular amphibious ready group rotation schedule, Sims said."
Amphib Wasp to get combat system upgrade - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times
"...After some modifications, Wasp conducted two weeks of flight tests with the F-35B last October, but no further flight tests are scheduled until 2013. An overhaul to begin receiving more extensive shipboard modifications to fully support the aircraft is scheduled to begin this fall, with more flight tests next summer.
But later in 2013, the ship will be upgraded with the Ship Self Defense System Block II, a significant improvement over ACDS that will effectively coordinate the ship’s self-defense. SSDS is installed on all aircraft carriers and amphibs, and ties together a ship’s Rolling Airframe Missiles, Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles and Cooperative Engagement Capability system.
Sims wasn’t able to provide a cost estimate for the alterations, but one source said it would cost $170 million just to upgrade Wasp’s combat system.
In 2014, with the SSDS installation complete, Wasp will return to the regular amphibious ready group rotation schedule, Sims said."
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No LO, you will find it's was a GAO interpretation of what was said by the "Navy engineers released the landing-pad specs" the GAO do make mistakes in their reports and this is one of them.
GreenKnight121 confirmed what I read about the V-22 being the bigger issue and if you can land a v-22 on a deck material with weight bearing, heat resistance and clearance, you can land a f-35b, but even if it was one or two of the 40 things is for the f-35b..what's the big deal?
GreenKnight121 confirmed what I read about the V-22 being the bigger issue and if you can land a v-22 on a deck material with weight bearing, heat resistance and clearance, you can land a f-35b, but even if it was one or two of the 40 things is for the f-35b..what's the big deal?
Last edited by JSFfan; 2nd Apr 2013 at 23:28.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
First Flight UK F-35B ZM137 02 April 2013
F-35B For United Kingdom Makes First Flight 02 April 2013
Lockheed Martin Corporation : Third F-35B For United Kingdom Makes First Flight | 4-Traders
"FORT WORTH, Texas, April 2, 2013 - Monday, the third United Kingdom Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II sped down the runway at Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base embarking on its first flight. The aircraft, known as ZM137, departed at 10:16 a.m. with Lockheed Martin F-35 Chief Test Pilot Alan Norman at the controls. ZM137 will complete a series of company and government checkout flights prior to its acceptance by the U.K. Ministry of Defence. ZM137 will join U.K. aircraft ZM135 and ZM136 at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., later this year where it will be used for pilot and maintainer training...."
BIG 2.6Mb JPG here: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/conten.../ZM137_F35.jpg
Lockheed Martin Corporation : Third F-35B For United Kingdom Makes First Flight | 4-Traders
"FORT WORTH, Texas, April 2, 2013 - Monday, the third United Kingdom Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II sped down the runway at Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base embarking on its first flight. The aircraft, known as ZM137, departed at 10:16 a.m. with Lockheed Martin F-35 Chief Test Pilot Alan Norman at the controls. ZM137 will complete a series of company and government checkout flights prior to its acceptance by the U.K. Ministry of Defence. ZM137 will join U.K. aircraft ZM135 and ZM136 at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., later this year where it will be used for pilot and maintainer training...."
BIG 2.6Mb JPG here: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/conten.../ZM137_F35.jpg
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 2nd Apr 2013 at 20:45. Reason: JPG URL
The F-35 can't be cancelled. According to the Korean Herald to;
The deployment came after Washington sent a series of its strategic weapons systems including the B-52 aircraft, B-2 stealth bombers, F-35 radar-evading fighter jets and nuclear-powered Cheyenne submarine for the allied drills here that end on April 30.