F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oberon,
F-35B on QEC will use a ramp instead of the USMC 'flat top' as shown in the USS Wasp videos. This will give more aircraft performance margin to UK F-35B launches for a given weight (i.e. higher payload compared to a flat deck launch for a given deck run, or, same load can be launched at higher ambient temp/low air pressure than flat deck run). In direct comparison to a flat deck launch the ramp's profile will help mitigate the condition where an F-35B leaves the deck as the ship approaches the bottom of a pitch down while also starting to heave upwards - i.e. you get less of a face full of sea, relatively speaking.
As John Farley has explained previously, ramps do cause issues with nose oleo compression/bottom-out at high AUW and/or ramp exit speeds so there is a trade off to be considered.
IMHO I'm glad UK went for a ramp option for QEC as I believe it provides the safest margin through-life as engine wear takes its toll on performance.
F-35B on QEC will use a ramp instead of the USMC 'flat top' as shown in the USS Wasp videos. This will give more aircraft performance margin to UK F-35B launches for a given weight (i.e. higher payload compared to a flat deck launch for a given deck run, or, same load can be launched at higher ambient temp/low air pressure than flat deck run). In direct comparison to a flat deck launch the ramp's profile will help mitigate the condition where an F-35B leaves the deck as the ship approaches the bottom of a pitch down while also starting to heave upwards - i.e. you get less of a face full of sea, relatively speaking.
As John Farley has explained previously, ramps do cause issues with nose oleo compression/bottom-out at high AUW and/or ramp exit speeds so there is a trade off to be considered.
IMHO I'm glad UK went for a ramp option for QEC as I believe it provides the safest margin through-life as engine wear takes its toll on performance.
Last edited by MSOCS; 20th Sep 2013 at 11:27.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How happy would folks be if they had to operate this aircraft in contested airspace with little or no AEW capability?
We are all hearing how Crowsnest will be available sometime in the 'near future' but talk is cheap, deeds perhaps not quite as cheap and then how will that capability compare to a conventional fixed wing aircraft capability?
I am sure the T45 will give an adequate air early warning for those airborne threats that are kind enough to fly high enough to be detected but what about the threat that is not so obliging?
Will the carrier always have to operate under the protection of shore based assets or is it going to project power as per the First Sea Lords latest utterances.
Going slightly off topic, I was VERY surprised to hear these ships will be expected to operate with a crew of less than 700?? That would be an amaing achievement especially as they try to suggest this will be the numbers for when they are fully operational with a full complement of aircraft?
We are all hearing how Crowsnest will be available sometime in the 'near future' but talk is cheap, deeds perhaps not quite as cheap and then how will that capability compare to a conventional fixed wing aircraft capability?
I am sure the T45 will give an adequate air early warning for those airborne threats that are kind enough to fly high enough to be detected but what about the threat that is not so obliging?
Will the carrier always have to operate under the protection of shore based assets or is it going to project power as per the First Sea Lords latest utterances.
Going slightly off topic, I was VERY surprised to hear these ships will be expected to operate with a crew of less than 700?? That would be an amaing achievement especially as they try to suggest this will be the numbers for when they are fully operational with a full complement of aircraft?
Going slightly off topic, I was VERY surprised to hear these ships will be expected to operate with a crew of less than 700?? That would be an amaing achievement especially as they try to suggest this will be the numbers for when they are fully operational with a full complement of aircraft?
The ships complement (inc Air and AE depts) is I believe around the 700 mark as per CVS. The CAG and any Flag element will obviously bring more bodies.
Re Mk1's post -
When I hear people say that the JSF program must be all good, because the professionals who have the security clearances all say that it's good, which clearly trumps the opinions of armchair experts (dunno who they are, I never type in my armchair)...
I remind them that, exactly 100 years ago, the smartest military staff in the world, commanding the world's best trained and equipped army and with access to unique and advanced technology, was compiling the latest version of a plan that they firmly believed would gain them dominance of continental Europe in a matter of months.
When I hear people say that the JSF program must be all good, because the professionals who have the security clearances all say that it's good, which clearly trumps the opinions of armchair experts (dunno who they are, I never type in my armchair)...
I remind them that, exactly 100 years ago, the smartest military staff in the world, commanding the world's best trained and equipped army and with access to unique and advanced technology, was compiling the latest version of a plan that they firmly believed would gain them dominance of continental Europe in a matter of months.
Last edited by LowObservable; 20th Sep 2013 at 14:29.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Not a Boffin,
'They' were Captain Petitt RN but on reflection it may well be WITHOUT the embarked aircraft. He talks of a complement of 632. Many apologies for speaking before confirming
It is still a very, very small complement
'They' were Captain Petitt RN but on reflection it may well be WITHOUT the embarked aircraft. He talks of a complement of 632. Many apologies for speaking before confirming
It is still a very, very small complement
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
F-35 Regional Co-Operation to Lower Costs of said operation
Lockheed Martin Girds for Combat Jet Choices as Dutch Back JSF 21 Sep 2013 Robert Wall
Lockheed Martin Girds for Combat Jet Choices as Dutch Back JSF - Bloomberg
"...Norway and the U.K. have agreed to cooperate on their [F-35] maintenance and use. The Norwegian government said Sept. 17 it would seek to extend that cooperation to the Netherlands.
Those relationships should help lower usage costs across Europe, which would be further aided by U.S. F-35s jets deployed in the region, O’Bryan said. It would clear the way for a sharing of parts and experience...."
Those relationships should help lower usage costs across Europe, which would be further aided by U.S. F-35s jets deployed in the region, O’Bryan said. It would clear the way for a sharing of parts and experience...."
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lockheed Martin Girds for Combat Jet Choices as Dutch Back JSF 21 Sep 2013 Robert Wall
Lockheed Martin Girds for Combat Jet Choices as Dutch Back JSF - Bloomberg
Lockheed Martin Girds for Combat Jet Choices as Dutch Back JSF - Bloomberg
Well, once again [and as usual ] the spin drs rule this program.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that most posts on this topic have less connection with the thread title than possibly any others on PPRuNe.
Time to shut it and start a more realistic thread?
After all, does even the most anti camp (whatever their motives) really believe the programme is going to be cancelled at this stage? The USAF have made it clear it is one of the three programmes they want to keep even if it means loosing all sorts of others and the USMC is the USMC once they have made up their mind (and they have never lost a procurement battle since 1970).
Time to shut it and start a more realistic thread?
After all, does even the most anti camp (whatever their motives) really believe the programme is going to be cancelled at this stage? The USAF have made it clear it is one of the three programmes they want to keep even if it means loosing all sorts of others and the USMC is the USMC once they have made up their mind (and they have never lost a procurement battle since 1970).
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its also possible the US will collapse totally due to its debt levels. If that happens I wonder what will happen to F-35! I also wonder what will happen to all of us as we likely will have a collapsed economy to.
The debt cannot keep building up like this, something has to give!
The debt cannot keep building up like this, something has to give!
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH
Sorry I don't know what financial mess you are refering to. The cost escalation? If so I don't see that as other than normal for all projects. As for the USMC why bin the B when it has done everything it has been asked to do as a flying machine (late doesn't count because evey project is always late and honestly what is another couple of years in a 40-45 year sevice life?
I am totally opposed to a close air support aircraft spec including supersonics (let alone stealth) so I am anti the USMC B but that does not mean I think it should or is likely to be scrapped. Funnily enough in my view a supersonic vertical lander makes more sense for the UK than the USMC. How about that for irony.
Sorry I don't know what financial mess you are refering to. The cost escalation? If so I don't see that as other than normal for all projects. As for the USMC why bin the B when it has done everything it has been asked to do as a flying machine (late doesn't count because evey project is always late and honestly what is another couple of years in a 40-45 year sevice life?
I am totally opposed to a close air support aircraft spec including supersonics (let alone stealth) so I am anti the USMC B but that does not mean I think it should or is likely to be scrapped. Funnily enough in my view a supersonic vertical lander makes more sense for the UK than the USMC. How about that for irony.
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
I doubt most here are seriously doubting an all out cancellation of the JSF program is written in the stars, that being said there are many scenarios possible for a lot of the current customers whereby the original order changes so much that alternate set-ups for their Air Forces are very likely.
Al least in Europe, and possibly also Canada and to a lesser extent Australia, the original order volumes seem more than ever unlikely to materialize.
There are many ways where the losses are going to have to be made up by other options, combined Air forces, more integration between different forces concerning maintenance, training, etc... (UK-Norway-NL-....?), maybe even cheaper to use platforms to make up for lost numbers (K50, NG-Gripen, F16V,F18SSH).
There are even scenarios out there whereby the biggest customer (USAF) might have to look at a second, cheaper to use platform to assist the F35 over its lifespan (weaponised TX).
The JSF , as it was originally conceived , seems to have gone through enough changes for this thread to warrant its existence and ,for now, to be kept alive.
Al least in Europe, and possibly also Canada and to a lesser extent Australia, the original order volumes seem more than ever unlikely to materialize.
There are many ways where the losses are going to have to be made up by other options, combined Air forces, more integration between different forces concerning maintenance, training, etc... (UK-Norway-NL-....?), maybe even cheaper to use platforms to make up for lost numbers (K50, NG-Gripen, F16V,F18SSH).
There are even scenarios out there whereby the biggest customer (USAF) might have to look at a second, cheaper to use platform to assist the F35 over its lifespan (weaponised TX).
The JSF , as it was originally conceived , seems to have gone through enough changes for this thread to warrant its existence and ,for now, to be kept alive.
The thread starter was referring to the UK's program...
The full program is unlikely to be cancelled at this point.
The largest customer - the USAF - has painted itself into a corner. Even if the JSF is acquired as planned, it will still have a majority force of 40-year-old jets by 2030.
The US Navy is internally split (hence the CNO's hot-and-cold pronouncements on JSF and stealth in general) and hence is easy for the Pentagon top bosses to keep in line.
The Marines want the B, of course, because it is their own air force (neither the USAF nor big Navy wants the B). But it's not (in the Marine view) their money.
For the SecDef and joint leadership, cancellation would be a vast loss of face.
"Too big to fail" means "too big to face the consequence of failure".
The full program is unlikely to be cancelled at this point.
The largest customer - the USAF - has painted itself into a corner. Even if the JSF is acquired as planned, it will still have a majority force of 40-year-old jets by 2030.
The US Navy is internally split (hence the CNO's hot-and-cold pronouncements on JSF and stealth in general) and hence is easy for the Pentagon top bosses to keep in line.
The Marines want the B, of course, because it is their own air force (neither the USAF nor big Navy wants the B). But it's not (in the Marine view) their money.
For the SecDef and joint leadership, cancellation would be a vast loss of face.
"Too big to fail" means "too big to face the consequence of failure".
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably both the US and UK glad rag! Would imagine if the US does go it will take us down to plus much of the western world. It would likely make the 1930s look like a picnic! 
If it does happen I wonder if anyone will be able to afford to fly anything at all let alone buy large numbers of F-35.
If it does happen I wonder if anyone will be able to afford to fly anything at all let alone buy large numbers of F-35.