F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
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
Noise Clarification from AFA Magazine
On previous page there is a noisy story: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post8724438
Clarification on F-35 Noise 04 Nov 2014 AFA Mag'n
Air Force Magazine
&
ORIGINAL AFA story referenced above:
F-35 Noise “Good to Go” 31 Oct 2014 John A. Tirpak
http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive...Go”.aspx
Clarification on F-35 Noise 04 Nov 2014 AFA Mag'n
"F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said an engine with the same decibel level of noise as another may be perceived as louder if the character of the noise has a higher or deeper pitched tone. During a press briefing on Oct. 30, Bogdan made an analogy to the F-4 Phantom (see F-35 Noise Good to Go). However, the F-35 engine noise study to which he referred did not compare the F-35’s sound to that of the F-4."
&
ORIGINAL AFA story referenced above:
F-35 Noise “Good to Go” 31 Oct 2014 John A. Tirpak
"Studies of F-35 noise relative to legacy fighters will be released Friday, and will show that “on the ground, at full military power,” which is full power without afterburner, the F-35 is “actually quieter, by a little bit” than legacy aircraft such as the F-15, F/A-18, and F-16, F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said Thursday. That means the F-35 is “good to go” for beddowns in the US, he said. This “real noise data” should dispel rumors that the F-35 will be much louder than its predecessors. Part of the reason is that the F-35 is “very sleek in its outer mold line, without a lot of drag,” Bogdan said. Using afterburner, however, the F-35 is considerably noisier than its predecessors, as it generates 43,000 pounds of thrust. Its noise will be on a par with the old F-4 Phantom, Bogdan reported. Although its character is different, the F-4 noise is deeper than that of the F-35, he said. The differences, however, may be hard to detect with the human ear, which cannot perceive differences of up to three decibels, he reported. The numbers were developed in 2013 and “validate” numbers developed in 2008 with an early, pre-production version of the F-35."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 4th Nov 2014 at 20:07. Reason: adtxt
Spaz, welcome back. Strangely abscent whilst there was no good news to peddle. Now you're over-doing it. I don't want you to strain yourself. I'm concerned about you.
Now, it would be easy to blow this deck landing into some huge celebration of of a wonderful achievement. Something done against all the odds. Not something it was designed to do and should have done a long time ago.
Celebrate, by all means - I do - but don't forget this is actually a recovery from another troubling failure, a delayed milestone, a late success. Fortunately, it is a success and I for one am pleased to see it. But let's not all get carried away with how wonderful it suddenly makes things. Slow progress now, please.
Sorry to interrupt your run of posts. I guess you have lost time to make up for.
Regards,
Courtney
Now, it would be easy to blow this deck landing into some huge celebration of of a wonderful achievement. Something done against all the odds. Not something it was designed to do and should have done a long time ago.
Celebrate, by all means - I do - but don't forget this is actually a recovery from another troubling failure, a delayed milestone, a late success. Fortunately, it is a success and I for one am pleased to see it. But let's not all get carried away with how wonderful it suddenly makes things. Slow progress now, please.
Sorry to interrupt your run of posts. I guess you have lost time to make up for.
Regards,
Courtney
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Age: 30
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it just me, or did anybody else notice the irony in a 'stealth plane' being loud enough to be compared to a Phantom, while in full burner?
Unfortunately, I have never heard a Phantom, and I doubt I ever will, however I have heard that at full power, it hurt your ears even with ear protection. I don't know how true that is, but if it is true, then saying that it is a pretty loud aircraft is quite an understatement. So why is something so loud being implemented in to a stealth aircraft?
Also, how is the engine going to cope? How many maintenance hours will this engine need per flying hour (approximately)?
Unfortunately, I have never heard a Phantom, and I doubt I ever will, however I have heard that at full power, it hurt your ears even with ear protection. I don't know how true that is, but if it is true, then saying that it is a pretty loud aircraft is quite an understatement. So why is something so loud being implemented in to a stealth aircraft?
Also, how is the engine going to cope? How many maintenance hours will this engine need per flying hour (approximately)?
Nothing personal at all, Spaz. I simply want to keep the sudden spate of "ain't it so wonderful" posts in perspective. As I said, this is long-overdue recovery, not a marvellous achievement. But I'm still glad they finally fixed the hook. I hope they have.
Typhoon,
To be honest, I'm sure that noise output is that much of a stealth issue, although I take your point. It's been a long time since the Royal Observer Corps listened for aircraft.
Acoustic Radar.
The issue here is how much the MoD will have to pay for sound-proofing houses around its F-35 base(s) because of its noise footprint. That is why interested parties have been known to down-play certain noise footprints. Sadly, the report you may have seen does not fully address the criteria that inquiries setting "compensation boundaries" will wish to consider.
The F-4 was a noisy beast, but the F-3 in combat power was far more intrusive. Not immesdiately obvious from dBA graphs because of the way they are measured. In that case is was the higher frequencies in the noise from the F-3 that caused SOME of the problem.
It's not a simple issue. As ever.
To be honest, I'm sure that noise output is that much of a stealth issue, although I take your point. It's been a long time since the Royal Observer Corps listened for aircraft.
Acoustic Radar.
The issue here is how much the MoD will have to pay for sound-proofing houses around its F-35 base(s) because of its noise footprint. That is why interested parties have been known to down-play certain noise footprints. Sadly, the report you may have seen does not fully address the criteria that inquiries setting "compensation boundaries" will wish to consider.
The F-4 was a noisy beast, but the F-3 in combat power was far more intrusive. Not immesdiately obvious from dBA graphs because of the way they are measured. In that case is was the higher frequencies in the noise from the F-3 that caused SOME of the problem.
It's not a simple issue. As ever.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Age: 30
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks CM.
So, roughly how many Squadrons will be stood up for the F-35? How many more are due to be stood up for the E/Typhoon?
There has been lots of talk about the new Royal Navy carriers being capable of carrying 36 aircraft plus helicopters (I doubt there will be many helicopters?). Although with the enormous cost of each aircraft, and its maintenance, not to mention the cost to train personnel in their maintenance and operation, realistically, are we ever likely to see HMS Queen Elizabeth and her sister ship carrying 72 fast jets between them?
If this is the case, then how many other Squadrons would the RAF have for operating from airfields?
So, roughly how many Squadrons will be stood up for the F-35? How many more are due to be stood up for the E/Typhoon?
There has been lots of talk about the new Royal Navy carriers being capable of carrying 36 aircraft plus helicopters (I doubt there will be many helicopters?). Although with the enormous cost of each aircraft, and its maintenance, not to mention the cost to train personnel in their maintenance and operation, realistically, are we ever likely to see HMS Queen Elizabeth and her sister ship carrying 72 fast jets between them?
If this is the case, then how many other Squadrons would the RAF have for operating from airfields?
Typhoon93, final numbers for UK F-35B not fully decided. Original thoughts were about 130/113 in about 5 front line squadrons, plus training, spare and reserve aircraft.
14 ordered. Next term goal is 48 aircraft, the stated minimum to have 2 squadrons, a training element, test, maintenence, spares etc.
I think the final UK order will be above 48, but less than 120.
Load out between B's and helos on new carriers totally depends on the mission. For an air defense or just carrier strike mission you will have B heavy air wing (Kosovo). An Assault carrier mission, evacuation, ASW, etc helo heavy. Falklands II a mix. The scenario of both carriers with a full max load of B's is unlikely.
14 ordered. Next term goal is 48 aircraft, the stated minimum to have 2 squadrons, a training element, test, maintenence, spares etc.
I think the final UK order will be above 48, but less than 120.
Load out between B's and helos on new carriers totally depends on the mission. For an air defense or just carrier strike mission you will have B heavy air wing (Kosovo). An Assault carrier mission, evacuation, ASW, etc helo heavy. Falklands II a mix. The scenario of both carriers with a full max load of B's is unlikely.
F-35 Noise “Good to Go” 31 Oct 2014 John A. Tirpak
Quote:
"Studies of F-35 noise relative to legacy fighters will be released Friday, and will show that “on the ground, at full military power,” which is full power without afterburner, the F-35 is “actually quieter, by a little bit” than legacy aircraft such as the F-15, F/A-18, and F-16, F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said Thursday. That means the F-35 is “good to go” for beddowns in the US, he said. This “real noise data” should dispel rumors that the F-35 will be much louder than its predecessors. Part of the reason is that the F-35 is “very sleek in its outer mold line, without a lot of drag,” Bogdan said. Using afterburner, however, the F-35 is considerably noisier than its predecessors, as it generates 43,000 pounds of thrust. Its noise will be on a par with the old F-4 Phantom, Bogdan reported. Although its character is different, the F-4 noise is deeper than that of the F-35, he said. The differences, however, may be hard to detect with the human ear, which cannot perceive differences of up to three decibels, he reported. The numbers were developed in 2013 and “validate” numbers developed in 2008 with an early, pre-production version of the F-35."
Quote:
"Studies of F-35 noise relative to legacy fighters will be released Friday, and will show that “on the ground, at full military power,” which is full power without afterburner, the F-35 is “actually quieter, by a little bit” than legacy aircraft such as the F-15, F/A-18, and F-16, F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said Thursday. That means the F-35 is “good to go” for beddowns in the US, he said. This “real noise data” should dispel rumors that the F-35 will be much louder than its predecessors. Part of the reason is that the F-35 is “very sleek in its outer mold line, without a lot of drag,” Bogdan said. Using afterburner, however, the F-35 is considerably noisier than its predecessors, as it generates 43,000 pounds of thrust. Its noise will be on a par with the old F-4 Phantom, Bogdan reported. Although its character is different, the F-4 noise is deeper than that of the F-35, he said. The differences, however, may be hard to detect with the human ear, which cannot perceive differences of up to three decibels, he reported. The numbers were developed in 2013 and “validate” numbers developed in 2008 with an early, pre-production version of the F-35."
FB
14 ordered
First 48 'committed to', of which first 4 have been agreed (see above). Final numbers to be revealved at SDSR15, with final bulk order in 2017 (Main Gate 5).
I think the final UK order will be above 48, but less than 120.
however I have heard that at full power, it hurt your ears even with ear protection.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Age: 30
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it might be split A/B buy rather than solely B
I meant 'think' in the context of conversations I have had with government officials, programme officials, and serving military who are connected in some way shape or form with the programme. That, and the knowledge of the different variants that I have garnered during visits to the production facility in Texas and to the various military establishments that will house them in the US, rather than 'think' in the context of no knowledge and a cursory glance at the RAF's website.
