F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Ken - Why don't you write about what you think, and why, rather than writing about what you think other people are about to say, before they say it, even when they weren't going to?
Did you get a degree in post-structuralist literature?
PS - No conspiracy theories needed, aside from the AF's fighter community's ever-present desire to get rid of the A-10 and anything that looks like it.
Did you get a degree in post-structuralist literature?
PS - No conspiracy theories needed, aside from the AF's fighter community's ever-present desire to get rid of the A-10 and anything that looks like it.
By Jove, KenV, I believe you hit a nerve!
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken - Why don't you write about what you think, and why.......Did you get a degree in post-structuralist literature?
As for what I think and why:
I think it entirely plausible for someone in the orthodox anti-F35 community to make such a claim
The reason why is because that community has already claimed that the entire USN test pilot community are bought and paid for shills of LM. That's far more far fetched and inflammatory than suggesting LM paid off someone to influence a single JORD requirement, so making such a claim would fit that community rather well. My sarcasm was intended to point that out. But note that I've made no suggestions as to which forum members belong to that orthodox community. That's up to them to decide.
No conspiracy theories needed, aside from the AF's fighter community's ever-present desire to get rid of the A-10 and anything that looks like it.
1. No conspiracy theories are needed for the F-35's many issues, either. Yet the orthodox community has been rife with posting countless such conspiracy theories in this very thread.
2. Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, and a pretty big wig in the "AF fighter community" you referenced said: “My requirements guys are in the process of building a draft-requirements document for a follow-on CAS airplane. It’s interesting work that at some point we’ll be able to talk [about] with you a little bit more.” Will those requirements include stealth and thus the resulting jet look more like the F-35, or will they not require stealth and thus look more like the A-10? And maybe it will include a requirement to be designed around a future directed energy weapon, just as the A-10 was designed around the GAU-8? Who knows?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know if this counts as "good" news, but I'm confident that the orthodox believers will find a way to show this is "bad" news.
Britain To Start Construction Of F-35 Facilities
LONDON — Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and British building firm Balfour Beatty have been contracted by the U.K. defense ministry to build the new facilities that
will support and house the British F-35 fleet. The three companies will share a £142 million ($200 million) to construct three facilities at RAF Marham, Norfolk, the base
selected to become the main operating location for Britain’s F-35 Lightning Force, jointly run by the Royal Air Force (RAF) and Royal Navy.
The three facilities will include a Logistic Operations Center, an Integrated Training Center and a Maintenance and Final Finishes center responsible for the maintenance of the aircraft and its low-observability stealth coatings. The three buildings will be a key element in the U.K.’s requirement for a so-called Freedom of Action capability allowing Britain to conduct F-35 operations independently. Work on the new facilities will begin in the next few weeks, Lockheed Martin U.K. announced April 7, with the facilities due to be ready for the first British frontline F-35 unit, 617 Sqn. – known as The Dambusters — to begin using them during the summer of 2018.
Of the £142 million, £118 million has been awarded to PROGRAMS subcontractor BAE Systems, who will manage the project, while £82.5 million will go Balfour Beatty for the construction work itself.
Three separate contracts for the U.K. Defense Infrastructure Organization (DIO), worth a total of £25 million, have been awarded to prepare electrical power supplies, local utilities and demolish old buildings to make way for the new F-35 facilities. The announcement coincides with the completion of the tenth aft section being built for the U.K.’s F-35 fleet.
Britain currently has four F-35Bs operational: three at Edwards AFB, California, and one located at MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina, to support training. The size of the U.K. fleet should double during 2016 with the arrival of four more aircraft, the first of which, BK-5, is expected at Beaufort in May. The rest of the aircraft also will be delivered to Beaufort, allowing the U.K. to begin standing up 617 Sqn. from within a U.S. Marine Corps unit, VMFAT-501, during 2018. 617 Sqn. will move back to the U.K. in the summer of 2018 and move into the new facilities at Marham. Additional works also are planned for Marham including the construction of hover pads and improvements to taxiways and runways ready for F-35 operations. The DIO has been asked by Aviation Week when work on this additional infrastructure will
get underway, but the organization had not replied at the time of publication.
Britain To Start Construction Of F-35 Facilities
LONDON — Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and British building firm Balfour Beatty have been contracted by the U.K. defense ministry to build the new facilities that
will support and house the British F-35 fleet. The three companies will share a £142 million ($200 million) to construct three facilities at RAF Marham, Norfolk, the base
selected to become the main operating location for Britain’s F-35 Lightning Force, jointly run by the Royal Air Force (RAF) and Royal Navy.
The three facilities will include a Logistic Operations Center, an Integrated Training Center and a Maintenance and Final Finishes center responsible for the maintenance of the aircraft and its low-observability stealth coatings. The three buildings will be a key element in the U.K.’s requirement for a so-called Freedom of Action capability allowing Britain to conduct F-35 operations independently. Work on the new facilities will begin in the next few weeks, Lockheed Martin U.K. announced April 7, with the facilities due to be ready for the first British frontline F-35 unit, 617 Sqn. – known as The Dambusters — to begin using them during the summer of 2018.
Of the £142 million, £118 million has been awarded to PROGRAMS subcontractor BAE Systems, who will manage the project, while £82.5 million will go Balfour Beatty for the construction work itself.
Three separate contracts for the U.K. Defense Infrastructure Organization (DIO), worth a total of £25 million, have been awarded to prepare electrical power supplies, local utilities and demolish old buildings to make way for the new F-35 facilities. The announcement coincides with the completion of the tenth aft section being built for the U.K.’s F-35 fleet.
Britain currently has four F-35Bs operational: three at Edwards AFB, California, and one located at MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina, to support training. The size of the U.K. fleet should double during 2016 with the arrival of four more aircraft, the first of which, BK-5, is expected at Beaufort in May. The rest of the aircraft also will be delivered to Beaufort, allowing the U.K. to begin standing up 617 Sqn. from within a U.S. Marine Corps unit, VMFAT-501, during 2018. 617 Sqn. will move back to the U.K. in the summer of 2018 and move into the new facilities at Marham. Additional works also are planned for Marham including the construction of hover pads and improvements to taxiways and runways ready for F-35 operations. The DIO has been asked by Aviation Week when work on this additional infrastructure will
get underway, but the organization had not replied at the time of publication.
Well it is Grand National weekend [when even bed ridden grannies make to the bookies then lie screaming at the telly] -anythings worth a punt However, and more importantly, this is a decisive step towards UK ownership of rights to maintain, modify and develop those F35B and their systems, which are in UK service, to meet UK service requirements.
Last edited by glad rag; 8th Apr 2016 at 19:00.
The reason why is because that community has already claimed that the entire USN test pilot community are bought and paid for shills of LM.
Missed that one, and I certainly wouldn't make that statement myself. Citation?
Maybe you're thinking of the time that a LockMart consultant accused Pentagon testers of delaying the program for personal gain.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/pentag...burdensharing/
Missed that one, and I certainly wouldn't make that statement myself. Citation?
Maybe you're thinking of the time that a LockMart consultant accused Pentagon testers of delaying the program for personal gain.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/pentag...burdensharing/
Last edited by LowObservable; 9th Apr 2016 at 00:50.
Additional works also are planned for Marham including the construction of hover pads
So if you're planning to add that professional-grade pizza oven to your kitchen, now's the time to order the materials before the MoD bids the price up...
So if you're planning to add that professional-grade pizza oven to your kitchen, now's the time to order the materials before the MoD bids the price up...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe Everest et al are HALO'ing operatives in as we speak...
Last edited by glad rag; 8th Apr 2016 at 19:58. Reason: claiming tablet rights!
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah LO, 'tis the same ole me. Sorry.
I speak as I find, where I can, and views are always my own.
Though the USAF is gunning (excuse pun) for a new Warthog, the F-35 has already conducted CAS trials in OT and by the Line squadrons alike, and performed remarkably well.
Clearly it also brings a contested airspace utility which the A-10 (and nearly all other fast platforms) lack. We can all argue until we're blue in the face about the usefulness of stealth but it has a quality of its own, applicable to every mission it does.
In time the increasing weapon type clearances will add to the CAS load outs possible. I'd compare F-35 CAS capability more to F-16 and F-18 and not A-10. Primarily not designed for 'in your face' gunnery and no Ti bath tub etc.
I speak as I find, where I can, and views are always my own.
Though the USAF is gunning (excuse pun) for a new Warthog, the F-35 has already conducted CAS trials in OT and by the Line squadrons alike, and performed remarkably well.
Clearly it also brings a contested airspace utility which the A-10 (and nearly all other fast platforms) lack. We can all argue until we're blue in the face about the usefulness of stealth but it has a quality of its own, applicable to every mission it does.
In time the increasing weapon type clearances will add to the CAS load outs possible. I'd compare F-35 CAS capability more to F-16 and F-18 and not A-10. Primarily not designed for 'in your face' gunnery and no Ti bath tub etc.
The reason why is because that community has already claimed that the entire USN test pilot community are bought and paid for shills of LM.
OK, Ken, you've had nearly 24 hours to back up or retract this claim, and now I'm calling
on it.
I'm 99.999 per cent certain that nobody said it here; I'm pretty sure that nobody has said it in print anywhere.
OK, Ken, you've had nearly 24 hours to back up or retract this claim, and now I'm calling
on it. I'm 99.999 per cent certain that nobody said it here; I'm pretty sure that nobody has said it in print anywhere.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO
Give it a rest. You and everybody on here know the point he was trying to make. It has been suggested on here enough times that whenever the various military pilots involved say something positive that they are not free to speak their true minds.
Give it a rest. You and everybody on here know the point he was trying to make. It has been suggested on here enough times that whenever the various military pilots involved say something positive that they are not free to speak their true minds.
Tourist,
Had he said something like that I would not argue with him. And as we also all know, the largest F-35 customer has placed all its people under orders to tell a positive story in public.
But that's not what he said, at all. Mottes and baileys again...
Had he said something like that I would not argue with him. And as we also all know, the largest F-35 customer has placed all its people under orders to tell a positive story in public.
But that's not what he said, at all. Mottes and baileys again...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting. I actually know a guy that worked on the design of the metal grate landing pad built at L-M Palmdale for F-35B testing.
Heating of the carrier deck from engine exhaust has been a problem with the AV-8, the V-22, and the F-35B.
Heating of the carrier deck from engine exhaust has been a problem with the AV-8, the V-22, and the F-35B.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the UK, both the carriers will have a deck coating to mitigate accumulated heat damage from repeated F-35B recoveries. The proprietary, non-skid, Thermal Metallic Spray (TMS) has been developed by Monitor Coatings of South Shields, nr Newcastle (UK) and is performing very well under test by all accounts. Durability also very good.
Probably can't be applied to wood but then I'm pretty sure we don't have a scorched deck policy!
Probably can't be applied to wood but then I'm pretty sure we don't have a scorched deck policy!
Last edited by MSOCS; 10th Apr 2016 at 11:57.
RR - there's a question of degree (degrees?). John Farley landed a Harrier on a ship with a wooden deck, and I don't think you'd do that with an F-35B. At least not twice.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One could reasonably wonder why if the AV-8B and MV-22 had known issues with thermal stress on deck (and under deck) structures, why did the America Class require such an extensive redesign (and yard period) to accommodate the F-35B? It cost hundreds of millions of dollars to modify and refit the LHA-6 and the USS Wasp, and millions more will be spent modify the follow-on LHA-7, and refit other amphibs (LHA-8 will have the mods incorporated into its build.) These are not limited to mechanical structures: electrical systems, mx departments, space for ALIS, etc. - all need modification. I think it's reasonable to assume that A wasn't talking to B, and the thermal and mechanical loads that the F-35B imparts on underlying structures is much greater than anticipated.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maus, as far as I know, there was no requirement for F-35B to have a thermal burden, 'no greater than that of AV-8 or MV-22'. The USMC's total commitment to F-35B therefore attracts an additional cost of bringing other USMC assets (MOB, LHA etc) up to whatever standards the the jet requires to effectively operate. Exactly how many of those assets are encompassed in this modernisation is, I am fairly sure, a DoN&MC call, no? The Royal Navy are looking at applying TMS onto other decks and not just the QE Class carriers. Why? Well, not only is TMS able to withstand much more heating effects; it has more durability/life than CAMREX afaiu so it is seen as a wider investment beyond just F-35B. For instance, should V-22 grace their decks then the ships are already prepped.
Just my opinion.
Just my opinion.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TMS must be pretty special stuff [akin to the effectivness of the shuttle thermal blocks] if it's going to comtrol heat transfer through the deck metals.
Good to see innovative British engineering!!
Good to see innovative British engineering!!
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One could reasonably wonder why if the AV-8B and MV-22 had known issues with thermal stress on deck (and under deck) structures, why did the America Class require such an extensive redesign (and yard period) to accommodate the F-35B? It cost hundreds of millions of dollars to modify and refit the LHA-6 and the USS Wasp, and millions more will be spent modify the follow-on LHA-7, and refit other amphibs (LHA-8 will have the mods incorporated into its build.) These are not limited to mechanical structures: electrical systems, mx departments, space for ALIS, etc. - all need modification. I think it's reasonable to assume that A wasn't talking to B, and the thermal and mechanical loads that the F-35B imparts on underlying structures is much greater than anticipated.
Otherwise you risk trying to negotiate some amorphous engineering change proposal under a contract change proposal. It becomes sole source and isn't negotiated in a competitive environment. Not a good thing for cost & schedule.
The USS America refit looks like pretty sound project management.