F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
The F-35 will make its official international debut at the Royal International Air Tattoo and Farnborough Air Show in the United Kingdom next month.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good news for Norfolk?
F-35 Not Much Noisier Than F-16, Say Dutch
F-35 Not Much Noisier Than F-16, Say Dutch
It would seem that the Dutch are rather sensitive to noise...
When we had an air force, the RAFG Harriers at Wildenrath were moved to Gutersloh, with F-4s moving in to take their place.
Some local German mayor got wind of this and wrote a somewhat pompous note to his Cloggy oppo, just over the border, something along the lines of "The noise of der Phantom vill be much vorse than it voz mit der Harrier! Can ve ask you to help us complain?"
The reply from the Netherlands was quite brief - "Yes, we know that the F-4 is noisier than the Harrier. But we prefer the noise of either to the noise of the Stuka!".
No further correspondence was forthcoming....
When we had an air force, the RAFG Harriers at Wildenrath were moved to Gutersloh, with F-4s moving in to take their place.
Some local German mayor got wind of this and wrote a somewhat pompous note to his Cloggy oppo, just over the border, something along the lines of "The noise of der Phantom vill be much vorse than it voz mit der Harrier! Can ve ask you to help us complain?"
The reply from the Netherlands was quite brief - "Yes, we know that the F-4 is noisier than the Harrier. But we prefer the noise of either to the noise of the Stuka!".
No further correspondence was forthcoming....
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozy,
Perhaps I can help here. Some while back, I was closely involved with F-35 noise studies (all variants).
Of course perceived noise (i.e. the noise a person will hear) will be different for an F-35B hovering to an F-35A in the circuit. The F-35B will be close to the ground, the A will be a few hundred feet up. So, yes, a B in the hover will be noisier than an A in the circuit, as long as you are standing fairly close to the landing area.
The noise emitted from the main engine in the F-35 at max power is very nearly the same for all three types. For the F-35B in the hover, the main engine exhaust is actually delivering about 50% less thrust, as half of the engine power is being sent forward to the shaft driven fan. The noise signature around the jet during landing ops is higher than for the Harrier, but can be managed. I understand that sound insulation is being fitted under the F-35B deck landing areas, much as has been done for many years under CVNs' catapults.
The most severe noise issue with any F-35 variant is for the F-35C and the USN carrier flight deck catapult launch crew, who have to be close to the aircraft while it is at high power before launch. The F-35C's noise signature was found to be very close to 'legacy' jets like the Super Hornet, and was well mapped and understood, especially once the USN had carried out special trials in front of a Jet Blast Deflector (JBD).
For deck launch, F-35B noise is less of a problem than for the C, for much the same reason as landing - less energy is being generated by the very fast hot engine exhaust, and the forward lift fan exhaust is being directed at the deck, where it disperses rapidly.
The whole issue of F-35 noise has been very carefully addressed for many years, with BAE leading the effort in measuring and characterising the aircraft's external environment. This is complicated stuff and the team I worked with were absolutely world class - and recognised as such by their US counterparts.
The biggest problem with noise in the UK is not the aircraft, but the UK MoD's decision to impose limits for noise exposure set out by EU Noise and Vibration legislation. These are FAR more stringent than anything the US required, and have led to very extensive (and successful) efforts to protect QEC carrier flight deck crews.
Hope this helps a little
Best regards as ever to all those trying to keep the noise down,
Engines
Perhaps I can help here. Some while back, I was closely involved with F-35 noise studies (all variants).
Of course perceived noise (i.e. the noise a person will hear) will be different for an F-35B hovering to an F-35A in the circuit. The F-35B will be close to the ground, the A will be a few hundred feet up. So, yes, a B in the hover will be noisier than an A in the circuit, as long as you are standing fairly close to the landing area.
The noise emitted from the main engine in the F-35 at max power is very nearly the same for all three types. For the F-35B in the hover, the main engine exhaust is actually delivering about 50% less thrust, as half of the engine power is being sent forward to the shaft driven fan. The noise signature around the jet during landing ops is higher than for the Harrier, but can be managed. I understand that sound insulation is being fitted under the F-35B deck landing areas, much as has been done for many years under CVNs' catapults.
The most severe noise issue with any F-35 variant is for the F-35C and the USN carrier flight deck catapult launch crew, who have to be close to the aircraft while it is at high power before launch. The F-35C's noise signature was found to be very close to 'legacy' jets like the Super Hornet, and was well mapped and understood, especially once the USN had carried out special trials in front of a Jet Blast Deflector (JBD).
For deck launch, F-35B noise is less of a problem than for the C, for much the same reason as landing - less energy is being generated by the very fast hot engine exhaust, and the forward lift fan exhaust is being directed at the deck, where it disperses rapidly.
The whole issue of F-35 noise has been very carefully addressed for many years, with BAE leading the effort in measuring and characterising the aircraft's external environment. This is complicated stuff and the team I worked with were absolutely world class - and recognised as such by their US counterparts.
The biggest problem with noise in the UK is not the aircraft, but the UK MoD's decision to impose limits for noise exposure set out by EU Noise and Vibration legislation. These are FAR more stringent than anything the US required, and have led to very extensive (and successful) efforts to protect QEC carrier flight deck crews.
Hope this helps a little
Best regards as ever to all those trying to keep the noise down,
Engines
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Air Force Plan For 2030 Doesn't Mention The F-35
".....If there is anything that defines the Air Force in 2030, it should be the ubiquity and inadequacy of the F-35....."
http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/document...ght%20Plan.pdf
"....Penetrating Counterair (PCA). Capability development efforts for PCA will focus on maximizing tradeoffs between range, payload, survivability, lethality, affordability, and supportability. While PCA capability will certainly have a role in targeting and engaging, it also has a significant role as a node in the network, providing data from its penetrating sensors to enable employment using either stand-off or stand-in weapons. As part of this effort, the Air Force should proceed with a formal AoA in 2017 for a PCA capability. Consistent with an agile acquisition mindset designed to deliver the right capability on the required timeline, this AoA will include options to leverage rapid development and prototyping in order to keep ahead of the threat......."
"The Air Force’s projected force structure in 2030 is not capable of fighting and winning against this array of potential adversary capabilities....... "
"Capability development efforts for PCA will focus on maximizing tradeoffs between range, payload, survivability, lethality, affordability, and supportability........"
".....If there is anything that defines the Air Force in 2030, it should be the ubiquity and inadequacy of the F-35....."
http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/document...ght%20Plan.pdf
"....Penetrating Counterair (PCA). Capability development efforts for PCA will focus on maximizing tradeoffs between range, payload, survivability, lethality, affordability, and supportability. While PCA capability will certainly have a role in targeting and engaging, it also has a significant role as a node in the network, providing data from its penetrating sensors to enable employment using either stand-off or stand-in weapons. As part of this effort, the Air Force should proceed with a formal AoA in 2017 for a PCA capability. Consistent with an agile acquisition mindset designed to deliver the right capability on the required timeline, this AoA will include options to leverage rapid development and prototyping in order to keep ahead of the threat......."
"The Air Force’s projected force structure in 2030 is not capable of fighting and winning against this array of potential adversary capabilities....... "
"Capability development efforts for PCA will focus on maximizing tradeoffs between range, payload, survivability, lethality, affordability, and supportability........"
Last edited by ORAC; 5th Jun 2016 at 08:18.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The "interim" line is a smoke screen for political and work share purposes......
Liberals planning to buy Super Hornet fighter jets before making final decision on F-35s, sources say | National Post
Liberals planning to buy Super Hornet fighter jets before making final decision on F-35s, sources say | National Post
Hmmm. Another F-35 bashing article, which while wailing that the F35 is not mentioned, conspicuously fails to mention that neither is the F22 or any other patform bar the B21.
While it's all very well quoting this :
"The Air Force’s projected force structure in 2030 is not capable of fighting and winning against this array of potential adversary capabilities....... "
What does the author think the response would be to a statement along the lines of "The Air Force’s projected force structure in 2030 is more than capable of fighting and winning against this array of potential adversary capabilities....... "?
The obvious answer to which from a Congress needing to find budgetary savings would be "well no aircraft or system development funding or projects for you between now and the 30s then". Which is fifteen years or so for anyone struggling with arithmetic.
I feel sure that would be a universally acclaimed outcome.
While it's all very well quoting this :
"The Air Force’s projected force structure in 2030 is not capable of fighting and winning against this array of potential adversary capabilities....... "
What does the author think the response would be to a statement along the lines of "The Air Force’s projected force structure in 2030 is more than capable of fighting and winning against this array of potential adversary capabilities....... "?
The obvious answer to which from a Congress needing to find budgetary savings would be "well no aircraft or system development funding or projects for you between now and the 30s then". Which is fifteen years or so for anyone struggling with arithmetic.
I feel sure that would be a universally acclaimed outcome.
Regarding noise, I was rather close to several B's at Pax River and thought they were quite similar decibel wise to the F/A-18D chase aircraft on a conventional takeoff- plenty loud. On rolling STOL landings and STOL touch and goes (no hovering the days I saw them) I was surprised how quiet they were. No discernible fan noise- I was expecting some sort of fan whine I guess.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding noise, I was rather close to several B's at Pax River and thought they were quite similar decibel wise to the F/A-18D chase aircraft on a conventional takeoff- plenty loud. On rolling STOL landings and STOL touch and goes (no hovering the days I saw them) I was surprised how quiet they were. No discernible fan noise- I was expecting some sort of fan whine I guess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygVlvlvnmTU
Of course those F16's are sooo quiet....
F35
Life extenaion of Tornado shouldn't be that much of a problem based upon the GAF stating that they wish to operate their Tornado until up to 2040.
However, for the MoD that would be a real climb down on their mid 2019 OSD and you can bet, to save every penny, Tornado spares will have been reduced to as little as possible. a decision needs to be made soonest....
However, for the MoD that would be a real climb down on their mid 2019 OSD and you can bet, to save every penny, Tornado spares will have been reduced to as little as possible. a decision needs to be made soonest....
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF/RN 50/50 split between synthetic/real flight training.
Voyager/F-35B trials wrapped up
Looks like the Voyager/F-35B in flight refueling trials wrapped up at Pax River. 18 sorties.
https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/0...-a-week-early/
https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/0...-a-week-early/
Life extenaion of Tornado shouldn't be that much of a problem based upon the GAF stating that they wish to operate their Tornado until up to 2040.
However, for the MoD that would be a real climb down on their mid 2019 OSD and you can bet, to save every penny, Tornado spares will have been reduced to as little as possible. a decision needs to be made soonest....
However, for the MoD that would be a real climb down on their mid 2019 OSD and you can bet, to save every penny, Tornado spares will have been reduced to as little as possible. a decision needs to be made soonest....
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably due the fact that, unlike our Tornado fleet, the GAF Tornado fleet haven't been on continuous ops since 1991. Fins in the ME for 25 years and counting is no small effort.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Canadian Fighter-Jet Debate Turns Testy
VICTORIA, British Columbia — Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has slammed the F-35, labeling the aircraft as a fighter that “does not work,” as his government considers the purchase of Boeing Super Hornets instead.........
VICTORIA, British Columbia — Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has slammed the F-35, labeling the aircraft as a fighter that “does not work,” as his government considers the purchase of Boeing Super Hornets instead.........
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
Lockheed Martin warns Canada it will pull $825M in contracts
Lockheed Martin warns it will pull $825M in F-35 contracts if Canada buys another jet - Politics - CBC News
Lockheed Martin warns it will pull $825M in F-35 contracts if Canada buys another jet
U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin is warning Canada that $825 million in aerospace industrial contracts signed with Canadian companies to build and equip F-35 jets would be moved to other partner nations if the Trudeau government decides to buy a different fighter jet.
U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin is warning Canada that $825 million in aerospace industrial contracts signed with Canadian companies to build and equip F-35 jets would be moved to other partner nations if the Trudeau government decides to buy a different fighter jet.