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
RP, I don't know the exact limits currently imposed on the A but I thinks it is 5g or thereabouts. The AOA is straight up 50.
Looking at the "display" it's not aerobatic, so this is probably a simple role demonstration routine - i.e no dedicated F-35A display pilot. As the envelope available expands to 9g, I'm confident that more aggressive manoeuvres will be introduced. Raptor display wasn't as punchy in the early days as it is today.
Looking at the "display" it's not aerobatic, so this is probably a simple role demonstration routine - i.e no dedicated F-35A display pilot. As the envelope available expands to 9g, I'm confident that more aggressive manoeuvres will be introduced. Raptor display wasn't as punchy in the early days as it is today.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
For 'rp':
US Marine Corps F-35s Cleared for Farnborough 05 Jul 2016 Valerie Insinna
US Marine Corps F-35s Cleared For Farnborough
US Marine Corps F-35s Cleared for Farnborough 05 Jul 2016 Valerie Insinna
"...The Air Force F-35As, which will fly only at RIAT, conducted their flight validation at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia before the jets flew across the Atlantic Ocean last week, said Maj. Will Andreotta, F-35A heritage flight team commander and an F-35 pilot.
One of the A-variants conducted a practice flight Tuesday morning, Andreotta said. A different F-35A will run through the same profile Wednesday morning, and the F-22s will practice Thursday.
“It’s our first time flying in the UK so they have different rules. We’re doing actually a new profile here that we don’t do [in the US],” he said. “So today was one of those days to go out there and kind of look at the overall lay of the land, see where the show line is, where the crowd lines are. Obviously safety is our priority while we’re over here.”
During heritage flights, the aircraft typically conducts three maneuvers. The pilots first conduct an “arcing” or “banana pass,” which gives the crowd a view of the top of the jet, then do a “flat pass” where the aircraft flies straight and level. In the US, the pilots fly over the crowd before breaking formation and landing, but because flying over the crowd is prohibited in the UK, the pilots will instead repeat either a flat or arching base, Andreotta said...."
One of the A-variants conducted a practice flight Tuesday morning, Andreotta said. A different F-35A will run through the same profile Wednesday morning, and the F-22s will practice Thursday.
“It’s our first time flying in the UK so they have different rules. We’re doing actually a new profile here that we don’t do [in the US],” he said. “So today was one of those days to go out there and kind of look at the overall lay of the land, see where the show line is, where the crowd lines are. Obviously safety is our priority while we’re over here.”
During heritage flights, the aircraft typically conducts three maneuvers. The pilots first conduct an “arcing” or “banana pass,” which gives the crowd a view of the top of the jet, then do a “flat pass” where the aircraft flies straight and level. In the US, the pilots fly over the crowd before breaking formation and landing, but because flying over the crowd is prohibited in the UK, the pilots will instead repeat either a flat or arching base, Andreotta said...."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 9th Jul 2016 at 00:28. Reason: format
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst the F-22 is not exactly pretty, it is certainly dramatic, edgy and aggressive looking.
Watching it flyby with the F-35 made me think that the F-35 looked a lot like the chubby b@stard offspring resulting from an embarrassing drunken night the F-22 had with a fat girl.
Let the flying and the O'Club missions merge.
USMC F-35B blowing away the display center markers at RIAT today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz__nC6jdRI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz__nC6jdRI
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
How the hell will we tank them to get them in range of the enemy???
UK Air Force Mulls F-35A Benefits as US Jets Visit England
FAIRFORD, England —The British public got its first taste of the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft purchased for the Royal Air Force (RAF) and Royal Navy at an air show Friday, and it’s just possible they also got a glimpse of the next combat jet in line for purchase........
British F-35 officials at the show confirmed there is interest in the conventional takeoff version and that the issue could start to be addressed as soon as the next strategic defence and security review (SDSR), currently scheduled for 2020.
“What we will do as we go forward into the next SDSR is look at the force mix,” said Air Commodore Linc Taylor, the Royal Air Force officer responsible for delivery of the British F-35 program. “There is an absolute benefit to maximizing combat air power with interoperability with Typhoon and the capability from the [aircraft] carrier. We will look at all of those options as we go forward into the next SDSR,” Taylor said to reporters at RIAT.
Britain’s combat air fleet will be based around the Eurofighter Typhoon and F-35B once the RAF’s Tornado strike jet is pensioned off in 2019. Taylor said the F-35A could bring something to the force mix the other jets couldn’t match. “The F-35A offers you a greater range and greater payload. There may be space for an 'A' variant so we will look at 'A' and 'B's in the future, but not the 'C's,” Taylor said. “The F-35 and Typhoon have complimentary qualities but the Typhoon is not low-observable, it can’t get to where the F-35 can get to.".........
The F-35A has been on the RAF’s wish list for a long while, according to Doug Barrier, the senior air analyst at the London-based think tank International Institute for Strategic Studies.
“There has been a long-standing interest on the part of the RAF in the F-35A to meet some of the roles now addressed by Tornado GR4. Greater range and payload performance than the 'B' model, and commonality with the USAF, are likely part of the draw,” he said. “The ground-attack role post the Tornado GR4’s retirement could eventually be divided between the Typhoon — equipped with the Storm Shadow long-range land-attack cruise missile and other weapons — and the F-35A, with the latter offering the ability to penetrate airspace defended by high-end threat systems, using medium air-to-surface weapons such as the MBDA SPEAR 3 now in development,” Barrie said.........
UK Air Force Mulls F-35A Benefits as US Jets Visit England
FAIRFORD, England —The British public got its first taste of the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft purchased for the Royal Air Force (RAF) and Royal Navy at an air show Friday, and it’s just possible they also got a glimpse of the next combat jet in line for purchase........
British F-35 officials at the show confirmed there is interest in the conventional takeoff version and that the issue could start to be addressed as soon as the next strategic defence and security review (SDSR), currently scheduled for 2020.
“What we will do as we go forward into the next SDSR is look at the force mix,” said Air Commodore Linc Taylor, the Royal Air Force officer responsible for delivery of the British F-35 program. “There is an absolute benefit to maximizing combat air power with interoperability with Typhoon and the capability from the [aircraft] carrier. We will look at all of those options as we go forward into the next SDSR,” Taylor said to reporters at RIAT.
Britain’s combat air fleet will be based around the Eurofighter Typhoon and F-35B once the RAF’s Tornado strike jet is pensioned off in 2019. Taylor said the F-35A could bring something to the force mix the other jets couldn’t match. “The F-35A offers you a greater range and greater payload. There may be space for an 'A' variant so we will look at 'A' and 'B's in the future, but not the 'C's,” Taylor said. “The F-35 and Typhoon have complimentary qualities but the Typhoon is not low-observable, it can’t get to where the F-35 can get to.".........
The F-35A has been on the RAF’s wish list for a long while, according to Doug Barrier, the senior air analyst at the London-based think tank International Institute for Strategic Studies.
“There has been a long-standing interest on the part of the RAF in the F-35A to meet some of the roles now addressed by Tornado GR4. Greater range and payload performance than the 'B' model, and commonality with the USAF, are likely part of the draw,” he said. “The ground-attack role post the Tornado GR4’s retirement could eventually be divided between the Typhoon — equipped with the Storm Shadow long-range land-attack cruise missile and other weapons — and the F-35A, with the latter offering the ability to penetrate airspace defended by high-end threat systems, using medium air-to-surface weapons such as the MBDA SPEAR 3 now in development,” Barrie said.........
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it wouldn't necessarily. Especially if the A is being looked at to fulfil a completely separate set of requirements for the Air Force. A is lowest cost per frame so you get more jets for your budget. There'll never be interop for UK QEC and the C model as we will never get cats and traps. So the A would make total sense. Why carry all that additional weight around for the C when you can't use it 90+% of the time?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point was that the RAF does not have any boom tankers, so unless someone pays LM to put a probe on the A, there is a range problem. Also with the Department of the Navy being the lead customer for the B and C their development might go on a similar path the the one that the USAF wants, easier to have more similar aircraft. Obviously I am aware that the C will never land on a RN carrier, it does have a longer range than the A as well. When it was thought that the carriers were to be cat and trap, people seemed very happy with the concept of having the C, has the prospective role changed since then?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope some background stuff might be of interest.
The selection of the boom refuelling receptacle for the A model was under debate for some while, especially when the weight issues began to bite in 2003.
The boom receptacle added a couple of hundred pounds of weight, as it had to be made of heavy metals to withstand the pounding it can get. It also needed a hefty and fairly complex retractable ramp door system, and worst of all its location on the fuselage spine took up scarce fuel tank volume - I seem to remember a figure of around 400 pounds of fuel lost.
I know that there was a RAND study done at some stage that looked at the USAF's policy of having all its aircraft equipped for boom refuelling. I seem to remember that it concluded that a probe and drogue system made more sense for smaller tactical aircraft, offering faster refuels at multiple points from a single tanker, and better NATO interoperability. Booms would be retained for the larger aircraft (e.g. B-2, B-52, C-17).
Again working from memory, but I don't believe that the space on the A where a retractable probe ( as per B and C) would be installed has been used for anything else. The main challenges would probably be the routeing of the plumbing and reprogramming the fuel management software.
The C model certainly offers longer range than a C, but at the expense of a lot of additional airframe weight (tons of it) that has to be hauled around with no benefit. A fairly obvious future variant could involve putting a 'C' type wing (without fold) on to an 'A' airframe, without all the additional weight required for carrier ops. Again, my memory may be at fault, but I think that this option may have been looked at at some stage at Fort Worth. However, it was probably a 'US only' effort. Such an aircraft could have had an MTOW of around 80,000 pounds, with an unrefuelled range of around 900 to 1000 miles.
Hope this is of some interest, best regards as ever to those working out the fleet mix,
Engines
The selection of the boom refuelling receptacle for the A model was under debate for some while, especially when the weight issues began to bite in 2003.
The boom receptacle added a couple of hundred pounds of weight, as it had to be made of heavy metals to withstand the pounding it can get. It also needed a hefty and fairly complex retractable ramp door system, and worst of all its location on the fuselage spine took up scarce fuel tank volume - I seem to remember a figure of around 400 pounds of fuel lost.
I know that there was a RAND study done at some stage that looked at the USAF's policy of having all its aircraft equipped for boom refuelling. I seem to remember that it concluded that a probe and drogue system made more sense for smaller tactical aircraft, offering faster refuels at multiple points from a single tanker, and better NATO interoperability. Booms would be retained for the larger aircraft (e.g. B-2, B-52, C-17).
Again working from memory, but I don't believe that the space on the A where a retractable probe ( as per B and C) would be installed has been used for anything else. The main challenges would probably be the routeing of the plumbing and reprogramming the fuel management software.
The C model certainly offers longer range than a C, but at the expense of a lot of additional airframe weight (tons of it) that has to be hauled around with no benefit. A fairly obvious future variant could involve putting a 'C' type wing (without fold) on to an 'A' airframe, without all the additional weight required for carrier ops. Again, my memory may be at fault, but I think that this option may have been looked at at some stage at Fort Worth. However, it was probably a 'US only' effort. Such an aircraft could have had an MTOW of around 80,000 pounds, with an unrefuelled range of around 900 to 1000 miles.
Hope this is of some interest, best regards as ever to those working out the fleet mix,
Engines
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that it was specifically stated that the C variant is not an option. It makes me want to don my tin foil hat and question the political motivations behind such a comment.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We did the whole debacle of B to C and back to B, when it was quickly realised just how expensive a conversion of both QEC would be. So, on the basis that the C variant carries significant additional weight solely for conventional carrier ops, it is totally dead weight when you can only use it on another country's conventional carriers. The margin of fuel the C has over the A would be largely negated by the additional weight you are carrying but never going to use for take off or landing. Change the QECs to conventional carriers? That's a different matter, but the costs go through the roof and the UK will inevitably end up with less total aircraft as a result of yet another impassioned U-turn.
So, look at the more important issue. The RAF has a requirement for an addition to its Combat Air "force mix" between 2020-2050. It's called FCAS. Now it isn't necessarily an F-35 but recent interviews say it might likely be. Therefore, why are we even debating a sea-based aircraft for a requirement that is entirely separate from the original one that has resulted in the F-35B? We are buying and operating a load of F-35B from QEC for the next 30-40 years under that requirement. This one is separate.
So, look at the more important issue. The RAF has a requirement for an addition to its Combat Air "force mix" between 2020-2050. It's called FCAS. Now it isn't necessarily an F-35 but recent interviews say it might likely be. Therefore, why are we even debating a sea-based aircraft for a requirement that is entirely separate from the original one that has resulted in the F-35B? We are buying and operating a load of F-35B from QEC for the next 30-40 years under that requirement. This one is separate.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, on the basis that the C variant carries significant additional weight solely for conventional carrier ops, it is totally dead weight when you can only use it on another country's conventional carriers.
Awesome input, as usual.
And so the F-35D concept begins to take shape: SuperLightning! 
A fairly obvious future variant could involve putting a 'C' type wing (without fold) on to an 'A' airframe, without all the additional weight required for carrier ops. Again, my memory may be at fault, but I think that this option may have been looked at at some stage at Fort Worth. However, it was probably a 'US only' effort. Such an aircraft could have had an MTOW of around 80,000 pounds, with an unrefuelled range of around 900 to 1000 miles.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken, I see the additional weight on the B as absolutely vital to enable a Carrier ops from our ships in their current configuration. Yes you only need it for take off and landing but sometimes you are forced to require that capability for take off and landing or there is no mission. The B is therefore a self-fulfilling prophecy once the country committed to a STOVL carrier design.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would conversion of the carriers be more expensive than conversion of the tankers + the cost of developing a bespoke AEWAC capability for the carriers?
There's also the intangible cost of not being able to operate any future UCAV's that will inevitably develop in the next 40 to 50 years.
It seems like a relatively trivial cost saving in the grand scheme of things, for the sake of absolutely zero flexibility in the future.
There's also the intangible cost of not being able to operate any future UCAV's that will inevitably develop in the next 40 to 50 years.
It seems like a relatively trivial cost saving in the grand scheme of things, for the sake of absolutely zero flexibility in the future.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Voyager conversion pales in comparison to the c.£2Bn estimated Carrier conversion cost (in 2012) for catapults and an arrestor system. AEW is already planned to be delivered by Crowsnest on the Merlin. Again, we seem to be conflating the subject of a future RAF requirement with the carrier. The RN's future requirements may lie in focusing their [equally] limited equipment budget on other ship programmes, especially as the Carrier Strike requirement is being delivered. Oh, and don't forget the RN want V-22 too. Money seems to grow on trees, it seems.
I'm confident that, should there be a desire for a UCAV to operate from QEC, a novel solution will be developed to launch and recover it.
I'm confident that, should there be a desire for a UCAV to operate from QEC, a novel solution will be developed to launch and recover it.