F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[t43562]

Most of the fixes already have a path to resolution when he writes, but he still has to document it - then it appears (outwardly) that there is no fix to the public when they read it, out of context, and in isolation from knowing what is going on inside the Program.

This is not news. When you work on a product you are often far more aware of what's wrong than anyone outside. You also have a fix for everything lined up. The issue is that your competitors may have much less to fix and need less time than you and your product will fail to get out the door before theirs does or be worse when it does.

If your management realise this then they will try to get out of an inevitably losing position, cancel the product before they expose themselves to even bigger losses.

This is a different situation. We the customers sit here and absorb *all* the screwups, endlessly.

[Maus92]

Apparently there has been another fire involving the F-35A, this time at Mountain Home AFB in Idaho (some earlier? lot aircraft are not affected by the recent grounding order.) Sketchy details atm:

"WASHINGTON — An F-35A caught fire during an exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, the Air Force confirmed to Defense News.

The incident took place at around noon and involved an F-35A aircraft from the 61st Fighter Squadron located at Luke Air Force Base, the service said in a statement. No serious injuries seem to have been sustained by the pilot or nearby crew.

"The pilot had to egress the aircraft during engine start due to a fire from the aft section of the aircraft," Air Force spokesman Capt. Mark Graff said in an email. "The fire was extinguished quickly. As a precautionary measure, four 61st Aircraft Maintenance Unit Airmen, three Airmen from the 366th Maintenance Group and the 61st Fighter Squadron pilot were transported to the base medical center for standard evaluation." "

F-35A Catches Fire at Mountain Home Air Force Base | Defense News

[Buster15]

F35

We probably all want to know how good or how bad F35B is going to be for the UK. it is clearly a massive investment in both aircraft and of course aircraft carriers. To my mind, our prime security requirement must be to protect the UK from foreign attacks. To that end, why do we really need massively expensive to procure and massively expensive to operate aircraft carriers ?
The biggest concern is that these 2 projects will consume so much of our defence budget that capabilities we really need to protect our shores will and have been seriously degraded. Further, the 2 main attributes F35 possesses are - Stealth and Sensor Fusion and BVR. That will be fine for a limited number of years when these 2 capabilities become negated by inevitable advances. Then, we will be left with an aircraft that has the following basic deficiencies:
Poor agility, poor range, poor acceleration, minimal weapons storage onboard and if external, stealth compromised, single engine risk etc, etc.
At least with Typhoon, we have an aircraft that has excellent flying capability. Yes it may not be 5th Generation, but the basic platform is capable end flexible.
it could (relatively) easily and most likely at a significantly lower cost be made carrier capable (assuming we really need that).
There is no way that F35 or the Carriers will be cancelled. Too much has been invested and TOO MANY AIRFORCE AND ROYAL NAVY CAREERS depend on these; they always want the latest shiny new toys. Lets all hope that these 2 projects deliver what is required. If not, there will be a massive hole in the defence budget.

[glad rag]

Well said.

One should also not discount the industry jobs/pensions for life that this behemoth program sustains.

[FODPlod]

Originally Posted by Buster15

...At least with Typhoon, we have an aircraft that has excellent flying capability. Yes it may not be 5th Generation, but the basic platform is capable end flexible; it could (relatively) easily and most likely at a significantly lower cost be made carrier capable...

With that one statement, you have managed to destroy the credibility of anything else you say. I suspect you believe the F-35B's characteristics are inferior to the Harrier's, too.

Notwithstanding the fact that the carriers would need extensive (and expensive) modification to accommodate CTOL aircraft, beefing up the airframe and undercarriage of the Typhoon (first flown in March 1994) and incorporating more robust materials to withstand the repeated stresses and strains of violent catapult launch, sudden arrested recovery on a pitching deck and prolonged survival in a salt-laden marine environment, not to mention the addition of an arrestor hook and other intrinsic systems, would involve so much extra design, development and production work and result in so much weight gain and reduced performance that you might as well start from scratch.

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by FODPlod

With that one statement, you have managed to destroy the credibility of anything else you say. I suspect you believe the F-35B's characteristics are inferior to the Harrier's, too.

Notwithstanding the fact that the carriers would need extensive (and expensive) modification to accommodate CTOL aircraft, beefing up the airframe and undercarriage of the Typhoon (first flown in March 1994) and incorporating more robust materials to withstand the repeated stresses and strains of violent catapult launch, sudden arrested recovery on a pitching deck and prolonged survival in a salt-laden marine environment, not to mention the addition of an arrestor hook and other intrinsic systems, would involve so much extra design, development and production work and result in so much weight gain and reduced performance that you might as well start from scratch.

Well we are all allowed an opinion. Notwithstanding, it is fair to say, those who decry the project have nothing to gain from it's continuance.

[SpazSinbad]

'Buster15' said amongst other things:

"...At least with Typhoon, we have an aircraft that has excellent flying capability. Yes it may not be 5th Generation, but the basic platform is capable and flexible. It could (relatively) easily and most likely at a significantly lower cost be made carrier capable...."

Have a gander at this material to find out how easy it is. Chapter THREE of first PDF is very relevant. What is a navalised Typhoon? A TYPHOID?

AIRCRAFT DEVELOPMENT Navy’s Participation in Air Force’s Advanced Tactical Fighter Program; GAO 1990

"...Chapter 3: Basing and Mission Differences Affect Aircraft Design
Few attempts to make common airframes serve both Air Force and Navy purposes have been successful. Studies show that it is difficult to accommodate Navy missions and carrier basing in an airframe designed for Air Force missions and land basing. The services have had more success with common use of major components such as engines, weapons, and avionics equipment....

...Past Experience With Cross-Service Use of Aircraft
Since the mid-1940s successful cross-service use of fighter and attack aircraft has been limited. The F-4 and A-7 are among the more successful aircraft used by both the Air Force and the Navy during this period, but both were initially designed by the Navy to operate from aircraft carriers. Since World War II no US. fighter or attack aircraft developed to operate from land bases has been successfully adapted to operate from carriers and procured by both the Air Force and the Navy...."

http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat11/141083.pdf (2.2Mb)
_________________________________

Since this thread is about the F-35 then....

The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter by Mr. Eric S. Ryberg, 26-27 Feb 2002 http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988 (PDF 1Mb)
________________________________

Some Carrier Aircraft Requirements:

[glad rag]

thank you spaz for that informative post especially the jet blast deflector compatibility. .....

[Turbine D]

Few attempts to make common airframes serve both Air Force and Navy purposes have been successful. Studies show that it is difficult to accommodate Navy missions and carrier basing in an airframe designed for Air Force missions and land basing.

Think we are in the midst of confirming these to be true statements.

[LFT]

Bring back the Buccaneer.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by TurbineD

Few attempts to make common airframes serve both Air Force and Navy purposes have been successful. Studies show that it is difficult to accommodate Navy missions and carrier basing in an airframe designed for Air Force missions and land basing.

Think we are in the midst of confirming these to be true statements.

I was under the impression that the F-111 had already confirmed that.

[SpazSinbad]

[S]HADES of the Vampire Wet Start | 'Maus92' post: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post9518356
Back end flameout roasts F-35 on runway 25 Sep 2016 Richard Chirgwin

"...The fire happened while the pilot was starting the F-35; the pilot exited the aircraft while it was extinguished, and the US Air Force reports there were no injuries.

While the cause of the fire is still under investigation, Aviation Week says “initial assessments point to a tailpipe fire due to strong tailwinds as the engine was starting”.

If accurate, that would point to an aborted start that left too much unburned fuel in the exhaust duct. Aviation Week says at the time, winds were gusting up to 70 km/h (45 mph) from the northwest to west-by-northwest....”

Back end flameout roasts F-35 on runway ? The Register

MORE ON THE 'tailpipe/wetstart?' fire: http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/...-tailpipe-fire

[Darren_P]

I was under the impression that the F-111 had already confirmed that.

Hasn't the Rafale broke the mould with that though? It doesn't seem to give up much compared to the French Air Force version.

[PhilipG]

Originally Posted by Darren_P

Hasn't the Rafale broke the mould with that though? It doesn't seem to give up much compared to the French Air Force version.

Darren P, as I understand it the Rafale's development was only started because a Naval Version of what is now Typhoon was ruled out by the then consortium, the French then left and started development of the Rafale, that from the bottom up has been designed to fly off carriers. Similar in many ways to the Phantom and Buccaneer.

That is not to say that if the Rafale had only been developed for the French Air Force that it might not have been slightly lighter etc but then the French Navy would have no up to date aircraft.

[ORAC]

Darren P, as I understand it the Rafale's development was only started because a Naval Version of what is now Typhoon was ruled out by the then consortium, the French then left and started development of the Rafale, that from the bottom up has been designed to fly off carriers

The French pulled out of the EFA consortium, which became the EF2000 consortium, because they insisted upon a carrier capable design which would be able to operate of off the Foch. The weight, range and payload limitations that would have imposed (the "10 ton" airframe) were unacceptable to the other nations. Hence they designed Rafale on their own.

[AtomKraft]

Sounds to me like the French called that one correctly.....

[ORAC]

Ironically, however, due to the production delays, by the time the Rafale-M entered service the Foch and Clemenceau had been decommissioned and replaced by the larger Charles deGaulle, so the weight limitations didn't apply.

IIRC if it had had to operate of the Foch it would have to operate with only a couple of AA Mx and internal fuel, essentially the same missions and weapon load as the F-8 Crusader it was designed to replace.

[PhilipG]

Originally Posted by ORAC

The French pulled out of the EFA consortium, which became the EF2000 consortium, because they insisted upon a carrier capable design which would be able to operate of off the Foch. The weight, range and payload limitations that would have imposed (the "10 ton" airframe) were unacceptable to the other nations. Hence they designed Rafale on their own.

ORAC Thank you for the further insight into French design goals. It is still however true to say that the Typhoon's basic structure was not designed to take the stresses of CATOBAR operations whilst the Rafale even with a lower weight was from the outset.

[KenV]

It is still however true to say that the Typhoon's basic structure was not designed to take the stresses of CATOBAR operations whilst the Rafale even with a lower weight was from the outset.

I agree. Rafale was designed from the start as a Naval fighter capable of carrier operations, with not only the necessary structure, but also the necessary over-the-nose sight lines, low speed handling, EMI performance, corrosion resistance/prevention, and other factors unique to naval aircraft. Adding those features after the fact to Typhoon would make it a very different airplane. The only aircraft (that I'm aware of) that started out land based and was successfully converted to carrier operations was the subsonic Hawker Siddeley Hawk which Douglas successfully turned into the T-45 Goshawk. But that was a pretty simple trainer and even then, it required BAE and Douglas to do an extensive redesign of the basic Hawk 60.

[sandiego89]

KenV:....The only aircraft (that I'm aware of) that started out land based and was successfully converted to carrier operations...

Indeed the list is small, but for jets you can add the FJ Fury (series) derived from the F-86, Sea Vampire, Sea Venom, the Sea Vixen (more of a stretch), MiG 29, Su-25, Su-27 (ski jump/arrested), Sea Harrier (STOVL), and the French Zephyr training jet. I would not count it but a real stretch would be the F/A-18 derived from the F-17 Cobra. I am not including helo's (Sea Hawk, etc) and some one offs like the U-2, Bronco, C-130 etc....