F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
The Israeli Air Force have got their first two examples.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20..._135900142.htm
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20..._135900142.htm
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I know is that my shares in Spatchcock and Shinney ( Turd Polish suppliers to the MOD ) are going up in value faster than the price of Dave, at this rate by the time the "wonderjet" deploys on an operation I will be I the position to buy one myself
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, one of us hasn't had our "Mains" wired up properly Glad Rag, because I don't have a clue what you're on about (per usual).
May I respectfully ask you for a more complete sarcastic reply, please?
May I respectfully ask you for a more complete sarcastic reply, please?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well all the other IOC's have had trouble with the mains why should this one be any different?
And the fuel that’s too hot, imaginary role play, reboots etc, etc
But as cluster****s go, it'll be a
"oustanding"
one.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understood it
A politically driven despairing push to show its worth does not make a "warfighter" ( sorry, stupid terminology)
When it's doing proper deployments and working like say a plastic bug then I'll be convinced
A politically driven despairing push to show its worth does not make a "warfighter" ( sorry, stupid terminology)
When it's doing proper deployments and working like say a plastic bug then I'll be convinced
Well I still do not understand glad's meaning of "Mains" or "mains" either...
I do see the U.S. desire to forward deploy the F-35 earlier than other platforms. While it is partially political, it might also be desirable to see how the F-35 works, gain valuable training for crews and allies (and perhaps boost sales) and see how it will influence doctrine in the services. Even if the F-35 is not fully up yet, they offer some impressive capabilities.
Why not deploy them? Why wait until FOC? The system will be constantly be updated over the life of the program. Do you wait until all your dream home improvement projects are completed to perfection to have friends over? Nah, I say invite them over- most won't care if your don't have the bamboo floors in yet....
In the US, there was some flack about not deploying the F-117, B-2, F-22 and B-1 to certain engagements or hot spots.
I do see the U.S. desire to forward deploy the F-35 earlier than other platforms. While it is partially political, it might also be desirable to see how the F-35 works, gain valuable training for crews and allies (and perhaps boost sales) and see how it will influence doctrine in the services. Even if the F-35 is not fully up yet, they offer some impressive capabilities.
Why not deploy them? Why wait until FOC? The system will be constantly be updated over the life of the program. Do you wait until all your dream home improvement projects are completed to perfection to have friends over? Nah, I say invite them over- most won't care if your don't have the bamboo floors in yet....
In the US, there was some flack about not deploying the F-117, B-2, F-22 and B-1 to certain engagements or hot spots.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, setting cryptic diatribes to one side for a moment - and regardless of the few problems which the Program is nugging its way through - the current 3i block capability would bring a hell of a lot to any Joint Commander's AOR in my opinion.
So yeah, it will likely happen, and why not? If it succeeds on a par with the Pentagon's confidence, the silence from F-35's detractors will be deafening.
So yeah, it will likely happen, and why not? If it succeeds on a par with the Pentagon's confidence, the silence from F-35's detractors will be deafening.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it succeeds on a par with the Pentagon's confidence, the silence from F-35's detractors will be deafening.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it succeeds on a par with the Pentagon's confidence, i
2. That's the problem there, the one person who has ensured that there has been some transparency is being moved on....
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong - but a Sukhoi SU-33 has a maximum take off weight of a little over 72,000 lbs and a reheat thrust of 2X 28,214 lbs. The SU-33 uses the STOBAR Russian carriers. A Rafale has maximum take off weight of 54,000 lbs and reheat thrust of 2 X 17,000 lbs. So why couldn't Rafales use Queen Elizabeth without catapults as STOBAR?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why couldn't Rafales use Queen Elizabeth without catapults as STOBAR?
2. Thrust to weight is only one of numerous variables that affect STOBAR performance. You'd need to compare many other variables to make a meaningful comparison.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
In Canberra, 1999, arrived the US marketeer for JSF. His sales pitch was based on - forget Typhoon, JSF will be half the price with a vastly superior capability. Right!!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The F-35C has hit another major snag that could take years to fix - Business Insider
The Pentagon has established a "red team" to address considerable shortcomings with the F-35C, the carrier-based naval variant of the most expensive weapons project in history.
The F-35, subject to cost overruns and delays throughout its production, reached an initial state of military readiness with its Air Force and Marine variants in 2016, but the Navy's variant lags behind in part due to an issue with its nose gear during catapult-assisted takeoffs from aircraft carriers, Inside Defense uncovered on Wednesday. Essentially the problem, detailed in a Navy report with data dating back to 2014, deals with rough takeoffs that hurt and disorient pilots at the critical moment when they're taking off from a carrier.
The Pentagon's red team found the problem was due to several factors central to the plane's design, and recommended several fixes that will take several months to several years to fully fix. The report states that long term actions to address the problem will not take place until 2019, at which point they'll take 12-36 months to implement. Redesigns to the plane, as well as to carriers, may be necessary to fully address the problem.
A Pentagon deficiency report in 2015 stated that extreme movements in the cockpit during launch risked pilot health. One hundred and five pilots completing catapult launches rated their level of pain or discomfort on a scale of one to five. Of the 105, 74 pilots reported "moderate" pain or a 3, 18 pilots reported "severe" pain or a 4, and one pilot reported "severe pain that persists" after launching from an aircraft carrier. "The oscillations shake the pilot's head sufficiently to impair their ability to consistently read flight critical data, which poses a safety of flight risk," reads the report cited by Inside Defense.
This pain, more than a mere inconvenience, threatens the ability of pilots to read flight-critical data as they perform the complicated task of launching from a moving platform at sea. Exacerbating the problem, some pilots locked down their harnesses to avoid jostling around during the launch, but this makes it more difficult for the pilot to eject, should they need to........
The Pentagon has established a "red team" to address considerable shortcomings with the F-35C, the carrier-based naval variant of the most expensive weapons project in history.
The F-35, subject to cost overruns and delays throughout its production, reached an initial state of military readiness with its Air Force and Marine variants in 2016, but the Navy's variant lags behind in part due to an issue with its nose gear during catapult-assisted takeoffs from aircraft carriers, Inside Defense uncovered on Wednesday. Essentially the problem, detailed in a Navy report with data dating back to 2014, deals with rough takeoffs that hurt and disorient pilots at the critical moment when they're taking off from a carrier.
The Pentagon's red team found the problem was due to several factors central to the plane's design, and recommended several fixes that will take several months to several years to fully fix. The report states that long term actions to address the problem will not take place until 2019, at which point they'll take 12-36 months to implement. Redesigns to the plane, as well as to carriers, may be necessary to fully address the problem.
A Pentagon deficiency report in 2015 stated that extreme movements in the cockpit during launch risked pilot health. One hundred and five pilots completing catapult launches rated their level of pain or discomfort on a scale of one to five. Of the 105, 74 pilots reported "moderate" pain or a 3, 18 pilots reported "severe" pain or a 4, and one pilot reported "severe pain that persists" after launching from an aircraft carrier. "The oscillations shake the pilot's head sufficiently to impair their ability to consistently read flight critical data, which poses a safety of flight risk," reads the report cited by Inside Defense.
This pain, more than a mere inconvenience, threatens the ability of pilots to read flight-critical data as they perform the complicated task of launching from a moving platform at sea. Exacerbating the problem, some pilots locked down their harnesses to avoid jostling around during the launch, but this makes it more difficult for the pilot to eject, should they need to........
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
I'm told that persons may take advantage of a free month for Navy newsletter to see this full article. I cannot so take what I have been given on good faith - this is what Lute Generale Bogged Down has said re above issue:
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news...mends-possible
"...F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan told reporters during a Dec. 19 roundtable at his office in Arlington, VA, "there's no doubt" his team has to find a solution to the nose gear.
However, he stressed, "the only time that is a problem with the C model is at very light gross weights. At medium weights and at heavy weights you don't see this problem at all."
Bogdan said his office is considering numerous short-term fixes, including changing the way pilots strap themselves into the aircraft and how they hold the straps.
"The long-term fix surely would be one that you would mechanically fix so that you don't have to make the pilots do any kind of special combinations," Bogdan said. "That fix is probably a couple of years off."..."
However, he stressed, "the only time that is a problem with the C model is at very light gross weights. At medium weights and at heavy weights you don't see this problem at all."
Bogdan said his office is considering numerous short-term fixes, including changing the way pilots strap themselves into the aircraft and how they hold the straps.
"The long-term fix surely would be one that you would mechanically fix so that you don't have to make the pilots do any kind of special combinations," Bogdan said. "That fix is probably a couple of years off."..."