More delays for the F-35
COCL2, As kbrockman says, its extra complexity. If you look at how closely spaced the spars are, you will get the idea. Each individual tank would need plumbing and fuel probes (gauges) too.
I don't know the typical wing depth on the F-35, but as an example, some of the Eurofighter Typhoon fuel probes are not much more than 4" tall (suggesting the tank is a similar depth), so with that sort of wing depth, the thickness of a bladder could easily reduce the tank volume available by 5% or more.
I don't know the typical wing depth on the F-35, but as an example, some of the Eurofighter Typhoon fuel probes are not much more than 4" tall (suggesting the tank is a similar depth), so with that sort of wing depth, the thickness of a bladder could easily reduce the tank volume available by 5% or more.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The F35 will have some great capabilities with time, but the purchase just doesn't make sense, much like the 232 Typhoon pipe dream.
UK Politicians haven't the balls to go unilateral against a mickey mouse nation, let alone one with a decent IADS, so what's the point in having the capability to do so?
The F-18E idea looks the sensible option for our own mickey mouse country.
Rule Britannia etc
UK Politicians haven't the balls to go unilateral against a mickey mouse nation, let alone one with a decent IADS, so what's the point in having the capability to do so?
The F-18E idea looks the sensible option for our own mickey mouse country.
Rule Britannia etc
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
a sensible alterntive
The F-18E idea looks the sensible option for our own mickey mouse country.
Also nothing would prevent them from also opting for a couple of Growlers to go with those Super Hornets adding a formidable ELINT platform all at once.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The F35 will have some great capabilities with time,
From the Torygraph, and it was in yesterdays Times as well:
"Leaked Pentagon documents claim a design flaw in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has caused eight simulated landings to fail.
The “F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Concurrency Quick Look Review” claimed the flaw meant that the “arrestor” hook, used to stop the plane during landing, was too close to the plane’s wheels.
The documents warn of "major consequences" to the aircraft’s structure and cast doubt on the readiness of the JSF to provide close-air support, which is seen as critical to a carrier’s role in providing amphibious landings.
The review further suggests the planes will be unable to fire the British Asraam air-to-air missile."
It adds that the F-35C remains untested in several areas, concluding that "there is a high likelihood of future failures that are not yet identified".
"The report, seen by the Sunday Times newspaper, concludes that unless a "significant redesign" of the aircraft is urgently completed the future of the aircraft is at risk.
If such a redesign is proven to be too costly or difficult to implement, it warns that the entire F-35C programme may have to be scrapped."
Here's the reason, Gannet. The hook design is part of the stealth so is recessed. Even if this weren't the case, the hook cannot practically extend much further back due to the reheat nozzle and engine efflux when stowed. Hence they're looking at an extending hook so that it will fit the current recess and extend further back when lowered. This gets complicated, though, because you need it to return to its correct length to re-stow the hook after landing.
Hope this helps,
Courtney
Hope this helps,
Courtney
Engines -
Some added info on JSF gun: What was said publicly when the 27mm was ditched in favour of the 25 mm Gatling, in 2003, was that the issue was life-cycle cost because of introducing a completely new calibre into the US military.
The Gat installation was heavier (as you note, the time-to-rate issue means you need more ammo per burst) but at the time they truly believed that they had positive weight margins.
I believe there was also an argument on the F-35A about the elevation angle (strafe or air-to-air) and I suspect that it was resolved in favour of the former, hence the big bulge over the gun (front end down, back end up).
And finally, since there isn't an available all-purpose round for the 25 mm, they need a new round anyway.
Some added info on JSF gun: What was said publicly when the 27mm was ditched in favour of the 25 mm Gatling, in 2003, was that the issue was life-cycle cost because of introducing a completely new calibre into the US military.
The Gat installation was heavier (as you note, the time-to-rate issue means you need more ammo per burst) but at the time they truly believed that they had positive weight margins.
I believe there was also an argument on the F-35A about the elevation angle (strafe or air-to-air) and I suspect that it was resolved in favour of the former, hence the big bulge over the gun (front end down, back end up).
And finally, since there isn't an available all-purpose round for the 25 mm, they need a new round anyway.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35 AUW and firepower
The F-35 discussed here weighs less than a super performing, short legged & lightly armed BAC Lightning did when it came into RAF squadron service.
(1960 Mk1 with 74(F) Sqn at RAF Coltishall)
What planned weapons load and endurance does this yet to be in service new generation aircraft have?
(1960 Mk1 with 74(F) Sqn at RAF Coltishall)
What planned weapons load and endurance does this yet to be in service new generation aircraft have?
RB2
You may be having lbs / kg moment. Lightning (F6) was about 25000lbs empty, 45000lbs MTOW.
F35A or C has an MTOW of 70000lbs, with empty weights of 29000lb and 35000lbs respectively.
You may be having lbs / kg moment. Lightning (F6) was about 25000lbs empty, 45000lbs MTOW.
F35A or C has an MTOW of 70000lbs, with empty weights of 29000lb and 35000lbs respectively.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some folks are suggesting the F-35C idea be perhaps scrapped or delayed and the Royal Navy order the tried and tested F-18 to tide it over until this new stealth aircraft is fully operational. My question and please note it is a question is:
If we were to purchase the F-18 then how would this effect the RAF who I believe were also in line to take deliver of the F-35? I can understand the significant savings that may be had if both services were operating the one type of multi role aircraft but if the Royal Navy ditched the idea of purchasing the 35, then would the whole order fall through and would the RAF be happy to take delivery of F-18 aircraft in lieu of their current fighters??
If the answer is no then would the F-18 flown by the Navy go the same way as the SHAR?
Hopefully folks can see where I am coming from when I mention this last aircraft and I am thinking of the numbers involved in the training of pilots, keeping them current in all types of skills that are required to make them the front line professional warriors that we require. A combined services school for the F-35 or two completely seperate set-ups for two completely different types of aircraft.. F-18 plus Typhoon?
Apologies if this is gobble de gook (I blame the medication)
If we were to purchase the F-18 then how would this effect the RAF who I believe were also in line to take deliver of the F-35? I can understand the significant savings that may be had if both services were operating the one type of multi role aircraft but if the Royal Navy ditched the idea of purchasing the 35, then would the whole order fall through and would the RAF be happy to take delivery of F-18 aircraft in lieu of their current fighters??
If the answer is no then would the F-18 flown by the Navy go the same way as the SHAR?
Hopefully folks can see where I am coming from when I mention this last aircraft and I am thinking of the numbers involved in the training of pilots, keeping them current in all types of skills that are required to make them the front line professional warriors that we require. A combined services school for the F-35 or two completely seperate set-ups for two completely different types of aircraft.. F-18 plus Typhoon?
Apologies if this is gobble de gook (I blame the medication)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35 Gun
LO,
I was on the project when the gun decision was announced. At the time, I thought that the decision was largely driven by domestic concerns. The life cycle costs arguments were not all that convincing, and the effectiveness arguments even less so. The LM analysis even ignored the volumetric hit of a Gatling, which given the fact that the gun displaced fuel tank space was surprising.
The angle of the gun was driven by the need to get the shot line clear of the upper fuselage after it left the muzzle. The hump was driven mainly by the need to cover the multiple Gatling barrels and the bulky aft breech housing. There was a multipurpose 25mm round available, I happened to know because I had bought it for the Aden 25mm on the GR5 four years earlier. When I mentioned it, the LM armament engineers said they'd never heard of it. The same round was also available for the 27mm cannon as well.
In the end, I believe that the clincher was the fact that H&K had not, at that time, been able to demonstrate a working prototype for the 27mm's linkless feed system. Given that the LM team were frantically trying to reduce risk, that made it an understandable decision.
Hope this helps
Best Regards as ever
Engines
I was on the project when the gun decision was announced. At the time, I thought that the decision was largely driven by domestic concerns. The life cycle costs arguments were not all that convincing, and the effectiveness arguments even less so. The LM analysis even ignored the volumetric hit of a Gatling, which given the fact that the gun displaced fuel tank space was surprising.
The angle of the gun was driven by the need to get the shot line clear of the upper fuselage after it left the muzzle. The hump was driven mainly by the need to cover the multiple Gatling barrels and the bulky aft breech housing. There was a multipurpose 25mm round available, I happened to know because I had bought it for the Aden 25mm on the GR5 four years earlier. When I mentioned it, the LM armament engineers said they'd never heard of it. The same round was also available for the 27mm cannon as well.
In the end, I believe that the clincher was the fact that H&K had not, at that time, been able to demonstrate a working prototype for the 27mm's linkless feed system. Given that the LM team were frantically trying to reduce risk, that made it an understandable decision.
Hope this helps
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Chemistry Lab
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely if the Navy gets F-18, then the "Duncan Sandys effect" will kick in and there will be no more UK manned fighter aircraft beyond that. F-35 will be abandoned and all will be missiles and drones...or at least that will be the politicians vision. Typhoon will have to last out until the new concept kicks in.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere completely unimportant and unnecessary
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glojo,
I would think the RAF would fly the Typhoon as their sole front line jet, while the Navy flew the F18; as far as overall arrangements for OCU setup etc. go, there was going to have to be one for the F35 anyway, likewise for an OEU, so I can't imagine it would make much difference if they are manned only by the Navy, likewise for the RAF and Typhoon squadrons.
By the way, if you were also wondering about how the RAF would fill the hole of no F35, then I guess the answer would be a few more Typhoons and perhaps drop the idea of scrapping the first 60. I'm sure there are a lot of student pilots, holding at some admin job for 2 years, that would be happy to hear there are suddenly going to be enough cockpits to put them through Linton and Valley, in reasonable time...
I would think the RAF would fly the Typhoon as their sole front line jet, while the Navy flew the F18; as far as overall arrangements for OCU setup etc. go, there was going to have to be one for the F35 anyway, likewise for an OEU, so I can't imagine it would make much difference if they are manned only by the Navy, likewise for the RAF and Typhoon squadrons.
By the way, if you were also wondering about how the RAF would fill the hole of no F35, then I guess the answer would be a few more Typhoons and perhaps drop the idea of scrapping the first 60. I'm sure there are a lot of student pilots, holding at some admin job for 2 years, that would be happy to hear there are suddenly going to be enough cockpits to put them through Linton and Valley, in reasonable time...
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reference 'who is getting what'.
As it stands the UK is buying F-35C to fulfill its requirement for JCA which was originally the FCBA. It is fundementally incorrect to say that the RN is getting F-35. A correct statement would be that the plan is to man a Joint force with all skill sets from pilot to engineer provided by both RAF and RN. This is exactly the same as the JFH model. I believe the AOA which is essentially 'the owner' will be 1 Gp RAF. So you could argue that the RN will take deliveries of no JCA.
However as FE@R reduces the possibility and arguably desirability of a single service force comes into play. It is worth reiterating that the JCA is a carrierborne capability. It is possible to argue that the RAF wants to be part of it due to service survivability rather than being able to offer a demonstrable commitment to sea basing by the light blue. There really isn't another model for an air force operating a nation's sea based FW.
So the possible alternatives become 1) The status quo - JCA manned by a Joint force. 2) RAF continue to man the Typhoon force and the entire JCA force. 3) RAF man the Typhoon, RN man JCA. Let's rule out RN manning all UK FW - despite my saline credentials the whole 'let's split the RAF between RN and army' idea has always struck me as being infantile in the extreme.
What becomes the interesting talking point really is the GR4 successor which IIRC has been called FOAS and FCAC over the years. It was always talked of as a system of systems the manned portion of which could still be a F-35. So you could end up with Typhoon, JCA and GR4 successor as two light blue forces and either a joint one or a dark blue one. A potential model might be to ensure that GR4 replacement is exactly the same type as JCA therefore allowing the bulk of UK FW to embark. At this point the debate usually gets a little more emotive.
In summary, whilst there are large issues to be debated here the choice of any given platform to fulfill the JCA requirement is not particularly relevant, but the constitution of the force and the aircraft type selected to replace GR4 is.
As it stands the UK is buying F-35C to fulfill its requirement for JCA which was originally the FCBA. It is fundementally incorrect to say that the RN is getting F-35. A correct statement would be that the plan is to man a Joint force with all skill sets from pilot to engineer provided by both RAF and RN. This is exactly the same as the JFH model. I believe the AOA which is essentially 'the owner' will be 1 Gp RAF. So you could argue that the RN will take deliveries of no JCA.
However as FE@R reduces the possibility and arguably desirability of a single service force comes into play. It is worth reiterating that the JCA is a carrierborne capability. It is possible to argue that the RAF wants to be part of it due to service survivability rather than being able to offer a demonstrable commitment to sea basing by the light blue. There really isn't another model for an air force operating a nation's sea based FW.
So the possible alternatives become 1) The status quo - JCA manned by a Joint force. 2) RAF continue to man the Typhoon force and the entire JCA force. 3) RAF man the Typhoon, RN man JCA. Let's rule out RN manning all UK FW - despite my saline credentials the whole 'let's split the RAF between RN and army' idea has always struck me as being infantile in the extreme.
What becomes the interesting talking point really is the GR4 successor which IIRC has been called FOAS and FCAC over the years. It was always talked of as a system of systems the manned portion of which could still be a F-35. So you could end up with Typhoon, JCA and GR4 successor as two light blue forces and either a joint one or a dark blue one. A potential model might be to ensure that GR4 replacement is exactly the same type as JCA therefore allowing the bulk of UK FW to embark. At this point the debate usually gets a little more emotive.
In summary, whilst there are large issues to be debated here the choice of any given platform to fulfill the JCA requirement is not particularly relevant, but the constitution of the force and the aircraft type selected to replace GR4 is.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for Not a boffin, your post #133 ref post #123
NAB, you may well be correct about kg/lbs.
I took the F-35 weights from the graphic at post #123 by Mechta which lists the F35-C (the heaviest variant) as 30,618 POUNDS.
The MTOW for the Mk1 Lightning was 34,200lbs. In the Operating Data section there is a standard profile which states that after a missed approach to a second ILS the planned touchdown fuel is 100lbs per side!
I took the F-35 weights from the graphic at post #123 by Mechta which lists the F35-C (the heaviest variant) as 30,618 POUNDS.
The MTOW for the Mk1 Lightning was 34,200lbs. In the Operating Data section there is a standard profile which states that after a missed approach to a second ILS the planned touchdown fuel is 100lbs per side!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Orca and please do not think I was passing any opinions. Your post answers a few of the questions in my befuddled head and this situation is liable to get more interesting. 
Not into this RAF vs Army vs Royal Navy m'larky
Teething problems are par for the course
Not into this RAF vs Army vs Royal Navy m'larky
Teething problems are par for the course
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glojo,
I don't think anyone here would accuse you of that!
There are teething problems and there are teething problems. These are serious design issues and not easily fixed. The biggest issue is that each generation of aircraft has become (I'm going to say) exponentially (someone correct me) more expensive than the previous one. And so what used to be teething problems on the F14, F15, F18, anything from that era, is now a major, budget-busting issue. I doubt this prioject would survive a major re-design at this stage.
I don't think anyone here would accuse you of that!
There are teething problems and there are teething problems. These are serious design issues and not easily fixed. The biggest issue is that each generation of aircraft has become (I'm going to say) exponentially (someone correct me) more expensive than the previous one. And so what used to be teething problems on the F14, F15, F18, anything from that era, is now a major, budget-busting issue. I doubt this prioject would survive a major re-design at this stage.