Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

Old 24th May 2012, 11:23
  #961 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 89
Seems like another hidden cost..!

http://bit.ly/KNmUF3
ITman is offline  
Old 24th May 2012, 12:17
  #962 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 49
Posts: 506
@ITMAN,

Not that I'm a proponent of the F35 but as problems come to surface, the melting flightdeck is probably not really of any serious concern in the longrun.
I seem to remember that the V22 initially had similar problems which where effectively dealth with, I would make a fair bet that this will also not be a showstopper for the F35B.

Last edited by kbrockman; 24th May 2012 at 12:18.
kbrockman is offline  
Old 24th May 2012, 23:38
  #963 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
God, another piece of lying, hysterical bullshiite!

The so-called "melting flight deck" problem DOES NOT EXIST!!

The vertical landing & horizontal take-offs (several) from USS Wasp by an F-35B were done with normal flight deck non-skid... AND NOTHING BAD HAPPENED!

There was a small (~10' x 20') section of the new flight deck coating on one section of Wasp's flight deck... but not the section where the F-35B landed (or took off from).


The new coating is in the last stages of the approval process... it was developed independently of the F-35B program (specifically in response to heating issues with MV-22, not F-35B, and is intended primarily to reduce recoating intervals from 1 year at the most (usually every 6-9 months on a CVN) to 10 years!

The cost over that period will be identical or lower, so there is no "increased cost"!

And what BS is this "beg from the US" crap... If you decide to use it, you will buy it from the manufacturer in a normal purchase procedure... no begging needed.

Here is a link to the manufacturer's website... click on "non-skid" on the left side of the page for specific info on the coating. Arc Spray Equipment - Thermal Spray Equipment - Metal Spraying Equipment | Thermion Inc.

I thought we had gone over this before... here is my post on page 25 of this thread; http://www.pprune.org/7139699-post481.html
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 25th May 2012, 11:27
  #964 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
GK 121 - Correct, the Mirror has it wrong. However, what is really, hysterically funny is that the "melting deck" meme started with some of the F-35's more fanatical online defenders, who were all "see, it didn't melt the deck, nananananaaa" after the Wasp trials.

No critic I have heard of ever said it would.

However, there are two parts of the problem that have had money spent on them. One is the heat-resistant nonskid, that seems to have been solved. The other is long-term fatigue from thermal expansion cycles, which last time I checked (late 2011) ONR was still looking at.

Last edited by LowObservable; 25th May 2012 at 11:41.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 25th May 2012, 17:56
  #965 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 49
Posts: 506
CANADA, put up or shut up
http://impolitical.********.com/2012...-big-guns.html
Lockheed Martin rep in this main excerpt from Postmedia:

F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin is warning that Canadian companies will lose out if the Conservative government decides not to purchase the stealth fighter. "Right now we will honour all existing contracts that we have," Lockheed Martin vice-president Steve O'Bryan told Postmedia News on Thursday. "After that, all F-35 work will be directed into countries that are buying the airplane."
kbrockman is offline  
Old 26th May 2012, 05:56
  #966 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by LockMart
P.S.: Prices will go up too.
LM had claimed that "the quoted price is guaranteed if contracts are signed in a timely manner" when Canada was making verbal commitments to F-35A "at less than $75 million each".

Last edited by GreenKnight121; 26th May 2012 at 05:56.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 26th May 2012, 07:41
  #967 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,147
What a mammoth thread . . .

Just one torpedo . . .
Dengue_Dude is offline  
Old 26th May 2012, 08:10
  #968 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 776
. . . I thought it was Cornetto?!?
FODPlod is offline  
Old 27th May 2012, 05:48
  #969 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,147
Much depends on which gondolier is singing I suppose.

The Titanic too was unsinkable in its day.

That's too much money, resource and vulnerability to stick in one tin can.

My 2d worth . . .
Dengue_Dude is offline  
Old 27th May 2012, 09:36
  #970 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 50
Posts: 142
...Well that's why we are buying TWO of them!
Obi Wan Russell is offline  
Old 27th May 2012, 13:10
  #971 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
Kbrockman - That quote from O'Bryan will be news to partners, who thought that the right to bid on production came with the PSFD MoU they signed in 2006, and ends only if they decide to abrogate said MoU.

And contrary to some Canadian politicritters, who would appear to be less than accurately informed, the MoU does not provide for anyone to be kicked out if they delay orders, or hold a competition.

It is surprising that Mr O'B appears to be less than accurately informed about this. Or maybe it's not.

Oh, by the way:

Atlas Elektronik: range record for torpedoes

Last edited by LowObservable; 27th May 2012 at 13:12.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 27th May 2012, 22:19
  #972 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Age: 88
Posts: 156
Angel Cat and trap and flap and trap and all the other dicey things


You are most welcome. As I said, the fact that 'cat and trap' isn't in the
'mainstream' is probably down to general public ignorance of naval aviation (and
defence matters in general).


Not having been in a navy and anywhere near "cat" (catapults) and "traps" (landing arrester wires) I do think that "flaps" are useful when landing on a flight deck. At least I would to add stall safety and some reduced speed when hitting the sudden stop.


What is confusing is the reference to arrester barriers for the F-35B and not the (normal) use of tailhooks. I suppose that there are tough and soft enough materials for those barriers as to cause no damage to the nose, gear and leading edges.

It also seems to me another boondoggle around the neverending developmental (and financial tab increases) problems holding up the
planned aircraft replacements by the various committed air forces.

But, what can one expect from people who buy hammers for $2000 a piece ? Of course I say this with due respect to the design engineers. It is not their fault that specs get changed all the time.
Yankee Whisky is offline  
Old 28th May 2012, 16:58
  #973 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 78
US budget axe being sharpened?

With cuts like these coming down the track will the B or C survive?


US 'must plan $500bn extra defence cuts' - Defence Management

Last edited by 163627; 28th May 2012 at 17:00. Reason: forgot to attach link!!!
163627 is offline  
Old 29th May 2012, 11:36
  #974 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 469
Possible performance improvements to the F135

It's a long article but about 2/3 of the way through there is some information about the XTE68/LF1.

IN FOCUS: Civil engines to drive P&W military upgrades
t43562 is offline  
Old 30th May 2012, 09:21
  #975 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 49
Posts: 506
For those that still think that the F35 is the way forward, look what it is doing to the Dutch Air Force.
JSF Nieuws.nl
translated:
It is remarkable that just the F-35, which should ensure the future of our Air Force for the coming decades, is claimed as the main reason for this huge reduction:
Calculations are made ​​that (in spring 2011 revised)a budget of 4.5 billion for replacement of the F-16 is only sufficient for 42 F-35A fighter aircraft to be purchased. For this reason it is better and cheaper to reduce the number of F-16's as soon as possible to 42. Because this would only require 1 airbase so the other airbase can be closed.

A quote: "The replacement of the F-16 is a major fiscal risk for the Defense budget if we select the Lockheed F-35A. This not only because of rising investment costs but also by the high operating costs. "
Because of the investments already made up until today ,abandoning the JSF is not an option. therefore, no actual calculations made what it would cost if we pulled out of the JSF.

That is 42 with today's projected prices, a secret rapport from 2009 spoke of no more than 38 planes, a number that is closing in faster and faster.
Just wait and see what the final numbers will be for all the other nations, I suspect a very similar trend.
kbrockman is offline  
Old 30th May 2012, 13:08
  #976 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,121
It's almost as if the people buying it actually think the price tag and cascading effects are worth it. Which can only mean it is and they know something we don't, or it isn't but aren't telling us.

Which could it be?
orca is offline  
Old 30th May 2012, 13:58
  #977 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 49
Posts: 506
It's almost as if the people buying it actually think the price tag and cascading effects are worth it. Which can only mean it is and they know something we don't, or it isn't but aren't telling us.

Which could it be?
I doubt it is such a black and white choice between only 2 possible reasons, it's probably more an amalgam of many reasons to stick with the JSF.
-a vested interest of both the industry and politicians and higher military leaders, the first ones protect their investment/future profits, the others to safeguard their reputation and further carreers.
-a lack of vision when it comes to alternate routes for their air forces.
-a (displaced) sense of loyalty when it comes to buying equipment from the US iso somewhere else leading to emotional choices iso rational ones , most notably in Norway and the Netherlands, not so much so for the other partners (maybe not even the 3 US forces).
-Stealth and its reputation in both the normal and popular media combined with the idea that it is a necessity in all future wars and conflicts.
Of all things this might be a the most valid reason, it only remains to be seen how determining it really is, as for the F35 I doubt it'll be as advantageous as originally claimed, let's be honest here it's not a B2 all aspect stealth bomber, let alone a F22 which is not only considerably more stealthy but also far better equipped to fight and protect itself if required.
-The complex sensor package, this might proove to be its biggest salespoint and biggest achilles heel, a bit like the VIGILANTE before, a platform with so much promise plagued by eternal issues stemming from its complexity.
By the time the F35 has these issues all solved , the competition will have the same capacity available at a much more reasonable price.
-probably many other points.........
kbrockman is offline  
Old 30th May 2012, 22:12
  #978 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Some utter tripe from Min AF to the party faithful.

Nick Harvey MP writes on Carrier strike capability

S41
Squirrel 41 is offline  
Old 31st May 2012, 14:38
  #979 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
It'll be very interesting to see what happens to the F35 Re. Eurozone nations; most economists now seem resigned to at best a Greek exit, at worst an implosion. I can't imagine any Euro area country would be interested in an increasingly expensive F35, if the shit really does hit the fan.

Also, the 42 for the dutch poses an interesting question: At what point does the number become so small that an order isn't worth it?

Personally, I'm cynical that its avionics will ever live up to the current specification touted. With so much code left to write & verify and the programme's track record, will it really be achieved in an affordable and timely manner?

Then there's the ever-increasing issue of US sequestration, which is now a mere 6 months away with no likely resolution until December (if it gets resolved at all)...how many people think a bunch of politicians will come to an agreement in 1 month??
Bastardeux is offline  
Old 31st May 2012, 16:29
  #980 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 71
Posts: 133
With cuts like these coming down the track will the B or C survive?
Absent a major new show-stopper, the answer is 'Yes'. The project is now too big for the US to allow it to fail. From afar, it looks as if the sequester is likely to be avoided once the presidential election is out of the way. It arose because Democrats and Republicans would not give political ground to the other and so wider budget cuts could not be agreed. I doubt either party really want to emasculate their military and so a 'fix' will be found before the sequester bites. However, our US contributors are closer to the politics than I am so maybe they can comment with more authority.

...look what it [F35] is doing to the Dutch Air Force...
I was talking with an ex Dutch Air force F16 pilot this week. He was unimpressed with F35 and felt it was the ego of top brass that were behind it. He felt upgraded F16's would be a more appropriate option, and more of them too. Hardly a representative cross section of opinion but it does demonstrate a problem for smaller military forces where they will have only a few ten's of F35s. The numbers have developed that way because costs have spiralled (F35 was meant to be the affordable, second tier jet to back up the F22) and some operators must be at minimum effective numbers, or even below that, whatever their 'official' purchase requirement may be. Presumably the hope is that the numbers will be built up over time as the economy improves.
Lowe Flieger is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.