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.

F35 Stitch Up

Old 1st Sep 2017, 21:29
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: In a happy place
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A thought on external tanks, if the F-35 makes 1000nm+ straight line on internals (and I have heard it is considerably more) external tanks only really make sense for ferry flying. That means going high and carrying 8000lb of fuel in the tanks up to 30K'. In itself that takes a lot of fuel. Now consider the drag of 2 x 500gal tanks, and the fuel required to overcome that drag, for the climb to 30K' and for the 1000nm+ where the jugs are not required. Adding all that up means the additional range from the tanks is not nearly as far as most would assume - certainly much less than 8000/cruise fuel flow * cruise speed. Even with 'coke bottle' area ruled low drag tanks the additional range for an F-35 type aircraft might only be 100 or 200nm.

Is it worth spending the money to develop and test the tanks for such a small increase in ferry range? I'm assuming the jet has some wet pylons, so tanks could be fitted at some point in the future, but I guess for the current roles there is no real justification.

On the spares support front, it would be beneficial to understand how the F-35 'autonomic logistics' actually system works before deciding if multiple operating bases would be a benefit or impediment.

Phil
Phil_and_Sand is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2017, 21:46
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PhilipG
Something that I have not seen discussed on here is the swing role of the F35 support teams.

If a Carrier is having a surge complement of F35s, will all the maintainers be FAA or will it be a mix of FAA and RAF? The subsidiary question here is what extra training will the RAF personnel have to equip them to be "safe" on a carrier?

Then of course there is the question about who owns the spares, particularly the B specific parts if there is a mixed buy, together with what level of spares will normally be aboard a deployable carrier?

I am not implying that any of these questions have not been thought through, I personally have not seen any discussion of them though.
This is an interesting point.
Na, just fudge it.
glad rag is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2017, 03:24
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PhilipG,

Majority (58%) of F-35 maintainers aboard carriers will be RAF; the same percentage as the pilots operating them. All light blue will be fully trained to operate aboard a carrier - full flood damage control duties, firefighting and emergency procedures as well.

For the the "mixed buy", the specifics of how spare parts pertinent to each type are segregated and managed are yet to be finalized, so it is too early to speculate on what that will look like, especially as there is time to work it all out.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2017, 13:56
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MSOCS
PhilipG,

Majority (58%) of F-35 maintainers aboard carriers will be RAF; the same percentage as the pilots operating them. All light blue will be fully trained to operate aboard a carrier - full flood damage control duties, firefighting and emergency procedures as well.

For the the "mixed buy", the specifics of how spare parts pertinent to each type are segregated and managed are yet to be finalized, so it is too early to speculate on what that will look like, especially as there is time to work it all out.
Unfortunately for that "plan" all the "RAF" maintainers that I have spoken to have no intention of either embarking or remaining around to be made to do so.

So on top of all the other costs you are going to have train a entire new generation of maintainers, if, if you can entice them in the first place.

Now what was that about experience levels?
glad rag is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2017, 20:36
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Like many things Glad Rag, the iceberg won't falter for the whims of a few snowflakes. In this case, those I speak to on a regular basis have every intention of embarking. If they wish to leave, they will be replaced and you make a great final point about experience. If our experience levels dilute because of a unionist movement of land-lubbers only willing to serve on their own terms, well, frankly, the Service is better off without them in the long run.

It would be better for UK Defence to recruit 'airmen' who want a varied and interesting career both ashore and, when needed, at sea. Our new recruits sign up understanding a career on Lightning will involve time at sea.

I fear the unionists in this case are old codgers like you, with a chip on both shoulders. Of course, I may be wrong. You might actually be a genuine, serving airman in the RAF Eng branch who has seen his Service change too much for his own liking.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2017, 20:47
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
All the services are having trouble getting people - rhe RN is dependent on "volunteers" from the US Coast Guard to serve as engineers on a number of service vessels

I wouldn't be too sure they 'll be able to get the people they need for the carriers TBH
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2017, 23:23
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 327
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by MSOCS
Like many things Glad Rag, the iceberg won't falter for the whims of a few snowflakes. In this case, those I speak to on a regular basis have every intention of embarking. If they wish to leave, they will be replaced and you make a great final point about experience. If our experience levels dilute because of a unionist movement of land-lubbers only willing to serve on their own terms, well, frankly, the Service is better off without them in the long run.

It would be better for UK Defence to recruit 'airmen' who want a varied and interesting career both ashore and, when needed, at sea. Our new recruits sign up understanding a career on Lightning will involve time at sea.

I fear the unionists in this case are old codgers like you, with a chip on both shoulders. Of course, I may be wrong. You might actually be a genuine, serving airman in the RAF Eng branch who has seen his Service change too much for his own liking.
Well said that man
Frostchamber is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2017, 13:24
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Back in the fridge with you!
glad rag is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2017, 13:40
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MSOCS
Like many things Glad Rag, the iceberg won't falter for the whims of a few snowflakes. In this case, those I speak to on a regular basis have every intention of embarking. If they wish to leave, they will be replaced and you make a great final point about experience. If our experience levels dilute because of a unionist movement of land-lubbers only willing to serve on their own terms, well, frankly, the Service is better off without them in the long run.

It would be better for UK Defence to recruit 'airmen' who want a varied and interesting career both ashore and, when needed, at sea. Our new recruits sign up understanding a career on Lightning will involve time at sea.

I fear the unionists in this case are old codgers like you, with a chip on both shoulders. Of course, I may be wrong. You might actually be a genuine, serving airman in the RAF Eng branch who has seen his Service change too much for his own liking.
You were doing fairly well until the ad hominem, if that's your response all I can say is that I'm not from Birmingham.

I'm sure you can work it out if you try.
glad rag is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2017, 14:22
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting stream of replies.

As I understand what has been said, there will now be two streams of RAF maintainer training, one for non F35B maintainers and one for F35B maintainers, with probably different terms and conditions of service.

Obviously this discussion could also apply to Chinooks teams as well.
PhilipG is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2017, 14:27
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Around
Posts: 1,189
Received 114 Likes on 51 Posts
Originally Posted by PhilipG
Interesting stream of replies.

As I understand what has been said, there will now be two streams of RAF maintainer training, one for non F35B maintainers and one for F35B maintainers, with probably different terms and conditions of service.

Obviously this discussion could also apply to Chinooks teams as well.
Errr, no.......
downsizer is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2017, 14:38
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 831
Received 98 Likes on 51 Posts
I really don't think it is fair to impugn the motives and character ( " ...Landlubbers only willing to serve on their own terms....)" of those who did not expect to go to sea when they joined the RAF. We have three services, each with their own conditions of service and we freely choose which to join depending on what appeals to us. How would our heroic aircrew and maintainers of the RN feel about spending six months of each year in a trench with the infantry?
Timelord is online now  
Old 3rd Sep 2017, 14:57
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: the earth
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pretty much exactly the same way they would feel about spending 6 months in the desert, but you rarely hear people dripping about 'I didn't join the Navy to live in a tent in a land locked country'.

To me the obvious solution is to let the RN do carrier flying in total. This won't happen over night, but a starting point would be a MoU that when the F35A has been built up to significant numbers, F35Bs will xfer to the RN. It worked ok for the Merlins.

The one point that I will agree with MSOCS is that there really isn't any excuse for winging about going to sea. The RAFhave been embarking now since the mid 90s. I think it would be reasonable to understand that in a time of dwindling resources, if you're on the SH Force or LII force you're going to go to sea. Likewise RN maintainers should expect to deploy to overseas land bases....which they do and amazingly just seem to get on with it.

Last edited by AutoBit; 3rd Sep 2017 at 15:50.
AutoBit is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2017, 15:00
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How would our heroic aircrew and maintainers of the RN feel about spending six months of each year in a trench with the infantry?
Or how would embarked RAF and Army feel about being encouraged to buy a house close to their MOB, and never be posted away from it on the grounds that you'll have a stable home for your family to return to in between cruises.

I'm sure it would never catch on.
Bigbux is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2017, 15:20
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm not sure that "iceberg" is a good metaphor for anything involving very large ships. Neither has involuntary service at sea been regarded as great idea, at least since the era of Nelson.

OK, orders are orders, if you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined, and all that jazz. But it would be nice to see planning reflect reality, which is that recruitment and retention of people with the right talent mix is always a challenge for any organization.

That's why it's not just PC, but CS, to not maintain arbitrary bans on certain groups of people. And it's also the case that if you make the environment less desirable - if you want a future in FJs you may find yourself effectively in the RN - you either pay more or get less than you otherwise would have done. And no amount of banging on about unionist land-lubber snowflakes changes that fact.
George K Lee is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2017, 22:34
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ok George, fair points. I still maintain that that whatever Glad Rag has evinced from those he has spoken to within the RAF maintainer community do not represent the general view. Let me reiterate that those RAF I speak with, fully understand the implications of serving in the Lightning Force. I think an equilibrium will eventually be achieved; for instance, those who would have joined the RN to go to sea, but perhaps prefer many aspects of an RAF career may, in future, choose the latter because the Lightning Force can offer what they wish.

Glad Rag - don't get the Birmingham reference sorry (Cosford?). As for the "ad hominem" I apologise if the entire two preceding paragraphs seemed a set-up to personally attack you. It was not the intent, as I really don't have an ounce of emotional investment in such things. Unless of course, you and I run into each other in our professional lives. Perhaps a beer or two could begin to solve our different opinions on the F-35. Who knows!
MSOCS is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.