21 Nov - Lockheed rolls out UK's first Joint Strike Fighter
 

Not sure if this has been covered in other threads...

Lockheed rolls out UK's first Joint Strike Fighter

Did I understand that correctly, we've brought 3 aircraft from the USA that we're not going to buy any more of, and we're using those for testing in the USA for the benefit of the US company that built them. That's a bargain if ever I saw one!

When you hastily step into a programme with a partner and agree to join in the T&E, it's hard to pull out. Act in haste... ...then get defence cuts.

I thought we'd done a swap with these so the Marines got our -B models, which were ahead of theirs giving them a leg up in their development plans, while we were getting reassigned USN -C model trials variants? I'm sure it was announced 6/8 weeks ago

Exchange of UK F-35B for F-35C Test Aircraft
 

The proposed exchange of UK F-35B for F-35C is only for one of the three test aircraft ordered and has not been agreed yet - it requires the approval of Congress.

Vagaries Continue To Cloud U.K. F-35 Agenda | AVIATION WEEK

SNAFU:ugh:

By gawd, it's an ugly airplane. From every angle, those F-35s look like they've been broken somewhere behind the cockpit. Speaking of which, what happened to the concept of all round visibility? Seems to have been sacrificed for stealth/aerodynamics/something.

Saw a full scale model at RIAT a few years ago. I think this one actually looks a little better.

Buccaneer nose suits it :)

So when's Hammond going to announce an order for Super Bugs?:confused::E

FB:)

Yes, not pretty, but better. IMHO it's just too complicated. Remember the marvelous engineering for moving the original Harrier's nozzles? Just a bicycle chain really. Now look at how many moving parts and potential failure points there are on this.


And imagine the scope for inflating project costs, delays, etc. Brilliant design, but at what cost, I wonder.

Perhaps we should hang on to our grounded Harrier force a bit longer .:uhoh::hmm:

Too late, Grandfer. They're on their way to the car boot sale! UK's got to pay for all those benefits somehow!

Where do they put the petrol??

B-H, if that part of the design had any British input then Dave-B is up sh1t creek.

Engines,
It's good to see you are as succinct and direct as you ever were at Air 06 to 07.

Regards

Adminblunty=PV

So, how much has the T & E aircraft actually cost us?:E

You are spot-on, Mach Two. The B model is definitely over designed, over engineered and over priced. Any battle damage to the doors, hinges, cranks and gears will prevent it landing back on deck.

Thinks! Perhaps I should invest in some more Martin Baker shares!

Some of the posts here deserve a reply, if only for balance.

Courtney mil: apparently we joined the programme 'hastily'. Not so. We worked with the US on advanced STOVL for 30 years plus, and negotiated our role in the JSF programme via an MoU that took years to agree. We are in the T&E in a lead role for STOVL. The only 'hasty' thing we did was to bail out of STOVL after a rushed SDSR.

Willard - You say that if any part of the design had any British input we are up the creek - what exactly is wrong with British engineering? The reflex 'we are cr@p' comments on these forums are just not right. British engineers have led key parts of the STOVL design, and have performed magnificently. Many cut their teeth on the Harrier, and their work on the F-35B has earned the respect of all their American colleagues.

Mach Two - according to you, the B is over designed, over engineered and can't take battle damage. How exactly do you think you get a stealthy, supersonic aircraft with large weapons bays and a massive avionics suite to hover? How do you get it to be able to do a STO? How do you build it so that it can be flown by the average pilot on a dark and stormy night? Here's the answer - world class engineering, and lots of it. Sheer hard work. Inspiration. Brilliance. Have they got everything right first time? Crikey, no. But take a dispassionate look at the programme, look at what the USMC want to do with it, think how navies that can't afford cat and trap are going to operate this aircraft at sea, and then think again about STOVL.

And on battle damage - yes, it's more vulnerable in the STOVL areas. But so is any powered lift design. Want to try getting an F-35C back on deck with damaged flaps or tails? Good luck with that.

I know there are many that fundamentally think STOVL is a no-go and not needed. That's absolutely their right, and I respect that. But trashing the performance of people who have put their professional lives into the programme is, in my view, lazy and unwarranted.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

By gawd, it's an ugly airplane. From every angle, those F-35s look like they've been broken somewhere behind the cockpit.


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Speaking of which, what happened to the concept of all round visibility? Seems to have been sacrificed for stealth/aerodynamics/something.

True, it's not like an F-16, which allows airplane driver a good view of the vertical stabilizer without leaving his seat.

F-35's have rear and side looking video cameras. The pilot can view the rear on one of his multifunction displays. Many cars nowadays, such as the top of the line Honda minivan, have rear facing video cams.

You're right, canopies protrude rather high above the fuselage and allow radar reflections from object inside the cockpit. Such objects include the pilot.

No, I said:

in reference to..

...given our [tongue in cheek] historical inability to build anything with sufficient fuel capacity.[/tongue in cheek]

So quit being so precious and chill out, FFS.