|
i'm as thick as a whale omlette - how/why would giving an F-35B a tanking capability be that much harder than taking a buddy re-fuelling pod from a Tornado, or F/A-18, and nailing it onto the inboard pylon of an F-35? i'm not saying a 'good' tanking capability, i'm merely asking why physically addapting such simple, legacy equipment would be so cripplingly expensive/hard? Way beyond my pay grade, I am just the thick whale omelette that queried the guesstimated costs of the UK version of the EMALS system. We are possibly being fed a huge degree of bovine excreta, but I doubt you could go to Halfords and buy a few jerry cans to lash under the wings of this latest aircraft and then maybe trail a syphoning tube for any aircraft in need of a quick 'Splash and dash!'. There have been lots of discussions on this very topic, the Americans have always made it perfectly clear of their position. We basically pay up, or shut up! Is 'Jerry' a politically correct term? I have not mentioned any war??? |
I am also probably missing something in all the discussion as to the extensive costs of bringing a tanker capability to F35. On the Super Hornet it is a tank that fits on the normal centerline tank pylon and can be fitted to any of the jets. Then it's a case of adding extra fuel tanks depending on how much give is required. Doesn't stop that jet still being a regular Super Hornet the next day.
|
Would someone confirm that the implementation of a buddy-buddy AAR capability (supply and receive) involves somewhat more than just bolting on a piece of legacy equipment? In my experience, a re-fuelling pod does not contain any fuel and would need a 'wet pylon' plus the associated control systems and safety features to work.
|
Would someone confirm that the implementation of a buddy-buddy AAR capability (supply and receive) involves somewhat more than just bolting on a piece of legacy equipment? In my experience, a re-fuelling pod does not contain any fuel and would need a 'wet pylon' plus the associated control systems and safety features to work. |
So no need to control a hose reel, pump turbine, supply valves, status lights, etc?
|
The point about the aar is not whether it's difficult or not, but was it really needed in one option and not the other? If so why? Might be a complicated answer....might not!:)
|
It was needed in one option (-C/EMALS) but not the other (-B) to bump up the cost of the first to justify the selection of the second...?
Not a complicated answer, just complicated politics (sadly, all our own)? :( |
F35B Numbers
According to the SofS, the UK is only to buy 48:
Britain, U.S. hail F-35 fighter as tightening ties | Reuters First official reduction from the 138 figure that I've seen. |
If we read all that report it states at the bottom..
Hammond told Reuters before his speech that Britain ultimately planned to buy an unspecified number of additional F-35 models after deciding - as early as 2015 or as late as 2020 - on a mix of manned and unmanned aircraft to replace its multirole Eurofighter Typhoon fighters. |
I think someone mixed up Tornado and Typhoon. At least I hope they did......
|
According to the SofS, the UK is only to buy 48: Britain, U.S. hail F-35 fighter as tightening ties | Reuters First official reduction from the 138 figure that I've seen. There's no official confirmation of this '48' number in offficial MoD releases - eg at: Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | UK takes delivery of first Lightning II fighter jet |
Jackonicko - please reply to the PM I sent you!!
|
48?
No point in the raf getting any. Money saved from any joint b-s can go to running both carriers simultaneously, as much as is possible. |
As Jacko rightly points out, no official source has come out with that number.
One suspects that the "48" has been extrapolated by a journo source from the number of GR4, the aircraft that it is supposed to "replace". The requirement to provide Carrier Strike will be on top of that GR4 number, remember it was the "type" retired, not the requirement, which merely lapsed due to no suitable aircraft type. Or so one would hope...... |
|
Sounds like inspired guesswork
Very close to halfway between the total numbers of FA2 built (52) and initial GR5 production (41) In the case of the GR5, more were built later as different marks - probably the same will apply to the F-35 |
As per my post the Defence Minister has confirmed the first order fo4r 48 but has not given any further numbers for any subsequent orders.. This is a complete and utter NON news story :) Far be it for me to suggest our Minister might be mistaken regarding the replacement of the Typhoon. Could he have simply thought of an aircraft beginning with the letter 'T' and just got it wrong?
|
Where exactly is this number 'confirmed' Glojo?
|
Hi Jackonicko,
My BAD :O:O:O:O:O Many apologies and I got carried away with my wishful thinking.. a day before Britain receives the jet's first international delivery. Britain is to formally accept an F-35 test model at Lockheed's Fort Worth, Texas, production plant on Thursday. The Pentagon seized the occasion to voice strong support for the plane, which is over budget, behind schedule and a potential target for cuts by lawmakers. The delivery reflects "considerable strides" in the program, particularly in the past year, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told a Pentagon press conference alongside Philip Hammond, his British counterpart. "The F-35 represents, I believe, the future of tactical aviation for both of our armed services" and would help ensure "our dominance of the skies for years to come," he said. Hammond, Britain's secretary of state for defense, cited joint work on the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing model -- of which Britain plans to buy 48 -- as one of the "crucial keystones" of what he called Britain's most important defense relationship. |
BBC News - UK receives first F-35 stealth fighter jet from US
BBC are now quoting 48 as an initial commitment. What does 48 mean in the context of the F35? With a production line open and ready to make up attrition down the line, surely the FEAR ratio of that 48 should be higher? Is this therefore already sufficient to meet requirements for the carrier strike role (12 usually, up to 36 in a crisis)? The UK / RAF could return for A models at a later date..... |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:06. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.