F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Most of the fixes already have a path to resolution when he writes, but he still has to document it - then it appears (outwardly) that there is no fix to the public when they read it, out of context, and in isolation from knowing what is going on inside the Program.
If your management realise this then they will try to get out of an inevitably losing position, cancel the product before they expose themselves to even bigger losses.
This is a different situation. We the customers sit here and absorb *all* the screwups, endlessly.
Last edited by t43562; 23rd Sep 2016 at 07:11. Reason: typos
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently there has been another fire involving the F-35A, this time at Mountain Home AFB in Idaho (some earlier? lot aircraft are not affected by the recent grounding order.) Sketchy details atm:
"WASHINGTON — An F-35A caught fire during an exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, the Air Force confirmed to Defense News.
The incident took place at around noon and involved an F-35A aircraft from the 61st Fighter Squadron located at Luke Air Force Base, the service said in a statement. No serious injuries seem to have been sustained by the pilot or nearby crew.
"The pilot had to egress the aircraft during engine start due to a fire from the aft section of the aircraft," Air Force spokesman Capt. Mark Graff said in an email. "The fire was extinguished quickly. As a precautionary measure, four 61st Aircraft Maintenance Unit Airmen, three Airmen from the 366th Maintenance Group and the 61st Fighter Squadron pilot were transported to the base medical center for standard evaluation." "
F-35A Catches Fire at Mountain Home Air Force Base | Defense News
"WASHINGTON — An F-35A caught fire during an exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, the Air Force confirmed to Defense News.
The incident took place at around noon and involved an F-35A aircraft from the 61st Fighter Squadron located at Luke Air Force Base, the service said in a statement. No serious injuries seem to have been sustained by the pilot or nearby crew.
"The pilot had to egress the aircraft during engine start due to a fire from the aft section of the aircraft," Air Force spokesman Capt. Mark Graff said in an email. "The fire was extinguished quickly. As a precautionary measure, four 61st Aircraft Maintenance Unit Airmen, three Airmen from the 366th Maintenance Group and the 61st Fighter Squadron pilot were transported to the base medical center for standard evaluation." "
F-35A Catches Fire at Mountain Home Air Force Base | Defense News
F35
We probably all want to know how good or how bad F35B is going to be for the UK. it is clearly a massive investment in both aircraft and of course aircraft carriers. To my mind, our prime security requirement must be to protect the UK from foreign attacks. To that end, why do we really need massively expensive to procure and massively expensive to operate aircraft carriers ?
The biggest concern is that these 2 projects will consume so much of our defence budget that capabilities we really need to protect our shores will and have been seriously degraded. Further, the 2 main attributes F35 possesses are - Stealth and Sensor Fusion and BVR. That will be fine for a limited number of years when these 2 capabilities become negated by inevitable advances. Then, we will be left with an aircraft that has the following basic deficiencies:
Poor agility, poor range, poor acceleration, minimal weapons storage onboard and if external, stealth compromised, single engine risk etc, etc.
At least with Typhoon, we have an aircraft that has excellent flying capability. Yes it may not be 5th Generation, but the basic platform is capable end flexible.
it could (relatively) easily and most likely at a significantly lower cost be made carrier capable (assuming we really need that).
There is no way that F35 or the Carriers will be cancelled. Too much has been invested and TOO MANY AIRFORCE AND ROYAL NAVY CAREERS depend on these; they always want the latest shiny new toys. Lets all hope that these 2 projects deliver what is required. If not, there will be a massive hole in the defence budget.
The biggest concern is that these 2 projects will consume so much of our defence budget that capabilities we really need to protect our shores will and have been seriously degraded. Further, the 2 main attributes F35 possesses are - Stealth and Sensor Fusion and BVR. That will be fine for a limited number of years when these 2 capabilities become negated by inevitable advances. Then, we will be left with an aircraft that has the following basic deficiencies:
Poor agility, poor range, poor acceleration, minimal weapons storage onboard and if external, stealth compromised, single engine risk etc, etc.
At least with Typhoon, we have an aircraft that has excellent flying capability. Yes it may not be 5th Generation, but the basic platform is capable end flexible.
it could (relatively) easily and most likely at a significantly lower cost be made carrier capable (assuming we really need that).
There is no way that F35 or the Carriers will be cancelled. Too much has been invested and TOO MANY AIRFORCE AND ROYAL NAVY CAREERS depend on these; they always want the latest shiny new toys. Lets all hope that these 2 projects deliver what is required. If not, there will be a massive hole in the defence budget.
Notwithstanding the fact that the carriers would need extensive (and expensive) modification to accommodate CTOL aircraft, beefing up the airframe and undercarriage of the Typhoon (first flown in March 1994) and incorporating more robust materials to withstand the repeated stresses and strains of violent catapult launch, sudden arrested recovery on a pitching deck and prolonged survival in a salt-laden marine environment, not to mention the addition of an arrestor hook and other intrinsic systems, would involve so much extra design, development and production work and result in so much weight gain and reduced performance that you might as well start from scratch.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With that one statement, you have managed to destroy the credibility of anything else you say. I suspect you believe the F-35B's characteristics are inferior to the Harrier's, too.
Notwithstanding the fact that the carriers would need extensive (and expensive) modification to accommodate CTOL aircraft, beefing up the airframe and undercarriage of the Typhoon (first flown in March 1994) and incorporating more robust materials to withstand the repeated stresses and strains of violent catapult launch, sudden arrested recovery on a pitching deck and prolonged survival in a salt-laden marine environment, not to mention the addition of an arrestor hook and other intrinsic systems, would involve so much extra design, development and production work and result in so much weight gain and reduced performance that you might as well start from scratch.
Notwithstanding the fact that the carriers would need extensive (and expensive) modification to accommodate CTOL aircraft, beefing up the airframe and undercarriage of the Typhoon (first flown in March 1994) and incorporating more robust materials to withstand the repeated stresses and strains of violent catapult launch, sudden arrested recovery on a pitching deck and prolonged survival in a salt-laden marine environment, not to mention the addition of an arrestor hook and other intrinsic systems, would involve so much extra design, development and production work and result in so much weight gain and reduced performance that you might as well start from scratch.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 0
Received 66 Likes
on
53 Posts
'Buster15' said amongst other things:
Have a gander at this material to find out how easy it is. Chapter THREE of first PDF is very relevant. What is a navalised Typhoon? A TYPHOID?
AIRCRAFT DEVELOPMENT Navy’s Participation in Air Force’s Advanced Tactical Fighter Program; GAO 1990
http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat11/141083.pdf (2.2Mb)
_________________________________
Since this thread is about the F-35 then....
The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter by Mr. Eric S. Ryberg, 26-27 Feb 2002 http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988 (PDF 1Mb)
________________________________
Some Carrier Aircraft Requirements:
"...At least with Typhoon, we have an aircraft that has excellent flying capability. Yes it may not be 5th Generation, but the basic platform is capable and flexible. It could (relatively) easily and most likely at a significantly lower cost be made carrier capable...."
AIRCRAFT DEVELOPMENT Navy’s Participation in Air Force’s Advanced Tactical Fighter Program; GAO 1990
"...Chapter 3: Basing and Mission Differences Affect Aircraft Design
Few attempts to make common airframes serve both Air Force and Navy purposes have been successful. Studies show that it is difficult to accommodate Navy missions and carrier basing in an airframe designed for Air Force missions and land basing. The services have had more success with common use of major components such as engines, weapons, and avionics equipment....
...Past Experience With Cross-Service Use of Aircraft
Since the mid-1940s successful cross-service use of fighter and attack aircraft has been limited. The F-4 and A-7 are among the more successful aircraft used by both the Air Force and the Navy during this period, but both were initially designed by the Navy to operate from aircraft carriers. Since World War II no US. fighter or attack aircraft developed to operate from land bases has been successfully adapted to operate from carriers and procured by both the Air Force and the Navy...."
Few attempts to make common airframes serve both Air Force and Navy purposes have been successful. Studies show that it is difficult to accommodate Navy missions and carrier basing in an airframe designed for Air Force missions and land basing. The services have had more success with common use of major components such as engines, weapons, and avionics equipment....
...Past Experience With Cross-Service Use of Aircraft
Since the mid-1940s successful cross-service use of fighter and attack aircraft has been limited. The F-4 and A-7 are among the more successful aircraft used by both the Air Force and the Navy during this period, but both were initially designed by the Navy to operate from aircraft carriers. Since World War II no US. fighter or attack aircraft developed to operate from land bases has been successfully adapted to operate from carriers and procured by both the Air Force and the Navy...."
_________________________________
Since this thread is about the F-35 then....
The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter by Mr. Eric S. Ryberg, 26-27 Feb 2002 http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988 (PDF 1Mb)
________________________________
Some Carrier Aircraft Requirements:
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 25th Sep 2016 at 04:41. Reason: add graphic then text
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Few attempts to make common airframes serve both Air Force and Navy purposes have been successful. Studies show that it is difficult to accommodate Navy missions and carrier basing in an airframe designed for Air Force missions and land basing.
Originally Posted by TurbineD
Few attempts to make common airframes serve both Air Force and Navy purposes have been successful. Studies show that it is difficult to accommodate Navy missions and carrier basing in an airframe designed for Air Force missions and land basing.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 0
Received 66 Likes
on
53 Posts
[S]HADES of the Vampire Wet Start | 'Maus92' post: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post9518356
Back end flameout roasts F-35 on runway 25 Sep 2016 Richard Chirgwin
Back end flameout roasts F-35 on runway ? The Register
MORE ON THE 'tailpipe/wetstart?' fire: http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/...-tailpipe-fire
Back end flameout roasts F-35 on runway 25 Sep 2016 Richard Chirgwin
"...The fire happened while the pilot was starting the F-35; the pilot exited the aircraft while it was extinguished, and the US Air Force reports there were no injuries.
While the cause of the fire is still under investigation, Aviation Week says “initial assessments point to a tailpipe fire due to strong tailwinds as the engine was starting”.
If accurate, that would point to an aborted start that left too much unburned fuel in the exhaust duct. Aviation Week says at the time, winds were gusting up to 70 km/h (45 mph) from the northwest to west-by-northwest....”
While the cause of the fire is still under investigation, Aviation Week says “initial assessments point to a tailpipe fire due to strong tailwinds as the engine was starting”.
If accurate, that would point to an aborted start that left too much unburned fuel in the exhaust duct. Aviation Week says at the time, winds were gusting up to 70 km/h (45 mph) from the northwest to west-by-northwest....”
MORE ON THE 'tailpipe/wetstart?' fire: http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/...-tailpipe-fire
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 26th Sep 2016 at 04:40. Reason: Add AvWeak URL
I was under the impression that the F-111 had already confirmed that.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is not to say that if the Rafale had only been developed for the French Air Force that it might not have been slightly lighter etc but then the French Navy would have no up to date aircraft.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Darren P, as I understand it the Rafale's development was only started because a Naval Version of what is now Typhoon was ruled out by the then consortium, the French then left and started development of the Rafale, that from the bottom up has been designed to fly off carriers
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Ironically, however, due to the production delays, by the time the Rafale-M entered service the Foch and Clemenceau had been decommissioned and replaced by the larger Charles deGaulle, so the weight limitations didn't apply.
IIRC if it had had to operate of the Foch it would have to operate with only a couple of AA Mx and internal fuel, essentially the same missions and weapon load as the F-8 Crusader it was designed to replace.
IIRC if it had had to operate of the Foch it would have to operate with only a couple of AA Mx and internal fuel, essentially the same missions and weapon load as the F-8 Crusader it was designed to replace.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The French pulled out of the EFA consortium, which became the EF2000 consortium, because they insisted upon a carrier capable design which would be able to operate of off the Foch. The weight, range and payload limitations that would have imposed (the "10 ton" airframe) were unacceptable to the other nations. Hence they designed Rafale on their own.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is still however true to say that the Typhoon's basic structure was not designed to take the stresses of CATOBAR operations whilst the Rafale even with a lower weight was from the outset.
KenV:....The only aircraft (that I'm aware of) that started out land based and was successfully converted to carrier operations...
Last edited by sandiego89; 26th Sep 2016 at 18:24.