Geoff_BLOL. Hedging their bets against a JSF failure??
Not so much the failure of the JSF program but rather the failure of the JSF program to deliver enough operational production aircraft to meet demand towards the end of this decade and the start of the next.
Yes the F-35 will go into service but at a slower rate than expected, couple this with demand and the production available and current customers are looking at the middle of the next decade to fulfill their expected orders, those not yet in the market for F-35 will be even further down the pecking order so a systems update of legacy F-16s to F-16V standard will allow them to go for a interim stopgap upgrade whilst they wait for the F-35. Of course it also puts a new block F-16 into the bag for production for those who need or want a new aircraft other than a gripen or Super Hornet 😉
Geoff_Bthe articles suggest it will be a “fighter jet” and replace the Rafale and Typhoon. I wonder if this something different from the ground attack UCAV we’ve been seeing (nEuron and Taranis), or if that UCAV will fulfil all fighter roles, including air-to-air and such
what does bother me is that this is a UK/France project, what about Spain, Italy and Germany, who’ll also need to replace their Typhoons and Tornadoes?
Because France & UK have signed a defence cooperation treaty and are in the early stages of working closer together. German defence intrests have benn reduced since the cold war as it no longer has the Soviet bloc on/next to its turf and doesn’t have overseas interests to protect. Spain & Italy are broke at present. So defence cooperation is actually an area where Anglo/Franco relations are quite good and don’t include the rest of European Union.
I wonder if they will push this aspect if the two leaders are meeting together to avoid the spat that sprung up over the Eurozone crisis.
As for the UCAV, we’ll have to wait and see what scope they set for it, be it recon, strike or Air Combat. I would suspect anything air combat wise would be either to complement the eurocanards or include a manned/unmanned option if seen as an eventual replacement. The interesting bit will be if they go with the carrier capability as part of the requirement
Geoff_BWhile I agree that the poster on PRRUNE Military was likely wishing out loud, I do wonder if there is something to his logic (though I doubt very much we will ever operate tilt rotor aircraft as they cost a fortune to operate).
I would imagine that by the end the decade we would be looking at an additional helicopter purchase, simply because successive Governments have ensured that Westland’s and now AugustaWestland have a fairly steady stream of work, and once the Wildcat programme is completed and they have navalised and upgrade Merlin’s the only thing on the horizon is support and training contracts.
Still the AW149 is a rather illogical choice as unless agreement was found the work would be carried out in Italy and therefore provides little benefit to Yeovil.
Dosen’t AW Yeovil have an agreement to build the the AW149 should it get orders ?
So yes i wouldn’t be surprised to see an order for AW at the completion of the Woldcat construction and probably something to replace the Puma. Of course they may order more Merlins HC4s during their conversion and transfer to RN control as a stop gap measure.
Geoff_BBack on Topic and it looks like the cut back could be 40 aircraft rather than 30 but that is likely to be clarified today.
Geoff_BBy that it’s no different than any other modern combat aircraft then. I can’t think of any recent jets that have actually been delivered with all the features that were advetised and on time. The Typhoon is a cracking example of this, a jet that years after its entered service is still not finished. Gripen is another as is the Rafale. The fact its late and costs more than estimated is nothing exceptional in this day and age, infact its the norm.
Ah but there in lies the crux of the issue, Lockheed Martin were supposed to to have avoided the regular pitfalls, afterall they had experience with the F-16, the recent F-22 and had done much of the groundwork for the F-35 in the X-35 program. They were supposed to get it right, they afterall agreed the contract with the JSF office and went chasing partners around the globe to replace their teen series aircraft during this decade and had their production schedule ramped up and ready to go.
Geoff_BThrough years of hard work, employing the talents of real engineers, overcoming problems identified in testing, rather than picking holes in everything you can find, looking for spelling mistakes or grammatical mistakes to prove some sort of “point” and most importantly, offering no realistic alternative whatsoever.
You forgot to add at an over inflated cost, years behind schedule and below original specifications.
Perhaps if those real engineers had been allowed to do their job from the start instead of virtual engineers claiming traditional methods were no longer needed then possibly the aircraft might actually match its Powerpoint and MS Project expectations.
Most here have no doubt that LM will eventually produce a production F-35 that will enter service and should serve its customers well in the next decade.However that will take a great deal of time, money and hardwork to deliver but it will be far from the original JSF specifications for a cost effective, stealthy strike fighter for the 2nd decade of the 21st century.
Geoff_BYou have to remember that “air policing” is a PC term dreamt up to make the Air Forces role sound less aggressive. The reality is the Air Force does actually want a combat aircraft and unfortunately the Gripen is a pretty mediocre one. Think of it as a poor mans Typhoon.
Ah but they already have Hornets for that, the Gripen is there to replace the ageing F-5 Tigers.
Geoff_BHow much is X-47B expected to cost ?
Well X-47B is still a technology demonstrator what form and what cost a production Naval UCAV will be has yet to be determined.
It does however make you wonder what the Italians were smoking to get their 3 $80 million F-35s when the US are paying $212 for the 29 in next years budget !!!!.
Geoff_Bhttp://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/fy2013_p1.pdf
Found on another forum the FY 13 figures for F-35 cost. 29 aircraft ordered ( which LRIP is this, 5 ?)19 F-25A at 176mil each
6 F-35B at 253mil each
4 F-35C at 279mil eachIs it me or it’s actually more expensive than the last lot ?! Would anyone who is up to speed with the programe have the breakdown for previous lots please? Thanks.:)
Dunno if the figures above include the engine.
I think they do include the engines as its the DOD budget for the aircraft procurement rather than the price agreed by LM
Geoff_BAs said below, the flight deck was the factor which is why they operated on the smaller, but steel decked Audacious class. If there would have been a steel deck modification in lieu of SCB-125 the 7 units of the class with C11 steam cats would have been able to launch and recover phantoms fairly easily.
Not quite true, the Essex were limited in their stability as the hanger deck was their strehgth deck unlike the aroured carriers, so the top weight of a new steel deck and the extensive Island radar fit would be pushing it even with the the added bulges.
As for the Phantom it was originally intended to operate off the smaller carriers, that why it mooted the RN to replace the Sea Vixen and to the RAN operating off a modified Essex in 64. It was only after sea trials did they find it wasn’t going to be able to operate safely off the smaller carriers esqecially when working under load. For the UK they replaced the engines and modified the nose gear to improve lift, but even then performance was marginal and FAA aircraft rarely carried a warload off a carrier unless it was expendable.
The issue was so great that McDD designed the F-4HL (High Lift) which fittted a new larger wing to a strected F-4K to give better lift and slower speeds for smaller carrier operations. They precitated buying back and replacing the RN F-4Ks and sales to the USN to replace the Crusader sqdns operating off the Attack configured Essex class. McDD took this a step further by designing the F-4FVS with the shoulder mounted VG wing to give better performace in all aspects but the USN were already onto the design of their next generation aircraft programs and the RN was earmarked to loose its Fixed Wing Carrier service.
Geoff_BLooks like the French PA2 won’t happen as such and any new French Carrier will be the replacement for CDG rather than to complement it so certainly the Thales CVF PA2 design has died a death.
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=118711
Not sure if that helps put forward the case to get both CVF fully operational or justifies that we can make do with just the one ?:confused:
As Ministers could use either to justify their decisions !.
Geoff_BHang on this is Northrop Grumman using their test bed to prove that the sensors thay have developed for F-35 work in an active combat zone (well training). Boeing also have a P-8 on the exercise too so its obviously a chance to showcase their products.
I didn’t think people would be so objectional to the Testbed taking part as whilst the system is being created for the F-35 there is no reason why these systems couldn’t be adapted and rolled out to other platforms than the F-35, (especially if updates may be required to legacy aircraft having to servce longer due to the extended delays to the F-35 delivery schedule).
Afterall its not as if an actual F-35 is putting in a token appearance in the exercise as a PR show for LM 😉
Geoff_BNot really Phil, we’re still deeply involved in the F-35 program and most people are confident that they will eventually resolve the issues with that have plagued the program to date as none have been deemed serious enough to warrant cancellation.
We will order our initial batch of production aircraft next year and by then we should have a fair idea on the remaining issues, the unit price and the expected in-service date.
Full numbers and deliveries will be determined in the 2015 SDSR at which point it may be deemed nessessary to opt for an interim cover aircraft depending on the USN schedule for the F-35C.
Geoff_BHow much plumbing configuration would be needed? Can’t it move fuel between tanks?
A lot of types have been equipped for buddy tanking, e.g. Tornado for Germany & Italy.
It all depends on the plumbing, the valves and the fuel management system in the F-35C, as the requirement was not an orginial design specification it may not be that simple.
Yeap lots of older types have successfully done buddy refuelling trials, the problem is the sheer complexity of the F-35 software and flight control systems. They are already struggling to keep to the schedule how long will it take them to integrate a buddy refuelling program and how would that interact/effect the exisiting programs. Sure they can do it but at what cost to the UK and what sort of delay impact it would have on deliveries those are factors which also need to be considered.
Geoff_B[Edit: I actually looked up the specs on the buddy store used by the Super Hornet, so corrections follow]
The F/A-18E/F carries its buddy store pod on the centerline, and 4 480-gallon external tanks on the wings.
The F-35C has two plumbed wing hardpoints. I will assume that the F-35C will carry the same Cobham buddy store that the F/A-18E/F does, along with a 480-gallon tank on the other side.
The buddy store has an internal fuel capacity of 300 gallons. I had originally expressed concern about load asymmetry if carrying only one external tank. The buddy pack weighs 800lbs empty, plus 2025 lbs of fuel, while a 480-gallon tank weighs about 3300 lbs full. So that should not be an issue.
F-35C internal fuel 19,145 lbs plus 5265 lbs external (1×300 gal plus 1×480 gal) == 24,410 lbs total fuel carried.
F/A-18E internal fuel 14,400 lbs plus 14,985 lbs external (1 x 300 plus 4x480gal) == 29,385 lbs total fuel carried.
So basically the F-35C as a tanker has about 5/6 the capacity of an F/A-18E. I see no reason it can’t be done, it’s mostly a matter of funding and certification.
I would suspect its a little be more than that with the F-35 to configure the plumbing and worse the flight control software. Remember the F-18 E/F was designed with the role in mind, where as the F-35 wasn’t so the UK would have to stump up the development & testing costs. Considering the price banded about to get a weapon certified for F-35 i dread to think what tanking development will cost and would it make the UK F-35C a different fit from the USN/USMC F-35C which would increase its unit cost.
Sign In
