What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?

What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?

Author
Discussion

maffski

1,866 posts

158 months

Friday 23rd October 2015
quotequote all
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
maffski said:
I think that's a significant part of the problem, the new Gen 3 helmet seems to oversize and overweight.
How does the Rockwell-Collins gen 3 helmet compare in weight to the old RAF Mk3C that I wore in training, or the Mk4A fitted with NVG (Night Vision Goggles)?

maffski said:
Also, according to Martin Bakers promo film it's the first time there has been a Neck Injury Criteria to fail.
That's probably because (aside from the MB Mk16A fitted to Typhoon) the earlier seats entered service before NVG became common in FJ.
Some updates from Defense News

There are plans to update the ejection seat and design a lighter version of the helmet.

hairyben

8,516 posts

182 months

Saturday 24th October 2015
quotequote all
CrutyRammers said:
mph1977 said:
hairyben said:
Mad 5 minutes so bear with me- What would the UK do if we needed to deploy air forces at short notice, as per the falklands, and no-one wanted to help us?

Can't retro-fit a cat to the so-called modular carrier very easily but a traps do-able without too many tears right? What about JATO typhoons with droppable rocket boosters on external hard points?
in the case of the falklands the scenario really is la-la land

the argentianins have fundamentally the same offensive capability they had in the 1980s ...

when they invaded there where less than 100 regular personnel and a dad's army FIDF , with No air assets
Does make me laugh, this. Every time the falklands is used as an example of an unexpected situation where we needed to mobilise the forces quickly, it's countered with "Yeah but that couldn't happen now, we've stationed xyz there". Yes, we've covered off what is now an expected situation. We don't know what the next unexpected one is.
What we do know is that we have less capability to deal with such situations than we did then.
^This, times a trillion.

Mojocvh

16,837 posts

261 months

Saturday 24th October 2015
quotequote all
maffski said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
maffski said:
I think that's a significant part of the problem, the new Gen 3 helmet seems to oversize and overweight.
How does the Rockwell-Collins gen 3 helmet compare in weight to the old RAF Mk3C that I wore in training, or the Mk4A fitted with NVG (Night Vision Goggles)?

maffski said:
Also, according to Martin Bakers promo film it's the first time there has been a Neck Injury Criteria to fail.
That's probably because (aside from the MB Mk16A fitted to Typhoon) the earlier seats entered service before NVG became common in FJ.
Some updates from Defense News

There are plans to update the ejection seat and design a lighter version of the helmet.
They plan to add fabric to the harness/drogue [?] to hold the pilots head in place....

here's what happened with a fully tested and certified ejection seat ..The chaps name is Ian Weaver. It would seem that he has laid the past to rest clap and he has shut down the section of his blog detailing his accident and how he fought his injuries to return to life....which is good as it was quite horrendous reading..he now has a part time career as a somewhat successful fiction author publishing digitally on Amazon thumbup

punt over... wink

http://www.ejectionsite.com/midair.htm

mcdjl

5,438 posts

194 months

Monday 9th November 2015
quotequote all
Its terrible: it doesn't even make a proper 'rat-a-tat' noise when they fire the gun: http://www.adsadvance.co.uk/f-35a-completes-first-...

telecat

8,528 posts

240 months

Saturday 21st November 2015
quotequote all
Could be the USAF are seriously thinking that F35 numbers just will not stackup. They are looking at ordering 72 updated F15, F16 or (really) F/A18's to supplement a really curtailed F35 order. If that happens then the US navy and Marines will not be happy at the pricing of the C and B variants.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-considers-72-ne...

Pesty

42,655 posts

255 months

Saturday 21st November 2015
quotequote all
You guys seem to have missed the news about cracks in the wings of one of these. I'll see if I can find the link


Ok so it was a test mule to find these things but I assume now more billions in re designed wing spars.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space...

Z06George

2,519 posts

188 months

Saturday 21st November 2015
quotequote all
If the USAF did do that then I'd just see the Navy buying the new(ish) Advanced Superhornet. 50% reduction in radar cross section is pretty impressive for a design that wasn't a stealth design originally.

RizzoTheRat

25,084 posts

191 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
IanH755 said:
We'd also have massive issues keeping Typhoons/Tornados flown from the Ascensions over the Falklands. Again, it's an 8hr trip at cruise speed with 4+ tankings in each direction at a minimum, plus extra Typhoon A2A cover for the tankers, transports, AWAC's etc. Plus out AT (air transport) fleet is massively stretched, although now Afghan is winding down it's getting better.
Can a typhoon or tornado even fly that far? In '82 the Tornado's were in service but couldn't have flown the Blackbuck raids as they'd have run out of engine oil.

IanMorewood

4,309 posts

247 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
RizzoTheRat said:
Can a typhoon or tornado even fly that far? In '82 the Tornado's were in service but couldn't have flown the Blackbuck raids as they'd have run out of engine oil.
Yes that's how we've deployed them for the past thirty years or so. One way with tanker support is very doable.

aeropilot

34,297 posts

226 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
RizzoTheRat said:
IanH755 said:
We'd also have massive issues keeping Typhoons/Tornados flown from the Ascensions over the Falklands. Again, it's an 8hr trip at cruise speed with 4+ tankings in each direction at a minimum, plus extra Typhoon A2A cover for the tankers, transports, AWAC's etc. Plus out AT (air transport) fleet is massively stretched, although now Afghan is winding down it's getting better.
Can a typhoon or tornado even fly that far? In '82 the Tornado's were in service but couldn't have flown the Blackbuck raids as they'd have run out of engine oil.
That was a myth regarding why the Buccaneer couldn't be used, not the Tornado.

davepoth

29,395 posts

198 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
Z06George said:
If the USAF did do that then I'd just see the Navy buying the new(ish) Advanced Superhornet. 50% reduction in radar cross section is pretty impressive for a design that wasn't a stealth design originally.
Which is probably what we should have done all along anyway.

Does anyone have any thoughts on what the minimum viable size of an F/A-18 RAF force would be?

telecat

8,528 posts

240 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
Z06George said:
If the USAF did do that then I'd just see the Navy buying the new(ish) Advanced Superhornet. 50% reduction in radar cross section is pretty impressive for a design that wasn't a stealth design originally.
Given the complete cock up they made of the Super Hornet I don't hold out hope for an Advanced Hornet not having a similar level of mistakes in the design. It was portrayed as a Modifed F/A 18 that required few changes to the original design. It wasn't. The Internal Structure had changed, the size had increased and has shares very little in it's aerodynamics. As a result it's slower has less range and needed a wing change to eliminate a "Wing Drop" fault right in it's combat envelope. As a F/A18 A pilot said when they went up against a "E" they could out run, outmaneuver and Out range the Super Hornet. It was never prototyped so it's problems were not discovered until it was flown in service.The Super Tomcat was a better aircraft and would not have been any dearer as it turned out.


Edited by telecat on Sunday 22 November 17:46

RizzoTheRat

25,084 posts

191 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
aeropilot said:
That was a myth regarding why the Buccaneer couldn't be used, not the Tornado.
Was it not true then? I remember it being mentioned in Vulcan 607.

Z06George

2,519 posts

188 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
telecat said:
Z06George said:
If the USAF did do that then I'd just see the Navy buying the new(ish) Advanced Superhornet. 50% reduction in radar cross section is pretty impressive for a design that wasn't a stealth design originally.
Given the complete cock up they made of the Super Hornet I don't hold out hope for an Advanced Hornet not having a similar level of mistakes in the design. The Super Tomcat was a better aircraft and wasn't any dearer as it turned out.
True but no where near as bad as what the F35 has become, also the Navy seemed pretty happy with the ASH tests. Haven't seen much saying they're particularly over the moon with the F35C.

Pesty

42,655 posts

255 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
This seems bizarre to me. Every sortie? Seems like a lot of ways for this to fail.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/fea...

IanMorewood

4,309 posts

247 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
If you consider that most frontline aircraft start there service life with some major issues and eventually evolve you can see that the F35 will probably be a very capable plane several years after its been accepted into service. Trouble comes that the trump card of the F35 (stealth) will more than likely be of no use to it by then.

Pesty

42,655 posts

255 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
Should have gone with the yf-23 that supposedly worked from the start ( Internet rumours) but more importantly looked a lot better.

It goes without saying I know nothing at all about planes.

Z06George

2,519 posts

188 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
I might be wrong but wasn't the YF-23 the competition for the F-22 and the F-32 was the competing aircraft for the F-35?

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
RizzoTheRat said:
Was it not true then? I remember it being mentioned in Vulcan 607.
It's true the tornado has about an 8 hour endurance due to oil consumption issues

aeropilot

34,297 posts

226 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
RizzoTheRat said:
aeropilot said:
That was a myth regarding why the Buccaneer couldn't be used, not the Tornado.
Was it not true then? I remember it being mentioned in Vulcan 607.
As regards the Buccs or the Tornado?