What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?

[mph1977]

Z06George said:

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?

yep

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

aeropilot said:

That was a myth regarding why the Buccaneer couldn't be used, not the Tornado.

The Buccaneer had the RR Spey.

The rear labyrinth seal in the Spey was of the total loss design, ie the engine effectively dumped oil overboard into the jet efflux as it ran.

I don't know what the oil tank capacity was on the Bucc but I can say that on Nimrod maximum sortie length was dictated by this (and not by AAR) to something of the order of 24 hrs.

I would seriously doubt that Buccaneer came anywhere near this in terms of oil capacity, so it may well have been a fact that Buccaneer did not have the endurance to fly Asi - Stanley - Asi.

[IanMorewood]

Bucs did of course deploy to the FI, just probably would have been a one way ticket in a combat role although I never got why no one jury riged a hand cranked (or leccy) pump through a couple of cans of duckhams to deploy down in 82, I would have thought far easier than getting an almost retired V bomber that no one had done AAR in year in working, would have put the Argentine Navy under even more threat as we could have live tested Sea Eagle ASM and would have allowed the Nimrods more tankerage as well.

[RizzoTheRat]

aeropilot said:

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?

Thought it was the Tornado but it was a few years ago that I read it.

[aeropilot]

IanMorewood said:

Bucs did of course deploy to the FI, just probably would have been a one way ticket in a combat role although I never got why no one jury riged a hand cranked (or leccy) pump through a couple of cans of duckhams to deploy down in 82, I would have thought far easier than getting an almost retired V bomber that no one had done AAR in year in working, would have put the Argentine Navy under even more threat as we could have live tested Sea Eagle ASM and would have allowed the Nimrods more tankerage as well.

As I heard it from an ex-Bucc aircrew, the main reason why the Bucc wasn't chosen was purely un-refulled range vs. the Vulcan, which would have meant more tankers required, and that was hard enough for a single Vulcan let alone multiple Buccs....so Vulcan had the advantage of a bigger load for a single a/c with min tanker prods.........no brainer really. There certainly was serious anti-shipping scenarios being looked at for the Bucc involving shorter trips to more northerly areas had the Argie carrier group not stayed in port.
That's why I perhaps wrongly used the word myth, as it wasn't the oil issue that the Bucc wasn't considered, although I it probably was a factor, as mentioned, it might not have got all the way back.
Other issue for Bucc aircrew (or Tornado) would have been comfort - that's a looooong trip to be confined to a bang seat in a tight cockpit!!

[MartG]

Pesty said:

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...

Imagine how much data you'd need to shift to get a carrier wing aloft - with no fixed internet connection

[aeropilot]

RizzoTheRat said:

aeropilot said:

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?

Thought it was the Tornado but it was a few years ago that I read it.

Yes, I heard it that the senior Tornado nav at the time was sent scuttling off into a dark corner to crunch the numbers for a Tornado sortie darn saff......and half hour later come back muttering "Not really the Tornado's sort of war" and that was the end of that.....

[hidetheelephants]

It's official; we're getting more 35Bs to go with the 35Bs we don't have yet. Or something; as always it's hard to tell what is happening or proposed after the government spin has been washed through the fkwit filter of the media.

[hairyben]

Pesty said:

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...

so the yanks have total control over what customers are able to use the jets for?

[tuffer]

hairyben said:

Pesty said:

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...

so the yanks have total control over what customers are able to use the jets for?

Luckily the internet is very secure and resilient and nothing ever goes wrong......

[Halmyre]

tuffer said:

hairyben said:

Pesty said:

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...

so the yanks have total control over what customers are able to use the jets for?

Luckily the internet is very secure and resilient and nothing ever goes wrong......

Running on Windows as well...

[Pesty]

Am I being thick here or say Chinese hackers put virus in U.S. Servers all f35 s grounded?

[davepoth]

Pesty said:

Am I being thick here or say Chinese hackers put virus in U.S. Servers all f35 s grounded?

Yup.

[MartG]

davepoth said:

Pesty said:

Am I being thick here or say Chinese hackers put virus in U.S. Servers all f35 s grounded?

Yup.

Seems like a huge, engineered-in, vulnerability to me. If you can't fly the thing because your enemy has disabled your internet connection then it's a total waste

[Halmyre]

MartG said:

davepoth said:

Pesty said:

Am I being thick here or say Chinese hackers put virus in U.S. Servers all f35 s grounded?

Yup.

Seems like a huge, engineered-in, vulnerability to me. If you can't fly the thing because your enemy has disabled your internet connection then it's a total waste

Get on the phone to your ISP's help desk.

"Hi, my name's Kareem, er, Kevin, can I have your account number please..."

[RobDickinson]

So the f-35 is costing thr US government $337 million per plane? This was supposed to be a cut price f22?

And we are buying more of them, faster. ...

[aeropilot]

RobDickinson said:

This was supposed to be a cut price f22?

No it isn't.


It was however, supposed to be an affordable F-16 replacement........

[andymadmak]

So, the F35 can now fire a gun, but carrying the gun makes it less stealthy...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-429...

Plus it still can't fly in a thunderstorm
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news...

And it still can't hit moving targets on the ground apparently

That being said, there have been some good reports:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/28/good-new...

So, F35 here we come?

[telecat]

Trump wants more money in the budget for the F-22 replacement so It looks like the Individual services will be going it alone on the 6th Gen Fighter. The USN meanwhile is tuck with it's original budget.

[Equilibrium25]

I'd swear that I read new posts in this thread in 2016, but I don't see them now