What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?

[aeropilot]

tuffer said:

Mr Will said:

So electronic repairs will be carried out in the UK, but engine work will be done in Turkey. What happens when you have a plane that needs both? What happens when a hard to diagnose problem might be either?

I read the Turkey element as deep servicing not diagnostics and repair.

And deep engine work only from what I remember.

Probably engines removed in UK, crated, put on a C-17 and flown to the facility in Turkey.......repaired/overhauled there, and then crated and returned to UK for re-installation in UK.

Of course, had the GE/RR F136 engine option for the F-35 not been canned by the USA, we could have been out of this loop as the UK would have naturally specced the RR engine, which might well have been able to be fully looked after here in the UK?
As it is we're stuck with the P&W F135 engine and its logistics setup.

[Sylvaforever]

Read and inwardly digest

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/dod...

Buzz words..

External carriage

G Tuck

Software late/missing

No full mission simulator

Unacceptable weapon vibration in bays

Unacceptable handling characteristics





Enjoy..

PS and the piece du resistance....... the redesigned fin attachment bushes that failed originally at 1700 ish rather 8000 hours, redesign and now totally failing at 250 hours....

Edited by Sylvaforever on Thursday 6th April 14:57

[aeropilot]

Sylvaforever said:

Read and inwardly digest

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/dod...



PS and the piece du resistance....... the redesigned fin attachment bushes that failed originally at 1700 ish rather 8000 hours, redesign and now totally failing at 250 hours....

As I said, the whole thing is a monumental clusterfk......

Individually, there are bunches of very talented people desperately trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but, as a managed project, its a complete joke.
We (the UK) should have pulled the plug on our involvement years ago, and made alternative arrangements before getting stuck into where we are now...IMHO.

And in addition to your piece du resistance you mentioned, I'd add this little worrying gem as well....

Overheating of the horizontal tail continued to cause
damage, as was experienced on BF-3, one of the
F-35B flight sciences test aircraft, while accelerating in
afterburner to Mach 1.5 for a loads test point. The left
horizontal inboard fairing surface reached temperatures
that exceeded the design limit by a significant amount.
Post‑flight inspections revealed de-bonding due to heat
damage on the trailing edge of the horizontal tail surface
and on the horizontal tail rear spar.

[IanH755]

So if it uses re-heat for any length of time it damages the surrounding structure - wow, just wow airframe designers, what an oops!

[Krikkit]

That's not the only bit either:

• The gun vibrated so much it destroyed a battery, the redesigned one was being tested as of 2015 and still isn't done
• The AIM120 is vibrating so much in the weapons bay they're thinking of limiting to 550kt while carrying it
• The arrestor hook mechanism is wearing so quickly it's being replaced after every landing, rather than 15
• Hard manoeuvrers below 5000ft are overheating the engine nacelles to the point of structural risk, so now limited to 600kt while they figure out how drastic it is, possible redesign required.
• Wing-mounted AIM-9X on the outer pylons are producing loads beyond the wing design limit in high AoA or landings
• The landing gear struts are so stiff on the C the pilots can't operate the touchscreens while taxiing
• Flight surface actuators are overheating regularly, causing an immediate flight termination
• Transonic flight is "unacceptable" in high load conditions:

DoD said:

In the F-35B, an uncommanded aircraft g “dig-in” that exceeds design limits has been observed while performing elevated-g maneuvers in the transonic region between 0.9M and 1.05M. Significant g exceedances (up to 7.7 g; a 0.7 g exceedance) have occurred when pilots were attempting to sustain 6.5 g or greater in this region."

That's just the worst bits of the hardware! The software sounds riddled with bugs, with the mean time between crashes anything between 4 and 27h (depending on version) with no consistent improvement. The multi-sensor tracking (designed to improve accuracy) is disagreeing with itself and spawning multiple tracks for air/ground targets - the fix? Turn off some sensors!

Edited by Krikkit on Thursday 6th April 20:53

[Evanivitch]

Why is everyone getting their knickers in a twist over a DRACAS database?

[donutsina911]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/britain-sp...

Twittersphere going a little bit batst. For those interested, follow @scottmox, an RAF F35 pilot doing a good job of putting Deborah Haynes of The Times back in her box..

[anonymous-user]

We were discussing yesterday the news that the French and Germans were looking to launch a new project for a Joint Fighter ...

The problem, as with the A400m, is by making these military (or any other) programmes political is that everyone wants a piece of the action and as such it becomes increasingly difficult to harmonise the different teams and their input / approach.

The A400M has been flying for 4 years with the customer and is still not at 100% operational capability, it is a simple fact that these super-complex systems cannot be delivered in the first instance with 100% capability.

Take the A380, built by one company in a number of locations, yet the inability for the systems to interface cost the business billions in delays and loss of functionality ...

[baldy1926]

donutsina911 said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/britain-sp...

Twittersphere going a little bit batst. For those interested, follow @scottmox, an RAF F35 pilot doing a good job of putting Deborah Haynes of The Times back in her box..

Its a paid site and i dont do twitter whats the basis's of the conversation

[eccles]

Trexthedinosaur said:

We were discussing yesterday the news that the French and Germans were looking to launch a new project for a Joint Fighter ...

The problem, as with the A400m, is by making these military (or any other) programmes political is that everyone wants a piece of the action and as such it becomes increasingly difficult to harmonise the different teams and their input / approach.

The A400M has been flying for 4 years with the customer and is still not at 100% operational capability, it is a simple fact that these super-complex systems cannot be delivered in the first instance with 100% capability.

Take the A380, built by one company in a number of locations, yet the inability for the systems to interface cost the business billions in delays and loss of functionality ...

When the 'J' model Herc was introduced there were are sorts of problems that weren't sorted for a couple of years and that was just an update of a fifty year old design!

[donutsina911]

baldy1926 said:

Its a paid site and i dont do twitter whats the basis's of the conversation

Sorry, rough and ready precis......

Accusations:

"The full scale of problems facing the F-35 Lightning II can be exposed today"

• The “stealth” jet cannot transmit data to British ships or older planes without revealing its position to the enemy.

• Broadband on Britain’s principal aircraft carrier is four times weaker than that for an average UK household, severely hampering the jet’s abilities.

• A test pilot had to land in almost total darkness after night vision failed in the plane’s £309,000 helmet.

• Its £12 billion software system is vulnerable to cyberattack and Britain will not be able to test its security independently.

• The defence department in charge of computer networks essential to the plane’s operation must find savings of £400 million this year.

• Falls in the value of the pound against the dollar have exposed British taxpayers to more than £1 billion in extra costs.


Pilot response:

Source for much of the criticism of the F35 is a knobber - some chap called Sprey.

I know the capability and it's awesome.

Night vision failure part and parcel of trials and tribulations of development

Article seems to conflate F-35 MADL with ship's broadband. Sprey and Brigante hate @thef35 and neither know it's real capabilities.

Much of the cost overruns have been absorbed by US, especially where they may have changed requirements since inception.

500 UK companies have F-35 contracts. Workshare is 15% of every aircraft built. Return on investment approximately £3 for every £1 UK spends.

[RizzoTheRat]

donutsina911 said:

500 UK companies have F-35 contracts. Workshare is 15% of every aircraft built. Return on investment approximately £3 for every £1 UK spends.

That's one hell of a headline figure that needs to publicised more if its correct.

[Sylvaforever]

Name these 500 companies....

... awesome helmet nv system... NOT.

The night-vision helmet display during the carrier landing approach video still..



“He’s looking down at the right, trying to establish where he is,” Lieutenant-Colonel Tom Fields, the exercise evaluator, notes in a video of the exercise. “His words after [he landed]: ‘Control, you are going to have to give me a compelling reason to do that again.’ ”

Ref:http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-532.html

[Ceeejay]

Sylvaforever said:

Name these 500 companies....

Start at the top of the pyramid and work your way down through their various supply chains.

BAE
Ultra Electronics
Martin Baker
Selex
Flight refuelling
Rolls Royce
Honeywell
NGL

They're some of the big component players on most aircraft programmes.... They will each have their own suppliers down to small components...

[Evanivitch]

RizzoTheRat said:

donutsina911 said:

500 UK companies have F-35 contracts. Workshare is 15% of every aircraft built. Return on investment approximately £3 for every £1 UK spends.

That's one hell of a headline figure that needs to publicised more if its correct.

It's not that hard to believe when think about it.

Want to build a magic box? You'll need PCB manufacturers, component manufacturers, someone to build the cases, the connectors, cables and harnesses, paint it, sticker it, create a transport solution, qualify and certify it...

It all adds up quite quickly.

[TheJimi]

Ceeejay said:

Sylvaforever said:

Name these 500 companies....

Start at the top of the pyramid and work your way down through their various supply chains.

BAE
Ultra Electronics
Martin Baker
Selex
Flight refuelling
Rolls Royce
Honeywell
NGL

They're some of the big component players on most aircraft programmes.... They will each have their own suppliers down to small components...

Aye, that.

Even the smallest manufacturer of the most innocuous of stuff, will still have a fairly sizeable supply chain.

It's not hard to see how the supply chain in the manufacture of the F35 is going to be very big.

That said, 500 IS a big number though.

[donutsina911]

Podcast worth listening to. If you can block out the moderator's whiny voice..

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-f-35-cross...

[RizzoTheRat]

Evanivitch said:

RizzoTheRat said:

donutsina911 said:

500 UK companies have F-35 contracts. Workshare is 15% of every aircraft built. Return on investment approximately £3 for every £1 UK spends.

That's one hell of a headline figure that needs to publicised more if its correct.

It's not that hard to believe when think about it.

Want to build a magic box? You'll need PCB manufacturers, component manufacturers, someone to build the cases, the connectors, cables and harnesses, paint it, sticker it, create a transport solution, qualify and certify it...

It all adds up quite quickly.

No it's not at all hard to believe, but my point is it's not well communicated. Big expensive projects like this always have their detractors moaning that the money could be better spent on starving kids/homeless/cats etc, without realising how many people it keeps employed. I work in the defence industry so would like to think I pay a bit more attention to these kind of stories than the average person, but I'd never heard that RoI figure before.

[Steve_D]

TheJimi said:

Aye, that.

Even the smallest manufacturer of the most innocuous of stuff, will still have a fairly sizeable supply chain.

It's not hard to see how the supply chain in the manufacture of the F35 is going to be very big.

That said, 500 IS a big number though.

I have a small car workshop and have just scribbled a list of 20 suppliers before I got bored and that is a long way short of the full list so I think 500 is a very conservative figure.

Steve

[Globs]

donutsina911 said:

500 UK companies have F-35 contracts. Workshare is 15% of every aircraft built. Return on investment approximately £3 for every £1 UK spends.

I'm not seeing how we can have a return on investment on a foreign warplane we don't need.
The money spend won't give anyone better roads, housing or food, it's 100% dead money: that's what military spending is: dead money.

Those 500 companies in the UK would be far better off either making our own planes or doing something useful like researching something of benefit to the population rather than our warmongering elites who go looking for wars that are usually illegal and always backfire.

If we really really need a decent plane we should just buy them from our neighbour anyway:

https://www.defensetech.org/2017/07/20/watch-russi...

Video in article or here
https://twitter.com/vezhlivo/status/88806199438917...

I.e one that actually works, battlefield proven and has two decent engines instead of one overstressed inefficient one taking up all the space you'd want to put stuff in. The biggest threat the F35 can boast of is to our wallets.