What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?
Discussion
Nanook said:
Pretty much.
A is the conventional version
B is the STOVL version
C is the carrier variant, so stronger undercarriage, larger wings, arrestor hook etc.
Isn't the A the one with the bigger wing?A is the conventional version
B is the STOVL version
C is the carrier variant, so stronger undercarriage, larger wings, arrestor hook etc.
xeny said:
Kccv23highliftcam said:
...But if it's stovl just WHY are they so big? Questions on back of a fag packet addressed to BAe accountants dividend division......
Isn't there an argument that empty hull increases the immediate cost very little and saves you a bucket load of money when you want to add more equipment in a few years?Edited by Kccv23highliftcam on Saturday 29th September 12:19
"Yeah, we saved the government £xxb by shaving the size down by xx square metres. We can just about fit the current requirement on the carrier now. Well done us."
Five/fifteen years later...
"Not our fault. You told us you only wanted this size and for this money. Now you want to carry three Ospreys (or whatever) too?"
Five/fifteen years later...
"Not our fault. You told us you only wanted this size and for this money. Now you want to carry three Ospreys (or whatever) too?"
aeropilot said:
Err.......the B is the only thing available to operate off of those nice shiny new carriers.........there's isn't any other option!!
so the RAF are operating off the carriers, I wondered as both services have squadrons, and as we have more aircraft in total than the carriers require, that the RAF might a different use.So why a mix of RAF and FAA squadrons? How does their role differ, why wouldn't you just have them all as navy controlled assets?
Teddy Lop said:
How does their role differ, why wouldn't you just have them all as navy controlled assets?
They won't differ........and it's because the RAF got to have sole control over all fast loud pointy flying things back in 2000, when Joint Force Harrier was established putting control of all RAF and FAA Harriers under control of RAF Air Command.aeropilot said:
Teddy Lop said:
How does their role differ, why wouldn't you just have them all as navy controlled assets?
They won't differ........and it's because the RAF got to have sole control over all fast loud pointy flying things back in 2000, when Joint Force Harrier was established putting control of all RAF and FAA Harriers under control of RAF Air Command.frodo_monkey said:
As I said earlier, I think it’s really likely we’ll see a follow-on buy of ‘A’ models for the RAF - and the ‘B’ models being exclusively Navy...
The logisitics trial for doing so isn't simple. Just because we have B's does not mean adding A's will be zero cost (other than buying them). Different simulators will be needed, different supply chains, different training etc.If we can afford all that, then maybe.
DMN said:
The logisitics trial for doing so isn't simple. Just because we have B's does not mean adding A's will be zero cost (other than buying them). Different simulators will be needed, different supply chains, different training etc.
From what I've seen from those that appear to be within.....Other than the sims issue, there really wouldn't be much effect as the training is embedded with US over the pond anyway, so those going the A route would slot into the USAF system, and those going to the B (RN persons) would slot into the USMC system as currently.....which is all rather logical in terms of parent organisations as well.
Supply chain not an issue either, supposedly.
BUT the BIG issue is the politics, especially as we (UK plc) lost a LOT of brownie points with our project cousins across the pond when HMG changed from B to C and then did another 180 turn back to the B again a few years later. So, another 180 change (albeit a split buy) to buying some A's instead of B's is likely the reason it won't happen (despite all the otherwise sensible logic of the decision from every other POV aside from the AAR issue)
Had we not made that first about turn and back again, then I think a future changed split buy to a A/B mix might be more likely.
I'm more surprised in view of the Tornado replacement project being canned some years back, that BAe didn't offer a 'strike Typhoon' option of using the 2 seater Typhoon config with a more dedicated AG fit in the same way that Boeing/MD did with the Eagle to Strike Eagle?
The supply issue is a huge barrier.
If there are, say 5,000 parts that are different, then you'll need those 5,000 items 'duplicated' to keep both models flying. The military really can't afford that unless there's a very good business case for it.
One thing I'm surprised about is that, as far as I know, there's been no mention made of a common supply centre for Marham and Lakenheath to make use of.
If there are, say 5,000 parts that are different, then you'll need those 5,000 items 'duplicated' to keep both models flying. The military really can't afford that unless there's a very good business case for it.
One thing I'm surprised about is that, as far as I know, there's been no mention made of a common supply centre for Marham and Lakenheath to make use of.
Tony1963 said:
The supply issue is a huge barrier.
If there are, say 5,000 parts that are different, then you'll need those 5,000 items 'duplicated' to keep both models flying. The military really can't afford that unless there's a very good business case for it.
One thing I'm surprised about is that, as far as I know, there's been no mention made of a common supply centre for Marham and Lakenheath to make use of.
My understanding of it was the military are paying for it via the through life costs of the project, and they are not going to be buying/creating a stores supply for parts - will be supplied direct from the manufacturer was my understanding?If there are, say 5,000 parts that are different, then you'll need those 5,000 items 'duplicated' to keep both models flying. The military really can't afford that unless there's a very good business case for it.
One thing I'm surprised about is that, as far as I know, there's been no mention made of a common supply centre for Marham and Lakenheath to make use of.
Happy to be corrected on that, but this is one of the issue's with their so far, high down time rate in US service, as the parts are not being supplied as it was lead to believe they would be...??
Well if that's the case you'll still be multiplying it all by a factor of more than 1.
When I got onto Tornado in '82 the spares situation was atrocious. For some split pins I ended up wandering through the Victor hangar next door and begging. And that's just the cheapest part there is.
I just can't get over excited by problems with new aircraft. It's just the same old same ol. More expensive, definitely, but hardly new.
When I got onto Tornado in '82 the spares situation was atrocious. For some split pins I ended up wandering through the Victor hangar next door and begging. And that's just the cheapest part there is.
I just can't get over excited by problems with new aircraft. It's just the same old same ol. More expensive, definitely, but hardly new.
Pentagon announced F-35 grounding after first crash the other week............fuel tube (whatever that is) inspection and replacement program to be undertaken.
https://news.sky.com/story/pentagon-grounds-global...
https://news.sky.com/story/pentagon-grounds-global...
aeropilot said:
Pentagon announced F-35 grounding after first crash the other week............fuel tube (whatever that is) inspection and replacement program to be undertaken.
https://news.sky.com/story/pentagon-grounds-global...
Well a "fuel tube" could be a description for a tank unit used to monitor fuel contents BUT grounding 400 odd aircraft around the globe for a dodgy tank unit https://news.sky.com/story/pentagon-grounds-global...
Of course it could just be that, a tube that carries fuel ie a pipe.
But where....
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff