Britain told "No Access" to F-35 Software codes
Discussion
SmoothCriminal said:
A serious move?
Too much vested interest in the program to can it I think, despite whatever boat rockin he does.
The USAF and others need the A model though.....and if they had just followed the original brief and built the A to replace the F-16 fleets, etc then it would have made sense.
I still don't see the point of the B, and to an extent, the C.
I realise it doesn't help the original brief of an F16 replacement but regarding the USN surely Boeing will just reply with the Advanced Superhornet. I posted a video with some specs ages ago in the other F35 thread. 50% radar cross section reduction, with better range and avionics. I wouldn't have thought there's enough money left to start over.
Underlines typical government and MOD incompetence in scrapping the current system before the new one was delivered.
If they do scrap the carrier version perhaps they could assist in converting our two ships into proper carriers with catapults and arrestor gear and supply Super Hornets all for the same price as the original F-35s.
If they do scrap the carrier version perhaps they could assist in converting our two ships into proper carriers with catapults and arrestor gear and supply Super Hornets all for the same price as the original F-35s.
FourWheelDrift said:
Underlines typical government and MOD incompetence in scrapping the current system before the new one was delivered.
If they do scrap the carrier version perhaps they could assist in converting our two ships into proper carriers with catapults and arrestor gear and supply Super Hornets all for the same price as the original F-35s.
If they do bin it, if the MoD has shown the usual level of government competence when writing contracts, it'll probably cost us more to cancel than it would to buy itIf they do scrap the carrier version perhaps they could assist in converting our two ships into proper carriers with catapults and arrestor gear and supply Super Hornets all for the same price as the original F-35s.
Z06George said:
I realise it doesn't help the original brief of an F16 replacement but regarding the USN surely Boeing will just reply with the Advanced Superhornet. I posted a video with some specs ages ago in the other F35 thread. 50% radar cross section reduction, with better range and avionics. I wouldn't have thought there's enough money left to start over.
I wouldn't think that the USAF or Marines would be impressed. The Current "Super" Hornet is a bodge job with Aerodynamics that are severely compromised. It cannot carry it's weapons without having to cut speed. is slower than the Hornet and has barely any better range. The Advanced Tomcat would have been a better aircraft but was overlooked due to Boeing's influence on the "hill". Even the Display teams won't use it. An advanced F16 or further development of the F15 would be a better bet.telecat said:
Z06George said:
I realise it doesn't help the original brief of an F16 replacement but regarding the USN surely Boeing will just reply with the Advanced Superhornet. I posted a video with some specs ages ago in the other F35 thread. 50% radar cross section reduction, with better range and avionics. I wouldn't have thought there's enough money left to start over.
I wouldn't think that the USAF or Marines would be impressed. The Current "Super" Hornet is a bodge job with Aerodynamics that are severely compromised. It cannot carry it's weapons without having to cut speed. is slower than the Hornet and has barely any better range. The Advanced Tomcat would have been a better aircraft but was overlooked due to Boeing's influence on the "hill". Even the Display teams won't use it. An advanced F16 or further development of the F15 would be a better bet.Z06George said:
I don't know much on the F22 but why isn't that considered a viable option instead of the F35A?
The F-22 is an air-superiority fighter rather than a bomb truck with a self-defense capability which is what the F-35A is.....and the last one rolled off the production line in 2012, because Obama killed it early by terminating production after only 187 had been made instead of the 700+ that had been envisaged to be built (F-22 was supposed to replace the F-15C fleet, F-35A was to replace the F-16C/F-15E fleets)Restarting production of the F-22 which has been mooted as a possibility recently, would cost around $300-500m just to get a production line back up and running, so that would effectively swallow development costs on any 6th gen F-22 future replacement, which leaves the USAF and DoD in a quandry.
Restart production as is and push back 6th gen development by several decades?
Or.....
Keep the small fleet of F-22's they have and spend the money on bringing forward 6th gen design, but this will also mean, that the existing F-15 fleet would likely have to have a lot of money spent on upgrades to see it through for, what would be another 25+ years service, meaning some of the F-15 would be hitting 60 years old before replacement?
Edited by aeropilot on Sunday 25th December 21:20
aeropilot said:
The F-22 is an air-superiority fighter rather than a bomb truck with a self-defense capability which is what the F-35A is.....and the last one rolled off the production line in 2012, because Obama killed it early by terminating production after only 187 had been made instead of the 700+ that had been envisaged to be built (F-22 was supposed to replace the F-15C fleet, F-35A was to replace the F-15C/F-15E fleets)
Restarting production of the F-22 which has been mooted as a possibility recently, would cost around $300-500m just to get a production line back up and running, so that would effectively swallow development costs on any 6th gen F-22 future replacement, which leaves the USAF and DoD in a quandry.
Restart production as is and push back 6th gen development by several decades?
Or.....
Keep the small fleet of F-22's they have and spend the money on bringing forward 6th gen design, but this will also mean, that the existing F-15 fleet would likely have to have a lot of money spent on upgrades to see it through for, what would be another 25+ years service, meaning some of the F-15 would be hitting 60 years old before replacement?
F35 being quoted as Trillion dollar lifespan...sorry 60 year lifespan.Restarting production of the F-22 which has been mooted as a possibility recently, would cost around $300-500m just to get a production line back up and running, so that would effectively swallow development costs on any 6th gen F-22 future replacement, which leaves the USAF and DoD in a quandry.
Restart production as is and push back 6th gen development by several decades?
Or.....
Keep the small fleet of F-22's they have and spend the money on bringing forward 6th gen design, but this will also mean, that the existing F-15 fleet would likely have to have a lot of money spent on upgrades to see it through for, what would be another 25+ years service, meaning some of the F-15 would be hitting 60 years old before replacement?
Ms R.Saucy said:
tuffer said:
Isn't this the exact same problem we had with the special forces Chinooks that ended up sat in a hanger at Boscombe Down for years?
no, that was not purchasing the off the shelf software that Boeing helicopters put on normally ... CrutyRammers said:
Has any government got this right since the early 50s?
France and Sweden, I'd argue - they both still manage to field very capable home-grown fighters. The problem is that the stakes are so much higher for manufacturers these days. Up until 1945 the chances were that if you could build an aeroplane your government would pay you for it.
After that there was a combination of a radical increase in complexity, a reduction in the number of aircraft types in operation, a big increase in costs, and an order of magnitude increase in the lifespan of an aircraft.
The F-35 is a bit of an overreach IMO. The Marines want a STOVL plane, the air force a stealth strike aircraft, and the Navy a carrier fighter, and they didn't necessarily all need to share an airframe.
What they probably should have shared was the software, sensors, and networking - but those could have been developed as a bolt on to the F/A 18, or the F-15, or the F-22, or even a new Harrier, at much lower cost.
The F-35 is going to spend a lot of time in its initial service life flying slowly in circles over countries in the middle east with no use for stealth, or for STOVL, or even for operating from a carrier. While there's a chance we might get into a symmetrical conflict I am reasonably certain that neither Russia or China have the stomach for it right now, and that by the time NATO needs to strike stealthily against such a foe they'll be doing it by drone anyway.
davepoth said:
The F-35 is a bit of an overreach IMO. The Marines want a STOVL plane, the air force a stealth strike aircraft, and the Navy a carrier fighter, and they didn't necessarily all need to share an airframe.
Exactly.....and they've ended up not even sharing an airframe.There is only 20-25% commonality between the 3 versions, and they are effectively having to be built on seperate production lines as 3 seperate aircraft, which totally defeats the whole point of the whole sorry mess.
As I said, the F-35A on its own would have been the ideal F-16/F-15E replacement.
The B and the C are pointless, neither are what the end user really needs.
Wow...this is a real knives out article on the F-35 
I think its still too big to be cancelled (although I could see the C model getting canned at least) but it will be interesting to see if Trump does go after the project once he takes office in a few weeks time.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443612/f-35-...
I think its still too big to be cancelled (although I could see the C model getting canned at least) but it will be interesting to see if Trump does go after the project once he takes office in a few weeks time.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443612/f-35-...
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff