Britain told "No Access" to F-35 Software codes

[Elroy Blue]

Yet the service pilots (not the company test pilots) currently flying it, absolutely rave about it. A Royal Navy pilot has been vocally angry on Twitter about some of the criticism it's received. I think he used the diplomatic version of 'ignorant knobhead'.
If Trump does pull the plug (i doubt he will), then the RN really are up st creek.

[FourWheelDrift]

Comments of a Navy pilot who just wants his shiney new toy and if he doesn't get it will have nothing to Willy wave fly and will have to fly an older plane.

No one likes to be tempted by a flawed Ferrari if it looks like they are going to end up driving a 2nd hand Mondeo.

[Elroy Blue]

I think it's comments by keyboard experts that he was frustrated with. However, I'm sure you're better informed than he is

[FourWheelDrift]

You're quite right, I was being ill-informed over calling it a flawed Ferrari. On further examination I realise I should have used the term flawed Fiat instead.

[Sylvaforever]

I believe "plastic pig" is far more accurate.

I was lambasted on another forum for saying it isn’t fast.

It is in fact supersonic.

But there are limitations, based on height, speed and time, BEFORE THE BOMB BAY DOORS HAVE TO BE OPENED TO COOL THE BOMB BAYS.

10 minutes at 500kts below 10,000 feet is I believe one....



Massive frontal area compared to say



Stealthy at speed?




Hmmm....

[aeropilot]

Elroy Blue said:

Yet the service pilots (not the company test pilots) currently flying it, absolutely rave about it.

What do you expect them to say in public

None of them are going to potentially make a career curtailing public statement that it's a pile of poo - even if it is.

[Sylvaforever]

aeropilot said:

Elroy Blue said:

Yet the service pilots (not the company test pilots) currently flying it, absolutely rave about it.

What do you expect them to say in public

None of them are going to potentially make a career curtailing public statement that it's a pile of poo - even if it is.

Indeed even the USAF hierarchy have publicly ordered its officers that there will be NO criticism of "the project" .

[Dr Jekyll]

Tango13 said:

CrutyRammers said:

Has any government got this right since the early 50s?

The US got it right with the F-117 but I think this was because the USAF managed to keep the program secret from most of Congress...

+1

The UK got it right with the Hawk because it was a private venture without government meddling.

[davepoth]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/...

Everything is fine.

[mebe]

Sylvaforever said:

I believe "plastic pig" is far more accurate.

I was lambasted on another forum for saying it isn’t fast.

It is in fact supersonic.

But there are limitations, based on height, speed and time, BEFORE THE BOMB BAY DOORS HAVE TO BE OPENED TO COOL THE BOMB BAYS.

10 minutes at 500kts below 10,000 feet is I believe one....

It's not designed to be a low level bomber so does that matter?

[quote]


Massive frontal area compared to say

One is stealthy and fat, the other is slim and totally unstealthy, what's your point?

[quote]
Stealthy at speed?




Hmmm....

What are you comparing it too? I'm sure any other stealth plane on reheat looks the same, F22 makes a lovely exhaust.

Like any other new military aircraft it will take many many more years to reach maturity.

[davepoth]

mebe said:

What are you comparing it to?

The English Electric Lightning. Terrible comparison - the EE Lightning was designed as an air-to-air interceptor, so its performance (apart from fuel economy) is much better than the F-35.

[mebe]

I could see that

I know which I'd rather have a go in and it isn't the stealthy one.

[anonymous-user]

The problem with the F35, rather like all things in the internet age, is that it's hard to tell where the myths end and the truth begins.

My feeling is that it does have some compromises, but that it'll turn out to be a pretty good aircraft in the long run.

As to whether it gets binned, i can't see that. I imagine Trump will continue to make lots of hot air about it, the manufacturers will tweak the price a bit, and he'll claim it as a great triumph. The idea that the most powerful military in the world is going to switch back to a tweaked 1970s designed and inherently compromised F/A 18 is laughable.

If it does get canned, then Britain is screwed. We'd have no real option but to sell our carriers, I just don't think we've got the money to convert them to CATOBAR in the short/medium term.

[aeropilot]

Inkyfingers said:

If it does get canned, then Britain is screwed. We'd have no real option but to sell our carriers, I just don't think we've got the money to convert them to CATOBAR in the short/medium term.

If the B got canned, you save a fortune in not buying the bloody things, so you could afford to covert and buy Bugs or Rafale.....

But, that's not going to happen, as the USAF need the A to work, and the USMC want the B.
As said, the issues with the C could mean that gets canned, as it could be very expensive to fix, and there is no non-USA customer for the C, and there's not a huge enthusiasm within the USN for the C anyway.

[anonymous-user]

aeropilot said:

If the B got canned, you save a fortune in not buying the bloody things, so you could afford to covert and buy Bugs or Rafale.....

Of course, but I understood the main reason for changing from buying the C variant back to the B variant after the 2010 defence review, was that the cost of just converting the ships to CATOBAR alone was between £2.5-5 billion. The number depends on which source you read, but this is the MOD so best assume it'll be at the higher end, and take god knows how long.

[Evanivitch]

Inkyfingers said:

aeropilot said:

If the B got canned, you save a fortune in not buying the bloody things, so you could afford to covert and buy Bugs or Rafale.....

Of course, but I understood the main reason for changing from buying the C variant back to the B variant after the 2010 defence review, was that the cost of just converting the ships to CATOBAR alone was between £2.5-5 billion. The number depends on which source you read, but this is the MOD so best assume it'll be at the higher end, and take god knows how long.

With some insight into industry I can think why.

Such a substantial change to the design would obviously require physical rework of the platform, but would also require re-designing and re-writing several major design artefacts. Structural integrity, power systems, control systems, safety cases. But most these teams have now disbanded and the engineers moved onto new programmes and even companies.

So you'd basically have to re-start the vast majority of the design team, on top of the re-test and qualification (sea trials) that would need to be repeated.

It's a typical example of the MoD seeing the original cost X years ago as being too expensive, and then somehow believing the costs will decrease later on, despite the programme moving forward and the opposite being the reality.

[Sylvaforever]

Evanivitch said:

Inkyfingers said:

aeropilot said:

If the B got canned, you save a fortune in not buying the bloody things, so you could afford to covert and buy Bugs or Rafale.....

Of course, but I understood the main reason for changing from buying the C variant back to the B variant after the 2010 defence review, was that the cost of just converting the ships to CATOBAR alone was between £2.5-5 billion. The number depends on which source you read, but this is the MOD so best assume it'll be at the higher end, and take god knows how long.

With some insight into industry I can think why.

Such a substantial change to the design would obviously require physical rework of the platform, but would also require re-designing and re-writing several major design artefacts. Structural integrity, power systems, control systems, safety cases. But most these teams have now disbanded and the engineers moved onto new programmes and even companies.

So you'd basically have to re-start the vast majority of the design team, on top of the re-test and qualification (sea trials) that would need to be repeated.

It's a typical example of the MoD seeing the original cost X years ago as being too expensive, and then somehow believing the costs will decrease later on, despite the programme moving forward and the opposite being the reality.

Nothing to do with that at all.

The area required for any launch and arrestor equipment has already been designated F35 mission planning areas as the RN have always been deficient in allowing "proper" mission planning for the FAA in the past. F35 requires acres of mission planning area don’t cha know..austere base operations anyone?

Well that’s the latest excuse.

Of course when asked "if we didn't have F35" they go very quiet...

[aeropilot]

Sylvaforever said:

Evanivitch said:

Inkyfingers said:

aeropilot said:

If the B got canned, you save a fortune in not buying the bloody things, so you could afford to covert and buy Bugs or Rafale.....

Of course, but I understood the main reason for changing from buying the C variant back to the B variant after the 2010 defence review, was that the cost of just converting the ships to CATOBAR alone was between £2.5-5 billion. The number depends on which source you read, but this is the MOD so best assume it'll be at the higher end, and take god knows how long.

With some insight into industry I can think why.

Such a substantial change to the design would obviously require physical rework of the platform, but would also require re-designing and re-writing several major design artefacts. Structural integrity, power systems, control systems, safety cases. But most these teams have now disbanded and the engineers moved onto new programmes and even companies.

So you'd basically have to re-start the vast majority of the design team, on top of the re-test and qualification (sea trials) that would need to be repeated.

It's a typical example of the MoD seeing the original cost X years ago as being too expensive, and then somehow believing the costs will decrease later on, despite the programme moving forward and the opposite being the reality.

Nothing to do with that at all.

The area required for any launch and arrestor equipment has already been designated F35 mission planning areas as the RN have always been deficient in allowing "proper" mission planning for the FAA in the past. F35 requires acres of mission planning area don’t cha know..austere base operations anyone?

Well that’s the latest excuse.

Of course when asked "if we didn't have F35" they go very quiet...

Indeed.

And the austere ops thing is the biggest red herring to the whole point of a stealthy 'jump-jet' anyway. Its why the USMC mantra of 'needing' the B is largely bks. Like the USMC are ever going to go anywhere without a USN carrier group!!
So why do they need a stealthy jet for close air support? It's all about shiney new toy willy waving waving contests

[Sylvaforever]

" I'm sure any other stealth plane on reheat looks the same"


Hmmm, go to the back of the classroom. 30 years in development and redesign? passive sensor capability has moved ahead in generational terms.

In fact the optional upgrade to the F35's electro optical suite [yours for 5 million+] is already 2 generations behind the lightning pod being fitted to Omani typhoons.

btw F22 can supercruise, go look it up.

F35 transonic acceleration times? that reheat becomes an AD magnet.

Not that they can go all that fast anyway due to thermal control reasons, fuel, airframe, internal heat management...

In fact it's a $120 million Harrier...without the payload capacity.

[FourWheelDrift]

Wasn't there also something about the current ships would not be able to generate the steam required for catapults in their current configuration? Even before you start trying to make space for it all.



We're going to have the biggest most advanced and expensive helicopter carriers in the world. Isn't that something to be proud of.