Britain told "No Access" to F-35 Software codes
Discussion
aeropilot said:
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.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.
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...
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 b
ks. 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
"new" toys...hmm maybe new build, but they ain’t "new"
Edited by Sylvaforever on Sunday 8th January 17:22
FourWheelDrift said:
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.
Emals ? quietly dropped [over the side] by BAe, you know the ones who are LM's first tier partner in this program..as well as the ones who built the carriers.....go figure..We're going to have the biggest most advanced and expensive helicopter carriers in the world. Isn't that something to be proud of.
Sylvaforever said:
In fact it's a $120 million Harrier...without the payload capacity.
From what i've read, the F35 trumps the Harrier in both range and payload, and that's before you come to stealth, improved technology and the weapons fit.The Harrier was a great aircraft, and shouldn't have been scrapped before the F-35 was in service, but time has moved on.
Sylvaforever said:
"From what i've read, the F35 trumps the Harrier in both range and payload, and that's before you come to stealth, improved technology and the weapons fit."
LOL.
Ignore the technology for now because that can be bolted to anything; I believe I posted a picture of the 737 testbed earlier in the thread. LOL.
In payload terms the AV-8B can carry 4200kg, the F-35 8100kg. Range for the AV-B is 300mi combat radius, for the F-35 it's 450mi. However, that's to be expected on a plane that's 50% larger than the Harrier. Scale up the Harrier to the P.1154 and it all looks rather similar, although 40 years earlier:
http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/history_p1154.ht...
davepoth said:
Ignore the technology for now because that can be bolted to anything; I believe I posted a picture of the 737 testbed earlier in the thread.
In payload terms the AV-8B can carry 4200kg, the F-35 8100kg.
The internal payload for the F-35B is only two bombs and two missles. It's no longer stealthy once you hang anything off the underwing pylons (as long as the bomb bay doesn't overheat of course) In payload terms the AV-8B can carry 4200kg, the F-35 8100kg.
aeropilot said:
davepoth said:
Ignore the technology for now because that can be bolted to anything; I believe I posted a picture of the 737 testbed earlier in the thread.
In payload terms the AV-8B can carry 4200kg, the F-35 8100kg.
The internal payload for the F-35B is only two bombs and two missles. It's no longer stealthy once you hang anything off the underwing pylons (as long as the bomb bay doesn't overheat of course) In payload terms the AV-8B can carry 4200kg, the F-35 8100kg.
Mave said:
aeropilot said:
davepoth said:
Ignore the technology for now because that can be bolted to anything; I believe I posted a picture of the 737 testbed earlier in the thread.
In payload terms the AV-8B can carry 4200kg, the F-35 8100kg.
The internal payload for the F-35B is only two bombs and two missles. It's no longer stealthy once you hang anything off the underwing pylons (as long as the bomb bay doesn't overheat of course) In payload terms the AV-8B can carry 4200kg, the F-35 8100kg.
Sylvaforever said:
Mave said:
aeropilot said:
davepoth said:
Ignore the technology for now because that can be bolted to anything; I believe I posted a picture of the 737 testbed earlier in the thread.
In payload terms the AV-8B can carry 4200kg, the F-35 8100kg.
The internal payload for the F-35B is only two bombs and two missles. It's no longer stealthy once you hang anything off the underwing pylons (as long as the bomb bay doesn't overheat of course) In payload terms the AV-8B can carry 4200kg, the F-35 8100kg.
Edited by Mave on Sunday 8th January 21:27
Mave said:
aeropilot said:
davepoth said:
Ignore the technology for now because that can be bolted to anything; I believe I posted a picture of the 737 testbed earlier in the thread.
In payload terms the AV-8B can carry 4200kg, the F-35 8100kg.
The internal payload for the F-35B is only two bombs and two missles. It's no longer stealthy once you hang anything off the underwing pylons (as long as the bomb bay doesn't overheat of course) In payload terms the AV-8B can carry 4200kg, the F-35 8100kg.
aeropilot said:
Mave said:
aeropilot said:
davepoth said:
Ignore the technology for now because that can be bolted to anything; I believe I posted a picture of the 737 testbed earlier in the thread.
In payload terms the AV-8B can carry 4200kg, the F-35 8100kg.
The internal payload for the F-35B is only two bombs and two missles. It's no longer stealthy once you hang anything off the underwing pylons (as long as the bomb bay doesn't overheat of course) In payload terms the AV-8B can carry 4200kg, the F-35 8100kg.
If you're in a scenario where you're happy to load a Harrier up with externals, why wouldn't you do the same with an F35?
Ps. According to this the F-35B, the one we are possibly getting can carry 4,990 kg. The C model, the USN CATOBAR version is the one that can carry 7,710 kg.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/air...
but they still have problems.
SUBJECT: Achieving Full Combat Capability with the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is at Substantial Risk
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/comm...
"If used in combat, the F-35 in the Block 3i configuration, which is equivalent in capabilities to Block 2B, will need support to locate and avoid modem threats, acquire targets, and engage formations of enemy fighter aircraft due to outstanding performance deficiencies and limited weapons carriage available (i.e., two bombs and two air-to-air missiles). " - So can't operate independently or even protect itself as it doesn't have a gun (yet - more weight to be added).
And: If it tries to carriy two AIM-9X air to air missiles:
"Recent flight testing of the AIM-9X air-to-air missile, which is mounted externally on the outermost wing stations and is planned to be fielded on all variants, produced load exceedances during F-35C landings and up-and-away maneuvers that caused buffet. The program conducted a review of the margins of safety of the wing substructure and determined that flight limitations for AIM-9X carriage or a redesign of the supporting wing structure may be needed. The path ahead for AIM-9X carriage on the F-35C in Block 3F is not known. "
And those are just two.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/air...
but they still have problems.
SUBJECT: Achieving Full Combat Capability with the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is at Substantial Risk
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/comm...
"If used in combat, the F-35 in the Block 3i configuration, which is equivalent in capabilities to Block 2B, will need support to locate and avoid modem threats, acquire targets, and engage formations of enemy fighter aircraft due to outstanding performance deficiencies and limited weapons carriage available (i.e., two bombs and two air-to-air missiles). " - So can't operate independently or even protect itself as it doesn't have a gun (yet - more weight to be added).
And: If it tries to carriy two AIM-9X air to air missiles:
"Recent flight testing of the AIM-9X air-to-air missile, which is mounted externally on the outermost wing stations and is planned to be fielded on all variants, produced load exceedances during F-35C landings and up-and-away maneuvers that caused buffet. The program conducted a review of the margins of safety of the wing substructure and determined that flight limitations for AIM-9X carriage or a redesign of the supporting wing structure may be needed. The path ahead for AIM-9X carriage on the F-35C in Block 3F is not known. "
And those are just two.
Mave said:
Sylvaforever said:
Mave said:
aeropilot said:
davepoth said:
Ignore the technology for now because that can be bolted to anything; I believe I posted a picture of the 737 testbed earlier in the thread.
In payload terms the AV-8B can carry 4200kg, the F-35 8100kg.
The internal payload for the F-35B is only two bombs and two missles. It's no longer stealthy once you hang anything off the underwing pylons (as long as the bomb bay doesn't overheat of course) In payload terms the AV-8B can carry 4200kg, the F-35 8100kg.
Edited by Mave on Sunday 8th January 21:27
Mave said:
It's not an apples for apples comparison if you compare the internal payload of the F35 with the external payload of the Harrier especially if you don't acknowledge (and therefore utilise) any benefits of stealth as per Sylvaforever's earlier post.
If you're in a scenario where you're happy to load a Harrier up with externals, why wouldn't you do the same with an F35?
Thus speaks the true believer. If you're in a scenario where you're happy to load a Harrier up with externals, why wouldn't you do the same with an F35?
We are PAYING £100 MILLION EXTRA FOR THE SAME CAPABILITY.
Do the above with the F35 and you have blown your £100 million [supposed] stealth advantage.
Both the F35 and the decisions on the carriers have been expertly managed by BAe, you can't fault them for that.
Sylvaforever said:
Thus speaks the true believer.
We are PAYING £100 MILLION EXTRA FOR THE SAME CAPABILITY.
But you said it was LESS capability and LOL'd at comments that they payload was greater. So which is it? If you acknowledge the benefits of stealth, then that is more capability. If you don't acknowledge or need the benefits of stealth capability then you get greater range and or payload, which is more capability.We are PAYING £100 MILLION EXTRA FOR THE SAME CAPABILITY.
Whether that increased capability is worth 100m is a different issue, the comment I'm disagreeing with is your assertion that an F35 can carry less payload than a Harrier.
davepoth said:
Ignore the technology for now because that can be bolted to anything; I believe I posted a picture of the 737 testbed earlier in the thread.
In payload terms the AV-8B can carry 4200kg, the F-35 8100kg. Range for the AV-B is 300mi combat radius, for the F-35 it's 450mi. However, that's to be expected on a plane that's 50% larger than the Harrier. Scale up the Harrier to the P.1154 and it all looks rather similar, although 40 years earlier:
http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/history_p1154.ht...
In payload terms the AV-8B can carry 4200kg, the F-35 8100kg. Range for the AV-B is 300mi combat radius, for the F-35 it's 450mi. However, that's to be expected on a plane that's 50% larger than the Harrier. Scale up the Harrier to the P.1154 and it all looks rather similar, although 40 years earlier:
http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/history_p1154.ht...
Could it not be refueled from a Buccaneer, which could then loiter and refuel the F35 on the return?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff