What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?

[aeropilot]

davepoth said:

It wouldn't surprise me if CATOBAR was added at the first major refit, in the name of operational flexibility with the rest of NATO.

Rest of NATO.....?

You mean the USN and the French Navy as they are they only ones to operate CATOBAR within NATO.

The Spanish and Italians operate STOVL, with the Italians on the proposed buy of F-35B, but it's a very small number and they can't really afford those - so, we'll see if they actually do buy the handful of them that they are signed up for.

[hidetheelephants]

aeropilot said:

davepoth said:

It wouldn't surprise me if CATOBAR was added at the first major refit, in the name of operational flexibility with the rest of NATO.

Rest of NATO.....?

You mean the USN and the French Navy as they are they only ones to operate CATOBAR within NATO.

The Spanish and Italians operate STOVL, with the Italians on the proposed buy of F-35B, but it's a very small number and they can't really afford those - so, we'll see if they actually do buy the handful of them that they are signed up for.

The Aussies are looking at the B as well and checking their piggy bank for a cheap and dirty conversion of their gigantic LPDs.

[MartG]

Latest issue to surface on the F-35B - it can't fit as many bombs in its internal bay as it is supposed to

http://insidedefense.com/share/167668

[IanMorewood]

MartG said:

Latest issue to surface on the F-35B - it can't fit as many bombs in its internal bay as it is supposed to

http://insidedefense.com/share/167668

Yehgads it can't fit 8x250lb bombs in the internal bay, could they not have looked at a Canberra bomber for inspiration?

[mcdjl]

IanMorewood said:

MartG said:

Latest issue to surface on the F-35B - it can't fit as many bombs in its internal bay as it is supposed to

http://insidedefense.com/share/167668

Yehgads it can't fit 8x250lb bombs in the internal bay, could they not have looked at a Canberra bomber for inspiration?

Now you see theres part of me reading that as 'we've designed these new bombs to go in the plane. Expect you see we made them the wrong shape and we'll make you change the plane'. Unless of course they all failed to realise the the B has a different shaped bay to the A and C.....

[IanMorewood]

Yup the B has a smaller weapons bay, that said if your primary function is to drop bombs you would think the design team would make sure the munitions fit.

[mcdjl]

Which came first though? The new bomb or the new plane?

[RUNAMOK]

Only just seen this thread so apologies if this article has been referenced before, but I always thought this was a good explanation of the procurement issues with F-35. There are two pages.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/10/f35_u_turn...

[Mr Whippy]

I take it they're JDm type small diameter 250lb'ers?

I assume if it can't hold 8 it's more like 6 or 4?! Not ideal, but while you're compromising on lots of metrics why not make the internal weapon load crap as well?

[Skywalker]

The biggest driver for the B-Model is Uncle Sam's Misguided Children.
Having 'international' interest in the B must go some way towards protecting the concept of Marine Fast Air - although the Marines aren't getting out of the game completely as, IIRC, the B is not intended to replace their commitments to Hornet in support of the Navy's blue water capability.

I have wondered whether a subject at the Cameron / Obama chat not long after the 1st flip-flop decision to go from B to C in 2010 was to encourage the Yoo Kay to stick with the B and therefore help appease some pressure in certain corners.

[MartG]

It appears that while the bay itself is large enough to fit the required 8 bombs, there is some equipment and pipework inside the bay which takes up space thus preventing more than 4 going in. They are planning on relocating that from the 2019 production block onwards ( no doubt at extra cost ) so it can take 8 bombs, but no word on whether the fix can be retrofitted to earlier examples ( again, it would no doubt cost several million per airframe ).

So all the CAD/CAM and simulation wizardry failed to spot the issue, and it will take four years to implement a fix

[IanMorewood]

I think most international partners are buying A's, other than us the only other foreign buyer committed to type B's are the Italians as they have two twenty thou carriers although how many they do buy is still up in the air. The Taiwanese wanted some as well but the US congress said no ball on that one. I'm also aware that the Spanish would like type B's but has ruled them unaffordable. That leaves Japan, they have big helicopter carriers (two in service, new one built, one in process) that could potentially take type B's and they have bought type A's already, logic says they will buy some late batch B's picking up any slack from the US/UK/I orders.
Korea and Australia also could be potential B customers as they have Helicopter carriers that could be adapted.

Edited by IanMorewood on Friday 27th February 20:24

[MartG]

IanMorewood said:

That leaves Japan, they have big helicopter carriers (two in service, new one built, one in process) that could potentially take type B's and they have bought type A's already, logic says they will buy some late batch B's picking up any slack from the US/UK/I orders.

Fujimi certainly expect to see JASDF F-35Bs....

[aeropilot]

MartG said:

So all the CAD/CAM and simulation wizardry failed to spot the issue, and it will take four years to implement a fix

I'd lay odds on the people at the coal face doing that stuff have known about this issue for a long while, and the sanctioning of the solving of the problem is being continually put aside.....

[Mr Whippy]

MartG said:

It appears that while the bay itself is large enough to fit the required 8 bombs, there is some equipment and pipework inside the bay which takes up space thus preventing more than 4 going in. They are planning on relocating that from the 2019 production block onwards ( no doubt at extra cost ) so it can take 8 bombs, but no word on whether the fix can be retrofitted to earlier examples ( again, it would no doubt cost several million per airframe ).

So all the CAD/CAM and simulation wizardry failed to spot the issue, and it will take four years to implement a fix

I'm amazed given the existing cost and overruns they don't just fix it from today onwards.

The contracts must be heavily weighted to protect the manufacturer from their own stupidity. Makes you wonder where their motivation to do s good job comes from when doing a bad job means making more money!

[MartG]

Mr Whippy said:

Makes you wonder where their motivation to do s good job comes from when doing a bad job means making more money!

A bit reminiscent of the HMS QE skijump/CATOBAR debacle

[Dr Jekyll]

I know what the F22 is, and the YF23 which would have been the F23 if selected. But what happened to F24-F34?

[MartG]

Dr Jekyll said:

I know what the F22 is, and the YF23 which would have been the F23 if selected. But what happened to F24-F34?

Nothing

Unlike earlier military aircraft the F-35 was first demonstrated under a contract for an experimental aircraft, so received an X series number - its competitor was the X-32. The X series number was retained when it won the competition rather than giving it a new F series number

[Mojocvh]

Mr Whippy said:

I take it they're JDm type small diameter 250lb'ers?

Nope, 208lb @ $223,000 a pop. Latest info now talking about multiple targeting. Triple sensor 40 km glide range BUT announces it's on it's way with Mwave sensor on first.

Some pointing out as it's a glide bomb it's time to target may well allow it to be engaged by AAA......

JDAM strap on kit the dogs danglies but it's very "cheapness" is working against it!!

Anyway, we need an MPA/Anti-sub aircraft/force way more than some £100 million spam can [that doesn't work]

Edited by Mojocvh on Saturday 28th February 22:14

[Z06George]

MartG said:

Dr Jekyll said:

I know what the F22 is, and the YF23 which would have been the F23 if selected. But what happened to F24-F34?

Nothing

Unlike earlier military aircraft the F-35 was first demonstrated under a contract for an experimental aircraft, so received an X series number - its competitor was the X-32. The X series number was retained when it won the competition rather than giving it a new F series number

I don't know about all the other numbers but I know there was an XF-29. Probably a few more X-something that didn't make it like the already mentioned X-32.