What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?

[Mave]

Teddy Lop said:

1000c isn't that big of a deal for a lot of concrete, as in, it mark up but probably not explode horror murderdeathkill your fighter jet engine.

Maybe there's some confusion between "specially approved licencesed concrete formula that the American defense contractors supply to the near limitless budgeted American war machine", and what else might not cause a problem as such.

Have you any idea what happens if you get a lump of concrete into a jet engine, or, worse still, a lift fan making 10 tonnes of thrust spinning just behind the pilot's head?

[Teddy Lop]

Tony1963 said:

Oh it is an issue. 1,000°c together with the force of the air would ruin your driveway. I can’t remember the details now, but an F-35 has definitely ruined at least one runway/apron.

I didn't really have my driveway in mind, I'd have to tie down the bin store and it'd probably fk up next doors juke, but a temptingly effective way of dealing with the "low traffic neighbourhoods" various London boroughs are inflicting on the long suffering motorist.
What's the monthlies like?

[Evanivitch]

aeropilot said:

Exactly.

If it can ruined an existing airfield surface, what do you think will happen if you try and plonk one done in an austere off-airfield situation as they did with the old Harrier GR.1/3's etc. on a road/car park/forest clearing in some austere FOB...
Not going to happen.

There's a similar issue with the V-22 as well, although not temp related, just downwash thrust from those massive tilt rotors on anything other than nice airfield concrete expanses (or a flat top)

So what's the point of this exercise? Are USMC just going to fit pads on every Pacific rock? Hide them from preemptive strikes?

https://news.usni.org/2019/04/23/marines-folding-f...

[aeropilot]

Evanivitch said:

aeropilot said:

Exactly.

If it can ruined an existing airfield surface, what do you think will happen if you try and plonk one done in an austere off-airfield situation as they did with the old Harrier GR.1/3's etc. on a road/car park/forest clearing in some austere FOB...
Not going to happen.

There's a similar issue with the V-22 as well, although not temp related, just downwash thrust from those massive tilt rotors on anything other than nice airfield concrete expanses (or a flat top)

So what's the point of this exercise? Are USMC just going to fit pads on every Pacific rock? Hide them from preemptive strikes?

https://news.usni.org/2019/04/23/marines-folding-f...

No, as they are just using the facilities they already have as shown by that exercise (or will have once they've finished the base upgrades that are in the works or planned to be done).

[Evanivitch]

F35 news.

More than 645-off F35 of all variants now delivered. Aims of 175 aircraft per year going forward.

https://www.aero-mag.com/lockheed-martin-f-35-prod...

Swiss Airforce orders 36 and becomes 15th nation customer.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/switzerlands-...

[Red 4]

Great. How many deficiencies have the latest aircraft got ?
I think the list now runs to 871 deficiencies with the. F35 but the good news is that 2 deficiencies were sorted last year. At that rate we should have a great aircraft in about 400 years.
Don't rush to give us any more Mr Lockheed.
We're happy to wait a while.

[Boom78]

Red 4 said:

Great. How many deficiencies have the latest aircraft got ?
I think the list now runs to 871 deficiencies with the. F35 but the good news is that 2 deficiencies were sorted last year. At that rate we should have a great aircraft in about 400 years.
Don't rush to give us any more Mr Lockheed.
We're happy to wait a while.

871 may sound bad but it’s not really, I work in IT and we regularly identify hundreds of defects in huge technical/legacy/futures releases. 871 for something as complex as a modern fighter programme is manageable. They’ll just prioritise them and tick them off. It’s All part of any programme.

[Evanivitch]

Boom78 said:

871 may sound bad but it’s not really, I work in IT and we regularly identify hundreds of defects in huge technical/legacy/futures releases. 871 for something as complex as a modern fighter programme is manageable. They’ll just prioritise them and tick them off. It’s All part of any programme.

Anyone who's worked on a major development programme knows that such a number really has no meaning in itself.

[aeropilot]

Evanivitch said:

Swiss Airforce orders 36 and becomes 15th nation customer.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/switzerlands-...

They haven't ordered them yet.

By some frankly bizarre route that smacks or either LM dusting off their infamous F-104 big brown envelope sales technique's amid the earlier people vote to not choose the original choice Gripen as being too expensive, this 'decision' will also have to be put to a 'people' vote as well.......
Quite what the hell the Swiss want a mega expensive, mega complicated day one offensive stealth strike aircraft for given their neutrality status is beyond mine and many people's understanding!!
The general view is this 'decision' wont get past the 'people' vote either.

[Red 4]

Boom78 said:

Red 4 said:

Great. How many deficiencies have the latest aircraft got ?
I think the list now runs to 871 deficiencies with the. F35 but the good news is that 2 deficiencies were sorted last year. At that rate we should have a great aircraft in about 400 years.
Don't rush to give us any more Mr Lockheed.
We're happy to wait a while.

871 may sound bad but it’s not really, I work in IT and we regularly identify hundreds of defects in huge technical/legacy/futures releases. 871 for something as complex as a modern fighter programme is manageable. They’ll just prioritise them and tick them off. It’s All part of any programme.

Prioritise the deficiencies ? OK.
Can the F35 fire its gun yet or does it still risk cracking the airframe ?
How about flying supersonic ? Still a no-no due to needing afterburners and damage to the stealth coating ?
How about not being suitable for sustained use in The Middle East because the very specific type of sand there causes the F35 to eat its own engine ?

Do 6 category 1 deficiencies still remain ? These are classed as major problems. The only higher category is 1a which would probably stop the aircraft from flying.

[ecsrobin]

Red 4 said:

Prioritise the deficiencies ? OK.
Can the F35 fire its gun yet or does it still risk cracking the airframe ?
How about flying supersonic ? Still a no-no due to needing afterburners and damage to the stealth coating ?
How about not being suitable for sustained use in The Middle East because the very specific type of sand there causes the F35 to eat its own engine ?

Do 6 category 1 deficiencies still remain ? These are classed as major problems. The only higher category is 1a which would probably stop the aircraft from flying.

I imagine eurofighter wasn’t much different in its early years. Also if you’re using guns I’d say you have bigger issues these days.

[Evanivitch]

Red 4 said:

Prioritise the deficiencies ? OK.
Can the F35 fire its gun yet or does it still risk cracking the airframe ?
How about flying supersonic ? Still a no-no due to needing afterburners and damage to the stealth coating ?
How about not being suitable for sustained use in The Middle East because the very specific type of sand there causes the F35 to eat its own engine ?

Do 6 category 1 deficiencies still remain ? These are classed as major problems. The only higher category is 1a which would probably stop the aircraft from flying.

Pretending like you're on the inside of their DRACAS process is why you get called a Walt

[Oilchange]

aeropilot said:

Evanivitch said:

So why is CAS needed by the army, but the tactical battle bus (heavy lift Chinook) a RAF asset?

No idea........RAF top brass not wanting to give up its toys.....but to me it would make much more sense for the Wokka's to be AAC rather than RAF.

Then, once Puma is retired, there would be no more need for RAF helo ops, now that they've had the SAR role removed from them as well.

Conversely, I’d have all rotary air assets as part of the RAF. Lynx, AH the lot. That way the Army can concentrate on soldiering and the Air Force on flying. Likewise with carrier aircraft, join the RAF in the full knowledge that regular tours would be on board a flat top.
Fully integrated.

[Evanivitch]

Oilchange said:

Conversely, I’d have all rotary air assets as part of the RAF. Lynx, AH the lot. That way the Army can concentrate on soldiering and the Air Force on flying. Likewise with carrier aircraft, join the RAF in the full knowledge that regular tours would be on board a flat top.
Fully integrated.

I think that's great until you look at the practicalities of additional CoC and potential C4i compatibility issues of your CAS, airlift and infantry.

[Red 4]

Evanivitch said:

Red 4 said:

Prioritise the deficiencies ? OK.
Can the F35 fire its gun yet or does it still risk cracking the airframe ?
How about flying supersonic ? Still a no-no due to needing afterburners and damage to the stealth coating ?
How about not being suitable for sustained use in The Middle East because the very specific type of sand there causes the F35 to eat its own engine ?

Do 6 category 1 deficiencies still remain ? These are classed as major problems. The only higher category is 1a which would probably stop the aircraft from flying.

Pretending like you're on the inside of their DRACAS process is why you get called a Walt

All of the above is in the public domain.
I'm not pretending to be anything and the only people who have called me a Walt are people like you who get really uppity when the F35 is criticised.
The thread over on NP&E was funny.
People unable to address facts concerning the F35 (all public info), claiming some kind of insider knowledge and then doubling down saying they can't say who they are or what they know. I think one of them was Q (or maybe a minion at Q Branch getting ideas above his station).
All standard PH stuff. The insults start when people are struggling. Good to see your tactics haven't changed. Mr Predictable.
Maybe you should go for a lie down when it starts to get a bit much for you. Bless.

[Evanivitch]

Red 4 said:

All of the above is in the public domain.
I'm not pretending to be anything and the only people who have called me a Walt are people like you who get really uppity when the F35 is criticised.
The thread over on NP&E was funny.
People unable to address facts concerning the F35 (all public info), claiming some kind of insider knowledge and then doubling down saying they can't say who they are or what they know. I think one of them was Q (or maybe a minion at Q Branch getting ideas above his station).
All standard PH stuff. The insults start when people are struggling. Good to see your tactics haven't changed. Mr Predictable.
Maybe you should go for a lie down when it starts to get a bit much for you. Bless.

Stuff gets into the press weeks, months after it's an engineering issue. Stuff gets fixed often before the story is even published. To then reference an 18 month old article and declare it hasn't been fixed because there's been no follow up article. Well, that speaks for itself.

[Red 4]

Evanivitch said:

Red 4 said:

All of the above is in the public domain.
I'm not pretending to be anything and the only people who have called me a Walt are people like you who get really uppity when the F35 is criticised.
The thread over on NP&E was funny.
People unable to address facts concerning the F35 (all public info), claiming some kind of insider knowledge and then doubling down saying they can't say who they are or what they know. I think one of them was Q (or maybe a minion at Q Branch getting ideas above his station).
All standard PH stuff. The insults start when people are struggling. Good to see your tactics haven't changed. Mr Predictable.
Maybe you should go for a lie down when it starts to get a bit much for you. Bless.

Stuff gets into the press weeks, months after it's an engineering issue. Stuff gets fixed often before the story is even published. To then reference an 18 month old article and declare it hasn't been fixed because there's been no follow up article. Well, that speaks for itself.

I didn't declare it hasn't been fixed, although I doubt much of it has. I asked a question. Thanks for your insider knowledge, Vice Air Marshall.

[Red 4]

ecsrobin said:

Red 4 said:

Prioritise the deficiencies ? OK.
Can the F35 fire its gun yet or does it still risk cracking the airframe ?
How about flying supersonic ? Still a no-no due to needing afterburners and damage to the stealth coating ?
How about not being suitable for sustained use in The Middle East because the very specific type of sand there causes the F35 to eat its own engine ?

Do 6 category 1 deficiencies still remain ? These are classed as major problems. The only higher category is 1a which would probably stop the aircraft from flying.

I imagine eurofighter wasn’t much different in its early years. Also if you’re using guns I’d say you have bigger issues these days.

Fair point. I think the issue with the F35 is that so much new tech has been incorporated into the aircraft that lots of problems are inevitable.
However, that doesn't account for what, on the face of it, appear to be some rather large problems with old skool tech.

[Evanivitch]

Red 4 said:

I didn't declare it hasn't been fixed, although I doubt much of it has. I asked a question. Thanks for your insider knowledge, Vice Air Marshall.

Can I ask PC Plod, is it your professional opinion that you doubt it's been fixed or is it because your neighbour hasn't been told in his retirement WhatsApp group?

[ecsrobin]

Red 4 said:

Thanks for your insider knowledge, Vice Air Marshall.

It’s air vice Marshall, if you’re going to be sarcastic get it right