What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?
Discussion
Tony1963 said:
RobGT81 said:
Mud hut and Toyota Hilux destroyed with massively expensive jet and massively expensive payload satis.
Well, there's not a whole lotta choice out there right now. 
ecsrobin said:
The US marine corps conducted their first combat air strike from F35 today.
http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-...
Funny thing. Back in 1997 (thanks Wikipedia for that) there was a game called JSF where you could pilot eiter the X32 or the X35 and the first combat missions took place in Afghanistan. http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-...
Things don't seem to have moved on a lot since then. (I still have the game in a drawer under my desk at home)
ecsrobin said:
Unfortunate timing - pilot seems to be ok which is the most important thing.Meanwhile, twittersphere journos rightly bemoaning / going apes
t about the fact the jets actually landed on Tuesday, the MOD press pack was embargoed til this evening at 10pm and grainy shots from a helo have stolen their thunder. Nanook said:
tight5 said:
Have I got this right ?
F-35A , air force version
F-35B , vertical landing
F-35C , conventional navy version
Also, does the vertical landing one have automatic landing system ? Watching the F35 landing on QE carrier, they looked very stable.
Pretty much.F-35A , air force version
F-35B , vertical landing
F-35C , conventional navy version
Also, does the vertical landing one have automatic landing system ? Watching the F35 landing on QE carrier, they looked very stable.
A is the conventional version
B is the STOVL version
C is the carrier variant, so stronger undercarriage, larger wings, arrestor hook etc.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-f-3...
"The Senate’s assertion comes just three months after U.S. Air Force lieutenant general Christopher Bogdan, head of the JSF program office, told a seminar audience that the three F-35 models are only 20- to 25-percent common, mainly in their cockpits.
It’s “almost like three separate production lines,” Bogdan said, according toAir Force magazine. A real joint fighter, the program boss said, is “hard” because each branch is adamant about its requirements. "
Edited by Kccv23highliftcam on Saturday 29th September 12:14
What's the RAFs logic in having the F-35B over the A or indeed any number of cheaper and more capable strike aircraft?
I guess you have the stealth angle but why not the A if that's the reason? Surely with 138 intended is more than enough that the RAF aircraft won't be required to bolster the numbers on the carriers?
Sorry if its been covered
I guess you have the stealth angle but why not the A if that's the reason? Surely with 138 intended is more than enough that the RAF aircraft won't be required to bolster the numbers on the carriers?
Sorry if its been covered
Teddy Lop said:
What's the RAFs logic in having the F-35B over the A or indeed any number of cheaper and more capable strike aircraft?
I guess you have the stealth angle but why not the A if that's the reason? Surely with 138 intended is more than enough that the RAF aircraft won't be required to bolster the numbers on the carriers?
Sorry if its been covered
Shared costs.I guess you have the stealth angle but why not the A if that's the reason? Surely with 138 intended is more than enough that the RAF aircraft won't be required to bolster the numbers on the carriers?
Sorry if its been covered
Of course the navy are going to say, hang on we have to pay for carriers and escorts so......
...But if it's stovl just WHY are they so big? Questions on back of a fag packet addressed to BAe accountants dividend division......
Edited by Kccv23highliftcam on Saturday 29th September 12:19
Kccv23highliftcam said:
...But if it's stovl just WHY are they so big? Questions on back of a fag packet addressed to BAe accountants dividend division......
Isn't there an argument that empty hull increases the immediate cost very little and saves you a bucket load of money when you want to add more equipment in a few years?Edited by Kccv23highliftcam on Saturday 29th September 12:19
tight5 said:
Have I got this right ?
F-35A , air force version
F-35B , vertical landing
F-35C , conventional navy version
Also, does the vertical landing one have automatic landing system ? Watching the F35 landing on QE carrier, they looked very stable.
I had a play in Lockheed Martin's marketing flight simulator years ago, it was extremely easy, you directed the plane where to go with the joystick and a hatswitch and it handled the rest.F-35A , air force version
F-35B , vertical landing
F-35C , conventional navy version
Also, does the vertical landing one have automatic landing system ? Watching the F35 landing on QE carrier, they looked very stable.
Kccv23highliftcam said:
Teddy Lop said:
What's the RAFs logic in having the F-35B over the A or indeed any number of cheaper and more capable strike aircraft?
I guess you have the stealth angle but why not the A if that's the reason? Surely with 138 intended is more than enough that the RAF aircraft won't be required to bolster the numbers on the carriers?
Sorry if its been covered
Shared costs.I guess you have the stealth angle but why not the A if that's the reason? Surely with 138 intended is more than enough that the RAF aircraft won't be required to bolster the numbers on the carriers?
Sorry if its been covered
Of course the navy are going to say, hang on we have to pay for carriers and escorts so......
...But if it's stovl just WHY are they so big? Questions on back of a fag packet addressed to BAe accountants dividend division......
Edited by Kccv23highliftcam on Saturday 29th September 12:19
There'll be savings through commonality if that's what you mean, but I can't imagine it adds up to more than the savings of the operating a less complex aircraft.
What do you mean by big - its around 10% physically bigger than single engine jets like F16, mirage or gr7 and a fair bit smaller than F18, F15 etc (which admitedly are twin engine) which given it carries all its fuel and weapons internally, plus lift fan, extra engines etc all packed in doesn't seem insane
frodo_monkey said:
Yes there is, fresh buy of -A models for the RAF and farm the -Bs off to the RN...
Err, the B's are all under RAF control, the RN are just being 'allowed' to have a FAA badged sqn as well, but the crews will be a mix of RAF/RN in each unit, and equally 617 Sqn RAF etc will be operate from the carriers.However, there is some thought (rumour) that the full 138 buy will not end up being all B's, and we might stop at initial 48 buy for the B and then order the remaining 90 as A model to replace the Tornado. Logib though doesn't fit with Govt/MOD though.
However, the A model is boom refuel (not hose n drogue) which would mean yet another UK aircraft that couldn't be refuelled by our shiny new Voyager tankers, so there are issues with buying the A
This is yet another reason that not going cat n trap was stupid, as we could have kept a whole fleet of more useful C models (which are also probe equipped) and which would have been useable for carrier ops and land based RAF units as Tornado replacements - in the same way as the F-4 Phantom buy did nearly 50 years ago.
Or we could have just bought a big fleet of Super Hornets to do the same job, and saved a fortune even with the extra cost of going cat n trap on the carriers.....
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff