What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?
Discussion
AnotherClarkey said:
What effect will it have on the RAF now that Turkey is being kicked out of the programme?
I doubt any effect.AnotherClarkey said:
Wasn't a large chunk of the maintenance supposed to be done there?
I think they were scheduled to be one of the main F135 engine maintenance/overhaul contractors, but from what I've seen reported this will just get done by another contractor, who will no doubt be more than happy to bid for the work instead.RizzoTheRat said:
Were Turkey planning to buy enough that thier aircraft not being built will push the unit cost up by much?
They were scheduled to buy about 120 x A models, so as the most numerous, I can't see it making much difference to the unit price which has already long since spiralled out of control............As stated above - an opportunity for the UK not a problem.
AIUI, despite the huge initial purchase cost of an F-35 - the biggest cost over the lifetime of an aircraft is support, maintenance and upgrades - and as such it is the contracts for this work that are the biggest prizes that the consortium members are scrabbling for. If some of the work that was due to be done in Turkey ends up being done in the UK then so much the better.
AIUI, despite the huge initial purchase cost of an F-35 - the biggest cost over the lifetime of an aircraft is support, maintenance and upgrades - and as such it is the contracts for this work that are the biggest prizes that the consortium members are scrabbling for. If some of the work that was due to be done in Turkey ends up being done in the UK then so much the better.
This is a good one in the ever increasing F-35B saga........ 
Defense News said:
However, the documents obtained by Defense News reported that heat from afterburner exhaust caused an F-35B to experience "bubbling and blistering" of its radar-absorbent materials (RAM) and of its horizontal tail surfaces and boom. Heat damage also "compromised the structural integrity" of the horizontal tail and boom of an F-35C. Sensitive sensors buried inside the skin of the rear tail surfaces could also have proven susceptible to damage.
Since the incident, the Marines have instituted a policy requiring F-35B pilots not to engage afterburners for more than eighty seconds cumulatively at Mach 1.3, or forty seconds at Mach 1.4. Navy F-35C pilots have fifty seconds at Mach 1.3 to ration.To "reset" the afterburner allowance, they must then allow three minutes non-afterburning flight for the tail area to cool down to avert damage.Though looser restrictions on safe afterburner usage exist for other jets, the document apparently acknowledges the restrictions imposed on the F-35B and C are "not practical/observable in operationally relevant scenarios."
After all, a pilot in a combat situation would likely struggle to count exactly how many seconds the afterburners have been cumulatively engaged while attempting to manage the many other tasks demanding his or her attention.An F-35 pilot might still choose to exceed afterburner limits during an urgent combat scenario, accepting the risk that the plane might sustain "degradation of [stealth], damage to antennas, and/or significant horizontal tail damage." However, this could then result in the jet being removed from operations while it awaits depot-level maintenance, which could be especially problematic for carrier-based squadrons.
Since the incident, the Marines have instituted a policy requiring F-35B pilots not to engage afterburners for more than eighty seconds cumulatively at Mach 1.3, or forty seconds at Mach 1.4. Navy F-35C pilots have fifty seconds at Mach 1.3 to ration.To "reset" the afterburner allowance, they must then allow three minutes non-afterburning flight for the tail area to cool down to avert damage.Though looser restrictions on safe afterburner usage exist for other jets, the document apparently acknowledges the restrictions imposed on the F-35B and C are "not practical/observable in operationally relevant scenarios."
After all, a pilot in a combat situation would likely struggle to count exactly how many seconds the afterburners have been cumulatively engaged while attempting to manage the many other tasks demanding his or her attention.An F-35 pilot might still choose to exceed afterburner limits during an urgent combat scenario, accepting the risk that the plane might sustain "degradation of [stealth], damage to antennas, and/or significant horizontal tail damage." However, this could then result in the jet being removed from operations while it awaits depot-level maintenance, which could be especially problematic for carrier-based squadrons.
IanH755 said:
I'm surprised the F-35 design team didn't talk to the F-22 team as that also has a similar "tailplanes behind the engine nozzle" arrangement which would lead to similar problems, unless the F-22 never suffered from the same issue due different material use.
they mention the b/c variants but I didn't see the a - don't the carrier a/c have enlarged tail sections which has maybe exascerbated the issue? F35a like F22 are ground only?Teddy Lop said:
IanH755 said:
I'm surprised the F-35 design team didn't talk to the F-22 team as that also has a similar "tailplanes behind the engine nozzle" arrangement which would lead to similar problems, unless the F-22 never suffered from the same issue due different material use.
they mention the b/c variants but I didn't see the a - don't the carrier a/c have enlarged tail sections which has maybe exascerbated the issue? F35a like F22 are ground only?LotusOmega375D said:
In a nod to the USAF F35A detachment currently at Marham spotted on FR24 thread, what is the latest on the RAF order book? Will ours all be the F35B STOVL model, or will we also get some orthodox F35A versions to use up the runway?
No one knows, and there's been no announcement, and with the finances post Covid-19, my guess will be we'll now never get more than the min 48 x F-35B needed to equip the carriers and an OCU (if we even get that many now)The problem with the A for the RAF is we don't have a way of AAR'ing them as they use USAF style boom AAR kit, not probe n drogue that the B and the C have and our tankers have.
aeropilot said:
No one knows, and there's been no announcement, and with the finances post Covid-19, my guess will be we'll now never get more than the min 48 x F-35B needed to equip the carriers and an OCU (if we even get that many now)
The problem with the A for the RAF is we don't have a way of AAR'ing them as they use USAF style boom AAR kit, not probe n drogue that the B and the C have and our tankers have.
What's the split of international sales between the different versions? I'd have thought boom only is a bit limiting for sales as surely most countries use probe and drogue?The problem with the A for the RAF is we don't have a way of AAR'ing them as they use USAF style boom AAR kit, not probe n drogue that the B and the C have and our tankers have.
ETA: Hmmm, looks like everyone else who's buying MRTT/Voyager is getting it with boom and drogue, only the UK buying without the boom. You'd think having both would make sense for multinational operations.
Edited by RizzoTheRat on Tuesday 12th May 14:41
LotusOmega375D said:
OK that seems pretty definitive then. Just a question of how few of the B variant we can get away with.
This why the decision not to cat n trap the carriers was a huge mistake, and the C order could have been chopped for a Super Bug order just as the USN are doing. At least at some point in the future, if the carriers had got chopped in defense cuts, the Bugs would have been a more useful asset operating from land with the RAF (as happened with the Phantoms) than the B version of the 35 will be as a land based only jet.
Many said, that years ago, instead of the carriers, we should have looked at a Strike Eagle buy (with joint boom as well as hose n drogue kit for the Voyager fleet) as replacement for the GR Tornado fleet (which would have also given us ability to AAR our C-17, E-3's, R1's and now new P-8's as well...
Steve vRS said:
aeropilot said:
AAR our C-17, E-3's, R1's and now new P-8's as well.
Can the RAF not refuel those aircraft with its own tankers?Actually, thinking about it, the new P-8's are probably USN spec, so will be hose n drogue as well if they have AAR capability.....would need to look that up.
Edited by aeropilot on Tuesday 12th May 15:45
aeropilot said:
No, as per my post above.
Actually, thinking about it, the new P-8's are probably USN spec, so will be hose n drogue as well if they have AAR capability.....would need to look that up.
Boom for the P8. Likewise the Wedgetail. Can they retrofit the boom to some of their tankers? Or make it easier and just convert some civil A332? Actually, thinking about it, the new P-8's are probably USN spec, so will be hose n drogue as well if they have AAR capability.....would need to look that up.
Edited by aeropilot on Tuesday 12th May 15:45
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff