F-35 grounded - again

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Good to see yu around again, Flyboy. Always worth listening to.

What is the biggest risk to the project now? As you also pointed out, it is probably not in the technical sphere anymore.

If the price is going up much more, can the smaller countries afford it? I think that is the problem.

I am not up-to-date on orders for F-35 anymore, but I think that the number of aircraft is dwindling? if that is so, what is the critical number?

Have you got experience with this as well? Was the Raptor not also on a downward spiral in terms of orders?

Ivan
 
The biggest risk is satisfying a very aggressive flight test schedule and completion of technical milestones. I don't recall the exact block release they are working towards, but upon a successful flight test/milestone completion this validated block release will officially give the airplane initial capability for air-to-air combat operations. Future milestones and subsequent block releases will introduce air-to-ground combat capabilities and weapon integration for foreign customer weapon systems.

I bet GE-Rolls Royce are salivating about now.
 
ivanotter said:
Good to see yu around again, Flyboy. Always worth listening to.
Click to expand...

Many Thanks!
ivanotter said:
What is the biggest risk to the project now? As you also pointed out, it is probably not in the technical sphere anymore.
Click to expand...
Money, the media/ politicians and peace.
ivanotter said:
If the price is going up much more, can the smaller countries afford it? I think that is the problem.
Click to expand...
This depends - much of the bad press around the cost centers around the US program. Once the line is started and production units are rolling at full stride, costs will drop. You also have issues with avionics which are a subject matter in it self. It's also going to depend what electronic goodies smaller countries will purchase.
ivanotter said:
I am not up-to-date on orders for F-35 anymore, but I think that the number of aircraft is dwindling? if that is so, what is the critical number?
Click to expand...

I don't knwo where it sits on firm orders, but the DoD wants about 2,500 units and right now the Obama administration seems to still support the program.
ivanotter said:
Have you got experience with this as well? Was the Raptor not also on a downward spiral in terms of orders?

Ivan
Click to expand...
The Raptor's price was based on total production units. About 200 were initially ordered, I think about 165 got delivered.
 
In the 1970' when the F15 and F16 went through their teething problems, the US economy was in far greater shape to handle cost issues. We don't have that luxury anymore. So many needs by the pentagon and we cannot support them all. We're all adults here and know very well that our family budgets have to be prioritized between what we want and what we can afford. This where we are with every d*** program with the military. Costs for everything is now prohibitive and cruel choices must now be made.
 
Last edited:
The DoD spends about 6+% of our yearly Federal budget. More than half of the federal budget is social handouts with over 47% of individual Americans receiving some sort of social benefit. The US constitution specifically states that the Fed Gov't is responsible for security of the state. Nowhere is it mentioned that the Fed Gov't is to clothe, feed, educate and shelter citizens.

{Great. Now I have to ban myself.}
 
I would gladly cut the DOD budget to fully fund any NASA and JPL programs.

Matt, we are in an end game here. What everyone wants and what we can afford is not sustainable. I don't care were you assign blame, but the fact is; we cant afford it.
 
You and I are in violent agreement. But wisdom says the money manager must prioritize. And with US constitution backing, I would vociferously argue that the DoD 6% budget is not the tree you bark up. To do so is ignorant and folly. Don't get me wrong, there is certainly waste. But to gut the DoD and ignore the other 94% is criminal, unconstitutional and frankly treasonous.
 
I woud totally agree that this is a pressing need for the Armed Forces. I have one question and perhaps FBJ will address it. Are We, the USA, following the German WWII weapons developoment path, i.e. making more and more complicated and expensive weapons systems that are difficult to impossible to maintain in a war scenario? What is the survivability of these complicated systems in wartime. Shootup a Spitfire and with some baling wire and tape its back flying next day. How many 20mm cannon rounds can a B-2 take and fly home and if it does who fixes it?
A Tiger tank in today's money would cost a million plus. An Abrams runs over 4 million.
 

In some respects I agree with you, but then again after the Vietnam War, when the DoD placed an emphasis on technology and survivability, how many aircraft and aircrews were lost in combat when compared to Vietnam and earlier? Smaller number of aircraft today are doing twice or three times the job compared to hardware 40 of 50 years ago with a fraction of the losses but five times the price. Is it worth it? Ask the family of today's combat pilot.
 
And now we have no compelling draft. Our men and women are serving duties that are unheard of in our history. Shame on us citizens for either not voluteering or forcing our elected members to impress a change in our foreign policy. Shame on us all. From bottom to top.
 
A question. Do you think that without the requirement for a STOVL variant that the F-35 may have ended up a twin engined aircraft instead, using two smaller engines, such as those in the F-18 (upgraded, of course)?

Another, apart from landing on helicopter platforms, do the Marines need hovering/vertical lift capability in their fighetr/attack jets?
 
wuzak said:
A question. Do you think that without the requirement for a STOVL variant that the F-35 may have ended up a twin engined aircraft instead, using two smaller engines, such as those in the F-18 (upgraded, of course)?
Click to expand...
No - the concept was to make the aircraft as light at possible and that's why LMCO designers went with the lift fan. The concept works and was well demonstrated during the X-35/ X-32 fly off.
wuzak said:
Another, apart from landing on helicopter platforms, do the Marines need hovering/vertical lift capability in their fighetr/attack jets?
Click to expand...
That's an argument firmly in place right now.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
No - the concept was to make the aircraft as light at possible and that's why LMCO designers went with the lift fan. The concept works and was well demonstrated during the X-35/ X-32 fly off.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was asking if there was no STOVL variant if it would have a big single engine or two smaller ones. I understand that the single engine with lift fan works well for STOVL, and that the single engine negates the possibility of assymetric lift thrust if one engine goes down.

In essence I am asking how much of the F-35A and F-35C designs have been driven by the F-35B?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

RAF to Obtain F-35A Airframes
Replies
9
Views
2K
buffnut453
F-15C Eagle 76-0543
Replies
4
Views
940
Gnomey
F-16C Block 30 "The Bats"
Replies
4
Views
902
Martin06
N
Is the Super hornet much better than F-16?
Replies
12
Views
628
BiffF15
Yikes!! Reckless Russian Su-35
Replies
5
Views
1K
buffnut453
Menu
Log in
Register