some F35 info

[FLYBOYJ]

"Spalling" is a property with many causes. It may be caused by moisture but has many other potential causes. There are many types of concrete and many ways to screw up its application. I used to test pipeline concrete "weight coat" and blast furnace refractories for spalling resistance, no one lands jet aircraft on a sub sea pipe line or furnace wall. A badly laid drive will spall quickly without any heat applied. If you want to land an aircraft on a concrete pad choose a concrete that can withstand the weight, thermal shock and searching action of the jet stream. Not a dig at you Flyboy, I cant stand misuse of "science" to make a point. Is anyone seriously suggesting the F35 will take off from supermarket car parks or that special landing pads are a major problem in light of the total cost of the plane.

No problem, but I think you made my point. the report on tis gave a "50%" chance that this would happen, in other words some one coming up with a possible scenario and the media running with it as it was a major issue, something that's been going on since day one with the F-35.

There was a recent issue over "hot fuel" and some of the fuel trucks being painted white to ensure cooling. This seems to be a precautionary decision made by one of the current USAF commands (AETC). An air force E-4 fuel servicer (dumb as a box of rocks) was interviewed about this and the next thing you hear is the "F-35 can't operate in the desert." Then there are those "near and far" who drink this cool aid with gusto!

Hi All

I have a question, considering the high cost of combat aircraft do you think that we would consider a joint venture with our NATO allies in developing the next generation fighter?

We've already done that with the f-35. it will depend if the Pentagon wants to allow any technology to be shared with our allies and if partnering arrangements are worth some of the headaches encountered on programs as such (schedule, quality, costs). If you go back a few posts ago I posted a piece that shows the JSF was a "shared" program from the start. The F-22 was the opposite.

 

[jtm55]

Hi All

Sorry I missed that FlyBoyJ Pbehn, but thanks for responding. I'm rereading post now

 

[jtm55]

Hi All

Bureaucrats in charge of the f35 program is probably the main reason cost of this aircraft is so high. Shouldn't qualified fighter pilots be the ones with the most input as they know what is needed to make said aircraft successful without adding all the extra cost?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hi All

Bureaucrats in charge of the f35 program is probably the main reason cost of this aircraft is so high. Shouldn't qualified fighter pilots be the ones with the most input as they know what is needed to make said aircraft successful without adding all the extra cost?

Sometimes yes, some times no - some of the bureaucrats who run these programs are/ were pilots. It helps to understand the product line, it's another thing to grasp contracting and engineering.

 

[jtm55]

Hi All

So most if not all of the opposition to the f35 is politically driven, however said opponents offer no viable alternative. Or is their position that we do nothing while our enemies get stronger?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hi All

So most if not all of the opposition to the f35 is politically driven, however said opponents offer no viable alternative. Or is their position that we do nothing while our enemies get stronger?

I think you answered your own question. The F-35 began through a competition and the best aircraft was chosen. Those who oppose this program only want to kill it without offering any viable alternatives. Is LMCO blameless with some of the issues encountered? Absolutely not, but many believe that the F-35 was just a private offering to the government at the expense to the taxpayer. Like every combat place before it, the F-35 will have teething issues, but IMO these issues are no better or worse than what has been experienced on 4th or even 3rd generation jet combat aircraft.

 

[jtm55]

Hi All

I agree with you FlyBoyJ. Thank you for explanations, they were very helpful.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"...the F-35 will have teething issues..."

The media and the naysayers tried to kill the VTOL Osprey too ... which is turning out to be a game changer ... as will the F-35 .... interchangeable ... deployed in meaningful numbers ... and deployed by America's allies

 

[pbehn]

Having read the proposed use of the B version with VTOL capability I cannot see what the comment about concrete is all about. During training most take off and landing will be under ideal conditions which I would say would be a rust proof metal pad. In operation they will take off and land from ships or temporary pads. These pads will be close to enemy activity so they are prepared to sacrifice range and so must be moved every 24 to 48 hours. Personally I do not believe an efficient unit can change its base every day or every other day but if they do they certainly cannot use concrete, wiki suggests interlocking aluminium sheets which can be lifted by helicopter. To use concrete means having teams of men building pads telling your enemy where the F35 will be stationed in the next few days, no concrete is cured completely in 2 days.
Flyboy I now understand your frustration...even from an outsiders view it is complete borrocks. Personally I don't believe the "B" variant is a good option for the UK but then that is where politics come in, Rolls Royce and BAE are involved in the fan lift system and so I think may be obliged to buy some.

 

[syscom3]

Hi All

So most if not all of the opposition to the f35 is politically driven, however said opponents offer no viable alternative. Or is their position that we do nothing while our enemies get stronger?

A good chunk of the opposition is due to it being tremendously expensive for its mediocre performance.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

A good chunk of the opposition is due to it being tremendously expensive for its mediocre performance.

The aircraft is expensive, agree - you get what you pay for - but show us some real, unbiased non Yahoo news PROOF to back up your claim because so far you've been posting twisted reports and old news articles about the program.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Having read the proposed use of the B version with VTOL capability I cannot see what the comment about concrete is all about. During training most take off and landing will be under ideal conditions which I would say would be a rust proof metal pad. In operation they will take off and land from ships or temporary pads. These pads will be close to enemy activity so they are prepared to sacrifice range and so must be moved every 24 to 48 hours. Personally I do not believe an efficient unit can change its base every day or every other day but if they do they certainly cannot use concrete, wiki suggests interlocking aluminium sheets which can be lifted by helicopter. To use concrete means having teams of men building pads telling your enemy where the F35 will be stationed in the next few days, no concrete is cured completely in 2 days.
Flyboy I now understand your frustration...even from an outsiders view it is complete borrocks. Personally I don't believe the "B" variant is a good option for the UK but then that is where politics come in, Rolls Royce and BAE are involved in the fan lift system and so I think may be obliged to buy some.

Good points but don't underestimate the movement of the landing pad, or if it will even be used when the F-35 enters service. The UK has the second biggest stake in this aircraft so I think the partnership between LMCO, BAE and Rolls will ensure it will work as advertised. Despite all this doubt over the F-35B, it's entering service in a few months.

 

[jtm55]

A good chunk of the opposition is due to it being tremendously expensive for its mediocre performance.

Hi All

If I'm not mistaken the F35 performance is equal to the F/A18. Hardly what i would call mediocre.

 

[Glider]

A good chunk of the opposition is due to it being tremendously expensive for its mediocre performance.

I am interested to know what you would use to attack the enemy. It seems to cost less than two combat drones and has an infinitely better performance and flexibility. Looked in that way it seems quite good value.

 

[pbehn]

Good points but don't underestimate the movement of the landing pad, or if it will even be used when the F-35 enters service. The UK has the second biggest stake in this aircraft so I think the partnership between LMCO, BAE and Rolls will ensure it will work as advertised. Despite all this doubt over the F-35B, it's entering service in a few months.

The question of which variant for the UK is a vexed one. The VTO F35B means the carriers, which are now being built, dont need catapults and can swap use with helicopters. The last time I saw a figure the addition of catapults alone was $2 billion.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If I'm not mistaken the F35 performance is equal to the F/A18. Hardly what i would call mediocre.

It is said it has similar "fighter" performance to the F/A-18C. Remember, this is strike aircraft and although there has been some sales pitches thrown around about it's air-to-air capability, it is basically a bomber. I'll say it again, if this aircraft finds itself in a close in visual dogfight, about 20 things went terribly wrong. "Track your enemy, shoot your missiles BVR, kill your enemy, go home."

I am interested to know what you would use to attack the enemy. It seems to cost less than two combat drones and has an infinitely better performance and flexibility. Looked in that way it seems quite good value.

The funny thing about those who have drank the Yahoo news cool aid is they seriously think combat drones will cost less and will be able to fully replace manned aircraft, not going to happen in at least our lifetime.

The question of which variant for the UK is a vexed one. The VTO F35B means the carriers, which are now being built, dont need catapults and can swap use with helicopters. The last time I saw a figure the addition of catapults alone was $2 billion.

I saw that, maybe that gives the UK an option to forgo the F-35B and possibly adopt the F-35C?

 

[pbehn]

I saw that, maybe that gives the UK an option to forgo the F-35B and possibly adopt the F-35C?

I think the C is the best option for the UK , but from experience the geniuses in the MOD will order 2 catapults and cut back on the number of F35Bs to balance the costs.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think the C is the best option for the UK , but from experience the geniuses in the MOD will order 2 catapults and cut back on the number of F35Bs to balance the costs.

Agree..

Meanwhile...

USAF Names F-35 Integration Office Head

"The stealth fighter is expected to go operational for the Air Force sometime between August and December of 2016."

 

[gumbyk]

Joe, didn't you predict something like the happening (the unit cost coming down as more aircraft were built)?

Pentagon Revises Down Estimated Cost of F-35 Fighter | Defense: Aviation International News

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yep. And there's a trickle up effect as well. Subcontractors and vendors will reduce costs as they are building in quantity. I think in the end the F-35A and C will be not much more expensive than a new F/A-18. I bet this article will be buried in all the negative press about the program.