F-35 - Another News Article - NO politics Please !

[tonyot]

I must have missed the bit in the review which told us where all those pilots are coming from?

Is the training organisation being expanded? Linton on Ouse not closed after all?

Nigel

Easy,.....we are going to have loads of US Navy & Marine pilots and maintainers embedded in numbers with the RAF/RN to keep them in flying practice while the Pentagon is forced to close down numbers of its squadrons due to spending cuts!! Apparently the Hornet`s that are being withdrawn are being stored in the UK on Blackpool beach.

Honestly though,....I didn`t know that Linton was closed? Where are the Tucano`s flying from now?

Cheers

Tony

Edited November 23, 2015 by tonyot

[bentwaters81tfw]

That's not a problem, anyone can fly a portakabin these days.

[-Neu-]

I must have missed the bit in the review which told us where all those pilots are coming from?

Is the training organisation being expanded? Linton on Ouse not closed after all?

Nigel

Let me state upfront that I'm not that familiar with the particulars of the UK's proposed set-up, but the way the program is structured is to undertake much of what we call in Canada, Fighter Lead in Training (what we use our Hawks for) and roughly what we called OTU (dual seaters), in the U.S. So right now many of the partners are buying their first F-35As and deploying them to Luke AFB. There they are part of a pool of training aircraft that the partners use to undertake cadres of pilots. Then Combat Readiness training is undertaken at home at operational squadrons.

[mhaselden]

I still believe a proven airframe in the same numbers would have been a better option. Two engines are always preferable, especially over water, and 2 seats are often better in the attack role.

Belligerents these days seem to be of the insurgent variety, who don't carry sophisticated radar sets with them, or have air to air capability.

We would have been better off letting Uncle Sam do and pay for all he spade work, to see if this dog really hunts, before making an 'informed decision'. Far easier to have built as CATOBAR from the outset, then you have all the options. We could have leased legacy jets in the interim, and purchased the best option at the end of the day.

I disagree with the "two engines are always preferable" statement. Modern jet engines in fighter-sized aircraft are so closely aligned that a catastrophic failure of one engine will most likely also take out the second engine. Historically, 2 engines have been needed to provide sufficient thrust during critical phases of flight (ie take-off and landing) but that's clearly no longer the case.

Your point about "letting Uncle Sam do and pay for all the spade work" rather misses the point that without the multinational support, the F-35 might never have been built. For the rest of the western world to expect the US to foot the bill all the time is immoral. Yes, it is the wealthiest nation on the planet but European countries in particular need to increase spending on defence and take a greater share in operations that hitherto have been dominated by the US military.

Finally, as noted in other posts, to build an aircraft that is only good enough for current counter-insurgency operations would be crassly naiive. Such a platform would not last if we end up going toe-to-toe with a more traditional military power. The F-35 will be in service for 40 years...it needs to have the breadth of capability to deliver on any mission profile that is likely to be encountered during that period (as best we can guess from this point in time).

[magwitch]

You're forgetting Lockheed's P-38 had first dibs, though I agree with your sentiments.

The Lightning name for the P-38 was invented by RAF too. Lockheed wanted to call it the Atalanta.

[alpine_modeller]

Not a bad result at all.

Not even definite we lost T26 hulls.

Would like to see 801 or 892 as the second FAA squadron for F-35Bs.

[Truro Model Builder]

RAF Linton-on-Ouse is due to cease flying ops when the T-6A is delivered to replace the Tucano. It will be co-located with the Hawks at Valley, which shouldn't be a problem as we will only be having ten (yes, I did say only ten) T-6s.

As for the F-35, I would be much happier if we were procuring the F-35C. The F-35B has far too much compromise in it to make it a STOVL platform, and as for the US Marine Corps declaring IOC... well, I don't know what useful work it is doing yet. The problem is that Lockheed Martin's PR department have pumped out so much good news about it that by now I for one just gloss over any of the company's press statements about it:

Aircraft Maintainer 3rd Class Dick L. Ess of Snoringville, Milwaukee successfully changed a bulb in the pilot's warning panel in a production F-35A of the US Air Force at Luke AFB on November 3rd. This will help to ensure that the US warfighter has the finest capability available to face all of America's real or potential threats in the foreseeable future.

And this is why ANY news regarding the F-35 is treated with a lot of scepticism.

Edited November 24, 2015 by T7 Models

[raptormodeller]

F-35 has become to expensive to simply ditch without MAJOR economical penalties in my opinion

[Truro Model Builder]

F-35 has become to expensive to simply ditch without MAJOR economical penalties in my opinion

Agreed. But I certainly cannot see us ever getting anywhere near the 138 being touted.

[raptormodeller]

But, but... What can we get then, we've pumped a LOT of money on that turkey, but however you look at it it's still a major feat of engineering. I mean a STOBAR Typhoon isn't out of the question but still. Would a GR11 harrier have been cheaper?

[Nigel Foster60]

Hi Tony,

Sorry busy again, a few hours off the forum and all hell breaks. Not surprised with this subject though.

RAF Linton on Ouse is scheduled to close in 2019 as our friend T7 said when the new kit goes to enjoy the fog at RAF Valley.

Cannot see how the training organisation that was wrecked so in 2010 can cope with ALL the aircrew required unless there is a meaningful

restoration of that capability.

Nigel

[Truro Model Builder]

I still believe we will only get enough aircraft to form one air wing with a training/attrition reserve. That it will truly 'replace' the Tornado GR.4 will never happen now, not with the integration of Storm Shadow, Brimstone etc onto Typhoon Tranche 3, and I would agree that the three squadrons we will definitely be reforming should all be Naval Air Squadrons. (I do not see that 617 has an automatic right to remain in existence; there are many, many RAF squadrons that have many more years of seniority.)

With regard to an OCU, I had the impression that UK F-35 crew will be getting their training with the US Marines.

[Nigel Foster60]

I agree if we end up with all 138 aircraft I will be very surprised.

However as it now takes 5-7 years to get a pilot to the front line the training issues need to be addressed now.

The back seaters for the P-8 is a whole new world after 5 years. I know some crews have worked in other airforces to maintain a capabillity but it will not be nearly enough.

Nigel

[Knight_Flyer]

F-35 has become to expensive to simply ditch without MAJOR economical penalties in my opinion

Agreed too which I've mentioned in an earlier posting. Mentioned also if you look back in the past there are aircraft deemed as "failures" and still entered operational service presumably because of the economical impact for not doing so. Who knows, perhaps after entering service the F-35 never gets to see any combat or the worse it has to face are some obsolete MiG's.

[mhaselden]

As for the F-35, I would be much happier if we were procuring the F-35C. The F-35B has far too much compromise in it to make it a STOVL platform, and as for the US Marine Corps declaring IOC... well, I don't know what useful work it is doing yet. The problem is that Lockheed Martin's PR department have pumped out so much good news about it that by now I for one just gloss over any of the company's press statements about it:

Aircraft Maintainer 3rd Class Dick L. Ess of Snoringville, Milwaukee successfully changed a bulb in the pilot's warning panel in a production F-35A of the US Air Force at Luke AFB on November 3rd. This will help to ensure that the US warfighter has the finest capability available to face all of America's real or potential threats in the foreseeable future.

And this is why ANY news regarding the F-35 is treated with a lot of scepticism.

I would agree with your first statement. The F-35B should have been canned - it's simply not justified by any realistic operational requirements. The Harrier had its day but there's no need for austere combat operations any more. The F-35C would have been the much better choice - more capability for a lower cost and less maintenance complexity.

I'm intrigued by your other comments. You seem to think it's all Lockheed's fault that the programme is delayed and that the price is so high. Having worked several military procurements on both sides of the Govt/contractor fence, I can tell you that there's seldom a single organization to blame. Requirements creep will change the price and schedule and the customer owns the requirements. Unfortunately, we (collectively) haven't found a good way to articulate HOW a requirement is to be implemented, and its this area that, IMHO, we see the biggest impact on the cost and schedule. The requirement says "Do X" and the contractor implements a capability to do that, then the customer says "I didn't want you to do it that way, you need to do it this way"...and so we're off to the requirements creep races.

Your comments about the Lockheed PR department are also a little OTT. Surely you don't consider the USMC declaring IOC as a trivial achievement? Clearly, the Governments of the partner nations also have a vested interest in promoting the F-35 story but that doesn't mean we should automatically discount any good news that emerges. As noted by another poster, to do so would mean we only accept negative stories...and there's plenty of misinformation peddled in the press and other places to constantly promote the anti-F35 agenda.

[mhaselden]

Agreed too which I've mentioned in an earlier posting. Mentioned also if you look back in the past there are aircraft deemed as "failures" and still entered operational service presumably because of the economical impact for not doing so. Who knows, perhaps after entering service the F-35 never gets to see any combat or the worse it has to face are some obsolete MiG's.

Or, just maybe, it will be tremendous success and prove all the doubters wrong, and that it can successfully complete all mission profiles demanded of it and more.

Personally, I don't want the F-35 to have to prove its mettle operationally because that implies we've gone toe-to-toe with a major player, and that would just be bad from a global perspective. Unfortunately, it seems that real operational proof is the only thing that will satisfy some who doubt the aircraft's capabilities. I hope they don't get what they ask for - a nice, full-scale war - because, in that case, any "I told you so" comments (on either side of the fence) would be rather irrelevant.

Edited November 24, 2015 by mhaselden

[PhantomBigStu]

What annoys me "most" about the F-35 its is appropriation of the name "Lighnting". There should only be one aircraft called Lightning and it should be prefixed "English Electric"

wrong, Lockheed wanted to call the f-22 the Lightning II (after the p-38), but the airforce went for Raptor as Jurassic Park had just hit the cinemas, naturally Lockheed lobbied again and this time it was agreed as it fitted the transatlantic theme of the project, amercans calling it Lightning II after the P-38, and us calling it after the EE.

[Giorgio N]

Agreed too which I've mentioned in an earlier posting. Mentioned also if you look back in the past there are aircraft deemed as "failures" and still entered operational service presumably because of the economical impact for not doing so. Who knows, perhaps after entering service the F-35 never gets to see any combat or the worse it has to face are some obsolete MiG's.

Any example of these types deemed as failures that entered service because of the economical impact ?

[mhaselden]

Any example of these types deemed as failures that entered service because of the economical impact ?

Every new combat aircraft that's entered service because doubters think it's worse than the current equipment. Even the F-15 entered service with a radar that performed worse than that on the F-4....and now, 40 years later, the F-15 is still the air superiority fighter to beat.

Actually, I'd argue that the Tornado F3 could fall into that category, although it was a victim of poor requirements - it's somewhat of a Boulton Paul Defiant for the 1980s. Even then, it could prove effective when employing the right tactics and intelligent use of available data. I participated in a joint exercise a number of years ago and witnessed a 4-ship of F-3s take out an entire formation of F-15s without the targets even seeing the Tonkas. It was achieved using smart tactics and sensor fusion from offboard sensors....exactly what the F-35 is designed to do (but it can also combat manoeuvre...which was never the Tonka's sweet spot).

[Geoff_B]

Not a bad result at all.

Not even definite we lost T26 hulls.

Would like to see 801 or 892 as the second FAA squadron for F-35Bs.

We don't loose hulls however the 5 General Purpose T-26's look like they will be replaced with a slightly smaller more affordable design which will allow them to build more than the 5 planned to actually increase hull numbers again past 19.

As for FAA Squadrons it will be 801 and/or 801 as the longest serving units although 802 would be nice. I wouldn't bother with 892 but go for 893 instead as its got a ruddy great lightning bolt in its crest and logo.

[Knight_Flyer]

Or, just maybe, it will be tremendous success and prove all the doubters wrong, that it can successfully complete all mission profiles demanded of it and more.

Personally, I don't want the F-35 to have to prove its mettle operationally because that implies we've gone toe-to-toe with a major player, and that would just be bad from a global perspective. Unfortunately, it seems that real operational proof is the only thing that will satisfy some who doubt the aircraft's capabilities. I hope they don't get what they ask for - a nice, full-scale war because, in that case, any "I told you so" comments (on either side of the fence) would be rather irrelevant.

Yes I think there are still a number of "unknowns" as to whether the F-35 will be any good. Not sure if future upgrades could be a potential answer or further developments in technology?

Any example of these types deemed as failures that entered service because of the economical impact ?

Nothing I can quote definitively hence I used the word "presumably". It would be hard to imagine after investing large sums of money into a project to then cancel it and write off the expenditure. Not to mention the additional cost of starting a new project to deliver a replacement that is deemed acceptable. Actually after reading my last two sentences I think economical is the wrong word and I meant to say "financial".

[Geoff_B]

Every new combat aircraft that's entered service because doubters think it's worse than the current equipment. Even the F-15 entered service with a radar that performed worse than that on the F-4....and now, 40 years later, the F-15 is still the air superiority fighter to beat.

Actually, I'd argue that the Tornado F3 could fall into that category, although it was a victim of poor requirements - it's somewhat of a Boulton Paul Defiant for the 1980s. Even then, it could prove effective when employing the right tactics and intelligent use of available data. I participated in a joint exercise a number of years ago and witnessed a 4-ship of F-3s take out an entire formation of F-15s without the targets even seeing the Tonkas. It was achieved using smart tactics and sensor fusion from offboard sensors....exactly what the F-35 is designed to do (but it can also combat manoeuvre...which was never the Tonka's sweet spot).

Really have you got a video of the F-35 doing combat manoeuvre's ?, as so far apart from some interesting angle of attack profiles I haven't yet seen it even match the Tornado F-3 for moves so far.

[mhaselden]

Yes I think there are still a number of "unknowns" as to whether the F-35 will be any good. Not sure if future upgrades could be a potential answer or further developments in technology?

But I think those unknowns are getting fewer and fewer with each passing week. As things stand, the aircraft is continuing to be tested and is meeting all its current schedule commitments (which are agreed jointly between the prime contractor and the Government). It's launched AAMs, the gun has been tested on the ground, the F-35B has completed carrier quals. What unknowns are you looking to have answered?

Really have you got a video of the F-35 doing combat manoeuvre's ?, as so far apart from some interesting angle of attack profiles I haven't yet seen it even match the Tornado F-3 for moves so far.

Not sure how a video would prove anything from a combat maneouvre perspective. USMC pilots who've flown the F-35B put it ahead of the F/A-18 in terms of combat performance...which ought to say something about its capabilities.

[Truro Model Builder]

I would agree with your first statement. The F-35B should have been canned - it's simply not justified by any realistic operational requirements. The Harrier had its day but there's no need for austere combat operations any more. The F-35C would have been the much better choice - more capability for a lower cost and less maintenance complexity.

I'm intrigued by your other comments. You seem to think it's all Lockheed's fault that the programme is delayed and that the price is so high.

Your comments about the Lockheed PR department are also a little OTT. Surely you don't consider the USMC declaring IOC as a trivial achievement? Clearly, the Governments of the partner nations also have a vested interest in promoting the F-35 story but that doesn't mean we should automatically discount any good news that emerges. As noted by another poster, to do so would mean we only accept negative stories...and there's plenty of misinformation peddled in the press and other places to constantly promote the anti-F35 agenda.

I never once mentioned cost in my post, and cannot see where you think I am apportioning blame for that to any particular party. I would be grateful if you could point it out. In any case, rising costs are generally the responsibility of both contractor and customer, both of whom try to blame the other.

As regards L-M's PR department, no I think I hit that squarely on the head. And because of that any real good news tends to get lost amongst all the trivial stuff that gets pumped out with the same puppy dog enthusiasm. The USMC's IOC was always going to happen on the date it was planned because there were far too many other considerations to take into account if it did not, and that much has been admitted by the USMC. I still feel that IOC means diddly squat in reality as there are still far too many issues that require rectifying before the F-35 can truly be called upon to undertake sustained combat missions, and I suspect that secretly HQ USMC would not wish to put it in harm's way just yet.

Edited November 24, 2015 by T7 Models

[Giorgio N]

Nothing I can quote definitively hence I used the word "presumably". It would be hard to imagine after investing large sums of money into a project to then cancel it and write off the expenditure. Not to mention the additional cost of starting a new project to deliver a replacement that is deemed acceptable. Actually after reading my last two sentences I think economical is the wrong word and I meant to say "financial".

None can be quoted because in the end the types that entered service were accepted because they could provide more or less what the customer needed. I say more or less because aviation history is full of types that never matched the original specifications in one aspect or the other (the Super Hornet is only the latest).

At the same time the same history of aviation has seen several programs cut after plenty of money had been poured in because the type could not fulfil the requirements or because the requirements themselves had changed too much (B-70, A-12, Comanche, Cheyenne only to name some US ones).

More important, history of aviation is full of types that are today considered as icons that in reality showed during their service troubles easily comparable to the ones experienced by the F-35 program, yet today these troubles are conveniently forgotten... The Hunter I already mentioned is one example but I could probably name another dozen post war types without even checking books. The difference is that back then there was no Internet, no former airman interviewed on youtube, no tabloid searching for scandals and so on. I'd love to see what would have been said of the Swift had this forum existed in those days...