Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!
1,350 thoughts on “Open Thread – Land, Sea and Air I”
jedibeeftrix
I accept the point, yet the idea still appeals.
It just seems very complementary to the new focus on conflict-prevention training-teams and admin’s forward presence vessels.
Topman
I guess it would look nice and neat from an organisational point of view. I’d just prefer it to work and be good value for money.
Mark
As we don’t have nimrod or p8 or p3 or canberra which I think would be ideal for here I would use da42 ,shadow or sentinel much better to help find and classify targets for host country prosecution it avoids any number of issues including problems we’ve currently seen in afghan.
jedibeeftrix
i’m happy to agree that some of the smaller ISTAR platforms may make a more useful contribution as a forward-presence component of the RAF.
So we can Mi8 / Mi17 up to defence register spec’s if needed. Go figure.
Mark
x
Yep easy for 2 training a/c been doing this sort of thing for years for all manner of a/c. Not so easy to get a fleet in service with an assured JIT spares and support package.
x
@ Mark
Don’t harsh my mellow dude.
To quote from the fast-air.co.uk article on Project CURIUM.
“The view is shared with the QinetiQ staff who said that they weren’t optimistic when the project had started because of dealing with an unknown aircraft but had grown to love them.”
Grown to love them. Ain’t that wonderful?
El Sid
Some cool photos of the “actual” Varyag, the Slava-class cruiser that is the flagship of the Russian Pacific Fleet, as opposed to the ex-Varyag, the Chinese aircraft carrier.
It was on its way to Vancouver for Armistice Day. I just find it interesting to see how other navies do things, worth noting the sheer size of the wardroom (and the really nasty curtains and seat covers), and the mix of old and new technology. (S)he’s had an eventful life – laid down 1979, commissioned in 1989 as Chernova Ukraina only for Ukraine to secede and the ship mothballed for nearly 20 years, before being reactivated in 2008.
The Sevastapol pictures include corvettes 615 and 616, which I believe are PASCAT-like, capable of 58 knots?
- Indonesia also has at least one of them
El Sid
@ACC – I don’t think Indonesia has any of the Dergach/Bora-class missile hovercraft like 615/616. Are you thinking of their proposed deal to buy a couple of Stereguschy corvettes, which are heavily armed conventional hulls along the lines of the Sa’ar V?
ArmChairCivvy
Hi El Sid,
The Indonesian article must have been a spoof (using the photo). They also claimed 58 knots when the only two build do “only” 45.
The other case you mention is interesting as the hulls, once built, sail from Spain to St. Petersburg for fitting out (customer insisted, and they have had a lot of experience from older Russian hulls).
ArmChairCivvy
The Obama strategy (now that he made the trip to the Pentagon) is really what one got months ago by combining what Bob said in Brussels and a very specific treatment of US future stance in AsiaPAC by Hilary Clinton.
Some pointers to the metrics, to pave the ground for the detail coming out in budget proposals, in February.
- from 2015 the Army will lose as much as the current strength of all of the British Army (leaves it at the 9/11 level, but with a larger SOF component); as the USMC will not be the sole raiding force anymore, they will also shrink by 10% (and look less like a second army, going forward)
- the Air Force will lose more planes than the whole pointy end of the RAF currently, but as they are the older ones it will be the NG/reserve component of personnel that will be impacted. I bet the 66 B-1s are within the number as the decision to retire them was already rumoured to have been taken in 2010; the new stealthy bomber has been (once again) confirmed (to compensate)
- no specifics on the Navy, except that to be able to realize the stance for the Pacific and the Gulf/Indian Ocean, potentially simultaneously, seems to have put the talk about carrier reductions to bed
Soon we’ll have a dedicated thread for the implications…
El Sid
@ACC – numbers vary on the Dergachs, but Almaz claim “over 50kts”, and 100km/h seems the most common number quoted, which equates to 54kts. So 58kts is within a margin of error – could be someone converting 50kts into mph? Either that or they’re thinking of the Uragan/Sarancha hydrofoil.
US stuff isn’t too surprising. AvWeek has been poking around the costs of maintaining/upgrading the current Burkes in the wake of suggestions that Flight III could cost $3-4bn apiece. All of a sudden the Zumwalts are looking a lot more attractive purely on cost grounds, let alone the fact that they are more stealthy and have power to spare for all the new toys. Personally I think the USN should stop using $2bn cruisers (which is what Flight II Burkes are) as gunboats and downsize to European-size destroyers with 64 Mk 41 cells. Something like the F100 would be an easy choice, a Mk41 version of the T45 would be interesting (you’d have to redesign the topsides to fit Aegis, but at least BAE make the Mk41 tubes). And in many ways GCS would suit them better than LCS…..
Anyway, that’s for another day. Perhaps there is room for a “other militaries” Open Thread – or separate ones for NATO and the red team?
The U.K.’s flagship unmanned aircraft program, the Thales Watchkeeper, has failed to meet its target for delivering the first air vehicles to troops in Afghanistan.
I think topman this is how you take a gd idea and screw it up much as we did with chinook mk3 and apache. What we could and should have done is buy the hermes 450 (which we did for afghan anyway) and get the system into the army and modify it as we go then as greater requirement appeared get the hermes 900 also instead of reaper or even the hermes 1500 uav. We could have developed these in blocks but get the things into service and learn and adapt according. Reaper would not have been purchase as all uav are not self deploying give them all to army and dont continue this research program with the french to create MALE that already exist. We could still assemble vehicles in the UK and put R&D into systems with a common interface.
Let the RAF concentrate on a/c like the King350er which have excellent capabilities and can deploy where ever we want them to.
Topman
What happened in more precise terms, was it a case of ‘we’ve no idea what we want’? Or was it something more.
Why do you suggest the RAF shouldn’t have bought UAVs, that purchase went quite well and is being used successfully. Looking at it briefly you might suggest the army giving all the UAVs to the RAF !
I know they were but uavs can’t self deploy or at present be useful within within the uk. The raf in my view should be in the more strategic go anywhere recon mind set. If it wants a Uav is should have been global hawk. The larger Hermes uavs use the same ground station as the 450 can I believe be armed and of an either or on using line of site or sat com. I happen to think reaper and watchkeeper are to close in capabilities for a force the size the uk deploys.
ArmChairCivvy
Hi Mark, me too RE
” I happen to think reaper and watchkeeper are to close in capabilities for a force the size the uk deploys.”
Interestingly re: the Global Hawk alternative, the cost is, per piece (naturally impacted by the size of the fleet when you take in the supporting systems that are made better use of, the bigger the fleet):
- $100m if you go by the years’ old German deal (basically a B2B deal)
- $200m if you go by the Korean recent negotiation (basically a B2C deal)
That kind of money would be much better spent on a BAMS capability
Mark
Yes I agree acc. The price of such a Uav means I would concentrate on cheaper manned recon platforms for the raf and accept some reduce capability in persistence. A two tier high low fleet of Istar assets would be centred most like 737 and kingairs for the raf at about 1:2 ratio to replace all current raf assets in this field.
x
Daring deploys to the Gulf today. I hope she has more than 4 Asters aboard….
“Daring deploys to the Gulf today. I hope she has more than 4 Asters aboard…. ”
– I hear they’ve splashed out for six…
x
Heck a 50% increase in defence spending isn’t to be sniffed at it is?
x
According to a thread on MilitaryPhoto.net the RAF are going to start flying BAe 146s. Didn’t we discuss that ‘plane here?
Gareth Jones
@ x – We did. For RAF and disaster relief IIRC. In-flight refueling and/or extra fuel tanks were discussed as good upgrades; the pictureon the thread does show a refueling probe…
ArmChairCivvy
Two have been flying the Royalty around:
“The aircraft has a trailing-axle main gear with a large damper unit, which allows the aircraft to operate from unprepared surfaces, including gravel and desert runways. The aircraft’s excellent performance provides good short-field capability and allows it to operate from airfields located at up to 14,000ft above sea level. The aircraft is based on the civilian BAE 146 100 Series, but has additional fuel tanks and a Royal Suite cabin-fit; and the modern, electronic defensive-aids suite gives almost 360º protection against infrared missiles.The BAE 146 CC2 is fitted with three passenger compartments. Compartment A is situated at the front of the aircraft and accommodates the crew. Compartment B, in the centre of the fuselage, accommodates additional crew and extra passengers. Compartment C is situated at the rear of the aircraft and accommodates Royal or VV[I honestly did not add the second 'V']IP passengers. The layout of the compartments can be varied to meet task requirements, but the maximum seating capacity is 30 passengers.The BAE 146 is a quiet but rugged aircraft, with a high level of built-in redundancy. It can carry many of its own spares, allowing it to operate for long periods away from base, with little or no external support. The aircraft’s excellent short-field performance, and its ability to operate from high or unprepared airfields in missile threat areas, mean that the aircraft is extremely versatile.”
- and if the almost 360 degree protection is good enough for them, it will be good enough for everybody? [meaning the DAS will not need to be invented, but you can just order more sets]
no mention of extra fuel requirements but it is to be used in theatre.
ArmChairCivvy
And ooops:
BAe.146
ZD696 BAe.146 CC1 RP-C2994 Private Philippines Nov 2007
ZE702 BAe.146 CC2 PK-OSP Private Indonesia Feb 2007
- so may be the DAS (two then,before being sold, and two now ) was conveniently sitting in the storage shed?
x
Obviously Their Airships read TD.
Think Defence
I wouldnt think they will be fitted with DAS but you never know, perhaps they will be used for the Cyprus to Middle East run to build some extra capacity or contingency.
I think we discussed them a year or so ago but I think BAE have been touting them for a long time
Phil
They’re probably going to be used for the Kabul/BSN/KAF runs. Or the Minab to BSN/KAF runs. That sort of thing. The article says intra-theatre transport and planes ply that route regularly.
What is DAS? (Ignoring the Germanic intonation there!)
Think Defence
defensive aids system, very expensive but pretty much mandatory for flying into any area with a MANPADS threat. Probably cost more that the aircraft
paul g
please sir please sir pleeeeease! i put a link up to the 146 ages ago! BAe were touting them for £5million. We then discussed the range as the mil version they displayed at farnbourgh years ago had a wooden dummy re-fuel probe.
My suggestion was to be a cheaper (and obviously pressurized) MERT aircraft as at the time it could land at the short runway at bastion. Still think it could be a good idea, can land on unprepared runways and is one if not the quietest jets on the market.
paul g
ref DAS haven’t BAe got some spare from nimrod lying around?
Mark
They will be fitted to full afghan theatre entry standard for afghan to relieve pressure on c130 fleet in country. Most likely 2 ex TNT a/c
they were offered to the mod a couple of years ago, but dismissed as unsuitable. I wonder what changed?
ArmChairCivvy
Topman,
How many K’s are still flying? A400s are suitably late.
There aren’t many models that
- can take off/ land with a meaningful load from a 1000m rough strip
- have DAS available, rather than having to be expensively purchased & modified (that’s the two planes that were sold off from the Royal Flight)
- even the pilots certified for the type are probably still there
So what’s changed? Probably nothing, but the dire lack of (tactical) capacity has forced the thinking caps on
ArmChairCivvy
… and I am not that much an aviation man that I would know how many J’s are off-duty, due to the treatment of the wing fatigue (that joint programme done with Oz, with Marshalls lead, started ages ago, but you can’t do all the planes in one go)
Mark
Acc that will solely depend on how many hours is on the a/c. The repair would have to be done when they reach a specific number determined by the manufacturer no exceptions there maybe several reaching this point shortly and this is preemptive action. The work very hard in afghan due the number of very short flights they do each day.
I personally am quite surprised the mod has taken this option
ArmChairCivvy
Hi Mark,
That is how it works almost always “determined by the manufacturer no exceptions there maybe several reaching this point shortly and this is preemptive action. ”
For the J’s (as they work on a punishing schedule and in unusual A-stan conditions) the “hour” arrives earlier than the manufacturer could reasonably predict. So it is done based on a simulation model commissioned by the two gvmnts and built by Marshalls (I don’t know who does the actual work)
Mark
Lockheed hold the airworthiness they will be aware of the hours on the a/c and stipulate the inspection intervals to be carried out after x number of landing on unprepared surfaces. What that inspection finds determines what happens next. If nothing is found then you have another period till there check again stipulated by Lockheed. If small cracks are found they maybe monitored on a shorter period again with consultation with Lockheed/marshals team. Finally if the crack are at the stage of repair required. Then marshalls will carry out the repair using the a/cs structural repair manual ( supplied by manufacture for every a/c) as a guide and then marshals sign off the repair as safe to fly. This may involve consultation with lockheed also.
Topman
@ acc well the noise was they were dismissed out of hand. Not a case of thanks but no thanks, it was thought of as unsuitable regardless of aircraft numbers after an analysis. So something or more likely someone has changed.
I accept the point, yet the idea still appeals.
It just seems very complementary to the new focus on conflict-prevention training-teams and admin’s forward presence vessels.
I guess it would look nice and neat from an organisational point of view. I’d just prefer it to work and be good value for money.
As we don’t have nimrod or p8 or p3 or canberra which I think would be ideal for here I would use da42 ,shadow or sentinel much better to help find and classify targets for host country prosecution it avoids any number of issues including problems we’ve currently seen in afghan.
i’m happy to agree that some of the smaller ISTAR platforms may make a more useful contribution as a forward-presence component of the RAF.
http://www.fast-air.co.uk/qinetiq-boscombe-down-mi-17-project-curium/
So we can Mi8 / Mi17 up to defence register spec’s if needed. Go figure.
x
Yep easy for 2 training a/c been doing this sort of thing for years for all manner of a/c. Not so easy to get a fleet in service with an assured JIT spares and support package.
@ Mark
Don’t harsh my mellow dude.
To quote from the fast-air.co.uk article on Project CURIUM.
“The view is shared with the QinetiQ staff who said that they weren’t optimistic when the project had started because of dealing with an unknown aircraft but had grown to love them.”
Grown to love them. Ain’t that wonderful?
Some cool photos of the “actual” Varyag, the Slava-class cruiser that is the flagship of the Russian Pacific Fleet, as opposed to the ex-Varyag, the Chinese aircraft carrier.
http://englishrussia.com/2011/09/09/a-tour-to-varyag-ship/
http://englishrussia.com/2011/12/19/cruiser-varyag-exercise/
It was on its way to Vancouver for Armistice Day. I just find it interesting to see how other navies do things, worth noting the sheer size of the wardroom (and the really nasty curtains and seat covers), and the mix of old and new technology. (S)he’s had an eventful life – laid down 1979, commissioned in 1989 as Chernova Ukraina only for Ukraine to secede and the ship mothballed for nearly 20 years, before being reactivated in 2008.
Some fun pics on that blog – the original Slava (now Moskva) has slightly less offensive interior design : http://englishrussia.com/2011/08/23/guided-missile-cruiser-moskva/
here’s an abandoned Krivak :
http://englishrussia.com/2011/04/20/friendly-ship-guarding-moscow/
http://englishrussia.com/2012/01/03/a-ship-that-will-never-sail-again/
The surviving Lun ekranoplan :
http://englishrussia.com/2010/03/12/ekranoplan
Navy day in Sevastopol :
http://englishrussia.com/2011/08/03/celebration-of-the-navy-day-in-sevastopol/
Vladivostok :
http://englishrussia.com/2010/09/16/ships-of-vladivostok/
Hi El Sid,
The Sevastapol pictures include corvettes 615 and 616, which I believe are PASCAT-like, capable of 58 knots?
- Indonesia also has at least one of them
@ACC – I don’t think Indonesia has any of the Dergach/Bora-class missile hovercraft like 615/616. Are you thinking of their proposed deal to buy a couple of Stereguschy corvettes, which are heavily armed conventional hulls along the lines of the Sa’ar V?
Hi El Sid,
The Indonesian article must have been a spoof (using the photo). They also claimed 58 knots when the only two build do “only” 45.
The other case you mention is interesting as the hulls, once built, sail from Spain to St. Petersburg for fitting out (customer insisted, and they have had a lot of experience from older Russian hulls).
The Obama strategy (now that he made the trip to the Pentagon) is really what one got months ago by combining what Bob said in Brussels and a very specific treatment of US future stance in AsiaPAC by Hilary Clinton.
Some pointers to the metrics, to pave the ground for the detail coming out in budget proposals, in February.
- from 2015 the Army will lose as much as the current strength of all of the British Army (leaves it at the 9/11 level, but with a larger SOF component); as the USMC will not be the sole raiding force anymore, they will also shrink by 10% (and look less like a second army, going forward)
- the Air Force will lose more planes than the whole pointy end of the RAF currently, but as they are the older ones it will be the NG/reserve component of personnel that will be impacted. I bet the 66 B-1s are within the number as the decision to retire them was already rumoured to have been taken in 2010; the new stealthy bomber has been (once again) confirmed (to compensate)
- no specifics on the Navy, except that to be able to realize the stance for the Pacific and the Gulf/Indian Ocean, potentially simultaneously, seems to have put the talk about carrier reductions to bed
Soon we’ll have a dedicated thread for the implications…
@ACC – numbers vary on the Dergachs, but Almaz claim “over 50kts”, and 100km/h seems the most common number quoted, which equates to 54kts. So 58kts is within a margin of error – could be someone converting 50kts into mph? Either that or they’re thinking of the Uragan/Sarancha hydrofoil.
US stuff isn’t too surprising. AvWeek has been poking around the costs of maintaining/upgrading the current Burkes in the wake of suggestions that Flight III could cost $3-4bn apiece. All of a sudden the Zumwalts are looking a lot more attractive purely on cost grounds, let alone the fact that they are more stealthy and have power to spare for all the new toys. Personally I think the USN should stop using $2bn cruisers (which is what Flight II Burkes are) as gunboats and downsize to European-size destroyers with 64 Mk 41 cells. Something like the F100 would be an easy choice, a Mk41 version of the T45 would be interesting (you’d have to redesign the topsides to fit Aegis, but at least BAE make the Mk41 tubes). And in many ways GCS would suit them better than LCS…..
Anyway, that’s for another day. Perhaps there is room for a “other militaries” Open Thread – or separate ones for NATO and the red team?
Anybody seen this? Guided 12.7mm round!
http://brickmuppet.mee.nu/strategytacticsweaponsandkit/exacto
The U.K.’s flagship unmanned aircraft program, the Thales Watchkeeper, has failed to meet its target for delivering the first air vehicles to troops in Afghanistan.
http://web02.aviationweek.com/aw/mstory.do?id=news/awx/2012/01/09/awx_01_09_2012_p0-412403.xml&channel=defense&headline=Watchkeeper%20Misses%20Key%20Schedule%20Milestone
What are the ills of this particular project?
I think topman this is how you take a gd idea and screw it up much as we did with chinook mk3 and apache. What we could and should have done is buy the hermes 450 (which we did for afghan anyway) and get the system into the army and modify it as we go then as greater requirement appeared get the hermes 900 also instead of reaper or even the hermes 1500 uav. We could have developed these in blocks but get the things into service and learn and adapt according. Reaper would not have been purchase as all uav are not self deploying give them all to army and dont continue this research program with the french to create MALE that already exist. We could still assemble vehicles in the UK and put R&D into systems with a common interface.
Let the RAF concentrate on a/c like the King350er which have excellent capabilities and can deploy where ever we want them to.
What happened in more precise terms, was it a case of ‘we’ve no idea what we want’? Or was it something more.
Why do you suggest the RAF shouldn’t have bought UAVs, that purchase went quite well and is being used successfully. Looking at it briefly you might suggest the army giving all the UAVs to the RAF !
http://englishrussia.com/2011/12/16/where-is-042/
http://englishrussia.com/2011/12/12/landing-exercise-in-kamchatka/#more-82669
I know they were but uavs can’t self deploy or at present be useful within within the uk. The raf in my view should be in the more strategic go anywhere recon mind set. If it wants a Uav is should have been global hawk. The larger Hermes uavs use the same ground station as the 450 can I believe be armed and of an either or on using line of site or sat com. I happen to think reaper and watchkeeper are to close in capabilities for a force the size the uk deploys.
Hi Mark, me too RE
” I happen to think reaper and watchkeeper are to close in capabilities for a force the size the uk deploys.”
Interestingly re: the Global Hawk alternative, the cost is, per piece (naturally impacted by the size of the fleet when you take in the supporting systems that are made better use of, the bigger the fleet):
- $100m if you go by the years’ old German deal (basically a B2B deal)
- $200m if you go by the Korean recent negotiation (basically a B2C deal)
That kind of money would be much better spent on a BAMS capability
Yes I agree acc. The price of such a Uav means I would concentrate on cheaper manned recon platforms for the raf and accept some reduce capability in persistence. A two tier high low fleet of Istar assets would be centred most like 737 and kingairs for the raf at about 1:2 ratio to replace all current raf assets in this field.
Daring deploys to the Gulf today. I hope she has more than 4 Asters aboard….
An interesting picture of a BTR “boarding” a LST…
http://media.englishrussia.com/newimages//marines20112436.jpg
“Daring deploys to the Gulf today. I hope she has more than 4 Asters aboard….
”
– I hear they’ve splashed out for six…
Heck a 50% increase in defence spending isn’t to be sniffed at it is?
According to a thread on MilitaryPhoto.net the RAF are going to start flying BAe 146s. Didn’t we discuss that ‘plane here?
@ x – We did. For RAF and disaster relief IIRC. In-flight refueling and/or extra fuel tanks were discussed as good upgrades; the pictureon the thread does show a refueling probe…
Two have been flying the Royalty around:
“The aircraft has a trailing-axle main gear with a large damper unit, which allows the aircraft to operate from unprepared surfaces, including gravel and desert runways. The aircraft’s excellent performance provides good short-field capability and allows it to operate from airfields located at up to 14,000ft above sea level. The aircraft is based on the civilian BAE 146 100 Series, but has additional fuel tanks and a Royal Suite cabin-fit; and the modern, electronic defensive-aids suite gives almost 360º protection against infrared missiles.The BAE 146 CC2 is fitted with three passenger compartments. Compartment A is situated at the front of the aircraft and accommodates the crew. Compartment B, in the centre of the fuselage, accommodates additional crew and extra passengers. Compartment C is situated at the rear of the aircraft and accommodates Royal or VV[I honestly did not add the second 'V']IP passengers. The layout of the compartments can be varied to meet task requirements, but the maximum seating capacity is 30 passengers.The BAE 146 is a quiet but rugged aircraft, with a high level of built-in redundancy. It can carry many of its own spares, allowing it to operate for long periods away from base, with little or no external support. The aircraft’s excellent short-field performance, and its ability to operate from high or unprepared airfields in missile threat areas, mean that the aircraft is extremely versatile.”
- and if the almost 360 degree protection is good enough for them, it will be good enough for everybody? [meaning the DAS will not need to be invented, but you can just order more sets]
the original story:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raf-to-fly-second-hand-bae-146s-in-afghanistan-366796/
no mention of extra fuel requirements but it is to be used in theatre.
And ooops:
BAe.146
ZD696 BAe.146 CC1 RP-C2994 Private Philippines Nov 2007
ZE702 BAe.146 CC2 PK-OSP Private Indonesia Feb 2007
- so may be the DAS (two then,before being sold, and two now ) was conveniently sitting in the storage shed?
Obviously Their Airships read TD.
I wouldnt think they will be fitted with DAS but you never know, perhaps they will be used for the Cyprus to Middle East run to build some extra capacity or contingency.
I think we discussed them a year or so ago but I think BAE have been touting them for a long time
They’re probably going to be used for the Kabul/BSN/KAF runs. Or the Minab to BSN/KAF runs. That sort of thing. The article says intra-theatre transport and planes ply that route regularly.
What is DAS? (Ignoring the Germanic intonation there!)
defensive aids system, very expensive but pretty much mandatory for flying into any area with a MANPADS threat. Probably cost more that the aircraft
please sir please sir pleeeeease! i put a link up to the 146 ages ago! BAe were touting them for £5million. We then discussed the range as the mil version they displayed at farnbourgh years ago had a wooden dummy re-fuel probe.
My suggestion was to be a cheaper (and obviously pressurized) MERT aircraft as at the time it could land at the short runway at bastion. Still think it could be a good idea, can land on unprepared runways and is one if not the quietest jets on the market.
ref DAS haven’t BAe got some spare from nimrod lying around?
They will be fitted to full afghan theatre entry standard for afghan to relieve pressure on c130 fleet in country. Most likely 2 ex TNT a/c
You may one house point paul_g minor.
BAe 146 brochure, thanks of Gabs website:
http://www.regional-services.com/Files/pdf/BAe_146_General_data_brochure.pdf
Somebody has nicked my idea!
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/ark_royal_could_now_become_a_hospital_ship_1_3402307
Progress in f35 flight testing 2011
https://www.f35.com/the-f-35/f-35-program-timeline/accomplishments.aspx
they were offered to the mod a couple of years ago, but dismissed as unsuitable. I wonder what changed?
Topman,
How many K’s are still flying? A400s are suitably late.
There aren’t many models that
- can take off/ land with a meaningful load from a 1000m rough strip
- have DAS available, rather than having to be expensively purchased & modified (that’s the two planes that were sold off from the Royal Flight)
- even the pilots certified for the type are probably still there
So what’s changed? Probably nothing, but the dire lack of (tactical) capacity has forced the thinking caps on
… and I am not that much an aviation man that I would know how many J’s are off-duty, due to the treatment of the wing fatigue (that joint programme done with Oz, with Marshalls lead, started ages ago, but you can’t do all the planes in one go)
Acc that will solely depend on how many hours is on the a/c. The repair would have to be done when they reach a specific number determined by the manufacturer no exceptions there maybe several reaching this point shortly and this is preemptive action. The work very hard in afghan due the number of very short flights they do each day.
I personally am quite surprised the mod has taken this option
Hi Mark,
That is how it works almost always “determined by the manufacturer no exceptions there maybe several reaching this point shortly and this is preemptive action. ”
For the J’s (as they work on a punishing schedule and in unusual A-stan conditions) the “hour” arrives earlier than the manufacturer could reasonably predict. So it is done based on a simulation model commissioned by the two gvmnts and built by Marshalls (I don’t know who does the actual work)
Lockheed hold the airworthiness they will be aware of the hours on the a/c and stipulate the inspection intervals to be carried out after x number of landing on unprepared surfaces. What that inspection finds determines what happens next. If nothing is found then you have another period till there check again stipulated by Lockheed. If small cracks are found they maybe monitored on a shorter period again with consultation with Lockheed/marshals team. Finally if the crack are at the stage of repair required. Then marshalls will carry out the repair using the a/cs structural repair manual ( supplied by manufacture for every a/c) as a guide and then marshals sign off the repair as safe to fly. This may involve consultation with lockheed also.
@ acc well the noise was they were dismissed out of hand. Not a case of thanks but no thanks, it was thought of as unsuitable regardless of aircraft numbers after an analysis. So something or more likely someone has changed.