The first international F-35 Lightning II rolls out of the factory on Nov. 20, 2011. The United Kingdom Ministry of Defence will use the short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) jet, known as BK-1, for training and operational tests.
BK-1 will be delivered in 2012 except of course, it’s the B model, not the C model we have now settled on after many years of saying the B model was the preferred option.
Those contract clauses are a bitch aren’t they?
We should also get ready for the next delivery, because that’s going to be a B model as well but it is ‘hoped’ that the final of our three development aircraft will be the CATOBAR C model.
I wonder what will happen to the first 2 after we have finished doing the testing, anyone know?
Of course, everyone is putting a brave face on, the first 2 of our development aircraft, in completely the wrong configuration, will be used for system testing.
Can anyone remind me how much commonality there is between the B and C model?
Anyway, here is a video of cute puppies to take everyone’s mind off it.
TD: Presumably the radar and weapons fit would be the same between B & C, so the electronics can be flight tested, and weapons carriage certified? As to what to do with them after testing, maybe we can hand back the keys after 3 years and not pay the remainder, just like my sister-in-laws Vauxhall? 8-?
Oh, and btw. Kittens, next time please. Not puppies. Never puppies.
Well, we’ll be doing developmentalwork for the USMC, and in return the USN willdo work for the UK…thats the basic gist of it, that and there are rumors the next 2 will be C models… regardless, its our contribution to the overal development work to the type, not really nation specific… this and the other 2 will never go into service anyway.
But come on Mike, it too juicy a target to aim off!!
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/130373/panetta-warns-budget-cuts-may-kill-f_35.html
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham that defense budget cuts of as much as $1 trillion may lead to the termination of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 jet.
In a letter today to the two Republican lawmakers, Panetta said reductions beyond the $450 billion, 10-year defense budget cuts already planned would reduce the “size of the military sharply.”
If a special committee of lawmakers fails to reach agreement on U.S. deficit reduction, that would trigger a so- called sequestration. That would involve at least another $500 billion in defense cuts over a decade and reduce Pentagon programs in 2013 by 23 percent if the president exercises his authority to exempt military personnel, Panetta said.
Panetta said such funding reductions might lead to termination of major programs such as Lockheed’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, major space initiatives, silo-based U.S. nuclear missiles and ground combat vehicle modernization. (end of excerpt)
——
I think this means that the F-35 will likely die and a new aircraft closely based on it but fundamentally redesigned will be produced.
RE: to die or not to die (the latter unlikely)
“That would involve at least another $500 billion in defense cuts over a decade and reduce Pentagon programs in 2013 by 23 percent if the president exercises his authority to exempt military personnel, Panetta said.”
- surely he will
- if programme expenditure is slowed down ( by a quarter, actually by much more as there are real production lines running), now the ISD for A, B, and C will be ??? [C of the foremost interest, good hedging of the bets with the CVF 2016/18 and 20! dates)
“here’s a video of some puppies” gutted, got the baby oil out for nothing!! talk about false advertising.
I did put a link in the open thread (land,sea and air) seems b version is suffering cracks again, so i’m no political expert but i reckon the b version rather than all 3 would be first to go, particularly as USMC now has some low mileage harriers courtesy of HM govt.
Still if the US DoD does have a fire sale, lets hope we get an invite.
A lot of the systems on the F35B are identical to those on the F35C, so will be useful for training as well as doing our bit in developing the aircraft.
Probably end up at Boscombe Down, or stripped for parts as the cost of upgrading them later will be prohibitive.
This a/c were never due to leave the US they were to be part of the test and training program. As for commonality 100% in power plant(main engine) and systems and about 40% in parts.
The “crack” being new it a interesting way to phrase it. The were acknowledged several years ago as likely to occur in the bit that crack and hence the part was redesigned and is fitted in build from bf5 onwards. So more like new cracks appear in parts as forecast 2 years ago suggests the FE models are quiet accurate.
The software for the srvl is in parts being read across for new landing software for cat and trap landing a/c.
Sorry, I had to go into a meeting mid-post.
It has become clear that the F-35C makes the other F-35 variants redundant. It makes the F-35A redundant, because the C has a larger payload, longer range and costs more or less the same. The F-35C’s range and payload also makes the STOVL F-35B redundant, because the C can perform the same roles, and since it has a longer range, doesn’t need to be based close to the FEBA making a STOVL capability un-necessary. The problem with the JSF is that the design has a number of compromises in order for one basic airframe to fulfil three roles. If development focuses on the C variant and makes the A variant identical, but without folding wings, the A’s capabilities can be improved.
The fact that the F-22 Raptor fleet has been grounded for most of the year, has a problem that still hasn’t been fixed (oxygen cut-off to pilot) and the production line is closed, means that something new is needed. The US urgently needs a viable 5th generation strike fighter aircraft with better capabilities than those offered by the F-35 and greater reliability than the F-22, which is starting to look like a white elephant.
I believe that a new requirement is emerging and this what is most likely to kill the JSF as is. In particular, I think it is likely to call for significantly greater fighter agility as a response to new Russian aircraft. The new aircraft would obviously leverage many of the advanced technologies incorporated into the JSF. It would be an evolution rather than a completely new design, in the same mould as the latest F-18.
So i think we’ll see either a wholesale cancellation or a requirement for a new D version with planned buys for As and Bs scaled back.
all of this has the right pointers, but…
“The US urgently needs a viable 5th generation strike fighter aircraft with better capabilities than those offered by the F-35 and greater reliability than the F-22, which is starting to look like a white elephant.”
- lots of maintenance hours, and some bad paint, but has been flying for a long time
“I believe that a new requirement is emerging and this what is most likely to kill the JSF as is. In particular, I think it is likely to call for significantly greater fighter agility as a response to new Russian aircraft.”
- there will be only 200 of those, add 250 from India, and all of them on the *right side*
” The new aircraft would obviously leverage many of the advanced technologies incorporated into the JSF. It would be an evolution rather than a completely new design, in the same mould as the latest F-18″
- a good aircraft, but the Silent Eagle is better (and a 4.5 specimen, too)
So i think we’ll see either a wholesale cancellation or a requirement for a new D version with planned buys for As and Bs scaled back.
Put in museum with the TSR2?
We have paid for these 2 planes, so can we please use them? Late 2014/early 2015 the US Marines will deploy their first F-35B, so why cannot the UK put its 2 F-35B aboard Illustrious/QE at the same time? Not a Task Force, but useful fast jet training til the F-35C turn up.
Experimenting with the tactical doctrine? (and pushing the envelope?)
“Not a Task Force, but useful fast jet training til the F-35C turn up”
Do how about the UK and Europe developing a stealthy carrier capable aircraft using as much if the Typhoon as possible ( engines. 27k versions of EJ200, TVC, AESA radar, internal A2A weapons carriage , conformal fuel tanks ) etc
Carrier?
Well, nxt-gen fighter (only 4.5 in Europe, will that make it 5 or 5.5?)
- use Gripen NG design; different engine from: “27k versions of EJ200, TVC, AESA radar, internal A2A weapons carriage , conformal fuel tanks )”
- start to work on a two-engine design, sharing most of the kit
- then, and only then, will there be a fighter to compete internationally (actually, two: A budget version with one engine, and a Hi-end version )
Given that we wouldn’t be doing CV operations with these OT&E aircraft anyway, we’re not really losing anything. Dave B might fly slightly differently to Dave C in up and away flight, but the mission systems are the same, pretty much all the systems are very similar etc. There’s plenty of pilot training and evaluation work to be done without getting into carrier operations.
Does the C variant make the others redundant? No, because the A (or B) offer considerably greater air to air performance. Same engine but heavier aircraft and larger draggier wing means that the up and away performance of the C isn’t as good.
Agility and Performance problems with JSF are common to F-18 variants, only F-18 is nowhere near as LO (and currently will be with worse mission systems).
F-15 Silent Eagle is a triumph of Boeing marketing. How to make something with the RCS of a small moon LO by simply telling people it’s now LO. It’s difficult to see either F-15 or F-18 developments being logical choices for frontline aircraft out to 2030-40 timeframe.
Look scrapping RN fast jets in 2010 & then expecting resurrection in 2019-20 is a recipe for disaster. Keeping some fast jet knowledge with a couple of jets from 2015, keeps skills up. Yes you can send pilots to the USN, but deck & hanger crews need experience too.
TD, I’malways up for a pi$$ take XD but gotta be real.
I agree with John, the ressurection of the FAA is going to be a long, expensive and painful process unless some serious cross training with close allies happens soonish, otherwise its going to take a looong time, carrier ops are serious and training intensive…I dont understand why we havent thought about building a land-based ‘simulator’ deck like we did with Sea Harrier, we did it then because it was such a dramatic change to what the RN/FAA were used to….well going back to CVF will be just as dramatic change as going VSTOL was in the late 70′s…
Not to mention all the procedures, development, training and ‘writing the book’ that’ll be involved when we finally can get fixed wing to a carrier deck… its going to be a very hard path for the RN/FAA/RAF-MoD to tread…thats why we chuffing chose the B model of this aircraft in the first place… ah well, ce’st la vie…
As with a varient or even the whole thing being canned…I cant see it happening, sure its happened before stateside and its happened here very often, but never with so much investment, both in treasure, reputation and politically? From so many other nations? Could the US acutally handle the political, economic and industrial embarassment? I doubt it, that alone will ensure it carries on to the bitter end…solomon would probs say the same thing.
And hey, in the end it might actually work-out…as with the C-130J, A400M etc, we love to ripp it apart, but wait until its in service a few years before really condemming it…lol and no, I am not a stern supporter of it.
I think 70-80% commonality overall is the goal. The cockpit will be identical between the versions according to Lockheed Martin spokes persons. The main difference I suspect will be in how it flies. The B is heavier and has a lower wing area, so when pilots get their hands on the C they’ll find it a little more agile I suspect.
The A version will handle differently again, being the lightest and fastest, with the best acceleration and an internal gun.
What will happen with your 2 F-35B’s? Easy to predict.
First they will only have 0.5 release software which is only good for trials purposes.
Second, they have the original wing nib and centre bulkhead structure which failed in fatigue test at around 1200 hours (the parts would have been in manufacture when the problems occured). In that situation you wouldn’t want them to run up more than around 600 hours in the air, allowing a 1 for 1 scatter.
Therefore, the 2 RAF F-35B’s will be used for trials and never leave the USA and, at the end of trials they will be traded to the US for a $ credit for useful parts.
AJ
Software can be upgraded. Dodgy bits can be bolted together. See Typhoon tails falling off in 1944. Look at the unsubtle fix. Yes weight is critical if you are planning to fight at maximum range with full weapons, but if you just want a bit of training with a couple of light practise bombs, then No Worries.
John Hartley 25/11, yes software can be up graded and in fact the F-35 is intended to be at version 3 software by 2018/20. But why would you bother upgrading 2 orphan ‘B’ aircraft when you are going to operate ‘C’ only?
The other issue with early ‘B’s is the bulkhead problem. While the nib failure is common to all versions, the bulkhead failure is specific to the ‘B’s. We out here have had a lot of experience with F-18A/B centre bulkheads and working on that sort of primary internal structure is something you do only if you really, really have to. Sorry all the trial ‘B’s will complete VSTOL trials and be retired. Failure at 1200 hours in a planned 8000 hour life is indicative of material problems not poor design.
AJ
If you want to use them in combat, then lash up strengthening is no good. However, if you just want to keep minimum carrier fast jet skills, then 2 F-35B operating from lusty in 2015 & moving to QE in 2016, cuts the gap by 4 years (F-35C from PoW in 2020).