It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pentagon Grounds F-35 Fleet After Runway Fire

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
The sensors and avionics could be used. The different stealth coating is not required. As it is, the F-22 is going to get upgraded avionics anyway.




posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Matt1951

And it will cost a minimum $3-400M just to start the line up again, and each aircraft would cost double what the initial production run cost.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Matt1951

It's not avionics, it's physical equipment that adds weight and changes drag and airflow. The equipment can't be refitted, it was looked at.

Once again, it shows you don't know what you are saying.
edit on 7/6/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz
US should offer the F-22 to allies. Allowing UK to use Rolls engines and British avionics if they prefer. JSF B ain't gonna hack it. Hopefully UK has a backup plan. Isn't UK funding at some level the naval variant of the Gripen? The F-18 growler has much better radar suppression than JSF. JSF B is severely payload and range limited, especially if it has to perform fuel burning vertical landings. And if it can't do vertical landings because of range/payload issues, then it is the wrong design anyway.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Matt1951

They would have to refit the carriers with catapults and barriers, which will add billions to each.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
It better get to the UK.

I am pretty sure I seen one in training a few weeks ago here, looping around doing air maneuvers air show style, nearish to Fairford, though it was far, either that or it could have been a Raptor.

I go to the RIAT show every year and whilst I love it, the set is mostly the same for many years and show stoppers are a selling point for many and to me it makes the show. I considered not going this year until the F35 was confirmed.

Apparently the US are sending over some as yet unconfirmed standing exhibits, if they can't send the F35 (and I hope they do) a very good replacement is in order, at least a F22A Raptor, in the air doing all it's moves.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Their current plan, as of Friday was to change the engine of the ones going over, so they don't have to inspect them, and they can make it over.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth
I'm going too, haven't been to riat for donkey's years. Heard the f35 was going to go and talked my brother into going. It is a shame it's like the older years any more



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

As long as they're airborne by the AM, they can still make it for the flight displays.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Hopefully that will be the POA.

www.militarytimes.com...


The Defense Department says it is still making preparations to send the jet to the Farnborough International Airshow and Royal International Air Tattoo in the UK, but would not make a final decision until “early next week.”



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Matt1951
a reply to: C0bzz
US should offer the F-22 to allies. Allowing UK to use Rolls engines and British avionics if they prefer.


What RR powerplant is in the same category as the F119? Are you going to redesign the airframe to accept the F135? That isn't cheap. Even if the technology transfer was approved (and it won't be), is Britain willing to pay 250M per airframe plus the money to restart the line if it isn't willing to pay for the F-35 which is being subsidized?


Hopefully UK has a backup plan. Isn't UK funding at some level the naval variant of the Gripen?

I like the Gripen a lot. Saab's been pushing a navalized Gripen for awhile. No buyers yet. If the UK is willing to spend several hundred million developing a new naval variant and billions halting progress on and redesigning the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales in order to gain a small kinematic advantage and a large degradation in sensor suite, signatures, payload, and air-to-mud combat range then it seems like an ideal fit.




The F-18 growler has much better radar suppression than JSF.

The system being developed for the JSFB is supposed to replace the Growler's suite in both the naval and marine services. How do you figure it is or will be inferior? A citation from somewhere other than a blog would be ideal...


JSF B is severely payload and range limited, especially if it has to perform fuel burning vertical landings.

Most STVOL aircraft are fuel thirsty. Having said that, the F-35B will carry a larger payload 50% farther than a Sea Harrier or Harrier MkII -- on internal fuel only. Obviously with ETs that the Harrier variants carried on similar missions that figure increases.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It would cost a lot less to restart production of the F-22, compared to just fixing the problems on the 100 or so mistake jet JSF we have already purchased.
JSF can really only be called a strike fighter when it is carrying external loads, and then it is not stealthy. Not that stealth will mean much now that there are ways to detect it.
The last F-22 were made in 2011, I doubt building new will double the price since 2011. Actually the F-22 cost less in the same year, than the LRIP JSF made in 2011. Or any JSF to date.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Does the F-22 have the potential to be converted for carrier use?

If so, I can kind of see scrapping the F-35 and sticking with the 22's.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 04:53 AM
link   
a reply to: _Del_
RR would have to develop a derivative engine, but it would not cost that much compared to an all new engine. Some other countries might prefer the RR engine which would lower costs.
Boeing has been giving presentations on how the Growler has superior radar suppression compared to JSF. You can find on line. Yes, when JSF B dies, UK will have to rework their carriers or make them helicopter only. Maybe the US should help pay for the conversion as US misled on JSF. Or, just live with the limitations of JSF B.
If anyone thinks JSF B is maintainable or affordable or survivable, I want to sell you my used car.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 05:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Matt1951
a reply to: _Del_
RR would have to develop a derivative engine, but it would not cost that much compared to an all new engine.


Not "that much compared to" still equals "alot". As is the multiyear process of redesigning the airframe to fit your new engine, and the years of ground testing of the new engine before you get it airborne. And then there's the whole issue of getting the US to approve the transfer and the cost of reestablishing the line (good luck!).


Boeing has been giving presentations on how the Growler has superior radar suppression compared to JSF.

Well, the B is going to be fitted with the NGJ, so I have a problem believing that. At anyrate, assuming it's true, the Growler isn't going to be flying off the QE or the PofW without several years and billions of pounds invested in them. Combine that with the loss of the money you've already invested in the F-35 and all the ongoing offsets, and I'm not sure it makes sense to buy a "better" jammer in an airframe that is less survivable and on par kinematically with the F-35.

I'm not a huge F-35 booster. If you asked me several years ago, I would have been the first person to vote for cancelling the program. It's been a terrific example of how not to run a program. The need for commonality for a VSTOL version led to design compromises that are less ideal for the two versions that are going to be bought in significant numbers. And we've rewarded Lockheed with more money too many times before readjusting the development contracts to something that made sense.
Now, you've got airframes in the air and the wrinkles ironed out (and it's going to be a long time to get them all unwrinkled). You've already invested billions in the development. You're getting millions in offsets. It's too late to pull the plug, and any viable replacement would be several decades away from IOC. And at the end of the day you're going to get the most capable plane available at the moment within a very (relatively speaking) small amount of time. It doesn't make sense to jump ship anymore.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Matt1951

Yes, it will. They've already looked at restarting the line several times. With the need to restart production at all the subcontractors, inflation, and the cost of getting the tooling back up and going, the cost of the jet now would be double the cost of it then, until at last 150-200 jets in.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Not without a major redesign to strengthen the structure.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   
There are no real alternatives to the F-35, the F/A-18 Hornet is too old and virtually obsolete, Eurofighter Typhoon not stealthy, Saab Gripen not stealthy, Dassault Rafale not stealthy, F-22 Raptor US only too expensive not built anymore. If stealth was as dead as some say then why are Russia and China building stealth jets? If it was really dead there would be no point. Another point about the F-35 is that if it is really as bad as it's made out to be I imagine most countries would've dropped out by now.
The only alternative is to not buy the F-35 and keep existing jets flying longer and wait 10 or more years for something else to come along. Maybe a stealthy hypersonic UCAV, and as Zaphod has said there is the control lag issue. Fix that problem somehow and I think that is the future.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Matt1951
a reply to: Zaphod58

It would cost a lot less to restart production of the F-22, compared to just fixing the problems on the 100 or so mistake jet JSF we have already purchased.
JSF can really only be called a strike fighter when it is carrying external loads, and then it is not stealthy. Not that stealth will mean much now that there are ways to detect it.
The last F-22 were made in 2011, I doubt building new will double the price since 2011. Actually the F-22 cost less in the same year, than the LRIP JSF made in 2011. Or any JSF to date.


The F-35A in 2012 broke under the 100 million mark per aircraft for the first time in the LRIP. That's not even close to the cost of a raptor. How can a twin engine, much larger, way more stealthier aircraft cost the same as a single engine, smaller less stealthy aircraft? Its projected that by 2019-2020 range, each JSF produced will be in the 75 million range. Your not going to build a raptor for that.

As for external loads, its no secret that companies are developing stealthy pylons including LM and Boeing to fit on aircraft like the JSF, Advanced Super Hornet, F-15SE, etc. Also, the JSF's purpose it not to fight an entire war completely maxed to the T with stealth. Once the initial bombings are over with and the enemies air defenses are neutralized, they will add the external weapons to the JSF.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Can I ask a question it's f35 related. I understand the need for a new fighter especially a carrier launched aircraft. But regarding the UKs situation would it of even better to spent the money on more up to date harriers, or just new harriers with all the new toys.




top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join