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.

 

A Push in the Australian Senate to Reexamine the Purchase of the F-35

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: bally001

I get what your saying . Compromise , 50 F35s and round it out with whatever is left by getting the latest F16s .

Hmmm Coffin Bay oysters . Having lived on the west coast of SA i must say i am more of a Cowell oyster man . A mates brother in law worked in the industry and used to get us oversize oysters for next to nothing . Talking dozens at a time here .




posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

Lets say 49 F35s. Compromise because 1 less won't be required to defend so far south.

Spend the savings on your SA west coast oysters you luckstar!

Bally (jealous)



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Im pretty sure it still means 'no thrust redundancy' , but that may or may not be just blowing hot air up somebody.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: CovertAgenda

No, it means an engine that will run decades without a major failure. Two engines were needed before because of their reliability. You don't need two engines anymore like you did in the past.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: pronto

Hey mate..
One-agree- watched AUP A8-132 go off for mods...
Two - agree... the mirage was a political move back then anyways... political ever since.
Didn't the septics have an issue with selling us the F15 then (and f22 now)?

I have friends that got engaged in Donnybrook WA, def a few dogfights after the party...



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

Are you referring to the f111 comment (1960s requirements)
Or the TSR2 comment (1950's requirements)
Or you don't get sarcasm?

And why just fighter aircraft?

Mind you that's a lovely Utopian statement, try reminding our policymakers and politicians that...



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Obi88
Yea but it wouldn't be the same reach round your favorite ally kinda feeling....



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So call me in a decade or two when the f35 can achieve 'single engine platform' status.


According to Bloomberg Business, the F-35B variant flew for an average of 47 hours instead of a pre-determined 90 hours before reaching a point where it could no longer safely operate due to “engine design issues.” The rate was even worse for the F-35A and C variants, which flew for an average of 25 hours instead of the intended 120 hours.



In a report issued earlier this month, the GAO, using unusually strong language, said that the “reliability of the engine is very poor” and that “the program has a long way to go to achieve” reliability goals.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: CovertAgenda

How is it not a single engine platform now?

The reliability of the F135 has already improved significantly over that report. That was looking at data from previous years testing. The GAO report was from November 2014, before new engine design changes were implemented.

The F-35 mission capable rate as of August is only slightly below the F-16 with far fewer airframes. That shows that the alleged engine problems are not significant problems anymore.
edit on 12/11/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

By your definition mate....


No, it means an engine that will run decades without a major failure

So again, call me in a decade or two when the f35 can achieve your 'single engine platform' status.

The beauty about MTTR, MTTF and MTBF etc is that time will tell....



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: CovertAgenda
a reply to: Zaphod58

By your definition mate....


No, it means an engine that will run decades without a major failure

So again, call me in a decade or two when the f35 can achieve your 'single engine platform' status.

The beauty about MTTR, MTTF and MTBF etc is that time will tell....

To be fair his definition says WILL, not HAS. So you don't need to wait decades.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: CovertAgenda

The F-35 is a single engine platform no matter how you look at it. The mission capable rate of F-35s flying has gotten to within less than 10% of the F-16, the most numerous single engine fighter flying. That will only improve as more F-35s come online, and more issues are resolved. Most of the problems that are bringing it down are false reports from the health monitoring system.

I won't have to "call you in a decade" because it's already there. The F135s have had one major incident since the aircraft first started flying, caused by an unexpected flexing of the airframe. That problem has already been fixed in both old aircraft, and in new aircraft that are being delivered. The fleet, as of March 1st of this year, has flown over 27,000 hours and 15,000 sorties. The only problems with the engine have been minor, with the exception of the engine fire last year.

They're going to finish the year over 45,000 flight hours. In all that the only major incident related to the engine was the fire. Every other engine related issue has been minor and easily fixed.
edit on 12/13/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Ya... will is just that....wishful thinking.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: CovertAgenda

And yet they've flown almost 40,000 hours with one accident. But hey let's go back to four engines to fly transoceanic. If two is good four is even better. Ban all single engine aircraft just to be safe.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Oh zaphod... reallY?.... I know you are a smart guy (or a convincing algorithm)
So... I expect you to know that its not just about engine reliability that governs the equation.
And Yes, if ive had a snake up the tailpipe, or AA take out a side, FOD/birdstrike, two IS good and four would be better, if i wanted to get home?
And now we are talking F35s plying the trade routes as an example?... The F35 is intended for combat situations isnt it? Bomb Truck I think Ive heard it called?
Priorities I believe would be effectiveness, survivability, and why not safety!

edit on C2015vAmerica/ChicagoWed, 16 Dec 2015 19:11:29 -060031PM7America/Chicago12 by CovertAgenda because: spelling



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: CovertAgenda

And yet the F-16 has how many thousands of hours of combat, including fairly significant battle damage, and has come home far more often than not. And it's primary mission is as a CAS platform.
edit on 12/16/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Bird,insect,kangaroo,emu,dust,dust,more dust,excessive heat,axe wielding greenies,snakes and wallabie ingestion is probably the biggest danger to F35 operations here in Auss



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
But f16's are 'then' 'single engine platforms', aren't they?
Yet the RAAF chose the f18 anyways...



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: CovertAgenda

You keep flip flopping things. They're single engine platforms, they've taken major combat damage and come back, they have thousands of hours in combat. Their engines are just as reliable as any other engine built, as they've been upgraded over the years.

The RAAF went with the F-18 because at the time they selected them, they had a twin engine requirement, similar to Canada. That requirement is no longer necessary, due to a number of factors, the biggest of which is reliability.




top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join