F-35B may well become a What-if program !

[GTX]

Now we know why the UK jumped ship to the CATOBAR CVF & F-35C, as there is no way they cold base their future Carrier Strike policy on a system that is in serious danger of being cancelled !!!.

No, the UK just has no money   Also the F-35C is not exactly proceeding perfectly itself.  There are structural concerns, landing gear issues, and a few other problems, so it wasn't to dodge some technical bullet. They have pushed the whole F-35 schedule up, since they canceled the F-22-- so yeah there will be problems. Also the F-35Bs main problems are things like doors not opening and some structural cracks, things that are solvable given a bit more time, and not uncommon with new aircraft.

No we are just wise enough not to put our eggs in one basket and put faith in an aircraft that may yet be cancelled or seriously delayed.

Rubbish!  The UK decision was primarily driven by money.

Greg

[GTX]

Folks,

Re the talk about the F-35B's lift fan being dead weight carried around and the discussion of how the Pegasus proposal is so much more elegant/better, remember that the X-32 essentially tried to use the vectored thrust (i.e. Pegasus) solution and was beaten by the X-35.  Also don't forget that going the vectored thrust path results in an engine that is generally grossly overpowered (and thus heavier/more expensive/shorter lifed) that needed.

Regards,

Greg

[Taiidantomcat]

Greg I agree with every point you have made   (you said them much better than I did though   ) Before the F-35B troubles were announced the MoD was going over all the stuff they planned to cut and for a second there it looked like they would buy precisely 0 F-35s.-- Having none is a great way to ensure there are no technical issues.

This is like me saying "I sure am glad I don't own a mansion!- You know cause of technical issues." Reality is I can barely afford an apartment. But it does make me feel good about myself. You know, because with an apartment you don't tie yourself down...

Its all about the money.  If the Royal Navy was so intent on "not putting all its eggs in one [F-35] basket" why on earth did they scrap the Sea Harriers before any F-35 B or C variants came online? Wouldn't they have held onto them until they were sure the F-35B or C was set and ready?  

I understand your logic with the CATOBAR, and it makes sense... But seriously the whole F-35 program would have to go under (years from now) for the Rafale to be bought, or else you could buy it right now If the RN wants the Rafale, why wait?

The F-35B will happen. You would not believe how many weapons programs outlast the folks in positions trying to kill programs

[rickshaw]

Folks,

Re the talk about the F-35B's lift fan being dead weight carried around and the discussion of how the Pegasus proposal is so much more elegant/better, remember that the X-32 essentially tried to use the vectored thrust (i.e. Pegasus) solution and was beaten by the X-35.  Also don't forget that going the vectored thrust path results in an engine that is generally grossly overpowered (and thus heavier/more expensive/shorter lifed) that needed.

Regards,

Greg

It also requires an aircraft that either has to maintain very careful weight control throughout its life (as Boeing claimed the X-32 would and could) or you have to find more thrust from somewhere.  Aircraft like people put on weight as they age and Boeing's claim they could control that growth is like Jenny Craig's.  Maybe in the short term. Long term?

[Taiidantomcat]

And even Boeing's prototype with extra weight removed had a hard time of it:



Note the lack of landing gear doors and front intake lip.


Here are a few more reasons why the F-35B will happen (its from wikipedia but its still spot on):

"Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Amos has said that in spite of its increasing costs and schedule delays that there is no Plan-B to substitute for the F-35B.[197]

The F-35B is larger than the aircraft it replaces, which required the USS America (LHA-6) to be designed without needed well deck capabilities.[198]

The United States Navy has argued that USMC squadrons that operate from supercarriers should use the F-35C instead of the "suboptimal" F-35B.[199]"


One of the reasons the USMC does not want the F-35C is then it will be stuck doing navy work on navy super carriers. A suspicion that would seem justified by the above statement. (also adding to what JoeP answered earlier ) It also ensures the USMC will fight like hell to get an aircraft the navy wants nothing to do with, thus leaving the Corps to do Marine Missions. The very idea that the USN believes the F-35B to be
"suboptimal" in the USN's mission is precisely the reason to keep the two separated. The Marines are happy with machines that do good work for them, and poor jobs for the navy

[anthonyp]

Folks,

Re the talk about the F-35B's lift fan being dead weight carried around and the discussion of how the Pegasus proposal is so much more elegant/better, remember that the X-32 essentially tried to use the vectored thrust (i.e. Pegasus) solution and was beaten by the X-35.  Also don't forget that going the vectored thrust path results in an engine that is generally grossly overpowered (and thus heavier/more expensive/shorter lifed) that needed.

Regards,

Greg

There were other reasons Boeing lost than the VSTOL, including the fact that the final plane would be radically altered from the X-32 (and Planet Pentagon was NOT happy with Boeing on FCS).

The F-35B should never have been designed as part of the family, rather a separate design altogether.  The F-35A and C are perfectly good planes, too bad the B has too many growing pains.

[royabulgaf]

A couple of items:
Has the requirement that the F-35 A, B, and C variants be convertible from one to the other been dropped?

The government of Turkey which ordered F-35As is thinking of buying into the KF-X program or going it alone on a new fighter. 

How about just for effing once some military contractor just delivers the goddam product on time and on budget?

[rickshaw]

A couple of items:
Has the requirement that the F-35 A, B, and C variants be convertible from one to the other been dropped?

The government of Turkey which ordered F-35As is thinking of buying into the KF-X program or going it alone on a new fighter. 

How about just for effing once some military contractor just delivers the goddam product on time and on budget?

How just for effing once some military purchaser stop changing the parameters of the contract, increasing costs, decreasing numbers and changing delivery schedules to suit their purposes and then trying to blame the contractors when everything falls apart?

It takes two to tango and while the contractors must bear some of the blame, a lot of it should be sheeted home to those that deserve it - the military and the politicians.

[proditor]

How just for effing once some military purchaser stop changing the parameters of the contract, increasing costs, decreasing numbers and changing delivery schedules to suit their purposes and then trying to blame the contractors when everything falls apart?

It takes two to tango and while the contractors must bear some of the blame, a lot of it should be sheeted home to those that deserve it - the military and the politicians.

THIS.

A thousand times this.

[GTX]

How just for effing once some military purchaser stop changing the parameters of the contract, increasing costs, decreasing numbers and changing delivery schedules to suit their purposes and then trying to blame the contractors when everything falls apart?

It takes two to tango and while the contractors must bear some of the blame, a lot of it should be sheeted home to those that deserve it - the military and the politicians.

THIS.

A thousand times this.

And then some!!!

In Australia, I know some companies that refuse to deal with the Australian Dept of Defence because of how bad a customer they are.  Sadly it is not a feature just of the Australian Dept of Defence.

Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

A couple of items:
Has the requirement that the F-35 A, B, and C variants be convertible from one to the other been dropped?

I don't think this was ever a requirement - the commonality between the three variants is primarily at the systems level.

Regards,

Greg

[anthonyp]

A couple of items:
Has the requirement that the F-35 A, B, and C variants be convertible from one to the other been dropped?

The government of Turkey which ordered F-35As is thinking of buying into the KF-X program or going it alone on a new fighter. 

How about just for effing once some military contractor just delivers the goddam product on time and on budget?

How just for effing once some military purchaser stop changing the parameters of the contract, increasing costs, decreasing numbers and changing delivery schedules to suit their purposes and then trying to blame the contractors when everything falls apart?

It takes two to tango and while the contractors must bear some of the blame, a lot of it should be sheeted home to those that deserve it - the military and the politicians.

And there you have Planet Pentagons Paradox in a few sentences.  There's idiots galore there that love requirements bloat like you have no idea.

[rickshaw]

A couple of items:
Has the requirement that the F-35 A, B, and C variants be convertible from one to the other been dropped?

I don't think this was ever a requirement - the commonality between the three variants is primarily at the systems level.

Regards,

Greg

I always understood that the modularity only extended as far as construction.  It might be possible at a base repair depot to change between versions but that would essentially amount to unbuilding the aircraft and rebuilding it again.

[Thorvic]

Now we know why the UK jumped ship to the CATOBAR CVF & F-35C, as there is no way they cold base their future Carrier Strike policy on a system that is in serious danger of being cancelled !!!.

No, the UK just has no money   Also the F-35C is not exactly proceeding perfectly itself.  There are structural concerns, landing gear issues, and a few other problems, so it wasn't to dodge some technical bullet. They have pushed the whole F-35 schedule up, since they canceled the F-22-- so yeah there will be problems. Also the F-35Bs main problems are things like doors not opening and some structural cracks, things that are solvable given a bit more time, and not uncommon with new aircraft.

No we are just wise enough not to put our eggs in one basket and put faith in an aircraft that may yet be cancelled or seriously delayed.

Rubbish!  The UK decision was primarily driven by money.

Greg

No Greg, if it was purely money driven then they would have cancelled it, the facts were that the UK have been concerned about the F-35B's capability to meet our requirements for the last 12 mths or so. We are still in the F-35 program with the C variant and the carriers are being redesigned for CATOBAR operations which will cost more than the F-35B price difference from the C. The problem was as they were tied to the carrier they needed cast iron gaurantees that the F-35B would enter service before we completed our carriers and then found there was no fixed wing aircraft available.

[Thorvic]

Here are a few more reasons why the F-35B will happen (its from wikipedia but its still spot on):

"Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Amos has said that in spite of its increasing costs and schedule delays that there is no Plan-B to substitute for the F-35B.[197]

The F-35B is larger than the aircraft it replaces, which required the USS America (LHA-6) to be designed without needed well deck capabilities.[198]

The United States Navy has argued that USMC squadrons that operate from supercarriers should use the F-35C instead of the "suboptimal" F-35B.[199]"


One of the reasons the USMC does not want the F-35C is then it will be stuck doing navy work on navy super carriers. A suspicion that would seem justified by the above statement. (also adding to what JoeP answered earlier ) It also ensures the USMC will fight like hell to get an aircraft the navy wants nothing to do with, thus leaving the Corps to do Marine Missions. The very idea that the USN believes the F-35B to be
"suboptimal" in the USN's mission is precisely the reason to keep the two separated. The Marines are happy with machines that do good work for them, and poor jobs for the navy

Perhaps you should look at USS America it an LPH its optimised for carrying the new V-22, CH-53 and the F-35B, it it was specialised for Stovl then it would be better designed to operate more F-35 efficiently someting akin to the STOVL CVF which had a seperate STOVL runway with JBD and ski-jump, the America just has the standard flight deck for loading lots of marines on to their transports.

The USMC general may well have these grand plans, but if the hardware don't work, is not suitable for task, delayed by more than 5 years and costs and arm & leg to buy & operate, then those generals may find little real support in the capital. Its a nice to have buts its not a nessessity, the USMC do have alternatives and in 2 years time if LM don't have the F-35B performing reliably to specifications those same generals will be forced to consider what their alternatives are or where they want to retire to.

If your a US taxpayer do you really want to see your money flushed down the toilet into a program for a substandard platform that only exists due to the USMC wanting an independent air group ?