Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Sign in to follow this  
HiFlyer

F-35 Lightning info

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Blue said:

Doesn’t surprise me, but source?

Article on deficiencies:

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/the-pentagon-is-battling-the-clock-to-fix-serious-unreported-f-35-problems/

Like Brabus, I think getting the F-35 right is the best outcome but LM getting a correction vector in the form of a truncated buy might be necessary.

As to the F-35 replacing the Eagle, maybe if they could optimize the outline for lower drag.  

Longer fuselage, lower cross-section with a slightly taller airframe, additional third weapons/mission bay forward of the existing two, finback conformal fuel tank, etc... if this variant were ever designed/built I would base off the A model to attempt to maximize commonality between the two to mitigate one of the major problems of variant incompatibility with parts/sub-systems. 

Lower drag, two more missiles, a bit more gas.  Japan might be interested in this as they have expressed interest in a 22/35 hybrid, this would not be exactly that but an air dominance focused variant, close enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don’t need a new plane, they need to significantly reduce the fuck ups, timelines for delivery of future capes, etc. The product and it’s future growth are good, the management, delivery and support process of said product/future growth is what’s insanely fucked up. That’s what Goldfein is addressing. 

Edited by brabus
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

30 minutes ago, brabus said:

They don’t need a new plane, they need to significantly reduce the ups, timelines for delivery of future capes, etc. The product and it’s future growth are good, the management, delivery and support process of said product/future growth is what’s insanely ed up. That’s what Goldfein is addressing. 

Source? Other than Pierre Sprey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, brabus said:

They don’t need a new plane, they need to significantly reduce the fuck ups, timelines for delivery of future capes, etc. The product and it’s future growth are good, the management, delivery and support process of said product/future growth is what’s insanely fucked up. That’s what Goldfein is addressing. 

Copy.  Agreed un-fornicating that which exists now is preferable (cost/risk/timing/possible) but... if restarting the Raptor line is a NO GO, then while the 35 line is open, exploring what is possible (perhaps not practical) would be wise IMHO.

A reverse of the process that developed the A-7 from the F-8.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they’re always looking at and planning future upgrades/changes as technology becomes usable and we have the money to do it. F-35s rolling off the line today will be very different down the road. So again, there is no logical need to look into a replacement jet (sans Goldfein’s veiled threat to LM). New aircraft research in this case is wisely spent on 6th gen, which is entirely different than what you’re proposing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2019 at 10:25 AM, Clark Griswold said:

Article on deficiencies:

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/the-pentagon-is-battling-the-clock-to-fix-serious-unreported-f-35-problems/

Like Brabus, I think getting the F-35 right is the best outcome but LM getting a correction vector in the form of a truncated buy might be necessary.

As to the F-35 replacing the Eagle, maybe if they could optimize the outline for lower drag.  

Longer fuselage, lower cross-section with a slightly taller airframe, additional third weapons/mission bay forward of the existing two, finback conformal fuel tank, etc... if this variant were ever designed/built I would base off the A model to attempt to maximize commonality between the two to mitigate one of the major problems of variant incompatibility with parts/sub-systems. 

Lower drag, two more missiles, a bit more gas.  Japan might be interested in this as they have expressed interest in a 22/35 hybrid, this would not be exactly that but an air dominance focused variant, close enough.

Exactly. Part of the problem with the -35 in the first place was the "joint strike fighter" moniker - Congress forced the services to get the same plane... because joint. AF wanted to replace the Viper, Navy the Hornet, and Marines the Harrier. The common fuselage design + the big VTOL fan for the Marines resulted in a bigger fuselage than needed for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2019 at 11:22 AM, magnetfreezer said:

Exactly. Part of the problem with the -35 in the first place was the "joint strike fighter" moniker - Congress forced the services to get the same plane... because joint. AF wanted to replace the Viper, Navy the Hornet, and Marines the Harrier. The common fuselage design + the big VTOL fan for the Marines resulted in a bigger fuselage than needed for everyone.

All true but here we are and there is no turning back from acquiring the F-35 nor should there be any attempt to abruptly stop procurement but I think there is a reasonable amount of room for a serious debate on whether or not to buy the full lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is what the chief is threatening to LM...fix your shit or I’ll rec to congress to cut the buy significantly and spend the money with Boeing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, brabus said:

Which is what the chief is threatening to LM...fix your shit or I’ll rec to congress to cut the buy significantly and spend the money with Boeing. 

This maybe related to that idea:

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/defense-news-conference/2019/09/04/controversial-changes-coming-soon-in-air-forces-next-budget-its-top-civilian-says/

Probably more aimed at older systems vice one in procurement but it's possible.

Edited by Clark Griswold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2019 at 1:58 PM, FutureRaptor said:

 

Source? Other than Pierre Sprey?

Those of us actively in the program.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2019 at 6:03 AM, brabus said:

.fix your shit or I’ll rec to congress to cut the buy significantly and spend the money with Boeing. 

And we threat Boeing that LM will be making KC-46? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

My two unsolicited cents, no.  

The Saudis export extremist Sunni Islam all throughout the world … broader Q: why should we even consider them an ally.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody who did an F-15S exchange tour once told me that one of the Saudi pilots had taken hard copies of the -34-1-1-1 and 3-1 to Kinkos and left them there to be scanned onto a thumbdrive... so that he could have the manuals on his computer at home. Apparently, this was just one incident in a long line of incidents of this sort, and the RSAF (and DoD!) did nothing about it.

I get that there's a balance between selling hardware to gain access to oil, and resigning yourself to the fact that some of your secrets are going to get out as part of that process, but I don't understand for a second why you would take that risk with the F-35. I hope the partner nations speak up on this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steve Davies said:

access to oil

Access to Saudi oil isn't hugely important to the US. In 2018, 59% of oil was produced domestically, 20% imported from Canada, and ~5% of our oil was imported from Saudi Arabia and that's been on the decline for years. (Source: EIA) We could pretty easily supplant them with imports from other countries (Canada, Mexico, or Venezuela would all work) or domestic production. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the intricacies of our relationship with them but oil is not the primary driver. Europe does get significant amounts of oil from SA though, so maybe it is about oil just more about not disturbing supply for allies as opposed to ourselves. Like I said, not an expert. To be clear, I also think SA is no friend to the US and we should seriously reevaluate our relationship with them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ghost of James Post said:

The Saudis export extremist Sunni Islam all throughout the world … broader Q: why should we even consider them an ally.

Habit I think but as the generations change on both sides I think that habit is dying.  

The recent events culminating with the students at Pensacola and beyond I hope have moved the decision makers to formulate a new strategy with the KSA.  Not nearly as close with back up contingencies to mitigate problems if they go full retard, I would put them at half right now.

Dodging the slight of not offering them the 35 would require a bit of diplomatic two step but is feasible, quietly telling to just stop asking.

The anecdote @Steve Davies relayed would likely be repeated a 1000 fold at some point,  China/Russia eventually getting access to ALIS or ODIN, when that replaces ALIS.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31861/replacement-for-f-35s-troubled-alis-cloud-based-brain-rebranded-odin-and-is-still-years-away

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with all, LO is mainly about giving an offensive advantage and I think keeping some of our "Allies" mainly defensively strong but with enough offensive power to keep certain enemies at risk is the best / least bad option.

Russia is looking for export customers for the Su-57 and have mentioned UAE, probably not too far that they would try to tempt the KSA with an offer.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-su-57-stealth-fighter-coming-soon-persian-gulf-97532

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...