UK Defence Forum

No surprises there. Nearly as bad as it was for us on the introduction of Typhoon. WE knew where the parts were when we had then, the problem was we didn't have any.

Sounds a bit like ALIS (or is it ALISS) in blunder land to me!

Lord Jim wrote:you can fire enough IRBMs with conventional warheads to swamp any defence system in place and flatten anything there. Look no further than China for that doctrine

And in reverse... no need for irBm's as the next fill for HIMARS (when talking about the USMC) will have a doubled range

SW1 wrote:What’s more, the DoD’s re-supply network for moving F-35 parts around the world is immature, says the accountability agency.

... that simply means that they will grab theirs first; then the rest of 'the club' can share what, if any, are available

The 44% figure stands out a mile for me from that article. Things like that are a pita to manage and put such a handbrake on deployments. They also soak up time and manpower trying to manage day to day flying, longer term dets, PEPS etc.

It's something that has come up time and again but 44% is very high. Also gives a good idea of the fleets within fleets we'll be juggling for years to come.

Scimitar54 wrote:Sounds a bit like ALIS (or is it ALISS) in blunder land to me!

Maybe we should give them a copy of LITS and see if they can get it to work as planned

On a lighter note I spotted this video introducing this year USAF F-35A Demonstration Team, pretty good.

topman wrote:The 44% figure stands out a mile for me from that article. Things like that are a pita to manage and put such a handbrake on deployments. They also soak up time and manpower trying to manage day to day flying, longer term dets, PEPS etc.

It's something that has come up time and again but 44% is very high. Also gives a good idea of the fleets within fleets we'll be juggling for years to come.

Given how divergent the design of the a/c became in a very chaotic and tetchy redesign the number doesn’t surprise me all that much. Somethings that were warned about a long time ago are now starting to manifest themselves as production numbers ramp up with an immature design. Fatigue with the b airframe will be another shades of the buccaneer..

topman wrote:Also gives a good idea of the fleets within fleets we'll be juggling for years to come.

Probably for the USMC and USAF that will be the case. But from what we know of the UK's F-35B that's less likely. We've only bought limited numbers to date, and those that we have were primarily procured after a number of changes to the airframe were made. This will be a similar problem to the aircraft that needed upgrading to hit Block 3F and 4 in the future. For the USMC it was a considerable issue, with talk of large numbers of the early airframes being seen as fit for training, but not combat unless extensive upgrade work was undertaken, but for the UK comparatively minor. Essentially the UK is going to benefit from letting the USMC do the early adopter work whilst we've bought enough to start the training pipeline and develop procedures etc.

Timmymagic wrote:

topman wrote:Also gives a good idea of the fleets within fleets we'll be juggling for years to come.

Probably for the USMC and USAF that will be the case. But from what we know of the UK's F-35B that's less likely. We've only bought limited numbers to date, and those that we have were primarily procured after a number of changes to the airframe were made. This will be a similar problem to the aircraft that needed upgrading to hit Block 3F and 4 in the future. For the USMC it was a considerable issue, with talk of large numbers of the early airframes being seen as fit for training, but not combat unless extensive upgrade work was undertaken, but for the UK comparatively minor. Essentially the UK is going to benefit from letting the USMC do the early adopter work whilst we've bought enough to start the training pipeline and develop procedures etc.

The numbers will be lower but the proportions won't be different, not in any massive way. And I don't mean Block 1/2/3/whatever it'll be the endless different build standards on dozens if not hundreds of items that will cause the problems. None of those different standards will hit the news, but they'll be there.

Timmymagic wrote:For the USMC it was a considerable issue, with talk of large numbers of the early airframes being seen as fit for training, but not combat unless extensive upgrade work was undertaken

It is sort of funny that on this forum we can discuss these things as ' a matter of fact' when on many others, after so many years, the techno-infantiles that have not been weeded off the early years' LM marketing literature are still at arms.

(bobsurgranny) 14 April 2019

Wednesday 10th April. Two RAF F-35B Lightning II jets took off to go and train on the Holbeach bombing range in Lincolnshire. I managed to get some video of them returning to base, with their nozzles half cocked flying overhead which was a nice sound to the ears, before being wafted with the lovely smell of jet fuel

@ 3:30 F-35Binks !

Lockheed Martin unveils potential maritime follow-on version of DARPA’s Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept at #SAS2019 today. Externally mounted to F-35C.

Back in the 1980's a friend in the USAF told me about spares that had gone missing including a complete mobile radar that was shipped back to the US after a deployment, never to be seen again...….

Fast forward 35yrs...

To make matters worse, the DoD has spent billions of dollars on F-35 spare parts, but does not have records for all the parts it has purchased, where they are, or how much they cost.
“For example, DOD is not maintaining a database with information on F-35 parts the US owns, and it lacks the necessary data to be able to do so,” says GAO. “Without a policy that clearly defines how it will keep track of purchased F-35 parts, DoD will continue to operate with a limited understanding of the F-35 spare parts it owns and how they are being managed. If left unaddressed, these accountability issues will impede DOD's ability to obtain sufficient readiness within affordability constraints.”
So nothing changes


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... pa-457734/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-07/ ... n/11085220
This article refers to the corrosion risk associated with the F35 because of its aluminium structure effected by salt and recomended measures including de humidfying ,has this been thought of for carrier based aircraft ?

I would imagine so but perhaps not with that information to hand. Dehumidifying isn't anything new, various types of equipment are in use in the MoD.
The question is how likely is it and where is it likely to appear?
If it's a case of what we've got is good enough it's no issue at all. If the report is saying they need to be stored in dehumidified buildings when not flying then you're looking at some cost infrastructure and equipment wise.

My thoughts on this are , Would the seaborne f35 models have a shorter life span than the a model not being exposed to as much salt , would the F35 be required to spend more time in the hangars than parked on the deck to prevent exposure or would the aircraft on deck have more frequent wash downs in clean water ?

I don't think it would reduce its life. As to what is put in place to reduce this risk, difficult to say without reading the report.

Looks like the USMC/QE Deployment is all done and dusted agreement wise..

https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... -2021.html

Welcome news, its the only chance we have of seeing a 'full' carrier for a long while.

The reason for this entry being posted onto this thread is at the end, in bold.

India did not buy at the offered price that was not 'damn costly' the Su-57 designs, prototypes (and tooling ) so now they (Russia) want to sell the turkey... to Turkey . DID of today tells us:

"Russia wants to sell its Su-57 fighter jet to Turkey in case the F-35 deal with the US falls through, reports say. The US has warned Turkey that it would expel the country from the F-35 program if it accepts the Russian-made S-400 surface-to-air missile system as the US sees the purchase incompatible with Turkey’s commitments to NATO. The S-400’s radar system could enable the Russian military to figure out how the F-35 operates."

shark bait wrote:Welcome news, its the only chance we have of seeing a 'full' carrier for a long while.

How many jets is a detachment likely to be?

Enough to bring total of F35 on board to 24!

seaspear wrote:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-07/ ... n/11085220
This article refers to the corrosion risk associated with the F35 because of its aluminium structure effected by salt and recomended measures including de humidfying ,has this been thought of for carrier based aircraft ?

To come to this conclusion there would need to be something more going on than it just being because it’s because it’s aluminium. There’s lots of aluminium aircraft in salty environments it’s a well understood material, the galvanic, and thermal fatigue cracking issues when in close proximity to composite are well known due to some very expensive lessons, and there mitigation’s in place.

The 7085 is newer temper within the 7000 series range which looks to improve impact damage and resistance. Ideally titanium would be used but aluminium is cheaper and lighter. Has caused issues in testing notable on the B.

The other option is the auditors haven’t fully understood a very specialised topic of material science, not entirely unheard of with KPMG audits in aerospace from experience also possible it’s not been reported accurately as they would have even less knowledge of the subject.

Speculation that the F-35 may have ruled itself out of the Canadian competition....with Rafale already excluded and Boeing in the doghouse (surely politically unacceptable for the next few years following the Bombardier furore) that would leave Eurofighter and Saab with a free run....

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... h-the-f-35

Well it would be great if the Typhoon won but i'm not holding my breath...new build stealthy hornets maybe....I've always liked the Gripen though !