UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19366
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post02 Oct 2017, 21:20

Video Drone FlyOver Dummy Deck Training at RNAS Culdrose UK with water filled F-35Bs and taxiing non-flyable Harriers.

Attachments
DroneFlyOverUKdummyDeckF-35Bs.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19366
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Oct 2017, 15:29

:mrgreen: Gotta luv the English - what a great pisstake: :doh: "an air crew feeding facility" OINK OINK :devil: :roll:
F-35 Lightning fighter aircraft one step closer as RAF Marham runway intersection resurfacing completed
05 Oct 2017 Ministry of Defence and Defence Infrastructure Organisation {and taking the piss supremos}

"Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) has completed the resurfacing of the intersection of the 2 runways at RAF Marham as part of a larger programme of investment. The work forms part of a £250 million DIO programme, which is part of the major investment by the Ministry of Defence to ready the station for the arrival of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force’s new F-35 Lightning fast jet aircraft.

Construction of this kind on an active air field required a ‘no fly’ period to be agreed with the station. In the 3 weeks that flying was halted, DIO’s contractors, a joint venture between Galliford Try and Lagan Construction, had to complete the entire construction of this element of works. The resurfacing forms the third of 9 phases of work on the project, which will also provide hangars for 12 aircraft and an air crew feeding facility.

This phase included removing more than 13,000 tonnes of existing asphalt and installing 23 pits and 1.2km of ducting for aeronautical ground lighting. To resurface the runway, more than 18,000 tonnes of asphalt were laid over an area of nearly 38,000 square metres, equivalent to more than 5 rugby pitches. To achieve this within the required timescale the contractors worked in multiple shifts, 7 days a week...." [ooohhh they worked so hard - unbelievable - but true] :shock:

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/f-35 ... -completed
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19366
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Oct 2017, 20:57

INFO Displays on CVFs - ALL ABOARD! Last Train to TransCentral. KLF
Attachments
infodisplay1&2.jpg
Last edited by spazsinbad on 05 Oct 2017, 21:44, edited 1 time in total.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Online
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2599
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post05 Oct 2017, 21:09

spazsinbad wrote:INFO Displays on CVFs - ALL ABOARD! Last Train to TransCentral.


....do they have porters?
:)
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 306
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post11 Oct 2017, 00:48

Here is the UK National Audit Office's report on carriers and the F-35. Quote:

The Department reports that the Lightning II programme remains within approved performance, cost and time boundaries. The Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) for the UK’s Lightning II programme revised his programme delivery confidence, reflecting compression in the schedule, from amber (as reported in Figure 8, Delivering Carrier Strike) to amber/red in June 2017. This reflected concerns that simulators provided to train UK pilots would not be representative of the UK aircraft standard, that there were delays to providing UK-specific software programming, and that the schedule to deliver the UK weapons programme required further work. The Department told us that the SRO revised his delivery confidence to ensure that all stakeholders, and particularly Lockheed Martin, are clear on the schedule challenge, and that they must focus effort to meet the UK delivery schedule.


http://data.parliament.uk/writteneviden ... 70949.html
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19366
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Oct 2017, 01:10

Funny how some Brit 'news' papers wanted to cast a bad light on this - I'm looking at you THE TIMES - big deal eh?
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19366
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Oct 2017, 10:24

The PDF source could be edited down to the F-35B relevant bits but I'm laughing too much at Brit Newspapers at moment.
Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General Delivering Carrier Strike (HC 1057-I)
Examination of witnesses 11 October 2017

"Witnesses: Stephen Lovegrove, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Lieutenant General Mark Poffley, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Military Capability), Ministry of Defence, and Rear-Admiral Graeme Mackay, Director Carrier Strike, MOD....

...Q39 Gareth Snell: Thank you for what you have said so far. It is very interesting, but the Defence Select Committee heard, and it was reported in the press that, having paid £100 million for each of the F-35s, the first four that we take delivery of will be too heavy to land correctly on the carrier. I don’t know whether that is something you want to discuss today or whether you have a response to that, but I want some assurances that if that is the case, how will that be met within the existing cost envelope? How can we ensure that any retrofit that is necessary to fix that problem does not end up being an additional cost to the overall programme? And how has that been allowed to happen?
Rear-Admiral Graeme Mackay: The design of those aircraft remains within their specification—those aircraft are flying now—and they are largely aircraft that are instrumented, so they are recording and being used specifically for that purpose. That is the employment they are on at the moment and they are meeting those tasks fully.

It is important to set the record straight on weight. We have deliberately designed a technique for recovering the aircraft to the carrier through a thing called shipborne rolling vertical landing. We started that programme circa 2007. We had a VAAC Harrier aircraft, which had an F-35 control system. There has been speculation that we have come to this not knowing what we are doing, and I would characterise that as not being correct. Indeed, we have done a lot of testing at Pax river as well. So the aircraft will be meeting its design. We will continue to manage weight through the life of the programme. We have a particular technique to get the aircraft off through the ramp at the front of the ship, and to recover the aircraft in service.

Q40 Gareth Snell: For absolute clarity, you are saying that the issues reported in the press and in the Defence Committee—that they are too heavy to land safely—are not true?
Rear-Admiral Graeme Mackay: Those aircraft that we are procuring will be able to land vertically on the carriers. We will also be able to design—

Q41 Chair: Sorry, maybe I am being picky about the wording, but you have just said “those that we are procuring”. I think Mr Snell was referring particularly to the first four.
Rear-Admiral Graeme Mackay: Those aircraft are not overweight. They can recover and will be used by the trials programme in the carrier as we go through the life of programme. So it is not an issue.

Q42 Chair: So in simple terms, they can land on the carrier. They are not too heavy.
Rear-Admiral Graeme Mackay: They can, and that report was incorrect.

Q43 Gareth Snell: You said that they are part of the trials programme, so presumably there will be no particular change to the specification or make-up of the design of the planes that you will procure subsequently as a result of the first four that we have received?
Lt Gen Mark Poffley: If I can put this in layman soldier language, the reality of life is that on any vertical take-off and short take-off and landing aircraft, you are going to have issues around weight distribution and weight characterisation that will limit the flight envelope—indeed that is true of a fixed-wing aircraft in a conventional landing and taking-off role. The realities of life are that in the early part of the development phase you will have questions about weight. Yes, mitigations were put in place to reduce weight and to improve the performance, but that is something you would expect in the early part of the development of an aircraft of this type. The first batch of aircraft that were fitted for this test and evaluation role are still within the limits and we are seeing improvements through the development phase of the programme to the performance and weight characteristics of the aircraft. That is something that we would have expected and is included in our cost envelope...."
&
"Stephen Lovegrove: ...Some misconceptions, particularly about the F-35, have been in the press recently—for instance, that it has less memory than the iPhone, and things like that. These are wildly inaccurate—I mean, 10 gigabytes. On an F-35, depending on the model, there are somewhere between 500 and 1000 separate processors on one single aircraft. Most of them have got memory associated with them, and two of those bits of memory I know are 96 gigabytes. Among 500 to 1000 processors there is an enormous amount of capability, redundancy and so on that is built in already. What it’s going to be like in 2026, I don’t know, but for the moment we are comfortable...."

Source: http://data.parliament.uk/writteneviden ... /71235.pdf (245Kb)
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

doge

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 76
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 16:07

Unread post18 Oct 2017, 17:47

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/top-bri ... zabeth-say
Top British Pilot Hoping to be the First to Fly off HMS Queen Elizabeth ‘Exhilarated by F-35
The Daily Mail // October 16, 2017
This proud RAF pilot is hoping to be the first to fly an F-35 fighter jet off HMS Queen Elizabeth, Britain's brand new aircraft carrier.

Squadron Leader Andy Edgell, one of Britain's top airmen, is currently testing our 11 new F-35s in the United States ahead of their sea trials on the warship next year.

In an exclusive interview with MailOnline, the 37-year-old father of three said he is 'exhilarated by every flight' in the 1,200mph attack planes equipped with bombs and heat-seeking missiles.

'She's marvellous,' Edgell said of the F-35 from the air base in Maryland where the testing is taking place.

'She has an incredible amount of thrust but it's more than just brawn that makes her so fantastic to fly - it's the brains behind her as well,' he added, referring to the plane's control law - or Claw - technology which keeps it stable in the air even at frightening speeds.

'The idea is to make the jets very easy to control so the pilots can focus on carrying out their mission,' he said.

'She's a masterful piece of engineering and it makes her so effortless to fly.'

The F-35, a multi-role supersonic stealth aircraft, is fitted with a Pratt & Whitney F-135-600 engine which generates up to 50,000 pounds of thrust, enough to thrill even the most experienced of pilots.

'It's impossible not to be exhilarated every time,' Edgell said, describing the rush he gets when taking off in the jet.

'She's a beast when you want her to be and tame when you need her to be,' he summarised. 'She's beautiful.'

50,000 pounds of thrust

!? :shock:
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 773
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post18 Oct 2017, 19:15

I also asked that question to myself doge!

That's indeed strange since the maximum thrust of the F-35 is 43,000lb (with AB) - Even official P&W documents seem to state this.
Perhaps and since in that article the pilot was talking about the F-35B, that 50,000lb refers to the maximum thrust of the main engine (F135) plus the thrust of the vertical lift fan?
But even in this case that would be also strange since the F-35B wouldn't use AB on the main engine (and thus the full 43,000lb of thrust) at the same time it uses the vertical lift fan.
Offline

viper12

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 121
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post18 Oct 2017, 19:39

Could the 50,000lb figure be dynamic thrust at a specific altitude and speed ?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3144
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post18 Oct 2017, 19:59

Sure, it could be a lot of things.

1. Reference to the PW test where 50k was demonstrated

2. Addition of Mil power plus lift fan plus roll posts

3. Arbitrary dynamic value

4. mis-speak/high-end round up

5. accidentally revealing classified data

I'm putting my money on #4
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 617
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post18 Oct 2017, 21:25

ricnunes wrote:I also asked that question to myself doge!

That's indeed strange since the maximum thrust of the F-35 is 43,000lb (with AB) - Even official P&W documents seem to state this.


Actually the -600 is only 41,000 according to P&W, -100 and -400 are both rated at 43,000.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19366
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Oct 2017, 00:13

CONTRACTS
17 Oct 2017 Release No: CR-201-17

NAVY
"Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded $11,566,000 for cost-plus-fixed-fee undefinitized delivery order 0144 against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-14-G-0020). This order provides support for the first of class flying trials and the release of the military permit to fly for F-35B aircraft to operate from Queen Elizabeth class carriers in support of the government of the United Kingdom. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (68 percent); Samlesbury, United Kingdom (26 percent); Orlando, Florida (3 percent); and Patuxent River, Maryland (3 percent), and is expected to be completed in March 2018. International partner funds in the amount of $5,783,000 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

Source: https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/ ... e/1345796/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19366
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post31 Oct 2017, 02:33

Britain's new £150m F-35B stealth fighter jet is NOT a waste of money, says the RAF's top test pilot (but he can't tell you why because it's top secret)
30 Oct 2017 Charlie Bayliss

"...He said: 'You very quickly realise when flying the F-35 that is an enjoyable task when you come back to the aircraft carrier. Flying the Harrier back to the carrier, now that was a handful.' Edgell has been testing the jet using a fighter jet simulator which he described as a 'critical piece of the puzzle' in helping pilots prepare for flight trials off HMS Queen Elizabeth....

...RAF test pilot Squadron Leader Andy Edgell has been using the simulator which involves a replica cockpit on a moving platform, to train ahead of the trials next year. The 37-year-old said: 'This simulator is by far the most realistic simulator that I have ever been in. You sometimes forget that it is not real. 'Sometimes your heart rate increases on some of the manoeuvres that we are performing, some of the more challenging conditions that we are flying in. 'You genuinely feel as though you are in the real environment. Without the sim... we would be going significantly less prepared....

...'It gives us the data, the noughts and the ones, that are required to prove that what we are going to go and do is a sensible thing.' The facility comes equip with a FLYCO control room, which mirrors the £3 billion HMS Queen Elizabeth, allows the ship's landing signal officers to train up on the machinery as well. BAE's David Atkinson, who worked on the aircraft to ship integration, said the experience is 'critical' in helping train workers. He said: 'It is not just a visual simulation, i.e. pilot flying and getting that visual feedback.

'The touchdown forces and loads, and information about the behaviour of the aircraft is all use able at a very high level. He added that the simulator was an extremely cost efficient way of training and that pilots and engineers could factor in poor weather conditions and sudden movements of the ship. 'It is the place to come to get the best possible representation of the F-35B operating with Queen Elizabeth, until we can do it for real,' he added. Mr Atkinson also confirmed that a landing technique called a shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) was developed at the facility...."

PHOTOs: "The £2million facility is run and built by BAE Systems at their site in Warton, Lancashire" & "The control room for a specialist fighter jet simulator at BAE Systems in Warton, Lancashire" http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/ ... 804195.jpg & http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/ ... 812082.jpg


Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ickly.html

Attachments
F-35BsimWhartonPilotHMDSpdf.jpg
WartonControlRoomSIM.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Online

hythelday

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 181
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43

Unread post31 Oct 2017, 07:44

Oh my, British Bs are 150M£ apiece now?

Being sole first level partner certainly cost Royal Treasury a pretty penny :doh:
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: neptune, southernphantom, XanderCrews and 9 guests