F-35B On Probation, New Bomber To Go Forward

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11272
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 Nov 2011, 18:33

Now I get it! The first page of this thread has the relevant information about USMC Expeditionary Airfields:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... r-asc.html [SCROLL DOWN}

I had assumed that the thread page searched for was at the end of the thread - but no - it is the first page (very early in morning here). So the actual entry is appropriate if one jumps back to the beginning of this thread - page 1 - with above URL.

Gotta love THREAD CREEP! :twisted: :lol:
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post14 Nov 2011, 19:12

spazsinbad wrote: So the actual entry is appropriate if one jumps back to the beginning of this thread - page 1 - with above URL.

Gotta love THREAD CREEP! :twisted: :lol:


Eh, not really. It's about the F-35 being on probation (mostly), not old A-4 deployments.

:ontopic:

Interesting new development on the likelihood of F-35 procurement.
http://defensetech.org/2011/11/14/the-m ... the-f-35b/
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11272
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 Nov 2011, 21:37

HMMMMmmmmm, on the first page of this thread 'discofishing' introduced this idea: "...expeditionary airfields equipped with catapults and arresting gear..." which was taken up by 'chrisrt': "expeditionary airfields equipped with catapults and arresting gear.
You have blown my mind. What a brilliant idea." Then illustrated by moi and continued today with the video.

And just so you know the same/similar 'defensetech URL' about UK Harriers for USMC' was also in this earlier thread: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-150.html [Scroll down page as always]
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1389
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post15 Nov 2011, 18:01

discofishing wrote:[.... It seems like it would be pretty maintenance intensive. USMC should operate the F-35C and use expeditionary airfields equipped with catapults and arresting gear.
....


The Navy calls those expeditionay airfields an aircraft carrier! :lol:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11272
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Nov 2011, 03:10

As good a place as any for a news reports clarifying situation USMC Brit Harrier 'spares' buy anyway.

U.S. Marines Won't Fly Brit Harriers By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS 17 Nov 2011

http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=8286920&c=EUR&s=SEA

"An official announcement could come within days of Britain's sale of its remaining Harrier jump jets to the U.S. Marine Corps, but sources are saying privately the purchase will be strictly for spare parts and logistic support, and not a move to increase the operational fleet.

We have no intent at any point to ever fly any of these" British jets, said one U.S. source....

...One U.S. source, however, said that acquisition of the British aircraft and their spares could save the Marines up to $1 billion over the life of the fleet. The Marines plan to operate the AV-8B at least until 2025, when conversion to the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter is expected to be completed....

...British and U.S. Harrier II aircraft had a high degree of commonality from the beginning....

"There are significant differences between Royal Air Force GR Mark 9s and Marine AV-8Bs, which would be a challenge to overcome," Nordeen added. "However, the engines and spare parts would be very valuable for long-term sustainment of the Marine Corps Harrier fleet...."
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11272
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Nov 2011, 03:12

neptune, so an LHA is an OLF and a former Harrier Carrier with ski jump is a 'lumpy OLF'? :D OLF=OutLyingField
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1389
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post18 Nov 2011, 04:47

spazsinbad wrote:neptune, so an LHA is an OLF and a former Harrier Carrier with ski jump is a 'lumpy OLF'? :D OLF=OutLyingField


catobar should have a bit larger propeller. :lol:

...but OLF could be a nice and cozy 10,000 ft. runway with a squadron or two of su-35s and support a/c; after a raptor escorted B-2 drops some anti-runway ordinance every 1,000 to 1,500 ft. down the length of both taxiways and runways. All that nice shiny stuff sitting there waiting for the "Bee" and V-22s to arrive, to co-habitate! :idea: :shock: :D :lol: Wow!, what a furball!! :cheers:
Offline

fang

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 183
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2006, 10:07

Unread post18 Nov 2011, 14:55

New cracks stop vertical landings on some F-35Bs
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... bs-365059/
Offline

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3455
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post18 Nov 2011, 15:06

fang wrote:New cracks stop vertical landings on some F-35Bs
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... bs-365059/



Informative article except for the last 2 paragraphs.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post18 Nov 2011, 15:13

So does anyone know exactly which parts are cracked? It could be a simple hinge or some other easily replaced part for all we know. At least the affected Bees are all prototypes. I'll wait until BF-6 starts to have serious problems before I worry.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline

maus92

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1663
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post18 Nov 2011, 16:27

1st503rdsgt wrote:So does anyone know exactly which parts are cracked? It could be a simple hinge or some other easily replaced part for all we know. At least the affected Bees are all prototypes. I'll wait until BF-6 starts to have serious problems before I worry.


It seems that it is the same bulkhead that cracked before. If so, it has been redesigned so it should be OK in new production planes.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4792
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post18 Nov 2011, 20:11

So a known potential problem that has already been redesigned, is in production, and will not adversely affect testing has shown up? That is about the purest definition of a non-newsworthy story I have ever heard.

p.s. I agree, the last two paragraphs are completely worthless.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

maus92

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1663
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post19 Nov 2011, 03:16

SpudmanWP wrote:So a known potential problem that has already been redesigned, is in production, and will not adversely affect testing has shown up? That is about the purest definition of a non-newsworthy story I have ever heard.

p.s. I agree, the last two paragraphs are completely worthless.


Except that it disallows 3 F-35Bs to VL, slowing test points. So it does affect testing.
Offline

quicksilver

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 914
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post19 Nov 2011, 04:03

maus92 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:So a known potential problem that has already been redesigned, is in production, and will not adversely affect testing has shown up? That is about the purest definition of a non-newsworthy story I have ever heard.

p.s. I agree, the last two paragraphs are completely worthless.


Except that it disallows 3 F-35Bs to VL, slowing test points. So it does affect testing.


Wrong again shipmate -- to wit, "...BF-5 was the only STOVL variant scheduled to complete more vertical landings this year."

As indicated in the article, BF-5 had the redesigned part installed during production. Thus, the only jet scheduled for more vertical landings this year is not restricted from STOVL flight. STOVL flight is the most tested portion of the BF envelope to date, and thus the time necessary to complete retrofit of the part in BFs 1-4 will not affect the STOVL test program since they can continue to fly conventionally.

Me thinks Stereo shacked the issue -- more breathless reporting over a non-issue.
Offline

maus92

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1663
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post19 Nov 2011, 04:13


Wrong again shipmate -- to wit, "...BF-5 was the only STOVL variant scheduled to complete more vertical landings this year."


I guess i'm wrong - maybe. Was BF-5 originally scheduled to complete all these tests, or was it because the other aircraft were limited because of structural issues? You can only schedule aircraft that are up, and without squawks that preclude an evolution. .
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 1 guest