First F-35C arrives in my country for our Navy!

[SOLIDKREATE]

Finally after almost 20 years of development the F-35C (Naval Variant) arrives at Eglin AFB for transfer to our Naval training squadron VFA-101 "Grim Reapers". I think our UK brothers are next?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tk3LCi9GP0

Edited November 4, 2013 by Erg./JG54_SPEKTRE

[Sternjaeger]

I like the vintage stars and stripes and the red danger stripes on the intakes, very 80s! I heard the C version was plagued with a lot of problems though! 

[FlatSpinMan]

Exactly, SJ. Would be nice to see more of the hi-vis markings. They made 70'scarrier aircraft so sexy.

[SOLIDKREATE]

I think the VF-1 'Wolf Pack' (old F-14/A) early 80's paint scheme would look phenomenal!

 

 

 

 

[FlatSpinMan]

I was thinking of that one.

I really like the Phantoms and Skyhawks, too.

Don't why, but the Skyhawk just hits my sweet spot, even the humpbacked models.

[Sternjaeger]

or a good ol' fashioned Jolly Rogers 

 

[Gort]

My favorite all time squadron - VF84. Their pilots were all badass and extremely handsome.

[FlatSpinMan]

Were you a member? If so, that's awesome.

[Sternjaeger]

My favorite all time squadron - VF84. Their pilots were all badass and extremely handsome.

 

If you also tell me you were in "The Final Countdown" I'll bow down in front of the unreachable awesomeness!

Edited November 4, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[DD_bongodriver]

I don't know why the UK changed it's mind and went back to the B model, why go and build the worlds second biggest carriers and keep 12 VTOL's on each? apparently cat's and traps are expensive to have, just wait until the bill comes for maintaining those massively expensive and complicated lift fans.........worst decision ever.

[Sternjaeger]

I have a good friend of mine who's an aeronautical engineer and attended a conference in the US on the F-35 project, which gave the audience an update on the development, production, tests etc... 

 

Apparently the naval version is a much heavier machine with a shorter wingspan, which was affected by structural problems (the whole wing fold mechanism was a headache and a half) and the maintenance is at the moment a lot more expensive. As you know the standards of Navy jets is a much higher one because of severe operational conditions, and this comes with a hefty price tag which several governments are not happy about. 

 

Quoting my friend: "the F-35 is basically a really really bad design from the late 90s which is being forcibly shoved forwards with insane amounts of money, trying hard to make an intrinsically wrong design work at all costs."

 

The whole development has been a huge money wasting scandal, but we're too deep into it to pull the plug. I mean, the investment towards this thing has affected countries' ratings, that's madness..

Edited November 4, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[thx1138]

I have a good friend of mine who's an aeronautical engineer and attended a conference in the US on the F-35 project, which gave the audience an update on the development, production, tests etc... 

 

Apparently the naval version is a much heavier machine with a shorter wingspan, which was affected by structural problems (the whole wing fold mechanism was a headache and a half) and the maintenance is at the moment a lot more expensive. As you know the standards of Navy jets is a much higher one because of severe operational conditions, and this comes with a hefty price tag which several governments are not happy about. 

 

Quoting my friend: "the F-35 is basically a really really bad design from the late 90s which is being forcibly shoved forwards with insane amounts of money, trying hard to make an intrinsically wrong design work at all costs."

 

The whole development has been a huge money wasting scandal, but we're too deep into it to pull the plug. I mean, the investment towards this thing has affected countries' ratings, that's madness..

 

 

Wow, you must have read my mind.

 

The F 35 is just like the F 14, a TURKEY. (the D model F 14 finally got the right engines over 20 years to late !) Swing wings and lift fans take away from performance ! You pay a severe weight penalty and gain very little for having these things on fighters.

 

I did a lot of reading about how the AF wound up with the F 15, and Col John Boyds infulance, and am surprised we got even as good as we did. At least the F 16 turned out to be a winner along with the F 18. There is a great book called "BOYD" about the life of Col Boyd, and it contains all sorts of info how these aircraft were acquired. The F 16 was his idea, and his theory of energy manuverablilty shaped aircraft design for the future.

 

Just for fun, there is a good book out there called The Great Engine Wars (IIRC) written about P&W and GE. It was amazing how P&W's arrogance allowed GE not only to get into the fighter engine market but do it in a BIG way.

Edited November 4, 2013 by thx1138

[Sternjaeger]

yeah, it really makes little or no sense as a carrier-borne multi-role aircraft.. 

 

VFA-103 then? Were u a Tomcat pilot? I'm sorry I'm not a Navy expert..

[Sternjaeger]

Sweet, do you miss it? Last time I asked it to a Navy pilot he gave me one of the best "Hell no!" I've ever heard lol mind you he didn't fly the turkey, he was on transports.

 

yeah, but the unit and maintenance costs are prohibitive! I think it's gonna be a flop bigger than the F-22 :-(

 

And yes, perhaps it's a good (but costly) replacement for a Harrier, but it doesn't strike me as an air superiority aircraft.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[DD_Arthur]

From the point of view of a UK taxpayer, I'd personally like to see everyone involved in the procurement process of our two carriers and the turkeys aircraft that might one day fly from them catapulted off the end of an aircraft carrier!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24801942

 

Lets get back to basics here.  WTF do we need with a friggin' carrier?  Are we gonna' take on the Chinese?  Can anyone give me a rational, cost-effective reason why the post-colonial United Kingdom should actually need two huge fleet carriers?

Edited November 4, 2013 by arthursmedley

[Valisk61]

Can anyone give me a rational, cost-effective reason why the post-colonial United Kingdom should actually need two huge fleet carriers?

Keeps ME in a job at any rate... Long live the UK's insane and profligate military procurement process.

[Sternjaeger]

From the point of view of a UK taxpayer, I'd personally like to see everyone involved in the procurement process of our two carriers and the turkeys aircraft that might one day fly from them catapulted off the end of an aircraft carrier!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24801942

 

Lets get back to basics here.  WTF do we need with a friggin' carrier?  Are we gonna' take on the Chinese?  Can anyone give me a rational, cost-effective reason why the post-colonial United Kingdom should actually need two huge fleet carriers?

Ever heard of the Falklands? ;-)

 

Apparently the MoD spends on average £500 for each uk citizen, whilst the average cost of a Falklands citizen is £35k

[DD_bongodriver]

Well if the Argentinians gave up their weird obsession with those islands maybe the defence budget could be cut.

[DD_Arthur]

The Falklands?  Nah, I don't buy that.  We've already stumped up well over £500 million on this;

 

I think Valisk has it essentially right.  Defence procurement is still the biggest unreformed gravy train we (and the US) have got.  Judging by the way the costs of HMS White Elephant have risen it would seem every time the CEO of BAE Systems leans over to claw his own buttocks he invoices the MoD for a couple of million.

[Sternjaeger]

Dude, there's enough oil off the coast of the Falklands to buy the Saudi oil barons and their whole circus..

[Gort]

You'll need those ships when the US retires two more carriers and cuts the active duty forces by 30%. It looks like Europe will soon be on it's own.

[SOLIDKREATE]

VF84.

 

When Fighting 84 was decommissioned in the mid-nineties, the squadron lineage passed on to VF103 for two reasons- The Jolly Roger heritage went all the way back to VF17 in WWII, and frankly, the skull and bones image was too cool to let die.

 

The intriguing version of the J35 is the VSTOL configuration. A lot of limited air forces want it, and it is far easier to fly and fight than the AV8. That lift fan and it's clutch gives me pause, especially coupled with the maintenance challenges.

 

 

I'm just really surprised no one has been offended by that image in our country, LOL. Remember VFA-37, when the made the squadron cut the nuts off the bull emblem?

 

 

Oh since we're on the topic of the Tomcat......

 

 

Proud AD "Aviation Machinists Mate" for VF-32 Swordsmen, 1994 - 1998 (My first four years of my 16 year career). <~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~THIS GUY

Edited November 5, 2013 by Erg./JG54_SPEKTRE

[DD_Crash]

I have a feeling that UK government will sell at least one of them at a massive knockdown price.

[DD_bongodriver]

I have a feeling that UK government will sell at least one of them at a massive knockdown price.

 

Along with half the new jets........probably to the Saudis.

[FlatSpinMan]

I thought you were just going to borrow France's planes?

That'd be a plan - 'borrow' them then flog them off.

 

Spektre - I'd forgotten those pics you posted. I'd love to even have a look around a carrier, especially one with F14's.

 

Victory - interesting to hear. Amazing to hear what can get 'boring'. Reminds me of Huggy87 from Ubi fortune saying during Gulf War 1 he used to come back from missions over Baghdad before the ground war kicked off, and playing Il2 for some excitement.

[DD_bongodriver]

No, we were going to let the French navy operate from our carriers..........not an option now as neither carrier is being fitted with a cat and trap but instead have those gay looking ramps, the French don't operate any VTOL jets

[DD_Arthur]

I have a feeling that UK government will sell at least one of them at a massive knockdown price.

 

Yep; India is my bet.  The only problem is it's a great big box with no provision for catapult launch!!!!!

 

@FSM;  Huggy87?  What a very nice man he was!  I seem to remember he eventually got a job back in the States with one of the big airlines.

    Hope he's well and I hope he joins us here one day.

[DD_bongodriver]

India is already building it's own and have 1 in service for it's harriers, the Chinese would probably be interested but I bet it would be the Saudi's.

[SOLIDKREATE]

Yep; India is my bet.

 

 

You would bet right. They got our new P-8A 'Poseidon' before our own Navy even got it.

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Interesting video

 

Looks cool! Maybe those anime's like Neon Genisis isn't too far off visually!

Edited November 6, 2013 by Skoshi_Tiger

[DD_Arthur]

Our proud, new, big grey box takes to the seas today

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-40402153

 

Pssst......don't tell any of those naughty Russian or North Korean hackers but it's computer systems run on....Windows XP!   

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

They arrived in our country..?

 

They were built in our country. 

 

I wonder if VEAO was in charge of developing the software/firmware for the F-35 project. 

[Jaws2002]

Our proud, new, big grey box takes to the seas today

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-40402153

 

Pssst......don't tell any of those naughty Russian or North Korean hackers but it's computer systems run on....Windows XP!   

 

Hahaha.

 

Cool ships, but the shape seems odd. It has he deck extension to the side, for a catapult launch, but it doesn't have catapults?

Edited June 27, 2017 by Jaws2002

[Gambit21]

The F 35 is just like the F 14, a TURKEY. (the D model F 14 finally got the right engines over 20 years to late !) Swing wings and lift fans take away from performance ! You pay a severe weight penalty and gain very little for having these things on fighters.

 

That's just how contracts happen now, lobbyists, back scratching, big money...corruption.

The Superhornet was no different.

 

http://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/comments/c341.htm

 

Here is the Op-Ed by Lt. Col Jay A. Stout referenced in the link.

 

 

 

By JAY A. STOUT 

 

The Virginian-Pilot, 

 

December 15, 1999 

 

 

Quote: 

 

I am a fighter pilot. I love fighter aircraft. But even though my service --I am a Marine-- doesn't have a dog in the fight, it is difficult to watch the grotesquerie that is the procurement of the Navy's new strike-fighter, the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet. 

 

Billed as the Navy's strike-fighter of the future, the F/A-18 E/F is instead an expensive failure - a travesty of subterfuge and poor leadership. Intended to over come any potential adversaries during the next 20 years, the aircraft is instead outperformed by a number of already operational air craft - including the fighter it is scheduled to replace, the original F/A-18 Hornet. 

 

The Super Hornet concept was spawned in 1992, in part, as a replacement for the 30 year-old A-6 Intruder medium bomber. Though it had provided yeoman service since the early 1960s, the A-6 was aging and on its way to retirement by the end of the Gulf War in 1991. The Navy earlier tried to develop a replacement during the 1980s - the A-12 - but bungled the project so badly that the whole mess was scrapped in 1991. The A-12 fiasco cost the taxpayers $5 billion and cost the Navy what little reputation it had as a service that could wisely spend taxpayer dollars. 

 

Nevertheless, the requirement for an A-6 replacement remains. Without an aircraft with a longer range and greater payload than the current F/A-18, the Navy lost much of its offensive punch. Consequently it turned to the original F/A-18 - a combat-proven per former, but a short-ranged light bomber when compared to the A-6. Still stinging from the A-12 debacle, the Navy tried to "put one over" on Congress by passing off a completely redesigned aircraft - the Super Hornet - as simply a modification of the original Hornet. 

 

The obfuscation worked. Many in Congress were fooled into believing that the new aircraft was just what the Navy told them it was - a modified Hornet. In fact, the new airplane is much larger - built that way to carry more fuel and bombs - is much different aerodynamically, has new engines and engine intakes and a completely reworked internal structure. In short, the Super Hornet and the original Hornet are two completely different aircraft despite their similar appearance. 

 

Though the deception worked, the new aircraft - the Super Hornet - does not. Because it was never prototyped - at the Navy's insistence - its faults were not evident until production aircraft rolled out of the factory. Among the problems the aircraft experienced was the publicized phenomenon of "wing drop" - a spurious, uncommanded roll, which occurred in the heart of the air craft's performance envelope. After a great deal of negative press, the Super Hornet team devised a "band-aid" fix that mitigated the problem at the expense of performance tradeoffs in other regimes of flight. Regardless, the redesigned wing is a mish-mash of aerodynamic compromises which does nothing well. And the Super Hornet's wing drop problem is minor compared to other shortfalls. First, the aircraft is slow -- slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s. In that one of the most oft- uttered maxims of the fighter pilot fraternity is that "Speed is Life", this deficiency is alarming. 

 

But the Super Hornet's wheezing performance against the speed clock isn't its only flaw. If speed is indeed life, than maneuverability is the reason that life is worth living for the fighter pilot. In a dog fight, superior maneuverability allows a pilot to bring his weapons to bear against the enemy. With its heavy, aerodynamically compromised airframe, and inadequate engines, the Super Hornet won't win many dogfights. Indeed, it can be outmaneuvered by nearly every front-line fighter fielded today. 

 

"But the Super Hornet isn't just a fighter", its proponents will counter, "it is a bomber as well". True, the new aircraft carries more bombs than the current F/A-18 - but not dramatically more, or dramatically further. The engineering can be studied, but the laws of physics don't change for anyone - certainly not the Navy. From the beginning, the aircraft was incapable of doing what the Navy wanted. And they knew it. 

 

The Navy doesn't appear to be worried about the performance shortfalls of the Super Hornet. The aircraft is supposed to be so full of technological wizardry that the enemy will be overwhelmed by its superior weapons. That is the same argument that was used prior to the Vietnam War. This logic fell flat when our large, expensive fighters - the most sophisticated in the world - started falling to peasants flying simple aircraft designed during the Korean conflict. 

 

Further drawing into question the Navy's position that flight performance is secondary to the technological sophistication of the aircraft, are the Air Forces' specifications for its new - albeit expensive - fighter, the F-22. The Air Force has ensured that the F-22 has top-notch flight performance, as well as a weapons suite second to none. It truly has no rivals in the foreseeable future. 

 

The Super Hornet's shortcomings have been borne out anecdotally. There are numerous stories, but one episode sums it up nicely. Said one crew member who flew a standard Hornet alongside new Super Hornets: "We outran them, we out-flew them, and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for those pilots". These shortcomings are tacitly acknowledged around the fleet where the aircraft is referred to as the "Super-Slow Hornet". 

 

What about the rank-and-file Navy fliers? What are they told when they question the Super Hornet's shortcomings? The standard reply is, "Climb aboard, sit down, and shut up. This is our fighter, and you're going to make it work". Can there be any wondering at the widespread disgust with the Navy's leadership and the hemorrhaging exodus of its fliers? 

 

Unfortunately, much of the damage has been done. Billions of dollars have been spent on the Super Hornet that could have been spent on maintaining or upgrading the Navy's current fleet of aircraft. Instead, unacceptable numbers or aircraft are sidelined for want of money to buy spare parts. Paradoxically, much of what the Navy wanted in the Super Hornet could have been obtained, at a fraction of the cost, by upgrading the current aircraft - what the Navy said it was going to do at the beginning of this mess. 

 

Our military's aircraft acquisition program cannot afford all the proposed acquisitions. Some hard decisions will have to be made. The Super Hornet decision, at a savings of billions of dollars, should be an easy one". 

 

Lt. Col. Jay Stout, a USMC fighter pilot, combat veteran, and the author of "Hornets Over Kuwait" (these views are his own and do not represent the views of the Department of the Navy, the Marine Corps, or the United States government.

[ZachariasX]

 

 

I wonder if VEAO was in charge of developing the software/firmware for the F-35 project.

 

That would be great actually, as VEAO can be fired from the job. For LM, there is no failure big enough not to get more cash thrown after them. Best procurement system money can buy. You know, for that money you could have gotten a few F-22, a plane that is at least useful when is not sitting in the hangar.

[DD_Arthur]

Hahaha.

 

Cool ships, but the shape seems odd. It has he deck extension to the side, for a catapult launch, but it doesn't have catapults?

 

The motto of our Ministry of Defence seems to be "If a job is worth doing well, its worth doing cheaply".    Originally, they were designed without cats and traps as everything was going to be fine and the F35 was going to be wonderful, etc. etc.

 

A couple of years into the project - and with the F35 looking a little...flakey....it occurred to someone high up that cats and traps should be an option.

 

That was fine until two years ago when it turned out that to fit a steam room for the cats would involve a billion £ redesign for the two ships of this class we are building.  

 

So it was then announced they would have provision for the F35B only as we couldn't afford cats and traps.

 

Amazing.

 

If the F35B programme goes belly up, we're stuck with two large, grey,  floating boxes but luckily the idiots responsible for these enormous blunders will be retired and enjoying their index linked pensions.  

 

As a matter of interest the Israeli Defence Force has a budget roughly similar to the UK's.  In Israel this budget is administered by approx. four hundred civil servants.  In the UK the same job is done by approx. ten thousand civil servants.

[Gambit21]

I admire the Russians - they know how to put excellent hardware in the field.

[ZachariasX]

I admire the Russians - they know how to put excellent hardware in the field.

I'd say they are just more aware that they run on a budget for what they are doing.

[Monostripezebra]

more important then F-35 flights:

 

 

;=)

[ZachariasX]

...More payload, more range, it even landed on a carrier. Far superior aurcraft. And pretty.