High rear end winds cause F-35A ground engine fire

Re: workaround?

>The various US services don't want it

link?

Are you sure the services want out of it? That would be very good news, and common sense. But I don't remember serving senior procurement-relevant members of the armed forces going on the record and suggesting to ditch it.

I am sure you can get dozens of anonymous pilots off the record. But the input from the boys and gals at the tip of the spear doesn't outweigh lobbyists, no sirree.

As far as the Marines go, they got the best end of it - the thing is crap partially because it is a multirole design saddled with all their requirements - so their incentive to bail is even less, they might as well pray that it will somehow muddle through into a decent aircraft at some point.

Re: workaround?

Wouldn't you need to have started the engine to get a choice in that?

OK, here's a question for my downvoter.

How are you planning to manoeuvre the aircraft on the apron without using the engine?

Vic.

Re: This famous science fiction short story seems to sum it up nicely...

I think an even more insightful old sci-fi novel would be Tik-Tok. In it there is a US military project that so much money has been sunk into (it's an aircraft carrier) that nobody dares to cancel it. So each successive head of defence ploughs even more money into it in an attempt to make it viable. Despite the fact that it's a colossal failure from a strategic point of view.

It's a good novel, albeit old. About a domestic cleaning robot that kills someone and from there follows the natural progression through crime, to business to politics. The details of the technology in the story have aged and become out of date, but the politics seems to have not changed a bit.

Re: deactivated by an old guy in a row boat, armed with a pair of electrical side cutters

That'll be me in a few years

"The good news is that the F-35 has succeeded in its primary mission--to keep Lockheed-Martin's shareholders happy."

Yes, it's rather reminiscent of their Starfighter development programme.

Not always PM some of the PM for the MOD are proper engineers, politics and beancounters that's why you have problems.

That's great! I'll order 150 of your jet fighters. What do you mean I can only have them in brown or orange?

oh heavens

Thats not the sherpas fault it is because your maintenance department didnt know squat about setting up the toe in.

Struth.

TBH at least if we bought BL (or perhaps even built a fighter ourselves... tsr2 would still show the existing fighters up, and a modified supersonic harrier is certainly feasible), around a British engine (yes, Rolls Royce can still make engines), using some British computer trickery for the weapons (and British, not outsourced to India) we would have a product we could sell to others, have some money left in the bank and would have people in Britain employed by the British tax payer, spending their hard earned in the local community etc etc etc and perhaps we wouldnt be a broke country heading rapidly down the u-bend.

@mosw

ooh, stealthy.

Re: A wreck without leaving the ground

It all stems from the unwritten, unspoken cost of losing a war, or not finishing one. Losing a war is really, really expensive. This is the "cost" that the bean counters never let you put in the cost-benefit analysis, which leads to the general diminishment of a country's military during extended periods of peace (4 years +)... Winning a war is almost as expensive. The best outcome one can have is to put enough money into the armed forces and then never have to go to war in the first place. Of course, all that equipment and personnel have to look dangerous (and actually be dangerous) to be of any benefit.

So F16, within the intended limitations of the design, has been wildly successful in that role. Plentiful, affordable, clearly functional, and competent enough that you have to have a fairly sophisticated air defence (a relatively rare thing in today's conflicts) capability to realistically take one on.

Indeed, when they first started laying into Syria they sent pretty much one of everything over; F22, the lot. However the bulk of the work has been done by the F16s (and probably USN F18s). I saw the deployment of so many different types and F22 in particular (definitely not a ground attack platform) as a means to get the them some "combat experience", for no other reason than to be able to say to Congress "look, they're essential". To have to resort to such low tricks to secure continued funding for various aircraft types says a lot about the state of politics and government in the USA (weak, pork-riddled, ineffective, strategically unfocused), and is itself a damaging sign of weakness in the big strategic game. And so China, reassured, carries on taking over the Western Pacific.

F35, well that's different. Clearly if it could be made to work properly it would be quite a handful for anyone to take on (primarily thanks to its stealthiness and the missile system they're giving it). Clearly it's not there, yet. However the determination to complete it plays a role in deterrence, but until it is complete one runs the risk of having one's bluff called. Arguably not completing it now would be seen as a serious strategic weakness, a dangerous impression to give!

Re: A wreck without leaving the ground

The F16 was conceived as a cheap-n-cheerful aircraft to sell to other countries and use when they expensive F15's were in short supply; but over a number of years and weapon/system refinements it became nearly as effective as the F15 and replaced it in many areas/roles.

Although costing a fraction of the F15, it could match 95% of the F15's combat roles, especially when AMRAAMS replaced Sparrows as the air2air weapon of choice.

SO yeah, it saved money.

Re: A wreck without leaving the ground

"" This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. "