Via DefenseNews.com
Analysts agreed that this series of vertical landings signals the problematic vertical landing variant is starting to recover from a series of technical glitches that resulted in schedule slips and the redesigns of some ancillary equipment and structural elements of the aircraft. These elements include components in the propulsion system, an insufficiently robust structural bulkhead and hinges on some doors on the top surface of the aircraft.Read the whole thing but the future of the "B" is bright. A quick glance at some of the ships being acquired by allied navies and its obvious that this model will have as many or more customers than any other model (with the USAF buying so many "A"s it will always be numerically superior but the A will be a sad second when it comes to air arms buying it).
"I think it does [signal that the program is getting back on track]. This program has never been quite as troubled as many critics thought. I think it's probably progressed more smoothly than other fighter development program with the possible exception of the F-16," said Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va. The F-16's development proceeded so smoothly because of the simple nature of the original version of that aircraft, he said.
Lets look at the ships...Aircraft Carriers/LHD(A)'s coming online or just entering service (note* all ship photos are from Jeff Head's World Wide Aircraft Carrier Website...you really should check it out)...
*Cavour
*Hyuga
*USS America
*Canberra
*Juan Carlos I
*Dokdo
Alot of decks, and these decks need STOVL aircraft. Good news indeed. Now I do realize that certain critics and friends (Leesea, Lee, Aussie Digger and Marcase) will point out that on a number of these ships a requirement hasn't been laid out for a STOVL airplane to operate from them. They'll also point out that in some cases, naval air arms might opt for British Harriers that will be placed in storage waiting for a buyer (if they're wise)...
I don't think so.
Especially in the Pacific, the threat of advanced fighters is coming so fast that no air arm can afford not to have a long ranged, stealthy, electronically advanced, sensor fused airplane in their arsenal.
That threat should be obvious to Australia, S. Korea, Japan and Singapore.
My humble prediction.
Nations will be lining up to buy the F-35B once it enters into service.
Just hope those decks can deal with the heat...
ReplyDelete(minor nitpick - you switched Hyuga and Dokdo)
not minor, rather major....
ReplyDeletethanks Marcase!
Price will be the main problem for most of the buyers you mentioned. Capability is there for all to see once the bird gets into service but public appetites for power projection are not really conducive to $100M (Export Price!!) jets. But who knows, by the time 2020 rolls around China might have pissed on enough lawns to turn that around.
ReplyDeletecall me a fanboy but i really believe we'll see a price tag of well under 100 mil per plane.
ReplyDeleteas a matter of fact if they can hit the 60-80 mil sweet spot then katy bar the door!
I'm sure the A and maybe C versions will see economies of scale bring down the price, I expect the A to be pegged at $75M inflation adjusted by 2020. But the B unless it picks up more customers now (which seems unlikely) will not have a sufficient production base to get the price down significantly. Given the unique developmental difficulties and technology involved they really do need 500+ production orders to bring the price down to say 80M, but I doubt they can. If nothing else LM will simply refuse, given how deeply invested the Marines are in the aircraft I won't be surprised if LM decides to gouge them for every penny.
ReplyDeleteI am not a critic of putting STOVL on the big deck amphibs at all, I am a proponent.
ReplyDeleteTechnical issues will always plague a new a/c design while in development. Unfortunately the builder did not adapt and overcome, putting the Bravo on the chopping block (not mine!)
I am a ship construction type, and I only say that the America is aviation centric for a lot of good reasons and so should any more if funded/built.
Given the late arrival of Bravo (if at all), it sure would be wise for the Marines to hedge their bet with some more late model Harriers in storage? I have heard from knowledgeable naval aviators that think buying more F-18s is the wise bet. I am not an aviation type.
P.S. I understand from knowledgeable engineers the hot down blast can be worked around
F35B is a lemon and apart from the British Nimrod MRA4 is the most expensive failure to date. Trouble is that Gates has given LM another two years probation in a desperate effort to make it work,therefore wasting millions more dollars in the process.
ReplyDeleteThat man is out to get the Marines and this is another chance they have given him,along with EFV.
The only people who want this aircraft are LM,and the countrys who have built small 'aircraft carriers' and the Marines.
As an aircraft I am a believer in the F35 just not the B version,it is to complicated by half and in a naval envireonment is going to be a nightmare.
If only they had stuck to the proven basic flight systems of the Harrier and concentrated on stealth and software then it might have worked.
And now some more problems show up...these actually aren't very serious but more money and time lost
ReplyDeletehttp://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5484169&c=AIR&s=TOP
Interesting that P&W seem to have forgotten how to make engines, first big problems with the F-14/F-15 engines, then the F-119 being fuel monsters, not to mention massive continuing problems with their civil operation which has basically shut down after the PW-4000 and PW-6000 series cock ups, going from 40% market share to less than 2% now in 20 years...F-136 sounds like a bargain for a couple of billion now.....
old news Ron.
ReplyDeletewell, i remember reading it last week or so. as far as the engine screech...already reported...helmet issues....nothing new...
to be honest it seems like DefenseNews got pressured into writing a negative article after putting out the news that the F-35B performed 8 landings in 5 days (or is it the other way around?)....
regardless, if there weren't issues then a two year probation wouldn't be necessary. my bet is that these problems will be solved...the critics are betting and hopping that they won't.
The entire article at the link was a sane and sound one. As more Flight Test B models are delivered the test pace will accelerate because individual problems on one airframe won't hang up the whole test program. The real problem was BF-1 was the only test asset: a single point failure bottleneck. There will be more discoveries-that's why we call it 'test'- but I doubt there will be any show-stoppers.
ReplyDelete