Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire This may kill the naval variant of the F-35

Meanwhile, the Harrier is 10 years past retirement and the supply line to support it is non-existent because production lines were shut down in anticipation of the bird being retired. So, at this point, they are rebuilding from scraps and manufacturing their own parts on site trying to keep the birds flying. Add to this the fact that in Marine Aviation, the Marines are exiting after the first contract and walking away. Not walking to be a contractor, just walking away. In general the Marines exiting where brow beaten over down aircraft, placed on multiple Deployments to support failing craft with no supplies and little training. There is a failure in the leadership to train the mid ranks and thus we are seeing a massive skill gap now.

My roommate is a seat tech for the Harrier. I hear tons of horror stories about how planes are going up with [bleep] falling off. Unrealistic expectation and deadlines for repair, trying to work without proper tooling because the tools are broken and there is no supplier or money to acquire new ones. All of this in "preparation" for the F-35 that isn't coming.

Not that I can remember, but it's certainly something we do. As an aside, there have been naval aircraft that have also made very successful Air Force variants, notably the F-4 and the A-7. The main issue is the landing gear. Just look at a picture of a Tomcat's gear and an F-15 (comparable in size). The difference is quite noticeable.

Not a fan of single engine in blue water ops. Other than that, the F-35 is going to do just fine! The F35 just received its first full up flight envelope software so up until now its been an apples to oranges comparison. An F35 carrying its payload internal will perform exceptionally when compared to other platforms carrying ordnance. If I had a choice of what to fly off a carrier in the next couple years it would be an F35 hands down. Sensors (thus situational awareness), stealth, speed, range, endurance... And the Navy variant especially is a kick ass BFM machine.

As long as the aircraft can operate on one engine. The dual engine requirement made no sense for certain aircraft, mainly helicopters, because the increase in HP was incremental and flying on one engine wasn’t going to be practical.

I'm thinking fighters as that's my background. I never had a GE engine fail per se. They did however have things like an oil line coming off causing us to have to shut one down.

Returned to the ship on two occasions single engine (one bleed air leak/fire and one bird strike with associated internal failure) and was very glad there was a second motor to keep me from going swimming. While engine reliability is amazing, when the alternative is dropping in on people you just bombed or a lonely night in an LR-1 one man raft and not just a landing at a nearby airfield then give me two motors and all their associated issues and benefits.

It's not an equation that is similar to the civilian question of 1 or 2 motors. We're going to fly this generation of aircraft for 50 years plus. Single engine is a limitation.

Old freakin news.... ejection seat problems was known about 4 years ago and fixed... Navy's first 32 F-35's required outer wing tips to be replaced (not the wings) to fire Aim 9x, that was known about from the beginning and doesn't effect later blocks... More of the RIGHT's "FAKE NEWS"...

Phil

Seems to be we're heading for something sprung out of the X-45. The telemetry is almost there, and so is the three-dimensional software.

I can see a day when a fleet of X-45 drone fighters can come on station, and the drone controller is a FAC type guy sitting in a foxhole. Drone in orbit handed off, pickle the munitions, drone goes back for replenishment, etc etc. Operator has his fancy headset on while sitting next to his spotter, an equally-qualified stick.

But the F-35 is such a fiasco. It's already over 20 years old in concept and not even operational. The Mustang took six months. I know, different world and low-hanging technology, but for Gosh sakes.