A UK report alleges that the F-35B STOVL aircraft will have no vertical landing ability in hot-high, low pressure situations “without having to jettison heavy loads”.
Unknown what this means as the bring-back KPP for the aircraft is 2x 1000 pound air to ground weapons, and 2x air-to-air missiles.
The source states that a solution will be ready by 2020. That by itself sounds like faith-based program management.
Fortunately the USMC never flies where it is hot.
8 comments:
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-minor-note-concerning-f-35b-bring.html
Well, a low-pressure environment might further mean the potential for rain and thunder storms, so it's probably advisable to simply avoid operating in these low-pressure area's to begin with?
Cancel F-35B its a waste of money.
Full report:
http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/10149-001-Carrier.full-report.pdf
19 The Department will have to actively manage technological risks to the cost-efficient delivery of Carrier Strike in adverse weather conditions.
The STOVL variant is unable to land vertically on to a carrier in hot, humid and low pressure weather conditions without having to jettison heavy loads. The Department advised decision-makers of this risk but stated that it is confident that the solution it is developing, called Ship-borne Rolling Vertical Landing, will be ready by 2020 (paragraph 3.10).
3.10 An important enabler of the UK’s STOVL Carrier Strike capability will be the ability to conduct Ship-borne Rolling Vertical Landings (SRVL). This landing technique will be necessary where a conventional vertical landing is less likely to be possible without jettisoning large weapons or fuel load when in hot, humid or low pressure weather conditions.[15] At present the technology is not proven with redesigns required to the carrier deck and aircraft software. The capability will be required for operations by 2020 and the Department included a provision to complete development as part of the cost of reverting to STOVL. The Department is confident it will develop the technique within the required timescale.
[15] Beyond the operational implications there is the cost factor of jettisoning weapons to be borne in mind. Modern missiles are expensive, for example, the unit cost of Meteor missile is £2.1 million – Comptroller and Auditor General, The Major Projects Report 2011, Session 2010–2012, HC 1520, Volume II, page 11, National Audit Office, November 2011.
See the LM talking points memo at the top.
One difference is (besides STOVL being a useless concept for the U.S. vs. investment in force structure...(the UK being going,going, gone)...is that the Harrier actually works.
Are you implying the F-35B doesn't work?
With 41k lb of vertical thrust and 29k lb of empty weight, is it reasonable to assume the F-35 will sort of follow the vertical landing weight/temp curve?
100% at 10F with a 30% decrease up to 110F?
So 41k@10F and 28,7k@110F?
To Anon 6:17 -
It's not whether or not F-35B will eventually 'work' down the road some day... the point is simply flat out that the model is NOT cost-effective, not sufficiently reliable (too much uncertainty) and is consuming too much capital being appropriated for required recapitalization of force structure.
That diversion of attention from the true strategic issues, as you highlighted it, is a major part of the fundamental flaw behind the current broke and constipated acquisition process.
Post a Comment