Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Cleared to Land at Planesandmercs. Call the Ball!


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registered members don't see ads either! Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join Today!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
F-35 Stealthier then F-22 says Lockheed Martin Rep; F-35 hate thread
Topic Started: Aug 6 2014, 12:47 (7,592 Views)
Sukhoi
Member Avatar
Legendary Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
http://aviationweek.com/blog/f-35-stealthier-f-22

Quote:
 


I figured that there would be some kind of PR offensive out of the Joint Strike Fighter program in preparation for the floating of the UK carrier and the international debut of the F-35, and here it is, in the form of a two-part piece in Breaking Defense, here and here.

The first observation to be made is that the Air Force might be able to use an Eng Lit 101 course.

Air Combat Command chief Gen. Mike Hostage, according to reporter Colin Clark, "labels as 'old think' those critics who point to the F-117 shoot-down and the presumed supremacy of high-powered electronic-magnetic warfare."

“Oldthink”, of course, is a word straight out of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. Oldthinkers unbellyfeel FifthGenerationTM, indeed.

That aside, we should remember that Hostage ruffled a few feathers with a quote earlier this year:

If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.

That was not exactly a ringing endorsement of the F-35, particularly for customers who had been assured that F-35 was, no kidding, a dominant air-superiority platform (as the Australians were, in sworn testimony to Parliament). So, particularly with Canada's government ready to announce another sole-source decision to buy JSF without a competition that would provide a full view of alternative fighters, it is good news for the program if Hostage talks over his previous statement.

In the new interview, Hostage talks up the F-35’s stealth and expressly takes issue with the Boeing/Navy picture of the F-35 requiring first-day support from the EA-18G Growler or other electronic warfare assets.

“In the first moments of a conflict I’m not sending Growlers or F-16s or F-15Es anywhere close to that environment, so now I’m going to have to put my fifth gen in there and that’s where that radar cross-section and the exchange of the kill chain is so critical. You’re not going to get a Growler close up to help in the first hours and days of the conflict, so I’m going to be relying on that stealth to open the door.”

However, note that Hostage is not saying that F-35s will go in unsupported: they will use numbers for mutual support:

“I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says. “Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two (F-22) Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”

The words “that site” imply that Hostage is talking about destruction of enemy air defenses (DEAD) rather than air superiority alone – where the F-22’s speed and larger missile load could be expected to yield an advantage over the F-35. But a four-to-one advantage for the F-22 in DEAD, which is one of the JSF’s prime design missions, is unfavourable in terms of cost-effectiveness: according to a 2008 RAND study of continuing production of the F-22 (at 30 or fewer per year) and the most optimistic F-35 numbers from Lockheed Martin (at 150-plus per year), the F-22 at worst costs twice as much as the F-35.

Hostage makes another, very interesting comparison between the F-22 and the F-35.

The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”

Now, we all know that a lot of things can go happen between the interviewee’s brain and the interviewer’s keyboard, but the idea that the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22 contradicts pretty much everything that has been said about the program for the past 20 years, including the reporting of my former colleague, the usually well-informed Dave Fulghum.

The statement is curious for other reasons. Nobody ever suggested in the program’s formative years that the goal was to beat the F-22's stealth - and indeed that would be extremely unlikely since the JSF was designed for export. Stealth, along with other requirements, was also subject to trades in the development of the final JSF requirement, and less important than life-cycle cost.

The geometrical basics of stealth -- sweep and cant angles, minimized small-radius curves and nozzle design -- favor the F-22, and everything anyone has said about radar absorbent materials for years has been about life-cycle cost rather than performance.

Hostage is effusive about the value of the F-35’s sensor fusion and datalinks, too:

“Fusion says here’s what’s out there. You told me, this one right here’s a threat. Here’s what it’s doing right now. Here’s what your wingman (knows): he sees he’s got a missile on the right, so I’m not going to waste a missile because I already see that my wingman’s taking care of it.”

With all due respect, what is Swedish for “Hold the front page”? The datalink and tactical display system on the JAS 39A Gripen did exactly that, 15 years ago.

Finally, the second half of the Breaking Defense story talks a lot about cyber (very little of it from Hostage or any named source) and says that export buyers “went in to discussions with the Pentagon with a great deal of skepticism. But once country representatives received the most highly classified briefing — which I hear deals mostly with the plane’s cyber, electronic warfare and stealth capabilities — they all decided to buy.”

Three questions that all those export customers should answer to their voters: In what Block will those magic cyber capabilities appear? What guarantees have been provided that F-35 cyber weapons developed by the U.S. will be shared with non-U.S. operators? And, failing that, will international partners be enabled to program their own cyber-operations tools into the F-35?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FSC Congo
Member Avatar
Ace Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Let me get this straight, I fighter that costs as much as the F-22 at worst and half the Raptor at best...is only 1/4 as effective in the eyes of an Air Force Spin Doctor?

Lord help us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nathan Webber
Member Avatar


What a load of horse shit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Santiago Capdevila Garcia
Member Avatar
Ace Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
This is obviously an smoke screen because Lockweed is having nightmares about Northrop-Grumman re-starting project Mig-28.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quartermaster Drake
Member Avatar
Established Pilot
[ *  *  * ]
The F-35 is smaller though, wouldn't it have a smaller cross section?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasamir Schultz
Member Avatar
Established Pilot
[ *  *  * ]
Assuming no other factors, yes, in general a smaller object would have a smaller cross section. However, radar theory is full of other, often more important factors. Among these basic concepts include angle of reception and deflection of emitted particles, which comes down to the general shape of the plane and its surfaces. Another huge factor is the material science of the object, radar absorbent material is just another level of minimizing cross section.

There's all kinds of things that factor into the equation.
Edited by Kasamir Schultz, Aug 7 2014, 11:27.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alex Strachan
Member Avatar
Veteran Pilot
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quartermaster Drake
Aug 7 2014, 10:27
The F-35 is smaller though, wouldn't it have a smaller cross section?
not if the B variants lift engine isn't shilded enough
also the rotating engine part might reflect a good chunk of incoming radar waves

anyway ... as pointed out, this thing is for export, so why it should be stealthier than the raptor that was not for export cause its "the best most stealthiest and so on and son on"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vick McKinstry
Member Avatar
Established Pilot
[ *  *  * ]
I have no more hate to give.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nathan Webber
Member Avatar


Quartermaster Drake
Aug 7 2014, 10:27
The F-35 is smaller though, wouldn't it have a smaller cross section?


Size helps, but it's a long way down on the list from materials, coatings and shapes. Take one look at how lumpy and bumpy the F-35 is compared to the F-22. Also look at from side on and the rear as the -35 is designed for front aspect stealth rather than all aspect like the -22.

It's pretty obvious that the claim is bollocks.

Alex Strachan
Aug 7 2014, 16:12
Quartermaster Drake
Aug 7 2014, 10:27
The F-35 is smaller though, wouldn't it have a smaller cross section?
not if the B variants lift engine isn't shilded enough
also the rotating engine part might reflect a good chunk of incoming radar waves

anyway ... as pointed out, this thing is for export, so why it should be stealthier than the raptor that was not for export cause its "the best most stealthiest and so on and son on"


To be fair the lift fan is covered 99% of the time and will have little effect on RCS unless taking off and landing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RH Command
Member Avatar
Red Horizon GM
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
WASHINGTON — Despite ongoing restrictions on the fleet of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, the US Air Force’s top general warned against being “alarmist” when discussing the fifth-generation jet’s engine.

“Pratt & Whitney has been making pretty darn good engines for single-engine airplanes for a long time for the United States Air Force,” Gen. Mark Welsh, service chief of staff, told reporters during a media briefing. “What we found in the program so far, with these almost 9,000 sorties so far, is this engine works pretty well, too. That day it didn’t, and we need to figure out why.”

“It would be a little alarmist to assume we have a problem with the F-35 engine,” Welsh said. “The F-35 is the answer, the only answer, to ensure future air campaigns are not a fair fight.”

“That day” that Welsh used refers to June 23, when a fire broke out on an F-35A model at Eglin Air Force Base. The fleet has since been inspected, grounded, missed a pair of major airshows in the United Kingdom, and been allowed to fly again under heavy restrictions. It’s yet to be determined when the fleet will be given an all-clear.

Asked whether he wishes he had an alternative to the Pratt-designed F135 engine, Welsh said: “I’d like to have 1,763 F-35s with an engine that works real well every single day. That’s the goal.”

Like Welsh, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James characterized the fire as an unfortunate, but isolated, incident.

“It’s not unusual in a development program to have something like this happen,” James said. “I think we are all very optimistic we will be working through it. I do not see this in any way as a show stopper.”

Welsh and James were speaking as part of the roll-out for their new strategic document, called “America’s Air Force: A Call to the Future.” That document provides a roadmap for how the service can react more quickly to constantly changing threats and technology, a topic James touched on in her opening comments.

“Instead of focusing on a specific threat we’re trying to focus and recognize this quick pace of change and we have to recognize ourselves the imperative that we be able to change as well,” James said. “Strategic agility is what we’re shooting for.”

James also acknowledged that change doesn’t come easily in the Pentagon.

“This whole concept is going to take time to instill into a big institution like the Air Force because I don’t know that we’re known for being enormously agile at the moment,” she said. “But you have to start somewhere.”

As they have done for the last year, Welsh and James highlighted the service’s three largest recapitalization projects: the F-35, KC-46A Pegasus tanker, and long-range strike bomber. The need to keep those three on track led to the decision to try and retire the A-10 “warthog” close-air support plane, a move that has met ferocious resistance on the Hill.

The secretary acknowledged that pushback and indicated that her service needs to do a better job showing “consistency” to members of Congress. Not coincidentally, the need for better communication with members of Congress is part of the new strategic plan.

She also indicated the service would again create multiple budget options, as it did with the FY 2015 budget. The multiple budgets will cover a range of what-ifs, including the possibilities that the FY 2016 budget is and isn’t sequestered
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admiral Nathaniel Sherman
Member Avatar
Expediter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
More Delays

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140903/DEFREG02/309030029/F-35-Head-Delays-Coming-Test-Planes-Grounded-Through-September

Quote:
 
WASHINGTON — The head of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is warning that there is a real danger of missing deadlines if his test fleet of aircraft are not flying regularly by the end of September.

“I need all of [the test airplanes] back to full envelope by the end of this month,” Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said at Wednesday’s ComDef conference in Washington. “Otherwise we will start seeing some delays in future milestones.”

However, any retrofit needed to the F135 engine at the root of the restrictions will be borne by contractor Pratt and & Whitney rather than taxpayers.

The entire F-35 fleet were placed under restrictions following a June 23 fire that heavily damaged an F-35A conventional takeoff-and-landing model at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Since then, the small test fleet has had some restrictions relieved, but is still not allowed to operate at full capacity.

While insisting that the Marines remain on track to take the F-35B jump-jet variant operational next summer, Bogdan said there has been a “headwind” of about 30- to 45 days added to test points due to the restrictions. Testing the Navy’s F-35C model at sea is one of the tests affected by potential delays.

“Can we make some of that [time] up? Yeah I think we can,” Bogdan said. “But we have to get all of those airplanes up and flying again.”

The cause of the fire was identified as “excessive” rubbing of a fan blade inside the F135 engine, designed and produced by Pratt. Bogdan went into further detail for the first time on what actually happened to cause the damage.

The issue began three weeks before the fire when a pilot took the aircraft up and executed a two-second maneuver involving adding Gs, roll rate and yaw to the plane at the same time.

Although that move was ““well within the envelope of the airplane,” Bogdan said, those two-seconds led to the engine rubbing against a rubber piece at a much higher rate — and nearly double the temperature — than it was designed to do. In turn, that led to what Bogdan called “microcracks” that went unnoticed until the day of the fire.

“Over the next three weeks of that airplane flying, those microcracks started growing in what we call ‘high cycle fatigue,’” Bogdan explained. “And eventually on the day this happened, that fan-blade system just cracked too much, the whole circular part of that engine — through centrifugal force — stretched out and became a spear; that spear went up through the left aft fuselage of the fuel tank and it was the fuel tank that caused the fire.”

An investigation is still ongoing into the root cause of the issue to discover whether it was a production or design flaw, Bogdan said his team has narrowed down the cause to four sources and should have the results by the end of the month.

He also noted that while no microcracks were discovered in other jets, there were marks that indicate potentially similar, if lesser, issues.
Pratt Covering Retrofits

That leaves the question of how to make sure this problem doesn’t crop up again. Bogdan laid out how his office is moving forward with potential retrofits to the engine.

The first step involves taking a new engine and slowly working it through its paces to get it through the “burn in” phase. Bogdan indicated that testing would begin in the next two weeks, and if that two-sortie process works, it can be replicated for the test fleet.

The second step is more dramatic, requiring a redesign of the F135 to include what Bogdan described as a “pre-dug-in trench” into the fan section to separate the rubber and the fan blade in that part of the engine.

Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force Chief of Staff, told Defense News in August that a redesign could be coming for the engine, but Bogdan revealed that they intend to develop a prototype engine for that potential solution.

For fielded airplanes, the Air Force could replace the fan section with the new, pre-trenched fan section in the engines — a relatively painless procedure that could be done in depot.

Pratt & Whitney has agreed to cover the costs of the retrofit engines for the F-35 fleet, a move praised by Bogdan.

“I will tell you that Pratt & Whitney’s reaction to this problem, from my opinion, has been very good. They clearly recognize this is a problem they need to solve,” Bogdan said. “Pratt has said whatever the cost of retrofitting that 156 airplanes is, ‘that will be ours to bear.’”

The general also indicated that the cost for retrofit will not be “very great,” but declined to offer a general cost estimate.

He did, however, indicate that an agreement is close between the government and Pratt that would get engine low-rate initial production lots seven and eight on contract.

“We’re pretty darn close on LRIP-7 and -8,” he said, “but I think the enterprise would expect me to have a root cause and know where I’m going with the next 3,000 engines before I even attempt to buy the next 100.”

A spokesperson for Pratt declined to comment on negotiations with the joint program office.
Supplier Challenge

Bogdan told reporters after his speech that the issue did not have anything to do with a recently disclosed supplier issue with Pratt & Whitney.

In May, the engine company discovered what it called “conflicting documentation” about the origin of titanium used in the F-35 engine, supplied from a firm called A&P Alloys. That led to the company to pause deliveries of its F135 engine while it investigated the issue.

While Pratt has since determined that the titanium in the existing engines does not pose a flight risk, it purged its supply of titanium and opened up a lawsuit against A&P, as well as alerting federal authorities of the issue.

“Pratt & Whitney and Pratt & Whitney Canada are treating this matter very seriously,” a statement on parent company United Technologies Corps website reads. “The sub-tier supplier, A&P Alloys, has been eliminated from our supply chain, and we are no longer accepting parts made from material provided by this company.”

In a statement to Bloomberg News, an attorney for A&P called Pratt’s charges “blatantly unfair.”

The part of the engine that would have used the titanium was “absolutely” different from the part of the engine that caused the fire, Bogdan said, stating clearly that it was an unrelated issue.

“From our perspective, Pratt did everything that they were supposed to do right,” Bogdan said. “We have a problem with A&P Alloy now.”

Asked for further comment, the general said “[The Office of Special Investigations] and the Defense Criminal Investigation Service have an ongoing investigation, and I can’t comment on those results.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nathan Webber
Member Avatar


Say what you want, but Pratt & Whitney putting their hand up and saying "I fucked up" and taking on the cost burden is a pretty big deal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admiral Nathaniel Sherman
Member Avatar
Expediter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Nathan Webber
Sep 11 2014, 15:01
Say what you want, but Pratt & Whitney putting their hand up and saying "I fucked up" and taking on the cost burden is a pretty big deal.
Not mentioned, Pratt passing the cost back to the government by claiming the repair as a loss on their corporate taxes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Henry Dravot
Member Avatar


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admiral Nathaniel Sherman
Member Avatar
Expediter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
USAF retiring aggressor F-15 sqaudron to help pay for F-35s.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/one-nellis-aggressor-squadron-being-deactivated

Quote:
 
The next time fighter jets take off from Nellis Air Force Base for a Red Flag air combat exercise, there will be fewer would-be “bad guys” to battle.

Up-and-coming pilots who will be flying their first 10 simulated combat missions will face an adversary force that has fewer sparring partners, a sign of the times as the military reduces its planes and personnel and U.S. combat operations wind down in Afghanistan.

That’s the word from Lt. Col. Greg “Papa” Wintill, commander of the 65th Aggressor Squadron — one of two squadrons at Nellis that play would-be enemies for Red Flag training. He confirmed last week that his squadron of 19 camouflage-painted F-15 Eagles will be deactivated in a ceremony on Sept. 26 in order to meet Pentagon budget constraints before the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1.

“We’re having to deal the best we can with the money we have,” Wintill, 40, told the Review-Journal in an interview Wednesday at the squadron’s Lt. Col. Thomas A. Bouley Building. The building is named for a past commander of the 65th who was killed July 30, 2008, when his two-seat, F-15D jet crashed during training at the Nellis range complex, now known as the Nevada Test and Training Range.

“This deactivation, while we as a squadron don’t necessarily want it to happen, it’s what the Air Force needs to have happen for the financial constraints that were being put in,” Wintill said.

It’s unclear of the exact cost savings, but the squadron’s annual budget that will be eliminated is about $35 million, including funding for a staff of 150 airmen who maintain the jets. Some have already left the unit.

Wintill said six F-15s plus a spare jet will be transferred temporarily to the 64th Aggressor Squadron at Nellis, which consists primarily of newer F-16 camo-painted Fighting Falcon jets. There will be no trimming of the 64th’s 20 F-16s to offset the addition of F-15s, a base spokesman said.

Those six F-15s and nine pilots will fly Red Flag training from September until the end of March, when they will be transferred to other units or discontinued as operational aircraft. About 90 maintainers from the 65th will make the six-month transfer to the 64th.

A dozen of the the 65th’s F-15C jets will be transferred to the Air National Guard. The six that remain operational through March will be sent to the Air Force boneyard near Tucson, Ariz., after they complete their Red Flag missions, which are typically held three times a year.

“I’d love to keep my airplanes here, but that is not for me to decide,” Wintill said. “I love the F-15, but she’s getting old. We fly 1978 models, so they’re not the newest airplanes on the block.”

The sequester budget ax fell heavy on Nellis last year as the Air Force went into a “tiered readiness” mode for the first time since that branch of the armed forces was established in 1947. The unprecedented cuts resulted in cancellation of a Red Flag exercise and the next graduate-level Weapons School for pilots. Last year’s Aviation Nation airshow at Nellis was also canceled.

Next month’s deactivation of the 65th Aggressor Squadron is akin to the other shoe dropping.

“This is more an effect of the budget cuts that already hit before,” Wintill said. “We have to balance the books.”

Although still in development, the stealthy F-35 joint strike fighter jets and air-superiority F-22 Raptors, which flew in July’s Red Flag, stand to replace the aging fleets of F-15s, F-16s and A-10s.

“It’s really hard to say what’s going to be in the future. No one knows,” he said.

“We do believe we’ll have a smaller Air Force in the future, especially as the effects of sequestration take hold. So we’ll see even more numbers being drawn down whether it’s on the personnel side or aircraft side, whether that’s here at Nellis or somewhere else. I don’t know,” Wintill said. “But we do see a smaller Air Force. We do believe we’ll be capable, smaller, though.”

Wintill said the challenge will be a balancing act between “being combat ready and modernizing the fleet, as well.”

“I think our leadership at ACC (Air Combat Command) is working diligently to make sure we balance that effectively and remain combat ready while we do so,” he said.

“As you look at the road map for the United States Air Force, the F-35 is the centerpiece of it, not just for the Air Force but the DOD (Department of Defense),” he said. “The F-35 is still in development, so it still has issues. But they’re going to get it right, and that’s going to be the plane for us in the future.

“It brings a lot of capabilities, and I will tell you as an aggressor pilot, stealth works. When we go up and fight against a newer airplane that has stealth, it’s a much different problem than when I fly against a fourth-generation airplane. So stealth is a wonderful thing when it comes to survival of our forces,” Wintill said.

The commander emphasized the international importance of having an adversaries tactics group for U.S. and allied pilots to train against.

“We bring a unique skill set,” he said. “We can integrate a bunch of the functions that’s unique not only to Nellis but unique to the world. That’s why our foreign allies come here to get that training.”

From the paint job on its planes to the pilots’ shoulder patches, the 65th Aggressor Squadron has simulated the enemy since it was reactivated at Nellis in 2006. Covers on the cockpit seat and intakes bore a yellow, hammer-and-sickle insignia inside the outline of a red star — the symbol of the United States’ enemy in the Cold War, the Soviet Union.

In marking the reactivation in January 2006 of the legendary 65th, a unit with roots steeped in success during World War II, the Air Force’s vice chief of staff then, Gen. John D.W. Corley, said today’s fighter pilots need to maintain the edge they have through training against any potential adversary regardless of the United States’ advantage in technology.

“We can’t rely on superior equipment always winning,” he said. “Training will make sure we know the enemy.”

Known first as the 65th Pursuit Squadron in 1940 and two years later as the 65th Fighter Squadron, the squadron flying P-40s and P-47s racked up three distinguished unit citations for actions over North Africa, Sicily and Italy during World War II.

The 65th Aggressor Squadron previously served at Nellis from 1983 through 1989. The squadron flew during a brief stint at Nellis in 1969-70 when it was known as the 65th Fighter Weapons Squadron.

The 64th squadron was the first aggressor squadron to be reactivated at Nellis, in October 2003. Its roots go back to 1941, when it began as the 64th Pursuit Squadron in World War II.

But the advent of the squadron’s aggressor role came in 1972. That marked the beginning of a concerted Air Force effort to reverse the trend of almost 1-to-1 kill ratios at a low point in the Vietnam War. In the Korean War, U.S. pilots took out 10 enemy planes for every U.S. plane that was shot down.

For 18 years, the aggressors chalked up more than 250,000 sorties in more than 1,000 training deployments at U.S. installations in the United States and overseas.

Then, faced with defense budget cuts in 1990, the 64th squadron was deactivated and reformed as an adversary division for Red Flag training exercises at Nellis.

Wintill said the role of the aggressor pilot “is really about being a sparring partner. Everybody needs a sparring partner that’s tough.

“And the tougher the sparring partner your are … the tougher that practice team is, the better the real team is when they go out and fight in combat. It’s an honor to be able to go out and train and get our forces ready for combat because we may be the last guys they see before they go out the door and fight,” he said.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cpt Stephan Meunier
Member Avatar


Related:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/usafs-dubious-priorities-results-in-axing-of-f-15-aggre-1633886869/1634598078/+ballaban
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FSC Congo
Member Avatar
Ace Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
This is the federal equivalent of selling your old videogames at Gamestop to pay for a new Mercedes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nathan Webber
Member Avatar


FSC Congo
Sep 15 2014, 04:17
This is the federal equivalent of selling your solid daily driver to pay for a new video games.
Ftfy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FSC Congo
Member Avatar
Ace Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
You see, Gamestop gives you shit all for used vidya. So by cutting a few agressors, the Air Force is barely making a difference in the bottom line.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cpt Julie Thresher
Member Avatar


http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/09/15/bogdan-f-35-engine-may-be-fixed-by-years-end/

That says the F-35 engine will be maybe fixed by January 2015. So will they be on reduced flying till then? it clearly is a design flaw as well, if they have to do that type of fix right?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nathan Webber
Member Avatar


It's a pretty massive flaw. But it is a pretty unique power plant (the thing is seriously huge) so in hindsight it shouldn't be a big surprise that something like this happened.

At least PW is going to fix it on their dime and is being bros about it. Lockmart would of passed the cost on or blamed the driver.

Still, the fact that the engine gave up so catastrophically after mild maneuvers and didn't give any indication that it was going to let go hard is not a good sign.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admiral Nathaniel Sherman
Member Avatar
Expediter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
F-22 sent me a good Bill article about this, the engine is way heavier then other fighter engines, and thus flexes more in g loads. This was not accounted for and now we have fan blades rubbing stator blades, which is never a good thing.

Meanwhile GE was cut out of the program because their engine was on time, underbudget, and exceeding performance targets.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nathan Webber
Member Avatar


The PW was exceeding them moreerererer, but that appears to be at a safety margin cost.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admiral Nathaniel Sherman
Member Avatar
Expediter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
This reminds me of the last time this happened, with the F-16 and the PW100.

A few years after that single source contract, the USAF went to GE to get their engine again, and now 4 out of 5 F-16s are powered by the GE-110.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Henry Dravot
Member Avatar


These may be the only F-22’s Achilles’ heels in a dogfight against 4th gen fighter jets
Quote:
 
Considered almost unbeatable in the air-to-air role, the F-22 successfully debuted in combat, taking part in air strikes against ISIS targets. But what if the F-22 found a 4th Gen. opponent?
Even though we don’t know much details about them, missions flown by the F-22 Raptor over Syria marked the combat debut of the stealth jet.

As already explained, the radar-evading planes conducted air strikes against ISIS ground targets, in what (considering the 5th Generation plane’s capabilities) were probably Swing Role missions: the stealth jets flew ahead of the rest of the strike package to cover the other attack planes, dropped their Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) on designated targets, and escorted the package during the way back.

Considered that it could not carry external fuel tanks (to keep a low radar signature), the F-22 were refueled at least two or three times to make it to North Syria and back to the UAE, flying a mission most probably exceeding the 6 – 7 hours flying time.

Raptor’s stealthiness is maintained by storing weapons in internal bays capable to accomodate 2x AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, some AIM-120C AMRAAM air-to-air missiles (the number depending on the configuration), as well as 2x 1,000 pound GBU-32 JDAM or 8x GBU-39 small diameter bombs: in this way the Raptor can dominate the airspace above the battlefield while performing OCA (Offensive Counter Air) role attacking air and ground targets. Moreover its two powerful Pratt & Whitney F-119-PW-100 engines gave to the fifth fighter the ability to accelerate past the speed of sound without using the afterburners (the so called supercruise) and TV (Thrust Vectoring), that can be extremely useful, in certain conditions, to put the Raptor in the proper position to score a kill.

All these capabilities have made the F-22 almost invincible (at least on paper). Indeed, a single Raptor during one of its first training sorties was able to kill eight F-15s in a mock air-to-air engagement, well before they could see it.

These results were achieved also thanks to the specific training programs which put F-22 pilots against the best US fighters jocks in order to improve their abilities to use the jet’s sophisticated systems, make the most out of sensor fusion, then decide when and to execute the correct tactic.
Good thing we have the F-35.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admiral Nathaniel Sherman
Member Avatar
Expediter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Air Power Australia made this very point back in 2005 I think.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Henry Dravot
Member Avatar


Admiral Nathaniel Sherman
Sep 30 2014, 11:20
Air Power Australia made this very point back in 2005 I think.
But, Australians are natural shills, look at F-22.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cpt Stephan Meunier
Member Avatar


^This
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admiral Nathaniel Sherman
Member Avatar
Expediter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Henry Dravot
Sep 30 2014, 11:27
Admiral Nathaniel Sherman
Sep 30 2014, 11:20
Air Power Australia made this very point back in 2005 I think.
But, Australians are natural shills, look at F-22.
Although Australians lie more then a cheap chinese watch, they occasionally get it right.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Henry Dravot
Member Avatar


This should cheer up F-22.

Air-to-Air images of Australia’s first F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter
Quote:
 
Australia’s first Lockheed Martin F-35A Lighning II made its maiden flight. And here are a couple of interesting photographs.
On Sept. 29, F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, AU-1, made its first flight from Lockheed Martin’s Forth Worth facility, in Texas.

Piloted by Lockheed Martin F-35 Chief Test Pilot Alan Norman, the aircraft performed a series of functional checks during the sortie that lasted two hours.

The aircraft, one of the 72 multi-role planes destined to the RAAF will be delivered to the “customer” later this year and will be assigned to Luke Air Force Base, Arizona where Australia and other partner countries will train their F-35 pilots.

The RAAF is expected to base the Joint Strike Fighter at two airfields: Williamtown, in New South Wales, and Tindal, in the Northern Territory, where 1.5 billion USD facilities and infrastructures to support the new fifth generation radar-evading plane will be built.

The futuristic (and quite expensive) F-35, along with RAAF F/A-18F Super Hornet (some of those are deployed in the UAE to support U.S. led campaign against ISIS) and EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft, will make Australia a regional air power.


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admiral Nathaniel Sherman
Member Avatar
Expediter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
will make Australia a regional air power.


Out of curiosity, what is everyone else in the region flying?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Henry Dravot
Member Avatar


I laughed at that line too.

Singapore:
F-16C/D Block 52/52+
F-15SG

Indonesia:
Su-27SK
Su-27SKM
Su-30MK
Su-30MK2
F-16 A/B Block 15 OCU
F-16 C/D Block 32+
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
UN Force Command
Member Avatar
Ace Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm sure the line is about the Growlers doing magic shit to the other aircrafts in the area.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Andrew Talbot
Member Avatar
Ace Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm sure the Growlers will do more than their fair share, but given their cost I can't believe there would be enough to go around...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nathan Webber
Member Avatar


We will have 12. That plus the Wedgetail fleet and the fact that training gap we have over the peers you listed means we will clean up against pretty much anything on that list.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
James R. Cleary
Member Avatar
Ace Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Thought you guys would enjoy this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cpt. Nova Karmina
Member Avatar


Oh God, America, what the fuck are you doing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cpt Julie Thresher
Member Avatar


Cpt. Nova Karmina
Oct 5 2014, 15:43
Oh God, America, what the fuck are you doing.
Satire?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Andrew Talbot
Member Avatar
Ace Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Cpt Julie Thresher
Oct 5 2014, 17:34
Cpt. Nova Karmina
Oct 5 2014, 15:43
Oh God, America, what the fuck are you doing.
Satire?
Glad someone has heard of duffelblog before. :ermm:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cpt Stephan Meunier
Member Avatar


I thought DB was a well shared item here.

Anyways, VMFA-121 the first stand up for F-35B's demo'd at the Miramar Airshow.

http://youtu.be/Qsx6oZNr51s

My interest is in the fact the Green Knights lost their historical (AW) all-weather designation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nathan Webber
Member Avatar


Cpt. Nova Karmina
Oct 5 2014, 15:43
Oh God, America, what the fuck are you doing.
DB claims another.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Henry Dravot
Member Avatar


Lockheed Claims Breakthrough on Fusion Energy
Quote:
 
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp said on Wednesday it had made a technological breakthrough in developing a power source based on nuclear fusion, and the first reactors, small enough to fit on the back of a truck, could be ready in a decade.

Tom McGuire, who heads the project, said he and a small team had been working on fusion energy at Lockheed's secretive Skunk Works for about four years, but were now going public to find potential partners in industry and government for their work.

Initial work demonstrated the feasibility of building a 100-megawatt reactor measuring seven feet by 10 feet, which could fit on the back of a large truck, and is about 10 times smaller than current reactors, McGuire said.

In recent years, Lockheed, the Pentagon's top supplier, has been increasingly involved in a variety of alternate energy projects, including several ocean energy projects, as it looks to offset a decline in U.S. and European military spending.

Lockheed's fusion energy project could help in developing new power sources amid increasing global conflicts over energy, and as projections show there will be a 40 percent to 50 percent increase in energy use over the next generation, McGuire told reporters.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nathan Webber
Member Avatar


Gotta power those laser cup holders.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Andrew Talbot
Member Avatar
Ace Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Unless that's where most of this money was actually going all along... >.>

Nuke tanks sound great now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Comrade General Filatov
Member Avatar
Commander: Canuckistan Space Program

Nuke tanks? What are we, China?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sukhoi
Member Avatar
Legendary Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Some more problems from a recent report:

Overall fleet availability for the year averaged only 37%.
The Inertial navigation system does not provide reliable data.
There is a bug with the AMRAAM's ability to provide track/guidance data.
DAS confuses the aircraft's own flare launches with incoming missiles.
Fragment-induced damage can lead to catastrophic STOVL lift system failure.
The aircraft is particularly vulnerable to fires caused by fuel leaks.

Some of those, people should note, are spectacularly bad.

Also this: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1184545-one-dead-pilot-9-june-2014-byers-embargoed-2.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nathan Webber
Member Avatar


"DAS confuses the aircraft's own flare launches with incoming missiles."

This has been a problem for what, years now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sukhoi
Member Avatar
Legendary Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
In my head I picture an F-35 landing while popping a flare every ten seconds and every radio transmission from the pilot has the bitching betty shouting "WARNING IR LOCK WARNING IR LOCK" in the background.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Henry Dravot
Member Avatar


UK Orders STOVL F-35s in 1st Production-standard Buy
Quote:
 
LONDON — In what will become an annual event for the next few years, Britain is to order its first batch of production-standard F-35 Lightning II combat jets for operation by the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.

The British have agreed in principle to order four of the F-35B — the short-takeoff and vertical-landing (STOVL) version of the fighter — to get underway an ordering process which will see the Ministry of Defence place a contract a year for four years until a multi-year deal kicks in after low-rate initial production (LRIP) lot 11, UK program officials said.

A formal contract is expected to be signed in the next few weeks, according to an MoD statement.

“The contracts will be placed annually. The four aircraft are scheduled for delivery in 2016. LRIP 9 aircraft will be scheduled for delivery in 2017, and so in total we are scheduled to have 18 aircraft in five years time,” said an MoD program official. “The program expects to move to multi-year contracting after LRIP 11.”

Financial approval for the main buy, known here as Main Gate 5, remains scheduled for 2017, the official said.

Bernard Gray, the MoD’s defense materiel chief, said the agreement “ensures the MoD remains on target for achieving both operational capability from land bases and the start of flying trials aboard the carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth in 2018.”

Britain has already ordered four F-35Bs for testing and evaluation. Three of those jets have been delivered and the fourth is due to be handed over in early 2016. The jets are based at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sukhoi
Member Avatar
Legendary Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
More delays!

http://aviationweek.com/defense/pentagon-acquisition-chief-doubts-umsc-s-july-f-35-ioc-target

Quote:
 
It is growing more and more likely that July 1, 2015, will not mark the initial operational capability (IOC) declaration for the F-35B desired by the U.S. Marine Corps.

Despite years of Pentagon officials fervently holding firm to the milestone, Pentagon procurement chief Frank Kendall is opening the door to a delay. "It is going to be hard to hold to the July date," Kendall tells Aviation Week in an Oct. 28 interview. "I am pretty confident we can meet the threshold by the end of the year. And we will make it as close to July as we can."

In May 2013, the Pentagon outlined the F-35 IOC plans for the Air Force, Navy and Marines, and officials have adamantly stuck to those plans in part to quell very vocal skeptics targeting the $400 billion program after its many overruns. The Marines have planned an "objective" IOC for July 1, 2015, with a "threshold" date in December 2015.

"Our position has not changed for the moment. We are still tracking to a 1 July IOC," says Capt. Dustin Pratico, Marine spokesman. "With that said, we are aware that there are risks to making that timeline. Throughout this process, there have been a sequence of separate pieces of the IOC effort that have moved out as late as October of 2015, and to date we have been able to create efficiencies in the process that have pulled the timeline back to 1 July."

Pratico says there are multiple planning models, and the current risk assessment for achieving the needed aircraft modifications and training work points to a mid-August IOC. "This is not the farthest overshoot we have seen and today we have a much better handle on what is required to manage the timeline," he says. "With all of that said, we concur with [recently retired USMC Commandant] Gen. [James] Amos and Mr. Kendall’s recent comments that there is some risk that we could IOC a few weeks after the target of 1 July, but we are well ahead of the threshold requirement of December 2015."

Marine IOC includes the first squadron, VMFA-121, with 10-16 F-35Bs and enough trained pilots and maintenance officials to deploy for war. The first F-35B unit is slated for its initial deployment in 2017 to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan.

The Marines have maintained the most aggressive schedule among F-35 customers because of concern for its aging F-18s and AV-8Bs; F-35B development was prioritized over that of the Air Force and Navy variants earlier in the program to satisfy the Marines’ pressing need.

The service initially will use the fighter’s 2B software package, which is limited in capability, to conduct basic close air support and interdiction activities. Weapons included in the initial package are the AIM-120C7 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, Joint Direct Attack Munition and GBU-12 laser-guided bomb.

The likeliest culprit for missing the IOC date next summer is the time required to modify enough F-35Bs to the proper configuration, F-35 Program Executive Officer USAF Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan warned this fall.

This work is not made easier as the program is focused on returning the test and operational fleets to normal flying status after a June 23 F-35A engine fire prompted a temporary fleetwide grounding followed by limited flight operations pending an accident investigation.

The F-35 Joint Program Office and F135 prime contractor Pratt and Whitney have narrowed down the potential fixes to a single preferred one, but approval still is required to move forward.

The root cause of the engine fire was too narrow a trench in the abradable strip lining the third stage of the integrally bladed rotor; this allowed for the stators to rub the lining. Excessive friction led to a 1,900F internal temperature, nearly twice what is expected in that section, and microcracking in the stators eventually caused them to break apart.

The initial problem with this aircraft occurred three weeks prior to the fire when a pilot conducted a routine ridge-riding maneuver that combined yaw, roll and gs. Such a maneuver had not been done on such a new aircraft.

In earlier jets, the trench surrounding the stators was gently "burned in," unbeknownst to developers and operators, because these were the jets used to slowly open the flight envelope.

Meanwhile, the program office is conducting a methodical "burn-in" process for its test fleet to allow them to return to normal flying status and move forward with testing as planned. The fourth jet of 20 in the flight test fleet is undergoing that process now, according to JPO spokeswoman Kyra Hawn.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
James R. Cleary
Member Avatar
Ace Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Sukhoi
Oct 27 2014, 15:29
"Lockheed Martin argues that F-35s are appropriate for the Arctic because Norway flies F-16s in the Arctic while the United States flies them off aircraft carriers."

"The United States uses F-16s in the Arctic and off aircraft carriers for one purpose only, namely to use as mock enemy aircraft during training exercises."

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure that we've never flown a F-16 off an aircraft carrier.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cpt James Taggart
Member Avatar


^This.

F-16N's are still F-16's with a regular gear and arresting hook.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Victor Borodin
Member Avatar
Ace Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
holy shit, 9 aircrafts in 5 years ? sounds like they craft them like a space marine power armor ...
how big was the F35 fleet by now and since when they started producing it after the prototypes ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FSC Congo
Member Avatar
Ace Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Nathan Webber
Oct 27 2014, 18:35
"DAS confuses the aircraft's own flare launches with incoming missiles."

This has been a problem for what, years now.
It seems to be a common theme in US military engineering.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sukhoi
Member Avatar
Legendary Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Let's not bring the Sgt York into this. It was one of the most highly effective latrine destruction weapons ever made.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/07/08/business/pushing-for-weapons-that-work.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Firestorm Control
Member Avatar
Mission Control
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
F-35 Lands on Carrier

More then a year after the X-47B operated from a carrier at sea, the F-35C finally got around to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw3m7bqrQ64
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cpt Antonio Stygar
Member Avatar


FSC Congo
Nov 1 2014, 13:08
Nathan Webber
Oct 27 2014, 18:35
"DAS confuses the aircraft's own flare launches with incoming missiles."

This has been a problem for what, years now.
It seems to be a common theme in US military engineering.

Posted Image
"In February 1982 the prototype was demonstrated for a group of US and British officers at Fort Bliss, along with members of Congress and other VIPs. When the computer was activated, it immediately started aiming the guns at the review stands, causing several minor injuries as members of the group jumped for cover. Technicians worked on the problem, and the system was restarted."

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
James R. Cleary
Member Avatar
Ace Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Chinese clone of overweight and underpowered plane is overweight and overpowered.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Andrew Talbot
Member Avatar
Ace Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
In that video... I must be retarded but that looks like a Flanker. Did they use the right footage for the J-31 because I seriously don't think that looks like the F-35 at all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
James R. Cleary
Member Avatar
Ace Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Nope, that's a Flanker. The people slapping together CNN's footage have no fucks to give.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cpt Jeffery DeFrane
Member Avatar


This makes me laugh.

USA: Hey our fighter you are going to copy has these problems!

China : -does the same mistake anyways-
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sukhoi
Member Avatar
Legendary Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Ignore me! Totally not a twin engined F-35!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Henry Dravot
Member Avatar


Video of F-35C jet’s first carrier-based night flight operations aboard aircraft carrier
Quote:
 
F-35C Lightning II Conducts First Night Flight Ops During Developmental Testing aboard USS Nimitz
On Nov. 3, F-35C CF-3 piloted by Navy test pilot Cmdr. Tony Wilson, conducted the very first arrested landing of the Joint Strike Fighter plane on a supercarrier.

Following the first successful arrested landings (the second came on the same day, with F-35C CF-5), the two jets of the F-35 Lightning II Pax River Integrated Test Force from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23, performed a series of catapult launches, touch-and-gos and arrested landings.

On Nov. 13, at 6:01 p.m. (PST), the JSF had another first when it was launched for the first carrier-based night flight operations aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68). After a series of planned touch-and-go landings, the aircraft came for an arrested landing at 6:40 pm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Henry Dravot
Member Avatar


U.S. Air Force teaming F-22s with F-35s to maximise their 5th Generation capabilities
Quote:
 
U.S. Air Force is starting to integrate its F-35s and F-22s to improve fifth-generation tactics.
Four F-22 Raptors belonging to the the 94th Fighter Squadron, from Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia, deployed to Eglin Air Force Base, Florida to conduct joint training with the local-based F-35A Lightning IIs from the 58th Fighter Squadron.

The joint training was aimed at improving integration between the two most advanced radar-evading planes in service with the U.S. Air Force: flying mixed formations, the F-22s and F-35s flew OCA (offensive counter air), DCA (defensive counter air) and interdiction missions, maximizing the capabilities provided by operating two fifth-generation platforms together.

“The missions started with basic air-to-air and surface attacks,” said Maj. Steven Frodsham, F-22 pilot and 149th Fighter Squadron, Virginia Air National Guard in an Air Force press release. “As the training progressed, the missions developed into more advanced escort and defensive counter air fifth-generation integration missions.”

Fifth-generation capabilities had their combat debut with the F-22 in the air-to-ground role during the early stages of Operation Inherent Resolve, against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. The successful baptism of fire reaffirmed the pivotal role played by stealth technologies and sensor fusion capabilities, brought together by 5th Gen. warplanes, in current scenarios.

Earlier this year Chief of U.S. Air Force Air Combat Command Gen. Michael Hostage said the F-35 is what USAF needs to keep up with the adversaries but the F-22 Raptor will have to support the Joint Strike Fighter even though its service life extension and modernisation plan will cost a lot. Because, as he explained: “If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.”

That’s why the U.S. Air Force has already started to team Joint Strike Fighters with Raptors.


“If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.”

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Henry Dravot
Member Avatar


Israel Reduces F-35 Buy — At Least For Now
Quote:
 
TEL AVIV — In a rare reversal of the national security establishment, the Israeli government has decided to decrease the planned procurement of F-35A Joint Strike Fighters from 50 to 33 aircraft in the coming years.

Following a heated discussion in which the air force’s requirement for two full squadrons was rejected, the Israeli government voted on Nov. 30 to buy 14 F-35s in addition to the 19 JSFs already under order. The Israeli ministry of defense, however, claims this is merely a decision to split the planned procurement of an additional 31 F-35s into two contracts, and that eventually, 50 JSFs will be procured.

According to Israeli defense sources, the U.S. has agreed to maintain the same conditions for the smaller purchase. Details of the newly approved buy, totaling $2.8 billion, were transferred to the Defense Department and Lockheed Martin. The contract would cover two additional simulators and spare parts for the fleet of 33 F-35As.

Israel’s procurement of the F-35As is funded by U.S. military aid to Israel, which totals $3.1 billion annually. The U.S. has agreed to grant Israel credit to fund the procurement, and it had also committed to offset procurement of $5.3 billion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nikolai Malashenko
Member Avatar
Greenhorn
[ * ]
lol US buying their own jets via Isreal for Isreal ??
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Henry Dravot
Member Avatar


Luke AFB changes refueling truck color, mitigates F-35 shutdowns
Quote:
 
LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. (AFNS) -- The 56th Logistics Readiness Squadron recently added a new fuel truck to its fleet designed to improve mission effectiveness and safety on the flightline.

However, it’s not really a new fuel truck, but an old fuel truck with its tank painted white.

What LRS Airmen once referred to as "Big Green," the “new” truck with a white fuel tank has been a little difficult for some to get used to; however, the change has a better purpose then just being aesthetically pleasing.

"We painted the refuelers white to reduce the temperature of fuel being delivered to the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter," said Senior Airman Jacob Hartman, a 56th LRS fuels distribution operator. "The F-35 has a fuel temperature threshold and may not function properly if the fuel temperature is too high, so after collaborating with other bases and receiving waiver approval from (the Air Education Training Command), we painted the tanks white."

With the change, the 56th LRS hopes for no delay in aircraft take-offs, all while maintaining mission sorties and ensuring pilots meet training requirements.

"It ensures the F-35 is able to meet its sortie requirements," said Chief Master Sgt. Ralph Resch, the 56th LRS fuels manager. "We are taking proactive measures to mitigate any possible aircraft shutdowns due to high fuel temperatures in the future."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Santiago Capdevila Garcia
Member Avatar
Ace Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Question: Are all combat aircraft so "gourmet" about things like fuel temperature or it's that the F-35 is like an spoiled brat?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lt. Kurt Schonenberg
Member Avatar
Rookie Pilot
[ *  * ]
Honestly, how bad can that plane be?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stanislav Radomir Zoric
Member Avatar
Veteran Pilot
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lt. Kurt Schonenberg
Dec 8 2014, 11:28
Honestly, how bad can that plane be?
I imagine the plane high school F-35 complaining about its sweet tea not having enough ice.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sukhoi
Member Avatar
Legendary Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Remember: Fueldraulics.

KD and F-22 I am sure will confirm this as well, but one of the purposes of hydraulic fluid is to cool the pumps and act as a radiator for heat exchange in an aircraft. When you use fuel for that, the fuel can't start off hot, since it loses effectiveness as a coolant, and perhaps even as a method of maneuvering fins and other surfaces as effectively.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stanislav Radomir Zoric
Member Avatar
Veteran Pilot
[ *  *  *  * ]
Sukhoi
Dec 8 2014, 15:35
Remember: Fueldraulics.

KD and F-22 I am sure will confirm this as well, but one of the purposes of hydraulic fluid is to cool the pumps and act as a radiator for heat exchange in an aircraft. When you use fuel for that, the fuel can't start off hot, since it loses effectiveness as a coolant, and perhaps even as a method of maneuvering fins and other surfaces as effectively.
It will be interesting, because I recall a lot of terribly hot days near the equator on my carrier. Also, a lot of JP-5 lines run straight through some of the hottest compartments on the ship. I guess I never though to see if there was a heat sink somewhere for them...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sukhoi
Member Avatar
Legendary Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I know when we fuel we try to have the fluid at around 15 cel, but that's more to provide accurate measurement then anything else. Otherwise we have to break out the conversion tables.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nathan Webber
Member Avatar


Sukhoi
Dec 8 2014, 15:35
Remember: Fueldraulics.

KD and F-22 I am sure will confirm this as well, but one of the purposes of hydraulic fluid is to cool the pumps and act as a radiator for heat exchange in an aircraft. When you use fuel for that, the fuel can't start off hot, since it loses effectiveness as a coolant, and perhaps even as a method of maneuvering fins and other surfaces as effectively.
Well if you put fuel under 3000psi when It's hot as fuck Your going to have a bad time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sukhoi
Member Avatar
Legendary Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
http://aviationweek.com/blog/marines-shift-f-35-deployment-plans

Quote:
 


The US Marine Corps is changing the way it plans to use its Lockheed Martin F-35B short take-off, vertical landing fighters, we report here (subscription required). Briefly, the new concept of operations envisages the use of mobile forward arming and refueling points (M-Farps) to support groups of F-35Bs, which would return to U.S. Navy amphbious warfare ships, allied carriers (special mention to the British Queen Elizabeth class) or even regional land bases for routine maintenance.

The new Conops addresses problems with earlier plans, which envisaged conducting sustained combat operations from both LHA/LHD-class ships and forward operating bases (FOBs) on land. Any naval force operating within 150 nm of a hostile coast would be within range of an increasing number of lethal and elusive ground-mobile guided missile systems, and would be hard put to avoid tracking by small unmanned air vehicles. That would make it very vulnerable, absent support from a carrier with its long-range airborne early warning coverage - and one of the major arguments for the F-35B is that it provides air power independent of the big carrier. The new Conops allows the ships to stand off outside coastal missile range because they support operations rather than launching airstrikes.

Meanwhile, large FOBs on land were considered by some (including deputy defense secretary Bob Work, in his days as deputy Navy secretary) as being vulnerable to guided missiles and rockets. The idea of the new Conops is to blunt this threat by making M-Farps much smaller and more nimble than FOBs (because most aircraft maintenance happens elsewhere). They will relocate every 24-48 hours, which is estimated to be inside an enemy's targeting cycle.

However, the new Conops looks remarkably like the way that the Royal Air Force planned to operate Harriers in the last few years of the Cold War. After experiencing great difficulty in operating Harriers in the often-soggy North German countryside, the RAF dispatched survey teams in civilian clothes, who covertly looked for sites that would provide parking, cover and storage for equipment and people, and a length of road long enough for STOVL operations. The actual war locations or Warlocs were highly secret and never used for training. (More details in this fascinating history, document 35A.)

Lt Gen John Davis, deputy commandant for aviation, unveiled the new Conops at a conference in London. That meeting was followed by reports that Marine F-35Bs could be filling deck spots on the carrier Queen Elizabeth while the UK builds up its own force, suggesting that the Marines are already working to get the U.K. onboard with its plans. Davis also addressed some of the detail concerns: although some M-Farps could be resupplied with weapons by vertical lift, either surface transport or KC-130Js would be needed to deliver fuel.

The M-Farp concept would also be stressed in any kind of hybrid war scenario where the adversary has insurgent forces or sympathizers in the area where the forward bases are located. That could make the targeting cycle much shorter or expose the F-35s to direct threat from manportable air defense systems - particularly on landing, any Stovl jet is a hot and non-maneuverable target. It would also complicate resupply by land. Whether the new Marine Conops will work better than the RAF's old Warlocs remains to be seen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sabine Eichler
Member Avatar


Lolwut. I've known of EAF's for a long time but it sounds like they want to apply the concept to non-linear warfare. Dafuq?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nathan Webber
Member Avatar


more info on the fuel drama.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RH Command
Member Avatar
Red Horizon GM
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
The F-35 channels its strong thermal loads, accumulated by the powerful avionics and sub-systems on-board, as well as the engine, into its fuel. So really, the fuel works as a giant heat sink. If the fuel is already warm upon start-up, there is less capacity to exchange the heat from their aircraft's simmering systems. Therefore the jet must shut down or risk overheating. A clever design that most likely lightens up the jet and leaves extra room for weapons and fuel, but one that may have very little room for adaptation.


Like I said. And yet the plane still came in overweight.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cpt Antonio Stygar
Member Avatar


Stanislav Radomir Zoric
Dec 8 2014, 15:31
Lt. Kurt Schonenberg
Dec 8 2014, 11:28
Honestly, how bad can that plane be?
I imagine the plane high school F-35 complaining about its sweet tea not having enough ice.
This is gonna happen xD



Anyway:

Can't the navy go all F-15N? Can't the marines simply buy normal carriers? At this point it seems less problematic, money wise and performance wise...ugh.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admiral Nathaniel Sherman
Member Avatar
Expediter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
The Argument against the Marines having real carriers is service rivalry. The USN will say that they should just get more carriers, rather then giving the marines some.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Andrew Talbot
Member Avatar
Ace Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
We don't need the bleed over, this isn't some third-rate military you're speaking of where we have to have overlapping coverage. Specialist that all fall under the umbrella of a greater power will do better than the do-it-alls generalists.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cpt Antonio Stygar
Member Avatar


Quote:
 
We don't need the bleed over, this isn't some third-rate military you're speaking of where we have to have overlapping coverage. Specialist that all fall under the umbrella of a greater power will do better than the do-it-alls generalists.


*Watches a single airframe type go for so many different mision types that it becomes an expensive shit*

Quote:
 
The Argument against the Marines having real carriers is service rivalry. The USN will say that they should just get more carriers, rather then giving the marines some.


I forgot that. Instead of supercarriers, normal fleet carriers so the navy can still feel they have it bigger.Though then someone could ask why have supercarriers if normal fleet carriers do the job.

Harrier III then? Because stealth + multirrole + VSTOL is a bad combination it seems.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cpt Aeneas Saturnus
Member Avatar


The argument about Marine aircraft carriers is not inter-service rivalry. The Marines and Navy are the same Department. It's a matter of responsibilities, it's utter nonsense to build into Marines a naval seamanship capability on the level of carrier, because there's a retarded amount of jobs involved with running a ship. They would have to train people specifically for ship operations, which would be huge manpower and money drain.

The Marines do not have a training or logistics structure for operating a carrier, it is wildly impractical to "give" them a carrier- because they have no way to operate it, and it would arguably take decades to give them such a capability.

And, even then, giving them a "real" carrier would be pointless- because they don't want a Nimitz or a Ford, they want something that takes up less logistic framework to deploy and more brown-water specialization.
Edited by Cpt Aeneas Saturnus, Dec 11 2014, 07:21.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Calvin Zhang
Member Avatar




Where's muh all glass cockpit? Fuck. Canopy. I meant canopy...



Edited by Calvin Zhang, Dec 12 2014, 07:29.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cpt Antonio Stygar
Member Avatar


Quote:
 
The argument about Marine aircraft carriers is not inter-service rivalry. The Marines and Navy are the same Department. It's a matter of responsibilities, it's utter nonsense to build into Marines a naval seamanship capability on the level of carrier, because there's a retarded amount of jobs involved with running a ship. They would have to train people specifically for ship operations, which would be huge manpower and money drain.

The Marines do not have a training or logistics structure for operating a carrier, it is wildly impractical to "give" them a carrier- because they have no way to operate it, and it would arguably take decades to give them such a capability.

And, even then, giving them a "real" carrier would be pointless- because they don't want a Nimitz or a Ford, they want something that takes up less logistic framework to deploy and more brown-water specialization.


I know they still take up a lot of things, but how about "foch-sized" ? Though perhaps the question if why is so needed to have fixed wings in the Marine ships. Ups I mean, in the land-pads.


Quote:
 
Cpt Antonio Stygar
Dec 11 2014, 01:34
Harrier III then? Because stealth + multirrole + VSTOL is a bad combination it seems.
Posted Image



So it's bad at multirrole? :P

No seriously, something less muscular and more nimble would be nice.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cpt Jeffery DeFrane
Member Avatar


The thing I hate the most about this whole thing is that the fucking 35' CANNOT FOLLOW THE MARINES ASHORE! Specialty fucking cement pads or sets the fucking ground on fire. Unless they are going to have them refuel from Ospreys the whole way I don't see how this provides any benefit over just having a real carrier be there as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Henry Dravot
Member Avatar


No edge for F-35 on most missions: report
Quote:
 
Ottawa (AFP) - The F-35 has no clear edge over three other fighter jets Canada is considering to replace its aging fleet, a declassified government-commissioned report says.

The analysis found the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale and Boeing Super Hornet to be capable of accomplishing most mission tasks envisioned by Canadian military leaders.

The only exception would be going to war with another state, but the reports' authors concluded that was an "exceptionally unlikely" scenario.

"It is very unlikely Canada will be the target of overt, hostile state-directed military aggression," said the report released Wednesday.

To date, Canadian fighter jets have been mostly tasked with securing Canadian and US airspace from intrusions as part of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sukhoi
Member Avatar
Legendary Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
F-15 SE For Canada.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Henry Dravot
Member Avatar


Sukhoi
Dec 12 2014, 09:29
F-15 SE For Canada.
Time for some people not related to Lockheed Martin to make sure Canada makes the right choice.
Edited by Henry Dravot, Dec 12 2014, 09:32.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sukhoi
Member Avatar
Legendary Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sabine Eichler
Member Avatar


The SE stands for Sex Eagle right?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Solaris Gaming Commissioner
Member Avatar
Overlord
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Interesting information that I found out.

In 2008-2009, when the JSF was undergoing weight reduction programs to keep it weighing less then several elephants, one of the systems they deleted was:

“The program’s most recent vulnerability assessment showed that the removal of fueldraulic fuses, the PAO shutoff valve and the dry bay fire suppression, also removed in 2008, results in the F-35 not meeting the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) requirement to have a vulnerability posture better than analogous legacy aircraft,” officials wrote in the report.

The PAO shutoff was removed to save 2 pounds from the jet, but without it, a rupture in the area below the cockpit, such as that caused by a bullet fired during combat, would “likely cause an immediate incapacitation and loss of the pilot and aircraft.”

Similarly, the fueldraulic system, which is used to control the engine exhaust nozzle, was removed in 2008 to save 9 pounds. While the system leaves open the chance of a sustained fire if exposed, the program office “is accepting the increased vulnerability associated with the fueldraulic system and is currently not considering reinstating the fueldraulic fuses in the production aircraft configuration.”

Combined, the 11 pounds saved resulted in a “25 percent increase in aircraft vulnerability,” according to the findings of the report.


I bolded the part of the report I found significant.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Karolus
Member Avatar
Established Pilot
[ *  *  * ]
What ? It is saying they removed the fueldraulic system itself or the security of the fueldraulic system as we know? Meaning: It is well written?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admiral Nathaniel Sherman
Member Avatar
Expediter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
They removed the fuses for it, so it has no safety cutoff in the event it gets damaged.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Karolus
Member Avatar
Established Pilot
[ *  *  * ]
Admiral Nathaniel Sherman
Dec 16 2014, 18:04
They removed the fuses for it, so it has no safety cutoff in the event it gets damaged.
They wrote it confusing then.

"Similarly, the fueldraulic system, which is used to control the engine exhaust nozzle, was removed in 2008 to save 9 pounds"


Thanks for clarification.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admiral Nathaniel Sherman
Member Avatar
Expediter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
The program’s most recent vulnerability assessment showed that the removal of fueldraulic fuses


System in the section you quoted referred to the safety system of the fueldraulics in and around the engine.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FSC Congo
Member Avatar
Ace Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
So basically...the thing is a tinderbox?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yao Jun-fan
Member Avatar
Veteran Pilot
[ *  *  *  * ]
The stupid, it cannot be contained.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Solaris Gaming Commissioner
Member Avatar
Overlord
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Yao Jun-fan
Dec 17 2014, 02:49
The stupid, it cannot be contained.
Much like a fire on the plane.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Elizabeth Kane
Member Avatar
Ace Pilot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image

(Literally)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Aircraft Recognition School · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4