xcraftllc

Good stuff, any word on what FY the UPT slot is for?

I'm not entirely sure. I called their recruiter using the number on Wants Check to ask about my age, and she was helpful, so I'd say just give them a call. Let us know what you find out. https://www.wantscheck.com/GuardReserve/GuardReserveUnits/tabid/76/Default.aspx?Unitid=24

Cool thanks, I'll post if I hear anything.

Anybody heard from Portland (142nd FW) yet?

Tex, I'm pretty sure Lawman knows that, he was talking about future systems requests being submitted to the respective project managers. I agree about the looking outside part, there's no replacement for that ability, and dependency on other systems entirely is not a good plan. What Lawman is getting at is they want image intensifier technology like that on goggles to be integrated with thermal systems. As it stands right now, the Apache's Pilot Night Vision System has an integrated Image Intensifier that sees the "nifty IR shit", it's called VNsight and I flew with it in Afghanistan. Still no replacement for goggles entirely, but is much safer than just having FLIR. They're trying to integrate it with the TADS now as well. If they could put that technology into targeting pods, it would be much safer.

I'm not saying I know enough about this situation to fault the air-frame or pilots just because I read the report, and it looks like there were many mistakes made. I'm sure everyone involved was a good person and professional, but subject to human error like the rest of us. With that said, I'd say that a Hawg pilot at low altitude and airspeed, or a Viper pilot with excellent visibility from the cockpit would have glanced over with NVGs and noticed the IR strobes.

Good stuff man. Any thing in particular that you think helped you get selected?

Look at those glasses! They must have thrown off the CG of his head and given him neck problems!

I used it just recently, found a couple errors but otherwise it seemed legit. I would say it helped.

And that's why I wasn't very specific on my previous post, honestly you never know one way or another on the internet. But the point is, that stuff exists, and groups like the Taliban and ISIS are perfect breeding grounds for horrific policies and inhumane treatment. I mean, these are the same people who outlaw having dogs as pets, and flying kites. Having little boys as your personal sex slave is perfectly legal and if a women is raped, it's considered her fault. They still stone women to death as punishment for pretty much anything, and yes FGM does exist and is a part of their culture here and there. There are even people in other countries who practice FGM under the same beliefs and are able to get away with it because no one wants to hurt anyone's feelings, kinda makes me uncertain about how I feel about being circumcised lol (although that is not nearly as severe as what these girls are going through)!: https://www.trust.org/item/20140225174247-kra47/

The really sad part is that a lot of anti-military protesters will be at a Women's Rights protest one day, and then at a Anti-Military Action protest the next. Not having much of an idea of what they're protesting about in the first place. I believe the Taliban have a similar view on women.

Cool, thanks for clearing that up! I assumed so but just wanted to be sure.

I didn't want to create a whole new thread for one question, so I figured I'd ask it here since a lot of you are in a similar situation. Can anybody tell me what happens if you're selected as an alternate for one unit, but are still applying to other units and want to try to get a primary slot there? That is, is there anything binding in nature about being selected as an alternate?

I wonder if Malaysian Airlines is going to be able to financially survive this year. That's almost 600 people and $600 million worth of jets lost. I bet the conspiracy theorists are going nuts right now!

15% and the ability to super cruise would actually be worth it the way I think about it, about 23 mins of station time or 200 miles of range (depending on configuration) with the option to get there supersonic. Probably even better numbers for Eagles since ours are still using pratts. Breckey, I hear what you're saying about fan size and turbine aerodynamics, but I think they should still be able to get at least 15%. Where I'm getting that from is based on the numbers for an F414(a much smaller engine based on new tech). A 110 sized engine should be able to put out a lot more power for a lot less fuel than the ones currently in Vipers and Eagles right? I mean if nothing else, enough for super cruise like a block 50 but better.

I used the search function but couldn't find my answer; On the Block Counting test, do touching edges count? I've taken a few practice tests and on some they do, whereas others they don't. I've also searched other forums and it's even inconsistent among different sources there. So can anyone clarify whether it's just faces of the blocks that count, or edges as well? I don't even wanna ask if two touching corners of a block count!

I like how they say "engine fire" but then say "One of the sources said the engine involved - and about six feet of debris found on the runway around the jet - were shipped to Pratt's West Palm Beach facility on Tuesday for a more detailed inspection." More like an explosion to me...

All this talk about supercruise and engines makes me wonder what would happen if we had GE develop some nice new efficient 110 series engines for 15s and 16s. If you take a look the 9:1 thrust-to-weight and high efficiency of the GE F414s on Superhornets, it makes you wonder what GE could do with a 110 sized engine (since engines typically get more efficient with size). I bet the fuel savings would significantly offset the development costs, and considering that the 15 has two engines, and the 16 has excellent area ruling, they'd probably both supercruise, in addition to a general improvement to their overall performance.

I think this article is also a good show of how flawed the gun pod concept is. Much like the early F-4s, it's just no replacement for an internal gun. I'd say if they want to make the F-16 more useful as a CAS asset, a GAU-22 upgrade would be nice. As a side note, I believe only the A model F-35 will have an internal gun. Not such a big deal for the Marines since they've had to make the external GAU-12 work on the Harrier, but I'm sure the Navy won't like dealing with pods on their C models.

Interesting: https://news.yahoo.com/us-troops-baghdad-fly-apache-helicopters-drones-222125739.html

I'm not sure if the numbers will work out that way in the end, especially by the time the final product is flying (since you know how they like to throw a bunch of weight in there). It better be at least as good as a Superhornet, and even Superhornets are not on the level of F-16s,15s, or 22s, like you mentioned. The F-35A might be rated for 9gs, but pulling that many for even a brief period of time is gonna bleed off a ton of airspeed. The Superhornet doesn't care about this as much since it's only rated for 7.6 if I'm not mistaken, and the Navy's had to work with that anyway due to the limitations of carrier ops. I'd say at this point a better engine is absolutely necessary. As many mentioned, GE is probably up to the task. A more efficient one would be better than a more powerful one. A higher efficiency engine would probably lead to more power anyway, but most importantly, and very easy to forget, this thing burns a bit more fuel than an F-16. Global warming and pricy gas aside (and gas is more expensive than ever), that's a logistical nightmare to have to deal with in a deployed environment. Hell, if they could get an engine efficient enough to offer supercruise, they'd save a lot of face and get a lot of my respect back.

As TreeA10 was getting at, the non-STOVL variants are compromised by the requirement for the air frame to have enough volume to accommodate a lift fan, and a light enough structure to hover. It produces shortcomings that are unwarranted in non-STOVL variants such as a huge cross-section, poor area-ruling (a narrow waist to get help through the transonic region), as well as structural integrity and rear-visibility issues.

Minus the need to accommodate a lift fan which severely compromises the other attributes of the air frame yes. Also two engines would again be an option whereas they aren't with the F-35.

I hear ya. I think the Navy is playing its cards right with this one, since they'll be the last to put it into operation. It'll give em a chance to feel it out better, wait for a lot of bugs to be fixed, and lessons to be learned. Who knows, if by then the flaws are so glaringly obvious that we finally decide to fix our R&D/Acquisitions process, then the Navy will be in a perfect position to bail. Trying to fix the ball of bureaucracy, money and politics that it has become is no small feat. The only economical and tactically sound alternative that I can think of based on what I know so far would be this (similar ideas have been tossed around): 1. Retain the engineers and products of the F-35 program such as the GAU-22, EOTS, spherical sensor array, helmet etc etc. and apply them to other aircraft. Just like the Army did with the Comanche technology. This would retain a bit of the economic strength, and time/money/energy invested in the program. 2. Forget about the A and C models (since they are the most compromised models) and just produce and sell the B model as THE F-35. Convert the existing A and C models to B models if able. Eat the loss of tax money and give the Marines a couple hundred or so to outfit their Gator Freighters. Allow it to be sold to international partners who are willing to pay what would then become quite a hefty price per copy. (Hey if they want a supersonic stealth Harrier they better pony up the cash). 2. Buy new (since they're still in production), F-16s equipped with avionics upgrades gained through the F-35 program. You could try zero-hour resetting old Davis-Monthan Vipers too (so I’ve heard). 3. Let the Navy do whatever they need to with the Superhornet/Growler combo for the time being (a genius combo I might add). 4. Run a new competition for a (relatively) lightweight, twin-engined, supercuise-capable, thrust-vectored, stealth, multirole fighter for all three services and international sales. A conventional design, no damn lift fan. An F-4 without all the glaring maneuverability and visibility flaws. Use the lessons learned in the F-22 and F-35 programs to make a more realistic and affordable design. Hell, I would imagine that it would be so much more cost effective, it would probably sell like the F-16 (over 4500) and take the unit cost down even further. If Lockheed won that contract, they would probably make more than they would with the F-35 anyway. Basically, a modern-day 5th-Gen version of the very successful 1972 Light Weight Fighter Program. Hell, even the loser of that program is still flying today in a nice new form. Oh, and this time, let’s not let China hack into our computers (twice) and make a clone of our jet without all the flaws....although I doubt they'll ever fix their reliability issues and software glitches (if their other knock-off products are any indication).