Smokin Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 "and an anti-G vest and pants" Proof that the Air Force only has a two to three year memory. Doesn't anyone working on the JSF remember the Combat Edge vest we used to wear? The one that was hot, uncomfortable, and useless? We finally got rid of it and now they're bringing it back! Also, if the DAS works half as well as that video says it will, that will be crazy awesome. However, again back to the memory thing, I worry that they think the F-35 will not turn at a merge. I don't care how good the missile is, some will still miss.
Guest blackstang Posted June 18, 2009 Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) I definitely don't see that being the training, letting a faster aircraft such like those in the video (Fulcrum?) get behind you is a bad day... Edited June 24, 2009 by moostang
M2 Posted June 18, 2009 Posted June 18, 2009 Just a friendly reminder to watch the discussion topics in this thread, and don't even go anywhere near violating any of the OPSEC ROE... Cheers! M2
Steve Davies Posted June 18, 2009 Posted June 18, 2009 Just a friendly reminder to watch the discussion topics in this thread, and don't even go anywhere near violating any of the OPSEC ROE... Cheers! M2 You also need to delete Blackstang's post, since it carries a copy of the other post that you deleted. Hopefully, you'll get to that before the Chinese see it and print it out!
Guest Krabs Posted June 19, 2009 Posted June 19, 2009 Crossing over from the F-22 thread... a post from HiFlyer, I formatted the bolded part: As far as the costs go, raw numbers are a big deal in this case. If each aircraft program spent $10 billion in the R&D phase, that adds $50M to each of 200 F-22s, but only $5M to each of 2000 projected F-35s. As to the rest, as a hard working Studies and Analysis professional, I can tell you that the validity of any claim is directly related to the assumptions you set forth at the begining of your study. Depending on what assumptions Lockheed started with, the airplane could cost $10 bucks and fly round trip to China and back on one tank of gas! (I'm not knocking LM, only saying the claims can be extremely sensitive to the starting assumptions) I think this is simply something interesting to consider: "U.S. Air Force analyses show the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market." NOTE: Formatting added, document is from Sept. 2008, and Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis is no longer the program exec., Currently it is BGen David R. Heinz, USMC What conditions controlled the simulations and what assumptions were made obviously affect the outcome. Given the expected air-to-air performance characteristics of the F-35 (search for 'F-35 Air Combat Skills Analyzed' on Aviation Week for at least one view on that), its limited air-to-air weapons capacity (to maintain LO/VLO), and the top-of-the-line adversaries it is supposedly pitted against...how is the F-35 "AT LEAST" 400% more effective? Realistically, venturing guesses at the inevitably classified conditions ruling the USAF analyses is pointless. The objective measurement of air-to-air effectiveness in the scenario is probably arguable as well. So what's the point? The main point of this is 'why?' Why would this simulation be needed at this point in time? Why would Lockheed want to respond to a few general PPT slides and a Frenchman who records jazz music? Why do a simulation on an aircraft with significant flight testing left to accomplish before being ready for service? Why publicize the results?
Guest moostang Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 You also need to delete Blackstang's post, since it carries a copy of the other post that you deleted. Hopefully, you'll get to that before the Chinese see it and print it out! edited LO EW pod for F-35? Reminds me of the arms buildup scenario from the end of 'batman begins'. We get 5th gen fighters, they get better sams. We get 5th gen ecm pods, they get...?
summe32c Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 It doesn't surprise me at all. Just about every unique skill-set an A-10 pilot possesses won't mean a thing in the cockpit of an F-35. Hog drivers are CAS pilots, but the JSF isn't a CAS platform. The F-35 is just going to be another pointy nose fighter doing Bomber-CAS with JDAM's from the bozosphere with limited gas, ordnance, and SA. As I think everyone agrees, it's not a replacement for the Hog, just a (very poor) substitute. I love reading this...as a dude hired by a hog unit, and works on the JSF...my words exactly.. heres some photoshop work from the the people with wishful thinking
Guest moostang Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 Crossing over from the F-22 thread... a post from HiFlyer, I formatted the bolded part: I think this is simply something interesting to consider: "U.S. Air Force analyses show the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market." NOTE: Formatting added, document is from Sept. 2008, and Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis is no longer the program exec., Currently it is BGen David R. Heinz, USMC What conditions controlled the simulations and what assumptions were made obviously affect the outcome. Given the expected air-to-air performance characteristics of the F-35 (search for 'F-35 Air Combat Skills Analyzed' on Aviation Week for at least one view on that), its limited air-to-air weapons capacity (to maintain LO/VLO), and the top-of-the-line adversaries it is supposedly pitted against...how is the F-35 "AT LEAST" 400% more effective? Realistically, venturing guesses at the inevitably classified conditions ruling the USAF analyses is pointless. The objective measurement of air-to-air effectiveness in the scenario is probably arguable as well. So what's the point? The main point of this is 'why?' Why would this simulation be needed at this point in time? Why would Lockheed want to respond to a few general PPT slides and a Frenchman who records jazz music? Why do a simulation on an aircraft with significant flight testing left to accomplish before being ready for service? Why publicize the results? I would guess that in an attrition scenario (simulated)of air-to-air combat, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, etc were lost at an average 4x higher rate. It could also mean that the F-35 could take out an average of 4x as many targets before being destroyed. Just a guess... I love reading this...as a dude hired by a hog unit, and works on the JSF...my words exactly.. heres some photoshop work from the the people with wishful thinking I don't know how the F-35 would replace an A-10 in a close air support role. It doesn't have the firepower (gun) and flies too fast, it could replace it, but not without serious comprimises over some A-10 capability.
summe32c Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) I don't know how the F-35 would replace an A-10 in a close air support role. It doesn't have the firepower (gun) and flies too fast, it could replace it, but not without serious comprimises over some A-10 capability. Actually, the CTOL was the only variant fitted with a gun. its a 25mm offspring of the gau-8; gau-12. the marines and navy chose to have the option of mounting a gun pod if they need it.. (like the phantom) FAIL on doing your homework. linky here: https://www.gdatp.com/products/Gun_Systems/...12U/GAU-12U.htm Edited June 28, 2009 by summe32c
Guest moostang Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 Actually, the CTOL was the only variant fitted with a gun. its a 25mm offspring of the gau-8; gau-12. the marines and navy chose to have the option of mounting a gun pod if they need it.. (like the phantom) FAIL on doing your homework. linky here: https://www.gdatp.com/products/Gun_Systems/...12U/GAU-12U.htm Acyually, those guns have much less firepower than the A-10's gun. This is what I was referring to.
StoleIt Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 Acyually, those guns have much less firepower than the A-10's gun. This is what I was referring to. While that statement is true, it isn't necessary to have a 30MM GAU-8A to be an effective CAS platform. Better qualities are loiter time, slow speed characteristics, and survivability.
Guest moostang Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) While that statement is true, it isn't necessary to have a 30MM GAU-8A to be an effective CAS platform. Better qualities are loiter time, slow speed characteristics, and survivability. It helps though... I agree, speed mentioned, I can't really say anything about survivability or loiter time (on the F-35). Edited June 29, 2009 by moostang
Stuck Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Uh oh... https://www.military.com/features/0,15240,1...C=airforce-a.nl - Stuck
donkey Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 Well, I have to admit, I'm not surprised at the Navy's choice of color's...
gmwalk Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 My previous company worked on some of the s/w and h/w for that plane. It has some great potential, but it is one ugly duck. Looking at the placement of the refueling probe, what is the possibility of getting the occasional extra squirt of fuel down the intake? Would that cause any problems?
skinny Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 I think by the time it got to the intakes, it would be more or less vaporized by that time, and it's never very much that squirts out (sts)...good point though. As a boom, I'm a little peeved that the light on the probe is white like the Hornets light. Night A/R is a pain when you have that million candle power spot light shining in your face. Kinda screws your night vision. I wish they'd go back to the red light like the F-14s had.
Guest CA Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 it is one ugly duck. Beats the ugly thing that lost. It reminded me of a blowfish.
JarheadBoom Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 (edited) Well, I have to admit, I'm not surprised at the Navy's choice of color's... You do know that's primer, right? *** edit - sarcasm detector inop... I think. Looking at the placement of the refueling probe, what is the possibility of getting the occasional extra squirt of fuel down the intake? Would that cause any problems? The chances are good, but unless the F-35 pilot rips the basket off the hose, there's not enough fuel spray to cause engine problems. The last drogue AR I did, the probe tip on one of the F-18s took about a second to fully close after disconnect, fuel siphoned out of the probe, and most went down the right intake for that second. Pilot was less than concerned about it. As a boom, I'm a little peeved that the light on the probe is white like the Hornets light. Night A/R is a pain when you have that million candle power spot light shining in your face. Kinda screws your night vision. I wish they'd go back to the red light like the F-14s had. Maybe we'll get lucky and it'll be on a rheostat, or at least a BRIGHT/DIM/OFF switch, instead of just an ON/OFF switch... Edited August 10, 2009 by JarheadBoom
summe32c Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 CF-1 (Carrier Variant) Rollout... I was present that day.. CV is the better looking of the 3. Bigger surface areas make it look sexier... I don't care what u bubbas think, f-35 is beautiful!
Guest Krabs Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Copied and pasted for everyone's enjoyment. https://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/23/hill-aides-call-for-jsf-restructure/ Hill Aides Call For JSF Restructure Hill Aides Call For JSF Restructure By Colin Clark Friday, October 23rd, 2009 2:11 pm Posted in Air, International, Policy A preliminary Pentagon cost estimate that the F-35 could cost as much as $17.1 billion more than currently planned is prompting calls from congressional sources for the program to be reassessed and restructured. The congressional sources also wryly noted this seemed to raise questions about the wisdom of Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ recent trip to the F-35 plant in Fort Worth to show his support for the program. One aide scoffed that the new cost estimates were “no surprise to anyone who hasn’t drunk the JSF Kool-Aid.” The new cost estimate comes from the JSF Joint Estimate Team, formed this summer by Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn. Two congressional aides familiar with the program said the cost estimate seemed to indicate that the approach of developing, building, flying and testing planes as they come off the assembly line – known as concurrency – may pose too much program risk in the short term and should lead Defense Secretary Robert Gates to scale back the emphasis on producing and testing planes and trim the number of planes the Pentagon wants to buy in next year’s budget. “Unfortunately, DoD has put all its eggs in the JSF basket and it is now too big to fail, just like Wall Street. The JSF program has shown no signs of getting back on schedule, and I think a Nunn-McCurdy is fairly likely. Gates should get out in front and restructure the program,” said one congressional aide. A second congressional aide agreed that the push by the program office and Lockheed Martin to build, fly and test may be too aggressive. “I think what the JET is saying is, you know guys, you will just need more time to refine this configuration so you can be sure it all works the way it should,” this aide said, noting that the program has completed about 2 percent of flight tests for the 50 aircraft authorized so far. At the same time, this aide questioned the $17 billion estimate, saying “it seems incredibly high to me.” The earlier estimate of $7 billion seemed much more likely to this aide, who noted that no one on Capitol Hill had yet been briefed on the new numbers. For its part, F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin said that while it recognized “the Joint Estimate Team’s earnest efforts” it disagreed with the conclusions, said program spokseman John Kent. “Lockheed Martin acknowledges that modest risks to our cost and schedule baselines exist, but we envision no scenario that would justify a substantial delay to completion of development or transition to production milestones. We are on track to field 5th Generation fighters to nine countries and 13 Services” Kent said in the statement. “Eleven SDD aircraft have been delivered thus far and the remaining eight jets are demonstrating greatly improved span times as are the 31 LRIP aircraft now in production. We are below the USG’s Selected Acquisition Report estimate for production costs. Engineering development is 85% complete and yielding outstanding results in early ground and flight tests compared to legacy. Our test plans are based on detailed test requirements and build on the extensive investments in F-35 design architecture, systems engineering, risk reduction, and simulation facilities, as well as a rigorous disciplined verification plan, compared to legacy programs,” Kent’s statement said. “The program is early in the flight test phase, so it is much too soon conclude that the expected payoffs will not be realized.”
Stuck Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Why again are they only 2 percent finished with flight test? Weren't they right around that over a year ago? - Stuck
JarheadBoom Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Why again are they only 2 percent finished with flight test? Weren't they right around that over a year ago? - Stuck Probably has something to do with working on/testing an A, a B, and a C model all at once. Shotgun approach does not always work...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now