Jump to content

MarkW

Members
  • Content Count

    2,337
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MarkW

  1. Keep in mind the long lead contracts are a 3 or so year process.
  2. It's good to see my boys at the 31st getting into this. This is where Gilmore's panic mongering will start to fade and practicality will start to appear.
  3. True, but at least the retired RAAF/RAF whatever armchair quarterbacks can shut up. Operational pilots have to have this plane work or they die. Kind of hard to coerce that crowd.
  4. Does anybody remember all of the haters who had pilot friends, who flew Sopwith Camels or Spads and insisted that this would be the worst plane ever? Isn't it funny how much they have become silent now that we have real operational pilots with no dog in the fight except for their own but on the line swearing up and down how much of a game changer the electronic warfare system and fusion system on this jet is going to be? I miss those guys.
  5. And nobody has to feel bad when the rest of the force retrogrades from 500 Chinese flankers leaving the tankers behind.
  6. It might also mean Facebook Craigslist Tindr E-harmony because the program is raising money through hookups.
  7. It's one of those ten thousand silly made up Navy ranks for E-1 to E-5, I think. That stands for (all caps because of Navy): FULLY TRAINED COSMETOLOGY ENGINEER, in this case third class. They wanted the crew/jet to look good in the photo ops.
  8. The power setting depends on the load out. There were some loads that required afterburner, which resulted in a minimal reworking of the water flow in the JBD to account for the F-35 having a slightly higher and more concentrated single engine exhaust than the F-18's twin engine. It really turned out to be a minor deal after much hand wringing.
  9. Note how the F-35s are in full afterburner to keep up with the min power C-130 tanker. Just trying to help out the haters.
  10. 1. This one page encapsulates some very meaningful things for me. 2. How many times must Ghostrider be told the pattern is full?
  11. Never said that. The IAF drove design requirements to US equipment suppliers to respond to. The responsive design is entirely US. This statement is completely wrong, on several levels. While DIRCM/LAIRCM technology exists, tactical jet mounted packages are dicey. And they are certainly not mounted on the F-35, nor are they part of any funded plan. Yes, on the wish list. But not even close to real. And such devices don't do diddly squat against RF guided missiles. The EW/self protection suite on the F-35 is so, so much more than lasers, or even sharks with lasers, would provide.
  12. Hence the rather extensive EW suite currently in the F-35, and the aforementioned upgrades the IAF drove that will be hitting the ramp in the near future. F-117 example isn't relevant for a number of reasons.
  13. Categorically false. Israel is an FMS customer, and is not part of the development program. They have driven changes to the jet based upon their EW needs, but the design work is all internal to LM and their industry partners. What the Israeli driven EW does is a whole 'nother story.
  14. Of the $150M, how much does Canada have left to pay? Keep in mind the partners were paying near jack diddly for the privilege of being a partner. It makes perfect sense for them to stay in the program as a partner and pay the remaining monies until they sort out which way to go. Being a partner comes with many privileges, IP being one, with few to no responsibilities. Giving up Partner status at this time would monumentally stupid, which is the point I was making earlier. Do agree the "fair and balanced" optics or whatever BS for the competition are terrible though.
  15. Yeah, no. FMS sales are lining up, and have been, to fill the Partner gaps.
  16. You would be mistaken that all posters in this thread are simply water cooler level of discourse, and as for your simple desire above, that, sir is long part ever happening.
  17. I stand corrected. He made an ignorant campaign promise, which he is following through with. He certainly knew no more about the F 35 program or Canada's air defense needs at that time. You should be so proud. What was so transparent or opaque about the original competition? Was it really handled so poorly that this is necessary, or is this purely partisan politics on Trudeau's part because "the other guys did it"? So the gamble here is you will get cheaper jets at some point if you stand the F 35 program? Let me tell you the ways that doesn't work. If/when Canada withdraws they will
  18. I'm glad Canada had the wisdom to elect a guy who is fairly young all things considered, has zero military experience, and yet has single handedly determined what Canada's future fighter needs are. That said, the reality is the F-35 will still be competitive as LRIPs drive costs down, SDD winds down, and LM can spice up the renegotiated IP deals...oh snap. Trudeau is crazy like a fox. Or a complete tard.
  19. Okay, not sure what you're getting at. First language matters here. All of the jets built to date, including the SDD jets, are LRIP jets. AA-1 was literally LRIP 1. LRIP 4 was pretty much the end of the SDD jets and the beginning of the aircraft being used operationally; 4 and up make up the current trainer fleet. Any STOVL below BF:19 and LRIP 4 would be ones I would consider to be limited utility. As for the SDD jets going away, that is highly unlikely. The next decade of this program's future post SDD is going to be dedicated to US and partner weapons testing. That means every airfr
  20. None of the jets out at Yuma should be low life hour models, so I am a little confused by your statement. They certainly shouldn't be anywhere near the 8000 hour limit at this point, even for training jets. In practice did LM ever resolve the nut plate issue? The largest problem with some of those panels that had 300 or more captive fasteners was that you couldn't put it back together without breaking a few. The maintenance downtime to repair them was a serious driver in the maintainability and availability arena.
  21. With any part, it depends. Is it a dual use component or something specifically and only for the F-35? BaE build some major structural pieces like the aft fuselage which pretty much only go on the rear of that jet. Other companies build piece-part items, like fasteners, fiber optic cable or wire which are not necessarily F-35 specific. Almost all the electronic sub assemblies are F-35 unique, including the back plane and individual cards. The processors are all unique, but the bits on the board may not be. For the stuff absolutely needed to build the jet--major assemblies, bulkheads, etc L
  22. Truly different. Designed based from the get go based on the nightmare of maintaining the F-117, B-2 and F-22. The goop, putty and tape approach was largely designed out. The jets you see need very little to go to war.
  23. Go to war...Depends on the jets. The Corps jets in the field should be darn close to that status, as this jet was designed to do LO differently. The training jets as well. It would be harder/more expensive to maintain a set of jets in a unique configuration.
×
×
  • Create New...