11bee Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 (edited) Meanwhile, in Texas...http://everythinglubbock.com/fulltext?nxd_id=163422 Last time I checked, emergency divert landings were only for something pretty damned serious. It doesn't mean that there was some horrible problem with the aircraft, could have just been a malfunctioning warming lamp. Depending on the issue, it may just have been a precautionary measure, not a true in-flight emergency. At this stage of the program, I would think the NATOP's (and the AF equivalent) would be pretty conservative and would require a divert for just about any abnormal condition. Who knows, maybe the pilot had some bad Mexican food the night before? Edited March 12, 2013 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
82Whitey51 Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Meanwhile, in Texas...http://everythinglubbock.com/fulltext?nxd_id=163422 Last time I checked, emergency divert landings were only for something pretty damned serious. I can't believe stuff like this is news... Remember when we used to blow up and crash airplanes that were being tested...a few times a week?! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 I can't believe stuff like this is news... Remember when we used to blow up and crash airplanes that were being tested...a few times a week?! Whats so hard to understand? A light comes on and its international news used to fuel the calls for cancellation of the largest weapons program in history Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 Fact check, on aisle nine. fact check on aisle nine: http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/article/20130317/OPINION04/303170003/1023/rss03?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted March 19, 2013 Author Share Posted March 19, 2013 Larry Lawson is out at LM Aero. Discuss. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Larry Lawson is out at LM Aero. Discuss. Bogdan's first "kill"? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Larry Lawson is out at LM Aero. Discuss. And immediately picked up by Spirit Aerospace. I guess its okay having a hard*** is okay in the commercial world. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 USN is considering adding conformal fuel tanks to it's Superhornets. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-may-add-conformal-fuel-tanks-to-fa-18ef-super-hornet-fleet-383701/ Possibly as a hedge against the F-35C getting chopped? The USN's efforts to add CFTs might be part of the service's plan to hedge its bets in case of further delays to the Lockheed Martin F-35C, or if budgetary pressures force the navy to abandon that variant. "At this point, the F-35C is easily the most troubled variant," says Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group. The USN has always been lukewarm toward the stealthy single-engined fighter even if senior service leaders always publicly profess that the service "needs" the F-35C. Interesting article... sounds like adding these to the SH will not be as simple as it was with the F-15/16. Will probably need an uprated engine to offset the performance issues. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 USN is considering adding conformal fuel tanks to it's Superhornets. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-may-add-conformal-fuel-tanks-to-fa-18ef-super-hornet-fleet-383701/ Possibly as a hedge against the F-35C getting chopped? The USN's efforts to add CFTs might be part of the service's plan to hedge its bets in case of further delays to the Lockheed Martin F-35C, or if budgetary pressures force the navy to abandon that variant. "At this point, the F-35C is easily the most troubled variant," says Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group. The USN has always been lukewarm toward the stealthy single-engined fighter even if senior service leaders always publicly profess that the service "needs" the F-35C. Interesting article... sounds like adding these to the SH will not be as simple as it was with the F-15/16. Will probably need an uprated engine to offset the performance issues. Its unfunded as of yet. If the USN were to withdraw from the JSF they better think upgrade because they won't be getting any new toys for decades, and they won't have a USMC squadron to help them on their CVWs either. The Navy Loves it carriers more than it hates the JSF, so they will just smile through their teeth. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 http://www.dvidshub.net/video/284788/vmfa-121-f-35b-lightning-ii-short-take-off-and-vertical-landing#.UUu_wRyyBhk VMFA-121s first Vertical landing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 USN is considering adding conformal fuel tanks to it's Superhornets. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-may-add-conformal-fuel-tanks-to-fa-18ef-super-hornet-fleet-383701/ Possibly as a hedge against the F-35C getting chopped? The USN's efforts to add CFTs might be part of the service's plan to hedge its bets in case of further delays to the Lockheed Martin F-35C, or if budgetary pressures force the navy to abandon that variant. "At this point, the F-35C is easily the most troubled variant," says Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group. The USN has always been lukewarm toward the stealthy single-engined fighter even if senior service leaders always publicly profess that the service "needs" the F-35C. Interesting article... sounds like adding these to the SH will not be as simple as it was with the F-15/16. Will probably need an uprated engine to offset the performance issues. Totally unrelated to the F-35, but the link below has some interesting info on the stealth measures built into the current F/A-18E/F series. Some of these were common knowledge but I wasn't aware that there were optional kits that are installed to shield the radar and weapons pylon hardware when needed. If anyone has the desire to download the entire NATOPs manual for the SH, there is a link to that at the end of the article! http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/03/usn-looking-at-adding-conforma.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Totally unrelated to the F-35, but the link below has some interesting info on the stealth measures built into the current F/A-18E/F series. Some of these were common knowledge but I wasn't aware that there were optional kits that are installed to shield the radar and weapons pylon hardware when needed. If anyone has the desire to download the entire NATOPs manual for the SH, there is a link to that at the end of the article! http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/03/usn-looking-at-adding-conforma.html There are some (people with more knowledge and clearence than I) That believe a SH with stealthy pylons is going to be harder to detect than a PAKFA with internal carriage. (This is simply an opinion, and I am not trying to start a flame war) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 (edited) There are some (people with more knowledge and clearence than I) That believe a SH with stealthy pylons is going to be harder to detect than a PAKFA with internal carriage. (This is simply an opinion, and I am not trying to start a flame war) Maybe so but unless someone invents stealthy bombs and AMRAAM's, I'm guessing that you lose much / all of your RCS advantage as soon as you hang some weapons on a SH. Regardless, I had heard / read something similar on the RCS of the Superhornet being much more impressive than most people give it credit for. Edited March 22, 2013 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
FAR148 Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 RCS of the Superhornet being much more impressive than most people give it credit for. Yeah maybe clean.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ross blackford Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 :D, Weeell. Wouldn't you lose a lot of your stealth advantage of an F-35 by hanging external weapons on pylons hanging from the wings? Or long range tanks hanging from the wings? As to a SH being more stealthy than a Sukhoi T-50 I find that one a bit hard to stomach. and let's not forget that the T-50 or PAKFA is still in the prototype stages. I'm sure it will be like the F-22, the prototypes look somewhat different from the production models. From what I've read there aren't the same differences in the F-35 with production and testing concurrency that seems to be causing many problems. , Ross. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 (edited) :D/>/>, Weeell. Wouldn't you lose a lot of your stealth advantage of an F-35 by hanging external weapons on pylons hanging from the wings? Or long range tanks hanging from the wings? The F-35 has significantly better range with 4400lbs of weapons (all carried internally) than the F/A-18E with an equivalent load carried externally. Edited March 22, 2013 by -Neu- Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Just that lil' bugger boo that it still can't land on an aircraft carrier yet though ... -Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted March 23, 2013 Author Share Posted March 23, 2013 Just that lil' bugger boo that it still can't land on an aircraft carrier yet though ... -Gregg C'mon now. It catches the wire like most of the time. As for stealth, you guys are funny. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Maybe so but unless someone invents stealthy bombs and AMRAAM's, I'm guessing that you lose much / all of your RCS advantage as soon as you hang some weapons on a SH. Regardless, I had heard / read something similar on the RCS of the Superhornet being much more impressive than most people give it credit for. It likely is, from a front facing. They were extremely good at incorporating low observable features. You can see a lot of complementary lines (like the tail cant and the intakes), jagged bay doors, and stuff like that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 As for stealth, you guys are funny. I obviously advocate the F-35, But it is intresting As to a SH being more stealthy than a Sukhoi T-50 I find that one a bit hard to stomach. and let's not forget that the T-50 or PAKFA is still in the prototype stages. I'm sure it will be like the F-22, the prototypes look somewhat different from the production models. From what I've read there aren't the same differences in the F-35 with production and testing concurrency that seems to be causing many problems. :cheers:/>, Ross. Russia is facing some tough sledding with the PAKFA. This is going to be their first production aircraft (IE not a tech demonstrator) sine the fall of the USSR... hell since the Brezhnev era. First 5th generation aircraft too, and as we have seen that 5 gen stuff is one helluva learning curve. They already have plans for more advanced motors, (there is no Russian equivalent of an F-119) The Russians must also face much fewer funds for R & D than the US has enjoyed with its 5th generation fighters, and of course avionics are another expensive learning curve (multiple radars on the aircraft are rumored as well). There is talk of some big redesigns ahead for the PAKFA and even Carlo Kopp who advocates the PAKFA heavily acknowledges that is needs shaping work to be competitive. In the mean time Putin has been claiming it will be dirt cheap to buy... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 C'mon now. It catches the wire like most of the time. <....> Well, that's good to read ... I think ...(Wonder how it will do with a moving boat ?) I just kinda feel they have doing the F-35 bass-ackwards in how it is going to the fleets ... Why is a squadron with what, 5 aircraft considered "Activated" ? Why is it even reaching fleet squadrons when it hasn't even dropped a live munition in testing ? Doesn't a lot of the software kinks and tweaks need to be sorted and mission profile software have to be finalized for proper training of the fleet pilots ? Any how, here's an >>> Article <<< -Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Why is a squadron with what, 5 aircraft considered "Activated" ? -Gregg Marketing 101. The USMC wants these things so badly, if they had only a single aircraft assigned, they would still say the same thing. Heck, if they didn't have any aircraft assigned, they would simply paint "VMFA-121" on an empty hanger and issue a press release that they are now open for business. Now LM can make the claim that the F-35 is in "operational" service with the Corp. It's not just an F-35 thing, the Swedes are calling the Gripen "Combat Proven" because of a few recon missions flown in Libya, when the threat level was pretty much nil. Looks great on a SAAB sales brochure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 (edited) Marketing 101. The USMC wants these things so badly, if they had only a single aircraft assigned, they would still say the same thing. Heck, if they didn't have any aircraft assigned, they would simply paint "VMFA-121" on an empty hanger and issue a press release that they are now open for business. Now LM can make the claim that the F-35 is in "operational" service with the Corp. whether you chose to believe it or not -121 is doing some hard work, and you get the benefit of getting some people that are going to take the jet and not think about problems like engineers/test pilots but by people who are going to be using the jet for war. -121 is gathering knowledge that will give the entire service a leg up, when more F-35Bs arrive. The same thing happened with the Osprey, You got Marines in operational squadrons hitting the manufacturers with ideas, and more efficient ways of doing things. The other option is terrible service rates as military personnel try to learn how to fix a fleet of jets that didn't take any of their input. The idea is to get as many Marines doing what once took LM help and advsisors until the training wheels come off and its all by Marines and for Marines, like the other aircraft in service. Its makes a difference, and I am sure if this wasn't being done, this thread would be full of "stupid engineers forget to keep service maintainers in mind after screwing up X, Y, Z." The tail hook and nose gear are prefect examples of how theory and practice are 2 different things, and reality really does have its place. So no, its not just propaganda. -121 is writing the first chapters in a big book that everyone is going to read. We also want men learning --not overwhelmed. Jets will be added as Marines get to know the aircraft better. if for example -121 went from 0 F-35s to suddenly having 12-16 dropped on them the service rates would be terrible as the squadron was overwhelmed, without the knowledge to get out of such a deep hole. we want good, honest, stair-stepped training and experience-- not suicides. -121 is an operational squadron as in, it is not a test or training squadron. So it is the first operational squadron to recieve the F-35B. rather than say the first squadron to receive an operational F-35B. Its huge step but no one in the Marine Corps is bragging that the jets are about to deploy, or they are headed to Syria or anything. the other nice "deal" about -121 is you are getting Marines who may actually say positive things (and they are, big time) and not be accused of being paid spokespeople/propoganda (A man can dream can't he?) Edited March 24, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 whether you chose to believe it or not -121 is doing some hard work, and you get the benefit of getting some people that are going to take the jet and not think about problems like engineers/test pilots but by people who are going to be using the jet for war. -121 is gathering knowledge that will give the entire service a leg up, when more F-35Bs arrive. The same thing happened with the Osprey, You got Marines in operational squadrons hitting the manufacturers with ideas, and more efficient ways of doing things. The other option is terrible service rates as military personnel try to learn how to fix a fleet of jets that didn't take any of their input. The idea is to get as many Marines doing what once took LM help and advsisors until the training wheels come off and its all by Marines and for Marines, like the other aircraft in service. Its makes a difference, and I am sure if this wasn't being done, this thread would be full of "stupid engineers forget to keep service maintainers in mind after screwing up X, Y, Z." The tail hook and nose gear are prefect examples of how theory and practice are 2 different things, and reality really does have its place. So no, its not just propaganda. -121 is writing the first chapters in a big book that everyone is going to read. We also want men learning --not overwhelmed. Jets will be added as Marines get to know the aircraft better. if for example -121 went from 0 F-35s to suddenly having 12-16 dropped on them the service rates would be terrible as the squadron was overwhelmed, without the knowledge to get out of such a deep hole. we want good, honest, stair-stepped training and experience-- not suicides. -121 is an operational squadron as in, it is not a test or training squadron. So it is the first operational squadron to recieve the F-35B. rather than say the first squadron to receive an operational F-35B. Its huge step but no one in the Marine Corps is bragging that the jets are about to deploy, or they are headed to Syria or anything. the other nice "deal" about -121 is you are getting Marines who may actually say positive things (and they are, big time) and not be accused of being paid spokespeople/propoganda (A man can dream can't he?) In my humble opinion, if a Marine fighter squadron is described as "operational", it means that it is ready to fight. Otherwise, lets just call it VMFAT-121 or VMX-121. Even if it had it's full compliment of F-35's assigned, these aircraft are about as combat ready as a T-37 (actually less so since T-37's can fly in the rain). Regardless of the good work they are doing (and I do agree with you on the concept of getting the aircraft out to the end-users as quickly as possible), calling -121 operational is nothing but a PR gimmick. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 In my humble opinion, if a Marine fighter squadron is described as "operational", it means that it is ready to fight. Otherwise, lets just call it VMFAT-121 or VMX-121. Even if it had it's full compliment of F-35's assigned, these aircraft are about as combat ready as a T-37 (actually less so since T-37's can fly in the rain). Yeah but its not a training squadron or test squadron because the pilots are qualified and the mechs and everyone else is learning at Eglin so VMX or VMT isn't quite right either, HMX-1 is just weirdly exceptional so don't bother with them ... Another dirty little secret about the military is not all units are combat ready at all times. They have cycles and work ups and down times, If push comes to shove you can stand them up and get them to the war, but you can also say that about reserves and national guard... They, like most units are operating, but not at full readiness or capacity (like a lot of units). When a harrier det goes to the boat they take up the helicopter squadron HMM-631 or whatever, but the squadron with 6 jets still on base is still VMA-211. don't look now but its an understrength squadron, and it may get worse if they cannibalizing the jets there to feed the ones on the boat. I wouldn't rename them to VMA-211 (.5 ) though. The squadron (-121) is operational, operating at its capacity, with aircraft that are not approved for combat. the F-14 community was still VF-XX whatever, but they where for all intents and purposes VFA-XX, and some would go so far as to say VA-XX. Whole air force F-22 squadrons wouldn't count as operational squadrons when they were grounded for months but that doesn't make them test or training squadrons Like you said its all IMHO, but there really isn't a "proper name" for VMFA-121. MEUs are not considered MEUs until they pass all of their qualifications. but that doesn't mean they are no operational and training in the mean time before they are brought together for workups. if 100 percent of the military worked 100 percent of the time we would explode the bank. I see your point, mine is just that its not quite all PR, but its not all operational in the traditional sense either (and i get that). Even a pessimist could say that the USMC is at least taking unconventional steps to get an the aircraft to service due to the delays. odd steps, steps with gaps, but steps, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.