Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
MarkW

F-35 news roundup

Recommended Posts

*shrug*

I think the report speaks for itself. It was a high alpha flight test mission, that explored the high alpha and transitory alpha handling qualities of the airplane with an F-16 thrown in as a maneuvering reference point. The author of the leaked report found some of the high alpha handling characteristics to be less than desirable, meaning they'll very likely be tweaked out as time goes by. There were numerous revisions to the FLCS software before IOC in the Raptor, and several that have occurred after IOC. I hardly find any of this surprising.

Then again, all of that is as written in the test report, and has very little to do with how you teach guys to fly the jet in an operational environment, or how you teach them to tactically employ the airplane at a merge. So....something, something, something....much ado about nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I read, the madder (as an American taxpayer) I get. This is the single biggest boondoggle in American history.

http://www.nationalr...se-waste-danger

Yep; Good point.

Boondoggles like the F-4, F-16, F-14, F-18E/F, F-22, and F-111.

All examples of cost overruns, underperforming, etc etc. A real waste of U.S. tax dollars for sure rolleyes.gifdeadhorse1.gif .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*shrug*

I think the report speaks for itself. It was a high alpha flight test mission, that explored the high alpha and transitory alpha handling qualities of the airplane with an F-16 thrown in as a maneuvering reference point. The author of the leaked report found some of the high alpha handling characteristics to be less than desirable, meaning they'll very likely be tweaked out as time goes by. There were numerous revisions to the FLCS software before IOC in the Raptor, and several that have occurred after IOC. I hardly find any of this surprising.

Then again, all of that is as written in the test report, and has very little to do with how you teach guys to fly the jet in an operational environment, or how you teach them to tactically employ the airplane at a merge. So....something, something, something....much ado about nothing.

Thank you for this post.

All examples of cost overruns, underperforming, etc etc. A real waste of U.S. tax dollars for sure rolleyes.gifdeadhorse1.gif .

Surely the solution is to quit, and then begin anew with 3 separate programs! This will save Taxpayer dollars because magic. Did I mention we will use the same tech the F-35 does? That way we take the longest, most expensive route to F-35 levels of capability. Canceling the F-35 will surely get the F-35 software on track to use in the future 3 programs as well. It won't take years just to get the new requirements and programs set up either. The JSF is what 20 years on right now? surely this could all be done in 10, 12 years tops. Yep 3 programs should be entering squadron service around 2037, or around the time the JSF would have had over 2000 aircraft delivered to the US Armed Forces. its Brilliant. And should any of the 3 run into problems? why cancel them and start over again! This is an intelligent use of tax payer funds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3nnaEkv.jpg

Well done. This one ^^^ is my favorite. Love the angle. Thanks for sharing :thumbsup: .

Regards,

Don.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. Navy Doesn’t Seem to Care That the F-35 Can’t Dogfight

To the sailing branch, the stealth fighter is a sensor

But the U.S. Navy — the third-largest purchaser of F-35s — seems unperturbed. Indeed, in recent planning the Navy describes the JSF less as a traditional fighter than as radar-evading, flying sensor and communications node.

The Navy apparently doesn’t care that its F-35C version of the stealth jet — as well as the Marines’ F-35B model — is a poor performer in raw kinetic terms. In the sailing branch’s evolving battle scheme, the JSF will focus on finding targets … for older F/A-18 fighters and missile-armed warships to shoot down.

Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker, the Navy’s top aviator, called the JSF’s sensor combo a “game-changer.” “Suck[ing] in all that information,” an F-35 can paint “a great, clear picture of who’s good and who’s bad.”

And that can help solve one of the Navy’s biggest problems — identifying targets at long range inside enemy lines so that surface ships and non-stealthy F/A-18 fighters can bring to bear their SM-6 and AIM-120 missiles, which can travel farther than the shooters’ sensors can see.

It seems to make perfect sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comments given that the Navy's support of the JSF hasn't been the strongest. The lack of concern over the aircraft's maneuverability (or lack thereof) isn't surprising either. Many feel that the Super-hornet also is lacking in this dept but the Navy is ok with this since those drawbacks are offset by the SH's other attributes such as decent weapons carrying ability, a very good radar, 2nd crew station on the F model, etc.

Edited by 11bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interested in whether the jet itself was breaking, or three immature maintenance (ALIS) and BIT system was at fault.

Pro tip: The plane actually being broken is rarely the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now its time to just sit back and watch the usual folks say its all made up... should be fun

Well of course it's made up TT, the Duffleblog is fictional. Oh wait....

Easy boys, just kidding.

On another note, I just saw a pretty cool video over on Foxtrot Alpha. It was part of a "Greatest Hits" collection of targeting pod videos from recent bombing strikes against the boys from ISIS. It showed a complex getting hit with what appeared to be six bombs, all impacting at different points throughout the compound, pretty much simultaneously. The imagery showed each impact location predesignated (never seen those symbols before). No idea what weapons were used, maybe SDB's? Pretty impressive stuff, I'm guessing that this will be one of the tricks that the F-35 is capable of pulling off when it finally gets into operational service. Video is here:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-did-this-airstrike-hit-six-areas-of-a-single-target-1721136862

Edited by 11bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Axe again. Spare me.

Shane

Consider yourself spared. :thumbsup:

Interesting Comments regarding the USN and the F-35C from Colin Clarke of Breaking Defense:

Remember that the Navy is the service most distant from the F-35 program because, all along, they were going to be the last service to get theirs. The closer a service gets to the F-35 the more they seem to love it. That could be because they are all corrupt, because they actually believe the plane supplies them with superior combat capabilities, or because it's what they've got so they better love it. Watch the Navy become increasingly fond of the F-35C in two years as it gets closer to IOC and they see what the Marines can do with theirs.

The electronic warfare argument is much more complex and opaque to us because of classification. Top Air Force officers say the F-35's EW and cyber capabilities -- including spoofing -- are among the plane's most powerful capabilities. But it ain't at IOC yet. The Growler is in full production. If I were managing risk right now, I'd go with what is already available too.

and

I think the disconnect occurs because A-- the Navy is getting the F-35C much later than the Air Force and Marines so it's worried about what happens during that period; B-- Greenert doesn't dismiss stealth, as many of my colleagues want to assume, but he clearly values it less than do Air Force leaders. Of course, the Air Force has used low observable technologies for quite a while the Navy has largely left it to the Air Force. Who is smarter on this? The answer is largely classified. For those who argue that low frequency and networked radar will put paid to LO, senior allied, OSD, Air Force and Marine officers say that is not the case as the F-35's combination of LO, EW and cyber capabilities allow them to get inside the targeting radars. The F-35s can be spotted with the long-range radar but it's very difficult to target them with the fire radars.

The USN just doesn't really need to expend political poker chips on the F-35C its in the "inevitable" category and they have other things to worry about. I know we all grew up on TOP GUN, but please remember the navy is a ship force with airplanes, not the other way around, the USN has other priorities--and they don't even fly!! Well maybe for a second:

okcity_emergency_blow.jpg

>>> Article <<< :hmmm:

-Gregg

I think the Super Hornet was around 57 percent (?) early on and that was with legacy avionics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the Super Hornet was around 57 percent (?) early on and that was with legacy avionics.

It's always low until you figure out what tends to break and what doesn't and stock spares accordingly. OT is only a snapshot - you really need fleet time on a system. For instance, look at the 787.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always low until you figure out what tends to break and what doesn't and stock spares accordingly. OT is only a snapshot - you really need fleet time on a system. For instance, look at the 787.

If this was the only case, then that would be bad enough. But it isn't. The MX and availaibilty issues are compounded by ALIS being immature and having numerous bugs to work out. You can park 5 perfectly flyable jets at night and wake up to 3 being down just due to MX software glitches that randomly pop up.

Don't expect advances in MCR until ALIS stops being so horribly broken. Once (if) they get ALIS fixed, though, expect some of the magic payoff in cost and availability to start happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now I'm having mental images of the "Blue Screen of Death" popping up on the pilot's helmet display.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this was the only case, then that would be bad enough. But it isn't. The MX and availaibilty issues are compounded by ALIS being immature and having numerous bugs to work out. You can park 5 perfectly flyable jets at night and wake up to 3 being down just due to MX software glitches that randomly pop up.

Don't expect advances in MCR until ALIS stops being so horribly broken. Once (if) they get ALIS fixed, though, expect some of the magic payoff in cost and availability to start happening.

Yeah, some of my SPAWAR folks described ALIS as a "Large, Angry woman".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can park 5 perfectly flyable jets at night and wake up to 3 being down just due to MX software glitches that randomly pop up.

Of course. Because why pay to solve a problem once, when you can pay to solve it twice? IMIS had the exact same issues early on. It was entirely typical to land with a perfect Code-1 jet, and then not be able to turn a wheel for 4 days. We actually switched to paper tracking and stopped doing IMIS downloads and debriefs just so we could get more sorties out of the jets when there were no pilot gripes.

Fortunately, having witnessed this first hand, I can safely say, "this too, shall pass." It's just annoying to see it play out twice in less than a generation's worth of aircraft development, and by the same gorram frackin' company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lack of a gun is all it takes to make it operationally ineffective? Forget AIM-120s or the bombs it can drop...tough crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do any of the F-35 variants have provision for IFR using a probe and drogue??

I was at RIAT Fairford recently, looking at the UK's latest tanker - the Voyager (based on the Airbus A-330).

Unlike the Australian version, it doesn't have a refueling boom - just two underwing IFR pods for probe-and-drogue refuelling.

I hadn't realised the lack of a boom on our version and I said to the Voyager pilot - "It's a good job we don't have any receptacle-equipped fighters then" - to which he replied - "But we will have when the F-35 enters RAF service."

Which begs the question - how is the RAF going to deploy them to, say, Cyprus ?? - will we have to go cap-in-hand to the USAF to get some tanking???

How will the US Navy and Marine Corps IFR their variants ?? - or are there plans for fitting a probe - or does it already have a probe???

Excuse my ignorance - just curious.

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B's and C's are probe and drogue. The A has that space reserved, but nobody has funded a probe and drogue A yet.

Edited by MarkW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...