F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
- Status
It's more a technical question. You need personell with different levels of training throughout the chain. That goes for the F-35 too. Some tasks, like on the flight line or turn around, may be done by low-trained personell, typically with a supervisor or crew chief. Those might be conscripts, but that concept is slowly making way for a professional force in some countries.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
yep but in the us. But they are oddly rig testing in the UK
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Emals
I have a question? Will the EMALS be able to launch aircraft faster than the traditional steam catapults. Thereby increase storie rates!
I have a question? Will the EMALS be able to launch aircraft faster than the traditional steam catapults. Thereby increase storie rates!
jimbobsimmonds
New Member
I think this is partly to speed up what is essentially the world's slowest testing program by spreading the test units around, even if that means shipping it to the UK. I have been up to Yorkshire and seen the test facilities there (unfortunately the F-35 wasn't there at the time) and they are top-knotch, and it would be a shame not to use them.
There is also the political aspect of allowing the UK to play and test independently with the airframe if we so wish too...
jimbobsimmonds
New Member
According to the wonderfully reliable Wikipedia EMALS has a turnaround time of 45 seconds... Now this is purely speculation on my part but i would imagine that recharging a steam catapult would take longer.
However this is when both catapults are fully functioning. The improvements in reliability and less frequent maintenance cycles means that in the long term (ie over the course of a tour) sortie rate could be improved as there is less downtime while men with spanners fix the thing.
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Spreading the work around will just make the program stronger in my opinion. Especially, as F-35's enter service.
jimbobsimmonds
New Member
Of course, fact is when the F-35s enter active service all the partner nations are going to have to share data and experience to allow for development through the blocks (F-16 style)
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Let's compare the F-35 to the only other 5th gen fighter ever developed, the F-22.
First flight of demonstrator
F-22 = 1990
F-35 = 2000
First flight of SDD
F-22 = 1997
F-35 = 2006
The F-35 beat the F-22 by a year.
IOC Dates
F-22 = 2005 (15 year total from FF)
F-35 A,B&C = 2012, 2013, & 2014 (12, 13, & 14 years from FF)
F-35 beats it by 3 years and this is for THREE different airframes. If this had been for just a single airframe, we would likely be in IOC today or 2010.
Don't even get me started on Russian timeframes
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Let's compare the F-35 to the only other 5th gen fighter ever developed, the F-22.
First flight of demonstrator
F-22 = 1990
F-35 = 2000
First flight of SDD
F-22 = 1997
F-35 = 2006
The F-35 beat the F-22 by a year.
IOC Dates
F-22 = 2005 (15 year total from FF)
F-35 A,B&C = 2012, 2013, & 2014 (12, 13, & 14 years from FF)
F-35 beats it by 3 years and this is for THREE different airframes. If this had been for just a single airframe, we would likely be in IOC today or 2010.
Don't even get me started on Russian timeframes
Excellent Point..........
jimbobsimmonds
New Member
great point...Let's compare the F-35 to the only other 5th gen fighter ever developed, the F-22.
First flight of demonstrator
F-22 = 1990
F-35 = 2000
First flight of SDD
F-22 = 1997
F-35 = 2006
The F-35 beat the F-22 by a year.
IOC Dates
F-22 = 2005 (15 year total from FF)
F-35 A,B&C = 2012, 2013, & 2014 (12, 13, & 14 years from FF)
F-35 beats it by 3 years and this is for THREE different airframes. If this had been for just a single airframe, we would likely be in IOC today or 2010.
Don't even get me started on Russian timeframes
Don't you think some of this could be to do with technology being tested and developed for the F-22 and then used on the F-35 though?
However i guess this can be offset by the multinational aspect of the project which the F-22 doesn't have to deal with as much as it is a mostly US aircraft. I spent a few months working on the JSF here in the UK and i can say that ITAR controls really really slow things (its a pain in the arse just waiting for ITAR permissions).
I suppose all things concidered the test program hasn't been that bad
While there are some things that evolved from the F-22, most are new.
Radar = evolved from APG-77 but the T&R modules are a new generation ahead.
EODAS = New, although the idea came from the F-22's MLD. The company is different and it does SO MUCH more.
Airframe design = evolved
Engine = evolved from F119
RAM = new in order to make maintenance easier
Electronic warfare suite = new with newly designed T&R modules in the wing's leading edges
Software = evolved but in a new language (C++)
Lift Fan = new
EOTS = evolved with new materials
Radar = evolved from APG-77 but the T&R modules are a new generation ahead.
EODAS = New, although the idea came from the F-22's MLD. The company is different and it does SO MUCH more.
Airframe design = evolved
Engine = evolved from F119
RAM = new in order to make maintenance easier
Electronic warfare suite = new with newly designed T&R modules in the wing's leading edges
Software = evolved but in a new language (C++)
Lift Fan = new
EOTS = evolved with new materials
jimbobsimmonds
New Member
again all good points. but like was mentioned earlier there is a much greater distribution of work amongst different nations and companies each with there various expertise, which in theory (which always come true lol) this should speed the process of r&d up. Thankfully the F-35 consortium seem slightly more efficient at deciding what they actually want as opposed to the EFA consortium in which infighting at all levels has just caused hopeless delays.
Scorpion82
New Member
If the aircraft achieves IOC on time then I agree. We'll see, but I doubt it would have been all that faster without the B & C modells.F-35 beats it by 3 years and this is for THREE different airframes. If this had been for just a single airframe, we would likely be in IOC today or 2010.
Don't even get me started on Russian timeframes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@jimbobsimmonds
That's the advantage of a single nation leading the programme. The US will move ahead, regardless if one partner don't commit at a given time. The Eurofighter programme is different, as there is no lead nation and all partners have to agree to move ahead, otherwise the programme stands still as we have seen multiple times.
Crusader2000
Banned Member
[
I think you're grossly underestimating the complexity of developing all three models at one time. Especially, considering how each have very different roles!
I think you're grossly underestimating the complexity of developing all three models at one time. Especially, considering how each have very different roles!
The whole SWAT delay was due to the B model's weight problems.
The US Navy seems confident enough in the schedule that they recently pushed up their IOC from 2015 to 2014.
Scorpion82
New Member
What I'm refering to is that, while a single modell would have eliminated quite some work for the overall programme, it's also likely that less test aircraft would be built and fewer airframes would have to carry the burden of the entire test flight programme. While specific models will be used to perform some specific testing (STOVL, carrier etc.) they will also be used for tasks from which all variants will benefit. Given the complexity of the programme I doubt they could do it much faster, even with just one model being designed.
And while the USN plans to accelerate the IOC date we have yet to see if the program progresses more smoothly than before. I know that LM officials claimed that the most critical phase has been passed now, but you still have a largely untested aircraft, with a lot of things left to do. No one can seriously predict how the program will progress now. I don't say they won't achieve the current milestones at time, but I remain sceptical.
And while the USN plans to accelerate the IOC date we have yet to see if the program progresses more smoothly than before. I know that LM officials claimed that the most critical phase has been passed now, but you still have a largely untested aircraft, with a lot of things left to do. No one can seriously predict how the program will progress now. I don't say they won't achieve the current milestones at time, but I remain sceptical.
Scorpion82
New Member
Not disputed.
But remember that in that time AA1 was grounded due technical issues as well, which would have occured anyway.
- Status