John Fedup
The Bunker Group
This is one of the better articles explaining the benefits of 5th Gen fighters. The Meteor missile looks to be a real game changer.
F-35 Program - General Discussion
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
This is one of the better articles explaining the benefits of 5th Gen fighters. The Meteor missile looks to be a real game changer.
Air Force Brat
Member
Todays AFM Daily Report notes the addition of several new "fairings" or bumps on the exterior of the F-35s, turns out these are to enhance the radar return for operation in "civilian" airspace. The addition indicates the L/O of the F-35 is much more effective than some have given it credit for.
AFAIK there has always been the plan to add external elements to the aircraft for use in civilian airspace, either that or it was something which was generally taken as read in the public domain due to the nature of the aircraft. Not really an indication that the VLO characteristics have improved from a design aspect but an addition made in the interests of public safety.
The actual addition of them is something new - i think - but the idea that it'll happen isn't that fresh.
The actual addition of them is something new - i think - but the idea that it'll happen isn't that fresh.
They have been on the F-35 since 2010 in the SDD program.
Here is AF-3, prior to being painted, sporting the RCS enhancers.
http://goo.gl/Hraatl
Here is AF-3, prior to being painted, sporting the RCS enhancers.
http://goo.gl/Hraatl
I'm not familiar with the journalist Mark Thompson but the following article indicates that he is not a friend of the program.
How the Pentagon fumbled buying the most costly weapon in history | TIME.com
How the Pentagon fumbled buying the most costly weapon in history | TIME.com
NAVAIR has begun testing of the updated F-35C tailhook design yesterday at NAS Patuxent River, Md. An F-35C flown by Lt Commander Tony Wilson (CF-3) caught the wire first on the 19th.
Shipboard testing (scheduled to be the Nimitz, but flexible depending on carrier availability) to begin in early 2014 which will be good to see. The article only talks about testing arrested recoveries on the CVN, but potential to see some cat launches too?
Navy's F-35 Starts New Tailhook Tests | USNI News
Shipboard testing (scheduled to be the Nimitz, but flexible depending on carrier availability) to begin in early 2014 which will be good to see. The article only talks about testing arrested recoveries on the CVN, but potential to see some cat launches too?
Navy's F-35 Starts New Tailhook Tests | USNI News
The Netherlands has released its initial plans for transitioning to the F-35 for its Air Force.
Netherlands details F-35 transition plan
The RNAFs 322 Squadron will be the first squadron to fly the F-35 operationally. 323 Squadron will finish operations with the F-16 on November 1st 2014 and then head over to Edwards AFB in 2015 to take part in IOT&E activities. The first flight of a Dutch pilot to fly the first Dutch F-35 was conducted in December last year.
Netherlands details F-35 transition plan
The RNAFs 322 Squadron will be the first squadron to fly the F-35 operationally. 323 Squadron will finish operations with the F-16 on November 1st 2014 and then head over to Edwards AFB in 2015 to take part in IOT&E activities. The first flight of a Dutch pilot to fly the first Dutch F-35 was conducted in December last year.
Well, they'll have to get the jet off the carrier eventually, so my vote is via catapult instead of crane.
Air Force Brat
Member
Well, they'll have to get the jet off the carrier eventually, so my vote is via catapult instead of crane.
Most certainly they will use the cat, when they carrier qualled the X-47B, they made no mention of the cat, as that's not the technological feat that trapping is, but as I have no definitive source, we'll have to wait and see. I'm rather certain for the first traps they will want the Nimitz "steaming" to create a much safer envelope, with some "margins" to bring the F-35C aboard ship, I would love to be on deck to see that show as I really like the C.
FirstSpear
Banned Member
UCAVs life size trial opportunity and JSF costs...
AFB,
you raise some interesting issues but it seems to me that the US and EU are missing an important opportunity to trial UCAVs on carriers in a 'safer manner' by taking the now retired Principe de Asturias and using it as a test platform for launching UCAVs off the ski jump (much more common on future EU platforms) and adding some arresting cables to it so the UCAVs could operate in a real world simulation of major carrier operation. The advantage of the ship itself is no one seems to want it. It's not that old, fairly modular in space and hangar space could even be mezzanined to allow for more UCAVs in the same 3D volume (they are all tail-less as far as I know).
Also, the ship requires a paltry ship's complement compared to almost ANY other platform so the trials would not draw too much manpower away from real ops. Also, I have read that the USN is very nervous about UCAVs operating from its major capital ships side by side with piloted platforms. This could be institutional inertia or real world risk management (or both.)
Also, to get us back to the JSF subject at hand, here's a link to a recent piece of the costs of the platform. I won't editorialize on it. Everyone can opine freely on it:
Defense Update:How much the F-35 Really Cost? - Defense Update:
AFB,
you raise some interesting issues but it seems to me that the US and EU are missing an important opportunity to trial UCAVs on carriers in a 'safer manner' by taking the now retired Principe de Asturias and using it as a test platform for launching UCAVs off the ski jump (much more common on future EU platforms) and adding some arresting cables to it so the UCAVs could operate in a real world simulation of major carrier operation. The advantage of the ship itself is no one seems to want it. It's not that old, fairly modular in space and hangar space could even be mezzanined to allow for more UCAVs in the same 3D volume (they are all tail-less as far as I know).
Also, the ship requires a paltry ship's complement compared to almost ANY other platform so the trials would not draw too much manpower away from real ops. Also, I have read that the USN is very nervous about UCAVs operating from its major capital ships side by side with piloted platforms. This could be institutional inertia or real world risk management (or both.)
Also, to get us back to the JSF subject at hand, here's a link to a recent piece of the costs of the platform. I won't editorialize on it. Everyone can opine freely on it:
Defense Update:How much the F-35 Really Cost? - Defense Update:
The EU isn't missing an opportunity, we've yet to get our house in order WRT defence and this would be a waste of money needed in other areas.
Who is going to fund carving up Principe De Asturias? Who wants to fund the task of carving up the ship, install arrestor wires and all associated kit AND fund to have the crew capable of maintaining and actually using them? Factor in what sort of UAVs are actually capable of taking off in ~250m even with a ski jump & right now I can't think of many off the top of my head.
Right now European development of UCAV technology is focused on developing LO land based aircraft requiring runways (BAE Taranis, Dassault nEuron) for long range strike. Would it be wise to divert money from that to this? IMO no.
Who is going to fund carving up Principe De Asturias? Who wants to fund the task of carving up the ship, install arrestor wires and all associated kit AND fund to have the crew capable of maintaining and actually using them? Factor in what sort of UAVs are actually capable of taking off in ~250m even with a ski jump & right now I can't think of many off the top of my head.
Right now European development of UCAV technology is focused on developing LO land based aircraft requiring runways (BAE Taranis, Dassault nEuron) for long range strike. Would it be wise to divert money from that to this? IMO no.
Testing to begin 'soon' on Block 4 software
F-35 awaits capability boost from Block 4 software - 1/23/2014 - Flight Global
AFAIK isn't Block 4 the block which 'technically' makes the F-35 properly combat capable?
F-35 awaits capability boost from Block 4 software - 1/23/2014 - Flight Global
AFAIK isn't Block 4 the block which 'technically' makes the F-35 properly combat capable?
IOC is intended for USN, USAF and most international allies on Block 3F, which includes AIM-9X, ASRAAM, AMRAAM, JDAM / Laser JDAM, Paveway / Enhanced Paveway / Paveway IV, SDB I/II and the cannon.
Block IV is the FOC standard and will include all the variants of the weapons above, all the standoff weapons types, things like Brimstone 2 (I believe), JAGM and a few international types (Turkish SOW, Japan and Israel will likely want to integrate domestic weapons types).
The July 2013 OT&E testimony is released. Some carry-over from past OT&E issues remain, but over all it's promising.
http://www.appropriations.senate.go...d&id=69ee98b4-d073-4b00-8732-403dd92d29db-91k
http://www.appropriations.senate.go...d&id=69ee98b4-d073-4b00-8732-403dd92d29db-91k
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The state of software development is not promising based on this latest report from Gilmore. There are many examples of software horror shows from vendors (major players) producing much less complicated programs than the software required for the F-35. With more resources, money, and time, perhaps this will all end well assuming no hardware issues crop up that require additional software modifications to rectify. Cleary the additional money requirements will be a problem given the budget constraints and the initial operational capabilities needed by the Marines seems pretty optimistic given the state of current software development. Would LM allow their own IT department to be exposed to this sort of software delay?
The 'it's promising' is that there wasn't any major new flaws found.
Are we reading the same report?
*2b delivered to FT April 2014.
*Block 2B operational evaluation is conducted in 2015.
I think the software "as of April 2013" is a carry-over issue like the buffet, TRO and live fire damage.
I believe from April till now there has been further software development and flight testing. From what I've read, the general view from USMC and JPO is it will make IOC 2015 with medium risk.
Are we reading the same report?
*2b delivered to FT April 2014.
*Block 2B operational evaluation is conducted in 2015.
I think the software "as of April 2013" is a carry-over issue like the buffet, TRO and live fire damage.
I believe from April till now there has been further software development and flight testing. From what I've read, the general view from USMC and JPO is it will make IOC 2015 with medium risk.
Initial rumours about UK F-35 order and costs. £2.5bn for 14 aircraft, sounds big but read the following
BBC News - UK to spend £2.5bn on F-35 fighters
So it's including a bunch of secondary costs too. If the numbers are correct (and we'll probably find out soon) then with respect to the cost of the aircraft that's some good unit price numbers.
All in all, depending how much total fleet support contracts are in this order, then that's a really good deal.
*presumably that's excluding engine cost, as the A has only recently reached sub-$100mn.
BBC News - UK to spend £2.5bn on F-35 fighters
So it's including a bunch of secondary costs too. If the numbers are correct (and we'll probably find out soon) then with respect to the cost of the aircraft that's some good unit price numbers.
All in all, depending how much total fleet support contracts are in this order, then that's a really good deal.
*presumably that's excluding engine cost, as the A has only recently reached sub-$100mn.