• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sharpey
  • Start date Start date
drunknsubmrnr said:
At thousands of rounds per minute and hundreds of kilometers per hour? You must be a good shot.

No, I would buy that.  The 20mm rounds are only going to go where you point the nose of the airplane.  And only for a relatively short range.

Once a missile leaves the rail- it literally goes where it wants to. In a close fight, your wing man could end up eating your missile.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
...In a close fight, your wing man could end up eating your missile.

I think they were talking about during air combat manoeuvring, not post-flight in the bar...










;)
 
Good2Golf said:
I think they were talking about during air combat manoeuvring, not post-flight in the bar.

I wonder if that's why 'blue jobs' and 'blow jobs' sound so similar. ;D
 
Good2Golf said:
I think they were talking about during air combat manoeuvring, not post-flight in the bar...










;)

I'm *so* going to show this thread to the Fighter dudes that are in my roto (as RPA drivers, no less) and watch them fume  >:D
 
As it applies to the F-35A CTOL platform...greater program info at the link below.

Lockheed Martin F-35 Flight Test Progress Report

On June 13, F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) weapons pit drop testing was conducted for the first time at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.

On June 25, AF-1, an F-35A CTOL test jet, accomplished the first F-35 weapon pit drop from an external station, a GBU-12 from station 2. 

From January 1 to June 30, F-35A CTOL jets have flown 260 times.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/july/0710aero-f-35-flight-test-report.html
 
UK receives first F-35 stealth fighter jet from US
Article & Video Link
20 July 2012

It has been a long and expensive wait, but Britain has now been handed its first Joint Strike Fighter jet, also known as the F-35.

Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond flew out in person to the searing heat of Fort Worth, Texas, for the official handover ceremony from its US manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

He says it is "the best warplane money can buy". But it is an eye-watering sum - the current cost of each jet is more than £100m.

Video on link
 
Now, is this an operational aricraft the Brits can fly home, or is it staying in the US to be used exclusively for training?
 
dapaterson said:
Now, is this an operational aricraft the Brits can fly home, or is it staying in the US to be used exclusively for training?

It will stay in the US.
 
I then follow with "The UK didn't buy an aircraft.  They provided another testing & training platform in the US."

News would be an actual operational F35 that someone can employ.


Saying "Hey, we suckered someone else into paying for a test aircraft", on the other hand...
 
dapaterson said:
Saying "Hey, we suckered someone else into paying for a test aircraft", on the other hand...

All F-35 participating countries will have aircraft remaining in the US (Eglin AFB) as part of the multi-national training centre.

This perticular aircraft is an F-35B (the UK had changed its find for the C but now changed again and it's back to B) and belongs to the RAF.

No one has an operational F-35.
 
CDN Aviator said:
... (the UK had changed its find for the C but now changed again and it's back to B) ....

Can't remember where I saw it but it was recently.

A comment about the acquisition seemed to leave open the opportunity for the Brits to split their buy.  They WERE thinking of a single class buy of over 100 Bs, to meet both RAF and Fleet Air Arm requirements.  They then did, indeed change their minds and change it back again to the C and back to the B but have only committed themselves to 48 of the Bs.  Just enough for the Fleet Air Arm.

That seemed to me to leave the Brits the option of buying more F-35s but not necessarily Bs, or even Cs.  They could have left themselves the opportunity to purchase As, the same model the USAF is buying, but I believe they would need the USN/USMC probe and drogue refuelling system that the RCAF, and all other non-USAF customers, intends to buy with their F-35As.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/07/24/f-35-fighter-jet-lockheed-martin_n_1698678.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-politics

F-35 Fighter Jet: Inside Lockheed-Martin's Factory Where The Next Generation Aircraft Is Being Built

The Huffington Post Quebec - Nicolas Laffont - 07/24/2012 3:06 pm

The Lockheed-Martin plant in Fort Worth, Texas, where Canada’s F-35 jets are being manufactured, is gigantic.

You need a motorized cart to get around the place. The assembly line, with its dozen or so planes, is an impressive sight, and there are many people busily working around each craft. But the most surprising thing is how spotless everything is. No leaking oil, no workers with greasy hands, everything clean and shiny.

A little further out are hangars that house completed F-35s which are still in testing (usually a period of four to five months). One hangar contains six aircraft, including the BK-1, the first F-35 model made for the British military.

The F-35 has been in development for the last 15 years. Ten aircraft were built in 2011, and this year, Lockheed Martin expects to deliver about 40 of them.

But there is still a lot to be done on the production line. Lockheed Martin currently produces about four aircraft per month, and this figure should grow to 17 over the next few years. In order to achieve this, the American company plans to increase its workforce on the production line from 600 to nearly 1,500, even 2,000 if necessary.

In a briefing in Washington the day before The Huffington Post Quebec’s June visit to the plant, the vice-president of F-35 business development and customer engagement, Steve O’Bryan, said that 2012 was “a very, very good year for the F-35.”

According to Lockheed Martin, the program is advancing well and production is even a bit ahead of schedule.

As of June 30, 2012, the F-35A had flown 260 test flights, while the B and C versions had flown 202 and 133 flights respectively, for a total of 595 flights.

CHECK OUT PHOTOS OF THE F-35 ASSEMBLY LINE: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/07/24/f-35-fighter-jet-lockheed-martin_n_1698678.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-politics#slide=1270358

Inside the F-35 Factory, Ft. Worth, Texas 1 of 10


A CONTROVERSIAL PROJECT

The F-35 has been a lightning rod for controversy in Ottawa. The Auditor General accused the Department National Defence of hiding the full cost of the radar-evading jet by playing down the estimated $10 billion in operational expenses anticipated for the aircraft in the coming decades. The report also criticized Public Works for not following proper procedure and not demanding more rigorous justifications from the military for its choice of the Lockheed Martin fighter.

Responding to the audit, the Harper government took the file away from defence and gave it to a secretariat under Public Works. The government also promised to release regular cost estimates on the aircraft, which is still in development, and independently verify the figures. It will be fall before the public sees an independent assessment.

The controversy is not lost on Lockheed employees, though they appear to take it in stride.

“It was the same thing at the time of the CF-18 purchase, but we saw them in action during the first Gulf War, in Kosovo and in Libya,” said Billie Flynn, a Canadian who works for Lockheed as a test pilot. (He's also married to Canadian Astronaut Julie Payette).

Chris Kubasik, chief operating officer at Lockheed Martin, said he's had good communication with the Canadian government. "There are financial difficulties all over the world and we understand that governments are under pressure,” he said.

However, Vice President Steve O’Bryan warned a few weeks ago that Canadian companies could lose out on F-35 contracts if this country doesn't purchase the fighter jet.

“Right now we will honour all existing contracts that we have. After that, all F-35 work [subcontracting] will be directed into countries that are buying the airplane," O’Bryan said.

DIMINISHED RETURNS

The F-35’s potential economic benefits for Canada have diminished somewhat over time. According to Defence Department documents, the 2009 projection of $16.6 billion in economic activity was revised to $15.4 billion in 2010. For the same period, Industry Canada estimated $12 billion in Canadian industry contracts. Now it looks like it will be closer to $9 billion — over the next few decades, and only if the contracts are renewed.

Industry Minister Christian Paradis, Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose have all said on several occasions that the government plans to pursue new opportunities to increase the economic windfall from the F-35.

According to Kubasik, who will replace Stevens as CEO on Jan. 1, there will be new opportunities as the program continues. However, he also said he would look for the most competitive quotes from suppliers. If costs are too high or if a new supplier comes up with a better rate, Lockheed may decide to look elsewhere.

TRUE COST UNKNOWN

When it comes to understanding the cost of the F-35, the situation is reminiscent of someone selling you a fantastic car without telling you how much the insurance, gas and modifications to your garage will cost.

In October 2001, when the U.S. government first contracted Lockheed Martin’s Joint Strike Fighter program, the estimated cost was $49.9 million per aircraft (factoring in inflation). The costs then rose steadily to $84.9 million by December 2009. Some reports in the press have quoted figures of $100 million to $125 million.

The confusion stems from what is and is not included in the price.

Department of National Defence representatives stated before a Parliamentary committee in May that the unit cost was estimated at $85 million, or $9 billion for the purchase of 65 planes.

Industry Canada has indicated that the "recurring flyaway costs" of Canada's model, the F-35A, "include the airframe, the vehicle and mission systems, the motor and the propulsion systems.”

The CEO of Lockheed Martin told HuffPost Quebec that the latest figures at his disposal were closer to $70 million per jet.

The acquisition budget is divided into two parts: the costs for purchasing the aircraft themselves ($6 billion, plus Canadianization costs) and the costs for additional infrastructure (weapons, simulators, inflation), amounting to another $3 billion, which adds up to a total of $92 million per aircraft.

According to estimates from DND, it could cost up to $16 billion more for maintenance and future upgrades to the fighter plane. But this figure is also the subject of debate.

That maintenance estimate is based on a 20-year life cycle, but in reality the “normal” life cycle of an F-35 is closer to 36 years. If costs remain constant, this number would increase from $16 billion to close to $29 billion.

The total would therefore be $25 billion over 20 years or $38 billion over 36 years.

Nevertheless, there are other costs that are not accounted for in the acquisition budget for what is being called the fifth generation of fighter planes, such as future equipment and software upgrades, replacement planes in case of loss, pilot training and infrastructure adaptation, among other things.

With a file from The Canadian Press


 
God read .  .  .  Fond memories of Dew Line times.

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol12/no3/doc/PDFeng/Lawson-Sawler%20Page517.pdf

 
Here is an interesting article on the F-22:

How to Defeat the Air Force’s Powerful Stealth Fighter
By David AxeEmail AuthorJuly 30, 2012 |  4:00 am |  Categories: Air Force
| Edit

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/f-22-germans/

An F-22 over Alaska. Photo: Air Force


The fast, stealthy F-22 Raptor is “unquestionably” the best air-to-air fighter in the arsenal of the world’s leading air force. That’s what outgoing Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz wrote in 2009.

Three years later, a contingent of German pilots flying their latest Typhoon fighter have figured out how to shoot down the Lockheed Martin-made F-22 in mock combat. The Germans’ tactics, revealed in the latest Combat Aircraft magazine, represent the latest reality check for the $400-million-a-copy F-22, following dozens of pilot blackouts, and possibly a crash, reportedly related to problems with the unique g-force-defying vests worn by Raptor pilots.

In mid-June, 150 German airmen and eight twin-engine, non-stealthy Typhoons arrived at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska for an American-led Red Flag exercise involving more than 100 aircraft from Germany, the U.S. Air Force and Army, NATO, Japan, Australia and Poland. Eight times during the two-week war game, individual German Typhoons flew against single F-22s in basic fighter maneuvers meant to simulate a close-range dogfight.

The results were a surprise to the Germans and presumably the Americans, too. “We were evenly matched,” Maj. Marc Gruene told Combat Aircraft’s Jamie Hunter. The key, Gruene said, is to get as close as possible to the F-22 … and stay there. “They didn’t expect us to turn so aggressively.”

Gruene said the Raptor excels at fighting from beyond visual range with its high speed and altitude, sophisticated radar and long-range AMRAAM missiles. But in a slower, close-range tangle — which pilots call a “merge” — the bigger and heavier F-22 is at a disadvantage. “As soon as you get to the merge … the Typhoon doesn’t necessarily have to fear the F-22,” Gruene said.


This is not supposed to be the sort of reaction the F-22 inspires. For years the Air Force has billed the Raptor as an unparalleled aerial combatant. Even former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who in 2009 famously cut F-22 production to just 187 copies, called the stealth jet “far and away the best air-to-air fighter ever produced” and predicted “it will ensure U.S. command of the skies for the next generation.” And it’s slowly getting taken off the probation it incurred after seemingly suffocating pilots.

Admittedly, advanced air forces plan to do most of their fighting at long range and avoid the risky, close-in tangle — something Gruene acknowledged in his comments to Combat Aircraft. But there’s evidence that, in reality, most air combat occurs at close distance, despite air arms’ wishful thinking. That could bode poorly for the F-22′s chances in a future conflict.

In a 2008 study (big file!), the Air Force-funded think tank RAND warned against assuming long-range missiles will work. RAND looked at 588 air-to-air shoot-downs since the 1950s and counted just 24 that occurred with the attacker firing from beyond visual range. Historically, American long-range air-to-air missiles have been 90-percent less effective than predicted, RAND asserted.

Despite the historical facts, there persists in Air Force circles “a hypothetical vision of ultra-long range, radar-based, air-to-air combat,” to quote air power skeptic Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the brute-simple F-16 and A-10 warplanes.

It remains to be seen whether the Raptor and its AMRAAM missiles can reverse these trends. If long-range tactics fail, the F-22 force could very well find itself fighting up close with the latest fighters from China, Russia and other rival nations. And if the Germans’ experience is any indication, that’s the kind of battle the vaunted F-22s just might lose.
 
And also related....

Offered without comment.  Emphasis added.

Efforts to Estimate the Long-Term Cost of Defense Programs Give Me A Migraine
(Source: Lexington Institute; issued July 27, 2012)
(© Lexington Institute; reproduced by permission)
per Defense-Aerospace

One of the few ways to get the media’s attention in Washington is to claim that a government program is going to be more expensive than was originally projected. The bigger the number, the bigger the headline and the greater the feigned outrage on Capitol Hill. This is particularly true for major defense acquisition programs. Never mind that the gap between the thirty year projection on entitlement spending and expected revenues is so large you could drop the entire discretionary budget into that space and still have plenty of room left over.

Last year, the Department of Defense (DoD) appeared to have dropped a bombshell when it testified that the cost to sustain the planned fleet of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for the next fifty years was over $1 trillion. Pundits, bloggers and some members of Congress didn’t even stop to ask whether or not that number had any meaning before exploding in outrage. It turned out that almost half that number reflected half a century’s worth of inflation and was, therefore, meaningless. Another big chunk of the total bill was due to the fact that DoD had included lots of new infrastructure and support equipment in the figure, things that had no direct relationship to the cost of maintaining the airplane. Finally, DoD never bothered to figure out what it would cost them to maintain the fleet of fighters the F-35 was intended to replace. So the critics had no way of comparing the F-35 sustainment number to anything. It turns out, by the way, that over the same fifty years it would cost three or four times as much to keep all the current stuff flying.

Now we have a second example of how difficult it is to forecast the costs of major defense programs over a long period of time. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just published its assessment of the U.S. Navy’s thirty year shipbuilding program. The CBO estimates that over the next thirty years the price of the Navy’s plan to build some 268 ships -- everything from massive nuclear powered aircraft carriers and strategic ballistic missile submarines to the relatively small Littoral Combat Ship -- will cost $94 billion more than the Navy’s cost estimates. What a scandal!

Of course, it turns out that the difference between the two estimates is based almost entirely on the methodologies the two organizations employed, particularly their assumptions. But having seen what happened to the Air Force over the F-35 cost estimates, the Navy took the unusual step of issuing its own detailed statement on costing. Among the points that the Navy made was that it is really hard to make accurate cost estimates the farther out in time one goes. A small difference in assumptions about future inflation rates can result in big variations in the estimate of total costs. Another point the Navy made was that it has a remarkably stable shipbuilding plan with all but one type of vessel -- the SSBN(X) -- already under construction. As it looks out in the future, the shipbuilders will gain advantages due to learning curve effects and stable supply chain relationships which will lower costs.

So, it turns out there is no big news in the stories of the cost growth in the F-35 or the Navy’s shipbuilding programs. In fact, the more that government tries to project these costs over long periods of time the sillier they become. Reading these reports and trying to figure out what assumptions have been made and what errors have crept into the analysis gives me a migraine.

-ends-
 
I didn't want to quote that article regarding the Typhoon vs. Raptor because it's a bit long, but this is my response to it.

The Raptor was designed for Beyond Visual Range (BVR) tactics, not in tight dogfighting.  I really don't think that such a scenario as outlined above would happen, so the headline as it reads is really just a bunch of attention grabbing words put together to draw attention to the article itself.

The article does remind me, though, of a time when the USAF started to use missiles only on their F4's.  I think technology has come a long way since then, though...hehe

Attila
 
WingsofFury said:
The Raptor was designed for Beyond Visual Range (BVR) tactics, not in tight dogfighting.  I really don't think that such a scenario as outlined above would happen,

The trouble begins when your ROEs, like it was in Viet-Nam, do not allow BVR engagements.
 
Don2wing said:
Here is an interesting article on the F-22:

How to Defeat the Air Force’s Powerful Stealth Fighter
By David AxeEmail AuthorJuly 30, 2012 |  4:00 am |  Categories: Air Force
| Edit

...

Three years later, a contingent of German pilots flying their latest Typhoon fighter have figured out how to shoot down the Lockheed Martin-made F-22 in mock combat. The Germans’ tactics, revealed in the latest Combat Aircraft magazine, represent the latest reality check for the $400-million-a-copy F-22, following dozens of pilot blackouts, and possibly a crash, reportedly related to problems with the unique g-force-defying vests worn by Raptor pilots.

In mid-June, 150 German airmen and eight twin-engine, non-stealthy Typhoons arrived at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska for an American-led Red Flag exercise involving more than 100 aircraft from Germany, the U.S. Air Force and Army, NATO, Japan, Australia and Poland. Eight times during the two-week war game, individual German Typhoons flew against single F-22s in basic fighter maneuvers meant to simulate a close-range dogfight.

...

Curious to know if the F-22's were operating under any type of flight restrictions at the time due to the oxygen system problems which may have impacted their performance. 
 
^ It wasn't. Read the comments in that article and you'll see the problems with the article.

Or you can read this:

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/f-22-journalism-vs-punk-journalism.html
 
Back
Top