The F-35 Thread

[marcos]

I certainly hope you aren't putting me in that category? Every jet I have worked on I known someone that flew them, F-16's, A-10's and B-52's and I do or did talk to this people on a weekly occasion.

Hell I can't remember who said what but some certainly did. At least one of them was a moderator.

Edited February 27, 2013 by marcos

[marcos]

Yeah, except that's exactly what would happen. If an F-22A were to EVER go to the merge, it would be from a position of absolute advantage.

What range are you considering as merge because IRST works out to well beyond the range of a sidewinder, which figures since an AIM-9M seeker is like a really small, crappy IRST.

[Invader ZIM]

From this link:

 

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/F-35_flights_should_resume_soon_Pentagon_official_999.html

 

 

F-35 flights should resume soon: Pentagon official

by Staff Writers

Sydney (AFP) Feb 25, 2013

 

 

 

The Pentagon's director of the F-35 programme said Monday the next-generation US fighter jet could be back in the air within a fortnight after an engine crack forced the grounding of test flights.

Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, in Australia for talks on the jet, also dismissed any talk of foreign customers backing out of the costly project to build the F-35, known as the Joint Strike Fighter, because of its delays.

If the crack's cause was as straightforward as a foreign object striking the turbine, or a basic manufacturing defect, "I could foresee the airplane back in the air in the next week or two", Bogdan told reporters in Melbourne.

"If it's more than that then we have to look at what the risk is to the fleet," he said, adding than a verdict on the cracking's cause was expected "by the end of this week".

"My opinion is that the airplane will be back flying within a reasonable period of time if this is not a serious problem."

The Pentagon plans to make 2,443 F-35s for the US military and several hundred others for eight international partners including Australia who have invested in the project, as well as at least two customers, Japan and Israel.

Turkey has followed an Italian decision to delay purchase of the JSF, which has laboured under soaring costs and delays.

But Bogdan stressed: "I have no indication whatsoever that any partner is thinking about pulling out of the programme at all.

"I have communicated with all our partners and all the (armed) services about what occurred with the grounding," he said.

"They all understand that, while unfortunate, that it is not an unusual thing to find (that) an engine blade on a newer engine has a crack in it."

Bogdan said the small crack had been noticed during a routine 50-hour ground inspection and the entire engine had been shipped back to manufacturer Pratt & Whitney for examination.

"One thing we are grateful for is that we found the problem on the ground during a routine inspection and not in the air where it could have been catastrophic, where it could have damaged the airplane," he said.

All 51 test jets in the US F-35 fleet were grounded and further flights were suspended as a "precautionary measure" Friday after discovery of the crack on a turbine blade in one F-35 engine at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

"I do not anticipate whatsoever that this problem will delay any of the major milestones of the programme at all, I just don't see that happening even in the worst-case scenario," Bogdan said, describing the project as "on course and on schedule".

He warned that further teething problems were likely, with only 35-40 percent of the test flight programme completed. "But we have enough money and enough time in development to take care of those things."

The Pentagon has high hopes for the radar-evading F-35 fighter, which is supposed to replace most of the combat aircraft fleet of the US Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps by the end of the decade.

Australia has so far committed to delivery of two Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) in 2014 and a further 12 in 2019-2020. It originally indicated it would buy 100 of the jets, but budgetary constraints last year saw it trim back and delay the order.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard said her government remained committed to the initial order for two jets, but would "continue to monitor and be in discussions about issues that have arisen and need to be addressed".

A defence ministry spokesman said the engines for Australia's first two aircraft were yet to be manufactured and "if any design changes are required to the engine blades then those changes would be incorporated".

 

 

What's interesting is that if there is a problem with the engines, the U.S. will take the hit and make the necessary modifications, but Australia in the article will get the updated engine design if that's necessary, good business practice imo.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Invader ZIM

[Maior]

From this link:

 

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/F-35_flights_should_resume_soon_Pentagon_official_999.html

 

 

 

 

What's interesting is that if there is a problem with the engines, the U.S. will take the hit and make the necessary modifications, but Australia in the article will get the updated engine design if that's necessary, good business practice imo.

 

I'd say it's the minimum required. There would be no way they could deliver a faulty product to a customer. They have the obligation to do this.

[Invader ZIM]

True, from a ethical standpoint as well.

[marcos]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013/02/27/pentagon-f-35-program-chief-lashes-lockheed-pratt/#ixzz2M73Wyjm3

 

Pentagon F-35 program chief lashes out at Pratt-heed

 

By Jane Wardell

Published February 27, 2013

Reuters

 

"AVALON, Australia (Reuters) - The Pentagon program chief for the F-35 [u.S. Lieutenant-General Christopher Bogdan] warplane slammed its commercial partners Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney on Wednesday, accusing them of trying to "squeeze every nickel" out of the U.S. government and failing to see the long-term benefits of the project."

 

""What I see Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney doing today is behaving as if they are getting ready to sell me the very last F-35 and the very last engine and are trying to squeeze every nickel out of that last F-35 and that last engine," Bogdan told reporters at the Australian International Airshow in southern Victoria state.

 

"I want them both to start behaving like they want to be around for 40 years," he added. "I want them to take on some of the risk of this program, I want them to invest in cost reductions, I want them to do the things that will build a better relationship. I'm not getting all that love yet.""

 

"Bogdan caused a stir shortly after joining the F-35 program last August when he described the relationship between the government and Lockheed Martin as the worst he'd ever seen. There had been little improvement since then, he said.

 

"Are they getting better? A little bit," he said. "Are they getting better at a rate I want to see them getting better? No, not yet."

[bumfire]

Won't be a problem. G-force is such that they are usually all short-arsed Pinocchios.

 

Lol :megalol:

[aaron886]

Gotta say I love this Bogdan guy. He's living up to his reputation as a no-nonsense Mr. Fix-it.

[Cali]

I like that guy also, I think that the cuts need to come from congress....all of them until this mess is fixed.

[Pyroflash]

What range are you considering as merge because IRST works out to well beyond the range of a sidewinder, which figures since an AIM-9M seeker is like a really small, crappy IRST.

 

MERGE(D)

 

1. Information that friendlies and targets have arrived in the same visual arena.

2. Informative call indicating radar returns have come together.

 

It has nothing do do with IRST. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[marcos]

With IRST, merge will really occur before visual range. You will not get within visual range of IRST without being detected.

[GGTharos]

The word 'Merge' doesn't mean what you seem to want it to mean. The same word is used in the radar environment, where you can pick someone up 150km away. It happens well within visual range.

 

IRST's have their own challenges. The USAF experimented with them, so did the USN, and they've been used in a few cases. The 'other guys'' IRST's were also known to them, and the Raptor is built to deal with them.

 

I don't see a problem when it comes to the Raptor getting to the merge ... there's really not much reason for an IRST to easily find raptors executing intercept tactics. They really don't need to be sitting in the IRST's detection area ... better yet, even if they do, they can have someone else draw its attention. 30 seconds is all you need.

[marcos]

The word 'Merge' doesn't mean what you seem to want it to mean. The same word is used in the radar environment, where you can pick someone up 150km away. It happens well within visual range.

 

IRST's have their own challenges. The USAF experimented with them, so did the USN, and they've been used in a few cases. The 'other guys'' IRST's were also known to them, and the Raptor is built to deal with them.

 

I don't see a problem when it comes to the Raptor getting to the merge ... there's really not much reason for an IRST to easily find raptors executing intercept tactics. They really don't need to be sitting in the IRST's detection area ... better yet, even if they do, they can have someone else draw its attention. 30 seconds is all you need.

Well that's all highly theoretical. How do you propose on getting kills from outside IRST range since no kills have ever been achieved from such distances in real life combat?

[GGTharos]

Something about technology marching forward, missile capabilities increasing etc.

 

But wait, you don't even need to be outside of IRST range - heck, you could send one raptor to ping everyone with radar while the other guy sneaks around the IRST coverage to stick targets in the side.

 

Or maybe you don't care that you're inside IRST range, because by the time the IRST figures out it's got a hit, you're launching and leaving and the other guy just might be a little too preoccupied with this to fire back. Or maybe you're already messed up his WEZ.

 

Incidentally, all this is actually pretty standard tactics. Countering them requires the ability to detect the bandit far enough. 50km isn't far enough unless you're facing a MiG-21.

 

Well that's all highly theoretical. How do you propose on getting kills from outside IRST range since no kills have ever been achieved from such distances in real life combat?

[marcos]

While one Raptor sneaks in and gets beaten to death by ASRAAMs you mean.

 

Theory vs practice is the problem. In theory the Raptor sneaks around outside IRST and plinks planes with AMRAAMs. In practice 80-90% of them will miss based on stats (in fact current stats suggest 93.4% so I'm being generous), they nevertheless get detected and optical sensors can then track the offending aircraft following the plume of the rocket engine.

[GGTharos]

Theory vs practice is the problem.

 

Specifically it is your problem.

 

In practice 80-90% of them will miss based on stats (in fact current stats suggest 93.4% so I'm being generous), they nevertheless get detected and optical sensors can then track the offending aircraft following the plume of the rocket engine.

 

Go back to stats class.

 

As for 'following the plume of the rocket engine' that's only for sensors that are looking in the right direction, at the right time. And it might not matter anyway.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

But wait, you don't even need to be outside of IRST range - heck, you could send one raptor to ping everyone with radar while the other guy sneaks around the IRST coverage to stick targets in the side.

Soo ... now, you need two raptors to kill one MiG-29? But, wait, what if the other MiG-29 covers the first MiG-29? Then you would need three Raptors to kill two MiG-29's? But then, .... :)

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

[GGTharos]

MiG-29's fly into the ground at the sight of F-15's. That's why the missiles shot at them missed ... the MiG-29's had crashed already. :D

 

I guess according to what you just wrote though, the whole Russian tactic of the unknown shooter is just bollocks, right? :D

 

Soo ... now, you need two raptors to kill one MiG-29? But, wait, what if the other MiG-29 covers the first MiG-29? Then you would need three Raptors to kill two MiG-29's? But then, .... :)

[aaron886]

With IRST, merge will really occur before visual range.

 

:megalol:

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

MiG-29's fly into the ground at the sight of F-15's. That's why the missiles shot at them missed ... the MiG-29's had crashed already. :D

You said it takes two Raptors to defeat one IRST. So, now we are talking about F-15's and how good they are against pilots who fly their MiG's into ground? Oh boy ....

 

I guess according to what you just wrote though, the whole Russian tactic of the unknown shooter is just bollocks, right? :D

I don't have a clue about Russian tactics and have no idea about what you are trying to say.

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

[Cali]

Hajduk is reaching for anything now...

[ФрогФут]

MiG-29's fly into the ground at the sight of F-15's. That's why the missiles shot at them missed ... the MiG-29's had crashed already.

[LeadDoctor]

I think people missed the smiley at the end making it a joke. I caught it and thought it was funny. Sarcasim!

[swift]

DoD reviewing F-35 flight recommendation

 

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2013/02/dn-pentagon-reviewing-f35-flight-recommendation-022813/

 

Lockheed F-35 Flights Permitted to Resume, Pentagon Says

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-01/lockheed-f-35-flights-permitted-to-resume-pentagon-says.html

 

Edited March 1, 2013 by swift

[marcos]

Specifically it is your problem.

Specifically it is the problem of those who have based combat strategy on test and training that statistics contradict.

 

 

Go back to stats class.

Go back to reading class, there has already been a thread posted on it recently. The study was done by the USAF. BVR missiles have a Pk of about 40% if you take all shots. However if you take actual BVR shots, the Pk is sweet FA.

 

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

 

As for 'following the plume of the rocket engine' that's only for sensors that are looking in the right direction, at the right time. And it might not matter anyway.

EO and IR systems look all round.

Edited March 1, 2013 by marcos