Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is up with the F-35? Part II

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Zinja View Post
    What about it Jimmy? Are you looking at the stain? I don't think its a result of the F-35, do you?
    Ah, I think you're right. My current wifi is a little sketchy and doesn't always load all the pictures. This time I have the "before" pic and the stain is clearly there before he's that close...looks like it was the target.

    Comment


    • #92
      The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff appears to be weak in support of all three variants.
      Dempsey Worries About Cost Of JSF Variants | AVIATION WEEK

      Comment


      • #93
        Reports from USS Wasp/Pax river on F-35B.
        Navy Sees Few Anomalies in F-35B Ship Trials | AVIATION WEEK

        Comment


        • #94
          Might be beating a dead horse here but, how does the F-35's performance stand up to it's next gen Russian competition like PAK FA?
          "Draft beer, not people."

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Red Team View Post
            Might be beating a dead horse here but, how does the F-35's performance stand up to it's next gen Russian competition like PAK FA?
            Its a dead horse from the perspective that modern warfare is about a series of systems events. the fighter is but a small component in the entire system, and its the system that creates {and supports} the opportunities for the fighter to exercise its particular benefit to the tactical event

            a platform to platform assessment is about as useful as grafting horns onto a daschund

            esp as there is a paucity of info anyway... :)
            Last edited by gf0012-aust; 30 Oct 11,, 06:33.
            Linkeden:
            http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
            http://cofda.wordpress.com/

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
              Its a dead horse from the perspective that modern warfare is about a series of systems events. the fighter is but a small component in the entire system, and its the system that creates {and supports} the opportunities for the fighter to exercise its particular benefit to the tactical event

              a platform to platform assessment is about as useful as grafting horns onto a daschund

              esp as there is a paucity of info anyway... :)
              I see what you mean, performance head to head takes a back seat to superior avionics, pilot ergonomics, and tactics. If your platform doesn't have a sophisticated and experienced support backing, then it's all moot.

              Oh how I yearn for the honored dogfights of old, where the boys were separated from the men.
              "Draft beer, not people."

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Red Team View Post
                I see what you mean, performance head to head takes a back seat to superior avionics, pilot ergonomics, and tactics. If your platform doesn't have a sophisticated and experienced support backing, then it's all moot.

                Oh how I yearn for the honored dogfights of old, where the boys were separated from the men.
                its also about the supportng systems as well as the onboard systems.

                eg supporting ISR, packages, , other strike elements, UAV/heavy pre-strike, the surrounding crow shop etc....
                Linkeden:
                http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Red Team View Post
                  Might be beating a dead horse here but, how does the F-35's performance stand up to it's next gen Russian competition like PAK FA?
                  The Pak-FA is likely a better bomb truck with a higher top speed, agility and range- but its a lot bigger as well so that is to be expected. But the F-35 likely has better avionics, smaller RCS at least from the front, higher numbers (assuming both get deployed) and better support. But that reflects different missions as well. India and Russia have different needs from the US and American partners in the F-35 program. Same goes for the other possible stealth contenders like China and Japan.

                  A long range fairly stealthy platform for China may be less of a bomb truck than a conventional recon platform. In an area frequented by bad weather and crowded with tankers the same size as carriers, how is China going to find an American carrier? A stealthy plane flying around sniffing for emissions is one way. Afterall radar sats can tell something is there, and the US is in a pickle if something is there to listen- emit and give it self away, or don't emit and give itself away.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Could this be a bad sign for appropriations for the F-35B?

                    Navy, Corps buying decommissioned U.K. Harriers
                    By Christopher P. Cavas, Vago Muradian and Andrew Chuter - Staff writers
                    Posted : Sunday Nov 13, 2011 12:13:52 EST
                    The Navy and Marine Corps have agreed to buy Britain’s entire decommissioned fleet of 74 Harrier jump jets, along with engines and spare parts — a move expected to help the Corps operate Harriers into the mid-2020s and provide extra planes to replace aging two-seat F-18D Hornet strike fighters.

                    Rear Adm. Mark Heinrich, chief of the Navy’s Supply Corps, confirmed the two-part deal last week during a conference in New York sponsored by Bank of America Merrill Lynch in association with Defense News.

                    Heinrich negotiated the $50 million purchase of all Harrier spare parts, while Rear Adm. Donald Gaddis, the Navy’s program executive officer for tactical aircraft, is overseeing discussions to buy the Harrier aircraft and their Rolls-Royce engines, Heinrich said.

                    A spokesman for the British Ministry of Defence confirmed the Disposal Services Agency was in talks with the Navy for the sale of the Harriers. The deal had yet to be concluded, he said Friday.

                    Britain retired its joint force of Royal Air Force and Royal Navy Harrier aircraft late last year in one of the most controversial moves of the defense reductions, which also cut the aircraft carriers that operated the jets, other warships, maritime patrol planes and personnel.

                    Most of the retired Harriers are stored at Royal Air Force Base Cottesmore, England. They have been undergoing minimum fleet maintenance, including anti-deterioration measures, in order to keep them airworthy, Heinrich said.

                    A spokesman for the Navy’s Naval Air Systems Command declined on Friday to comment on the deal, deferring to the British military.

                    A British MoD source said Friday that he thought both deals could be signed in the next week or two. The MoD source confirmed that the entire fleet of 74 Harrier aircraft was involved in the sale.

                    Heinrich noted that payment details were the only outstanding issue on the parts deal discussions, and he said the purchase will give the Corps a relatively economical way to get their hands on key components to keep the Harrier fleet running.

                    While it is unusual for the U.S. to buy used foreign military aircraft for operation, integration of the British planes into Corps squadrons shouldn’t be a major problem, one expert said.

                    “I don’t think it will be costly to rip out the Brit systems” and replace them with Marine gear, said Lon Nordeen, author of several books on the Harrier.

                    Nordeen noted that the British GR 9 and 9As are similar in configuration to the Marines’ AV-8B night attack version, which makes up about a third of U.S. Harriers. The British planes also are night planes dedicated to air-ground attack, he said, and while both types carry Forward Looking Infrared sensors, neither is fitted with a multimode radar such as the APG-65 carried by U.S. AV-8B+ models.

                    The absence of the big radar, Nordeen said, makes the GR 9A and AV-8Bs “a better-performing plane. Weighing less, it’s more of a hot rod.”

                    British GR 9s, although upgraded with improved avionics and weapons, are powered by the Rolls-Royce Mark 105 Pegasus engine. GR 9As have the more powerful Mark 107, similar to the Rolls-Royce F402-RR-408s that power Marine AV-8Bs.

                    British and U.S. Harrier II aircraft had a high degree of commonality from their origin. The planes were developed and built in a joint arrangement between British Aerospace — now BAE Systems — and McDonnell Douglas, now a division of Boeing. While each company built its own wings, all forward sections of the British and American Harrier IIs were built by McDonnell in St. Louis, while British Aerospace built the fuselage sections aft of the cockpit.

                    “All the planes have to fit together,” Nordeen said.

                    The Harrier IIs, built between 1980 and 1995, “are still quite serviceable,” he said. “The aircraft are not that far apart. We’re taking advantage of all the money the Brits have spent on them. It’s like we’re buying a car with maybe 15,000 miles on it.”

                    Operationally, Nordeen said, “these are very good platforms. They need upgrades, but on bombing missions they have the ability to incorporate the Litening II targeting pod [used by U.S. aircraft]. They’re good platforms. And we’ve already got trained pilots.”

                    The Corps is planning on phasing out its Harriers by 2025, when replacement by F-35B Joint Strike Fighters should be complete.

                    Nordeen, however, said he expects the British Harriers to be used initially to replace two-seat Marine F-18D Hornet fighters now operated in the night attack role.

                    “The F-18Ds are more worn out than the Harriers,” Nordeen said. “Most of the conversions [of ex-British aircraft] early on will be to replace 18Ds and not Harriers.” He noted the first Marine F-35B squadron already is slated to replace an F-18D unit.

                    Comment


                    • Wow. Didn't see that coming.

                      Comment


                      • not sure why the hornet issue is a revelation now.

                        we've known that charlie and deltas had emerging centre barrel issues for more than 5 years.

                        the non JSF solution is to either extend the shornet line in lieue of the centre barrel program being cost negative/neutral and thus unattractive - or pruning charlie/delta missions to extend airframe life.
                        Linkeden:
                        http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                        http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                        Comment


                        • There are gonna be some pissed off people in the UK, me thinks :D


                          Yesterday, I finnally saw the pics of an F-35 doing a VTOL landing. The caption indicated how we could see all 9 doors open, etc etc...

                          9 doors... is it just be being paranoid, or is that a lot of extra stuff that has to work properly for it to land?...

                          Comment


                          • There's about 900 that have to work for it to fly at all, so...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
                              There's about 900 that have to work for it to fly at all, so...
                              Yes, I know, but to specifically land vertically, those 9 doors have to work perfectly, in unison, with no flaws... *cringe*

                              *grumble* the old Harrier didn't need any of that stuff..

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
                                *grumble* the old Harrier didn't need any of that stuff..
                                thats oversiimplifying by some margin.

                                the old harrier was also just a triangle on your track management software - ie a friendly on your screen.

                                JSF on any gven day is not just a dot on C2PC or GCCS, its a force enabler.

                                even with sim birds on exercises it changes the overall operating picture about what we can see and bring to the fight by an order of magnitude that harrier pilots could just dream about.

                                the capability reality of the JSF as opposed to what gets sagely bandied about on the internet is a golden mile apart.
                                Linkeden:
                                http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                                http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X