What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?

[Mave]

Mojocvh said:

Mave said:

"You've still got a reasonable range on internal fuel."

Apparently not.

Still waiting for an expanation for this statement...

[aeropilot]

Mojocvh said:

Godalmighty83 said:

Without external tank, as far as I'm aware no drop tank has yet to have been tested and signed off on the Dave.

The CVF can operate max loaded B's depending on ambient conditions. You will need no headwind and very high air temperatures before weight would be an issue. The superhornets combat range on internal tanks is about 375-390m depending on profile. With the extra drag and load limits of drop tanks the FA18 has no performance advantage but considerably greater RCS.

What is the current certified internal weapon carriage of the f35B?

I think the USMC 2B spec cleared weapons fit for IOC are just AIM-120C7 AMRAAM, JDAM and CBU-12 LGB.

The USMC are supposed to be IOC in July 2015, but it's looking increasingly like that will slip beyond July and could even be as late as Dec 2015.

[mph1977]

aeropilot said:

Mojocvh said:

Godalmighty83 said:

Without external tank, as far as I'm aware no drop tank has yet to have been tested and signed off on the Dave.

The CVF can operate max loaded B's depending on ambient conditions. You will need no headwind and very high air temperatures before weight would be an issue. The superhornets combat range on internal tanks is about 375-390m depending on profile. With the extra drag and load limits of drop tanks the FA18 has no performance advantage but considerably greater RCS.

What is the current certified internal weapon carriage of the f35B?

I think the USMC 2B spec cleared weapons fit for IOC are just AIM-120C7 AMRAAM, JDAM and CBU-12 LGB.

The USMC are supposed to be IOC in July 2015, but it's looking increasingly like that will slip beyond July and could even be as late as Dec 2015.

but as usdual IOC is usually with a limited range of weapons - it's not a new phenomena ...

[aeropilot]

mph1977 said:

aeropilot said:

Mojocvh said:

Godalmighty83 said:

Without external tank, as far as I'm aware no drop tank has yet to have been tested and signed off on the Dave.

The CVF can operate max loaded B's depending on ambient conditions. You will need no headwind and very high air temperatures before weight would be an issue. The superhornets combat range on internal tanks is about 375-390m depending on profile. With the extra drag and load limits of drop tanks the FA18 has no performance advantage but considerably greater RCS.

What is the current certified internal weapon carriage of the f35B?

I think the USMC 2B spec cleared weapons fit for IOC are just AIM-120C7 AMRAAM, JDAM and CBU-12 LGB.

The USMC are supposed to be IOC in July 2015, but it's looking increasingly like that will slip beyond July and could even be as late as Dec 2015.

but as usdual IOC is usually with a limited range of weapons - it's not a new phenomena ...

Indeed....

However, if this report is true, and it's very difficult to work out what is and isn't with the F-35, the initial limited range of weapons could be less of an issue in the grand scheme of things....

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/26/n...

[mph1977]

aeropilot said:

mph1977 said:

aeropilot said:

Mojocvh said:

Godalmighty83 said:

Without external tank, as far as I'm aware no drop tank has yet to have been tested and signed off on the Dave.

The CVF can operate max loaded B's depending on ambient conditions. You will need no headwind and very high air temperatures before weight would be an issue. The superhornets combat range on internal tanks is about 375-390m depending on profile. With the extra drag and load limits of drop tanks the FA18 has no performance advantage but considerably greater RCS.

What is the current certified internal weapon carriage of the f35B?

I think the USMC 2B spec cleared weapons fit for IOC are just AIM-120C7 AMRAAM, JDAM and CBU-12 LGB.

The USMC are supposed to be IOC in July 2015, but it's looking increasingly like that will slip beyond July and could even be as late as Dec 2015.

but as usdual IOC is usually with a limited range of weapons - it's not a new phenomena ...

Indeed....

However, if this report is true, and it's very difficult to work out what is and isn't with the F-35, the initial limited range of weapons could be less of an issue in the grand scheme of things....

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/26/n...

which is a typical aissue if you don't "future proof" a design - which is part ofthe problem the stealthy designs face , where less stealthy designes using pods etc you can just put a new one on

[Mojocvh]

Mave said:

Mojocvh said:

Mave said:

"You've still got a reasonable range on internal fuel."

Apparently not.

Still waiting for an expanation for this statement...

? compared to the [lesser] compromised variants...??

[Mojocvh]

aeropilot said:

Mojocvh said:

Godalmighty83 said:

Without external tank, as far as I'm aware no drop tank has yet to have been tested and signed off on the Dave.

The CVF can operate max loaded B's depending on ambient conditions. You will need no headwind and very high air temperatures before weight would be an issue. The superhornets combat range on internal tanks is about 375-390m depending on profile. With the extra drag and load limits of drop tanks the FA18 has no performance advantage but considerably greater RCS.

What is the current certified internal weapon carriage of the f35B?

I think the USMC 2B spec cleared weapons fit for IOC are just AIM-120C7 AMRAAM, JDAM and CBU-12 LGB.

The USMC are supposed to be IOC in July 2015, but it's looking increasingly like that will slip beyond July and could even be as late as Dec 2015.

Hmm, if the AMRAAM can be launched "working"....


http://theaviationist.com/2012/11/30/cuda/

Edited by Mojocvh on Saturday 27th December 15:58

[Mave]

Mojocvh said:

Mave said:

Mojocvh said:

Mave said:

"You've still got a reasonable range on internal fuel."

Apparently not.

Still waiting for an expanation for this statement...

? compared to the [lesser] compromised variants...??

How the clucking bell can you conclude that an aircraft which has the same or greater range than all those legacy naval jets has "apparently not got a reasonable range"?

Inferring compromises to the F35C "[lesser] compromised variant") when it's got >50% more range than a Hornet is disingeneous

In the context of combat range on internal fuel, surely a more accurate, unbiased, un daily-mail sensationalist comment would be something like

"The F35B trades the additional range of the F35C over legacy naval jets for its VSTOL capability"

[Mave]

Mojocvh said:

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/p...

Oh and a more detailed report...

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feat...

Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 24th December 14:56

Have you read those reports in detail, and do you agree with them?

Do you agree that opening out the fan seal radius / increasing the trench depth by what, 20 thou? is a "serious design flaws that could render the F-35 unsuitable for combat."

Do you agree with the statement that "Pratt & Whitney has already totally redesigned the F135"

Do you agree that the engine must suffer "extreme levels of stress" just because it delivers 43klbf? (Maybe I should get rid of my BMW330i, it delivers 50% more power than my old Alfa 2.0TS, it must be really highly stressed!)

Do you agree with the view that the laws of physics make it easier to detect an aircraft using radar from the side or rear?

In my opinion, those documents trade journalistic sensationalism for accurate reporting.

[Sixpackpert]

It can't fire its gun...until 2019!

http://blogs.rollcall.com/five-by-five/f-35-anothe...

[Mojocvh]

"Do you agree with the view that the laws of physics make it easier to detect an aircraft using radar from the side or rear?"

Actually with that one you've just proved you actually know very little.

You know what Doppler is?

[Mave]

Mojocvh said:

"Do you agree with the view that the laws of physics make it easier to detect an aircraft using radar from the side or rear?"

Actually with that one you've just proved you actually know very little.

You know what Doppler is?

Yes I know what doppler is thanks. You know it applies equally to things coming towards you as away from you, right?

So do you agree with the view that the laws of physics make it easier to detect an aircraft using radar from the side or rear? And all the other views posted in that article that I commented on?

Edited by Mave on Tuesday 6th January 19:09

[Mr Whippy]

I'm sure all these issues will get fixed eventually, and in the end it'll be good.

But is good good enough given the time and cost investments?! Hmmmm...

[maffski]

The annual Director of Test and Evaluation report is out, JSF chapter here

Good news, the 2B software update the Marines require before declaring the aircraft operational is still on schedule.

Bad news, it's on schedule by dropping more than half of the tests it has to pass, which have been moved back to the next software updates (3i and 3F).

It seems the 3 series updates don't have a formal due date, so adding a few hundred extra test points doesn't make them behind schedule - allowing the program to claim the software delivery is on target.


Good news, reliability has improved.

Bad news, it's been improved by 'reclassifying' failures - if something breaks and is identified as a design issue (say the engine wear that grounded them) then any further instances are no longer a failure.

[hidetheelephants]

maffski said:

It seems the 3 series updates don't have a formal due date, so adding a few hundred extra test points doesn't make them behind schedule - allowing the program to claim the software delivery is on target.

Good news, reliability has improved.

Bad news, it's been improved by 'reclassifying' failures - if something breaks and is identified as a design issue (say the engine wear that grounded them) then any further instances are no longer a failure.

It seems clear from this that Dilbert and co now work at the F35 project office.

[Z06George]

It makes me laugh that every time I see that someone has posted something new this thread it's almost always to say something has broken/been delayed/changed. It shouldn't be funny especially as our government is buying this but I can't remember the last time someone posted saying it hasn't broken and successfully did something. I say this all the time but surely now as the previous posted said they're reclassifying failures to not be failures, shouldn't we cut our very expensive loses and just wait for a 6th gen aircraft or even a 5.5 gen? I mean this has taken long enough, I'm sure they're already designing the JSF replacement.

[DudleySquires]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space...

"After working together on the F-35 joint strike fighter, the two services are looking at procuring their own respective jets."

[Mave]

Z06George said:

shouldn't we cut our very expensive loses and just wait for a 6th gen aircraft or even a 5.5 gen? I mean this has taken long enough, I'm sure they're already designing the JSF replacement.

Do you really think a 6th generation aircraft will be lower risk than a 5th gen? Northop are studying something that may appear in 20 years, so call it 30; should we "just" wait until 2045 to have aircraft on our carriers?

[Mojocvh]

T

Mave said:

Z06George said:

shouldn't we cut our very expensive loses and just wait for a 6th gen aircraft or even a 5.5 gen? I mean this has taken long enough, I'm sure they're already designing the JSF replacement.

Do you really think a 6th generation aircraft will be lower risk than a 5th gen? Northop are studying something that may appear in 20 years, so call it 30; should we "just" wait until 2045 to have aircraft on our carriers?

Be careful what you wish for....

[telecat]

Mave said:

Z06George said:

shouldn't we cut our very expensive loses and just wait for a 6th gen aircraft or even a 5.5 gen? I mean this has taken long enough, I'm sure they're already designing the JSF replacement.

Do you really think a 6th generation aircraft will be lower risk than a 5th gen? Northop are studying something that may appear in 20 years, so call it 30; should we "just" wait until 2045 to have aircraft on our carriers?

Simply put the F35 is a disappointment. It's much vaunted Stealth capabilities are compromised. It's avionics suite cannot be updated due to the "Stealth design", its combat capability has been downgraded several times since the Plane flew. It's overall performance is No better than the planes it is designed to replace. Basically it suffers from trying to cover too many requirements in one airframe.

It further suffers by having too many Air forces wanting it to cover their requirements. I can easily see the Air force variant the F-35A meeting the majority of it's targets. That's understandable. The B and C are another kettle of fish. Both have been "foisted" on the services requiring them as an off shoot of the Main program and they have had to be compromised to suit. I can see the USN "jumping" sooner rather than later to a new fighter.