F-35 Lightning II

[jokuvaan]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...tney-picks-up-15b-deal-f-35-engines/86824490/

99 moottoria+härpäkkeitä, 1,5 miljardia dollaria.

 

[ctg]

Farnborough showsta

 

[jokuvaan]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/final-software-load-plagues-f-35-test-jets

"DT pilots flying the 3F software loads at Edwards have recently experienced system glitches where the jets’ systems shut down and need to be rebooted, both during flight and on the ground"

"The “choking effect” seen in earlier versions of 3i was caused in essence by a timing misalignment of the software of the plane’s sensors and the software of its main computers. But the issues on 3F are down to the software of the systems themselves, for instance the radar, Babione said."

 

[BarrelNut]

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/ka...g-air-combat-in-the-f-35-an-update/#more-1833

English translation – «Air Combat in the F-35 – An Update»

In this post I’m giving a brief overview of my impressions after having flown several sorties over the past few weeks against A-4 Skyhawks. This post is intended as a supplement to my previous posts on modern air combat and stealth.

First thing first – is it relevant to train air combat against an old A-4? Can we draw any relevant lessons from this at all? After all, this is an aircraft that served during the Vietnam war!

I believe this kind of training is relevant for several reasons:

• The F-35’s sensors and “fusion” provides me as a pilot with good situational awareness. For an F-35 to simulate an opponent against another F-35, it has to restrict the effects of fusion and the various sensors. Even then it is difficult to “dumb down” the aircraft enough. It requires discipline to not be tempted to using information that an opponent in reality would not have access to.
• The A-4s we faced in these exercises had sensor performance along the lines of our own upgraded F-16s. They also carried jammers intended to disturb our radar.
• The pilots we faced were very experienced. We are talking 2000 hours plus in aircraft like the F-16, F-15E, F-15C and the F-22, with detailed knowledge of “fifth generation” tactics and weapons. When also cooperating closely with intercept controllers on the ground (GCI) they could adapt the training and offer us a reactive and challenging opponent. Note the word “reactive.”
• The A-4 is a small aircraft with a corresponding signature. Many potential opponents in the air are bigger and easier to find than the tiny A-4.

So what did I experience in my encounters with the A-4? I got to try out several different sets. (Everything from one-on-one “Basic Fighter Maneuvers” to one F-35 against two A-4s, two F-35s against two A-4s, two F-35s against four A-4s and three F-35s against four A-4s). I am left with some main impressions.

• The individual sensors of the F-35, one for one, are good. I flew one sortie alone against two A-4s, and limited myself to using only the radar during these sets (no support from ground controllers, no Link-16, no data sharing from other formation members, no support from passive radar warning systems or IFF – Identification Friend or Foe). Nonetheless my radar detected the targets in time for me to optimize my intercept, deliver weapons at range, and if necessary, arrive undetected to the visual arena.
• “Fusion” means both automatic control of the various sensors, and the combination of all different sensor data into one unified tactical picture. I believe “fusion” to be one of the most important aspects of the F-35. “Fusion” allows me to focus on the tactics, rather than detailed management of my sensors. In my encounters with the A-4s, “fusion” worked better than I have seen it before. It was reassuring to see how well it worked. The good «situational picture» that I saw provides us with several advantages; we can make smarter tactical decisions, and it takes less time before we can gain full “tactical value” from fresh pilots. (I had to smile a little when two of us in the F-35s effortlessly kept tabs on four opponents. That is no trivial thing in the F-16.)
• The most important lesson for me personally was to see just how hard it was for the A-4s to find us, even with GCI support. We deliberately made high-risk tactical decisions to see just how far we could stretch our luck, and still remain undetected. At least for my part, this reinforced my confidence in the effectiveness of our tactics. I hope all my colleagues in the F-35 get to have the same experience as I have.

(BFM – F-35 against A-4, might not be fair. Still, the A-4 started as the offensive part every time. At the end of each set, I was pointing at the A-4. Every time.)

 

[fulcrum]

Tarkennuksena, jutussa kuvatut Skyhawkit ovat Draken Internationalin operoimia entisiä uusiseelantilaisia A-4K:ta. Ne modernisoitiin 80-luvulla, tutkaksi kutistettu APG-66, tutkavaroittimet, monipuolinen aseistus yms.
Modernisointi edusti aikanaan huipputasoa mutta se että ne "vastaavat päivitettyä F-16:tta" nyt menee jenkkityyppisen liioittelun piikkiin

 

[intternetsoturi]

Tarkennuksena, jutussa kuvatut Skyhawkit ovat Draken Internationalin operoimia entisiä uusiseelantilaisia A-4K:ta. Ne modernisoitiin 80-luvulla, tutkaksi kutistettu APG-66, tutkavaroittimet, monipuolinen aseistus yms.
Modernisointi edusti aikanaan huipputasoa mutta se että ne "vastaavat päivitettyä F-16:tta" nyt menee jenkkityyppisen liioittelun piikkiin

Miten niin? Päivitetty F-16 tässä yhteydessä on yhtä kuin Block 20 MLU, eli avioniikka on hyvin samanlaista kuin Norjan F-16:ssa.

Our particular version of the Skyhawk, the A-4K, was extensively upgraded in the early 1990s to a standard similar to the F-16 Mid-Life-Update. This includes the 1553 digital bus, enabling the seamless integration of laser targeting, EA/EW and other pods that require the unique interface. Additional upgrades include the APG-66v7 fire control radar, Radar Warning Receiver (RWR), Heads-up Display (HUD), Hands On Throttle and Stick (HOTAS), and Multi-Function Displays (MFD).

Our fleet of Skyhawks can be refueled in-house with our extensive inventory of buddy store fuel tanks. We can further utilize these capabilities to refuel other probe equipped Navy and Marine Corp aircraft. The Draken A-4K Skyhawks all received new wings, wiring, generators and other systems as part of the extensive upgrade. The resulting airframe delivers all the unique capabilities of an F-16MLU, with the economics and long-range endurance of the A-4 Skyhawk.

http://drakenintl.com/aircraft-inventory.html#Douglas

 

[fulcrum]

Miten niin? Päivitetty F-16 tässä yhteydessä on yhtä kuin Block 20 MLU, eli avioniikka on hyvin samanlaista kuin Norjan F-16:ssa.

http://drakenintl.com/aircraft-inventory.html#Douglas

Eh, 2010-luvulla puhuminen MLUsta (joka ei kelvannut Suomelle enää 1991) "päivitettynä F-16:na" menee kyllä edelleen jenkkityylisen liioittelun piikkiin Norjan F-16:ia on sitäpaitsi päivitetty MLU-standardia pidemmälle, niissähän on AMRAAMit, sisäiset häirintälaitteet jne. KAHU-standardin koneet ovat kaksi sukupolvea vanhaa tekniikkaa. Jollaista toki on maailmalla edelleen paljon käytössä muttei se tulevaisuuden uhkaa kovin hyvin enää simuloi.

Uudet luudat tietysti lakaisee paremmin. Kun F-15 tuli käyttöön niin kone+tutka+Sparrow-ohjus -yhdistelmän laskettiin teoriassa saavuttavan noin 250-1 tapposuhteen MiG-21:stä vastaan.

 

[intternetsoturi]

Eh, 2010-luvulla puhuminen MLUsta (joka ei kelvannut Suomelle enää 1991) "päivitettynä F-16:na" menee kyllä edelleen jenkkityylisen liioittelun piikkiin Norjan F-16:ia on sitäpaitsi päivitetty MLU-standardia pidemmälle, niissähän on AMRAAMit, sisäiset häirintälaitteet jne. KAHU-standardin koneet ovat kaksi sukupolvea vanhaa tekniikkaa. Jollaista toki on maailmalla edelleen paljon käytössä muttei se tulevaisuuden uhkaa kovin hyvin enää simuloi.

Uudet luudat tietysti lakaisee paremmin. Kun F-15 tuli käyttöön niin kone+tutka+Sparrow-ohjus -yhdistelmän laskettiin teoriassa saavuttavan noin 250-1 tapposuhteen MiG-21:stä vastaan.

Ei kai tässä kukaan mitään tuollaista ole väittänyt. Norjalainen sanoi, että koneen sensorit vastaavat heidän päivitettyä F-16:sta, mikä on totta. Koneita käytetään adversary- ja CAS-koulutukseen, missä ne varmasti pärjäävät siinä missä USAFin omat F-16 koneet, jotka eivät paljoa sen uudempia ole, samanlaisten sensorien ja ohjaamon takia. Jenkeissähän lakkautettiin yksi F-15 aggressor lentolaivue, minkä takia palveluita täytyy ostaa yksityiseltä sektorilta.

 

[intternetsoturi]

Osui silmään juttua Israelin F-35-hankkeesta, poimin otteita meitä mahdollisesti kiinnostavasta huoltovarmuuskysymyksestä. http://aviationweek.com/mro/israel-seeks-changes-its-f-35-version

The F-35Is will employ unique communications and navigation systems, weapons and even cyberdefenses built indigenously by Israeli companies. Top Israeli officials also say it will leave the country only for combat missions—all maintenance will be done in country, rather than in predetermined regional overhaul facilities.
...
fficials say the push to maximize the new fleet’s autonomy is driven by the country’s geopolitical situation, which requires independence in operating and maintaining its fighter jets. In wartime, when access to seaports and airports may be cut off, Israel needs to keep its F-35s flying independently, says air force Chief of Staff Brig. Gen. Tal Kelman.

“Israel is in the middle of the Middle East, and we are in daily conflict. Conflict is not a theory. We are not getting ready for a war in two or three years. We have daily operational activities with our fighter aircraft,” Kelman says.

But customization will come at a high price for Tel Aviv. Developing and installing additional capabilities on the jets, as well as the infrastructure to maintain them, will require significant investment by the Israeli government. Ultimately, each F-35I could cost significantly more per jet than the estimated $100 million for the U.S. Air Force F-35A. The final decisions will likely hinge on negotiations over a new 10-year aid package between the U.S. and Israel, expected to conclude later this year.
...
The Israelis will be the first service to fully operate the F-35 outside the U.S., which will set the stage for navigating the logistics for a multiservice, international aircraft. But so far the country is alone among F-35 international partners and customers in seeking to perform heavy maintenance—work involving changes or repair to the body of the aircraft, such as replacement of a bulkhead or fixing a wing—in-country. Kelman says the air force will establish an F-35 logistics center at the Nevatim squadron headquarters.

The Israelis will have full access to Lockheed’s ALIS as well as the global sustainment enterprise’s pool of spare parts. But Israel cannot afford to lose its jets for months at a time to depot maintenance, Kelman says. The force plans to keep a minimum number of spare parts in Israel at all times for maintenance purposes, he notes.

From the get-go, the service will have all the necessary tools, training and technical data to perform lighter maintenance tasks locally, Bogdan says. But the Israeli government must invest significant resources in tooling, training and deep infrastructure to be able to perform heavy maintenance autonomously. And the process will not happen overnight—it could take as many as 15 years, he says.

The good news is that a brand-new aircraft should not need heavy maintenance for many years. And the investments will be worth the price, Kelman says. “We want to build it gradually, but we think independence is a strategic issue,” he adds.

Other F-35 customers likely will not choose to perform heavy maintenance in-country, instead opting for a Lockheed-established facility. The JPO is still determining where the hubs for each piece of the F-35 sustainment operation will be, but some decisions have already been made. For instance, Italy’s existing final assembly and checkout facility at Cameri air base in northern Italy will provide heavy airframe maintenance for Europe. Meanwhile, Turkey, Norway and the Netherlands provide Europe’s heavy engine maintenance facilities.

The JPO set up the global sustainment enterprise this way to save money across the partners and international customers, Bogdan says.

“Most of the other customers recognize that there is a synergy when they all combine together to do things and stay in one place ,that there are economies of scale,” he says. “Israel would like to be able to tap into that economy of scale, but their geopolitical situation is such that they may have to do things on their own.”

Recent press reports suggested the JPO granted Israel a formal exemption from participating in the global sustainment enterprise for heavy maintenance. But Bogdan says that characterization is a stretch, arguing that the F-35 program office aims to tailor systems to meet each customer’s individual needs.

“The F-35 is a different airplane. It is a different partnership with 14 customers for us—we are making up the rules,” Bogdan says. “Israel just happens to be a more extreme case because of where they are located in the world and what they have to do.”

Lisäksi kerrottiin Israelin C4I & EW laajennuksista. SPICE aiotaan ingeroida ja lisätankkeja kehitetään Israelilaisen alihankkijan kanssa.

 

[intternetsoturi]

Farnboroughissa paljon F-35 uutisia.

P&W:n mukaan F135:n kehitystyö valmistuu lähiviikkoina:

After 15 years, Pratt & Whitney is about to complete System Design and Demonstration of the F135 engine, which powers the F-35 family of fighters, company military engines president Bennett Croswell said Tuesday. ... he required mission readiness rate at that point will be "threshhold 90 percent and goal 94 percent," he said, but the engine is already running at about a mission readiness rate of 95-96 percent. ... the F135 is also supposed to be the same price as the F119 engine, which powers the F-22 fighter and was the basis of the F135, at the 300th engine delivered, even though it's 1,500 pounds heavier and delivers 20 percent more thrust. Croswell said Pratt is on track to make that goal, having delivered 288 F135 engines so far. In Lot 9 and Lot 10, Pratt was able to reduce the F135 cost by 3.4 percent for the conventional take off version and 6.4 percent for the short takeoff/vertical landing version.

P&W mainosti myös Block 1 päivityksiä, joihin toivoo rahoitusta. 5-7% vähemmän polttoaineenkulutusta, 10% enemmän työntövoimaa, valmis vuonna 2023, heidän mukaansa.

Siitä huolimatta GE voi saada taas jalkaansa oven väliin. USAFin adaptive cycle ohjelmassa on toissijaisena tavoitteena vaihtoehtoinen moottori F-35:lle.

The USAF launched the AETP programme to develop a next-generation engine for future combat aircraft, including a notional concept for a Lockheed F-22 replacement after 2030. Ongoing analyses for the so-called sixth-generation fighter includes a wide range of options, including a major upgrade of the F-35.

“One of the reasons we’re doing those technology programmes is for the possibility of an upgrade to the F-35,” says Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, speaking to journalists on 10 July in London. ... The USAF kicked off development of the adaptive engine programme in 2007 with GE only. In 2012, P&W and GE were both selected to continue development under the adaptive engine technology development programme. The award of the AETP contracts last will bring both companies to close to a final design of a new engine with adaptive cycle technology.

Lisäksi julkistettiin uusi säästöohjelma sekä jatkoa aikaisemmalle Blueprint for Affordability-hankkeelle.

Today, the Department of Defense announced two initiatives with industry to reduce F-35 Lightning II production and sustainment costs.The first is a two-year extension of the “Blueprint for Affordability for Production,” program announced in 2014 and the second is the creation of a similar concept to reduce the operation and sustainment costs of the F-35 weapon system. ...

During the next two years, industry will invest the remaining $24 million from the original program and add up to an additional $170 million to continue the production cost reduction initiatives.

The second initiative builds on this cost saving momentum. Called the Sustainment Cost Reduction Initiative, the three companies are investing up to $250 million targeting FY2018 – FY2022 to reduce sustainment costs by 10 percent. This initiative projects at least a $1 billion savings for the five year period.

“The 2014 Blueprint for Affordability agreement is a success and a significant move forward in our business approach within the F-35 program,” said the Honorable Frank Kendall, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. “The additional two year investment by industry to further reduce production costs will help bridge us to the planned Block Buy.The sustainment initiative is also an accelerator to help us achieve our goal of an overall 30 percent O&S lifecycle cost reduction.”

 

[John Hilly]

War is Boring -sivusto jatkaa kriittistä suhtautumistaan. Pitkä juttu, mutta kannattaa lukea.

Untangling the Claims Behind the Air Force’s F-35 Media Blitz
Here’s what we know and what we still don’t
by JOSEPH TREVITHICK

However history ultimately judges the F-35 Lightning II, Lockheed’s stealthy aircraft will surely be described as one of the most hotly debated designs ever.

The U.S. Air Force, hoping to declare its version of the “fifth generation” fighter jet ready for by the end of 2016, has launched a new P.R. blitz to show critics that the planes are every bit as good as it says.

In June, the flying branch sent seven F-35As and more than 180 airmen from Hill Air Force Base in Utah to Mountain Home Air Force Base in neighboring Idaho. The practice session was to test how well the crews prepared for combat in an actual war zone.

“By any measure, the aircraft did well,” Air Force Col. David Lyons, the head of Hill’s 388th Fighter Wing said after the exercise ended.

“Since the aircraft’s arrival last fall there have been too many milestones to count and we’re making great progress,” said Air Force Lt. Col. George Watkins, the commanding officer of the 34th Fighter Squadron.

To highlight these achievements, the Air Force released an infographic touting a number of specific details.

At Mountain Home, the high-tech jets flew every planned mission, did not lose a single mock fight against older jets and successfully hit more than 90 percent of targets on the ground with laser-guided bombs.

Air Force illustration
These figures stood in stark contrast to a damning report the Pentagon released four months earlier. In a nearly 50-page review, the Pentagon’s top weapons tester described a laundry list of serious problems with the jets ranging from software to the aircraft’s design.

On top of that, the statistics challenged the narrative that the new jets cannot win in air-to-air combat against even more dated aircraft. In June 2015, War Is Boring published a leaked report that described the F-35 as less agile than an overburdened two-seat F-16D trainer.

We were skeptical of the claims made in the infographic, so the Air Force’s top warfighting command invited us to send any questions we might have about the missions at Mountain Home.

Yes, this is what the Air Force actually sent us. U.S. Air Force illustration
So, we did. In addition, we obtained five pages of records related to the infographic through the Freedom of Information Act — including a hand-drawn draft of the image itself, seen above.

Here’s what we know and what we still don’t.

Data point #1: “88/88 Sorties Flown”
One of the F-35’s biggest problems has been a revolutionary computer “brain” that is supposed to handle everything from where potential threats are on the battlefield to when worn-out parts are about to break.

Bugs in the millions of lines of software code could effectively lock crews of their own planes. The glitches have often forced F-35 pilots to reboot their radars while in the air.

According to the Air Force, flying every planned mission without any hiccups is proof that the computer program is finally stable. The practice flights included missions against simulated enemy aircraft and air defenses, as well as targets on the ground.

Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight
New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battlewarisboring.com
“Software issues that have affected … previous deployment exercises simply did not exist,” Benjamin Newell, a public affairs official at Air Combat Command, told War Is Boring in an email. “There were zero aborts.”

We don’t know whether any new software issues cropped up during the test flights. If so, they did not delay or otherwise impact any flights. “I’m sure it’s possible that one line Airman may have encountered and repaired one minor software glitch during the deployment exercise,” Newell acknowledged.

Another F-35A. Air Force photo
But in two cases, pilots had to use alternate jets after “mechanical” trouble sidelined their primary planes. A battery in one of the F-35s failed, while the navigation system failed in another. The problems were “innocuous” and “common on fourth-generation platforms,” according to Newell.

It is true that no matter how reliable F-35 is or becomes in the future, things will still break from time to time. That’s inevitable for every aircraft.

However, during the F-35's trip to Mountain Home, maintenance crews sometimes only had four aircraft ready to go on any given day, according to a June 17 email Lyons sent to Air Combat Command chief Gen. Herbert Carlisle. Censors redacted Lyons name, but left in “Commander 388 FW” in the signature line.

On average, the 34th managed to fly one mission per aircraft per day during the deployment.

In addition to Air Force personnel, Lockheed Martin company reps were present to help fiddle with the software and lend a hand if any problems arose. “They … provided timely spare parts when needed,” Lyons noted.

But despite the success of the test, Lyons explained the F-35’s long-standing vulnerability to lightning strikes remained an issue. More worrisome, the Air Force still has no standard procedure for “aircraft-inerting” — a process to keep dangerous fumes from building up in the fuel tank, which could risk blowing up the F-35.

The Air Force already has to keep F-35 fuel cooled to prevent overheating once airborne. “While this was never a show-stopper, it complicated operations,” Lyons wrote. “I have confidence the Air Force will resolve this issue in short order.”

Data point #2: “Zero Losses in ‘Dog Fights’”
In 2008, John Stillion and Harold Scott Perdue, both analysts with the think tank RAND, ran a computer simulation that pitted the F-35 against Chinese jets. Their review famously stated Lockheed’s jet “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.”

A review of a test flight in January 2015 seemed to reinforce those findings. The unnamed test pilot said the stealthy jet was a “a distinct energy disadvantage” during a series of mock battles with a dated F-16D.

The Air Force, Lockheed and foreign buyers have all pushed back against these claims. At the same time, the flying branch has stressed that traditional air-to-air dogfights are rapidly becoming a thing of the past.

“Close-in combat typically visualized in movies like ‘Top Gun’ are not realistic in today’s combat scenarios,” Newell wrote. “The F-35 and the F-22 are premier ‘first look, first kill’ capable aircraft.”

An F-35A flies with an F-22. Air Force photo
During the practice flights at Mountain Home, the F-35s seemed to continue this trend, dominating F-15E Strike Eagles from the 366th Fighter Wing in mock battles. “Pew, pew, pew,” the infographic’s designers added.

In each of six “large force exercises,” at least four F-35s flew together, according to Newell. This makes sense, since one of the Lightning II’s main advantages is the ability to quickly share information between the jets.

In theory, if one pilot saw his opponents, all four fliers should have been aware of the threat.

But there are some slight complications. The F-15E model is focused on attacking targets on the ground rather than jousting in the air. We could not find out whether the 366th’s jets were carrying drop tanks or weapons that would have made them less maneuverable.

In the January 2015 experiment, the prototype F-35 struggled to keep up with an F-16 loaded down with two drop tanks. “Operators have assured us that the status of the fuel loadouts were not a factor in the performance of either Red or Blue forces,” Newell noted.

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the A-10 Warthog’s Big-Ass Gun
The GAU-8 is a fearsome shooterwarisboring.com
We also don’t know how many F-15Es mock-battled these flights of F-35s. Details about the so-called “splash cones” — the criteria the Air Force uses to score “kills” during these exercise — are classified.

And unlike Air Force units that specifically train to play the role of enemy pilots in practice sessions, the 366th is a regular combat squadron. Of course, the pilots would still have experience with air-to-air combat exercises.

Despite the flying branch’s complaints that it’s almost impossibly hard to cook up war games that properly test the F-35, “The scenarios were robust,” Lyons assured Carlisle. “One experienced former F-16 pilot stated, ‘we would never have survived that in a Viper.’”

Data point #3: “94% of Bombs Hit Their Mark”
The Air Force wants to completely replace both the F-16 fighter jet and A-10 Warthog ground attack plane with the F-35A. Since 2001, both of these aircraft have flown missions in support of troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Critics have repeatedly questioned whether or not the F-35 has the ability to take on this close air support role and otherwise hit enemy targets. The Air Force has been eager to prove that the stealthy jets can function just fine as fighter bombers.

An F-35A drops an training version of a GBU-12 during a test. Air Force photo
While at Mountain Home, the planes dropped a total of 16 GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bombs. All but one hit the target.

As of 2016, the Air Force’s F-35A can carry a maximum of two of the 500-pound weapons in its internal bomb bays. The jets can carry more weapons on external racks, but must sacrifice their stealthy characteristics in the process.

“External payloads played little role in the types of standoff scenarios the F-35 participated in,” Newell explained. If the jets carried the bombs internally, the 34th would have needed to fly a minimum of eight individual missions to hit all of their assigned targets.

By comparison, photographs from recent strikes against the Islamic State in Iraq show Warthogs carrying three GBU-12s on one pylon. F-16s routinely lug pairs of precision weapons under each wing.

As with the air-to-air fights, we don’t know how close the bombs had to land to score a hit. We also don’t know what, if any, role the F-35’s advanced cameras and radars played in finding the targets in the first place.

But defense contractor Ratheyon has claimed the bombs generally hit within four feet of where troops on the ground point their laser targeting beams. In continuous production since 1976, the GBU-12 is in widespread service with air forces around the world.

From the available information, the Air Force is making progress in getting the F-35 ready for real world combat. But serious questions remain surrounding what the jet’s “initial” capabilities will really be when it truly matters.

Carlisle himself has offered slightly conflicting statements about what the rest of the decade will look like for his stealthy fighters. The flying branch might send the Lightning IIs to fight the Islamic State … but only if the Pentagon asks for them.

“The minute I declare initial operational capability, if the combatant commander calls me up and says they needed F-35s, I would send them,” Carlisle told reporters at the Royal International Aviation Tattoo, a massive annual air show in the United Kingdom, on June 13. “I would explain its capabilities in its current state” and then “deploy the fighter if asked.”

Don’t Sweat Russia’s Stealth-Fighter-Detecting New Radar
Sunflower can detect, but it can’t targetwarisboring.com
But Carlisle suggested “F-35s not likely to deploy to Iraq or Syria until 2017 or 2018 even if declared battle ready this year,” Defense One’s Marcus Weisgerber, at RAF Fairford for the show, tweeted out on June 7.

It’s important to note that the Air Force has the authority to set whatever requirements it thinks are reasonable to classify the F-35s as ready for combat. In 2012, Carlisle’s predecessor at Air Combat Command Gen. Mike Hostage quietly watered down the criteria to try and keep the project on schedule.





“There exists no formal uniform guidance in the Department of Defense for declaring initial operational capability … for weapon systems,” U.S. Army Major Robert Cabiness, a Pentagon spokesman, told War Is Boring in an email.

In the opinion of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the F-35A’s newest software provides only a “limited combat capability.”

The U.S. Navy is the only service that plans to wait for its F-35C to finish independent operational testing and evaluation before declaring them combat capable. The U.S. Marine Corps said its F-35Bs were ready for action in July 2015.

“While nearing completion, the F-35 is still in development, and technical challenges are to be expected,” the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer Frank Kendall and the head of the main F-35 program office Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, wrote in a joint statement presented to the Senate on April 26. “However, we believe the combined government-industry team has the ability to resolve current issues and future discoveries.”

The most recent concern is a discovery that the F-35’s ejection seats may not be safe. Tests have shown that pilots weighing between 103 and 136 pounds have at least a one in five chance of dying if they bail out. Despite Bogdan’s office insisting the problems were fixable, the Air Force is looking into alternatives, according to a report by Defense News.

In the meantime, we’ll just have to wait and see if the Air Force has made real progress with the vexing stealth jet — or just exposed new hurdles.

https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-air...-r-blitz-for-the-f-35-a241222dc131#.jj1wcdemr

 

[ctg]

 

[Sarek1]

Viime aikojen tapahtumat maailmalla ovat herättäneet pohtimaan sitä, kuinka Turkkiin kaavaillun F-35:n moottorihuollon voisi huonoimmassa tapauksessa käydä. Koneen moottorien huoltojen toteutumisen kannalta Turkin jääminen huoltokuvioista pois ei aiheuttaisi varmaankaan juurikaan värinää vesilasissa; korvaava huoltopiste järjestyisi pikavauhtia jostain toisesta maasta.

Turkin ja Yhdysvaltojen välillä on ollut havaittavissa ajoittain kitkaa, mikä on heijastunut mm. F-16:n osien toimittamiseen jne. Epävakaa poliittinen tilanne ja siihen liittyvä tempoilu voi haitata myös Turkin kaavailemaa noin 120 koneen hankintaa. Sikäläinen ilmailuteollisuus on ollut suunnitelmissa osavalmistaja Turkin tilaamille koneille sekä vientiversioille ja halu painaa koneen hintaa alemmas on kasvattanut vaatimuksia koneen osien laajemmasta valmistamisesta halvan työvoiman Turkissa. Ensimmäiset koneet pitäisi kaiketi luovuttaa Turkin ilmavoimille ensi vuonna.

 

[John Hilly]

Aika makean näköistä tuo leijuminen ja pystysuora lasku videon loppupuolella.

 

[TT]

Yle on aika pahasti myöhässä... just sayin'. Heittoistuinjuttu on F-35:n mittakaavassa ikivanha, kuten @magitsu jo aiheesta mainitsikin, yli puoli vuotta. Huolestuttavaa on kuitenkin, että vika saadaan korjatuksi aikaisintaan vuonna 2018. Siis ei ole totta! Jokin niin yksinkertainen laite kuin heittoistuin, ja vian korjaaminen kestää vuosia?! Give me a break! Onneksi suurin osa kuskeista ei kuitenkaan ole ihan noin laihoja, ja ne jotka ovat voivat varmasti kerätä jokusen paunan syömällä useammin tukikohdan mäkkärissä.

Martin-Baker käyttää piljardeja testaukseen ja validiointiin per konetyyppi. Ei sun kiinalainen nyrkkipaja pysty samaan,

 

[TT]

Aika makean näköistä tuo leijuminen ja pystysuora lasku videon loppupuolella.

Hyi olkoon teidän kanssanne. Odotin kuin kuuta nousevaa ja sittten oli ihan vaisu lasku. Oliskos tuo nyt sitten joka Prisman ja ABC:n vammaisparkkiin. Oikeastaan ekan kerran pelästyin miten kömpelön oloinen kone tuo on. Joo häive ja sensorifuusio ja stereot, mutta mutta. Olispa hauska saada tuo temppulento-ohjelman kera Malmille kunnolla katsastettavaksi, mutta tyydytään vähempään... (Niin myöskin meidän kanssamme.)

 

[John Hilly]

Hyi olkoon teidän kanssanne. Odotin kuin kuuta nousevaa ja sittten oli ihan vaisu lasku. Oliskos tuo nyt sitten joka Prisman ja ABC:n vammaisparkkiin. Oikeastaan ekan kerran pelästyin miten kömpelön oloinen kone tuo on. Joo häive ja sensorifuusio ja stereot, mutta mutta. Olispa hauska saada tuo temppulento-ohjelman kera Malmille kunnolla katsastettavaksi, mutta tyydytään vähempään... (Niin myöskin meidän kanssamme.)

Kuin myös sinun henkesi kanssa...
Kyllä sinäkin varoisit, jos yrittäisit vertikaalilaskua uudella koneella.
Lentoesitys sinänsä oli tylsä.

 

[juskaks]

Kuin myös sinun henkesi kanssa...
Kyllä sinäkin varoisit, jos yrittäisit vertikaalilaskua uudella koneella.
Lentoesitys sinänsä oli tylsä.

Tulipa nähtyä tuo F-35A ja B versioiden esiintyminen RIAT 2016 kolmena päivänä ja oli kyllä pettymys. Lentoesitys oli pelkkää kevyttä kaartelya (ei edes yhtään vaakakierrettä) ja sitten tuo hower-show mikä ei nyt ollut kummoinen, onhan sama tehty jo Harrierilla. Eivätkö sitten halunneet lentää mitään tiukkaa kurvia kun käsittääkseni on vielä G-rajoituksia, en tiedä. Vai eivätkö halunneet näyttää surkealta muiden edessä..

Äänekäshän tuo F-35 on, varsinkin lentoonlähdössä jälkipolttimella ja moottori on silminnähden iso verrattuna muihin koneisiin.

Suomen ehdokkaista Rafale, Eurofighter ja Gripen vetivät hyvät esitykset 9G kaartoineen. F-22 oli positiivinen ylläri, pirun paljon isompi kone kuin F-35 mutta silti tosi ketterä. Perjantaina lensivät Raptorilla pitkän shown jossa oli pyrstöluisuja yms kikkoja, osa näytti semmoisilta että ei onnistune kuin thrust vectoringilla. La-su Raptor show oli lyhyempi eikä ollut noita hienouksia.

Kokonaisuutena RIAT oli hieno kokemus ja suosittelen lämpimästi, järjestelyt olivat loistavat eikä suuri ihmismäärä näkynyt esim. pahoina jonoina.

 

[Patu]

Tulipa nähtyä tuo F-35A ja B versioiden esiintyminen RIAT 2016 kolmena päivänä ja oli kyllä pettymys.

Täsmälleen samaa mieltä. En tosin odottanutkaan F-35:lta kummoista ohjelmaa, nuo rajoitukset tuntien. Kone muuten näytti livenä maassa vielä pulleammalta kuin kuvissa. Olin yllättynyt.

Perjantaina lensivät Raptorilla pitkän shown jossa oli pyrstöluisuja yms kikkoja, osa näytti semmoisilta että ei onnistune kuin thrust vectoringilla. La-su Raptor show oli lyhyempi eikä ollut noita hienouksia.

Kokonaisuutena RIAT oli hieno kokemus ja suosittelen lämpimästi, järjestelyt olivat loistavat eikä suuri ihmismäärä näkynyt esim. pahoina jonoina.

Harmi, että näin vain lauantain esityksen. Ilmeisesti pilvien vuoksi kaikki pystyliikkeet puuttuivat siitä. Muuten olen samaa mieltä RIATista. Alue on niin suuri, ettei ruuhkia synny yksittäisiin pisteisiin. Kävijöitä oli kuitenkin 150k. Jonoja on vähemmän kuin Suomen lentonäytöksissä. 2018 olisi RAF:n 100v juhlat, josko silloin lähtisi uudestaan reissuun, useammaksi päiväksi.

 

[Einomies1]

EO-DAS esittely: