They can fly other aircraft/simulators all they want, but 10 aircraft won’t be sufficient to declare IOC. That’s not even half of a combat coded squadron, much less including training birds(and yes they’ll need to fly the actual aircraft).
That’s what they want to achieve with those ten aircraft, an initial combat capable squadron to test, train pilots, and clear the way for mass production.
How many planes will these pilots have to learn on, not to mention the instructor pilots, etc…. With only 10 airframes, that makes it kind of difficult to have planes for training, and those that are combat coded.
Sorry for repeating myself, but again, 2013 is when the pre production batch is ordered, these are 10 aircraft and they are fully production representative, if you consider that IOC, it’s up to you. It may be delayed like a year or so because all systens are state-of the art and require maturity. It’s not a design problem like in the f-35.
You’re not going to reach IOC with 10 aircraft. In order to have IOC, you have to have an operational unit, with trained pilots, mechanics/technicians, infrastructure, etc….
I’ve yet to see any complaints about the F-135’s thrust in the STOVL mode, so it would seem that you’re offering up a solution in search of a problem. Thus far the issues have all been lift fan related.
I’m referring to thrust in level flight, not when used in conjunction with the lift fan. Both engines would be constrained by the lift fan’s ability to take advantage of their power via th transmission, etc…
That is your personal claim based on public-relation claims from PW.
“During development testing of the F135 in the May 2009 time frame, P&W found that at low altitude and high speed, certain pressure pulsations occurred when operating in full afterburner.
Just one example and still not bothered by known facts?! 😉
What is claimed by GE about the F136? You are free to show us your technical data about both engines at least.
Claims from GE aren’t PR? The only claim I’ve seen is in exceeding the thrust requirement by 5 to 10 percent. P&W have exceeded it by 20+ percent(or in other words, a more than 5000lb thrust advantage, and a more mature design.) I’m well aware of the screech problem, which has been solved, but it makes for great sensationalism.
You proof my claim. 😉
From January, P&W will start tests on a higher-power version of the engine. The XT68LF1 is a technology demonstrator designed to boost engine power by up to 10-15%. The demonstrator will introduce new hot section technology to improve engine power, such as new turbine blades and cooling schemes, Croswell says.
Non is wasting his money and time to built something surplus like the XT68LF1 demonstrator without urgent need to do so.
At least when you take a blind eye about the past. The F135 is built for years and is pushed along its growth-path already to reach the present levels. The F136 offers a higher thrust engine from the start and has its growth-path still ahead. 😎
Before the F-35 program will not pass the development mile-stones none serious will buy that in numbers. The small fraction of cost for the F136 is insignificant in general. I have no problem to see that PW has no intrest in a competitor. So far it was much cheaper to lobby the own engine than to better it. A F135 with a healthy growth-path ahead has not to overcome cooling issues by new sections. 😉
The F-136 isn’t a higher thrust engine though, so the claim that GE/RR have a thrust advantage right from the start, just isn’t accurate. The F-135 has demonstrated extreme robustness, and reliability, even at prolonged high throttle settings. As far as no interest in competitors, it’s the customers that are saying that, not P&W.
Yes, I do, but since I hadn’t mentioned it, was curious as to why I was being asked about it. I’d mentioned the AARGM, because in addition to having to deal with EA/ECM, and the threat from SDBs, and/or other weapons, the SAM site would have to also deal withthe ARM threat.
I said AARGM, not AASM(I.e. AGM-88E).
I am not sure if you can expect an opto-electronic system without any optical zoom to identify exact aircraft type at several miles. :confused: EODAS only has 10x digital mag, you will hardly get anything but grainy pixels.
Have you ever worked with a thermal imager? I have a lot and see great limitations of this technology in the IFF procedure.
Within its effective range it provides near 20/20 acuity at much greater than a few miles.
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35targeting/assets/video_noyt.html
I know you don’t buy into the maneuverability is irrelevant line, but this video goes into the various functions DAS serves.
as for the f-35, I find something curious with ww’s arguments.
the f-35 would have combat speeds of M1.6+, and the nose ability of the f-18
thing is, you won’t pull your nose up anywhere more than 10-15° at M1.6.. or you’ll generate so many G’s that your aircraft will simply desintegrate.
I’ve never once claimed that the F-35 would be pulling 50+ deg AoA at M1.6.
What I did say was that its turning ability was similar to or better than an F-16, and its nose pointing was similar to or better than an F-18.
What are JSOW and JASSM? The alternatives you offered when challenged on the all powerfullness of the sbd.
(Cost per Wiki: JSOW $282,000 – $719,012 JASSM $700,000)
(Storm Shadow / SCALP Cost per Wiki: €800,000)
(AASM Cost per Wiki / Internet; €200,000 – €360,000)
The difference being that the legacy jets would have to use those weapons, whereas the F-35 has the option, depending on what type of target set it has.
That would be the non stealthy NGJ pod would it?
“There is no focus or investment so far in altering the signature or radar reflectivity of wing-mounted pods that will carry NGJ even though F-35 is a stealthy aircraft.” Capt. John Green, program manager for Airborne Electronic Attack and EA-6B Prowler.
So the non emitting F35 is going to be heading downtown with a hulking great pod under it zapping out trons in every direction jamming with everybody?
How is that emission silent?
First of all the likelihood of omni-directional jamming is roughly nil. The NGJ would be sending the “trons” in narrow, highly directional beams.
In addition your asseration re non reliance on stand off jammers seems to be rather refuted by this:
“The goal of NGJ is to shrink the lethal range of advanced air defenses. The stealthy F-35 will likely fly into those threat rings, the non-stealthy Growler will stay outside.” Jim Bailey, Raytheon’s NGJ capture director.
The F-35 with the jammer would be able to accompany the strikers, and stay much closer in, improving the effectiveness.
As for self escort how much persistence will the dual mission tasked, stealth configeration F35 have in either a2a or a2g?
The individual F-35s would still have EA/ECM functions of their own, combined with their reduced cross sections. I suspect it would have enough persistence to accompany whatever group it was flying with, not to mention other assets that would be available.
It’s not achieving those sorts of ranges by descending into denser air, rapidly though, which means it’s also not likely to be bleeding airspeed nearly as dramatically as some here like to think.
It was also designed to have rapid acceleration to combat speeds.
I think you have a pretty optimistic notion about how fast an F-16 can fly when it isn’t clean. It’ll never fly at M2 with any stores on it. Even an F-15 would be lucky to exceed M1.8 with 8 AAMs. I hope you’re beginning to see the picture why the F-35 was optimized for the M1.6-1.8 range, for top combat speeds.