FedaykinYeah I have a hunch a fair few passengers would be aviation enthusiasts wanting to try out the LET-410 rather then get to Paris.
Certainly would be an interesting flight to add to Flightdiary.net
FedaykinThe Trek series “Enterprise” and the NX-01 have already done that!
Fedaykin1. Yes, foreign F-35 pilots must train in the US.
2. All new F-35 pilots must fly in the F-16Ds before getting into an F-35, US and foreign pilots alike. Experienced pilots transitioning from F-16, F/A-18, Typhoon, F-15 need not fly in the F-16D.Not all airforces train to same standard.
But you said merely meeting the KPP requires airframe modifications, which changes the whole equation because of increased expense and performance changes resulting from the weight increase.
NO THEY DON’T! HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS HAVE TO BE EXPLAINED TO YOU!
Training in the US is not a prerequisite for buying the F-35! Some countries will, some countries won’t! The UK will operate its own OCU in the UK! How many times do you have to be told this! The UK operates an adequate LIFT type for the role!
Stop making up stuff to suit your thinking!
FedaykinBut the USAF is not your typical airforce.
What you do not seem to understand is that the scope of training is changing in the T-X era. What used to be trained once the newly graduated pilot is assigned to a fighter squadron is now going to be taught at the flight training school instead, because the future fighter squadrons lack two seaters to train newly minted pilots on advanced subjects, or else the USAF must continue to use F-16Ds for that role, an expensive preposition. That includes high-altitude, high-speed, high-G combat maneuvers on “afterburner kick”.
No you can’t change the subject, you inferred that the RAF, FAA and all foreign operators of the F-35 must train in America and that training must include some check flights on a supersonic twin seat type with AB. You can’t now switch to just talking about the USAF! A number of nations transition from twin seat sub sonic LIFT types to supersonic, high G fighters with no trouble. You are spinning an idea which is not true and then changing the subject when you realise you have been caught out…which is childish!
Myself and Swerve agree that the USAF LIFT fleet is obsolete but we question the need for a supersonic replacement with an AB when many other airforces get on perfectly well without!
Hawk T.2 is more then capable of meeting the part of the syllabus you are talking about, which is the advanced skills side. Going to a very high altitude at supersonic speeds with the kick in the underpants of AB you talk about adds nothing to the training regime and is a made up requirement by yourself!
FedaykinMay not be after the modifications.
Ever since the USAF decided to not build two seater F-22 and F-35s. Afterburner and high-G training(along with refueling training) that used to be done at the fighter squadron is now expected to be done at the training school using the T-X trainer.
T-X does not require an afterburner for the simple reason it is not needed, many airforces transition from two seater non-ab trainers to single seat ab-fighters without trouble.
This is an entirely made up requirement by you to try and make out only the T-50 can meet the KPP.
FedaykinWasnt so much a bad reputation as much as the U-class boats were designed and built to do a specific job…that was to chug out to the GUIK narrows at transit speed and then pootle about on patrol back and forth at a few knots above steerage, for a couple of weeks, waiting for a contact. That patrol profile didnt demand huge fuel bunkerage so the boats werent designed with it. The oft claimed range for the type of 8000 miles is not one based on an operational profile!.
This is the sort of consideration that would need to be made if swapping out an SSN’s nuclear reactor for a conventional arrangement. Fuel bunkers and trim requirements would make that kind of conversion twitchy and the accuracy of the mission profile definition and volume calculations absolutely crucial.
You know I am increasingly of the opinion that the UK should of just scrapped and cannibalised for parts the Upholders when they were retired. A terrible waste of money but considering UK PLC has shown little interest in staying in the Diesel sub business anyway which is hardly a surprise in such a saturated market it would probably of been for the best. The moderate financial return for selling them eventually to Canada has to be marked against the PR disaster it has been. Certainly Canada has to share some of the blame for the debacle in particular assuming that a submarine designed for a different patrol tasking that never finished its defect rectification period, stored badly, parted out to support RN SSN and then changed about to suit different weapons was a disaster waiting to happen. If we had scrapped them then we could avoided the damage to UK/Canadian relations and the black balling British defence companies effectively suffer now due to the mess.
Canada tried to get a new diesel submarine on the cheap from somebody who was no longer interested in SSK. For the money burnt and capability lost due to non availability of the Victoria class they could of purchased new examples from an established SSK constructor like HDW or DCNS.
You know in some ways I think the Upholder class was also a victim of the success of the Oberon’s! The Oberon class was kept in effective service for so long in the RN that it rather left a big gap in UK SSK development and construction. I wonder if the Oberon were retired earlier by a follow on SSK the UK might of stayed in the diesel business and lapped up a few export orders that went to Germany in the end.
Fedaykin1. Yes. And? Hawk will still be the cheapest offered solution as it currently stands.
2. Since when has an afterburner kick been an essential requirement for training? This isn’t Ace Combat on an your xBox 360!
Look can you come back when you post something sensible?
FedaykinThe Hawk T.2 is a high performance LIFT type already regarded as at the higher end of the training performance spectrum. You don’t need to go supersonic to give a proper challenge to students and the G requirements of T-X can be met by Hawk with suitable airframe beefing up.
It has more then enough speed and G-force capability to challenge pupils! That is why the UK, Canada and Australia are all planning to use it as the LIFT type for F-35 without any reference to another interim jet. The USN and Marine corps plan to use the T-45 Goshawk as a LIFT for F-35 and it is generationally older then the current Hawk on offer.
The UK already operates a high performance jet in the form of Typhoon and Hawk is more then capable of transitioning pilots to the type.
The early test program will be done in partnership with America but the UK does not plan to transition pilots via a twin seat type like F-16D.
Until you produce some evidence with an British MOD footer stating that is the plan stop plucking ideas out of nowhere! THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR FOREIGN PILOTS TO TRAIN IN AMERICA FOR F-35! It is purely an option being set up by the Americans to support future sales and the FMS program.
FedaykinWhat are you trying to prove SlowMan? That the USAF has an outdated LIFT fleet? Fine, myself and Swerve are talking about the RAF and FAA who have access to a modern LIFT fleet in the form of the Hawk T.2.
I actually agree with the article that due to the age of the basic design the Hawk is an underdog in that respect to the newer designs on offer but on the other hand the cockpit environment is modern and designed to support training on the latest fighters including the F-35 and out of all the offerings it probably has the most developed and capable synthetic ground based training aids.
The UK will run it’s own OCU but train the initial instructor pilots and QWI in the US more then likely alongside the Marine Corps. The UK which is a tier 1 partner and for that matter any other F-35 customer are not required to use training resources in the US for F-35 training. Many certainly will as it is a usual component of American FMS contracts but don’t assume that.
FedaykinWell of course they do, and for the same reasons USN does. And you know what they would’ve loved even more? Anything else on the market.
OK then I’ll bite, why didn’t they buy anything else? There were plenty of other options available at relatively short notice from multiple sources. They could of had F-15E, F-16 Block 50/52, Rafale and Typhoon yet when it came to the crunch they went for Super Hornet. If they hate it so much why buy it in the first place.
FedaykinThat is funny Rii as the RAAF apparently love it.
FedaykinSeems that there are a lot of things that keypublishing forum posters don’t know about the F-35.
1. The international F-35s will be delivered to US bases and flown in the US until the USAF IOC scheduled in 2019.
2. The international F-35 pilots will be trained in the US.
3. The F-35 being a single seat jet, new pilots will be required to fly high performance high-G capable two seaters before climbing into an F-35, be it the F-16D or the T-X trainer.
4. Most F-35 operators do not intend to use the F-35 for A2A roles. Rather the F-35 requires air cover to operate.
To answer 1.
The UK is a tier 1 partner, initial training in the US but then an OCU is planned for the UK in Britain probably at the main operating base.
To Answer 2.
The UK is a tier 1 partner, initial training in the US but then an OCU is planned for the UK in Britain probably at the main operating base. Getting a theme here…
To Answer 3.
And what it your evidence that this is the intended training model for the UK RAF and FAA. The Hawk T.2 appears to be a perfectly adequate LIFT type for other modern high performance jets, the RAF and BAE Systems (who market this point as well) seem to think a student pilot can transition from Hawk T.2 to F-35 with no problem and no need for you suggested check flights on a high performance twin seater like the F-16D.
To Answer 4.
Most f-35 operators intend to use the F-35 heavily in the A2A role, often as their sole fast jet type and without cover from other jets.
FedaykinUK is not buying the F-35A at the moment SlowMan so it is unlikely you will see many RAF or FAA pilots at Luke AFB. Initial work up on the type for the UK will be done with the Marine Corps before the UK sets up its own OCU.
FedaykinIt’s a shame the CdG is too small to handle F-35C. They’d almost be better off sending both PoW and QE to mothballs and buying the CdG. I fear the lack of AEW is going to be the Achilles heel of the QE ships.
QE class is certainly getting an AEW capability, the RN learnt the hard way. It will either be Merlin with Cerberus/Searchwater 2000 cannibalised from the Sea King ASaC 7 or Merlin HM2 with the APG-81 based Vigilance AEW system. What is clever about Vigilance AEW is it uses a standard HM2 with the radar hanging off the torpedo racks and using the already installed consoles with a Software change meaning any member of the HM2 fleet can perform the AEW role.
Either way there will be an AEW capability for the RN once QE comes on stream. I think there is also some scope with experimenting with datalinks and the F-35B in an AEW role. Flying high its APG-81 can do lots of clever things like volumetric search and tracking, carrying a couple of ASRAAM for self defence and plenty of fuel it is an interesting idea. The only issue is as one RN pilot mentioned recently is it is another task added onto an already small fleet of jets.
FedaykinBut this is a very valid point for discussion. If the SH requires a 100,000t CATOBAR carrier to be operated properly while the other design can live with a 55,000t STOBAR, then you cannot ignore this additional invest your customer needs to make. This single argument will most likely have written off the SH from all future naval export acquisitions. In that way, the MiG-29 is greatly superior to SH, even if inferior in other aspects.
What gave you that idea msphere? The C-13 installed on the Charles de Gaulle can launch a Super Hornet with zero wind speed over the deck, full fuel and two tons of payload. CdG is 42,000 tons full load so plenty less then essential 100,000 tons you are suggesting. The planned for 70 – 80,000 ton PA2 would have easily operated a full load Super Hornet as would the 65,000 ton QE class if it had gone CATOBAR.
The fact is once the Tomcat mafia got over themselves the USN has realised the Super Hornet is a fantastic asset to the fleet. Far cheaper to run and maintain, far less maintenance hours required and far easier to integrate new weapons and pods on. The latest variant with AESA, HMD, late block AMRAAM and AIM-9X is not to be taken lightly in the air to air arena by any measure and the types ability to operate all sorts of precision strike munitions has been very useful.
Sign In
