Amiga500Maybe…
Maybe not..http://elementsofpower.blogspot.nl/2014/02/moronic-convergence-at-defense-aerospace.html
Hmmm… there is an old saying here – “self praise is no recommendation”.
———————–
***For the purposes of this point, please assume the defense-aerospace article I linked is accurate.***
That blog is very high on self-praise and with very little in the way of substantial responses to the Bacon point other than to note that it is from way back in the JSF program initiation.
40% morphing to ~75% is not a small adjustment. If the author had as much experience in the industry as they purport, then they would grasp that.
———————————-
The author points out the reducing costs of the F-35 on a number of graphs; feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but did initial estimates not include the engines? [which were considered separate in actual recent purchase prices plotted there?]
Amiga500Dunno if true… but if so – ouch!
The F-35 selected acquisition report (SAR) reported last Spring that there had been no progress in reducing its staggering $1 trillion, 50-year life-cycle cost. Then in June 2013 it was reported that “the company and the U.S. military are taking aim at a more vexing problem: the cost of flying and maintaining the new warplane.” Not only was the total cost stratospheric but the cost per flying hour was much higher than the legacy fleet at $31,922.
FY13 DOT&E Report
— Mean Flight Hours Between Critical Failure (MFHBCF)
variant–threshold/observed
F-35A–20/4.5
F-35B–12/3.0
F-35C–14/2.7— Mean Corrective Maintenance Time for Critical Failure (MCMTCF)
variant–threshold/observed/FY12 Report
F-35A–4.0/12.1/9.3
F-35B–4.5/15.5/8.0
F-35C–4.0/9.6/6.6So you fly the F-35A for 4.5 hours, get a critical failure, and then it takes 12.1 hours to fix it, or nearly three hours longer than it took last year. (That’s hours, not manhours; Eglin AFB has seventeen mechanics per F-35.)
Similarly with the F-35B — fly it for 3 hours, critical failure, then corrective maintenance takes 15.5 hours (7.5 hours more than last year).
The F-35C will fly for only 2.7 hours before 9.6 hours for corrective maintenance time. (Only one engine, too, out over the deep blue water.)
All of this reality runs against what the early F-35 promises were.
— From the 1997 doc — “The Affordable Solution – JSF”:
Tactical Aircraft Affordability Objective 1997: R&D 6%, Production 54%, total dev & prod 60%, O&S 40%.— The actual 2014 test data is way different:
dev & prod — $397B = 26%, O&S — $1,100B = 74%, total — $1,497So the F-35 has gone from an initial-operating cost ratio of 60-40 to 26-74, and that’s with much higher production costs. Nobody can afford that, especially foreign customers — which is why it’s been covered up.
Amiga500:love-struck:
Amiga500http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xos8ljrvkK4 Not the real thing, but it gives you an idea about the present standard freed for release.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQkm8oLPb4c
Are you taking the ****?
Amiga500The F-35 is not going to match a clean F-16, period.
There are few fighters that can out accelerate a block 52, namely Eurofighter, F-22, Rafale, Su-35 (and hard numbers are not easy to come by on any of these)
“Few” fighters can out accelerate a block 52… after which you proceed to name every new fighter built in the last 20 years apart from the Subpar Hornet.
Bottom line, the F-35 has acceleration numbers in line with the similarly equipped F-16 F-18, that’s the design goal.
So, in conclusion, the rest of the world is moving ahead and the F-35 is stagnating.
None of this even touches the sustained turn rate issue.
Amiga500The F-35 offers an automatic thread avoidance system and performs it in a split second under the optimum conditions available for the F-35.
I would love to see you produce a credible source for this fantasy :dev2:
Even LM powerpoints aren’t so bold!
Amiga500Yeah smart move, because you and i both know all you have are the same tired suppositions that have been repeatedly dismissed as conjecture or lies.
Blah blah blah.
The KPPS have been relaxed, some substantially, to make the aircraft meet “requirements”.
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/fy2012/pdf/dod/2012f35jsf.pdf <<—- Note – NOT Lockheed presentation or the word of a politician.
The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by 8 seconds. These changes were due to the results of air vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations.
The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35B, reducing turn performance from 5.0 to 4.5 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by 16 seconds. These changes were due to the results of air vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations.
The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35C, reducing turn performance from 5.1 to 5.0 sustained g’s and increasing the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by at least 43 seconds. These changes were due to the results of air vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations.
The KPPs being based on that of a 30 year old fighter after its life weight growth into a relatively bloated machine.
Lockheed and its merry band of paid mouthpieces (aka test pilots) would have you believe the transonic performance is “excellent”… Unfortunately “excellent” doesn’t quite seem to cut it on the ‘ol stopwatch.
Amiga500Explain why you think the F-35 has a limited kinematic envelope? In what portions of it’s envelope is it limited, what are those limitations? Surely, blanket statements like this should have data to support them.
Yeah, like I’m going to bother providing a full breakdown of the F-35s limitations, why they exist and what effects they have on its combat performance.
On an internet forum. For free. When I’ve a billion and one other things to do.
Get real.
If you don’t have the ability to figure them out for yourself, that’s not my problem.
Amiga500Wrong.
Not wrong Sens. No matter how much your fantasies wish otherwise.
A pilot is too slow in that case.
If the pilot’s reaction time of a few tenths of a second were a serious obstacle, then the F-35’s limited kinematic envelope is a much more substantial problem.
Amiga500The F-35 at Block 3 would have a field date over today’s China.
Just a pity it’ll be about 2020 before its fielded eh?
Amiga500It does not work in system-fusion. Every sensor-info can trigger an instant change of flight. To give you an example about that. An instant threat like an approaching missile is detected. The F-35 has to break the lock and keep some distance from the blast within split seconds. Without the system-fusion it will take critical time to reach something similar. In short nothing is for free and you have two sides of a coin always. System-fusion takes time and is expensive when it comes to software, but it gives a time-advantage in real combat as well.
Sorry, your example doesn’t make sense Sens.
Your sensors will trigger mission-software alerts to the pilot(s) – who then take the appropriate course of action, via the Flight Control Software.
The pilot is the intermediary between the two. The aircraft (at least as far as flight is concerned) does not react automatically to new and evolving threats – it alerts the pilot who then reacts.
The fusion of various sensor feeds into one coherent picture for the pilot does not involve or require automated manipulation of flight controls.
Amiga500Stealth on stealth brings fighter aircraft closer together at launch, making the first shot even more critical and devastating. With the T-50 having the worst RCS of all stealth fighters and from all significant aspects, it needs to have the best engagement radar by a long margin.
Given the tennis ball vs marble comparison in frontal RCS for the T-50 and Raptor respectively, with equal radars the raptor (marble) will detect the tennis ball from over double the range it is detected ie. (0.0035/0.000143)^0.25 based on the basic radar range equation.
The T-50 effectively needs to have a radar around 24 times more powerful than the raptor’s to get the drop on it head to head.
*sigh*
In any future balanced air war, fighters that emit anything within range of something that can be shot at them will be dead. The idea of LPI radar (vs. equivalent level technology) is a complete codology that only the denizens of places like this actually believe.
The pilot will be reliant on three types of sensor to build their tactical picture. On-board passive, off-board passive and off-board active.
Amiga500United Europe Air Force .
Ha. Easy
Several billion hot air balloons and airships.
The bags being filled from the hot air of the politicans and the engines on the airships run from the methane gathered off the bullsh|t they speak.
Amiga500No body has reported F-35B software will be 13 months late. The report uses the term could be not will be.
Your right… it most likely will be far more than 13 months late.
How Saab are the only manufacturer (that I am aware of) to have the bright idea of decoupling safety of flight software from mission-specific software is beyond me.
Even at this point in the F-35 program, I would be giving serious thought to switching to the concept.
It is possible that even making that change right now could shorten time to useful IOC and reduce costs, never mind over a 30 year lifespan with numerous software updates during that time.
To given an example – right now there are issues with EOTS. Every change to the EOTS software must be verified as having zero impact on the FCS. I simply cannot emphasis enough the impact of DAL A, B or C items on the rate at which you can piece code together. Every line must be checked. Don’t expect to get more than single figures in terms of code lines done in a day…
Completely disconnect the FCS from the mission software and the code rate for EOTS fixes could improve by factors in the hundreds!
Amiga500Judging from the retrofit costs, substantial modification doesn’t appear to be on the cards.
Apart from the bulkheads, the generator, lift fan clutch… etc etc etc
Sign In
