SlowManCurrent F-35 pilot training pipeline : T-38 -> F-16D -> F-35
What the USAF prefers : T-X -> F-35
What the USAF tried and didn’t work well : T-38 -> F-35
BAE model : Hawk -> F-16D -> F-35
Alenia model : M-346 -> F-16D -> F-35
KAI/LM model : T-50 F414 -> F-35
Boeing model : Boeing trainer -> F-35
SlowManWHAT?!
Why would the USAF consider the F-16D has a leading trainer for the F-35A?!
It’s not just the USAF pilot trainees who fly F-16D before getting into an F-35, USMC pilots too.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/02/air-020111-F-35-T38-F16D-web/
F-35 students to train on Talons, F-16s
By DAVE MAJUMDAR – Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Feb 1, 2011 14:38:07 EST
Future Air Force F-35 Joint Strike Fighter pilots will train on both the T-38 Talon supersonic jet-trainer and F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter before moving on to the fifth-generation jet, a service official said.Unlike the F-16 and F-15, the F-22 and F-35 lack a dual-cockpit variant, so some pilot training takes place in a two-seat F-16D-model plane.
Traditionally, prospective fighter pilots undergo advanced pilot training and a supplementary course called Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals in the T-38 before going directly to their Formal Training Units to convert to an operational aircraft such as the F-15 Eagle or F-16. The six-week introduction course is designed to instill the fundamental fighter-pilot mentality and basic skill set required to fly those warplanes. However, the current T-38 is unequal to the task of preparing new aviators for fifth-generation fighters such as the F-22 Raptor or the forthcoming F-35.
I can’t find the link right now, but the USMC Harrier pilots too are flying in F-16Ds before getting into an F-35B.
This is why the T-50(Really an F/A-50 with F414 engine for the USAF) has a decisive advantage over the Hawk and the M-346 in the T-X contest, because only the T-50 can eliminate the need to maintain a fleet of F-16Ds for training.
SlowManThe T-50 is vastly more expensive to operate than a Hawk, the Raptor is a very, very, very small part of the USAF fleet
F-35 has no dual seat model to train pilots in either.
If you go BAE model, then you must keep a fleet of F-16Ds to prepare the pilots for F-22/F-35.
SlowManEDIT:Not you personally but bringing up China always seems to turn everybody stupid. It always either ‘big bad China is going to eat us all’ or ‘stupid dumb China can’t do anything right’. It’s not racism, it’s insecurity.
Well, the Chinese carriers present no threat to the likes of the US, Japan, Korea, and India, who can kill a Chinese carrier battle group with a combo of supersonic and subsonic anti-ship missiles at will.
It is in the South China Sea against Southeast Asian countries that it presents a threat.
SlowManThe first Italian F-35 coming to the US in 2014 does not mean that over 300+ International F-35s are going to sit around a US base waiting for IOC by 2018.
There will be no 300 international F-35s sitting in the US air bases waiting to go home in 2019. Try like less than 100, more like 50.
Here is an example where Australia plans on declaring an F-35 squadron in Australia by 2018.
That depended on the previous USAF IOC date of 2018, which has been pushed back again to 2019 but even this date is uncertain. Remember, the international F-35s cannot return home until the USAF declares IOC.
SlowManUS Navy considers Super Hornet enhancements, but no decision expected soon
By: Gareth Jennings
Published: 09 Jul 2012The US Navy (USN) is in “co-operative discussions” with Boeing on retrofitting enhancements to its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet combat aircraft, a navy official said at the Farnborough Airshow 2012.
Captain (USN) Frank ‘Spanky’ Morley, Program Manager for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G (PMA-265), said that the navy was looking at the viability of fitting several key enhancements offered by Boeing to international customers, but that no firm decisions had been made.
“While we are in co-operative discussions, the US Navy is not committed yet,” he said, adding that the navy would wait on Boeing’s efforts to sign up an international customer for these upgrades before deciding whether to follow suit.
The enhancements to which Capt Morley referred were first touted by Boeing at the Farnborough Airshow in 2010. Company officials spelled out a series of enhancements that Boeing was offering to existing and potential F/A-18E/F customers, which it termed the Super Hornet International Roadmap.
These improvements comprised the fitting of an integrated infrared search-and-track (IRST) system, an enclosed weapons pod, conformal fuel tanks, next-generation avionics, an internal missile and laser warning system and new General Electric F-414-400 enhanced-performance engines (EPEs).
Although the navy Super Hornets do operate an IRST system, it is an adapted centreline fuel tank rather than the fully integrated system offered under the International Roadmap and, although the new EPE engine offers some 20 per cent greater thrust than the current powerplant, it is being pitched to the USN in terms of its greater fuel efficiency.
This cockpit, which features a single 11×19-inch (28×48 cm) colour multifunction display in both the fore and aft pilot stations, should “significantly increase the pilot’s situational awareness at the same time as reducing operator costs”, a company spokesperson previously told IHS Jane’s . While such a system would undoubtedly improve the aircraft’s capability, this enhanced performance must be weighed against the costs of retrofitting such a system.
Although the enclosed weapons pods would increase the aircraft’s weapons stations from 11 to 17 and enhance its low observable characteristics, the increase in efficiency through reduced drag is likely to be the chief selling point for the navy. The same is true for the conformal fuel tanks which would enhance the aircraft’s lift characteristics.
Boeing is looking to have these retrofits ready to field by around 2016-17.
It is likely that the US Navy will convert its Block II Super Hornets into the Silent Hornets, just as the USAF is upgrading its F-15s and F-16s.
The US Navy never liked the single engine F-35C in the first place, and now is the perfect time to bail out.
SlowManSince the Japanese F-35s will roll off the line in 2017
FACO outputs will be shipped to the US and flown there. The same for Italy and Japan.
The 60,000m² (646,000ft²) FACO, which incudes 20 new buildings and attendant infrastructure, is planned to be operational by the end of 2012. It will deliver the first Italian JSF, an F-35A, roughly two years later, said Burbage. The aircraft will then transfer to the USA to support the training of Italian air force pilots.
and LM has said that it could meed the 2016 delivery date for the first F-35s for Korea
Delivered to the US training center, not to Korea. And the delivered units are not even combat-capable. This was why the F-35 was first to be knocked out in Korea and Lockheed Martin is calling for a delay of the F-X bidding by 3 years instead, which is ignored because the ROKAF is desperate for the delivery of 10 combat-ready jets to its base by the end of 2016.
they could send any F-35 they wanted to to RIAT (not likely).
For a ground display only. No flying.
SlowManBird ingestion doesn’t just happen around the base during take off and landing; these migrating birds can fly surprisingly high.
And no, the F-35 cannot fly back home after a bird ingestion. So lose an average 3 jets per year and the Canadian Airforce would be out of F-35s to fly in as little as 22 years.
Would the silent eagle not be an option or are the operating costs too high?
While the Silent Eagle would be the best option for the RCAF, the model that Boeing is pitching to the JSF partner nations is the Silent Hornet; an F/A-18 model whose frontal RCS rating matches that of export-grade F-35s.
With the RCAF being a Hornet Classic operator, the transition would be easy and the RCAF could buy as many as 100 jets with the $15 billion acquisition budget.
SlowManSo I assume you consider the Defense Industry Daily a reliable source.
You don’t have to refer to that DI to tell that the T-50 is the higher performance jet of two. Both the T-50 and the M-346 have flown displays in same airshows several times and the T-50 simply dominates performance wise.
In the USAF T-X contest, the horse race appears to be between the T-50 and surprisingly the BAE Hawk, with the M-346 having no strong sales point and not even a decent US partner. Northrop is partnering with BAE, while Boeing is pitching its own T-X model, leaving Alenia Aermacchi to bid without a US partner.
So the USAF has to choose between the trainer that could directly replace the F-16 from the training course and save money by reducing overall flight training hours, or go to the ground-based simulator heavy training model proposed by BAE.
SlowManIf all Denmark is looking for is a platform to defended sovereignty then JF17 would do what a shock this would be for the West’s industry.
JF-17 is incompatible with NATO standard; munitions, datalink, etc.
SlowManI wonder if this poster means there may be an F35 at RIAT 2013 ????
The F-35 cannot leave the US until it enters IOC with the US services.
The USAF IOC is 2019 at the earliest, so no international F-35 can leave the US until then; they must be flown in the US only. This is the deal breaker for many JSF partners and prospective customers.
The USMC IOC is supposed to be sooner with Block 2 software, but no fixed date yet.
SlowManSorry but your equation “M-346 = A-4” is complete disinformation and I cannot find any reference of the IAF making such statement.
The single-engine T-50 is considered to be one of the best training aircraft in the world and by all accounts offers the highest potential performance of the two as it can function as an “F-16 Lite.”
A T-50 with a light ground attack capabilities would be an added bonus for the Israelis.
However, the Defense Industry daily observed recently that the performance profile and ordnance-carrying capability of the M-346, similar to the Russian Yak-130, “in a pinch is probably the closest to the Skyhawk’s.“
The Israeli air force’s 200-plus A-4s saw combat in several Middle East wars.
I am afraid you don’t give enough consideration to the “brain” of an aircraft.
“Brains” can easily be transplanted. For example, F-22 will get F-35’s “brain” in later updates.
SlowManWhile I conceed that the T-50 could give an in flight experience similiar to the F-16, and that at the moment the T-38 is far from giving the necessary training for an advanced 5th gen fighter, you seem to imply that the T-50 is the only jet suitable for the task.
Well, I don agree with the latter. Let me quote an officer of the Israeli Air Force who evaluated both the T-50 and the M-346:
The actual IAF analogy is that the T-50 = F-16, while M-346 = A-4.
The Israeli decision was strictly a political and an economical decision(M-346 cheaper to operate than the more thirsty T-50), not a technical decision.
The avionics, the HMD and the systems of the M-346 are enough sophisticated to provide the advanced training needed for a 5th gen. fighter.
It is not the avionics, but the high speed high energy maneuver experience that the USAF is talking about.
SlowManCanadian government seeking alternatives to troubled F-35 fighter jet: sources
This was inevitable, since there was no way that Canada could buy all the needed fighters with the current budget if they went with the F-35.
Canada would actually need more F-35s than the number needed for other twin engine jets because of a higher loss rate of single engine jet fighters like the F-35.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/engines+have+ingested+birds+since+1988/7278222/story.html
CF-18 engines have ‘ingested’ 67 birds since 1988
BY LEE BERTHIAUME, POSTMEDIA NEWS SEPTEMBER 21, 2012Government records tabled in the House of Commons on Monday show that Canadian CF-18 fighter jet engines have “ingested” at least 67 birds since 1988.
The highest number of “avian ingestions” occurred in 1989, when nine birds were sucked into CF-18 engines, followed by seven in each of the years 1988 and 1993.
It seems as time moved on, the birds seemed to be get the message as the number of incidents declined, never reaching more than three after 1996 — though that may also be the result of fewer CF-18s being operational.
SlowManhttp://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_11_26_2012_p22-516490.xml&p=2
The Capes program itself has undergone one important change recently, according to executives attending the conference. The Air Force has delegated a crucial decision to Lockheed Martin: the choice between the Raytheon Advanced Combat Radar and Northrop Grumman’s Scalable Agile Beam Radar. A request for proposals is expected soon, with a decision before next summer.
The move has not pleased Raytheon. Northrop Grumman has supplied every F-16 radar, as well as the radars on the F-22 and F-35, and that is seen as giving it the inside track. The Air Force’s motivations are not clear. Some observers suggest it might be an attempt to “protest-proof” a high-value source selection—the total F-16 upgrade market is estimated at more than 1,000 radars and it is the last opportunity of its size in sight—or simply a recognition that no one on the U.S. government side is experienced enough to make such a choice.
However, South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration, which picked BAE Systems to lead its own F-16 upgrade program in July, plans to choose an AESA radar, possibly before year-end. South Korea is being pushed to delay its choice and follow the U.S. lead, sources say.
BAE Systems won the Korean deal with a substantial price advantage over Lockheed Martin and is now talking to multiple nations that have been asked to join the Capes program. As well as Poland, there is active interest in F-16 upgrades in Singapore, Portugal and Greece.
However, there is no clear funding line within the Air Force budget for the effort, beyond the early design stages; the plan is to form a consortium with the international partners sharing the cost. Another question is to what extent Capes will be a one-size-fits-all solution, and how that will mesh with local requirements. For example, some F-16 operators require an active electronic warfare system (not part of the Capes baseline, which includes only the Terma ALQ-213 management system) and others do not.
The Korean decision for F-16 upgrade(BAE avionics + preferred Raytheon AESA) is causing a headache for the USAF F-16 upgrade(Lockheed avionics + Northrop Grumman AESA) program, as the Korean decision is swaying other F-16 upgrade operators to look at the details of the Korean decision, when the USAF wants all the F-16 operators to standardize on the Lockheed avionics + Northrop AESA.
Similar impact is expected from the Korean F-X decision, where the F-35 is all but knocked out and the Silent Eagle and the Typhoon make up the two horse race. When Korea turns down the F-35, it will trigger other JSF partner nations to reconsider F-35 and switch to open bidding.
Sign In
