VnomadPretty low key event considering the amount of over-the-top criticism that the program has faced vis a vis the gun.
F-35 Lightning II completes first in-flight 25mm gun test
The F-35 Lightning II, a Lockheed Martin joint strike fighter, has just completed its first in-flight firing of its 25mm gun.
The flight, piloted by U.S. Air Force Major Charles Trickey, took place on Oct. 30.
The F-35 fired has a four-barrel, 25mm Gatling gun embedded in its left wing and will provide pilots with the ability to strafe air-to-ground or air-to-air targets.
F-35 Fires Gun During Aerial Test for First Time
This is the second phase of F-35 gun testing, which will assess the gun’s performance and integration with the airframe while the plane is airborne. The first phase of the test period consisted of 13 gunfire events with the plane on the ground over three months, which verified the integration of the gun into the plane.
The gun system will be tested further next year with a production F-35A for integration with the jet’s full mission systems capabilities, according to the JPO. The test team will demonstrate the gun’s effectiveness in both air-to-air and air-to-ground employment.
The F-35 gun will be operational in 2017, at the end of the program’s system development and demonstration phase, the JPO said.
VnomadStill, as much as it might not be palatable I think P8 might be fiendishly expensive.
But we probably need something big enough to hunt submarines and gather intelligence and it probably has to be jet propelled.
Why do I like the P1 so much?
As expensive as the P-8 is, I’d bet the P-1 is a costlier (and less capable) proposition. A simple consequence of basing the former on the 737 platform coupled with a huge order book.
One viable jet powered alternative would be to mate the cancelled Nimrod’s missions systems onto the A320 platform and get the French and others onboard. But again, that too will cost money.
The only viable non-‘fiendishly expensive’ option is the SC-130J. Won’t reach the op area as fast as a jet, nor will the mission systems be as good, but the operating cost will be attractive, and it will excel at low speed low altitude ASW. Plus it’ll share parts and personnel will the RAF’s serving C-130Js.
VnomadThe fact that MTA is five years closer than it was and KC-390 is now visible on the horizon. C-130J is still an option, but no longer the obviously correct choice that it was.
The MTA has barely moved over the last five years and won’t enter regular service before 2025, if not later. With respect to the KC-390 & C-130J, your comments vis a vis the RAAF’s F-35A acquisition apply here too (hardly wise to adopt the logistical burden of a third fighter type regardless of what complaints one has with the F-35).
If the IAF didn’t operate a medium lifter today, a head-to-head evaluation of the KC-390 & C-130J would have been the way to go perhaps. But with an already existing ecosystem for training, spares, support et al. as well as an effective partnership (with TASL/Tata) for discharging offsets obligations as well as for local assembly, the choice is a superfluous one.
VnomadI agree that MTA was a fool’s errand and that licensed production of C-130J in significant numbers would’ve been a far more sensible option were it taken five years ago, instead of the paltry direct import order that was placed. But that was then and this is now.
There is probably some utility in taking a big order away from Russia to prevent it from become too complacent in its dealings with India. Is MTA the right place to do it? I would be tempted to opt for Latin American outreach with KC-390.
What stops them from pursuing licensed production of the C-130J today?
The KC-390 might have been a viable alternative had the IAF not already been pencilled in for 12 C-130Js. As things stand, logistical commonality tips the scales very decisively in the SHerc’s favour.
VnomadAnd the second got the cost wrong.
While the price is high, in the order of 115,000 euros each
http://www.senat.fr/rap/a12-150-8/a1…15.html#toc290
The total cost of the program is 592.2 M € 2011 with a unit price (excluding development) of € 164,000 2011
The AASM production order has been hugely scaled back since then. Less than even the interim order of 2348 units. As a consequence, the unit cost is likely to be significantly greater today, even with supplementary orders from Egypt & Qatar.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Sagem’s Armement Air-Sol Modulaire (AASM) Hammer SBU-38 precision guided munition (PGM) has been successfully launched from a Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon, the first launch of the PGM from a non-French made aircraft.
The firing test was carried out by the US Air Force’s (USAF’s) 40th Flight Test Squadron, operating out of the test centre in Eglin, Florida, on 30 May, sources told IHS Jane’s .
This successful launch is of key importance to Sagem in enabling it to offer the AASM to export customers equipped with the F-16. Currently, the only customer for the AASM is France which operates the PGM from its Dassault Rafale fighter aircraft. However, France’s order was dramatically reduced due to budgetary constraints from a planned 4,200 units to only 1,728 – meaning the company needs to find an export customer before mid-2016 in order to keep its production line open.
Sagem have designed the AASM to be compliant with NATO Universal Armament Interface (NUAI) standards – aimed at facilitating the functional integration of new weapons, without modification to the aircraft, and therefore reduce associated adaptation costs. This allowed the AASM to be fired by the USAF F-16, with the firing taking part due to French and United States participation in a NATO ‘Smart Defence’ project dedicated to the NUAI standard. This project also involves the NUAI programme office at the Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio.
VnomadIn the AtoA Arena, while it’s true that AMRAAM may have more range than Mica, Mica has the unique ability to send two different missiles seekers which would make defending against it much more difficult. Especially if the defending fighter is unaware that the IR seeker is coming and wastes a lot of energy defending from the first EM missile, only to be caught with its energy depleted by an IR Missile a few seconds later.
And if he was aware of the second missile, would the pilot not bother to avoid the first one?
VnomadThis is entirely Boeing´s to loose.
Well.. thing is the RCAF Hornets are being upgraded to serve till 2025. The moment I heard about it, I was sure that Boeing’s prospects were sunk (ironically coupled with it securing the CF-18 contract). The replacement should materialize only by about 2020. By the time, the F-35 costs should have fallen further, the definitive 3F block released, residual technical issues mostly resolved and further export orders signed.
Point is, it wouldn’t be as controversial a program, with the alternatives becoming a lot less attractive by then. Plus the PAK FAs & J-20/31s entering service around the same time, will have their own incentive value.
I’d say the Gripen E has an outside chance if the Canadians really roll back their ambitions (short of dissolving the military altogether).
VnomadCanadian Law… to buy fighters, there MUST be a competition, so, nobody can legally get around it, not even LM
Not true. Its purely a policy issue which is why political parties are taking a stand on the matter (based on media-driven public opinion). If it were a legal matter, the courts would decide the issue. Single vendor contracts might be discouraged, they cannot be illegal. Case-in-point: RCAF’s C-17.
VnomadThe Russian MOD has received 42 Ka-226 since 2011 (as of May 2015). Of course that does not include other small operators, which include police forces + civilian companies + FSB and such, that have been receiving helicopters for sometime before the MOD.
Well compared to the Airbus and Bell entries with production numbers in four figures, its certainly a higher risk venture, especially in terms of after-sales support.
The curious aspect is the Turbomeca engine. Has France guaranteed supplies? I would have thought the sanctions regime provided ideal grounds for them to play spoiler, with the Merignane built Fennec the obvious beneficiary.
Vnomadthe test pilot in question did answer just that
Not really. Question still remains – how does the F/A-18E/F with a weaker EM profile manage to go to high AoAs?
While the F-35A might be vulnerable after dumping his energy for a successful snap shot, but the board will still read 1-0. Point being, the F-35A’s handling likely won’t worry a MiG-29 or SH pilot as much as it might an F-15/F-16/EF pilot. Especially in a HMS-HOBS arena, where most ‘dogfights’ would be measured in seconds, for better or worse.
VnomadUnfortunately for Lockheed Martin, Indian incompetence tends to stop short of money actually changing hands. But so long as debacles like the expiry of the C-17 options continue to occur, LM shareholders can live in hope.
Are you suggesting the IAF’s C-130Js were delivered by Lockheed Martin without payment? Or were the Boeing shareholders stiffed by the largest operator of C-17s (after the USAF).
Who said it didn’t? It is eminently clear that India failed to assign the necessary resources and political energies required to invest in the FGFA program as was ostensibly planned. The MMRCA debacle sucked all the air out of the room for most of a decade, with little to show for it. Now that the word has come down that additional Rafales will not be entertained, everyone is (a) running around like headless chickens squawking about every remote possibility and (b) being forced against their will to sensible and practical decisions like committing to Tejas.
Doesn’t sound like the IAF is being forced to consider an Rafale-like alternative. And if they go for it (hardly an unlikely idea), they’ll merely be the dozenth country to make that choice.
VnomadIf the last decade has made anything clear it is that IAF is interested in whatever shiny baubles are dangled in front of it, and is entirely lacking in the pragmatism required to bring any aircraft into service.
India’s recent failure to approve the acquisition of additional C-17s before they were all gone should put to rest the question of just where the problem lies, i.e. not with Dassault or Sukhoi or HAL (alone), but with IAF/MoD and the broader acquisition apparatus.
Failure to approve additional C-17s sounds like an MoD issue to me, rather than an IAF one. Besides, they’ve got $10bn+ of C-130Js, C-17s, AH-64Es, & Chinooks on order. Wouldn’t be all too surprised if the F-35A is next US product on that list. BTW how come the PAK FA doesn’t qualify as a ‘shiny bauble’?
VnomadNot quite sure how one makes the leap from “US offers” to “India accepts” …
True. On the other hand, after insisting for four years that nothing but the Rafale would do, out of the blue the IAF chief has started talking about alternatives.
“I may wish to have Rafale. But there are equally good aircraft.. There are alternatives. I cannot say I only want Rafale.” – ACM Raha (Oct 2, 2015)
Ostensibly for follow-on orders, but with the ongoing Rafale negotiations looking rather iffy, it may end up being a complete replacement. He’s unlikely to have been referencing the Eurofighter. With the recent cut-backs in orders, the IAF doesn’t seem all that enthused about the PAK FA either, at least for now. And the MiG-35 & Super Hornet for all their strengths are not ‘equally good aircraft’. That just leaves…
VnomadNederlands keep importing worst thing : F-35, HP sauce…
Now now, I know you’re sore about the F-35 gobbling up the Rafale export market, but that doesn’t make the made-in-Netherlands HP sauce an ‘imported’ product for the Dutch.
VnomadI’ve seen this many times before, but may as well ask now. Why is the AMRAAM on the wingtips and the Sidewinder under-wing? Reducing the load as you move away from the fuselage should lower the bending moment on the wing and improve fatigue life. What gives?
Sign In
