SatorianIn other news, not reported at Ares, flight testing continues at Patuxent River.
Blinkers much?
Right, totally not reported.
I tended to think of some of the F-35 diehard faithfuls as the JSFDF, the Joint Strike Fighter Defence Force. By now it probably should be the Joint Strike Fighter Denial Force.
SatorianHow about posting this in Missiles and Munitions?
SatorianBTW, where is pfcem? With every new report about delays I start to worry that he commits suicide.. Or waits until LM releases revised schedule #4 and then claims that there is no delay and everything is running according to schedule 🙂
He earned a ban for one month, with his trolling thread about the PAK-FA delay having sealed the deal. Take your pick of the silly accounts that have sprung up since then to suspect him behind.
SatorianThat’s probably why we haven’t seen it fly until just recently. They must have installed some OCS enhancers for the press videos.
SatorianThe plane’s shape makes it invisible in the optical, infra-red and traditional radar wave bands.
LOL. “Invisible in the optical waveband.”
SatorianHere we disagree, because it is about practical agility and not raw data at first.
The combination of F-16C with AIM-120* is hard to beat, when part of a capable network.
This particular extension of the agility debate makes no sense.
Satorianpfcem, looking for intellectual honesty and integrity from that crowd is as pointless as trying to find a crock of gold at the end of a rainbow. You’d probably have better luck trying to find the gold.
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the pathological F-35 program supporter crowd.
SatorianEngine thrust is already 3000lbs greater than KPP’s called for.
Any table of KPPs I’ve seen didn’t contain anything about thrust ratings.
SatorianNow, with the Greek economy going down the drain and European neighbours setting up huge loans, what are the chances of Greece procuring the Eurofighter in their next tender?
SatorianLet’s not forget that nice paragraph from page one:
On April 7, 2004, the most expensive, ambitious airplane project in history screeched to a halt. Thousands of Lockheed Martin employees tasked with creating the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter found their daily routines broken by a crisis. It had been quietly building for months as engineers cast wary eyes on the weight projections, particularly for one of the three JSF variants, a short-takeoff/vertical-landing fighter. With each review the problem was becoming more evident: The F-35B STOVL fighter was nearly 3,000 pounds over its projected weight.
The 2004-2006 figure seems like the maximum acceptable weight, which they used as target for the weight reduction measures and just about reached with the post-SWAT 2006 design state. Pre-SWAT target figures could be post-SWAT figures as well because the plane was way overweight by 3,000 lbs beforehand.
SatorianIn RAF News, 29 January 2010, pages 22-23, there is an interview with AOC 1 Group, Air Vice Marshall Greg Bagwell.
During the interview he is asked: Will Typhoon go to Afghanistan? AVM Bagwell’s reply is vague to say the least. He says that Typhoons are very busy with meeting the Falklands and the UK QRA commitment. This is obviously true but it doesn’t require the complete Typhoon fleet to meet these two commitments. Whilst less than specific answers to focused questions are open to many interpretations, AVM Bagwell’s vague answer suggests that there still remains many questions about Typhoon being fit for a role it was never intended for.
On return from a training deployment to the USA last year the OC of the Typhoon squadron that went out (I can’t remember which squadron it was), was quoted as saying Typhoon was ready for the strike role. This was apparently not the case and, according to further press reports, he was reprimanded by senior officers for making a false statement.
I have heard it said that the workload in a strike role is too demanding and that some pilots would prefer a two-man crew.
Not withstanding BAe’s high profile marketing and promotional campaign about Typhoon’s multi-role abilities and capabilities, the questions I now pose are: will Typhoon ever be fit-for-purpose in a strike role? Are the delays in getting it to full operational status a reflection on the fact that it is not a suitable platform for such a role? (Remember it was designed specfically to meet an RAF requirement for a dedicated air superiority role in a Cold War senario).
Subtle troll is subtle.
As for airframes, Germany doesn’t even have enough of them to go around to properly train its pilots without delay.
SatorianAnd the numbers many other are quoting are 3 years older than that…
No, they are as old or new as their latest confirmation, which would be May 2009, September 2008–and ongoing on Lockheed-Martin’s site.
No, it show a lack of thinking to ‘think’ that 2 years + $6.2 billion dollars was spent on weight reduction WHICH WAS CLAIMED A SUCCESS & that additional weight reductions were/have been recognized but not implemented only for the actual end result to be aicraft that magicall weigh EXACTLY THE SAME or are heavier than they were before.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article2784.html makes it sound like the figures given are design targets, not actual item weights. What if the weight reduction measures were put in place for the plane to hit its design target and get within KPP bounds, instead of being below design target already and spending a lot of resources to get even lower?
I do not recall any program breifings/documents that provide any different numbers.
So you have this one single source?
Note that Major General Charles R. Davis is the Program Executive Officer.
Yes, indeed. Just the man who used the higher numbers in 2008 again. And his 2008 figures trump his 2007 figures. Perhaps the program floated the idea of lower weight targets for a while between 2006 and 2007, but has gone back to the old target from 2008 on?
I HAVE, however seen documents by Air Vehicle Director Capt John “Snooze” Martins (as recent as 2009) that DO use the same internal fuel numbers as those given in ‘by Davis’ 2007.
Inconclusive at best. Perhaps they stuck with the lower fuel capacity due to changes and have gone up with the weight due to other components again? Cpt. Martins’ program update presentation contains no weight figures. Why is that?
***
Have you not been paying ANY attention whatsoever? I have already expained MANY TIMES that those numbers are those given from 2004-2006, then you had the POST WEIGHT REDUCTION NUMBERS given in 2007 but strangely in 2008 the ‘new’ document give the EXACT SAME NUMBERS as from 2004-2006 (as already posted it appears as though who ever updated the pdf files for 2008 did so by editing the 2006 files rather than the more recent 2007 files).
No, you haven’t explained anything a single time, but have been regurgitating your standpoint repeatedly. And simple repetition does not make it more convincing all by itself.
My theory is that the weight reduction measures were there to hit the 2006 DESIGN TARGETS. To make the plane reach its specification. Perhaps, for a while, they thought of being able to go even lower, but have retracted shortly afterwards and stuck to the previous DESIGN TARGET again since 2008.
SatorianHow about this one:
ECD Brief – 30. September 2008
30. September 2008
Major General Charles R. Davis, USAF
Program Executive Officer, F-35 Lightning II Program
Weight figures:
F-35A: 29,036
F-35B: 32,161
F-35C: 32,072
SatorianONE MORE TIME
Prior to weight reduction the weight estimates of the F-35 were…
2002
F-35A: 26,500 lbs
F-35B: 29,735 lbs
F-35C: 30,049 lbs
2003
F-35A: 27,100 lbs
F-35B: 30,500 lbs
F-35C: 30,700 lbs
2004-2006
F-35A: 29,036 lbs
F-35B: 32,161 lbs
F-35C: 32,072 lbsAfter weight reduction the weight of the F-35 IS…
F-35A: 26,664 lbs
F-35B: 29,695 lbs
F-35C: 29,996 lbs
Interesting how much the weight has crept up in just three years. Considering that the JSF is barely into its flight test program that could necessitate changes, I wonder how much potential there is for added weight gain. Your Davis brief number from 2007 is now about three years old.
Engage your brains for once & recongize the impossibility that after weight reduction that the F-35 could be EXACTLY THE SAME WEIGHT as they were before weight reduction OR heavier ( & exact intervals of 100 lbs).
It requires a lack of imagination to not see any way the weight reduction could have been counteracted again. Best case: Required changes as discovered in flight testing added weight back. Worst case: Flight testing yielded that some, much or most of SWAT measures could not be integrated for expected life span and have other changes added even on top of it.
Out of interest and to weigh the different sources: What other sources do you have for the Davis numbers and are there some more recent than his brief?
SatorianOddly enough, other presentations I’ve looked at after the Davis brief from 2007 didn’t contain weight figures. Norway Briefing 2008, Captain Martins 2009, Knotts 2009: none contained weight numbers, but repeated other data like length, wing span, wing area and fuel capacity slavishly.
Sign In
