HotshotA) There is nothing that suggests that there is any problem with this (You made up a hypothetical scenario and are now treating this as a very serious red herring)
Then why do they test ANYTHING? Just rely on the models and that’s it.
B ) There is nothing to suggest that if this comes up, there wouldn’t be a concurrency change identified and adopted just as other concurrency changes have been ID’d and installed on the aircraft already produced. The USMC did this, and so did the USAF, and the costs associated with the same are highlighted in the chart posted earlier.
Right, one more concurrency issue if they can fix it. Why wasn’t the F-22 fielded before it was proved to be able to launch his AMRAAMs then? Just call it concurrency, there is no end to that logic.
Some concurrency is OK, too much doesn’t make sense, that’s why the F-35 has been called acquisition malpractice. The USAF should have bought more F-22s instead while keeping the F-35 at minimum production rate while they were ironing the problems.
HotshotIf there is an issue, they will fix it, pure and simple.
That in no way will make jets made up to that point “unusable” given that the scenario that you postulated is at the lowest probability of all A2A BVR shots. Most A2A combat is subsonic with a little trans-sonic. Very rarely will you see a max speed AAM shot.
They can also develop a certain maneuver/procedure to take the shot before a fix is in place too.
The M1.6 speed is meant to be a useful speed on the F-35 because the plane has no external tanks and ordinance to slow it down, so hopefully the F-35 would be able to launch at a high fraction of that speed.
Also the next generation of planes will have more ability to fight at high speed than the previous generation.
The F-35 would be usable, but the pilots would have to be careful with how they use their missiles. They’ll be able to use their AMRAAMs mounted on the a/a station at higher speed than the other 2 AMRAAMs mounted on the a/g station, kind of complicated.
HotshotSo because of a treaty with Russia the US can’t have weapons equivalent to what the Chinese field. I wonder how long the US will continue to respect that treaty.
HotshotYeah, so what, doesn’t mean in makes sense. Unless you’re telling me that the first couple hundred planes were not meant to be used as fighters, in which case the ability to carry AMRAAMs on the a/g stations were just a “bonus” if it works.
HotshotLets start a list of hypothetical scenarios that we can fill the next few pages discussing? 😉
I don’t find that attitude very smart. Sure the F-35 separation tests may work as expected, but that doesn’t sound too serious to me to buy hundreds of planes before you’ve even tested for sure.
Remember the SH and its crappy separation problems. They had surely done simulations before. Same for the F-35 structure. They thought they could model the structure well enough that it would be very unlikely there would be problems, and look at the amount of structural problems they’ve had.
HotshotWell, because the already have modeled weapon separation. They don’t just strap a weapon to a 100+ million dollar fighter and say ” k, bob get her up to 600 knots then drop that sucker and let’s see what happens”.
They model it, do pit testing. obviously there are still unknowns and some risk. Here is a Lockheed presentation on it:
http://pages.mscsoftware.com/rs/mscsoftware/images/F-35%20Joint%20Strike%20Fighter-%20Store%20Separation%20Flight%20Test%20and%20Analysis.pdf
Simulations are not convincing enough. The F-35 is meant to be a fighter, so you can’t afford even a few percentage of chances that it could not use its primary weapon.
The AMRAAM separation was tested on the F-22 before IOC for good reason. It was even tested on the YF-22 in fact, which helped convince the USAF that it was less risky.
HotshotThat could maybe work too, but it would have to fit in an existing launcher, I doubt the US Army would field a new launcher for that.
A THAAD-ER could probably get a range greater than 1000km against a surface target. The THAAD already has a terminal seeker to detect the target.
HotshotI understand that, but what happens if next year they figure that the plane can’t eject its AMRAAM at mach 1.6 from the internal a/g station. That means that about 200 F-35s that have been build won’t be usable as fighters, including international ones. The JPO would say that it’s unlikely but you never know.
HotshotMaybe they could make an ASBM missile based on that THAAD-ER for the pacific pivot?…
HotshotLM is only part of the team working overtime to meet schedule. The test is not being run by Lockheed but the ITT. Gilmore’s leaks give a play by play coverage of test events and one needs to understand this. The JPO has been quite open about the Block 3F schedule delays for a couple of years now. Bogdan has testified about this on a number of occasions so their position has always been that once 3I is complete (and 2B prior to this) they can dedicate their full efforts to 3F and the accompanying weapon certs in order to pull back some of those delays. It remains to be seen whether they can, or they are off by a few months.
The leaks document challenges that come up during developmental testing and the same was the case for 2b and 3I before it, and most of them were largely settled and fixes verified to the service’s satisfaction prior to the IOC, within the IOC window. The USAF just did the same, vis-a-vis the stability issues with 3I during the Mountain Home deployment. The OTE requires a fixed number of aircraft, kitted for OTE by a certain date, and accompanied test facilities and logistics for the testing to be conducted. Gilmore, through leaks and official testimony has been pressing for the JPO to work harder on this so that he gets what he needs in time.
The JPO has in the past responded with commitments that they are doing their best to supply the needed hardware within a desired time frame. Again, that is something that has multiple challenges, coordination and infrastructure availabiltiy to factor in so is something that could slip by a few months. What is more relevent to the health of the program, is how the challenges are solved, how time and money consuming the fixes are. The current Concurrency models have very little per unit cost in the current year, and beyond LRIP’s and if this holds true (+/- 10% for example) then a few months delay in SDD completion isn’t really going to make much difference in securing the required number of aircraft production by a certain date and at a certain cost. In the larger scheme of things short term delays in SDD completion don’t make any significant difference but any changes to the production plan as a result of schedule or cost would be more certainly will. Essentially what could disrupt the plan over the next 5 or so years is if there is a significant issue that comes up requiring very expensive fixes – something that grows more and more unlikely as time goes by and they enter the home stretch.
People get all excited that the USAF was able to reach IOC for block 3I, but there is not so much difference between 2B and 3I, it is mostly the main computers and more software. There is much more difference between 3I and 3F than between 2B and 3I. I wonder if the decision of going IOC with 3I did not create delays in the program for not much.
Also if funding for the SDD was increased ( taking money from aircraft production numbers), that would enable to finish the development sooner and to go FRP, which would reduce the unit cost.
HotshotLM will tell you what they hope will happen.
Bogdan will tell you what has actually happened.
And Gilmore will tell you what he wishes will happen to keep his unnecessary army of bureaucrats employed.
I think Gilmore is right when he says that block 3F dev is late, that’s why LM personnel is working 7 days a week. Will they be able to continue like that until the end of SDD and to finish on time, if that’s what it takes that’s what they have to do. LM will do everything possible to meet the deadline to get the block buy as early as they can.
HotshotF-35 has launched AMRAAM at supersonic speeds. Will have to check on JDAM.
I wonder more about the AMRAAM release from the a/g station. The a/g station is rather deep in the bay, contrary to the a/a station. The F-22 has a deflector that extends out of the bay, I think that’s to reduce turbulences. The F-35 doesn’t have that.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]247744[/ATTACH]
HotshotThere has been nothing shared (that I have come across) on the amount of testing still left for each weapon in order to reach the full Block 3F capability. Its pretty safe to assume that this will change (what has been accomplished, and what is still left) during the ‘hearing’ season this winter.
Between what Gilmore says, what Bogdan says and what LM says it’s kind of hard to know what’s really going on.
Hopefully they will be able to continue at the same rate.
HotshotHas the AIM-9X been tested with helmet cueing? Have the weapons releases from the bay been tested in supersonic?
HotshotThe arresting gear on USN carriers has been able to do that for decades. The arresting gear is adjusted for every aircraft that comes aboard; the pilot announces the type and fuel weight and the arresting gear crew adjusts the gear accordingly. This is why the arresting gear brings every aircraft to a stop at nearly the same spot regardless of type, weight, or speed.
Ok, I didn’t know. If the A-C hybrid catches the first cable, it would have perhaps 30-50% more landing distance than if it caught the 3rd wire.
However, the stress from arrested landings is only a part of the problem; the impact with the deck puts more stress on the airframe than the arresting gear does.
It is clear that landing with an A-C hybrid would stress the airframe more, but the airframe might be good for a few hundreds landings, which I would guess would be sufficient to just to reinforce the Navy temporarily. Would a completely autonomous landing software be hard to do for USAF planes, I don’t know, but AIs will become more and more widespread in coming years/decades. An AI could probably land the plane.
Sign In
