dark light

SpudmanWP

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 166 through 180 (of 4,849 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Military Aviation News #2119363
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    DOT&E delivers another scathing report on F-35 progress

    Somebody has a strange definition of “scathing”
    2016 = 60+ pages
    2017 = 30 pages
    2018 = 14 pages

    Only one major F-35A issue identified which is an inaccurate F-35A gun. The rest of the issues related to supporting programs like ALIS, parts availability, etc.

    in reply to: 2019 F-35 News and Discussion #2119458
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    They are already scheduled to be overhauled as part of the “Concurrency” process that has been in the budget since the beginning.

    After we published this story, Lockheed Martin, who manufactures the F-35Joint Strike Fighters, sent us with the following statement regarding the F-35B‘s life expectancy:

    [INDENT]The F-35s operating today are delivering exceptional capability, lethality and connectivity around the globe. While we await the full details of the ongoing Operational Test phase, we are actively enhancing all aspects of the F-35 to ensure it exceeds warfighter demands and outpaces evolving threats. Items identified in the Annual DOT&E report are well understood and have been resolved in partnership with the F-35 Joint Program Office or have an agreed path forward to resolution.

    F-35B Service Life: The F-35B has completed full scale durability testing to 16,000 hours. Planned modifications and fleet management of the early contract F-35B aircraft will ensure that they meet the 8,000 hour service life requirement, and aircraft delivering today incorporate these design changes in the build process to ensure they’ll meet 8,000 hours or more.[/INDENT]

    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone…d-service-life

    in reply to: Military Aviation News #2119661
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The main purpose of the fighter-mounted B-61 was not to fly deep into Russia but to hit forces that are advancing into Western Europe.

    in reply to: 2019 F-35 News and Discussion #2119692
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Am I the only one who can’t edit a post?

    in reply to: 2019 F-35 News and Discussion #2119696
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The heavy lifting is done (90% reduction of open issues over last year’s numbers) and there were very few issues with the jet itself. IIRC the only one was accuracy issues with the F-35A’s gun (F-35B/C pod is fine).
    .

    Based on F-35A gun testing through September 2018, DOT&E currently considers the accuracy of the gun, as installed in the F-35A, to be unacceptable.

    – F-35A gun accuracy during SDD failed to meet the contract specifi cation. Although software corrections were made to the F-35 mission systems software to improve the stability of gun aiming cues, no software or hardware corrections have yet been implemented to correct the gun accuracy errors.

    – Investigations into the gun mounts of the F-35A revealed misalignments that result in muzzle alignment errors. As a result, the true alignment of each F-35A gun is not known, so the program is considering options for re-boresighting and correcting gun alignments.

    – During air-to-air gun testing, F-35A operational test pilots received intermittent “unsafe gun” cockpit alerts while attempting gun attacks. These alerts occurred with two diff erent aircraft; the root cause is under investigation.

    – F-35B and F-35C air-to-ground accuracy results to date with the gun pod have been consistent and meet the contract specifi cations. They do not show the accuracy errors of the internal gun on the F-35A.

    Availability improved only slightly, mostly due to parts & the needs for Depots.

    in reply to: 2019 F-35 News and Discussion #2119741
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The annual DOT&E report is out and is only 14 pages compared to last year’s 30 and 2016’s 60+

    http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/dod/2018f35jsf.pdf

    in reply to: 2019 F-35 News and Discussion #2119810
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Not to mention complete lack of context

    in reply to: Military Aviation News #2119883
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    [USER=”11568″]Tango III[/USER]
    You do know there is already a “Just a Nice Pic” thread, right?…. 🙂

    https://forum.keypublishing.com/foru…ice-pic-thread

    in reply to: Switzerland fighter replacement plan restarted #2120063
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The US has the most open and transparent defense budget on earth. They put out highly detailed budgets that include both development and procurement funds on an annual basis.

    There is no excuse for any “journalist” to not know what an F-35 cost in the past, today, and what it’s projected cost is to be. These prices are backed up by what Partner and FMS customers are paying as part of announced contracts.

    Anyone who thinks that the Flyaway Price (yes, including the engine) for an F-35A in 2019 is over ~$90 mil is just too lazy to look it up. IIRC it’s due to drop below $85mil in a few years.

    because why look up some numbers when everyone knows its the most expensive option anyway.

    The problem is that the price has dropped so significantly in the past 10 years but people don’t bother to verify actual costs.

    in reply to: Switzerland fighter replacement plan restarted #2120131
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    That “report” is old, not detailed, and does not cover GFE (Government Funded Equipment) or subsidies.

    Most importantly it is not what FMS customers pay (ie the “true” cost”).

    This is the reason why there is such a large gap between that “report” and what FMS sales contracts are priced at.

    btw, US law says all FMS sales are at the same price as the Gov pays internally so there was no “dropping it’s pants” on price.

    in reply to: 2019 F-35 News and Discussion #2120144
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The U.S. Air Force has funded a flight test demonstration program for Lockheed Martin’s Cuda air-to-air missile, pushing the concept forward more than five years after it first appeared, the company says.

    The flight tests, funded by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), will evaluate how the Cuda compares to the range and terminal phase maneuverability of the Raytheon AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-To-Air Missile (Amraam), says Frank St. John, executive vice-president of Lockheed’s Missiles and Fire Control business area.

    http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/usaf-funds-lockheed-s-half-raam-missile-flights

    in reply to: Switzerland fighter replacement plan restarted #2120147
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Got any official, recent detailed Rafale numbers? No, I don’t consider a “letter to Parliament” a detailed number 🙂

    If it were cheaper, they would have likely stayed in the Belgian contest instead of trying to side-skirt the process (and hide the real numbers).

    You also have to consider the “bare aircraft” numbers that came out of the Indian deal that were, IIRC, north of $100 million.

    On top of that an apples-to-pears comparison of FMS deals shows recent Rafales deal a LOT more expensive than either of the two F-35 FMS deals (South Korea or Japan).

    in reply to: 2019 F-35 News and Discussion #2120159
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    CUDA is officially launched? (genuine question)

    As a whole, the SACM program is ongoing and the DoD recently announced money for CUDA test firings.

    in reply to: Switzerland fighter replacement plan restarted #2120169
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    There is a lot more to development than whatever was “shared” years ago. You have the specific hardware, software modes, integration, testing, etc.

    While “Economy of scale” is not linear (I never said it was), it is substantial as is evident in that the F-35 being made of the latest bleeding edge tech while being less expensive than both the Rafale, Eurofighter, F-15E, etc.

    in reply to: Switzerland fighter replacement plan restarted #2120175
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    All those are developed for all contenders.

    You’ve completely missed the “economy of scale” benefits, both in development and production.

    For example, let’s say Eurofighter, Rafale, and LM develop a new AESA radar. For EF and Raf, that development cost can only be spread across a few hundred airframes. However, for LM that cost can be spread across 3000+ airframes. On the production side, EF and Raf will produce what, 1 or 2 dozen units a year while LM produces that many in a month.

Viewing 15 posts - 166 through 180 (of 4,849 total)