SpudmanWPThe action to repaint the trucks was a local measure to proactively address a potential issue that does not exist.
Are you an editor for Pravda? 😀
I was suffering from BBC (Blogging Before Coffee)
SpudmanWPAccording to this article from 12/08/2014 Due to the F-35 using fuel as a coolent while sitting on the tarmac the fuel tankers are having to be painted with a highly reflective paint to keep the fuel from getting too warm to effectively act as a coolent for the F-35.http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-run-on-warm-gas-from-a-fuel-truck-that-sa-1668120726
Does anybody know if there has been introduced or is planned a better solution for the cooling problem?
It was never an issue. The action to repaint the trucks was a local measure to proactively address a potential issue that does not exist.
“This is not an F-35 issue; there are no special restrictions on the F-35 related to fuel temperature. The F-35 uses the same fuel as other military aircraft. It can fly under the same temperature conditions as any other advanced military aircraft,” the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office told CNBC.
So why repaint the trucks? Maj. Hasson said the base wants to get ahead of any potential issues as its fleet of F-35s expands from a handful to a total of 144.
Luke AFB is one of seven bases testing the F-35 and beginning pilot training. Fuel trucks at Luke sit near runways and do not have any shade from the sun. Repainting trucks for $3,900 each is a relatively cheap solution.
So far, only one truck has been repainted. Whether the new paint solves the problem is still being determined. The idea has also been tested at Edwards Air Force Base in Southern California, another area where the heat hits triple digits, but Maj. Hasson said Edwards was doing a general test of the concept. It was not related to the F-35 specifically.
More at the jump
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102253195#
SpudmanWPThe USAF Upgraded HARM is called AGM-88F and went into FRP in 2012.
http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2631
TUCSON, Ariz., Aug. 22, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) and the U.S. Air Force successfully flight tested an upgraded High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM). The HARM Control Section Modification (HCSM) is more precise and accurate, which reduces potential collateral damage.
During this test mission, an F-16 aircraft fired an HCSM, AGM-88F, against an emitter located outside of a zone of exclusion, which contained a similar radiating emitter. The HCSM used its new global positioning system (GPS)/inertial measurement unit (IMU) capability and successfully impacted the correct target. Another HCSM test mission is needed to determine if HCSM is ready for deployment to the U.S. Air Force.
“Raytheon’s HCSM offers the warfighter enhanced capabilities at an affordable price, providing best value for suppression of enemy air defense weapon options,” said Mike Jarrett, vice president of Raytheon Air Warfare Systems.
The Air Force awarded Raytheon the HCSM contract in 2012. The missile was recently cleared for full rate production.
About HARM and HCSM
The AGM-88 High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile is a key battlefield element to suppress or destroy surface-to-air missile radars, early warning radars, and radar-directed air defense artillery systems. HARMs have made hostile airspaces worldwide safer for U.S. and allied warfighters. The missile resides in the inventories of eight countries.More than 4,000 HARMs have been employed in combat.
HCSM adds GPS/IMU navigation accuracy, giving HARM the ability to engage time-critical targets.
HCSM has new features that allow it to engage a wide range of modern SAMs, are resistant to counter-HARM tactics, and reduces the risk of fratricide or collateral damage.
SpudmanWPThey will eventually get to that point but just like the development testing, they will “creep up on it” by removing its inherent advantages until it starts being engaged.
They did the same with the F-22.
When it first started appearing in exercises, it was wiping the floor from BVR and never being seen let alone engaged.
Now, it spends a lot of time in WVR scenarios.
It’s the same with the F-35. The F-35 will spend a lot of time training for war the way it was meant to (by using its inherent advantages such as SA, networking, stealth, speed, height, etc) and then get closer & closer (and also removing other advantages) until it is threatened so that the pilots can get used to and be able to react to when it is threatened.
SpudmanWPThe single engine requirement from the USAF was the single largest driver to the overall shape of the F-35.
Having one large engine vs two skinnier ones forced the bomb bays down and out. The lift fan has little overall effect as the bays cannot move up even when it’s not there.
SpudmanWP’81 & ’86??
LO was not even around so they did not have a choice…
Package Q suffered relatively low losses and they could have continued, but they did not because they had a BETTER option that risked less aircraft & pilots per target.
Nobody is saying that LO is the ONLY way to do it, just the BETTER option that will cost less (per mission target) and risk less pilots. With the advent of pilot executions on the web and bad press for captured pilots, this is becoming a more deciding factor.
SpudmanWPNot only is the F-35 a “generation” beyond the F-117 in terms of stealth
Please provide evidence that its RCS is significantly lower than the F-117’s.
Apart from quotes of Program and DoD officials, you won’t find any.
There is the “golf” ball quote, but I can’t find the original source.
–EDIT–
This is the earliest quote I could find (In short, the F-35 has less than half the RCS of the F-117):
Nov 2005: The U.S. Air Force, in it’s effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how “stealthy” the F-22 is. It’s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117. Much older aircraft, like the B-52, have a huge RCS, which makes them very easy to spot on radar. But with a smaller RCS, it’s more likely that the aircraft won’t be detected at all.
The air force revealed this information, which is usually kept secret, because it wants to make the case that it makes more sense to cut production of the F-35 (which cost $30-50 million each), so that more F-22s (that cost over $100 million each) can be bought. Most of the air force generals are former fighter pilots, and the F-22 is a much hotter fighter than the F-35 (which is basically a fighter-bomber, with emphasis on the latter function.) This is causing an international uproar, because of the many foreign countries that are buying the F-35. Some of these countries have contributed money for the development of the F-35. The F-22 will not be exported, because it uses so much top secret technology.
SpudmanWPover Iraq, Jugoslavia, Syria, Lybia without LO aircrafts taking part.
NONE of them had the AD network that Package Q faced.
btw, LO was extensively used in Yugoslavia & Lybia for the most defended targets.
SpudmanWPPackage Q showed that 4th Gen assets could not get it done and F-117s, by themselves, could.
Package Q was too complex and relied on too many supporting assets coordinating on a tight timeline in order to succeed… and they couldn’t.
Not only is the F-35 a “generation” beyond the F-117 in terms of stealth, it also has an RWR, Radar, SA, maneuverability, etc that the F-117 never had.
SpudmanWPI was referring to more th public goodwill rather than the government.
SpudmanWPI agree that it only works “up to a point”. My issue is that they did not even try and it cost us a massive amount of international goodwill and schedule slippage.
SpudmanWPIf it can hover, then why not just land?
By not wasting the energy in the hover, it can land and recharge sooner.
SpudmanWPI would not has they “had” to happen, just that they should not be surprised on the delay given their response to them happening.
SpudmanWPWhen issues arose and the need for increased test points, more test flights, and more software development… the government had two choices, either increase annual development budget in an attempt to stick to the original schedule where possible or they could keep the annual budget the same and stretch out the development cycle.
They chose the later.
SpudmanWPBy “capability that they wanted from the beginning.”, do you mean originally Block3 or are you speaking of items that they already had on the 2007 graphic?
From that quote, one item was on the 2007 graphic (Air-to-Ground IRST) and one is new (Larger aperture).
Sign In
