dark light

SpudmanWP

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 271 through 285 (of 4,849 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: 2018 F-35 News and Discussion #2128054
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The upgrades to earlier LRIPs in order to bring them up to Block 3F standards started in the Fall of last year. That being said, the budget docs track concurrency and Block upgrades separately. Block upgrades in the budget are tracked down to the airframe and the month (or FYQtr) that it enters & exits the upgrade process. However, the budget does not show any similar schedule for concurrency upgrades as it only shows the dollar amount spent each year for concurrency fixes. The reason is simple, it’s not a one-time thing. A plane may get some fixes on the flight-line, some in the hanger, some in a local depot, and some may require the fix to wait till a schedule long-term depot tear-down to complete.

    in reply to: Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!- #2128964
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Cost of Concurrency: $1.4 billion

    Now balance that against the cost of keeping all of the jets that the F-35 is to replace flying 10-15 years longer.

    Damn, this belongs in the F-35 thread ;(

    in reply to: Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!- #2128967
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    As mentioned, the F-35 programme did deliberately increase the level of concurrency over and above that typical of previous aircraft projects.

    That was actually mandated by Congress and was not created by the JPO.

    in reply to: 2018 F-35 News and Discussion #2129086
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Nah, it will be back in the air long before Block 4.2 goes live.

    in reply to: 2018 F-35 News and Discussion #2129136
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Nobody nose the trouble I’ve seen……

    https://i.imgur.com/lExT5C7.png

    http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/20180822/update-f-35-spotted-nose-down-on-runway

    EGLIN AFB — An F-35 spotted nose-down on the runway by a motorist passing by on a nearby highway experienced an inflight emergency, according to a press release from the 33rd Fighter Wing.

    The pilot returned to base and landed safely. The front nose gear collapsed after the plane was parked, the release said.

    Fire crews responded immediately and could also be seen by passing motorists.

    The pilot was uninjured.

    The extent of damage to the F-35A Lightning II was not immediately available.

    The mishap occurred at about 12:50 p.m. on the flightline of Eglin, which shares runways with the Destin-Fort Walton Beach Airport. No commercial traffic was affected by the incident, county officials said.

    An investigation into the circumstances surrounding the mishap is underway.

    in reply to: 2018 F-35 News and Discussion #2129174
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    If it moves, it needs to go to a paying Partner nation.

    This would be a good opportunity for Germany to buy into the program with the promise of the F135 maintenance for Europe.

    in reply to: 2018 F-35 News and Discussion #2130026
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Engine performance is very important, I don’t know how this could be disputed.

    I was talking about it in terms of performance over and above what the F-35 has, ie 55 AoA, 9gs, and Mach 1.6 while combat loaded with 5000lbs of munitions.

    in reply to: 2018 F-35 News and Discussion #2130108
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Lol.. How will they pay for them?

    in reply to: 2018 F-35 News and Discussion #2130115
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    You can’t make a “Light Strike Fighter” and maintain a VLO airframe with decent range. Adding an internal bay and internal fuel necessitates the size.

    With the F-35’s ability to automatically track all WVR objects combined with HOBS weapons datalinks, the need for more than 55 A0A is questionable.

    High AOA & engine performance is not going to win a significant number of future battles, it will come down to detection and weapons.

    Don’t get me wrong, the F-35 has issues but it’s shape was dictated by the requirements. Just thank God we did not end up with the F-32 “Monica”.

    in reply to: Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!- #2131214
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    further reduced the frequency of the 1960s vintage P-18 VHF acquisition radar

    The P-18 is formed by multiple, Yagi-type transceiver antenna. He would need to rebuild the Yagi antenna (changing the antenna segment length and spacing) in addition to changing the Yagi-antenna vertical & horizontal spacing within the main array itself in order to work with a new, lower frequency.

    in reply to: Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!- #2131372
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    MMW and IIR sensors with a little SAL thrown in for good measure.

    in reply to: Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!- #2131539
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    @JSR
    Sorry, but the Russians simply cannot outspend the West in the areas of R&D to claim technical superiority.

    in reply to: Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!- #2131550
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    @JSR
    Russia’s “confidence” in anything related to technological advancement, especially as it relates to keeping ahead of the west is patently laughable.

    in reply to: Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!- #2131601
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    @LMFS

    have you considered, how to make stand-off jamming against a 400 km range SAM? That needs to be a hell of a jammer indeed…

    It’s only 400km vs non VLO assets. A VLO assets will be able to get within 100-200km which is well within the range of jammers like MALD-J and LO CMs like JSM.

    @Krivakapa

    You need to locate radar first which is problematic with LPI mode it have and high mobility,

    Large, lowband radars are not LPI (they don’t claim to be) and not very mobile (take at least 15 minutes or so to setup/redeploy). This is not the 1990’s anymore and one of the hallmarks of the F-35 is it’s ESM suite combined with it’s ability to single-ship geolocate emitting targets. On top of that you can add multi-ship ESM.

    @Inst

    if the Russians wanted to knock out a F-35, they’d camouflage it so that the US and the Israelis wouldn’t know it’s there.

    No amount of camo will hide a radar truck from a SAR map. Will popup SHORAD be a problem, yes, but the F-35 is already being fitted with weapons (like SDB2/JAGM/Spear3) to react to popup threats. You are making a big mistake if you are counting on relying on SHORAD as your primary defense.

    @RALL
    The quote from Hostage does not mention RCS, that is the author’s words. The direct quote from Hostage says”:

    “The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets,” says Hostage, leaning forward. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.” But stealth — the ability to elude or greatly complicate an enemy’s ability to find and destroy an aircraft using a combination of design, tactics and technology — is not a magic pill, Hostage reminds us.

    Note that he says stealth (not RCS) and further qualifies it with a list of features.

    in reply to: Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!- #2131681
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    You would need some very long tunnels and serious underground navigation skills to reach the F-35s from the nearest boarder :stupid:

    Besides, if an F-35 wanted to kill the main radar of an S-400, it would drop loads of LO standoff munitions backed up by a heavy, coordinated EM attack that would all kick off well outside the S-400’s detection range that you stated (eg 30-60km).

Viewing 15 posts - 271 through 285 (of 4,849 total)