FBWInteresting to consider, one reason the F-15/16 can be extended out to 2030 is that engines are still being produced. Perhaps not the exact same model of F100/F110 but the tooling and many parts are most likely interchangeable. Not so for the F119. Total production was 500+ engines.
FBWBecause USAF is not industry.. USAF does not equal LM.. Armed forces should not be used as advertising platform to suit needs of one company.. At least that is how it should be.. But I think that the interconnection between these two is much stronger than you’d think..
If the fact that your armed forces babysit the vendors instead of providing healthy counter-presssure doesn’t disturb you, then be my guest.. :angel: Next time prepare for even more delays and cost overruns.. 🙂
That is a claim unsupported by the actual document. Did you read the doc? Or just “War is Boring’s” take on the doc. There is nothing in said document advertising for Lockheed, rather a push back on the false narritives being generated by sites like “War is Boring”.
The USAF has started a counteroffensive (a little late) against the misinformation being presented as fact.
This might be the strongest reaction from a USAF official yet:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-officials-f-35-will-outmatch-any-aircraft-in-dev-417067/
FBWNot to mention the fallout over the F-22 information given on forums which led to an investigation of opsec violations. In other words, the airforce is giving the pilots talking points for interviews and steering them to bland platitudes to avoid the pitfalls of the F-22 P.R. Pilot.
Not shocking, just the usual war is boring half-truths mixed liberally with jumps to negative conclusions not supported by the actual “leak” if u want to call it that.
Here is a link to the conference points from the F-22 opsec conference:
http://fiswg.research.ucf.edu/Documents/PPT/F22%20OPSEC%20brief%20(uncl…
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/03/dozer-speaks.html?m=1
First link may not open on all devices. May have to cut and paste. The original 28 slide presentation was edited to remove sensitive replies given on the F-22. None of the information was deemed classified per se. But the USAF has become hyperaware of cyberopsec and inadvertent leaks from interviews since then.
In addition, I remember those posts on F-16.net and other forums. Many USAF pilots disappeared from forums following that uproar. And despite what is being posted in F-22 thread, the indications were that F-22 specs are heavily sanitized despite what some posters here claim.
FBWDid I read recently that Israel is producing a new EFT for the F35 to help extend range? Is that the case, and is it a fair assumption that it will be an LO installation rather than CFTs (which I would imagine are not possible)?
Both CFT and EFT are under consideration. Ignore the idea that the EFT will “double the range” as stated in the article. Usual news site hyperbole.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/israel-to-boost-range-of-future-f-35-fleet-220748/
http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-israel-to-double-attack-range-of-f-35-stealth-fighter-1001068513
FBWSomething called the F-35 and a country called the United Kingdom, which is a Level 1 partner in the program. I remember a few years back the USA wanted to withhold provision of source code to its sole Level 1 partner. UK then considered ordering something else (eg developing marinised version of Typhoon or buying another aircraft suitable for carrier operation).
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/25/us-lockheed-fighter-exclusive-idUSTRE5AO01F20091125
No way would UK have wanted to order F-35 if it had been told that all integration of weapons would be under the control of the USA. It wasn’t told that.
Bit of an over-reach. The MoD never seriously considered the Typhoon, or really any other aircraft as a substitute for F-35. What you have is some political maneuvering blown out of proportion by the media. From very early on the US had stated that no partner nation would be given full access to the source code, but would have some flexibility in modifying and upgrading their aircraft to meet individual partner nation’s needs.
That is exactly what Israel, UK, and Turkey have lobbied for and received. There was never any question about receiving the unfettered access to the all F-35 programming, it was not on the table. The question was whether UK would be able to integrate and update freely and without having to send their aircraft to the U.S. They seem to be satisfied on this point.
FBWKorea’s Fighter Jet Program Hits Turbulence As Washington Rejects Transfer of Core F-35 Technologies
Excerpt:
My take: don’t trust the USA when it comes to buying arms. You can commit to a timely purchase of a US military product then discover too late to switch to another supplier that the US Congress doesn’t think you should get what you thought you’d agreed you were getting. Still, we are talking South Korea – which needs US military support – so the reality is that the USA can do more or less what it feels like doing with no come back.
Example?- (Other than delaying delivery of weapons)
FBWhttp://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/03/05/isis-in-ukraine/
http://www.sott.net/article/298777-Western-media-celebrates-ISIS-fighting-in-Ukraine
https://theintercept.com/2015/02/26/midst-war-ukraine-becomes-gateway-europe-jihad/
This has become the theater of the absurd- are those supposed to be credible links?
Mods- can this thread be locked and cleaned up?
FBWFBWhttp://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-scrap-f35-halifax-1.3235791
Canadian politicians threaten to scrap F-35
I wish they would get on with it. We could offer there workshare to India.
Canada will make their decision based on the vote in the next election. There is nothing particularly good (vis a vis the F-35 program) that would come with Canada backing out. The’ve been a participant in the program since inception. There are some that view this as an opportunity for the European based: Gripen, Rafale, et al. That is a pipe dream. With the close industrial participation with the US aerospace firms, if Canada does not buy the F-35, they will most likely they will go with the Rhino. I still think that any choice other than the F-35 is the longest of long shots.
FBW“We made a tremendous product that would stand side by side with anything else and in many cases exceed the capabilities of anything else.”
Besides he didn’t fly the YF22 & nobody did fly both the YF22 & YF23. He flew the F22 though, & still seems to think the YF23 was better.
Nic
His final comment is the most telling… No one would claim that the F-22 would have surpassed the capabilities hinted by the YF-23 in all areas ( read-speed/all-aspect stealth shaping). It was a slick design which took area rule principles to the extreme. It is important to note that the emd F-23 would have had many modifications (as the evolution from YF-22 to F-22 required) there is no telling what the finished product would have been capable of, but you are making a blind leap (without justification) to say that an F-23 in the end would have surpassed the finished product that is the F-22.
FBWIt looks like Paul Metz thinks that the YF23 was superior to anything else. As a test pilot for the F22 this is quite revealing.
Nic
Metz’s only comment comparing the F-22 and the YF-23 was: “The Air Force made the right decision”.
FBWStorm Shadow trials:
http://theaviationist.com/2015/09/16/latest-storm-shadow-typhoon-trials-photo/
FBWRaytheon jumping in with M-346:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/09/17/raytheon-tx-discussion-t100-trainer/32536929/
FBWMildenhall (until it is closed) with mostly Tankers, and special ops people
Lakenheath with F-15s
Fairford with various aircraft visiting.I’m sure others will give you a more detailed report
RAF Lakenheath has two F-15E squadrons, and one F-15C Squadron possibly phased out in the next year or two. Two F-35A squadrons by 2020.
RAF Mildenhall- 100 ARW (KC-135R) among other units, to be gone by 2020 if not sooner.
RAF Alconbury- to close, no flying wing assigned there.
FBWIt is not sure the kill ratio advantage disappears so much now that fighters have good multi-target capabilities, as well as all-aspect engagement. Soon they will also have near simultaneous multi-target capabilities in WVR.
Based on ACEVAL, WVR maneuverability studies from the 90’s (see my started thread for studies), and pilot commentaries from more recent exercises:
In many vs. many WVR engagements, maneuverability, thrust to weight ratio, or technological sophistication are not enough to improve exchange ratio significantly above 1:1 or 1:2. That is a poor exchange ratio if you are the more sophisticated, or expensive fighter.
Situational awareness is the one critical factor mentioned. Post merge, SA falls significantly leaving the engaged fighters easy prey to anyone entering the fight.
IF you take the USAF and USN for example, they’ve had differing philosophies. The USAF wants to avoid the merge (post AIMVAL), and has poured R & D into developing: from the 1970’s on: the AMRAAM, APX-76 IFF (and successors), LO fighters, Link-16 (and successors), Supercruise and high alt performance (F-22), and superior SA (F-35). It makes sense, when you’ve historically had the more technologically advanced fighters, why chance them in a merge where the odds even out.
The Navy has traditionally been for of the “dogfight” branch. They were quick to embrace the JHMCS, and are seemingly very happy with the Rhino, as the much maligned aircraft is a handful in a low speed dogfight.
edit- forgot to put the word “NOT” in
Sign In
