Four are part of the JOTT fleet at Edwards currently. Whether some of those are reassigned for training in U.S. or not, they will need more than four training airframes.
The 2018 beddown plan shows only one staying at Edwards and one at Luke. So they may be on the move soon.
De Briganti isn’t going to get fired from his own creation. Defense-Aerospace isn’t a news orgsnization. Do you really think his sponsors Dassault, Airbus, Thales, etc. are going to pull their ads due to his shameless, bias, attacks on the F-35? They didn’t when he was “editorializing” about the Typhoon either.
It isn’t a matter of wanting more toys, rather meeting the minimum of defense needs. 68 aircraft would be bare minimum to fill three active squadrons (RNLAF F-16 squadrons have ~15-16 aircraft). 37 aircraft wouldn’t even fill two squadrons considering training and support airframes (four aren’t even going to leave US…. or I should say the OT aircraft aren’t going to be based outside of US as they were recently in Netherlands)
They will be 3F configured, it’s due next year.
OA-X seems like a great way to endanger pilots. Using a man to do the job of a drone. McCain it would seem, wants give young pilots a chance to endure what he experienced (or worse). Would anyone like to fly over ISIS held territory in a light turboprop?
While my dislike for de briganti’s style of faulty editorial posing as journalism is deeply rooted, it isn’t often one of his “articles” makes me laugh out loud. I particularly love how he starts off with comments from the AvWeek message board scrum. They are a special breed. He ends with alleged unnamed military personnel comments.
Sadly,, he, David Axe, and Pierre Spray have had a significant influence on public opinion of the F-35 over the years.
TooCool has a point, considering the expense of India’s contract for 36 Rafale, perhaps they should have considered the operational capability of a handful of airframes for 8.8 billion…. beyond rational thinking.
I did not comment. Simply posted Bloomberg article.
Not referring to you Hallow, the article quotes POGO in the second part. And they are always a reliable source for negative weapon procurement sound bites/quotes.
F-35 Unreliability Risks Strain on Pentagon Budget, Tester Says
Always good to reach out to POGO for a negative comment when Pierre Spray is too busy on RT to respond.
Just like the F-22 RAMMP modifications, it would be instructive to comment exactly how much of the fleet is undergoing upgrades to 3i which impacts overall availability.
High wing loading is good primarily for low level attack. Not the highest priority F-35 mission.
IMHO, if size (length, span, height, weight) wouldn’t have been dictated by the requirement to fit in a box, F-35 would have different wings, and by different I mean bigger. :
There is no doubt an F-35A (free of constrains posed by commonality) would have been longer. I’m not sold on your theory that the wing would have been larger, that would have a cascade effect on design. I do think wingtips would be shaped differently, probably adding some area. The wing shape is very similar to the YF-22’s with reduced sweep. The F-35C certainly shows why simply adding wing area isn’t ideal from a performance standpoint.
Anyway it is what it is. The users are happy with the current performance, oddly in spite of forum commentary and YouTube analysis.
µYes Mig 31 . struggle, even in your short “demo”. Imprecise, need high AoA to turn, pityful time to bank etc.
Btw, very nice demo showing F-35 strengths. (seen it 4 times…)
Needs high AoA to turn? Well, Hallow, the harder the turn the higher the AoA. Pretty dumb statement there.
Also, it was a limited flight display of a 3i aircraft. Roll rate? Let’s see, one, how are you sure the roll rate is poor? Because the display didn’t place emphasis on it? CLAWS only allows roll rate within the NzW limits. At higher G and AoA the FCS is going to limit roll rate (just like any other g-demand DFCS). Considering the G limit of 3i that’s also going to impact roll rates allowed. And the F-35’s roll rate during much of that display is good considering the display is showing off High AoA and yawing maneuvers. What is the Rafale’s roll rate above 30 degrees AoA :)?
Right from GE Aviation itself:
Next.
Your missing the difference between production and the propriety technology used. Believe what you want. I’ll be looking forward to that TAI turbofan using GE manufacturing techniques…..right around never.
I’ll provide more sources to clarify all your assumptions:
Producing an engine under license (you intentionally claim “assembly” to support your argument despite me providing ample evidence including the original companies saying “production”) means you will not give 2 F*cks during a wartime situation to re-activate those lines.
rl]
GE cannot share certain technologies such as:
The manufacture of blisks, due to USG restrictions.
Surreal, truly surreal argument. This is akin to a Chinese national claiming China has access to Apple proprietary technology because the IPhone is assembled there.
If the U.K. wanted to switch to some “A” variants, they could fund the probe and drogue integration. There is space and apparently some feasibility studies were done so theoretically the RAF could use the F-35A with existing tankers.