Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/new-super-f-35-rule-the-us-military-11892

 

[GTX]

Australian F-35 Lands at Luke

(Source: US Air Force; issued Dec 18, 2014)

LUKE AFB, Arizona --- The first Royal Australian Air Force F-35A Lightning II jet arrived at Luke Air Force Base Dec. 18. The jet's arrival marks the first international partner F-35 to arrive for training at Luke.

"Today, we take another tremendous step forward in our transition to the F-35 here at Luke," said Brig. Gen. Scott Pleus, 56th Fighter Wing commander. "Australia is the first of 10 nations that will not only become part of the Luke community, but will share in calling the West Valley a home away from home."

Nine other nations will be training alongside the United States on the new airframe. Other partner-nations that will be joining the U.S. and Australia in the F-35A training program here will be Turkey, Italy, Norway, and the Netherlands, in addition to Foreign Military Sales countries Japan, Korea and Israel.

"Welcoming our first Australian F-35 is a special day for Luke and the community that has been so supportive of us," Pleus said.

"The Royal Australian Air Force is delighted to be the first foreign partner nation with F-35A aircraft arriving at Luke Air Force Base," Air Commodore Gary Martin, air attaché said. "This is an important milestone for Australia and we are looking forward to the commencement of our fifth-generation pilot training here at Luke in 2015."

Luke will be the central training hub for international F-35A training. In the near future, international and U.S. students will be teamed together learning how to effectively employ the fifth-generation strike fighter.

"Luke's mission has been to train the world's greatest fighter pilots," Pleus said. "We will continue on that legacy as we train the world's best F-35A pilots."

The teamwork on the F-35 isn't the first time Luke has worked with international partners on an airframe. Luke's Airmen currently train on base alongside pilots and maintainers from Singapore and Taiwan on the F-16.

Teaming up on the F-35 is another opportunity for Luke Airmen and pilots and maintainers from other nations to learn from one another.

"The collaborative training we'll be doing here on aircraft designed with stealth, maneuverability and integrated avionics will better prepare our combined forces to assume multi-role missions for the future of strike aviation," Pleus said. "From the bed-down of the F-35 and its infrastructure to the execution of training, our partner-nations have been an important piece of Luke's F-35 team. The relationships we're building now will be invaluable when we deploy together around the world protecting our respective countries."

Australia's training will be conducted in conjunction with the 61st Fighter Squadron. The 62nd Fighter Squadron is expected to stand-up in June, to be joined by partner-nations Italy and Norway. Flight operations for the 62nd are scheduled to begin in September of 2015.

-ends-

 

[GTX]

F-35 Lightning II Program Meets Aircraft Production Goal for 2014

(Source: F-35 Joint Program Office; issued Dec 22, 2014)

WASHINGTON, D.C. --- The Department of Defense accepted its final F-35 Lightning II aircraft delivery for 2014 today meeting the program production goal of 36 aircraft. With the last delivery for this year, the government, Lockheed Martin and industry team has delivered 109 operational aircraft to the U.S. and partner nations since the program's inception. The 36th delivery, known as CF-19, was the first F-35C carrier variant delivered to the Marine Corps.

The 36th F-35 Lightning II delivered in 2014 was CF-19, the U.S. Marine Corp’s first F-35C carrier variant. The jet will be assigned to the U.S. Navy’s VFA-101 “Grim Reapers” Fighter Squadron, 33rd Fighter Wing, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. After arrival, CF-19 will be used for F-35C pilot training. (Photo Lockheed Martin)

"Meeting U.S. and International aircraft delivery goals is a stepping stone," said Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, F-35 Program Executive Officer. "It's a global undertaking to build and deliver F-35s. Thousands of men and women produced the 300,000 individual parts from 46 U.S. states and 10 other countries to make these stealth fighters, and they should be proud of their accomplishment."

The 36 F-35 deliveries include:
-- 23 F-35A - U.S. Air Force
-- 2 F-35A - Royal Australian Air Force (first two)
-- 4 F-35B - U.S. Marine Corps
-- 7 F-35C - U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps (first carrier variant)

The 36 F-35 Lightning II aircraft are assigned to the following installations:
-- 19 - Luke Air Force Base, Glendale, AZ
-- 14 - Eglin Air Force Base, Valparaiso, FL
-- 2 - Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, S.C.
-- 1 - Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, AZ

"Delivering the most F-35s in program history is a clear demonstration of our growing stability and ability to ramp up production," said Lorraine Martin, Lockheed Martin F-35 Program General Manager. "Congratulations to the entire government and industry team for their work to deliver 36 aircraft."


A short video of several of the 2014 F-35 delivery milestones is available here.

-ends-

 

[fightingirish]

Flightglobal.com - USMC receives first F-35C

[...]
The first USMC F-35C out of a planned 80 will be assigned to the US Navy’s VFA-101 “Grim Reapers” squadron, 33rd Fighter Wing, based at Eglin AFB. After delivery CF-19 will be used for F-35C pilot training.
[...]

 

[SpudmanWP]

2014 F-35 Year in Review

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LeluQyMxLs

 

[Grey Havoc]

Via SNAFU: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/31/new-u-s-stealth-jet-can-t-fire-its-gun-until-2019.html

 

[marauder2048]

Nammo just finished *ground* qualification of the 25mm APEX round in mid 2014. For the F-35A, three years of live fire testing and integration remain not to mention industrial ramp-up.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The gun was ALWAYS part of Block 3F and NEVER Block 2B/3i.


This is much ado about nothing.


Besides, it will be firing the gun, from inside the plane, within a year or so.


http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014armaments/Wed15439Sande.pdf

 

[kitnut617]

F-35 Lightning II Program Meets Aircraft Production Goal for 2014

(Source: F-35 Joint Program Office; issued Dec 22, 2014)

WASHINGTON, D.C. --- The Department of Defense accepted its final F-35 Lightning II aircraft delivery for 2014 today meeting the program production goal of 36 aircraft. With the last delivery for this year, the government, Lockheed Martin and industry team has delivered 109 operational aircraft to the U.S. and partner nations since the program's inception. The 36th delivery, known as CF-19, was the first F-35C carrier variant delivered to the Marine Corps.

The 36th F-35 Lightning II delivered in 2014 was CF-19, the U.S. Marine Corp’s first F-35C carrier variant. The jet will be assigned to the U.S. Navy’s VFA-101 “Grim Reapers” Fighter Squadron, 33rd Fighter Wing, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. After arrival, CF-19 will be used for F-35C pilot training. (Photo Lockheed Martin)

"Meeting U.S. and International aircraft delivery goals is a stepping stone," said Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, F-35 Program Executive Officer. "It's a global undertaking to build and deliver F-35s. Thousands of men and women produced the 300,000 individual parts from 46 U.S. states and 10 other countries to make these stealth fighters, and they should be proud of their accomplishment."

The 36 F-35 deliveries include:
-- 23 F-35A - U.S. Air Force
-- 2 F-35A - Royal Australian Air Force (first two)
-- 4 F-35B - U.S. Marine Corps
-- 7 F-35C - U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps (first carrier variant)

The 36 F-35 Lightning II aircraft are assigned to the following installations:
-- 19 - Luke Air Force Base, Glendale, AZ
-- 14 - Eglin Air Force Base, Valparaiso, FL
-- 2 - Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, S.C.
-- 1 - Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, AZ

"Delivering the most F-35s in program history is a clear demonstration of our growing stability and ability to ramp up production," said Lorraine Martin, Lockheed Martin F-35 Program General Manager. "Congratulations to the entire government and industry team for their work to deliver 36 aircraft."

-ends-

When I attended the 2013 Yuma Airshow in March, I was talking to a pilot who was in the compound where a F-35B was displayed. He said there were three F-35B's at Yuma then, with a fourth one arriving within a few weeks after the show.

 

[bobbymike]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/j-10b-f-35-nearing-service-debuts

 

[GTX]

New F-35 Fighters to Join IAF Fleet

(Source: Israel Defense Force; issued Jan 06, 2015)

A new squadron of 19 F-35 jets will be incorporated into the Israeli Air Force beginning in 2019 after the decision to purchase another set of planes was confirmed by the IAF and government officials. These newly engineered fighters are a step up compared to the F-16I, especially with the addition of new state-of-the-art stealth technology and avionics.

The Lockheed Martin F-35 is considered one of the most powerful and capable airplanes in production. It will become the first low radar signature aircraft in use by the IAF, meaning it uses both its airframe and electronics to make itself invisible to the enemy’s radar and other monitoring devices.

The first purchase of these aircraft was made in 2010 and the first planes are expected to land in Israel in 2017. Like any other plane that enters into service in the IDF, the F-35 will receive a Hebrew name, “Ha-Adir” (The Great).

In many ways the F-35 is a modern version of the F-16, already in use by the IDF. It was built as a small single-engine aircraft. Ha-Adir is extremely effective because of its versatility since it can accomplish any kind of mission: from close air support, to all-weather flight capabilities, and of course, dogfights both in and beyond visual range.

Better Performing Than the F-16I

Why fifth generation fighter jets? For two main reasons: stealth technology and avionics. The stealth technology allows the aircraft to fly practically unnoticed by any enemy. For many years, these systems were too expensive to be deployed on small aircraft, therefore they could only be used on larger and more expensive bombers such as the B-2 or the F-117. The newly developed F-35 allows the incorporation of these features at a low maintenance price.

The F-35 is also manufactured with improved electronic systems onboard. Sensors including various radars, infrared systems, and active electronic warfare systems are all mounted on the aircraft during production. They serve as an integral part of the plane and not as “add-ons” which is common in other aircraft.

As a result of these improvements, the IAF pilots will receive a more precise and complete picture of the battlefield in real-time. It will allow them to better position themselves and give them the advantage to come out on top of every mission they must face.

-ends-

 

[bobbymike]

SPO: F-35 Gun On Schedule

Despite recent media reports that the F-35's GAU-22 25mm gun and electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) don't work—especially for the close air support mission—the two are progressing at the planned schedule, the F-35 System Program Office said Wednesday. While the online Daily Beast said the F-35A won't be able to fire its gun until 2019, the SPO said through spokesman Joseph DellaVedova that the gun was always planned to be operational with the 3F block of software in 2017, and nothing has changed since the development plan was decided in 2005. While a "minor, low-level issue" with software for the gun was discovered during testing in December, this is the kind of thing testing is supposed to find, and "there is no anticipated impact to schedule gun testing or fielding," DellaVedova said. The GAU-22 external gun pod for the F-35B version—which cannot carry it internally due to the lift-fan mechanism that permits vertical flight—will also be operational in 2017, he said. The Air Force plans to declare initial operational capability with the F-35A in August of 2016 with the 3i software version. Like the Marine Corps with its 2B software, the initial USAF version will have capability for air-to-air missiles and JDAM bombs; the gun will join the mix with the later 3F software.

EOTS Meets CAS Requirements

The electro-optical targeting system on the Block 3F version software of all F-35 variants will satisfy the users' requirements for close air support, despite media reports to the contrary, the system program office said. The online Daily Beast quoted unnamed Air Force officials "affiliated with the F-35 program" as saying the F-35's EOTS will be "hopelessly obsolete" and unable to properly facilitate data-sharing between pilots and ground troops when it becomes operational. Joseph DellaVedova, spokesman for the SPO, however, said the F-35 EOTS system has already demonstrated in virtual exercises that it meets requirements for CAS missions, "particularly in contested environments." The F-35 can transmit and receive EOTS and radar images, "still images via Link-16 and Variable Message Format (VMF) data links to and from other entities including joint terminal attack controllers," he said. DellaVedova acknowledged that the F-35's current EOTS was based on "second-generation" electro-optical systems; a "deliberate and informed choice" of the F-35 partners more than a decade ago "to minimize development risk." Currently fielded systems on other aircraft are third generation, and Della Vedova said the Block 4 version of the F-35 will incorporate most of those improved attributes, to include "higher definition video, longer-range target detection and identification, video data link and infrared marker and pointer." The EOTS, however, has air-to-air capabilities and works in conjunction with the distributed aperture system to provide unique and stealthy capabilities that third-gen EO systems can't do, he noted. The SPO issued its statement on the F-35 gun and EOTS "to clear the air on some nameless/sourceless/baseless reporting."

 

[LowObservable]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/08/pentagon-misfires-in-stealth-jet-scandal.html


(Mods - if you want to remove both this post and the one above it, go ahead.)

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/08/pentagon-misfires-in-stealth-jet-scandal.html


(Mods - if you want to remove both this post and the one above it, go ahead.)

Thanks for 'volunteering' my post for removal but the Air Forces response from the Air Force Association is relevant to post #635 & #636 should those be removed as well or are we free to post what is, in fact, an interesting and relevant back and forth?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/us-announces-first-f-35-in-europe-to-be-based-in-the-uk?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

[bobbymike]

Turkey Buys More F-35s

​Turkey is upping its initial F-35 buy from two airframes to six, the country's Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu announced earlier this week. "It is planned that Turkey will buy 100 F-35 warplanes in the project," Davatoglu said, quoted by Reuters on Jan. 7. "We previously ordered two in this framework. We have now decided to order four more," he said following a defense procurement meeting on Wednesday. The Turkish air force's first batch of F-35As were planned as part of low-rate initial production Lot 10, which would be delivered in 2015. Turkey is one of the nine Joint Strike Fighter program partners, and was recently designated the European-region's heavy engine maintenance pole for multi-national F-35 operators, including the Air Force. Turkey's planned F-35A buy is estimated to be approximately a $16 billion investment.

 

[LowObservable]

I don't mind posting a back-and-forth at all. However, if the "forth" is out of line then the "back" should be removed as well, so to speak. Majumdar is arguing that the JPO's "rebuttal" to the original Beast story falls short, and this thread should post a balanced record. And that's all I have to say on this subject.

 

[bring_it_on]

Turkey Buys More F-35s

​Turkey is upping its initial F-35 buy from two airframes to six, the country's Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu announced earlier this week. "It is planned that Turkey will buy 100 F-35 warplanes in the project," Davatoglu said, quoted by Reuters on Jan. 7. "We previously ordered two in this framework. We have now decided to order four more," he said following a defense procurement meeting on Wednesday. The Turkish air force's first batch of F-35As were planned as part of low-rate initial production Lot 10, which would be delivered in 2015. Turkey is one of the nine Joint Strike Fighter program partners, and was recently designated the European-region's heavy engine maintenance pole for multi-national F-35 operators, including the Air Force. Turkey's planned F-35A buy is estimated to be approximately a $16 billion investment.

The article has delivery time line wrong for LRIP10

 

[GTX]

Message from Joe DellaVedova – F-35 JPO Spokesman

(Source: F-35 Joint Program Office; dated Jan 07, posted Jan 08, 2015)

WASHINGTON, D.C. --- I’d like to help clear the air on some nameless / sourceless / baseless reporting you may have seen over the holidays that focused on two issues – the F-35 gun and EOTS. The information below is a bit long, but it presents the facts and can be used on the record if you decide to write more informed articles.

Contrary to recent media misreporting, F-35 25mm gun system (also known as GAU-22) was established in 2005 as a Block 3F weapon for all F-35 variants and its capability will be delivered in 3F software in 2017 (on LRIP 9 aircraft).

The General Dynamics GAU-22 gun system completed its ground qualification testing in July 2008. Comprehensive flight test on the F-35A variant GAU-22 25mm gun system is scheduled to begin mid-year at Edwards AFB, Calif., and will include ground fire tests, muzzle calibration, flight test integration and in-flight operational tests. The 25mm missionized gun pod carried externally, centerline mounted on the F-35B and F-35C also begins testing this year to deliver the 3F full warfighting capability software in 2017.

In December 2014 during computer lab tests of 3F software we identified a minor low-level issue with aircraft software that impacted the interface with the gun. This discovery was part of normal software development and testing and a plan is in place to resolve this issue by Spring 2015. There is no anticipated impact to scheduled Gun testing or fielding.

The F-35 program remains in its developmental phase and as software and capabilities are tested and cleared through rigorous flight testing those capabilities are delivered to the warfighter.

In 2015, for its IOC, the U.S. Marine Corps will receive initial warfighting capability software (known as 2B) that will provide basic close air support and interdiction and initial air-to-air and enhanced data-link capability, for weapons including AMRAAM / JDAM / GBU-12, all internally carried. The U.S. Air Force will attain its IOC in 2016 with the 3i software and same weapons capability. At the end of the development program, we will deliver full warfighting capability software (known as 3F). The U.S. Navy will attain IOC in 2018 with 3F software.

This will provide all warfighters with multi-ship destruction of enemy air defense capability, advance air-to-ground and air-to-air capability and have full complement of internal and external ordnance -- including use of the GAU-22 25mm gun. Delivering the gun capability in 3F software is well-known to the military services, International Partners and our Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers. That has always been the stated requirement and plan and it hasn’t varied since the technical baseline review in 2010.

Regarding the F-35’s Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS), it is the world’s first sensor to combine both air-to-ground and air-to-air infrared search and targeting capability in a very low observable (VLO) platform. EOTS allows the F-35 to conduct air-to-air and air-to-surface targeting missions while maintaining the F-35’s VLO profile – a capability that external podded systems cannot provide.

The F-35 will field with the capability to conduct Close Air Support (CAS) in both uncontested and contested environments

The U.S. Services, led by the U.S. Marine Corps, have held several virtual Close Air Support (CAS) exercises, and by all accounts, the total system including the Radar, Electronic Warfare, and Communication capabilities that will be delivered at the time of Marine Corps Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in July 2015 supports the execution of required CAS missions, particularly in contested environments.

Specifically, for the CAS mission area, this includes transmitting and receiving EOTS (and air to surface radar) still images via Link-16 and Variable Message Format (VMF) data links to and from other entities including Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTAC).

As with all development programs, the F-35 baseline requirements define the starting place for capabilities that will be evolved and upgraded over the life of the program. There are a range of potential upgrades and enhancements for EOTS that will be implemented by the Services and International Partners for inclusion in future Block upgrades. Some of the additional capabilities for consideration include items such as Higher Definition Video, longer range target detection and identification, Video Data Link, and Infrared (IR) Marker and Pointer.

(ends)

 

[LowObservable]

Sorry to break from my earlier statement.


I don't see anything about Mr DellaVedova's statement that is inaccurate in regards to the JSF program itself.


On the other hand, I would challenge anyone else to point out anything in the statement that supports DellaVedova's assertions about anyone's reporting - that is, actual facts that show that said reporting was factually wrong. Since this thread is supposed to be about facts, those assertions don't belong here.

 

[SpudmanWP]

I would challenge anyone else to point out anything in the statement that supports DellaVedova's assertions about anyone's reporting - that is, actual facts that show that said reporting was factually wrong.

Examples from the original article:

[quote author=Majumdar]Joint Strike Fighter, won’t be able to fire its gun during operational missions until 2019, three to four years after it becomes operational.[/quote]

Fact: LRIP 9 jets will have Block 3F and will start delivery in early 2017. Because of concurrency, both Operational units and OT&E units will get Block 3F at the same time. The DoD has stated that the F-35 could be used in wartime prior to IOC and since IOC is Block 3i then using a fresh 3F is not out of the question. This all boils down to the fact that the DoD could use an Operational F-35 at Block 3F (with it gun) as soon as 2017.

[quote author=Majumdar]But even when the jet will be able to shoot its gun, the F-35 barely carries enough ammunition to make the weapon useful.[/quote]


Fact: The F-35A carries between 20-50% more ammo than top-tier, 4th gen non-US fighters.
The Mig 29/35 and SU-27/30/35 all have 150 rounds for their gun (30mm)
The Eurofighter carries 150 rounds (27mm) when it actually carries a gun
The Rafale carries 125 rounds (30mm)
The Gripen carries 120 rounds (27mm)

While the F-15/16/18 carry more, the F-35 uses a 25mm shell as opposed to the 20mm of the F-15/16/18 and that shell is faster and more accurate.

[quote author=Majumdar]Block 3F is slated for release in 2019[/quote]Fact: Block 3F is scheduled for release in 2017

 

[LowObservable]

If delivery to DoD means there is a guaranteed operational capability (as opposed to a hypothetical emergency clearance) the correctional letter did not say so. Nor did it say anything about the number of rounds carried. And there is a quite obvious problem with your comparisons of ammunition capacity: Gatlings carry (and need to carry) more rounds than single barrel guns to deliver the same number of bursts.

 

[marauder2048]

I don't mind posting a back-and-forth at all. However, if the "forth" is out of line then the "back" should be removed as well, so to speak. Majumdar is arguing that the JPO's "rebuttal" to the original Beast story falls short, and this thread should post a balanced record. And that's all I have to say on this subject.

Daily Beast and/or Dave M. haven't issued a retraction in whole or in part. If they are sticking by the story it should remain here. Unless you are arguing that the venue and author are truly out-of-line in which case we should ban all further stories (on the F-35 at least) from both.

 

[SpudmanWP]

If delivery to DoD means there is a guaranteed operational capability (as opposed to a hypothetical emergency clearance) the correctional letter did not say so. Nor did it say anything about the number of rounds carried. And there is a quite obvious problem with your comparisons of ammunition capacity: Gatlings carry (and need to carry) more rounds than single barrel guns to deliver the same number of bursts.

Dave's article claimed that the gun could not be used operationally until 2019 and the rebuttal letter said:

the gun was always planned to be operational with the 3F block of software in 2017

Note the complete lack of any words like "emergency", etc.


He said "Operational" in 2017... Period.


While the rebuttal did not talk about the number of rounds carried, Dave's claim that it would not be useful is clearly BS in light of it's weight, speed, accuracy, an number of rounds carried.


btw, US gatlings carried more ammo due to several things:
1. Inaccuracy of software
2. Low "throw weight" of the rounds (20 mm)
3. Less explosive force per round
4. Lower velocity of the round
5. Less accuracy of the round


All these items add up to the need to fire longer bursts in order to neutralize a target.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Reopened topic. Enter forewarned that I will delete posts where needed to keep order.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-19/pentagon-chief-sells-lockheed-f-35-as-best-even-affordable-jet

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/02/19/f-35-likely-to-compete-in-canadas-upcoming-fighter-contest-bogdan/

 

[sferrin]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/02/19/f-35-likely-to-compete-in-canadas-upcoming-fighter-contest-bogdan/

Yeah, they'd have to let it if they want to maintain any semblance of credibility when it comes to the claim of an "open" competition. I would not be surprised to see them skew the requirements in a way that specifically excludes the F-35 though. (The Gripen will likely get caught up by the "must have 2 engines" requirement as well.)

 

[donnage99]

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/Joint_fighter/Submissions

From item 35:

"We also simulated Joint Strike Fighter against Russian fighter aircraft where we flew two against two.
In the forenoon I and the Danish test pilot was flying Joint Strike Fighters against two Russian fighters. Inthe afternoon we swapped, so we flew Russian fighter aircraft against the Joint Strike Fighter.
In the afternoon the first thing the test pilot and I noticed was that the Russian fighters was not loaded with the best air-to-air missiles as the Russians have in real life. We therefore asked about getting some better. It was denied us. We two pilots complained but it was not changed.
My test pilot and I decided in our simulated Russian combat aircraft to fly “line abreast”, but with 25 nautical miles distance. Then at least one of us could with radar look into the side of the Joint Strike Fighter and thus view it at long distance. The one who “saw” the Joint Strike Fighter could then link the radar image to the other. Then missiles could be fired at long distance at the Joint Strike Fighter.
It was also denied us, although we protested this incomprehensible disposition.
It was now quite clear to us that with the directives and emotional limitations simulations would in no waygive a true and fair view of anything. On the other hand, it would show that the Joint Strike Fighter was a good air defense fighter, which in no way can be inferred from the simulations. We spoke loudly and clearly that this way was manipulating with the Joint Strike Fighter air defence capability.
Because of these circumstances, I would not let the Danish Air Force be included as part of the totally misleading/non-transparent results, which alone would show Joint Strike Fighters superiority in the air defence role, which it would not have been against an opponent with missiles with a performance than those who we were g iven permission to. Also there was given major obstacles in the way flying tactically against the Joint Strike Fighter.
We therefore left simulations, returned to Denmark and complained to the Chief of Staff Tactical Air Command and technical manager Air Material Command."

 

[sferrin]

Without knowing the conditions of the exercise that's almost meaningless.

 

[SpudmanWP]

That pilot retired in 2004 so at the very least the simulators were in their infancy.

It is also being reported that he has connections to RepSim, APA, et al but I have yet to confirm.

 

[sferrin]

That pilot retired in 2004 so at the very least the simulators were in their infancy.

It is also being reported that he has connections to RepSim, APA, et al but I have yet to confirm.

Go read the list of august speakers at that link. It's like a who's who of the Basement Dwellers club.

 

[GTX]

That pilot retired in 2004 so at the very least the simulators were in their infancy.

It is also being reported that he has connections to RepSim, APA, et al but I have yet to confirm.

Go read the list of august speakers at that link. It's like a who's who of the Basement Dwellers club.

and then some...

 

[donnage99]

That pilot retired in 2004 so at the very least the simulators were in their infancy.

That's irrelevant. The speaker wasn't criticizing the f-35 itself based on the results of the simulation, but the method in which the simulation is run in order to reach a certain presupposed conclusion.

 

[fredymac]

My test pilot and I decided in our simulated Russian combat aircraft to fly “line abreast”, but with 25 nautical miles distance. Then at least one of us could with radar look into the side of the Joint Strike Fighter and thus view it at long distance. The one who “saw” the Joint Strike Fighter could then link the radar image to the other. Then missiles could be fired at long distance at the Joint Strike Fighter.

It sounds like the simulation involved a pre-set flight plan. Just positioning yourself 25 miles line abreast does not mean you will be able to “look into the side” of the opposing aircraft unless the geometry of the engagement is pre-determined. In a fully free simulation, a stealth aircraft could come from any angle and at any altitude. If I were in a stealth fighter I would still favor coming in high and from behind although I (and I would suppose everyone who is not a stealth fighter pilot) don’t know what actual tactics work best. Just switch the roles and do the same thing. Now you are the F-35 pilot and you decide you and the other pilot want to separate by 100 miles and come in from the flanks of the opposing fighters. What does that do to the “25 mile line abreast” idea? It sounds like the simulation had a fixed engagement scenario and was only exploring what variations could occur within those limits.

 

[sferrin]

That pilot retired in 2004 so at the very least the simulators were in their infancy.

That's irrelevant. The speaker wasn't criticizing the f-35 itself based on the results of the simulation, but the method in which the simulation is run in order to reach a certain presupposed conclusion.

That's an assumption. Like I said, without knowing the objectives of the test his statement is meaningless. Sure, you could try to argue they were trying to game the system because they want to make sure they buy a crappy aircraft, but that's tinfoil hat level nuttery. Why would anybody WANT to intentionally buy a crappy airplane?

 

[donnage99]

That's an assumption. Like I said, without knowing the objectives of the test his statement is meaningless.

So you think the danish pilot is lying? Obviously from the full testimony, he's implying that the objective was to produce a favorable kill ratio for the f-35 against the russian jets but limiting the russian jets from using their advanced weapons.

He also said that he complained to his superiors, I wonder if we can find those guys' testimonies on this to verify what he said.

 

[bobbymike]

That's an assumption. Like I said, without knowing the objectives of the test his statement is meaningless.

So you think the danish pilot is lying? Obviously from the full testimony, he's implying that the objective was to produce a favorable kill ratio for the f-35 against the russian jets but limiting the russian jets from using their advanced weapons.

He also said that he complained to his superiors, I wonder if we can find those guys' testimonies on this to verify what he said.

I think sferrin makes a valid point so I'd ask the question he did in a prior post, how would you know flying wing abreast 25 miles apart would 'allow' you to get a side angle radar look at the F-35 unless you knew exactly where it was going to be?

 

[sferrin]

That's an assumption. Like I said, without knowing the objectives of the test his statement is meaningless.

So you think the danish pilot is lying? Obviously from the full testimony, he's implying that the objective was to produce a favorable kill ratio for the f-35 against the russian jets but limiting the russian jets from using their advanced weapons.

Jump right to I called him a liar. : I said without knowing all the details the ramifications of his claims are unknowable. The end. Anything on top of that is all you.

 

[donnage99]

Jump right to I called him a liar. : I said without knowing all the details the ramifications of his claims are unknowable. The end. Anything on top of that is all you.

Please don't take adult intelligence too lightly for both you and me. We aren't 1st graders who need pop up pictures book to understand implicature. You said that without knowing the conditions of the simulation, any conclusion would be meaningless. But he DID make a conclusion that the simulation was misleading, done intentionally in favor of lockmart. So by that logic, he's either lying or intentionally telling half truth, which is basically lying.

 

[sferrin]

Jump right to I called him a liar. : I said without knowing all the details the ramifications of his claims are unknowable. The end. Anything on top of that is all you.

Please don't take adult intelligence too lightly for both you and me. We aren't 1st graders who need pop up pictures book to understand implicature. You said that without knowing the conditions of the simulation, any conclusion would be meaningless. But he DID make a conclusion that the simulation was misleading, done intentionally in favor of lockmart. So by that logic, he's either lying or intentionally telling half truth, which is basically lying.

You're starting to sound like the, "the F-35 got its butt kicked in a series of dogfights with the F-16" crowd. As Spudman pointed out, the pilot was flying a SIMULATOR over a decade ago. If they were trying to "cheat" as you claim they could have easily done it with none the wiser. So, like I said, without knowing ALL the details the significance of this pilot's claims are unknowable. Or do you honestly believe all the major Western air forces are being hoodwinked and/or paid off? I mean they've only had a decade+ to discover the truth of this earth-shaking revelation.