The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[sferrin]

But we don't do CAS like that. its not safe for anyone and its not standard procedure. We would never tell an A-10 pilot "Hey how about you just get really low, really slow and kind of stick your head out and around and see if you can't see my american flag patch. Do you see me waving?" Pilots are not detectives, they don't fly in take a look and call their own shots with CAS. They rely heavily on FACs to micromanage every detail, right down to the FAC telling the pilots if they hit the target or if they need to correct and try again. So essentially you want to keep a capability that doesn't exist. A-10s have actually had a pretty dodgy record with friendly fire. And Many Marines I know personally were very scared of A-10s especially after the battle of Nasiraiyah were Marines were strafed using that "visual CAS"
that results in unneeded danger.

I love doing it 1940's style as much as the next guy, but as long as we have paid to have targeting pods, radios, range finders, lasers, and satellite guided bombs, and FACs we should probably use them. why do we spend all this money developing this technology so we can get all nostalgic and not trust it? If you can see the same thing from a safe distance that would have once required exposing yourself and others to extreme danger why don't we use the better tools? Do we really not trust it if, its on a screen? or trust what the FAC sees? he is pretty low and slow let me tell you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3oZP2tEbH4&feature=related

 

[sferrin]

Wouldn't if be more accurate to say that the F-35 is the replacement for the original F/A-16 Block 60 which was originally intended to replace the A-10?

No. The F/A-16 Block 60 never went into service and the Block 60 is a UAE specific variant. The F-35 would be replaceing neither.

 

[Triton]

A-16 Close Air Support

In the 1980's, the USAF started setting aside F-16s for the planned A-16 modification, a dedicated close air support version of the F-16. In 1989, the designation block 60 was reserved for the A-16. The A-16 Block 60 was to be equipped with a 30 mm cannon and provided with a strengthened wing structure for anti-tank weapons such as 7.62 mm min pods. This project failed because the 30 mm gun would heat up and senge the inner components of the left fuselage.

Source:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article18.html

My understanding was that this Close Air Support (CAS) variant of the F-16 was intended to replace the Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II in the United Air Force Inventory.

 

[Lauge]

A-16 Close Air Support

....and provided with a strengthened wing structure for anti-tank weapons such as 7.62 mm min pods.

Source:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article18.html

Good luck with that 7,62mm anti-tank weapon ???

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The F/A-16 (aka A-16, Fast CAS, Block 60) covered many proposals but in the end the closest it got to realisation (1990 for a 1996 IOC) was a heavy upgrade of 300 Block 30 F-16Cs with an air to ground avionics update (helmet steered and displayed FLIR, data link, digital moving map display, PAVE PENNY, advanced INS/GPS, etc), armour and the GPU-5/A four barrel 30x173mm gun pod. This would have replaced the A-10 adding all weather capability, self-escort and improved survivability by reduced exposure to fires. Smaller and faster means harder to hit.

But rather than build the F/A-16 USAF changed the nature of close air support by realising advanced targeting pods and precision guided weapons meant they could fly above the trash fire ceiling and provide CAS from afar. So they didn’t need the extra stuff to enable quick responses to fleeting targets like a fast and low plane does.

While on the surface the F-35 may seem to have lots of similarities to the F/A-16 it has approached them from a different direction. But things like the HMD and high level of SA will enable them to provide fast and low CAS if they need to go low to operate against a next generation (or generation after next) tactical air defence system.

 

[aam641]

I don't necessarily see why the A-10 can't be replaced by the F-35; the A-10's job is to kill tanks and kill enemy-held positions. Yes the F-35 won't be swooping in, firing it's Vulcan, but that's because that's a needless operation - yes the F-35 won't quite have the exact same destructive power as the A-10, but it'll be relatively close, with the same number of hardpoints.

Load it up with SDB's and ejector racks and you can have F-35's taking out close to 20 separate targets in one sortie. Add in that the F-35 can get to the fight faster than the A-10 and will outnumber them in the field, and you have a plane that'll rock the enemy.

Now, cost-wise, obviously it'll be an increase in expenditure, but hey, whaddya gonna do

It is curious that the US Army has nothing to say about A-10 being replaced by JSF. Back when A-10 was being developed, the Army was very specific about what they wanted. They wanted to be protected a plane that could fly low and slow, carry lots of weapons, loiter in the area for as long as possible and be able to risk a hit or two from ground fire.
Now JSF may end up being excellent fighter or bomber, but it is unlikely to be a good replacement for A-10. It cannot fly slow and the less said about its endurance, the better. And what's worst, it is too expensive and fragile to be allowed anywhere close to ground fire. Which, btw, makes its gun useless for ground support. So the Army will have to do with occassional SDB falling from the sky, provided that they can get accurate coordinates of the target, and provided that the target is willing to sit still for 15 minutes until JSF can be scrambled.

 

[Stargazer]

Is it just me, or do I have the impression some people here are discussing something that was never really ever part of the JSF package, namely A-10-type missions for the F-35??

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It is curious that the US Army has nothing to say about A-10 being replaced by JSF. Back when A-10 was being developed, the Army was very specific about what they wanted. They wanted to be protected a plane that could fly low and slow, carry lots of weapons, loiter in the area for as long as possible and be able to risk a hit or two from ground fire.
Now JSF may end up being excellent fighter or bomber, but it is unlikely to be a good replacement for A-10. It cannot fly slow and the less said about its endurance, the better. And what's worst, it is too expensive and fragile to be allowed anywhere close to ground fire. Which, btw, makes its gun useless for ground support. So the Army will have to do with occassional SDB falling from the sky, provided that they can get accurate coordinates of the target, and provided that the target is willing to sit still for 15 minutes until JSF can be scrambled.

The US Army doesn’t care how long the A-10 or the F-35 stays in the air or how much flak they can swallow. What they care is that there is on call offensive support when they need it. And they certainly aren’t holding up USAF specs from the friggin 1960s and demanding that aircraft today fly the same way! And for the record the F-35 stays in the air longer than the A-10 and it isn’t fragile or gun shy. All this crap being made up by people is just ridiculous.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Is it just me, or do I have the impression some people here are discussing something that was never really ever part of the JSF package, namely A-10-type missions for the F-35??

The A-10 type missions that it was specified for – the VietNam War type loiter with a huge load of dumb bombs and/or napalm – are no longer flown by the A-10. The A-10 type mission of the Cold War – firing 30mm DU ammo and Mavericks at masses of Soviet tanks – are no longer flown by the A-10. And I don’t mean for lack of opportunity… But what an A-10 brings to the contemporary battlefield so will the F-35. It will also be able to do what the A-10 does but up against a much higher air to air and ground to air threat. You can have the latest threat Pantsir tactical GBAD integrated with your ground force and the F-35 will still knock out all your high priority assets. Something the A-10 won’t be able to do.

 

[Triton]

Thank you for your analyses, Abraham. I really do appreciate them and I have learned from them.

 

[sublight]

"F-16s striking ten miles into the kuwaiti theater while we fly deep into Iraq does not compute"

after that day all A-10s were forbidden from deep attack missions and restricted to nearer areas (probably helped the sortie rate as well)all told four A-10s were lost in combat in 1991 with more damaged. Most ROEs until recently prohibited even getting low enough to use the gun, and In Libya upon notice that SA-18s may be in the AO flight restrictions were issued to AC-130s, A-10s and Harriers.

OA-10A 76-0543
Shot down by Infra Red SAM (SA-9) 19 Feb 1991 62 nm North West of Kuwait city. 23rd TASS/602nd TACW (NF). The 23 US combat lost aircraft. Pilot Lt Col Jeffery Fox (40 from Fall River, Mass) call sign "NAIL53" was injured as he ejected and captured as POW and released 03/05/91.

....

They are not invincible and its not some "invisible hand" that is making the USAF give up its Hogs. Its per their own recommendations.

You forgot to mention the other stats.
During Gulf War I:
It had a mission capable rate of 95.7%, flew 8,100 sorties, and launched 90% of all the AGM-65 Maverick missiles fired off in the entire war. It took out-
900+ Iraqi tanks
1,200+ artillery pieces
2,000+ military vehicles
And it even turned a couple helo's into instant Swiss cheese with the cannon.

Now will the F35 perform as well? Maybe Abraham has a point, and it will certainly take out more helicopters, but the ground attack bar has been set pretty high.

 

[sferrin]

"F-16s striking ten miles into the kuwaiti theater while we fly deep into Iraq does not compute"

after that day all A-10s were forbidden from deep attack missions and restricted to nearer areas (probably helped the sortie rate as well)all told four A-10s were lost in combat in 1991 with more damaged. Most ROEs until recently prohibited even getting low enough to use the gun, and In Libya upon notice that SA-18s may be in the AO flight restrictions were issued to AC-130s, A-10s and Harriers.

OA-10A 76-0543
Shot down by Infra Red SAM (SA-9) 19 Feb 1991 62 nm North West of Kuwait city. 23rd TASS/602nd TACW (NF). The 23 US combat lost aircraft. Pilot Lt Col Jeffery Fox (40 from Fall River, Mass) call sign "NAIL53" was injured as he ejected and captured as POW and released 03/05/91.

....

They are not invincible and its not some "invisible hand" that is making the USAF give up its Hogs. Its per their own recommendations.

You forgot to mention the other stats.
During Gulf War I:
It had a mission capable rate of 95.7%, flew 8,100 sorties, and launched 90% of all the AGM-65 Maverick missiles fired off in the entire war. It took out-
900+ Iraqi tanks
1,200+ artillery pieces
2,000+ military vehicles
And it even turned a couple helo's into instant Swiss cheese with the cannon.

During WWII the P-47 killed more ground vehicles than that. Maybe we should have kept them instead of A-10s.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

It is curious that the US Army has nothing to say about A-10 being replaced by JSF.

"Thank you for getting us an airplane that can actually break the speed of sound and get to our soldiers faster when they are in trouble because air force CAS sucks and takes forever already?" Why does the Air force care? They really don't. CAS is not loved by the USAF. its all deep strike baby. If the Army screamed until they turned blue is the USAF really going to apologize and change its mind? The USAF was formed to get away from the army telling it what to do. Its a little bit like moving out of your parents house and marrying that girl they never liked.

Now JSF may end up being excellent fighter or bomber, but it is unlikely to be a good replacement for A-10. It cannot fly slow and the less said about its endurance, the better. And what's worst, it is too expensive and fragile to be allowed anywhere close to ground fire. Which, btw, makes its gun useless for ground support. So the Army will have to do with occassional SDB falling from the sky, provided that they can get accurate coordinates of the target, and provided that the target is willing to sit still for 15 minutes until JSF can be scrambled.

The Gun on the JSF is based on the same 25MM cannon that is used on the Harrier and AC-130 gunship. useless?

If the JSF isn't going to be good at CAS why does the USMC want it? Why would the USMC who's entire Air Wing is dedicated to ground support want an airplane that can't do close support? Its gun isn't useless for ground support, and the A-10 has to fly at full throttle and fire in short bursts to avoid a stall. Scramble an A-10 and Scramble a JSF-- the JSF will get there faster because it is faster. if its and F-35B it doesn't even a runway so its closer still. are you implying that A-10s don't need to be scrambled or that they are magically in the correct area at all times? What on earth are you talking about? In Afghanistan we were advised to schedule USAF CAS 48 hours ahead of when we needed it. 48 hours isn't fast. A-10 pilots don't have wrist watches, they have calenders. It doesn't help that a lot of folks here seem to have comic book version of war and CAS in particular. A-10s try their best to move fast in combat, for obvious reasons. Low and Slow is not the preferred method if it can be avoided. If low and slow is what its all about, get helicopters. Wait let me guess, those are too low and too slow.

"F-16s striking ten miles into the kuwaiti theater while we fly deep into Iraq does not compute"

after that day all A-10s were forbidden from deep attack missions and restricted to nearer areas (probably helped the sortie rate as well)all told four A-10s were lost in combat in 1991 with more damaged. Most ROEs until recently prohibited even getting low enough to use the gun, and In Libya upon notice that SA-18s may be in the AO flight restrictions were issued to AC-130s, A-10s and Harriers.

OA-10A 76-0543
Shot down by Infra Red SAM (SA-9) 19 Feb 1991 62 nm North West of Kuwait city. 23rd TASS/602nd TACW (NF). The 23 US combat lost aircraft. Pilot Lt Col Jeffery Fox (40 from Fall River, Mass) call sign "NAIL53" was injured as he ejected and captured as POW and released 03/05/91.

....

They are not invincible and its not some "invisible hand" that is making the USAF give up its Hogs. Its per their own recommendations.

You forgot to mention the other stats.
During Gulf War I:
It had a mission capable rate of 95.7%, flew 8,100 sorties, and launched 90% of all the AGM-65 Maverick missiles fired off in the entire war. It took out-
900+ Iraqi tanks
1,200+ artillery pieces
2,000+ military vehicles
And it even turned a couple helo's into instant Swiss cheese with the cannon.

During WWII the P-47 killed more ground vehicles than that. Maybe we should have kept them instead of A-10s.

Don't forget the B-29. It had some pretty impressive stats too, why did we ever develop a replacement? The B-52 will never wipe out as many cities as the B-29. B-29s rocked.

Technology marches on people

Sferrin, Thanks for that video! If you notice to the Brits have no Comms with the A-10 so their only hope is to fall back. Visual ID with the naked eye is a last resort in combat, because its far to easy to make a mistake.

 

[Avimimus]

Is it just me, or do I have the impression some people here are discussing something that was never really ever part of the JSF package, namely A-10-type missions for the F-35??

What?? Next you'll be telling us that the F-35 doesn't make a good maritime patrol/ASW or SAR platform!

 

[Colonial-Marine]

If the JSF isn't going to be good at CAS why does the USMC want it? Why would the USMC who's entire Air Wing is dedicated to ground support want an airplane that can't do close support? Its gun isn't useless for ground support, and the A-10 has to fly at full throttle and fire in short bursts to avoid a stall. Scramble an A-10 and Scramble a JSF-- the JSF will get there faster because it is faster. if its and F-35B it doesn't even a runway so its closer still.

I fully recognize the need for the F-35 and while I have my concerns over the problems encountered thus far in testing and the weight of the aircraft, I am generally supportive of the program. That said, replacing the A-10 with the F-35 in my eyes has nothing to do with the F-35 being superior for CAS, rather a matter of budget. The same thing that drove attempts to replace the A-10 with F-16 variants in the past.

Now the 25mm GAU-22/A would certainly be more capable against ground targets than the 20mm M61 Vulcan series, but a mere 180 or 220 rounds of ammunition isn't much compared to the 1,100+ 30mm rounds the A-10 and its GAU-8/A have to work with. The A-10 doesn't need to be at full throttle or fire in short bursts to avoid a stall. A pilot would fire in short bursts because at 4,200 rounds per minute a short burst is already sending a lot of destructive force down range.

 

[sferrin]

If the JSF isn't going to be good at CAS why does the USMC want it? Why would the USMC who's entire Air Wing is dedicated to ground support want an airplane that can't do close support? Its gun isn't useless for ground support, and the A-10 has to fly at full throttle and fire in short bursts to avoid a stall. Scramble an A-10 and Scramble a JSF-- the JSF will get there faster because it is faster. if its and F-35B it doesn't even a runway so its closer still.

I fully recognize the need for the F-35 and while I have my concerns over the problems encountered thus far in testing and the weight of the aircraft, I am generally supportive of the program. That said, replacing the A-10 with the F-35 in my eyes has nothing to do with the F-35 being superior for CAS, rather a matter of budget. The same thing that drove attempts to replace the A-10 with F-16 variants in the past.

Now the 25mm GAU-22/A would certainly be more capable against ground targets than the 20mm M61 Vulcan series, but a mere 180 or 220 rounds of ammunition isn't much compared to the 1,100+ 30mm rounds the A-10 and its GAU-8/A have to work with. The A-10 doesn't need to be at full throttle or fire in short bursts to avoid a stall. A pilot would fire in short bursts because at 4,200 rounds per minute a short burst is already sending a lot of destructive force down range.

No other current US fighter has as many rounds as the A-10, and only the Harrier has anything bigger than 20mm. That's life.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

To me its not that CAS isn't important, its just that is has evolved. Nothing is going to replace a Battleship for armor and guns, but Aircraft Carriers don't need armor or guns to beat them. You can scream until your blue in the face that nothing will truly replace the A-10 and your right, but it doesn't need to be replaced because the mission has changed. Its not about replacing the A-10 so much as it is about fulfilling the modern CAS role. Besides there are still going to be A-10s, just not so many of them. Not unlike the B-52, They are still around but the days of needing hundreds of them has passed. Nothing will replace the SR-71 for recon...except spy satellites. It's simple evolution.

 

[tacitblue]

If the JSF isn't going to be good at CAS why does the USMC want it? Why would the USMC who's entire Air Wing is dedicated to ground support want an airplane that can't do close support? Its gun isn't useless for ground support, and the A-10 has to fly at full throttle and fire in short bursts to avoid a stall. Scramble an A-10 and Scramble a JSF-- the JSF will get there faster because it is faster. if its and F-35B it doesn't even a runway so its closer still.

I fully recognize the need for the F-35 and while I have my concerns over the problems encountered thus far in testing and the weight of the aircraft, I am generally supportive of the program. That said, replacing the A-10 with the F-35 in my eyes has nothing to do with the F-35 being superior for CAS, rather a matter of budget. The same thing that drove attempts to replace the A-10 with F-16 variants in the past.

Now the 25mm GAU-22/A would certainly be more capable against ground targets than the 20mm M61 Vulcan series, but a mere 180 or 220 rounds of ammunition isn't much compared to the 1,100+ 30mm rounds the A-10 and its GAU-8/A have to work with. The A-10 doesn't need to be at full throttle or fire in short bursts to avoid a stall. A pilot would fire in short bursts because at 4,200 rounds per minute a short burst is already sending a lot of destructive force down range.

No other current US fighter has as many rounds as the A-10, and only the Harrier has anything bigger than 20mm. That's life.

180 rounds ain't much!

 

[Sea Skimmer]

They will at least be the deadliest 25mm shells ever, some new prefragmented all purpose shell is being designed for the plane. Weight wise 180 x 25mm rounds is non trivial too. If you need more then that, drop a bomb. All the more so since such a wide range of very small 5-40lb class kind of guided bombs are being worked on to handle situations when a 250lb or 500lb weapon doesn't make sense.


Anyway the USAF has very large numbers of armed drones which can do CAS very nicely, and the Army really can't complain now that it's getting Grey Eagle drones which have about nearly as much payload as a WW2 fighter bomber. A Grey Eagle calling in GMLRS strikes and firing its own weapons at targets which cannot wait ~2 minutes for GMLRS will take care of time critical situations a lot better then an A-10 with 1/5th the loiter time could.

 

[unclejim]

"technology marches on"


Silly argument, if all that new tech is just reinventing the wheel. Or lining the contractors (and polititians,elected and otherwise)pockets. I understand the need to replace warn out equipment, and bring worthwhile new technology into service. Just lets be sure we are getting what we pay for, folks.

 

[Creative]

In-flight external weapons trials. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=346466842043306&set=a.156514791038513.27932.140704179286241&type=3

 

[GTX]

Or lining the contractors ... pockets.

Also known as employing people... :

 

[sferrin]

In-flight external weapons trials. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=346466842043306&set=a.156514791038513.27932.140704179286241&type=3

Wut? I thought it could only carry two bombs?

 

[Mike Pryce]

Other stores/pylons picture/story:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a82516784-4f4f-40d6-8a23-c5ccd65ffa91&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

I seem to recall that putting underwing pylons right near the wingtip causes much more drag than a wingtip rail. With high span loading the tip vortices will be strong, and those AIM-9X rails look like they will have strong side washes on them.

 

[sferrin]

I seem to recall that putting underwing pylons right near the wingtip causes much more drag than a wingtip rail. With high span loading the tip vortices will be strong, and those AIM-9X rails look like they will have strong side washes on them.

I'll bet they're still better than the Super Hornet's air brakes, I mean "pylons".

 

[Thorvic]

How come the pylons are so big and chunky, as they look like they have slapped Super Hornet ones on rather than something more refined are they carrying kit that could have been carried internally in the wing or mounted seperately as part of weapon rail ?

 

[tacitblue]

How come the pylons are so big and chunky, as they look like they have slapped Super Hornet ones on rather than something more refined are they carrying kit that could have been carried internally in the wing or mounted seperately as part of weapon rail ?

There's quite a bit of aerdynamic or CFD work involved in mounting weapons under wings. There are unseen aerodynamic forces at work... They found that out on the F/A-18s a long time ago. The pylons might need to be "long" in order for smooth weapons separation.

 

[Triton]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a82516784-4f4f-40d6-8a23-c5ccd65ffa91&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

 

[Creative]

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=4918
http://youtu.be/YeAIdpsbTZk

 

[aam641]

The Gun on the JSF is based on the same 25MM cannon that is used on the Harrier and AC-130 gunship. useless?

If the JSF isn't going to be good at CAS why does the USMC want it? Why would the USMC who's entire Air Wing is dedicated to ground support want an airplane that can't do close support? Its gun isn't useless for ground support, and the A-10 has to fly at full throttle and fire in short bursts to avoid a stall.

There is nothing wrong with the gun, JSF is the problem. To have a chance of hitting anything smaller than a barn, it needs to be within a mile from the target and probably below 20,000 feet. At the same time, it needs to fly straight and steady at fairly low speed. This makes it a prime target for a machinegun or MPADS. Now A-10 could afford the risk - two engines, armour, not much electronics. JSF, on the other hand, has no armour, one engine and is stuffed with very expensive electronics.
So I am fairly certain that JSF contribution to CAS will be to cruise at 30,000 feet and dropping SDB when ground troops call in. The same as most current fighters and a very different style from what A-10 was originally envisioned to do. But as some said, that role was never popular with the Air Force.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The Gun on the JSF is based on the same 25MM cannon that is used on the Harrier and AC-130 gunship. useless?

If the JSF isn't going to be good at CAS why does the USMC want it? Why would the USMC who's entire Air Wing is dedicated to ground support want an airplane that can't do close support? Its gun isn't useless for ground support, and the A-10 has to fly at full throttle and fire in short bursts to avoid a stall.

There is nothing wrong with the gun, JSF is the problem. To have a chance of hitting anything smaller than a barn, it needs to be within a mile from the target and probably below 20,000 feet. At the same time, it needs to fly straight and steady at fairly low speed.

This makes it a prime target for a machinegun or MPADS. Now A-10 could afford the risk - two engines, armour, not much electronics. JSF, on the other hand, has no armour, one engine and is stuffed with very expensive electronics.
So I am fairly certain that JSF contribution to CAS will be to cruise at 30,000 feet and dropping SDB when ground troops call in. The same as most current fighters and a very different style from what A-10 was originally envisioned to do. But as some said, that role was never popular with the Air Force.

What are you basing that on? and seeing as F-14s, 15s, 16s, 18s and Harriers, have have all done low level gun runs the past ten years, I am going to have to say you are wrong. I promise the USMC gun attack will be the same in the F-35B as it is in the Harrier.

 

[Creative]

F-35B external stores testing.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=4923

 

[Mike Pryce]

Family photo of F-35B-01 to -04, plus two C's:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=9103579&l=e20e65ccd2&id=80119815527

 

[Triton]

F-35B weapons testing.

Source:
http://www.aviationnews.eu/2012/02/20/f-35-naval-variants-commence-weapons-testing/
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_news_item.html?item_id=612
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=217642

 

[Deleted member 4570]

Family photo of F-35B-01 to -04, plus two C's:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=9103579&l=e20e65ccd2&id=80119815527

Beautiful.
I am just wondering if some estranged P51 pops up and starts strafing the runway ... I have always like the P51 Mustang.

 

[Deino]

Wonderfull photo ...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/6831892599/sizes/l/in/photostream/

... and besides that, is it already Aprl, 1st. ??????

Maverick is becoming an F-35 test pilot.

It's true.

Tom Burbage, the Lockheed Martin F-35 programme manager, showed up at a National Aeronautics Association luncheon today and dropped a bombshell of a Hollywood scoop. Sure, there was talk about schedules and budgets, partners and politics, software blocks and carrier hooks. But we'll get to that later.

The big news from Burbage's speech involves Top Gun 2, the long-not-quite-awaited-but-certainly-delayed sequel of the 1986 fighter jock classic.

Tom Cruise, of course, confirmed back in December that the sequel is coming, but nobody -- not even IMDB (we checked) -- knows the full story.

But Burbage does. Lockheed's Fort Worth, Texas, factory and flight test center will host production crew in the "next month or so" to start filming, Burbage told the NAA luncheon crowd.

Burbage also confirmed that Cruise will not just make a cameo; he will be the star, and he is playing the role of a Lockheed F-35 test pilot!

Potential plot twists fill our heads.

There will be no need to resurrect Goose, as the F-35 is a single-seater. With the Libyan air force in smouldering ruins, there will also be no need to stage another improbable yet inspiring combat scenario. Indeed, as a test pilot, it's not clear how the movie's writers can weave Maverick into a combat situation.

Maybe we've been covering the industry too long, but our perfect plot for Top Gun 2 has no combat sequences at all. Instead, it goes like this:

Maverick is a test pilot struggling to keep the flight test programme on schedule, even though his better judgment is sometimes compromised by a lifelong, paralyzing fear of vertical landings. Maverick almost throws in the towel after his favourite knee board/test card holder is destroyed in an unfortunate lift fan malfunction. Meanwhile, the programme's enemies, led by the snearing Bill "Iceman" Sweetman and Karlo "Slider" Kopp, take advantage of Maverick's absence to nearly bury the programme in a wave of seemingly overwhelming blog attacks. That's when Maverick's love interest -- a Texas congresswoman strategically placed on the AirLand subcommittee -- intervenes. She gives Maverick her father's last knee board (er, her father was also a test pilot ... just go with it) and literally pushes him back into the cockpit. Maverick straps on the knee board, takes the Block 3 software build out for a spin, hits every test point and -- for the finale -- lands vertically right on top of Aviation Week's building in downtown Washington DC. And that's when Kenny Loggins starts singing.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/03/top-gun-2-will-rock-the-f-35-t.html

Deino

 

[sublight]

Tom is full of crap. Peter just started on the script THIS WEEK, as in BLANK PAGE and not a re-write.
Peter's last movie was "the town" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0840361/ , a pretty solid action flick, so you can assume there wont be any gay beach volleyball in this movie, and maybe not an F35 either.

 

[dannydale]

so you can assume there wont be any gay beach volleyball in this movie

Ah dangit, that's the best part!

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Defence Management

02 March 2012

'The government must end the uncertainty over its F-35 plans'

Labour's Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy has called on Defence Secretary Philip Hammond to give a full and public explanation of the future of the carrier programme. Below is the full text of Murphy's letter calling for greater clarity on the size and nature of the UK's F-35 order

Dear Philip,

I am writing regarding worrying suggestions concerning the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter programme and the possible impact on the future construction of the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier. There are increasing fears in the United States and in other countries that the proposed programme for aircraft for our new aircraft carriers will not be completed to time and on budget. There are real worries that time and money may have been wasted.

It is vital that there is now clarity on the government's plans for this vital area of the defence equipment programme. In particular the public need to know whether the government are proceeding with the plans outlined in the SDSR to introduce the carrier variant of the JSF in 2020, and whether any consideration is being given to reversing the decision to abandon the Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing variant of the F-35.

Decisions taken by the Coalition government in the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review significantly distorted UK carrier strike capability. The decision to scrap the Harrier fleet means the UK will have no carrier aircraft capability from 2011-2020 and then only one operational carrier. The SDSR decision to change the aircraft flown from the carrier from the STOVL variant to the carrier variant of the JSF required significant and costly modification to the operational carrier with the installation of catapult and arrestor gear. These modifications introduced greater cost and delay to the programme. The in-service date of the new carrier was extended from 2016 to "around 2020", as stated in the SDSR, and the Public Accounts Committee has said that the cost of conversion will be up to £1.2 billion, but that the Department does not expect to have a better understanding of total costs until the end of this year. Both the PAC and the National Audit Office conclude that this decision has increased uncertainties around cost, technical, safety and commercial issues.

This uncertainty is increased by the rising cost of the unit price of the JSF. There have been delays in the US order of F-35, a cut in the Italian order and signals that other countries may follow suit. The overall cost of the programme is now unknown, as was confirmed by the Minister for Defence Equipment and Procurement in Defence Questions on 20th February.

I am concerned that the cost of conversion combined with the increased unit cost could be prohibitive to the plans as outlined in the SDSR being realised. Indeed, we have already learnt that on current plans the UK will have just six operational JSF aircraft in 2020, which is an insufficient capability. The SDSR itself stated: "the single carrier will therefore routinely have 12 fast jets embarked for operations while retaining the capacity to deploy up to the 36 previously planned."

It is now time for a full and public explanation of government plans in order to give the defence community and the country confidence. In particular we need to know what consideration the Government is giving to returning to the STOVL variant, which may reduce costs, bring forward the in-service date and retain interoperability with our allies, notably the US Marine Corps.

There is a need for clarity on this strategic defence project for the sake of our nation and the thousands of high-skilled jobs that rely on certainty about this project.

I hope you will answer the concerns expressed within this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Rt Hon Jim Murphy MP Shadow Secretary of State for Defence

The Guardian

Thursday 1 March 2012 14.21 EST UK aircraft carrier plans in confusion as ministers revisit square one

By Richard Norton-Taylor

Decision expected by Easter on which US joint strike fighter Britain will buy: ministers now want to revert to original choice

Britain's troubled and increasingly expensive plan to equip the navy with new aircraft carriers has been plunged into fresh turmoil as ministers consider reversing their earlier decision to change the type of plane that should fly from them, it has emerged.

The government announced in last autumn's strategic defence review that it had decided to buy the "cats and flaps" (catapults and arrester gear) version of the US joint strike fighter. This would have a "longer range and greater payload ... the critical requirement for precision-strike operations in the future", the government stated.

Moreover, the government added, it will be cheaper. It would also enable French planes to land on British carriers, and vice versa, inkeeping with the new UK-French defence spirit of co-operation.

Now, in an extraordinary volte-face, the Ministry of Defence says the "cats and flaps" planes may well be cheaper but it would be too expensive to redesign a carrier – more than £1bn – to accommodate them. The ministry is thus faced with the prospect of renegotiating a deal with the US, reverting to its original plan –namely buying the short take-off and vertical landing version of the aircraft, even though it is acknowledged to be less effective and more expensive .

The latest chapter in the troubled saga of Britain's future aircraft carriers – whose own estimated costs have soared – was raised on Thursday in a letter to the defence secretary, Philip Hammond, from Jim Murphy, his Labour opposite number.

Murphy referred to "worrying suggestions" that the government was about to change its mind about the kind of aircraft to buy from the US. "It is vital that there is now clarity on the government's plans for this vital area of the defence equipment programme," he wrote.

Murphy said the decision in the defence review to scrap the Harrier fleet meant the UK would have no carrier aircraft capability until 2020 – and then only one carrier would be operational.

Defence officials said that the government was "re-assessing" its earlier decision because, they indicated, of pressures on the defence budget.

HMS Queen Elizabeth, the first carrier, will be mothballed immediately it is launched in 2016, according to existing plans. The second, HMS Prince of Wales, will be able to put to sea by 2020, but it is not known how many planes will be able to fly from it – nor what kind.

The two carriers, originally priced at £3.5bn, are now estimated to cost £6.2bn. According to the Commons public accounts committee, the cost is likely to increase to as much as £12bn.

The government, which originally said it wanted more than 100 joint strike fighters, says that it will have just six operational ones by 2020. The unit cost of the joint strike fighter, made by Lockheed Martin, has soared because of production problems and delays caused by US defence budget cuts. Britain's BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce have big stakes in a future deal adapting the joint strike fighter for British forces.

A spokesperson for the MoD said: "We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the equipment plan. As part of this process, we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed. The defence secretary expects to announce the outcome of this process to parliament before Easter."

The Telegraph

6:20AM GMT 02 Mar 2012 Navy aircraft carrier plans hit by further delays

Britain could be left without an aircraft carrier equipped with fighter jets for the next decade after soaring costs threw Ministry of Defence plans into doubt.

The Defence Secretary is to reconsider plans for up to 50 new fighter jets, which have been billed as the world’s most advanced warplanes, after the government admitted it had no idea what the programme would cost.

The rethink also comes amid fears that a design flaw in the new Joint Strike Fighter makes it unable to land on aircraft carriers. Leaked Pentagon documents found the plane had failed eight simulated landings.

A redesign is likely to prove costly and delay the project meaning that when Britain’s only aircraft carrier comes into service in 2020 it may have no jets.

Philip Hammond may be forced to choose an alternative model of the Joint Strike Fighter, which would throw into doubt an agreement between France and Britain to share weapons and equipment, including aircraft carriers .

Ministers are currently reviewing the “risks” and expect to make an announcement to MPs on the future of the programme before Easter.

The decision to scrap the Harrier fleet means that Britain will have no carrier aircraft capability between 2011 and 2020. The next aircraft carrier, the Queen Elizabeth will not be operational for another eight years.

However, fears have been raised that further delays could result from it.

Jim Murphy, Labour’s shadow defence secretary, wrote to Mr Hammond last night, demanding urgent assurances on the future of the Joint Strike Fighter programme.

“There are increasing fears in the United States and in other countries that the proposed programme for aircraft for our new aircraft carriers will not be completed to time and on budget,” he said.

“There are real worries that time and money may have been wasted.

“It is vital that there is now clarity on the Government’s plans for this vital area of the defence equipment programme.”

The F-35C Joint Strike Fighters were chosen as the MoD’s preferred aircraft to replace the Harrier jet because it would be easy to operate from aircraft carriers belonging to military allies of the UK.

The planes are being built in America with expertise from Britain and other partner countries.

However, the “carrier variant” of the F-35s require modifications to be made to aircraft carriers, including fitting them with catapults and arrestor gear for take-off and landing.

When a fighter lands on a carrier the arrestor cable catches a hook attached to the aircraft, preventing it from overshooting and ditching into the sea.

Early trials of the model caused major concerns in the United States after the hook design was found to be flawed.

In January, it was reported that Pentagon documents found that a design flaw in the fighter had caused eight simulated landings to fail.

The cost of the programme is likely to increase after the Pentagon postponed orders for 179 planes for five years to allow more testing.

These delays and pressure to rein in spending at the MoD are believed to have contributed to the decision to review the British orders for the jets.

Development of the fighter is being jointly funded by Britain, the US, Italy, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Canada and the Netherlands.

Military sources said the early design problems were not the major cause of the review.

Mr Murphy added: “It is now time for a full and public explanation of Government plans in order to give the defence community and the country confidence,” he said.

The US government then decided to delay its order for the carrier variant jets and instead invest in the alternative model, which features a short take-off and vertical landing capability.

There have also been reports that Australia and Canada are reconsidering their investment in the carrier-variant model of the jets.

The Defence Equipment Minister, Peter Luff, confirmed to MPs that the uncertainty meant that the cost of the British order was likely to rise, adding that “the honest answer is that we do not know” how much the final bill will be.

In 2010, France and Britain signed a defence and security co-operation treaty in which the two countries agreed to share weapons and equipment, including aircraft carriers.

Work is already underway, with British pilots learning French in preparation for deployment on France’s aircraft carrier.

MoD sources said the carrier variant of the JSF was easier than the vertical landing model to deploy from French and American aircraft carriers. However, design difficulties are not thought to be insurmountable.

A spokesman for the MoD said no decision had been taken on the future of the programme but insisted that ministers are “committed” to a new “carrier strike capability” from around 2020.

“We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the equipment plan,” the spokesman said.

“As part of this process we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed.

“The Defence Secretary expects to announce the outcome of this process to Parliament before Easter.”

Im betting the UK changes its mind about four more times before this is all said and done I guess someone finally did the math and realized it was cheaper to buy the F-35B rather than redesigning an entire ship.

 

[kulus]

Pentagon Relaxes Two F-35 Perfomance Targets
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/133255/pentagon-relaxes-f_35-performance-targets.html
Strange way to achieve perfomance targets