If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"F-35 Test Flight Deemed a Success"
F-35 Test Flight Deemed a Success
By ANGELA K. BROWN The Associated Press Saturday, December 16, 2006; 12:03 AM FORT WORTH, Texas -- The new stealth fighter jet that will replace an aging fleet of military planes experienced a largely successful first flight Friday, with only a minor glitch, Lockheed Martin Corp. officials said. Jon S. Beesley, chief test pilot for the Joint Strike Fighter, also known as the F-35, said the plane handled "marvelously," performed flawlessly and flew better than the simulator. He flew to 15,000 feet, escorted by three jets that provided safety and took pictures. "It was a great adventure," he said. "Today really started the opening for me for the rest of this greatest fighter program in history where we're going to go forward and develop this great weapons system that will protect everybody, and that's what it's all about." Officials initially said the test flight would last an hour; Beesley flew for 35 minutes. One of two air data sensors was not operating properly, he said. Although it did not pose a danger, the procedure called for ending the flight at that time, preventing completion of the remaining few tests, including raising the landing gear, officials said. "Certainly to fly this first flight with the duration of almost 40 minutes and to only have this single warning appear in the pilot's display related to this sensor is remarkable, and we're really pleased with the quality of this first jet," said Dan Crowley, executive vice president and general manager of the Joint Strike Fighter program. Runway tests that began last week were completed this week. Officials had been waiting for good weather for the maiden flight, which almost didn't happen Friday because of fog and wind. Security was tight Friday at Lockheed's Fort Worth facility, where the flight took place. But hundreds of cars parked on the side of the road outside the plant near the runway, many people holding video cameras in hopes of catching a glimpse of the supersonic jet, as word spread of the test flight. Many cheered as the plane took off. Lockheed employees gathered near the runway also applauded, and some were moved to tears as the gray jet took off, said some officials, who reported receiving phone calls from other countries as soon as news spread of the flight. "I would call this the flight that was heard round the world," said Tom Burbage, executive vice president for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. and general manager for the Joint Strike Fighter program integration. Beesley, who was greeted with roaring cheers as he stepped out of the cockpit after landing, later said the plane will continue test flights next week. Brig. Gen. Charles R. Davis, the program executive officer for the F-35 Lightning II program office in Arlington, Va., said this jet was the first of 20 planes to be built at Lockheed's Fort Worth plant that will have test flights there over the next 18 months. After 10 years of development, Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin is moving to the early stages of production for what could be thousands of fighter jets for the American military and eight countries _ and possibly the largest defense contract ever, $275 billion over the next two decades. The U.S. plans to use the F-35 to replace aging planes used by the Marines, Air Force and Navy, including jets like the F-16, the F-18 and the Harrier jet. Lockheed and its subcontractors are making three different versions that will be used by the different branches. The Marine version will be able to make vertical takeoffs. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"F-35 Test Flight Deemed a Success"
The JSF (F-35) is clearly a nice aircraft but can any of you tell me what the JSF offers that is not available now in the aircratf it intends to replace. When considering the present wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, where we seem to need more Close Air Support (CAS) kind of machines that can both strafe and engage an enemy with small blast weapons (gun, rockets, Hellfire, etc) and the occassional PGM Bomb, what does the JSF offer over just producing more F-15 / F-16 / F-18 aircraft and if anything finding a follow-on for something more like an A-10 then a high performance fighter. I suspect the F-35 may have arrived on scene a decade or two sooner then desired.
"Mike" wrote in message ps.com... F-35 Test Flight Deemed a Success By ANGELA K. BROWN The Associated Press Saturday, December 16, 2006; 12:03 AM FORT WORTH, Texas -- The new stealth fighter jet that will replace an aging fleet of military planes experienced a largely successful first flight Friday, with only a minor glitch, Lockheed Martin Corp. officials said. Jon S. Beesley, chief test pilot for the Joint Strike Fighter, also known as the F-35, said the plane handled "marvelously," performed flawlessly and flew better than the simulator. He flew to 15,000 feet, escorted by three jets that provided safety and took pictures. "It was a great adventure," he said. "Today really started the opening for me for the rest of this greatest fighter program in history where we're going to go forward and develop this great weapons system that will protect everybody, and that's what it's all about." Officials initially said the test flight would last an hour; Beesley flew for 35 minutes. One of two air data sensors was not operating properly, he said. Although it did not pose a danger, the procedure called for ending the flight at that time, preventing completion of the remaining few tests, including raising the landing gear, officials said. "Certainly to fly this first flight with the duration of almost 40 minutes and to only have this single warning appear in the pilot's display related to this sensor is remarkable, and we're really pleased with the quality of this first jet," said Dan Crowley, executive vice president and general manager of the Joint Strike Fighter program. Runway tests that began last week were completed this week. Officials had been waiting for good weather for the maiden flight, which almost didn't happen Friday because of fog and wind. Security was tight Friday at Lockheed's Fort Worth facility, where the flight took place. But hundreds of cars parked on the side of the road outside the plant near the runway, many people holding video cameras in hopes of catching a glimpse of the supersonic jet, as word spread of the test flight. Many cheered as the plane took off. Lockheed employees gathered near the runway also applauded, and some were moved to tears as the gray jet took off, said some officials, who reported receiving phone calls from other countries as soon as news spread of the flight. "I would call this the flight that was heard round the world," said Tom Burbage, executive vice president for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. and general manager for the Joint Strike Fighter program integration. Beesley, who was greeted with roaring cheers as he stepped out of the cockpit after landing, later said the plane will continue test flights next week. Brig. Gen. Charles R. Davis, the program executive officer for the F-35 Lightning II program office in Arlington, Va., said this jet was the first of 20 planes to be built at Lockheed's Fort Worth plant that will have test flights there over the next 18 months. After 10 years of development, Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin is moving to the early stages of production for what could be thousands of fighter jets for the American military and eight countries _ and possibly the largest defense contract ever, $275 billion over the next two decades. The U.S. plans to use the F-35 to replace aging planes used by the Marines, Air Force and Navy, including jets like the F-16, the F-18 and the Harrier jet. Lockheed and its subcontractors are making three different versions that will be used by the different branches. The Marine version will be able to make vertical takeoffs. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"F-35 Test Flight Deemed a Success"
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 01:25:16 GMT, Ski wrote:
I suspect the F-35 may have arrived on scene a decade or two sooner then desired. Without the external pylons the F-35 is rather stealthy. Using the internal weapons bay only it's a considered a "first day of war" aircraft, meaning it can go in and strike enemy targets before their IADS has been suppressed/destroyed. Marry that with its world-class sensor suite and you've got a very dangerous aircraft indeed. Remember, before Iraq turned into an insurgency action we had to attack an alert Iraqi air defense system. I'd rather do that in a stealthy F-35 than in any of the current teen-fighters. -- -Jeff B. zoomie at fastmail fm |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"F-35 Test Flight Deemed a Success"
Ski wrote: The JSF (F-35) is clearly a nice aircraft but can any of you tell me what the JSF offers that is not available now in the aircratf it intends to replace. When considering the present wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, where we seem to need more Close Air Support (CAS) kind of machines that can both strafe and engage an enemy with small blast weapons (gun, rockets, Hellfire, etc) and the occassional PGM Bomb, what does the JSF offer over just producing more F-15 / F-16 / F-18 aircraft and if anything finding a follow-on for something more like an A-10 then a high performance fighter. I suspect the F-35 may have arrived on scene a decade or two sooner then desired. Better technology at a lower(hopefully) price? F-15/16/18 tewcnology is old, like it or not. A single seat, very manuverable, F/A-35, with great avionics will be able to do better CAS than the Warthog. "Mike" wrote in message ps.com... F-35 Test Flight Deemed a Success By ANGELA K. BROWN The Associated Press Saturday, December 16, 2006; 12:03 AM FORT WORTH, Texas -- The new stealth fighter jet that will replace an aging fleet of military planes experienced a largely successful first flight Friday, with only a minor glitch, Lockheed Martin Corp. officials said. Jon S. Beesley, chief test pilot for the Joint Strike Fighter, also known as the F-35, said the plane handled "marvelously," performed flawlessly and flew better than the simulator. He flew to 15,000 feet, escorted by three jets that provided safety and took pictures. "It was a great adventure," he said. "Today really started the opening for me for the rest of this greatest fighter program in history where we're going to go forward and develop this great weapons system that will protect everybody, and that's what it's all about." Officials initially said the test flight would last an hour; Beesley flew for 35 minutes. One of two air data sensors was not operating properly, he said. Although it did not pose a danger, the procedure called for ending the flight at that time, preventing completion of the remaining few tests, including raising the landing gear, officials said. "Certainly to fly this first flight with the duration of almost 40 minutes and to only have this single warning appear in the pilot's display related to this sensor is remarkable, and we're really pleased with the quality of this first jet," said Dan Crowley, executive vice president and general manager of the Joint Strike Fighter program. Runway tests that began last week were completed this week. Officials had been waiting for good weather for the maiden flight, which almost didn't happen Friday because of fog and wind. Security was tight Friday at Lockheed's Fort Worth facility, where the flight took place. But hundreds of cars parked on the side of the road outside the plant near the runway, many people holding video cameras in hopes of catching a glimpse of the supersonic jet, as word spread of the test flight. Many cheered as the plane took off. Lockheed employees gathered near the runway also applauded, and some were moved to tears as the gray jet took off, said some officials, who reported receiving phone calls from other countries as soon as news spread of the flight. "I would call this the flight that was heard round the world," said Tom Burbage, executive vice president for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. and general manager for the Joint Strike Fighter program integration. Beesley, who was greeted with roaring cheers as he stepped out of the cockpit after landing, later said the plane will continue test flights next week. Brig. Gen. Charles R. Davis, the program executive officer for the F-35 Lightning II program office in Arlington, Va., said this jet was the first of 20 planes to be built at Lockheed's Fort Worth plant that will have test flights there over the next 18 months. After 10 years of development, Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin is moving to the early stages of production for what could be thousands of fighter jets for the American military and eight countries _ and possibly the largest defense contract ever, $275 billion over the next two decades. The U.S. plans to use the F-35 to replace aging planes used by the Marines, Air Force and Navy, including jets like the F-16, the F-18 and the Harrier jet. Lockheed and its subcontractors are making three different versions that will be used by the different branches. The Marine version will be able to make vertical takeoffs. ------=_NextPart_000_0060_01C723AB.CB4E13E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Google-AttachSize: 6051 !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" HTMLHEAD META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3020" name=GENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD BODY DIVFONT face=Arial size=2FONT face="Arial Narrow"STRONGThe JSF (F-35)/STRONG/FONT STRONGFONT face="Arial Narrow"is clearly a nice aircraft but can any of you tell me what the JSF offers that is not available now in the aircratf it intends to replace. When considering the present wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, where we seem to need more Close Air Support (CAS) kind of machines that can both strafe and engage an enemy with small blast weapons (gun, rockets, Hellfire, etc) and the occassional PGM Bomb, what does the JSF offer over just producing more F-15 / F-16 / F-18 aircraft and if anything finding a follow-on for something more like an A-10 then a high performance fighter. I suspect the F-35 may have arrived on scene a decade or two sooner then desired. /FONT/STRONG/FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2/FONT /DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2/FONT /DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2/FONT /DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2"Mike" </FONTA "FONT face=Arial /FONT/AFONT face=Arial size=2> wrote in message /FONTA legroups.com"FONT face=Arial glegroups.com/FONT/AFONT face=Arial size=2.../FONT/DIVFONT face=Arial size=2> F-35 Test Flight Deemed a SuccessBR> BR> By ANGELA K. BROWNBR> The Associated PressBR> Saturday, December 16, 2006; 12:03 AMBR> BR> FORT WORTH, Texas -- The new stealth fighter jet that will replace anBR> aging fleet of military planes experienced a largely successful firstBR> flight Friday, with only a minor glitch, Lockheed Martin Corp.BR> officials said. Jon S. Beesley, chief test pilot for the Joint StrikeBR> Fighter, also known as the F-35, said the plane handled "marvelously,"BR> performed flawlessly and flew better than the simulator. He flew toBR> 15,000 feet, escorted by three jets that provided safety and tookBR> pictures. "It was a great adventure," he said. "Today really startedBR> the opening for me for the rest of this greatest fighter program inBR> history where we're going to go forward and develop this great weaponsBR> system that will protect everybody, and that's what it's all about."BR> Officials initially said the test flight would last an hour; BeesleyBR> flew for 35 minutes. One of two air data sensors was not operatingBR> properly, he said. Although it did not pose a danger, the procedureBR> called for ending the flight at that time, preventing completion of theBR> remaining few tests, including raising the landing gear, officialsBR> said. "Certainly to fly this first flight with the duration of almostBR> 40 minutes and to only have this single warning appear in the pilot'sBR> display related to this sensor is remarkable, and we're really pleasedBR> with the quality of this first jet," said Dan Crowley, executive viceBR> president and general manager of the Joint Strike Fighter program.BR> Runway tests that began last week were completed this week. OfficialsBR> had been waiting for good weather for the maiden flight, which almostBR> didn't happen Friday because of fog and wind. Security was tight FridayBR> at Lockheed's Fort Worth facility, where the flight took place. ButBR> hundreds of cars parked on the side of the road outside the plant nearBR> the runway, many people holding video cameras in hopes of catching aBR> glimpse of the supersonic jet, as word spread of the test flight. ManyBR> cheered as the plane took off. Lockheed employees gathered near theBR> runway also applauded, and some were moved to tears as the gray jetBR> took off, said some officials, who reported receiving phone calls fromBR> other countries as soon as news spread of the flight. "I would callBR> this the flight that was heard round the world," said Tom Burbage,BR> executive vice president for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. andBR> general manager for the Joint Strike Fighter program integration.BR> Beesley, who was greeted with roaring cheers as he stepped out of theBR> cockpit after landing, later said the plane will continue test flightsBR> next week. Brig. Gen. Charles R. Davis, the program executive officerBR> for the F-35 Lightning II program office in Arlington, Va., said thisBR> jet was the first of 20 planes to be built at Lockheed's Fort WorthBR> plant that will have test flights there over the next 18 months. AfterBR> 10 years of development, Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin is movingBR> to the early stages of production for what could be thousands ofBR> fighter jets for the American military and eight countries _ andBR> possibly the largest defense contract ever, $275 billion over the nextBR> two decades. The U.S. plans to use the F-35 to replace aging planesBR> used by the Marines, Air Force and Navy, including jets like the F-16,BR> the F-18 and the Harrier jet. Lockheed and its subcontractors areBR> making three different versions that will be used by the differentBR> branches. The Marine version will be able to make vertical takeoffs.BR>/FONT/BODY/HTML ------=_NextPart_000_0060_01C723AB.CB4E13E0-- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"F-35 Test Flight Deemed a Success"
OK, couple of good comments in the replys
- stealth needed for the high threat IADS - better technology always assumed since in fact it is newer First day war needs stealth but this I think is the role being laid for the F-22 that will not require tanks or racks to keep its stealth value, whereas the JSF still would have to have a load with it and in the end it would compromise its stealth requiring "suppression", stand off or escort or onboard "jamming", diversion tactics, etc, in the way the F-117's had to play. So I still wonder what we are really buying. "Old" F-15's and F-16's and F-18's can be made new and for sure the F/A-18E/F may be in the JSF class as to internal systems and OBOGS and modernized self-support features - but - all of this is retrofitable to the fleet of these lets say legacy aircraft including the AESA radar features which already is underway. Now the internal FLIR and night attack features of the JSF for the current wars and near future are matched well by the family of advanced targeting pods (LITENING, SNIPER, FLIR AT, ATLAS, etc) so in effect all of the aircraft share around the same range - payload - performance - night capability with the Strike Eagle edging out on top with the brute force cpabilities and the JSF holding still to a more refined cockpit and stealth when you button it up. The mission planning and off board stuff could all trickle down to all the platforms. What we can't do well in all of these machines is strafe: the F-18 and F-15 have canted guns that makes it dicey, the F-16 has a boresight system but a small ammo load and the JSF is a no can do - for Iraq and Afghanistan that is a tough call. And even the A-10 with the 30 mm is wished now to have a smaller gun to make less collateral damage. Well what about the Rapiers and handheld IR SAM's - every one of these jets are too hot, too contrast prone for low altitude and all the too noisy - so they use countermeasures, tactics, and agility which is sometimes not enough. But for sure the Apache has been ruled out and the Cobra given real trouble. If the JSF did not cost three times an F-16 or twice a F-15E then you might say lets press with the F-35 and let the maturity build up fix all this, but with the F-35 is dragging dozens of billions of dollars in investment that goes into its employment - money i think we can not afford now. Just for grins think of an extended development JSF leveraging all the good things now realized but add a real laser weapon to rid it totally of racks, weapons, and pylons - then merge in the UCAS/UCAV ideas of creating both manned and un-manned versions, then to balance out dropping the STOVL (most costly investment) move to a vectored thrust system that would really help the unmanned version and be a safety factor to the manned. All this 10 or 15 years down the road when knocking on Iran's or North Korea's front door would be very realistic and this done at around $4 billion a year, something of a 80% savings to invest in infrastructure and this COIN Air Component idea. wrote in message ups.com... Ski wrote: The JSF (F-35) is clearly a nice aircraft but can any of you tell me what the JSF offers that is not available now in the aircratf it intends to replace. When considering the present wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, where we seem to need more Close Air Support (CAS) kind of machines that can both strafe and engage an enemy with small blast weapons (gun, rockets, Hellfire, etc) and the occassional PGM Bomb, what does the JSF offer over just producing more F-15 / F-16 / F-18 aircraft and if anything finding a follow-on for something more like an A-10 then a high performance fighter. I suspect the F-35 may have arrived on scene a decade or two sooner then desired. Better technology at a lower(hopefully) price? F-15/16/18 tewcnology is old, like it or not. A single seat, very manuverable, F/A-35, with great avionics will be able to do better CAS than the Warthog. "Mike" wrote in message ps.com... F-35 Test Flight Deemed a Success By ANGELA K. BROWN The Associated Press Saturday, December 16, 2006; 12:03 AM FORT WORTH, Texas -- The new stealth fighter jet that will replace an aging fleet of military planes experienced a largely successful first flight Friday, with only a minor glitch, Lockheed Martin Corp. officials said. Jon S. Beesley, chief test pilot for the Joint Strike Fighter, also known as the F-35, said the plane handled "marvelously," performed flawlessly and flew better than the simulator. He flew to 15,000 feet, escorted by three jets that provided safety and took pictures. "It was a great adventure," he said. "Today really started the opening for me for the rest of this greatest fighter program in history where we're going to go forward and develop this great weapons system that will protect everybody, and that's what it's all about." Officials initially said the test flight would last an hour; Beesley flew for 35 minutes. One of two air data sensors was not operating properly, he said. Although it did not pose a danger, the procedure called for ending the flight at that time, preventing completion of the remaining few tests, including raising the landing gear, officials said. "Certainly to fly this first flight with the duration of almost 40 minutes and to only have this single warning appear in the pilot's display related to this sensor is remarkable, and we're really pleased with the quality of this first jet," said Dan Crowley, executive vice president and general manager of the Joint Strike Fighter program. Runway tests that began last week were completed this week. Officials had been waiting for good weather for the maiden flight, which almost didn't happen Friday because of fog and wind. Security was tight Friday at Lockheed's Fort Worth facility, where the flight took place. But hundreds of cars parked on the side of the road outside the plant near the runway, many people holding video cameras in hopes of catching a glimpse of the supersonic jet, as word spread of the test flight. Many cheered as the plane took off. Lockheed employees gathered near the runway also applauded, and some were moved to tears as the gray jet took off, said some officials, who reported receiving phone calls from other countries as soon as news spread of the flight. "I would call this the flight that was heard round the world," said Tom Burbage, executive vice president for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. and general manager for the Joint Strike Fighter program integration. Beesley, who was greeted with roaring cheers as he stepped out of the cockpit after landing, later said the plane will continue test flights next week. Brig. Gen. Charles R. Davis, the program executive officer for the F-35 Lightning II program office in Arlington, Va., said this jet was the first of 20 planes to be built at Lockheed's Fort Worth plant that will have test flights there over the next 18 months. After 10 years of development, Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin is moving to the early stages of production for what could be thousands of fighter jets for the American military and eight countries _ and possibly the largest defense contract ever, $275 billion over the next two decades. The U.S. plans to use the F-35 to replace aging planes used by the Marines, Air Force and Navy, including jets like the F-16, the F-18 and the Harrier jet. Lockheed and its subcontractors are making three different versions that will be used by the different branches. The Marine version will be able to make vertical takeoffs. ------=_NextPart_000_0060_01C723AB.CB4E13E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Google-AttachSize: 6051 !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" HTMLHEAD META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3020" name=GENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD BODY DIVFONT face=Arial size=2FONT face="Arial Narrow"STRONGThe JSF (F-35)/STRONG/FONT STRONGFONT face="Arial Narrow"is clearly a nice aircraft but can any of you tell me what the JSF offers that is not available now in the aircratf it intends to replace. When considering the present wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, where we seem to need more Close Air Support (CAS) kind of machines that can both strafe and engage an enemy with small blast weapons (gun, rockets, Hellfire, etc) and the occassional PGM Bomb, what does the JSF offer over just producing more F-15 / F-16 / F-18 aircraft and if anything finding a follow-on for something more like an A-10 then a high performance fighter. I suspect the F-35 may have arrived on scene a decade or two sooner then desired. /FONT/STRONG/FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2/FONT /DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2/FONT /DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2/FONT /DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2"Mike" </FONTA "FONT face=Arial /FONT/AFONT face=Arial size=2> wrote in message /FONTA legroups.com"FONT face=Arial glegroups.com/FONT/AFONT face=Arial size=2.../FONT/DIVFONT face=Arial size=2> F-35 Test Flight Deemed a SuccessBR> BR> By ANGELA K. BROWNBR> The Associated PressBR> Saturday, December 16, 2006; 12:03 AMBR> BR> FORT WORTH, Texas -- The new stealth fighter jet that will replace anBR> aging fleet of military planes experienced a largely successful firstBR> flight Friday, with only a minor glitch, Lockheed Martin Corp.BR> officials said. Jon S. Beesley, chief test pilot for the Joint StrikeBR> Fighter, also known as the F-35, said the plane handled "marvelously,"BR> performed flawlessly and flew better than the simulator. He flew toBR> 15,000 feet, escorted by three jets that provided safety and tookBR> pictures. "It was a great adventure," he said. "Today really startedBR> the opening for me for the rest of this greatest fighter program inBR> history where we're going to go forward and develop this great weaponsBR> system that will protect everybody, and that's what it's all about."BR> Officials initially said the test flight would last an hour; BeesleyBR> flew for 35 minutes. One of two air data sensors was not operatingBR> properly, he said. Although it did not pose a danger, the procedureBR> called for ending the flight at that time, preventing completion of theBR> remaining few tests, including raising the landing gear, officialsBR> said. "Certainly to fly this first flight with the duration of almostBR> 40 minutes and to only have this single warning appear in the pilot'sBR> display related to this sensor is remarkable, and we're really pleasedBR> with the quality of this first jet," said Dan Crowley, executive viceBR> president and general manager of the Joint Strike Fighter program.BR> Runway tests that began last week were completed this week. OfficialsBR> had been waiting for good weather for the maiden flight, which almostBR> didn't happen Friday because of fog and wind. Security was tight FridayBR> at Lockheed's Fort Worth facility, where the flight took place. ButBR> hundreds of cars parked on the side of the road outside the plant nearBR> the runway, many people holding video cameras in hopes of catching aBR> glimpse of the supersonic jet, as word spread of the test flight. ManyBR> cheered as the plane took off. Lockheed employees gathered near theBR> runway also applauded, and some were moved to tears as the gray jetBR> took off, said some officials, who reported receiving phone calls fromBR> other countries as soon as news spread of the flight. "I would callBR> this the flight that was heard round the world," said Tom Burbage,BR> executive vice president for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. andBR> general manager for the Joint Strike Fighter program integration.BR> Beesley, who was greeted with roaring cheers as he stepped out of theBR> cockpit after landing, later said the plane will continue test flightsBR> next week. Brig. Gen. Charles R. Davis, the program executive officerBR> for the F-35 Lightning II program office in Arlington, Va., said thisBR> jet was the first of 20 planes to be built at Lockheed's Fort WorthBR> plant that will have test flights there over the next 18 months. AfterBR> 10 years of development, Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin is movingBR> to the early stages of production for what could be thousands ofBR> fighter jets for the American military and eight countries _ andBR> possibly the largest defense contract ever, $275 billion over the nextBR> two decades. The U.S. plans to use the F-35 to replace aging planesBR> used by the Marines, Air Force and Navy, including jets like the F-16,BR> the F-18 and the Harrier jet. Lockheed and its subcontractors areBR> making three different versions that will be used by the differentBR> branches. The Marine version will be able to make vertical takeoffs.BR>/FONT/BODY/HTML ------=_NextPart_000_0060_01C723AB.CB4E13E0-- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"F-35 Test Flight Deemed a Success"
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 03:25:22 GMT, "Ski"
wrote: OK, couple of good comments in the replys - stealth needed for the high threat IADS - better technology always assumed since in fact it is newer First day war needs stealth but this I think is the role being laid for the F-22 that will not require tanks or racks to keep its stealth value, whereas the JSF still would have to have a load with it and in the end it would compromise its stealth requiring "suppression", stand off or escort or onboard "jamming", diversion tactics, etc, in the way the F-117's had to play. Remember that F-22 is primarily an air dominance fighter. It will have A/G capability, but that is augmentation of the basic mission rather than predominant. Raptors will insure that the US record of controlling the sky over the battle area remains as it has for the last 55 years. F-35 is very stealthy, but you can parallel the 22/35 synergy to 15/16 roles. There is limited mission cross-over for both pairs, but the basic mission relationship applies. So I still wonder what we are really buying. "Old" F-15's and F-16's and F-18's can be made new and for sure the F/A-18E/F may be in the JSF class as to internal systems and OBOGS and modernized self-support features - but - all of this is retrofitable to the fleet of these lets say legacy aircraft including the AESA radar features which already is underway. Now the internal FLIR and night attack features of the JSF for the current wars and near future are matched well by the family of advanced targeting pods (LITENING, SNIPER, FLIR AT, ATLAS, etc) so in effect all of the aircraft share around the same range - payload - performance - night capability with the Strike Eagle edging out on top with the brute force cpabilities and the JSF holding still to a more refined cockpit and stealth when you button it up. The mission planning and off board stuff could all trickle down to all the platforms. The major differences in the new generation are stealth and data fusion. Stealth adds immeasurably to the survivability of the system and as an add-on benefit it requires the internalization of those systems which you list as bolt-ons. The bolt-ons were technology of a time that didn't worry about observability issues and did need fairly large processors and hard-coded software. Current technology allows built-ins with much smaller space requirements and much more flexible updating. The real quantum leap forward of the new aircraft is in the transparent merging of data from multiple sources and sensors. Where the 15/16 aircraft had fixed, forward looking radar as the primary sensor, the new aircraft provide full spherical coverage and presentation of prioritized data in a way that is much more manageable. And, don't even begin to bring in off-the-wall cost figures for comparison. Upgrading a pair of 30-40 year old airframes for new production with state-of-the-art technology would not be cheap and would still leave you with a comprised system that would be woefully out of date in another decade. In other words a very short-term solution which simply defers the high-cost investment. What we can't do well in all of these machines is strafe: the F-18 and F-15 have canted guns that makes it dicey, the F-16 has a boresight system but a small ammo load and the JSF is a no can do - for Iraq and Afghanistan that is a tough call. And even the A-10 with the 30 mm is wished now to have a smaller gun to make less collateral damage. Repeat after me: "STRAFING IS STUPID!" There are RARE occasions when strafe is a necessary alternative. But they are very much the exception. In general the cost-benefit discussion of strafe effectiveness is that it is very difficult to balance the risk to a $100M airframe against the damage to the enemy. Gotta kill a lot of $10K trucks to balance one loss. CAS is continuing to morph into a stand-off delivery game. The troops-in-contact provide accurate coordinates or laser-designation and the stand-off platform dumps iron on the cross-hairs. It isn't as glamorous as snake-n-nape at 50 feet, but it is much more accurate and effective. Well what about the Rapiers and handheld IR SAM's - every one of these jets are too hot, too contrast prone for low altitude and all the too noisy - so they use countermeasures, tactics, and agility which is sometimes not enough. But for sure the Apache has been ruled out and the Cobra given real trouble. Stand-off, stand-off, stand-off. The new jets aren't that hot or noisy, but there isn't that much requirement for low altitude work. MANPADS have always been the threat to rotary wing systems and slow-movers, but seldom of great concern to fast-movers. If the JSF did not cost three times an F-16 or twice a F-15E then you might say lets press with the F-35 and let the maturity build up fix all this, but with the F-35 is dragging dozens of billions of dollars in investment that goes into its employment - money i think we can not afford now. Have you heard of the concept of "sunk costs"? The front-end costs are expended and the product is nearing production. What we can't afford is to suddenly decide that the decisions of the last fifteen years of the program were all wrong and we need to regress to 1970 technology. Just for grins think of an extended development JSF leveraging all the good things now realized but add a real laser weapon to rid it totally of racks, weapons, and pylons - then merge in the UCAS/UCAV ideas of creating both manned and un-manned versions, then to balance out dropping the STOVL (most costly investment) move to a vectored thrust system that would really help the unmanned version and be a safety factor to the manned. All this 10 or 15 years down the road when knocking on Iran's or North Korea's front door would be very realistic and this done at around $4 billion a year, something of a 80% savings to invest in infrastructure and this COIN Air Component idea. What a collection of garbled concepts. Of course there will be extended development and weaponry upgrades. That is always the case. First generation laser weapons are more likely to be large platform than tactical aircraft. Think satellite or AC(B)-2 Spirit. You don't need unmanned versions of manned aircraft--you sacrifice too much weight and support systems to make it practical. Build a dedicated unmanned platform. Drop STOVL but build a "vectored thrust system"? Do it but don't? Iran and N. Korea aren't 10-15 years down the road. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"F-35 Test Flight Deemed a Success"
Listen to Ed, Ski, he has been there and done that. Read his books, and
you will understand why. Ed Rasimus wrote: On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 03:25:22 GMT, "Ski" wrote: OK, couple of good comments in the replys - stealth needed for the high threat IADS - better technology always assumed since in fact it is newer First day war needs stealth but this I think is the role being laid for the F-22 that will not require tanks or racks to keep its stealth value, whereas the JSF still would have to have a load with it and in the end it would compromise its stealth requiring "suppression", stand off or escort or onboard "jamming", diversion tactics, etc, in the way the F-117's had to play. Remember that F-22 is primarily an air dominance fighter. It will have A/G capability, but that is augmentation of the basic mission rather than predominant. Raptors will insure that the US record of controlling the sky over the battle area remains as it has for the last 55 years. F-35 is very stealthy, but you can parallel the 22/35 synergy to 15/16 roles. There is limited mission cross-over for both pairs, but the basic mission relationship applies. So I still wonder what we are really buying. "Old" F-15's and F-16's and F-18's can be made new and for sure the F/A-18E/F may be in the JSF class as to internal systems and OBOGS and modernized self-support features - but - all of this is retrofitable to the fleet of these lets say legacy aircraft including the AESA radar features which already is underway. Now the internal FLIR and night attack features of the JSF for the current wars and near future are matched well by the family of advanced targeting pods (LITENING, SNIPER, FLIR AT, ATLAS, etc) so in effect all of the aircraft share around the same range - payload - performance - night capability with the Strike Eagle edging out on top with the brute force cpabilities and the JSF holding still to a more refined cockpit and stealth when you button it up. The mission planning and off board stuff could all trickle down to all the platforms. The major differences in the new generation are stealth and data fusion. Stealth adds immeasurably to the survivability of the system and as an add-on benefit it requires the internalization of those systems which you list as bolt-ons. The bolt-ons were technology of a time that didn't worry about observability issues and did need fairly large processors and hard-coded software. Current technology allows built-ins with much smaller space requirements and much more flexible updating. The real quantum leap forward of the new aircraft is in the transparent merging of data from multiple sources and sensors. Where the 15/16 aircraft had fixed, forward looking radar as the primary sensor, the new aircraft provide full spherical coverage and presentation of prioritized data in a way that is much more manageable. And, don't even begin to bring in off-the-wall cost figures for comparison. Upgrading a pair of 30-40 year old airframes for new production with state-of-the-art technology would not be cheap and would still leave you with a comprised system that would be woefully out of date in another decade. In other words a very short-term solution which simply defers the high-cost investment. What we can't do well in all of these machines is strafe: the F-18 and F-15 have canted guns that makes it dicey, the F-16 has a boresight system but a small ammo load and the JSF is a no can do - for Iraq and Afghanistan that is a tough call. And even the A-10 with the 30 mm is wished now to have a smaller gun to make less collateral damage. Repeat after me: "STRAFING IS STUPID!" There are RARE occasions when strafe is a necessary alternative. But they are very much the exception. In general the cost-benefit discussion of strafe effectiveness is that it is very difficult to balance the risk to a $100M airframe against the damage to the enemy. Gotta kill a lot of $10K trucks to balance one loss. CAS is continuing to morph into a stand-off delivery game. The troops-in-contact provide accurate coordinates or laser-designation and the stand-off platform dumps iron on the cross-hairs. It isn't as glamorous as snake-n-nape at 50 feet, but it is much more accurate and effective. Well what about the Rapiers and handheld IR SAM's - every one of these jets are too hot, too contrast prone for low altitude and all the too noisy - so they use countermeasures, tactics, and agility which is sometimes not enough. But for sure the Apache has been ruled out and the Cobra given real trouble. Stand-off, stand-off, stand-off. The new jets aren't that hot or noisy, but there isn't that much requirement for low altitude work. MANPADS have always been the threat to rotary wing systems and slow-movers, but seldom of great concern to fast-movers. If the JSF did not cost three times an F-16 or twice a F-15E then you might say lets press with the F-35 and let the maturity build up fix all this, but with the F-35 is dragging dozens of billions of dollars in investment that goes into its employment - money i think we can not afford now. Have you heard of the concept of "sunk costs"? The front-end costs are expended and the product is nearing production. What we can't afford is to suddenly decide that the decisions of the last fifteen years of the program were all wrong and we need to regress to 1970 technology. Just for grins think of an extended development JSF leveraging all the good things now realized but add a real laser weapon to rid it totally of racks, weapons, and pylons - then merge in the UCAS/UCAV ideas of creating both manned and un-manned versions, then to balance out dropping the STOVL (most costly investment) move to a vectored thrust system that would really help the unmanned version and be a safety factor to the manned. All this 10 or 15 years down the road when knocking on Iran's or North Korea's front door would be very realistic and this done at around $4 billion a year, something of a 80% savings to invest in infrastructure and this COIN Air Component idea. What a collection of garbled concepts. Of course there will be extended development and weaponry upgrades. That is always the case. First generation laser weapons are more likely to be large platform than tactical aircraft. Think satellite or AC(B)-2 Spirit. You don't need unmanned versions of manned aircraft--you sacrifice too much weight and support systems to make it practical. Build a dedicated unmanned platform. Drop STOVL but build a "vectored thrust system"? Do it but don't? Iran and N. Korea aren't 10-15 years down the road. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"F-35 Test Flight Deemed a Success"
Listen to Ed, Ski, he has been there and done that. Read his books, and
you will understand why. Ed makes valid points, but I think there's one point that cuts to the heart of this. Are you willing to trade money for lives? Better planes will save lives. You could win against any current, or future (10-20 year) opponent with end of Gulf War technology (AMRAAM being critical). Absolutely no dire need for F-22 or -35, no matter who says it. Period. Ain't no one in a place to challenge the US military on conventional grounds. Not even close. Not even a distant second. Not even China + Iran + North Korea (the latter is a joke now). If the US took off its "kids gloves" and waged full conventional warfare, perhaps only China, Russia, and India could stand for more than a week. And each would most certainly fall. Versus all three at once, maybe. Without counting specifics, you get the point. So why keep building new planes? Well, I think the incredibly low casualty figures for the USAF and USN in the last 15 years speak the reason. No, those new jets aren't needed to get the job done. But yes, the extra money will make improvements that save lives. And given the current political climate, humanitarian reasons (and pilot preference!) aside, that seems to make a lot of military sense. You can't win wars that the public doesn't let you fight, so keep casualties down, improve accuracy to reduce collatoral damage, and you get to do a lot more damage, with a lot less "unwanted" death. That's the biggest reason I can think of for building those planes. TV |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"F-35 Test Flight Deemed a Success"
TV wrote: Listen to Ed, Ski, he has been there and done that. Read his books, and you will understand why. Ed makes valid points, but I think there's one point that cuts to the heart of this. Are you willing to trade money for lives? Better planes will save lives. You could win against any current, or future (10-20 year) opponent with end of Gulf War technology (AMRAAM being critical). Absolutely no dire need for F-22 or -35, no matter who says it. Period. Don't agree...and you even mentioned China. It doesn't have to be a WWlll type scenario to 'need' stealthy A/C..How about when(not if) China decides it wants Taiwan back? China has NOT sat still as they design and buy Russian and Euro technology. Altho a sliver of the tech, Euro-fighter, Rafale, Flanker/Fulcrum follow-ons are not to be sneared at. Ain't no one in a place to challenge the US military on conventional grounds. Not even close. Balderdash...4 years into an ill concieved 'war' with no end in sight. Your thinking of large, massed armies going toe to toe is not realistic. Not even a distant second. Not even China + Iran + North Korea (the latter is a joke now). If the US took off its "kids gloves" and waged full conventional warfare, perhaps only China, Russia, and India could stand for more than a week. And each would most certainly fall. Versus all three at once, maybe. Without counting specifics, you get the point. So why keep building new planes? Well, I think the incredibly low casualty figures for the USAF and USN in the last 15 years speak the reason. No, those new jets aren't needed to get the job done. But yes, the extra money will make improvements that save lives. And given the current political climate, humanitarian reasons (and pilot preference!) aside, that seems to make a lot of military sense. You can't win wars that the public doesn't let you fight, so keep casualties down, improve accuracy to reduce collatoral damage, and you get to do a lot more damage, with a lot less "unwanted" death. That's the biggest reason I can think of for building those planes. TV |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CFI without commercial? | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 75 | December 8th 10 04:17 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
Washington DC airspace closing for good? | tony roberts | Piloting | 153 | August 11th 05 12:56 AM |
ramifications of new TSA rules on all non-US and US citizen pilots | paul k. sanchez | Piloting | 19 | September 27th 04 11:49 PM |