"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.

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.

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

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--

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--

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

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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Repeat after me: "STRAFING IS STUPID!"

There are RARE occasions when strafe is a necessary alternative. But
they are very much the exception.


"A fighter without a gun...is like an airplane without a wing."
--Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.


Jack

Good discussion and I respect what Ed says immensely however gentlemen there
are some very critical differences being experienced in counter-insurgency
warfare now underway in Iraq and Iran and for the moment I want you to stop
looking around the world and realize that we must now bring an end to these
hostilities and it will take a good measure of air power to return the third
dimension to the fight simply because the Army failed to do that when its
"boots on the ground efforts" recognized that the armed helicopter (mostly
Apache and Kiawa) were now unrealiable against a ground sprinkled with armed
insurgents shooting wildly at them from all directions (Cobra II Chapter 14
and Fiasco Chapter 6). The war, which again remmebr is costing billions
every month and is taking nearly one hundred lives every month with many
more wounded has gone on now for five years. So at the moment we are not
looking at a conventional war with China or an invasion of North Korea, we
are focused on Iraq and Afghanistan for this next budget cycle and for the
next few years. We can not afford the new technology breakers that cannot
be applied to these conflicts in good measure and something has to give. We
no longer can deal with "nice to have" and starfing "may be stupid" in most
fighter pilots eyes but our of necessity in this war because of the caveats
of collateral damage and the vulnerability of the attack helicopters fighter
aircart are being asked to come in and strafe - and they do. And note that
just recently an F-16 killed itself either out of ground fixation or ground
fire, but in essence it was close to the ground and firing on the enemy.

A new F-15E or F-16C or F/A-18E coming off the production line is in no way
an "old" aircraft when considering whether it can do a job or not. These
machines have been continually maturing and continually improve to the point
that now they are more capable in just about every category of fighter
comparisons that you can think of except the materials and shapes that lend
itself to so called stealth features. To say that the JSF has a mystical
integrative advantage over the F-15E is simply a case of displays, antennas,
and circuit boards because the ever changing software tapes are deliberately
held up as different beasts in different models because we have long past
the day when you could distinguish the difference between an F-16 or F-18 or
F-15 or B-2 or JSF radar - it is just boards, components and software - all
of which is grossly overpriced and enornmously over-paced to drag out the
whole process as if we really were designing and developing something so
critically different.

Gentlemen - these wars are about reliable platforms that can duke it with a
lightly armed but numerous ground threats that simply overwhelm the space
around which our outnumbered and not-so mobile troops are forced to operate
in environments that are not tactically smart yet forced because the mission
implies a presence (boots on the ground), small units, and unfortulately for
all the failures of the great technologists and IT'ists, and band width
masters we find that in reality almost every one of the small unit patrols
and convoys that venture out beyond their safe zone go without a direct
linked eye-in-the-sky to support them for the duration of their mission. The
technologists promised them this and it fell through and now we have to fill
in gaps with everything we can use because we do not have a survivable Blitz
fighter (cross between A-10 and AH-64) that can support the troops. We could
argue this five years ago, but its 2 billion a week, 3000 lives, and still
operations without a clear strategy and time is wasting - the JSF has to go
and we will use the billions it is sucking up to flood into the war zones
enough air power to do the job. I think it would be wise to extend the
development of the JSF so that down the road it may merge with things that
could better use its qualities - lasers, unmanned, etc., but to say it is
the maneuveruing wonderdog of the next generation fighter force is like
saying the the P-40 should replace the P-51's - no guys, we have all got to
get out collective heads out of our asses and look to what is happening in
COIN warfare and realize a step back for the moment may really be the case
needed yet there are small diamonds of technoklogy that still need to be
used - it is in that integration we can overcome the air needs of urban-COIN
warfare.

So as much as we like Ed and his writes, Ed also has to think about what is
going on and come to grips with the mess that the air-ground efforts are in.
Something went so wrong after Gulf War I and now the fixes I am saying may
not again reflect the needs for a North Korea, but for OIF and OEF they
certainly make a point. The direct manned ISR, the "shooter" with you, the
"eye-in-the-sky" attached to every unit, the forcing of the enemy tyo
recognize that day or night there are small aircraft and UAV's overhead
watching and ready to shoot something and ground units that have a renewed
offensiveness in capability to do their presence mission better.

For the overall umbrella and border areas, the President then gets his
"hammer" to change the course of any incursion any challenge from outside

Extorsion of money from a lot of "co-operant", more exactly co-slaved
countries !!!