"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

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

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

On 21 Dec 2006 05:52:03 -0800, wrote:


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.

You selectively edited TV's comment to imply the opposite of what he
said. He points out the dollar versus lives value of advanced
technology and the difference between long and short term planning. He
further notes that the value placed on warrior lives is both immediate
for the warrior and political for the government decision-makers. The
total argument concludes (as do you here) that while you could vote
short term retro-fit of teen-fighters, the better choice for beyond
current scenarios is the high-tech investment.


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.

The "war" was over when Baghdad fell. The reconstruction and
democratization which is being attempted is a considerably different
issue. We are not well served by the continued failure by the media to
ignore the distinction between the war and the current efforts at
establishing security against the sectarian violence.

Buying fighters based on what is going on in Iraq is a non-sequitur.

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.

While I could make a good, albeit emotional, argument regarding the
preference of tactical crewmembers for aircraft that are survivable,
you note very properly the reluctance of American's namby-pamby
generations to see combat through to a decisive conclusion when the
body-bags start appearing.

I watched Patton again last night and was really struck by the opening
speech in front of the giant flag--it was so true in the '40s and so
regretably gone today.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com