This is a discussion on F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; In the Friday, Feb 3 daily report, put out by the Air Force Magazine, Secretary Michael Donley stated he is ...
In the Friday, Feb 3 daily report, put out by the Air Force Magazine, Secretary Michael Donley stated he is tired of answering questions about the Air Force committment to the size of the F-35 fleet, insisting that "those are questions for the2020s". He stated this in response to a reporters question, Feb 2, 2012 in Arlington, Va. asking if the Air Force was going to buy new F-16s to hold the Air Force over until F-35 production was up to speed, Secretary Donley stated it was far more practical to upgrade current F-16s.
Thanks for that link, is this the centre barrel upgrade?
I was under the impression that the centres were not as bad as first thought and we could get the extra airframe life out of the classic Hornet fleet due to the fact they have not seen the stress of carrier landings.
L-3 is the Canadian company did the center barrel, so it's possible.
I don't know what this part of the contract includes, perhaps someone else does, I've seen it said on a forum that we need to keep about 50 minimum
Thanks for that link, is this the centre barrel upgrade?
I was under the impression that the centres were not as bad as first thought and we could get the extra airframe life out of the classic Hornet fleet due to the fact they have not seen the stress of carrier landings.
I haven't seen the contract obviously but I suspect not. I'd suggest it's an enhancement of the "discrete structural modification" project (blending and patching"as they are known) operations undertaken during varying servicing phases designed to address fatigue problem areas as they find them, or potential problems that may occur later.
Thanks for that link, is this the centre barrel upgrade?
I was under the impression that the centres were not as bad as first thought and we could get the extra airframe life out of the classic Hornet fleet due to the fact they have not seen the stress of carrier landings.
There are several areas of ongoing concern for the Hornet fleet beside the center barrell replacement, to include airleron hinges, leading edge flap actuators, and nose landing gear, the SLEP is always faithfull to bring the aircraft back to the highest standards possible and while the initial SLEP extended the aircraft life from 6000 hours to 8500 hours, now we're talking 9000 to 10000 hours. As USN/MAR aircraft get a very detailed log review, aircraft that have had a more difficult service life are moved to less strenous assignments and replaced by lower timed aircraft. I believe there is a numerical limit on cat launches and I'm not aware of how that is affected by the SLEP, I would be interested in hearing .
I haven't seen the contract obviously but I suspect not. I'd suggest it's an enhancement of the "discrete structural modification" project (blending and patching"as they are known) operations undertaken during varying servicing phases designed to address fatigue problem areas as they find them, or potential problems that may occur later.
Yes and now to muddy the waters further, BHOs acquisition czar is going to pile on the poor little F-35 and try to make political hay. Its ashamed that politicians get to play these games and Mr. Kendall is certainly gamey. It would be nice to get back to business on the JSF as it really does sound like they have some solutions for the buffeting and structural issues and now is the time to get it up and running as opposed to exclaiming all over again how did this happen? I believe most of us will agree we got the cart before the horse, but now its time to get back to business. The Hornet also had vertical stab issues very similar to the F-35, and ended up being an aircraft like nothing else up to that time, with some hard work and dedication the F-35 could follow that leader.
Now that Obama has outlined the cuts for the USAF that they'd have a total number of aircraft closer to 1,000 than 2,000. Do you folks now think that a 3,000 F-35 purchase is now practically impossible?
Up to today, all cost projections are based on a 3,000 fighter purchase. I don't think the international orders will ever cover for what the US will cut. The DOD did say they're not going to make any decisions until 2017 on that, but my hunch is that they're probably buy a LOT less than 3,000 aircraft -- perhaps 1,000 F-35s total including international orders. And if I'm right, that will probably double the cost of the F-35, no?
The United States Air Force (USAF) variant of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 will likely fail to meet two of the Korean Air Force’s key requirements — the ability to carry weapons externally and fly at Mach 1.6 (1,930 kilometers per hour) or faster, an industry insider said Tuesday.
He pointed out that the Korean military has clearly outlined the two key features as compulsory requirements in its request for proposal (RFP) released Jan. 30.
“The maximum speed of the F-35 Lightning II, which is still under development, is Mach 1.6, the bare minimum the Air Force has stated as a mandatory requirement,” the insider familiar with the RFP said.
Let me be very clear, The F35 is an awesome concept that should be fully developed and implemented, definitely!
I would though venture to say the following:
F35A scrap the idea, why? Simple, the F35C has larger wings and more range etc.
So what I mean is develop the F35C to allow the same 9G capabilities as the F35A.
It also means that there then is greater commonality. I'm just trying to be practical, all you have to do is remove or not use the tail-hook of the F35C in the F35A environment.
The F35C design also incorporates the stronger undercarriage which will allow a measure of operation from austere fields in an emergency.
The F35B should be placed on the back burner and technology in propulsion etc. allowed to mature for a few years i.e. get the thing to function properly without a glitch then produce it. Take your time on this one and do it rite!!
The UK has changed their CV requirement to the CATOBAR concept and so no F35B to them in the short to medium term.
Now getting to the heart of the matter.
The US and it's allies should use the 1 in 3 formula as it concerns 5th generation fighter technology deployment i.e. 1 fifth generation fighter alongside 2 fourth generation fighters.
Most countries in which wars are fought are not advanced to the level of the USA and Russia etc. So you don’t need huge numbers of 5th generation aircraft. Just enough to destroy the opponents C4i and Anti-Air infrastructure, this usually happens in the first week or so. After that, use legacy fighters because they are cheaper to operate. Oh yes very important. The A10 should never be scrapped, it is legacy must have and production of an updated version should be restarted if necessary, its simply to crucial a technology to loose, rugged, reliable and tough as nails, need I say more? The F16 and F35 can't replace it.
So again, please complete the F35 properly and implement A.S.A.P!
Military technology is the basis of most civilian technology and we all need the latest good stuff to make a positive difference in society on many levels.
Italy bought its first three F-35As on 8 February, 2012 for US $80 million each. They expect the price to fall when production speeds up to US $70 million each for the As, and US $73 million each for the Bs. Italy paid US $79 million for Typhoons.
Hi i'm just wondering if LM offered the jsf to india that must mean it is capable of opertaing from a small aircraft carrier say 40,000 tons which would also mean that the naval variant could theoretically operate from the new USS America class assault ships if they fitted it with a launch system. I personaly think that the Jsf'b should be scrapped because if u take a likely adversary that America is liable to face over the next ten years they all have a credible strike capability which means the US is never going to send assault ships in without proper CV support which would make the Jsf'b redundant anyway.It would be far better for the USMC to be able to provide an extra Jsf'c squadron to rotate from the main CV's than just provide minimal support with just say 6-8 aircraft.
Also hasn't the jsf been flown to mach 1.6 and 9.9g which is pretty good in anyones books it sounds alot like similiar performance capability's as the old jaguar but with much better range and power and the jaguar performed very well on numerous occasions against so called better aircraft.
I know i'm going on a bit but the eurofighter losing the Japanese contract i think was down to the British government not willing YET AGAIN to back industry because we need Mpa's which japan has just developed and transporters i'm sure s deal could have been done which would have been beneficial to both countries
