Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
This is a medium volume pinglist.
Posted on 06/28/2007 5:04:11 PM PDT by nypokerface
FORT WORTH, Texas, June 28 (UPI) -- All three versions of the U.S. Joint Strike Fighter have now cleared the final milestone needed before entering the production phase.
The carrier version of the cutting-edge F-35 recently passed its Air System Critical Design Review, putting it on track for Low Rate Initial Production.
The conventional and short-takeoff, vertical landing variants of the plane passed the CDR earlier and have been approved for LRIP.
"The die is now fully cast for the unique, three-variant Joint Strike Fighter program envisioned when the planning began in the late 1990s," said Air Force Brig. Gen. C.R. Davis, the JSF Program Executive Officer.
Lockheed Martin said in a statement Thursday that the naval variant, designated the F-35C, had an extra 200 pounds shaved off its design prior to the CDR.
The F-35C will be the Navy's first stealthy plane and will eventually replace the F/A-18 Hornet and fly alongside the newer F/A-18E/F Super Hornet as the main combat assets of U.S. naval aviation. The F-35A is the conventional version for the Air Force and will supplant the F-16 and A-10 attack planes beginning in 2010 while the F-35B will replace the Harrier jets flown by the U.S. Marines and the British military.
Lockheed is also eyeing major foreign markets for the JSF.
The A-10 has just recently been upgraded with more powerful engines. One technician told me “now it won’t get all those bird strikes from behind”.
Also, we are now upgrading A-10’s with digital cockpits and full color displays. I had one F-16 pilot mutter under his breath while at a viewing of the new upgrades, “what the hell? They get a cockpit and instruments better than us? That’s not fair.”
With the new digital cockpit they will be able to act as a central hub for relaying information and calling in air strikes on targets.
The ground-side combat controller will be able to relay their position and the position of the enemy with a PDA. The A-10 pilot can then designate a weapon off the information received or electronically order another aircraft in to attack if he is out of weapons, or outbound from the site to refuel, without even breaking radio silence. The pilots’ information can now be updated continuously like email and provides a full color rolling map so they don’t have to draw positions on a paper map with a grease pencil.
The plans is to have the A-10 upgraded in order to stick around till least 2025.
As for an USN F-35. One engine aircraft while flying mainly over water.....Don't like the concept...Nor do most in the Navy that I've spoken with.
Furthermore, yes! When the idea is for the F-35 to replace the A-10....That it can't do the job of CAS as well....I most certainly am against it. CAS has saved thousands of U.S.lives in the last several years alone...and killed thousands more of our enemy. The F-35 simply cannot fill the role that the A-10 currently does (Thankfully more and more are admitting this reality).
And to make the F-35 carry the payloads that 18's typically do on CAS....Doesn't the 35 have to then go to the wing pylons (thus eliminating a large % of its stealth advancements over 18s).
Plus, how many 18F's can we put out at the cost of these 35s (that don't provide that much more of a benefit).
The USN would have been much better off going to a F-22 Naval version....While keeping the F-18Fs for CAS & Attack roles....
Speaking of ‘navalizing’, I was at a recent air show.
Looked over an F-15E Strike Eagle.
It had an arresting hook. ??
Asked the pilot about it. All he said was ‘they all do’.
Why the hook? Carrier capable?
Attack & Recon helicopters have been invaluable in both Iraq and Stan. They have been a tremendous success. Most of the losses sustained have not been while being on the attack....but more when flying the virtual MSR in the sky's (and not altering course, speeds, elevations enough). Same problems we encounter on the ground via the MSR (only they have an easier time being able to do such).
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
This is a medium volume pinglist.
Have you actually seen an A-10 fully loaded? You can't be stealthy with all that hardware hanging from the wings. And there's no way you can store it all inside the airframe and still have a nimble craft like the A-10.
You start storing all that ordinance inside an aircraft; they call them bombers. Those we got.
...guys on the ground would take a Warthog (10) providing CAS over an 18 just about every time...
On what do you base this? And in what IADS environment do you think your solution is better? If I can drop a 500lb GPS guided munition within 2 meters from 10-20 thousand feet, what is a warthog going to do any better? The answer is the only thing the A-10 can excel at is its use of canon against moving armored targets. Its very efficient at that. But there are many other platforms that can do this mission, too.
As for an USN F-35. One engine aircraft while flying mainly over water...
The reason for dual engine preference for Naval blue water ops was engine reliability. Have you seen the reliability numbers for F-35? They are way above previous designs. Not that I wouldn't prefer multi-engine myself, but you can't argue with the logic in the decision...cost, weight both lower, equal or better reliability.
When the idea is for the F-35 to replace the A-10...The F-35 simply cannot fill the role that the A-10 currently ...
It wasn't and it doesn't, but it will be up to the AF to propose the A-10 replacement at some point. Dont jump all over the folks who got the second of only two new production combat aircraft in 25 years for doing their jobs...
And to make the F-35 carry the payloads that 18's typically do on CAS....Doesn't the 35 have to then go to the wing pylons...
You need to study up on future ordnance...
Plus, how many 18F's can we put out at the cost of these 35s (that don't provide that much more of a benefit).
All new A/C are expensive. F-35 can operate in an IADS environment that the Hornet would be a sitting duck in. The Hornet is a lot of things but stealthy is not one of them.
The USN would have been much better off going to a F-22 Naval version...
And they would have had to give up half their carriers to afford it, even if they could have modified F-22 to fly from a carrier.
I am not trying to poop on your concerns, I just think you aren't giving credit that is due here. No airframe is the solution to everything, but F-35 is well thought out and well designed from both operations and cost/maintenance perspectives.
Even AF combat aircraft have arresting gear for field arrested landings in case of emergencies like lost engine, hydraulics, brakes....They are not designed to withstand the pounding of carrier landings.
Almost all military fields have arresting gear for these emergencies.
Carrier landings require much stronger landing gear than USAF aircraft possess.
The hook on a USAF fighter is for emergency use only. It wasn’t designed for carrier landings — in some situations, they can stretch an arresting cable across a runway.
The airframe would need extensive inspection and at least some repairs after using the hook.
Also, the arresting cable is always there, you just roll over it if your hook is up. When you have an emergency in the air, you dont want to have to wait for someone to ‘stretch’ the cable before you put it on deck.
FRegards
O.K. O.K. we need stealthy ordinance then.. and pilons..
Stealth cruise missiles should be standard procedure.. even stealth air to air missles.. That way the targets radar would not hes in danger..
Thanks thats good news.. An A-10 in action is military poetry..
I want to put this politely, since I am sure you are sincere if a little ignorant about stealth...you make ordnance stealthy by hiding it inside the airframe. Things with edges and angles like pylons and missile fins are radar replectors, so you try to minimize them in the airfarme design. Material properties also matter. Pylons are usually 'hard', while skin coverings can be made from stealthy composites. Theres a lot more to it than this, but I think you will get the point.
Dont take my 'ignorance' comment the wrong way. All ignorance is cured by education.
Thats what they said about airplanes a few short years ago..
Are they still bent on mothballing the A-10? The F-35 simply can't do what the A-10 does.
What's the rationale, besides the low sexiness-factor of the A-10?
“...guys on the ground would take a Warthog (10) providing CAS over an 18 just about every time...
On what do you base this? And in what IADS environment do you think your solution is better? If I can drop a 500lb GPS guided munition within 2 meters from 10-20 thousand feet, what is a warthog going to do any better? The answer is the only thing the A-10 can excel at is its use of canon against moving armored targets. Its very efficient at that. But there are many other platforms that can do this mission, too.”
What can a Warthog do? First off, it doesn’t drop ordinance on my position instead of the guy I’m trying to kill. Secondly, the Warthog driver can visually identify his target so that he doesn’t waste expensive guided weapons on Yugos with a phone pole through the front window that the Serbs put out as decoys and our Air Force misidentified as tanks, engaging them with guided weapons.
Hanging around at 20,000ft might make Air Force mission planners happy because they don’t have to take ground fire, but it wastes ordinance and it causes accidents like some guy in a fast mover who’d rather be pretending he’s the Red Baron, dropping ordinance on me.
Bottom line here is that I trust a pilot in an airplane using the M-1 Eyeball and some judgement a whole lot more than I trust a bunch of transistor twidget stuff at 20,000 where the pilot can’t identify anything and which because of time compression because he’s moving too fast, he can’t set up the shot for accurate weapons delivery anyway, let
alone discriminate between ground decoys, the enemy and me.
That guided crap looks good on paper, but it ain’t always so out on the sharp end.
“I’m not so sure the A-10 would be “toast” as you say. However, I would very much like to see what could be built on a clean sheet of paper with the lessons learned from the A-10. Otherwise, the A-10 is a flying tank that has great loiter time, firepower and survivability for its pilot and itself. Still...I bet we could do even better! A faster A-10?”
Imagine yourself in a low, slow A-10 coming in for a strafing run...then four shoulder launched AA missiles are streaking in from all around you.
It’ll be a nice memorial service.
The current solution is a minimum altitude of 10,000 ft. The other option, 25 feet off the deck, is practical for helicopters but not for jets.
Even 70 ton ACTUAL tanks are vulnerable to shoulder launched missiles. There is no such thing as a “flying tank”. There are somewhat more durable airplanes.
BS. Air Force CAS is a last resort for the guys on the ground.
No. It will be an improvement payload wise over the Harrier but other performance claims/issues need to be proven.
Thanks
One of the demonstrations at the air show was an A-10 making strafing runs at an imaginary target in front of the crowd.
Impressive.
I’d hate to be in front of that beast for real.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.