Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/30/2014 7:24:28 AM EST
Link

The Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is on track for sea trials onboard the carrier USS Nimitz (CVN-65) in November off the West Coast. That is despite flight envelope restrictions imposed after an engine fire destroyed a land-based F-35A aircraft on take-off in July.

“The event we have planned in November to bring to two C-model F-35s to an aircraft carrier on the U.S. West Coast is still on track,” JSF program manager Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan told reporters at an F-35 Joint Executive Steering Board (JESB) meet in Oslo, Norway, on Thursday.
View Quote


Important to note that this is Developmental testing. Initial Operational Capability is slated for 2018-2019.
Link Posted: 9/30/2014 7:27:15 AM EST
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years.
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 10:13:40 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 10:19:12 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Josh:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years.
View Quote
why is the C version so much further behind in IOC?

I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets?
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 10:19:58 AM EST
Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Link

The Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is on track for sea trials onboard the carrier USS Nimitz (CVN-65) in November off the West Coast. That is despite flight envelope restrictions imposed after an engine fire destroyed a land-based F-35A aircraft on take-off in July.

“The event we have planned in November to bring to two C-model F-35s to an aircraft carrier on the U.S. West Coast is still on track,” JSF program manager Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan told reporters at an F-35 Joint Executive Steering Board (JESB) meet in Oslo, Norway, on Thursday.
View Quote


Important to note that this is Developmental testing. Initial Operational Capability is slated for 2018-2019.
View Quote


At this rate, it'll be obsolete before it becomes "operational".
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 10:23:40 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2014 10:25:56 AM EST by ASUsax]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hater:
why is the C version so much further behind in IOC?

I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hater:
Originally Posted By Josh:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years.
why is the C version so much further behind in IOC?

I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets?


Yes, they pushed the B-version. The USMC's birds are very long in the tooth.

That's been mitigated somewhat by the purchase of the entire UK Harrier fleet, some with very low hours, but the plan was set before anyone knew that would be an option.

ETA: The USMC still has F/A-18A's in service. Those are old by any definition.
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 10:25:23 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hater:
why is the C version so much further behind in IOC?

I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hater:
Originally Posted By Josh:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years.
why is the C version so much further behind in IOC?

I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets?


C is the smallest buy

Navy needed it less than the USMC/USAf

B has a large FMS component
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 10:25:59 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FreeBear:


At this rate, it'll be obsolete before it becomes "operational".
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FreeBear:
Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Link

The Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is on track for sea trials onboard the carrier USS Nimitz (CVN-65) in November off the West Coast. That is despite flight envelope restrictions imposed after an engine fire destroyed a land-based F-35A aircraft on take-off in July.

“The event we have planned in November to bring to two C-model F-35s to an aircraft carrier on the U.S. West Coast is still on track,” JSF program manager Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan told reporters at an F-35 Joint Executive Steering Board (JESB) meet in Oslo, Norway, on Thursday.


Important to note that this is Developmental testing. Initial Operational Capability is slated for 2018-2019.


At this rate, it'll be obsolete before it becomes "operational".



It is a huge cash cow.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 10:30:20 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By H46Driver:


C is the smallest buy

Navy needed it less than the USMC/USAf

B has a large FMS component
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Originally Posted By Hater:
Originally Posted By Josh:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years.
why is the C version so much further behind in IOC?

I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets?


C is the smallest buy

Navy needed it less than the USMC/USAf

B has a large FMS component
I guess that's one way to subsidize and/or encourage allied aircraft carriers, even if they are smaller than our CVN's. Design the complicated aircraft for them and eat a lot of the development costs.
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 10:40:28 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ASUsax:


Yes, they pushed the B-version. The USMC's birds are very long in the tooth.

That's been mitigated somewhat by the purchase of the entire UK Harrier fleet, some with very low hours, but the plan was set before anyone knew that would be an option.

ETA: The USMC still has F/A-18A's in service. Those are old by any definition.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ASUsax:
Originally Posted By Hater:
Originally Posted By Josh:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years.
why is the C version so much further behind in IOC?

I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets?


Yes, they pushed the B-version. The USMC's birds are very long in the tooth.

That's been mitigated somewhat by the purchase of the entire UK Harrier fleet, some with very low hours, but the plan was set before anyone knew that would be an option.

ETA: The USMC still has F/A-18A's in service. Those are old by any definition.

The only F/A-18As in service with the 3rd MAW in 2004 was in VMFAT-101, which was a training squadron.
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 10:42:02 AM EST
F-22 FTW
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 4:28:41 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hater:
why is the C version so much further behind in IOC?

I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hater:
Originally Posted By Josh:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years.
why is the C version so much further behind in IOC?

I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets?


They needed the B model first, because the Navy bought another round of Super Hornets to gap fill until the C model hits IOC.

In reality, the A model should never have been developed. The USAF should have been given the C model.
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 4:32:46 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Josh:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years.
View Quote

Reading between the lines...it means they'll be "flying," but that's about it. The closest thing to being "operational" and "armed" would be if the pilot has a pistol on him.
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 4:34:11 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Aussie first flight
View Quote
That Aussie pilot needs to lay off the cheeseburgers
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 4:37:58 PM EST
That is one ugly plane?


Would fly faster if that australian pilot stayed away from the barbie
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 4:45:36 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Reading between the lines...it means they'll be "flying," but that's about it. The closest thing to being "operational" and "armed" would be if the pilot has a pistol on him.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Originally Posted By Josh:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years.

Reading between the lines...it means they'll be "flying," but that's about it. The closest thing to being "operational" and "armed" would be if the pilot has a pistol on him.


Depends on which model. OT squadron might be flying the C, but not Fleet squadrons. The B - next year I think it hits Fleet squadrons.
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 4:48:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2014 4:51:47 PM EST by peekay]
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 4:49:24 PM EST
Nimitz is not CVN-65 that was the Enterprise then they built two oil burners 66 and 67 then the Nimitz was CVN-68
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 5:37:53 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Reading between the lines...it means they'll be "flying," but that's about it. The closest thing to being "operational" and "armed" would be if the pilot has a pistol on him.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Originally Posted By Josh:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years.

Reading between the lines...it means they'll be "flying," but that's about it. The closest thing to being "operational" and "armed" would be if the pilot has a pistol on him.


IOC in 2018. They will already be in operational squadrons, armed, and deploying by IOC.
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 6:03:53 PM EST
I don't recall if the C model "went to the boat" previously, but I believe it flunked the first round of carrier suitability trials, namely the ability to catch a wire reliably.
The back end of the airplane dealing with the hook configuration required substantial redesign resulting in the long delay being experienced. Presumably the new configuration has passed simulated carrier landings on land, and they're ready to head to sea once again. If my recollection is faulty, I'm sure somebody will provide a correction.
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 6:10:50 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 6:11:24 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Josh:


They needed the B model first, because the Navy bought another round of Super Hornets to gap fill until the C model hits IOC.

In reality, the A model should never have been developed. The USAF should have been given more F-22's the C model.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By Hater:
Originally Posted By Josh:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years.
why is the C version so much further behind in IOC?

I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets?


They needed the B model first, because the Navy bought another round of Super Hornets to gap fill until the C model hits IOC.

In reality, the A model should never have been developed. The USAF should have been given more F-22's the C model.


Fixed it for you.
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 6:12:08 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By skipsan:
I don't recall if the C model "went to the boat" previously, but I believe it flunked the first round of carrier suitability trials, namely the ability to catch a wire reliably.
The back end of the airplane dealing with the hook configuration required substantial redesign resulting in the long delay being experienced. Presumably the new configuration has passed simulated carrier landings on land, and they're ready to head to sea once again. If my recollection is faulty, I'm sure somebody will provide a correction.
View Quote


You're right on the hook redesign, but I believe they found that in land testing. I don't believe they ever went to sea.
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 6:20:18 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By stanag4179:
Nimitz is not CVN-65 that was the Enterprise then they built two oil burners 66 and 67 then the Nimitz was CVN-68
View Quote


How the hell did they screw up that little detail?

I remember when Nimitz was the newest carrier. Now it's the oldest active one.
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 6:31:10 PM EST
Reminded me of this
Link Posted: 10/1/2014 6:39:57 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 4:58:07 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Josh:

IOC in 2018. They will already be in operational squadrons, armed, and deploying by IOC.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Originally Posted By Josh:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years.

Reading between the lines...it means they'll be "flying," but that's about it. The closest thing to being "operational" and "armed" would be if the pilot has a pistol on him.

IOC in 2018. They will already be in operational squadrons, armed, and deploying by IOC.

Doubt it. The goal line always moves for this bitch.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 5:35:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2014 5:35:42 AM EST by Bullet_]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Slufstuff:


Fixed it for you.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Slufstuff:
Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By Hater:
Originally Posted By Josh:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years.
why is the C version so much further behind in IOC?

I understand the A version is the simplest of the three, but did they push the B-Marine version faster because the Harriers and Hornets were wearing out, whereas the Navy had newer Super Hornets?


They needed the B model first, because the Navy bought another round of Super Hornets to gap fill until the C model hits IOC.

In reality, the A model should never have been developed. The USAF should have been given more F-22's the C model.


Fixed it for you.


The graft and consultant jobs on the F-22 were too few and already handed out regardless.
Procurement must move FORWARD!
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 5:38:39 AM EST
I am very nervous about these F-35's
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 5:49:01 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigPony:
I am very nervous about these F-35's
View Quote

Go on.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 5:52:05 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bullet_:

Go on.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bullet_:
Originally Posted By BigPony:
I am very nervous about these F-35's

Go on.


Only 1 engine. I know it worked ok for the F-16 but it still makes me nervous ...
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 6:04:10 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FreeBear:


At this rate, it'll be obsolete before it becomes "operational".
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FreeBear:
Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Link

The Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is on track for sea trials onboard the carrier USS Nimitz (CVN-65) in November off the West Coast. That is despite flight envelope restrictions imposed after an engine fire destroyed a land-based F-35A aircraft on take-off in July.

“The event we have planned in November to bring to two C-model F-35s to an aircraft carrier on the U.S. West Coast is still on track,” JSF program manager Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan told reporters at an F-35 Joint Executive Steering Board (JESB) meet in Oslo, Norway, on Thursday.


Important to note that this is Developmental testing. Initial Operational Capability is slated for 2018-2019.


At this rate, it'll be obsolete before it becomes "operational".


Kind of scary isn't it?
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 6:19:25 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigPony:


Only 1 engine. I know it worked ok for the F-16 but it still makes me nervous ...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigPony:
Originally Posted By Bullet_:
Originally Posted By BigPony:
I am very nervous about these F-35's

Go on.


Only 1 engine. I know it worked ok for the F-16 but it still makes me nervous ...


You'd be right to be nervous.

Compressor stall caused by ingesting steam from the catapult during take off is one of the reasons the Navy got away from single engine planes the first time.

At +$120million each, every time it happens with this plane and an aircraft is lost, the crash will negate the savings to the program from only having one engine.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 8:50:50 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AeroE:


First the launch bar had to be redesigned to reach the shuttle. Fundamental failures of geometry on both ends of the airplane.

We're stuck with them, and the good news is that the next fighter series will come from LM. Most likely that will fulfill Norm Augustine's prediction; one airplane that every pilot shares, and hopefully the readiness rate is high enough to keep three or four of them current.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AeroE:
Originally Posted By skipsan:
I don't recall if the C model "went to the boat" previously, but I believe it flunked the first round of carrier suitability trials, namely the ability to catch a wire reliably.
The back end of the airplane dealing with the hook configuration required substantial redesign resulting in the long delay being experienced. Presumably the new configuration has passed simulated carrier landings on land, and they're ready to head to sea once again. If my recollection is faulty, I'm sure somebody will provide a correction.


First the launch bar had to be redesigned to reach the shuttle. Fundamental failures of geometry on both ends of the airplane.

We're stuck with them, and the good news is that the next fighter series will come from LM. Most likely that will fulfill Norm Augustine's prediction; one airplane that every pilot shares, and hopefully the readiness rate is high enough to keep three or four of them current.


<em style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'trebuchet ms'; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
Law Number XVI: In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3-1/2 days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.

[/span]
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:49:17 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Doubt it. The goal line always moves for this bitch.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Originally Posted By Josh:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years.

Reading between the lines...it means they'll be "flying," but that's about it. The closest thing to being "operational" and "armed" would be if the pilot has a pistol on him.

IOC in 2018. They will already be in operational squadrons, armed, and deploying by IOC.

Doubt it. The goal line always moves for this bitch.


It's flying now. I doubt it's going to move much more, if at all. It's just like every other major weapon system development in the last three decades.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:58:11 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BigPony:
I am very nervous about these F-35's
View Quote



So am I. If, IF, the technology pans out like they plan for it, it may become the greatest military aircraft ever. If it does not, it will set our military back decades paying for it. Kind of like when an NFL team would draft a QB high in the draft before the rookie salary cap. If the QB was a bust it set the team back many years, and this plane is either going to be peyton manning or ryan leaf.

YMMV.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 10:37:08 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bullet_:


You'd be right to be nervous.

Compressor stall caused by ingesting steam from the catapult during take off is one of the reasons the Navy got away from single engine planes the first time.

At +$120million each, every time it happens with this plane and an aircraft is lost, the crash will negate the savings to the program from only having one engine.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bullet_:
Originally Posted By BigPony:
Originally Posted By Bullet_:
Originally Posted By BigPony:
I am very nervous about these F-35's

Go on.


Only 1 engine. I know it worked ok for the F-16 but it still makes me nervous ...


You'd be right to be nervous.

Compressor stall caused by ingesting steam from the catapult during take off is one of the reasons the Navy got away from single engine planes the first time.

At +$120million each, every time it happens with this plane and an aircraft is lost, the crash will negate the savings to the program from only having one engine.


We fixed the steam ingestion stall problem in the A-7 in the late 60's by modifying the engine. We've been testing the JSF engines against the issue since 2003.

I've heard of it happening one time in an F/A-18 series aircraft.

One might also note that CVN-78 class will not have steam catapults.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 11:02:23 AM EST
Other than the extreme costs and the "can kicked down the road" release dates, why all the F-35 hate? I see them in flight almost daily. The F-35B can stop mid air with no issues. Hell, our V-22s have crashed more than the 35s.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 11:08:33 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Army_of_One:
Other than the extreme costs and the "can kicked down the road" release dates, why all the F-35 hate? I see them in flight almost daily. The F-35B can stop mid air with no issues. Hell, our V-22s have crashed more than the 35s.
View Quote


It's mostly people who are pissed the F22 was canxed and believe that the JSF is a piece of shit because it's not an F22.

The other group is people who think weapons development is cheap and the JSF is too expensive. I tend to agree that that its development was expensive, but it's a great capability increase in a whole lot of ways for all the services. My main gripe with it is that there was zero need to make three variants -- all we needed was the B and C models and the USAF could have flown the C model without any issues -- the capability differences between the A and C models are not enough to justify carrying both in inventory, and the A model cannot be CVN capable, so they should have canxed the A model.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 5:37:57 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Josh:

We fixed the steam ingestion stall problem in the A-7 in the late 60's by modifying the engine. We've been testing the JSF engines against the issue since 2003.

I've heard of it happening one time in an F/A-18 series aircraft.

One might also note that CVN-78 class will not have steam catapults.
View Quote

I've seen the video of a F-18 getting a compressor stall. I think it's happened a lot more than once.
The odds that it only happened once and during that one time there was also a camera man filming is miniscule at best.

There's only going to be one Ford coming into service every 6 years, the vast majority of F-35's will live out most of their lives on Nimitz carriers.
Considering how LM fucked up the known-known of tail-hook geometry, I'm not getting my hopes up that they made the 35's invulnerable to steam induced CS.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 5:56:03 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Josh:

It's mostly people who are pissed the F22 was canxed and believe that the JSF is a piece of shit because it's not an F22.

View Quote


Two camps with some overlap. First camp is what Josh describes above - the "we should only be buying F-22s" group that sees F-35 as a waste because it lacks the badass kinematics of the F-22. They think that the F-35 isn't high performance enough.

The second camp is the Super Tucano/A-10 fanboy crowd. They think that the F-35 is gold plated and too high performance to be an effective mud mover.

There is significant overlap between the two camps - that's the bang-for-the-buck crowd who just think F-35 costs too much for the capability it will deliver.

Link Posted: 10/2/2014 6:30:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2014 6:33:16 PM EST by Slufstuff]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By H46Driver:


Two camps with some overlap. First camp is what Josh describes above - the "we should only be buying F-22s" group that sees F-35 as a waste because it lacks the badass kinematics of the F-22. They think that the F-35 isn't high performance enough.

The second camp is the Super Tucano/A-10 fanboy crowd. They think that the F-35 is gold plated and too high performance to be an effective mud mover.

There is significant overlap between the two camps - that's the bang-for-the-buck crowd who just think F-35 costs too much for the capability it will deliver.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Originally Posted By Josh:

It's mostly people who are pissed the F22 was canxed and believe that the JSF is a piece of shit because it's not an F22.



Two camps with some overlap. First camp is what Josh describes above - the "we should only be buying F-22s" group that sees F-35 as a waste because it lacks the badass kinematics of the F-22. They think that the F-35 isn't high performance enough.

The second camp is the Super Tucano/A-10 fanboy crowd. They think that the F-35 is gold plated and too high performance to be an effective mud mover.

There is significant overlap between the two camps - that's the bang-for-the-buck crowd who just think F-35 costs too much for the capability it will deliver.



The F-22 fleet was gutted because the unit costs for the F-35A was supposed to be roughly half that of the F-22A. That was the whole rationale. Now that the F-35A costs just as much as the F-22A, there is no doubt the USAF is getting the shaft (from it's own senior leadership). Whether you believe in the magic helmet or not, the F-22A is superior to the F-35A in every measurable performance parameter. FOR THE SAME MONEY, we could have a full fleet of more capable aircraft. But the F-22A ship has sailed, so for the sake of our pilots, I hope the avionics perform as advertised. And yes, I am very skeptical.

The F-35B would be an "OK" program if it had been left alone as a Harrier replacement.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 6:51:46 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Josh:
It's mostly people who are pissed the F22 was canxed and believe that the JSF is a piece of shit because it's not an F22.

View Quote


I believe the F-35A's status as a POS can stand on it's own merits.

Seriously, the design is very compromised by maintaining commonality with the F-35B. (which was largely undone by the extreme weight reduction measures in the F-35B to get that pig down to a functional weight) F-35A Performance is not only degraded, but cannot be "fixed" since a lot of it is directly tied to the overly wide and deep fuselage needed to accomodate all the VSTOL equipment. I do not have a major problem with the F-35B as a Harrier replacement. But the F-35A is a flawed aircraft. It will be produced in big numbers and declared a success. But just like the F-111 from 40+ years earlier, it will only be viable as an attack/strike aircraft.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 9:23:08 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bullet_:

I've seen the video of a F-18 getting a compressor stall. I think it's happened a lot more than once.
The odds that it only happened once and during that one time there was also a camera man filming is miniscule at best.

There's only going to be one Ford coming into service every 6 years, the vast majority of F-35's will live out most of their lives on Nimitz carriers.
Considering how LM fucked up the known-known of tail-hook geometry, I'm not getting my hopes up that they made the 35's invulnerable to steam induced CS.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bullet_:
Originally Posted By Josh:

We fixed the steam ingestion stall problem in the A-7 in the late 60's by modifying the engine. We've been testing the JSF engines against the issue since 2003.

I've heard of it happening one time in an F/A-18 series aircraft.

One might also note that CVN-78 class will not have steam catapults.

I've seen the video of a F-18 getting a compressor stall. I think it's happened a lot more than once.
The odds that it only happened once and during that one time there was also a camera man filming is miniscule at best.

There's only going to be one Ford coming into service every 6 years, the vast majority of F-35's will live out most of their lives on Nimitz carriers.
Considering how LM fucked up the known-known of tail-hook geometry, I'm not getting my hopes up that they made the 35's invulnerable to steam induced CS.


There's one video that I could find. The F/A-18 has been operational for what, three decades now?

And every launch and every recovery is filmed.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 11:02:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2014 11:03:19 PM EST by Bullet_]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Josh:


There's one video that I could find. The F/A-18 has been operational for what, three decades now?

And every launch and every recovery is filmed.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By Bullet_:
Originally Posted By Josh:

We fixed the steam ingestion stall problem in the A-7 in the late 60's by modifying the engine. We've been testing the JSF engines against the issue since 2003.

I've heard of it happening one time in an F/A-18 series aircraft.

One might also note that CVN-78 class will not have steam catapults.

I've seen the video of a F-18 getting a compressor stall. I think it's happened a lot more than once.
The odds that it only happened once and during that one time there was also a camera man filming is miniscule at best.

There's only going to be one Ford coming into service every 6 years, the vast majority of F-35's will live out most of their lives on Nimitz carriers.
Considering how LM fucked up the known-known of tail-hook geometry, I'm not getting my hopes up that they made the 35's invulnerable to steam induced CS.


There's one video that I could find. The F/A-18 has been operational for what, three decades now?

And every launch and every recovery is filmed.

I'll concede that I can't find any more examples either.

What do you think the odds are that LM fucked up the F-35C and it is vulnerable to CS?
I'd almost like to take bets that LM never actually tested for it outside computer simulation, if at all.


Link Posted: 10/3/2014 12:15:01 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bullet_:

I'll concede that I can't find any more examples either.

What do you think the odds are that LM fucked up the F-35C and it is vulnerable to CS?
I'd almost like to take bets that LM never actually tested for it outside computer simulation, if at all.


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bullet_:
Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By Bullet_:
Originally Posted By Josh:

We fixed the steam ingestion stall problem in the A-7 in the late 60's by modifying the engine. We've been testing the JSF engines against the issue since 2003.

I've heard of it happening one time in an F/A-18 series aircraft.

One might also note that CVN-78 class will not have steam catapults.

I've seen the video of a F-18 getting a compressor stall. I think it's happened a lot more than once.
The odds that it only happened once and during that one time there was also a camera man filming is miniscule at best.

There's only going to be one Ford coming into service every 6 years, the vast majority of F-35's will live out most of their lives on Nimitz carriers.
Considering how LM fucked up the known-known of tail-hook geometry, I'm not getting my hopes up that they made the 35's invulnerable to steam induced CS.


There's one video that I could find. The F/A-18 has been operational for what, three decades now?

And every launch and every recovery is filmed.

I'll concede that I can't find any more examples either.

What do you think the odds are that LM fucked up the F-35C and it is vulnerable to CS?
I'd almost like to take bets that LM never actually tested for it outside computer simulation, if at all.




Their engine has been extensively tested irl, since at least 2003. It's almost like they knew it was important to address the issue somehow.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 12:28:52 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 12:31:57 AM EST
Does the C in F-35C stand for Cuckold?
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 12:32:20 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Josh:


IOC in 2018. They will already be in operational squadrons, armed, and deploying by IOC.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Originally Posted By Josh:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years.

Reading between the lines...it means they'll be "flying," but that's about it. The closest thing to being "operational" and "armed" would be if the pilot has a pistol on him.


IOC in 2018. They will already be in operational squadrons, armed, and deploying by IOC.



IOC is initial, not full operational capability. IOC squadrons do not deploy, FOC ones do. I'll believe the IOC date when we see the B model reach IOC next year, as promised (well the fourth or fifth schedule slip anyway).
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 4:35:28 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:



IOC is initial, not full operational capability. IOC squadrons do not deploy, FOC ones do. I'll believe the IOC date when we see the B model reach IOC next year, as promised (well the fourth or fifth schedule slip anyway).
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Originally Posted By Josh:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years.

Reading between the lines...it means they'll be "flying," but that's about it. The closest thing to being "operational" and "armed" would be if the pilot has a pistol on him.


IOC in 2018. They will already be in operational squadrons, armed, and deploying by IOC.



IOC is initial, not full operational capability. IOC squadrons do not deploy, FOC ones do. I'll believe the IOC date when we see the B model reach IOC next year, as promised (well the fourth or fifth schedule slip anyway).


IOC is defined by the service. Navy will deploy VAW-125, the E-2D IOC squadron, this spring, before any other deploying squadron has its complement of 5 E-2Ds. We deploy at IOC all the time.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 4:39:03 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By H46Driver:



IOC is defined by the service. Navy will deploy VAW-125, the E-2D IOC squadron, this spring, before any other deploying squadron has its complement of 5 E-2Ds. We deploy at IOC all the time.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By Josh:
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Originally Posted By Josh:
For all the naysaying... For better or worse we'll be flying them in operational squadrons in the next two years.

Reading between the lines...it means they'll be "flying," but that's about it. The closest thing to being "operational" and "armed" would be if the pilot has a pistol on him.


IOC in 2018. They will already be in operational squadrons, armed, and deploying by IOC.



IOC is initial, not full operational capability. IOC squadrons do not deploy, FOC ones do. I'll believe the IOC date when we see the B model reach IOC next year, as promised (well the fourth or fifth schedule slip anyway).



IOC is defined by the service. Navy will deploy VAW-125, the E-2D IOC squadron, this spring, before any other deploying squadron has its complement of 5 E-2Ds. We deploy at IOC all the time.


the E-2D is an update to a design that has been in service for decades, pretty low risk vs an entirely unproven airframe.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top