|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jul 11, 2009 19:13:42 GMT 12
Israel orders 1st stealth F-35 squadron By YAAKOV KATZ www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443770618&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull"Israel moved a step closer to receiving its first stealth fighter jets this week after the Israel Air Force submitted an official Letter of Request (LOR) to the Pentagon to purchase its first squadron of 25 F-35 stealth fighter jets. Also known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the F-35 will be one of the most-advanced fighter jets in the world and will enable Israel to phase out some of its older F-15 and F-16 models. The JSF is manufactured by Lockheed Martin. Defense officials said that while the LOR was submitted this week, negotiations regarding the final price of the plane - estimated at around $100 million - as well as the integration of Israeli systems would continue. The LOR will be followed by the signing of a contract in the beginning of 2010. The first aircraft are scheduled to arrive in Israel in 2014. The first stage of the deal will be the purchase of 25 aircraft, which will compromise the first Israeli F-35 squadron. In a later stage, the IAF plans to purchase an additional 50 aircraft, some of them with vertical take-off and landing capabilities. According to senior IDF officers, the Defense Ministry and the Pentagon have reached understandings on most of the major issues that have been at the core of disagreement between the sides. Israeli demands have focused on three issues - the integration of Israeli-made electronic warfare systems into the plane, the integration of Israeli communication systems and the ability to independently maintain the plane in the event of a technical or structural problem."
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jul 16, 2009 12:47:21 GMT 12
VIDEO: Lockheed Martin lifts veil on F-35 factory By Stephen Trimble on July 15, 2009 www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/07/video-lockheed-martin-lifts-ve.html"This video, posted yesterday on YouTube, shows the all the good and bad points about the F-35 factory in Fort Worth, Texas. You see the electronic mate and alignment system (EMALS), the sophisticated tool where the wings and fuselage are joined together. But you also see the distant wing assembly area, which is currently located far from the desired production flow. You also see the static final assembly line. In 2011, this part of the line is supposed to start moving. And you also see workers working in horizontal positions, which is only necessary to complete out-of-sequence, or "travelled", work. By 2016, Lockheed plans to be delivering F-35s the way Boeing currently delivers 737s and Airbus builds A320s -- at peak rates of one per day." Video: (20Mb .FLV)
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jul 17, 2009 12:38:01 GMT 12
New stealth tricks in store for F-35? By Stephen Trimble on July 16, 2009 www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/07/new-stealth-tricks-in-store-fo.html"Aerospace blogger and journalist Dave Majumdar, a contributor to The DEW Line, has interviewed Lockheed Martin and F-35 program officials in advance of roll-out of CF-1, the first prototype of the naval variant. Debuting on the July 28 is the US Navy's first all-aspect stealth aircraft, the F-35C. Designed to meet the stringent requirements for a "very long range, very low observable, first day of war strike aircraft", the "F-35 has all-aspect stealth", said Steve Weatherspoon, Lockheed Martin's Deputy Test Verification officer for the F-35 Integrated Test Force. The naval variant "was designed from the beginning to operate in the maritime environment", said Steve O'Bryan, a Lockheed Martin Vice President for Business Development. According to O'Bryan, the aircraft's radar absorbent coatings were designed to be able to withstand daily exposure to the high temperatures, salt water, and chemicals encountered onboard an aircraft carrier. O'Bryan adds that the new coatings will be "resilient" enough that the aircraft's radar cross section will not suffer when it is scratched, chipped, or cracked "during day-to day operations in a naval environment". This should greatly reduce the maintenance burden for the Navy, he said. Craig Williams, head of Business Development for the F-35C at Lockheed Martin, explains that the new coatings are "less ornate" than previous incarnations of radar absorbent materials (RAM). The new compounds dispense with the "silver paint" primers found in previous designs, "completely eliminating" the hazardous and difficult substance. In order to validate the performance of the new low-observable (LO) materials, Williams explained that "coupons" of the compound are being tested "on the beach" and "at sea" for "days, weeks, months, and years at a time". The new coatings have also been tested in a specially designed chamber where they have been exposed to "salt fog" and gases such as sulfur dioxide, which would be encountered under operational conditions. To ensure that the LO seal of the aircraft is not routinely broken, Williams explains that "natural openings" are utilized for maintenance as often as possible. These "natural openings" include the wheel wells and the weapons bays among others. Where access is not possible through these openings, access panels are provided. O'Bryan points out the baseline requirements for the JSF program mandate that the jet be "twice as reliable as a late model F-16 or F/A-18", which should substantially reduce the need to break open the LO seals under operation conditions. Furthermore, "everything faced during F-22 operations has been improved upon", Williams said, reflecting upon the "lessons learned" from that program. Recently, he added that he had attended a meeting where JSF program officials met with their F-22 counterparts. According to Williams, the verdict from the F-22 officials was that "every possible lesson learned" from the Raptor had been incorporated into the Lightning II. First flight for the F-35C is scheduled for the end of the year, after which the aircraft will head to NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, in the first half of 2010."
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jul 24, 2009 6:40:41 GMT 12
I am NOT making this up! (my jokes should be measured on the rictus scale by the way) ;D Air Warfare Symposium - Orlando February 17, 2005www.afa.org/media/scripts/Teets_Jumper_AWS05.aspQ: Is the Air Force [USAF] still interested in the STOVAL version of the F-35? Do you have an idea about roughly what quantity you'd be looking at for that? Secretary Teets: F-35 has to play into this whole QDR picture that we talked about earlier. So I will say yes, the Air Force has a definite interest in the STOVAL version of the F-35, and the Air Force is supportive of the F-35 program. However, one of the things that we're going to need to do is look at the entire air dominance, tactical air picture as we look at the QDR to make decisions. Resources are bounded, there's no question about it. That's why it's important to know what the next incremental F/A-22 is going to cost. It is important to know what the F-35 program looks like as you project its non-recurring costs and schedules, because we do have constrained resources and what we want to do is get the mix right. It will include STOVAL F-35." & Just to warm the cockles of ye heartes: (probably a LockMart press release) www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2009/07/20/daily37.html"Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth assembly plant officials announced Wednesday that the company is ready to roll out a test version of the F-35C Lightning II Navy aircraft. This is the latest version of the F-35 joint-strike fighter that is slated to be delivered to the U.S. Navy in 2012. The first test plane will debut on July 28, 2009, with flight testing scheduled to begin later this year. The latest F-35C version is designed to accommodate Naval air forces and features catapult take-off abilities as well as an arrested landing mechanism to accommodate the needs of Naval aviators landing on aircraft carriers. The F-35C is the third installment of the strike fighter and costs $60 million per aircraft, according to John Kent, a spokesman for the F-35C program. The $60 million price tag is based on 2002 cost estimates and is likely to be adjusted for inflation when the planes are eventually delivered to the Navy, the company spokesman said. Assembly of the F-35Cs will take place at the company's Fort Worth assembly plant, which will add an unknown amount of production jobs, with peak employment levels expected to coincide with the aircraft's peak production levels in 2015 and 2016, Kent said. Production model deliveries of the Navy aircraft will be delivered in 2012. Kent said the Navy and Marine Corps. plan to buy approximately 680 airplanes. The Marines will be using the second version of the F-35: the F-35B. About half of the aircraft delivered to the two military agencies will be in the F-35C format." |
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jul 25, 2009 9:45:28 GMT 12
SHOCK HORROR! The Sky is FALLING!: (this has been news for a few days & it is only 'an opinion') Pentagon fears delay for crucial jet fighter Anne Davies Herald Correspondent in Washington July 25, 2009 www.smh.com.au/national/pentagon-fears-delay-for-crucial-jet-fighter-20090724-dw64.html"THE F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program - the cornerstone of Australia's future air defence - is two years behind its publicly announced schedule, the influential Congressional Quarterly says, citing an internal Pentagon oversight board. One of its online news services, CQpolitics.com, citing congressional aides and Senate sources, said the report revealed the Pentagon's Joint Estimate Team was far more pessimistic than the Joint Program Office, which runs the F-35 project. Australia is part of the consortium developing the aircraft, with the US, Britain and Israel. The Australian Government has said it wants to purchase 100 planes, and it had been planning to take its first delivery by 2013 or 2014. However, CQpolitics.com says the oversight panel has calculated that the fighter will not be able to move out of the development phase and into full production mode until 2016, rather than 2014 as the Joint Program Office has said. "That's assuming there are no further problems with the program, which has already faced cost overruns and schedule delays," CQpolitics.com said. The US Government Accountability Office said each plane was likely to cost $US130 million, an increase from the estimate of $US70 million. "In every parameter and in every respect, the Joint Program Office's projections were always a hell of a lot rosier than what the Joint Estimate Team found," one Senate aide quoted in the story said. The Joint Estimate Team was probably more reliable than the Joint Program Office because it did not have a stake in the program's success, sources said. "Their objective is to be objective," one said. The report is said to be based on data from September 2008. It was prepared as internal advice to the Pentagon. A Pentagon spokesman, Geoff Morrell, said there was no delay in the completion of the first production aircraft, due next year, but he appeared to confirm the existence of the more pessimistic assessment of the likely production schedule. "We just don't have enough data yet to know whether the JET estimate or the program office's estimate is correct," he said. "This is part of the natural tension between the testing community and the program community inside the department." The sudden surfacing of the more pessimistic report is causing angst on Capitol Hill because the Senate has just stopped an extension to the F-22 program at the request of President Barack Obama, who was looking for budget savings. A spokeswoman for the Australian Air Force said additional funds for the F-35 program had been provided by the US Government and there would be minimal additional cost for Australia.
She said delays would affect aircraft being built for the US Air Force and there would be no significant delay in aircraft bound for Australia.with Brendan Nicholson" |
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jul 25, 2009 20:27:00 GMT 12
Update here: www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07 ... e-fighter/ "Update 16:17 EST: Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, called to clarify a few points. The JET study is not new, he emphasized — in fact, it’s nearly a year old, and its findings were widely published and fully available to Congress. Rogin’s CQ piece, Morrell said, amounts to “recycling.” It’s possible that Rogin was swayed by F-22 supporters in Congress and industry, to dredge up old, “bad” news about the F-35. But the news is not that bad, Morrell emphasized. He said the Pentagon is gathering data on F-35 testing, in order to determine whether to add more flights and more aircraft to the test process. More resources could get the overall F-35 program back on schedule, if it were late. “Delays in testing does not mean getting delay on [Initial Operating Capability],” Morrell said. He did not say how much accelerated testing might cost." |
|
|
|
Post by Leyland P75 on Jul 27, 2009 11:46:11 GMT 12
"A spokeswoman for the Australian Air Force said additional funds for the F-35 program had been provided by the US Government and there would be minimal additional cost for Australia."
So they're stumping up the extra $60 million per airframe are they? That's an 86% increase. Not exactly a "minimal additional cost"...
And if I was going to get into selective highlighting I'd probably highlight:
"The Joint Estimate Team was probably more reliable than the Joint Program Office because it did not have a stake in the program's success"
and
"We just don't have enough data yet to know whether the JET estimate or the program office's estimate is correct," he said. "This is part of the natural tension between the testing community and the program community inside the department."
Not exactly a vehement renunciation....
I've heard a more liklely date of 2017-18 for Australian delivery. We shall see.
"She said delays would affect aircraft being built for the US Air Force and there would be no significant delay in aircraft bound for Australia."
I suppose it depends on your definition of significant. Given that we were expecting to take delivery in 2014, is it reasonable to expect that we'll get them in 2016? Will we get the first planes off the line? I doubt it....
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jul 27, 2009 12:13:47 GMT 12
Leyland, after a while it all gets to be just gobbledegook (not from you) from all the press releases from all over. I think I will take a break from it and just wait for something concrete, such as a delivery date, price and how many. Until then these nonsense press releases will not settle anything I suppose. By all reports I read the JSF seems to go well enough but LockMart always need something better from Congress to do it such as funding or orders or better press releases. ;D
The way of testing/building this aircraft has confounded everyone including LockMart. I don't believe anyone or anything other than 'it is too big to fail'. And it will get done because it is needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leyland P75 on Jul 27, 2009 12:53:59 GMT 12
"The way of testing/building this aircraft has confounded everyone including LockMart. I don't believe anyone or anything other than 'it is too big to fail'. And it will get done because it is needed."
I agree with you 100%. All these press releases do my head in because one will always contradict the other. How the very hell they can predict prices at this stage is beyond me. It may well be that "Block 1" are $130 million a throw, but what about Block 2, 3, and 4? As the fella above says, "We just don't have enough data".
I'm not at all involved in the JSF program, but I know people who are. The things they report are much like the press releases - it's going really well! No wait, it's going really poorly but we'll get it out on time, I mean, it's going really well but it'll be late.... depends who you speak to and what week you speak to them. Just like the journos, they really can't tell me anything meaningful anyway. Unlike the journos, I don't kid myself that they can....
At least they have an intereting project that the government supports.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jul 27, 2009 13:28:19 GMT 12
Now that the F-22 and alternate JSF engine are dead (yeah right) the way is clear for JSF to get what it needs in a timely fashion. But we don't make those decisions. I predict Oz won't order the aircraft until things are a lot clearer whenever that is. Having the Super Hornets is a real buffer for that decision - we are not under pressure to make a silly decision about JSF. The only silly decision will be to buy a tranche of JSF-Bs to squander on the FAA! YAY! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jul 29, 2009 19:45:35 GMT 12
F-35B Flight Sim at LockMart: Catapult T/O? (maybe just a short t/o [guy does too much talking] & Hover Landing (with the DAS used also)
(19Mb .FLV)
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Aug 2, 2009 20:00:28 GMT 12
The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter: handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988 (1Mb PDF) "While the implications of shipboard compatibility have long influenced the design of maritime-based aircraft, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is unique in that the program is centered on the concurrent development of a family of highly common aircraft variants, two of which are to operate from distinctly different ship types. This procurement strategy poses a formidable challenge to the aircraft designer: How to design an air system that meets the unique needs of its multiple warfighter customers while preserving enough commonality to reap the benefits of the "family" approach to design, manufacture, and operational sustainment. This paper describes how the configurations of the United States Navy's aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships, as well as the United Kingdom Royal Navy's INVINCIBLE-class of carriers, have influenced the basic configurations of the catapult launch / arrested landing (CV) and the short takeoff/ vertical landing (STOVL) variants of the JSF. From these discussions, the designers of future air capable ships can better understand which characteristics of current ship designs impose the most significant constraints for the aircraft based aboard them, and where ship/air interface considerations should play."
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Aug 5, 2009 19:33:38 GMT 12
This one is for LeiLand: There is a lot of bumpf on F-16.net but this is interesting (if true): www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12381-start-135-sid-598fa3610a5f72080cc219da98aa5310.html"Have used BFT (BlueForceTracking) with (US) Army Aviation. It's freaking awesome!!! Being able to use it with a fixed wing CAS capable fighter? I don't think words can describe how much of a game changar that is. It will dramatically reduce the risk of fratricide while simultaneously making it faster to put ordinance on target. It also means that units in contact may not necessarily be the ones calling in the strike. I've done this with Army Air before and believe me it's a great thing. I'll not describe the system directly be just imagine any of those RTS games like C&C where you have a gods eye view of the battlespace and you click a enemy unit or spot and your air units just go there and attack. Well that's not just for video games anymore. And soon not just for rotor winged assets either! But most of all, any asset tied into the network can see all the data from other platforms. If the F-35's AESA and other ISR capabilities are integrated into this then this is a RMA. In fact, the F-35 that detects the target doesn't have to be the one engaging and nor does it have to be an F-35 at all! The F-35 can be up there relatively safe from SHORAD/MANPADs and due to LO safe from RF guided SAMs and Fighters as the on board ISR capabilities collect AND PASS target data back to Army Artillery that engages and destroys targets! There are lots of ways to benefit." |
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Aug 17, 2009 22:19:12 GMT 12
Wow VGP2011! Everyone has been gone from being an ANZAC cousin for 48 hours! Can't look at your link if we all diappear! Wots on it?;D
|
|
|
|
Post by flycookie on Aug 18, 2009 10:12:45 GMT 12
Oldnavy wrote:Some of us have been using samesaid 48 hours for setting new land speed records for NY-Maine and back. 
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Aug 18, 2009 23:15:53 GMT 12
Hey FlyCookie! NY to Maine!? Congratulations...Did you eat crab? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by flycookie on Aug 19, 2009 10:25:12 GMT 12
Nope, I have standards!
So far as I know it's strictly navy aviation up there, courtesy of a NAS choc-o-block full of P-3s.
|
|
|
|
Post by yak2 on Aug 19, 2009 14:23:23 GMT 12
Isn't scrod (spelling?) and chowder the seafood of choice in those parts FC?
|
|
|
|
Post by flycookie on Aug 20, 2009 9:43:46 GMT 12
YakDeux, have heard of scrod but not sure what it is. Clam chowder is a bog standard dish from, roughly, Rhode Island Sound all the way to the Canadian border. Many small coastal villages have the word 'quogue' somewhere in their names, which denotes bigtime clammy waters.
On second thoughts, I think scrod might be what Geelong try to do during an AFL game, but don't. :-)
I think eating fresh and grumpy crab is a traditional April Fool's Day dish, Mr Oldnavy, Sir, served with lots of fat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leyland P75 on Aug 20, 2009 11:18:04 GMT 12
Scrod is what happens about 99% of the time in an AFL match....
|
|
