Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2019 F-35 News and Discussion

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SpudmanWP
    started a topic 2019 F-35 News and Discussion

    2019 F-35 News and Discussion

    Welcome to 2019 and Happy New Year to ALL.

    For all of you who live in the Great State of Texas, you may soon show some of your pride by getting an F-35 License Plate.

    BY ANNA M. TINSLEY
    JANUARY 01, 2019 12:00 AM

    State Sen. Jane Nelson wants Texans to be able to keep that F-35 pride with them no matter where they go.
    Nelson, R-Flower Mound, has filed a bill requiring the state to create a license plate featuring the F-35 fighter jet which is built at Lockheed Martins plant in west Fort Worth along with the local motto: The Sound of Freedom.

    Texans would be able to buy this specialty license plate as they already may buy plates honoring everything from the military and colleges to Dr Pepper and sports teams such as the Dallas Cowboys if Senate Bill 240 is approved by the Texas Legislature in 2019.

    The F-35 is a significant point of pride for Senate District 12 where it is manufactured, said Nelson, R-Flower Mound, and the dean of the Tarrant delegation. It is crucial in our country's pursuit to promote and defend freedom around the globe and this legislation affirms Texas position as a hub for the aerospace industry.

    State lawmakers head back to work on Jan. 8 and will wrap up on May 27.

    If Nelsons proposal is approved, the license plates would be available some time after Sept. 1, 2019.
    https://www.star-telegram.com/news/l...223209865.html
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 1st January 2019, 08:52.

  • halloweene
    replied
    Interrogations about F-35 raising costs consequences in Norway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marcellogo
    replied
    Yes, I eagerly confess how I prefer the way, although somewhat baroque and time consuming, in which Russian proceeds in their own long time acquisition programmes an hundredfold better than your own country had after the end of the Cold War.
    Same politically talking, I as an European would eagerly prefer a multipolar world, as contemplated in the so called Primakov doctrine than the unipolar world that sprang forth from the end of such period with only a Power at the helm of it.
    And yes, I eagerly think that your own country is absolutely not fit for such a role, if any would ever be.
    Said so, I consider the day the berlin Wall fell one of the best days of my whole life(also because the Soviet Empire was just another thing than today's Russia, like a.t.c. Reagan's America was completely another one, in positive, than Trump and Clinton's one).
    Only one thing, just look the number of posts I made there compared to the ones I made in Russiadefense. and you would see the difference of partecipation.
    What I like in Russiandefence is the fact that they follow in depth every item (and they have alot of them, surely more than what would be optimal if they were not the gargantuan sized nation they are). of a giant sized and multifaceted re-armament program and even have several threads covering the process as a whole, something you cannot fully grasp following the single, although excellent RuAF thread on this forum.
    So, please avoid to consider this, as you have made in one of your posts I found particularly offensive, like some sort of betrayal of the Holy NATO alliance pact.

    What make me wonder the most about the peculiar type of national Chauvinism, always present in such discussion threads, of your country is the apparent lack of criticism toward your own political, military and industrial establishment americans seems to show, Russians could be nationalist at an absurd level but they are also critical, even biased sometimes. when it come to evaluate the decision of their own leadership.
    On America's side , considered a beacon of democracy, free thinking and liberty of speech, a deafening silence if not even an acritical defence of everything , even the most evident bull**** that is said.
    So,let's play a game: I will began to criticize what I consider wrong in Russian (or even my own country ) defence situation and you made the same about the defence extablishment of the country you pay your tax into...
    You said that F-15 substitution is a complex defence and political issue, so what made it such? A defence secretary that was nominated at the begin of this year or the ones that failed to address it when it begame evident that F-22 production would have been totally insufficient to cover the issue?

    Leave a comment:


  • FBW
    replied
    Marcellogo, your ability to find personal offense in every response I make to your posts continues to astound me.

    I stand by what I said, your interjecting your personal opinion about the F-35, into a complex political and defense policy issue. There is no they, the recently resigned Sec Air Force explicitly stated the USAF did not want or require any F-15, especially at the expense of 5th gen procurement. They, meaning the Air Force, did not see the need to replace F-15s with more F-15s. This decision was made at the SecDef level, with some support within the Pentagon outside of Shanahan.

    The USAF Planned to have the F-15C until circa 2035, now that looks unlikely. As I said in previous post, the is a need for massive Recap of platforms within Air Force. This F-15EX buy isnt about a lack of confidence in the F-35s abilities as you suggest, more a lack of confidence in the ability to ramp up F-35 procurement, training, support, and sustainment to meet the needs of ALL the impending platform obsolesce and end service life.

    Edit- one last thing, stop with the Im just an impartial observer viewing this objectively act. Your bias is as obvious as us all. Ive read your posts here and on Russiadefense enough to understand your point of view. Frankly, I smile a bit everytime you lecture me about Chauvinism.
    Last edited by FBW; 17th May 2019, 20:37.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marcellogo
    replied
    Originally posted by FBW View Post

    That is you projecting your opinions. "They" knew an F-22 restart was going to be prohibitively expensive and counterproductive for the eventual PCA requirements. "They" also planned on longeron replacement, IRST, and EPAWSS to keep the F-15C fleet until at least 2035.

    The reason for this was that near term F-35 production was to replace the 600 F-16's that weren't projected to receive SLEP, several hundred A-10s. There was simply no way to procure enough F-35A within the 2010's-20's to replace the F-15C fleet too. The F-16 block 32 and below were considered in more dire need of replacement than the F-15C fleet.
    FBW, I don't understand because you seems to take every single post I make as a sort of personal offence...

    What exactly are you contesting me ?
    The fact that they, intending with this word the one in charge of your own country long term defence planning, weapon development, acquisition and maintenance never intended the F-35, when they begun the relative program as a substitute for F-15 A to D version for the simple fact that even before it performed its first flight (2006) they were already acquiring the F-22 for this precise role?

    When the ATF program was initiated it was intended to acquire 750 planes, progressively reduced in a series of successive steps until the 187 that were finally produced but even such a reduction of orders doesn't deterred "they" in their infinite God-awarded wisdom, to retire not just the 445 F-15A&B built in the 70ies but even 2/3 of the fleet of the 575 C&D built in 1979-1985 (and relegating more than half of the remaining in the ANG) BEFORE the F-35 even reached IOC and I'm the one that is projecting his own opinions?

    Feel however fully assured that the idea of a possible restart of F-22 production NEVER EVER entered in my mind.

    I can assure you, it was not me that stored away in Alaska the serial assembly line tools, just in case; it was definitively not me that debated on the national press or even in your own country Congress about such a ludicrous proposal and finally it was not me that produced a formal cost-evaluation study about the subject: those were all things that came from your own side of the Atlantic, sorry...

    Do you feel somewhat insulted by the fact that a strangers has the gall to insinuate that the ones designated to rule the long term weapon development and acquisition of the Godly-appointed mighty America may have maybe, possibly made some marginal, errors like trashing the 8/10 of their own Air Superiority Fleet, without even thinking to any feasible alternative (and let's repeat. the F-22 restart was an absolutely ludicrous one) while "waiting for Godot"?

    Well, keep on feeling that way because the more you reply me with such scandalized, self-righteous tones, the more my (absolutely personal,I eagerly concede) opinion that not just "they" have failed you (not you as a person but all the american taxpayers) great time all along the last 30 years and even more that they will keep on doing such with almost absolute impunity if your public opinion would keep on being made, as it unfortunately seem given the results, by persons showing the same level of chauvinism and lack of self- criticism and public awareness you unfortunately seems to fall into more than often, will only grown stronger and stronger.
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 17th May 2019, 20:09.

    Leave a comment:


  • TomcatViP
    replied
    Don't forget the industrial perspective. The 1990's F15E might have been an early CAD airframe. And true must it be with the late F-15S. It's way more easy and economical to start anything new in engineering when you have the proper 3D models, including repairs and parts manufacturing.
    F-16 is a CATIA V4 airplane for example. I have no doubts that starting with the E as a base, the X would be an entirely better modeled airframe easier to keep updated and maintain.

    Yes, Secdef is from Boeing but the aspect ratio here is that he comes from the industry. What plagues mostly the AIr force today are operational cost and aging fleet sustainment. It makes sens to have a professional sourced from those industries that work the most with the DoD.
    Is there any bia? Well, I am confident that DoJ won't stand at rest if anything cross their bull eye.

    Again, there are some (few) advantages to not live in a Banana republic: one is to have some latitude how to best reach your projected goals.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 17th May 2019, 17:51.

    Leave a comment:


  • FBW
    replied
    Now, it seems that they still prefers a revamped version of Eagle to acquiring more F-35 or restart F-22 production.
    That is you projecting your opinions. "They" knew an F-22 restart was going to be prohibitively expensive and counterproductive for the eventual PCA requirements. "They" also planned on longeron replacement, IRST, and EPAWSS to keep the F-15C fleet until at least 2035.

    The reason for this was that near term F-35 production was to replace the 600 F-16's that weren't projected to receive SLEP, several hundred A-10s. There was simply no way to procure enough F-35A within the 2010's-20's to replace the F-15C fleet too. The F-16 block 32 and below were considered in more dire need of replacement than the F-15C fleet.
    Last edited by FBW; 17th May 2019, 17:19.

    Leave a comment:


  • SolarWarden
    replied
    Who is "they?" From reports the USAF didn't want this F-15x until a former Boeing executive became acting secdef .

    Leave a comment:


  • Marcellogo
    replied
    Originally posted by FBW View Post
    http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineA...vs-F-35A-.aspx

    Probably the most sustainable reason for the quixotic F-15EX purchase mentioned in this article.


    Even with the added F-35A in FY2020 defense appropriations bill (and likely in subsequent years), the number of fighter squadrons is going to dip with the retirement of F-15C. Transitioning from F-15C to F-15EX would at lease alleviate a near term shortage of air superiority assets. I think it generous to state that transitioning squadrons to F-35's takes "many months", probably more like several years for training, infrastructure, and proficiency.

    Still, in light of impending budget squeeze, maintaining the planned F-35 procurement rate should take precedence in USAF requests. If Congress wants to add money on top of that for F-15EX. let them do it. The USN plays Congress beautifully, recommend retiring (CVN, CG-47, etc.) early to fund procurement and outcry leads to Congress (mostly) funding both requested procurement and RCOH/operations costs for CVN-75 just like previous CG-47 retirement threat.
    Fact is that F-35 was never considered as a substitute for F-15C, it should have been the F-22 to take up such a role.
    Now, it seems that they still prefers a revamped version of Eagle to acquiring more F-35 or restart F-22 production.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marcellogo
    replied
    Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
    5 on 5:

    Seems me the real news here is that F-35 can carry 5 Paveway bombs (why not 6, I wonder?).
    Are them launched from inner bombs bay or from wings?

    Leave a comment:


  • FBW
    replied
    http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineA...vs-F-35A-.aspx

    Probably the most sustainable reason for the quixotic F-15EX purchase mentioned in this article.
    F-15 squadrons could transition to the F-15EX in a matter of weeks, whereas converting pilots, maintainers, facilities and equipment to the F-35 takes many months, the Air Force says
    Even with the added F-35A in FY2020 defense appropriations bill (and likely in subsequent years), the number of fighter squadrons is going to dip with the retirement of F-15C. Transitioning from F-15C to F-15EX would at lease alleviate a near term shortage of air superiority assets. I think it generous to state that transitioning squadrons to F-35's takes "many months", probably more like several years for training, infrastructure, and proficiency.

    Still, in light of impending budget squeeze, maintaining the planned F-35 procurement rate should take precedence in USAF requests. If Congress wants to add money on top of that for F-15EX. let them do it. The USN plays Congress beautifully, recommend retiring (CVN, CG-47, etc.) early to fund procurement and outcry leads to Congress (mostly) funding both requested procurement and RCOH/operations costs for CVN-75 just like previous CG-47 retirement threat.
    Last edited by FBW; 17th May 2019, 14:54.

    Leave a comment:


  • TomcatViP
    replied
    5 on 5:

    Last edited by TomcatViP; 14th May 2019, 17:05.

    Leave a comment:


  • TomcatViP
    replied
    Class A mishap after bird strike during T.O (USMC F35B in Japan):

    A Marine Corps F-35B Joint Strike Fighter was recently forced to abort take-off after a surprise bird strike, Maj. Eric Flanagan, a spokesman for 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, told Marine Corps Times. The fighter never took flight and "safely taxied off the runway," but it didn't escape the situation unscathed.

    An initial assessment of the incident identified this as a Class A mishap
    Source:
    BusinessInsider

    Leave a comment:


  • bring_it_on
    replied
    Originally posted by bring_it_on View Post


    The House Defense appropriations bill is out and includes 90 F-35's for the US services up 12 from the 78 requested in PB20. The Senate may end up with more but it's pretty certain that the FY20 F-35 orders will be in the 90-95 range for the USAF, USN and USMC.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	House-DA.png Views:	0 Size:	146.1 KB ID:	3862259
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 14th May 2019, 15:14.

    Leave a comment:


  • ActionJackson
    replied
    Impressive eodas view mode showing azimuth and heading indicators to targets so the pilot knows where to look...

    https://www.military.com/video/incre...-imagery-f-35s
    ​​​​​

    Leave a comment:


  • SpudmanWP
    replied
    Thankfully it was not a design issue.... Lord knows it's had more than it's fair share

    Leave a comment:


  • halloweene
    replied
    **** happens.

    Leave a comment:


  • TomcatViP
    replied
    Manufacturing defect on fuel line tubing confirmed as the cause of sept. 2018 crash in California (report)

    The crash of a U.S. Marine Corps F-35 that temporarily grounded the entire fleet of next-generation jets in 2018 was caused by a manufacturing defect in a fuel tube made by a United Technologies subcontractor, according to congressional investigators.
    Source:
    Bloomberg.com

    Leave a comment:


  • TomcatViP
    replied
    Originally posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    The USAF is standing up an Aggressor Unit manned with 11x F-35s. They will arrive in 2022 at Nellis AFB (Hello Red Flag).

    https://www.nellis.af.mil/News/Artic...f-35-training/

    They are going to use early Lot jets from Eglin AFB.


    9 jets would cover most of Lots 2 & 3 (6 & 7 F-35As respectively) plus an additional 2 from an unknown source gets to the 11.
    It makes so much sense. Great move!

    Leave a comment:


  • halloweene
    replied
    Originally posted by bring_it_on View Post

    This one takes the cake! For someone who spends so much time trying to find new and innovative ways to malign the F-35, one would sure think that you would exercise some bit of understanding and common sense even at a very basic level.

    The issues with Canada will be sorted out. If they want an open competition that is at the terms that may end up violating an MOU that they signed earlier, they are happy to do so by withdrawing from one to pursue the other option. The JPO will likely want to protect the integrity of the multi-nation JSF program of which Canada is a very small part. In this case they'll likely recommend to the DOD that the aircraft not be offered because opening up this box will not be equitable given other partnerships. In that case, Canada and is industry could potentially lose out on Billions of future production and sustainment work for a program that is going to be pumping out more than a thousand aircraft over the next decade compared to others in the running that may not even reach 500 sales over their entire production lifetime. Industrial contribution is no doubt one aspect so these things matter along with others. Honestly, I don't mind the current Canadian government deciding either way. There are other partners and future offset customers who would be happy to absorb that work over the coming years and decades and the F-35 program does not have a problem of finding the buyers needed to tick the build rate to 150 or more which brings the EOS for affordable procurement as we enter into MYP in the coming years.
    I do not maligh the F-35. I criticize the PROGRAM. Maybe sometime i do exaggerate, but there is so much fanboyism around that program that it is needed here.

    nevermind... have more important things to do in RL.
    Last edited by halloweene; 10th May 2019, 14:45.

    Leave a comment:

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

 

Working...
X