Forum: Program and politics

To Slowman:

The F/A-50 would appear to have underestimated growth potential to expand into a more comprehensive light-multi-role capacity, beyond any CAS-limited TA-50, eg. Give it a few years to mature and tested and evolved (eg AESA and further ECM growth), and it's likely to be a worthy, economical and reliable replacement for at least some of the F-5/F-4 platforms. And when you talk about a specific requirement to ensure 'maximal platforms' being able to employ maximal a2g ordnance in suppression of anything hostile firing at you, it would seem to be a credible complement to the F-X II/III mix by default? I'd personally ponder a revised high-low F-X III mix to include F-15K++ and 'evolved' next-gen FA-50 + new class munitions to offset loss of VLO stealth advantage.

To Spud:

I'm not sure if RoK would be a potential operator of the SDB II, but it's apparently still not intended for F-35 integration until block IV. Maybe RoK would accelerate that development for special requirement, who knows. Also, how are you getting 32 SDB? I assume with dual-BRU-61 configuration for 2 of the wing stations? Could F-35 even be cleared for such dual-BRU-61? Let's wait for external-wing clearance for a single rack of increment I SDB first, before counting our small-bombs?

F-16.net Sponsor

SDB2 is Blk4, bud SDB is Blk3 IOC.

32 SDBs could be carried via a dual BRU-61 carriage for the 5k inner wing station The latest Smart BRU-69/A MPBR has dual BRU-61s as an objective load. That puts it at 8 BRU-61s (2 internal and 6 external) with only the 5k station having two.

Since we are talking about potential future use, I feel fine in postulating possibilities. Wink

slowman3 wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

btw, Why do you limit the F-35 to two JDAMs and 3 sorties a day?

That's the USAF requirement. It is highly unlikely that Lockheed Martin would push beyond that in terms of sortie rate.

This assumption is based upon what exactly?

Quote:

The weight of 32 SDBs not counting pylons is 8 tons, which exceeds the F-35's max weapons load.

You may want to check your math. 32x250=8000(or 4 tons).

Quote:

They just cannot wait. They cannot allow their fleet count to decrease while waiting for F-35; they must have something that will be able to deliver lots of bombs from 2017 and onward.

It's not as if all of the current aircraft in the S. Korean Air Force will be scrapped in 2017. They have no higher urgency than any other air force, and any other option would include 4th Gen aircraft.

:: Slowman3 has been banned for excessive trolling ::

Slowman blk4 is currently under development with a new IP, new email and improved features.

Stealth trolling
Capability to post broken links that allegedly back up his points
Ability to stop SK from buying F-35 and picking anything else instead, preferably a hot rod.

Capability 3 is being developed in conjunction with Carlo Kopp and Bill Sweetman but is the biggest technological reach for the 4th iteration of this failed program.

shingen wrote:

Slowman blk4 is currently under development with a new IP, new email and improved features.

Stealth trolling
Capability to post broken links that allegedly back up his points
Ability to stop SK from buying F-35 and picking anything else instead, preferably a hot rod.

Capability 3 is being developed in conjunction with Carlo Kopp and Bill Sweetman but is the biggest technological reach for the 4th iteration of this failed program.

Based on Spaz' diagram post, it appears only 6 SDB BRUs can be carried. 2 internal + 4 external. The 2 outer + centre pylons appear to be weight limited. This will make 24 SDBs (compared with the theoretical 7x4=28 max on the F-15). Having said that, munition numbers + targeting limitations should render these discussions moot. No one will use that many in an NK fight.

24 a/c x 24 SDBs x 6 sorties = 3,456 SDBs a day per sqn. Even the USAF will only have 12k SDB-IIs.

The bigger question in my mind on whether the F-15 or F-35 should be acquired is the requirement to penetrate radar air space. Looking at the geography, neither a/c will be used to directly go thru the DMZ. More likely using a coastal hook. I would agree that the F-35 doesn't represent as big an advantage from a tactical sense. The F-15Ks already have longer ranged SLAMs+12x GBU-54s. From a risk angle, the F-15s probably represent a lower risk program with higher local offsets. Also, the NoKs don't have and do not appear to "will have" a fighter force that cannot be tackled by a F-15. Continuing the F-15 at this stage may make sense. The ROK can still select the F-35 later when there's a need + when it has proven reliability in service.

LM does have a marketing trump card. F-15 sales offerings have been stopped in favor of F-35s a la Israel (when they sought the SE). F-35 foreign sales have a direct impact on USAF cost. Obama might do the same.

Putting aside for a moment aircraft X vs Y, I think they were saying they just wanted to fly the F-35.
I didn't see anyone bite on an earlier question so I'll try again.
Does anyone have a good guess or information about what it might take for a representative of a real potential program participant nation test pilot to get to fly an F-35 for the purpose of supporting a purchase decision?
I can't imagine they would try to force them to actually make an airframe purchase just to qualify for an eval flight.
I could see financial compensation to the program office for training time, equipment fit and slight schedule shuffling but why more than that?

archeman wrote:

Putting aside for a moment aircraft X vs Y, I think they were saying they just wanted to fly the F-35.
I didn't see anyone bite on an earlier question so I'll try again.
Does anyone have a good guess or information about what it might take for a representative of a real potential program participant nation test pilot to get to fly an F-35 for the purpose of supporting a purchase decision?
I can't imagine they would try to force them to actually make an airframe purchase just to qualify for an eval flight.
I could see financial compensation to the program office for training time, equipment fit and slight schedule shuffling but why more than that?

At least 100 simulator hours, 6 training flights in the aircraft. This would qualify for the basic F-35 checkout. They'd probably want the pilot to fly additional training before allowing the pilot to go past 5Gs & 450 kts (student limits). Most F-35 test pilots have F-16 flight time, and a Korean test pilot probably would.

One possibly stumbling block is they don't yet have an approved conversion course for F-35 pilots. The "students" so far are either Operational Test Pilots or highly experienced squadron instructors.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/ ... -F16D-web/

archeman wrote:

..Does anyone have a good guess or information about what it might take for a representative of a real potential program participant nation test pilot to get to fly an F-35 for the purpose of supporting a purchase decision?...?

It's not going to happen! Sad

The US and the UK have flown the aircraft.

Italy, Turkey, Netherlands, Australia, Norway have "yet" to fly the aircraft and have issued purchase orders for 19 a/c to LM, thru LRIP 7.

LRIP 3 is due this year (2012) with 2 UK "Bees" and 1 Dutch "Aay" to be delivered.

BK-1 was flown by Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti.

Pilots; USAF-13, USMC-7, USN-3, RAF-2, LM-10, BAE-3 and US Govt??-1? about 40ish. Smile

neptune wrote:

archeman wrote:

..Does anyone have a good guess or information about what it might take for a representative of a real potential program participant nation test pilot to get to fly an F-35 for the purpose of supporting a purchase decision?...?

It's not going to happen! Sad

The US and the UK have flown the aircraft.

Italy, Turkey, Netherlands, Australia, Norway have "yet" to fly the aircraft and have issued purchase orders for 19 a/c to LM, thru LRIP 7.

LRIP 3 is due this year (2012) with 2 UK "Bees" and 1 Dutch "Aay" to be delivered.

BK-1 was flown by Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti.

Pilots; USAF-13, USMC-7, USN-3, RAF-2, LM-10, BAE-3 and US Govt??-1? about 40ish. Smile

Who was the US Gov pilot?

Did any other partner request to fly the jet early? Except for Australia, the 4 counties who have yet to fly have F-16 pilots who could transition somewhat easily. Australia has at least one F-22 exchange pilot, who potentially could transition to a F-35 early.

Speculating for a second, I think the resistance from RoK has to do with KF-16 licensing or the F/A-50 capabilities being contractually restricted by Lockheed.

F-35 Pilot Roster as mentioned 40 at moment:

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_ ... ry_style=3

weasel1962 wrote:

LM does have a marketing trump card. F-15 sales offerings have been stopped in favor of F-35s a la Israel (when they sought the SE). F-35 foreign sales have a direct impact on USAF cost.

The Saudis just bought a bunch of new F-15s and upgrades for their existing fleet.

spazsinbad wrote:

F-35 Pilot Roster as mentioned 40 at moment:

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_ ... ry_style=3

Thanks.

The "US Gov" test pilot is LTC Vince Caterina, USAF(ret), and it sounds like he's retained as a consultant after retirement from the Air Force.

maus92 wrote:

weasel1962 wrote:

LM does have a marketing trump card. F-15 sales offerings have been stopped in favor of F-35s a la Israel (when they sought the SE). F-35 foreign sales have a direct impact on USAF cost.

The Saudis just bought a bunch of new F-15s and upgrades for their existing fleet.

Slightly different. The Israeli concerns are paramount and the F-35 for the Saudis would have eliminated any qualitatitve edge the Israelis would have enjoyed. No such issue with ROK. Having said that, Boeing already got an export clearance go-ahead to offer the SE so I'd agree that may be moot. Doesn't stop LM from lobbying Obama to put the F-35 first though. It could end up a political decision.

Forum: Program and politics

Korea threatens to disqualify F-35