Forum: Program and politics

New Marine begins F-35 check flights July 06, 2012

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/wi ... first.html

"Marine Lt. Col. Roger Hardy, Defense Contract Management Agency F-35 Lightning II acceptance pilot, prepares for his first of six F-35A check out flights at the 33rd Fighter Wing. The AV-8B Harrier pilot is the first military member to qualify in flying operations at the wing who isn't assigned to Eglin. He currently works at the DCMA office, Lockheed Martin, Ft. Worth, Texas, to provide government oversight/inspection of contractor aircraft operations; ensuring safe and effective joint strike fighters are operationally ready before they are delivered to the Department of Defense."

F-16.net Sponsor

FARNBOROUGH: First F-35 student set to receive qualification today By: Dave Majumdar 11 July 2012

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ay-374190/

"...Marine Lt Col Roger Hardy should be completing his final qualification sortie on the F-35 at Eglin AFB in Florida today, says Marine Col Arthur Tomassetti, the vice-commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing. Once he is qualified, Hardy will be the first non-test pilot, non-initial cadre pilot to qualify in for the fifth generation fighter.... he will assume his role as the Defense Contract Management Agency's first F-35 acceptance pilot.

Hardy's job will be to ensure every F-35 coming off the production line meets its specifications in the air."

Not worth jumping unless interested.

OK the next shoe to drop is when the SKs select the F-35A but hey - youse knew that all along eh... Very Happy

S. Korea approves bid proposals for three fighter jets By Kim Eun-jung 17 July 2012

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/20 ... 00315.HTML

"SEOUL, July 17 (Yonhap) -- South Korea's arms procurement agency said Tuesday it has approved bid proposals by three foreign defense companies for a multi-million dollar fighter jet project and will start flight tests from next week.

The F-15 Silent Eagle (SE) by U.S. firm Boeing, the F-35A by another American company Lockheed Martin, and the Eurofighter by Europe-based multinational defense group EADS are in the running to win the deal worth upward of 8.3 trillion won (US$7.3 billion). South Korea plans to purchase 60 fighter jets by 2021 to replace the Air Force's aging fleet."

That's all folk.

spazsinbad wrote:

[..."...Marine Lt Col Roger Hardy..... Once he is qualified, Hardy will be the first non-test pilot, non-initial cadre pilot to qualify...he will assume his role as the Defense Contract Management Agency's first F-35 acceptance pilot...Hardy's job will be to ensure every F-35 coming off the production line meets its specifications in the air."...

@SpudmanWP

I have never been near a new plane, only newer (lower @ 1,000s hours) ones.

1- Where does the acceptance pilot fit into the scheme, after LM's first flight.

2- Will the newly minted pilots in the squadrons ferry their new planes from FW to Eglin, etc.?

3- Does a new plane smell like a new car? Wink

Um, I think you meant @Spaz.

I don't work for LM and I don't know any answers except those found via Google on the intercrap. Very Happy

S. Korea approves bid proposals for 3 fighter jets By Kim Eun-jung 17 July 2012

http://balita.ph/2012/07/17/s-korea-app ... -eun-jung/

"SEOUL, July 17 — South Korea's arms procurement agency said Tuesday it has approved bid proposals by three foreign defense companies for a multi-million dollar fighter jet project and will start flight tests from next week....

...The Defense Acquisition Program Administration said Air Force evaluators will conduct flight tests and enter into negotiations with company officials from Monday.

After the process, South Korean officials plan to visit production facilities of Boeing, EADS and Lockheed next month for data-gathering and simulator tests, the DAPA said...."

Quote:

redman87
As someone else asked, what are SK's needs visa-vie this purchase?

Also slowman3 - following.
Your comments sum the situation up well for SK.
Many seem to see the role of an Airforce always operating in the Strike role along the lines of say the Iraq invasion. Use cruise missiles and stealth aircraft etc. to take out all the enemies SAMS and Communications etc. - then take out anything else at your leisure - then attack with ground forces with minimum losses. That is not what SK wants an airforce for primarily. 24 hours after the first strike and they would have a million troops pouring over the border and another 1 million quickly on the way. An airforce can't handle that ever in rugged timbered terrain. NK making use of there advantage - numbers on the ground. [That's how Vietnam was won by North Vietnam against the South - today would be no different if it happened all over again. The F-35 would be no more use-full than the USAF was then even with F-35's. Not much use at all.] SK basically needs an aircraft that allows them to take out the dated NK airforce quickly if attacked by the North and then the ability to deliver as much tonnage as possible from then on. They don't need F-35s to take out artillery on the border or SAMs unless they want to attack. That's is not there intention as far as I can see. Plenty of better ways of doing that. Cruise missiles or use stand off weapons with the small distances involved.
A really up to date F15 to suit there purposes or even the Eurofighter. Price will be the final decider but the F15 has an advantage since they already operate them.

rkap wrote:

Quote:

redman87
As someone else asked, what are SK's needs visa-vie this purchase?

Also slowman3 - following.
Your comments sum the situation up well for SK.
Many seem to see the role of an Airforce always operating in the Strike role along the lines of say the Iraq invasion. Use cruise missiles and stealth aircraft etc. to take out all the enemies SAMS and Communications etc. - then take out anything else at your leisure - then attack with ground forces with minimum losses. That is not what SK wants an airforce for primarily. 24 hours after the first strike and they would have a million troops pouring over the border and another 1 million quickly on the way. An airforce can't handle that ever in rugged timbered terrain. NK making use of there advantage - numbers on the ground. [That's how Vietnam was won by North Vietnam against the South - today would be no different if it happened all over again. The F-35 would be no more use-full than the USAF was then even with F-35's. Not much use at all.] SK basically needs an aircraft that allows them to take out the dated NK airforce quickly if attacked by the North and then the ability to deliver as much tonnage as possible from then on. They don't need F-35s to take out artillery on the border or SAMs unless they want to attack. That's is not there intention as far as I can see. Plenty of better ways of doing that. Cruise missiles or use stand off weapons with the small distances involved.
A really up to date F15 to suit there purposes or even the Eurofighter. Price will be the final decider but the F15 has an advantage since they already operate them.

IIRC, after a few weeks of Linebacker (I and II) operations, the Vietcong immediately ran to the negotiation table. Airpower is more than capable of taking out masses of infantry, regardless of what's covering them. And these days you don't need a fleet of F-105s and B-52s to do it.

rkap wrote:

Quote:

redman87
As someone else asked, what are SK's needs visa-vie this purchase?

Also slowman3 - following.
Your comments sum the situation up well for SK.
Many seem to see the role of an Airforce always operating in the Strike role along the lines of say the Iraq invasion. Use cruise missiles and stealth aircraft etc. to take out all the enemies SAMS and Communications etc. - then take out anything else at your leisure - then attack with ground forces with minimum losses. That is not what SK wants an airforce for primarily. 24 hours after the first strike and they would have a million troops pouring over the border and another 1 million quickly on the way. An airforce can't handle that ever in rugged timbered terrain. NK making use of there advantage - numbers on the ground. [That's how Vietnam was won by North Vietnam against the South - today would be no different if it happened all over again. The F-35 would be no more use-full than the USAF was then even with F-35's. Not much use at all.] SK basically needs an aircraft that allows them to take out the dated NK airforce quickly if attacked by the North and then the ability to deliver as much tonnage as possible from then on. They don't need F-35s to take out artillery on the border or SAMs unless they want to attack. That's is not there intention as far as I can see. Plenty of better ways of doing that. Cruise missiles or use stand off weapons with the small distances involved.

Yes, because the F-35 is extremely limited with "only" 18,000 lbs payload.

Rolling Eyes

Furthermore, considering the ROKAF's mission capability rate for F-15K is 82% versus 98% for the F-35A (projected in the SAR), and delivery rates you get a very close theoretical maximum for delivery over 100 sorties.
F-35 1764000lbs (maximum 18,000 lbs)
F-15E 1886000lbs (maximum 23,000 lbs) @ 82%

Certainly the F-15's rate may increase in time of war:
2070000lbs @ 90%

However given a large part of the problem is the unavailability of spares, that might not be possible. This raises another point, one must consider how big the logistical trail will be for operating a large twin, versus a smaller single. This is particularly relevant when anecdotal evidence by maintainers suggest the F-35 is significantly easier to repair than the F-15. If I'm a ROK defense planner and I'm considering what allows me to drop the maximum tonnage over North Korea in a real war time environment, I'm probably going to go with the F-35... even without considering the flexibility that stealth and avionics offer.

HB_Pencil wrote:

This raises another point, one must consider how big the logistical trail will be for operating a large twin, versus a smaller single.

Small correction: an empty F-35 is heavier that an empty F-15 so it's actually a large twin vs an even larger single.

The F-35 has been designed to allow quick and easy replacement of equipment modules, this is most likely what leads to the (projected) 98% mission capability rate. That said, the modules don't magically fix themselves once they come off the plane so I'd question whether it will actually be 'easier to repair' or just 'easier to get back in the air' once they develop a problem. Assuming of course that the your equipment module supply line can keep up. Where will they be repairing the modules? Will that happen locally or do they need to send them back to the depot?

hb_pencil wrote:

Yes, because the F-35 is extremely limited with "only" 18,000 lbs payload.

I've seen this a few times before around here, and I seem to not be getting something. Not counting 4 hardpoints meant for AMRAAM/Sidewinder (total 1300 pounds)...

2500·4 + 5000·2 = 20000

Does 18000 come from using not the absolute limits for what it could carry but the actual weights of the common current weapons it would be likely to carry right now?

Slightlyover2000·4 + slightlyunder5000·2 ? 18000?

hb_pencil wrote:

Yes, because the F-35 is extremely limited with "only" 18,000 lbs payload.

I've seen this a few times before around here, and I seem to not be getting something. Not counting 4 hardpoints meant for AMRAAM/Sidewinder (total 1300 pounds)...

2500x4 + 5000x2 = 20000

Does 18000 come from using not the absolute limits for what it could carry but the actual weights of the common current weapons it would be likely to carry right now?

Slightlyover2000x4 + slightlyunder5000x2 ? 18000?

hb_pencil wrote:

Yes, because the F-35 is extremely limited with "only" 18,000 lbs payload.

I've seen this a few times before around here, and I seem to not be getting something. Not counting 4 hardpoints meant for AMRAAM/Sidewinder (total 1300 pounds)...

2500x4 + 5000x2 = 20000

Are you referring not to the upper limits but to the sum of some likely combination of specific weapons that are each a bit below the limit?

Hardpoint capacity may include the suspension equipment (pylons, launchers, etc.), so the 18,000 lb might be maximum weapon weight.

Did Delvo catch the multi-post bug from Popcorn?

Forum: Program and politics

Korea threatens to disqualify F-35