Well it sounds like it's well behaved. But I gotta say; the way I interpret the beginning with all the "the door is open to improve maneuverability" talk, is that the Viper consistently smoked it. Still I'm sure the technology makes up for the "unimproved" maneuverability at the moment. I just hope that eventually they find some ways to lighten it up and maybe put an even better engine on it, not that the 11:1 T/W PW F135 is a crappy engine.

Cool, it can land anywhere, as long as "anywhere" has a secial Lockheed designed and sold super-special-landing pad installed which requires delivery by a C-17 needing a runway.

https://news.yahoo.com/stealth-jump-jet-t-094241674--politics.html

FWIW, more talk about F-x stuff: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/can-americas-6th-generation-fighter-jets-rule-the-skies-12613

FWIW, more talk about F-x stuff: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/can-americas-6th-generation-fighter-jets-rule-the-skies-12613

In simple terms, Stillion argues that stealth, payload and sensor capability will trump traditional fighter metrics like speed, altitude and turn capability.

Maybe but putting those sensors into something like an interceptor makes more sense as it could run away bravely if someone gets by the screen of fighters / UCAVS. He argues for a C2 mothership with UCAVs doing the fighting, sounds great but it can't be LO and talk to the UCAVs and if a leaker gets thru then the package (giggity) then a PLAAF J-20 or Russian AF T-50 gets a sweet guns kill.

Edited April 13, 201510 yr by Clark Griswold

In simple terms, Stillion argues that stealth, payload and sensor capability will trump traditional fighter metrics like speed, altitude and turn capability.

Maybe but putting those sensors into something like an interceptor makes more sense as it could run away bravely if someone gets by the screen of fighters / UCAVS. He argues for a C2 mothership with UCAVs doing the fighting, sounds great but it can't be LO and talk to the UCAVs and if a leaker gets thru then the package (giggity) then a PLAAF J-20 or Russian AF T-50 gets a sweet guns kill.

so basically we are doomed to continue to repeat our mistakes and call the end of the dogfight only to have our dudes out matched at guns range?

so basically we are doomed to continue to repeat our mistakes and call the end of the dogfight only to have our dudes out matched at guns range?

I hope not but history is rhyming

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hope not but history is rhyming

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

no worries well always just throw a pod on it call it a day

BBC podcast on the America's military might, with a huge emphasis on the US Air Force. While the podcast doesn't speak exclusively to the F-35, there is still a big piece devoted to it.

While not F-35 specific, the comparison to the size of the RAF and the Saudi Royal Air Force made me think about the military procurement process.

It is nearly 40 minutes long, but it was extremely interesting.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05qgd0n

Edited for general link buffoonery.

Edited April 14, 201510 yr by Right Seat Driver

Just having a blast seeing all the current F-35 news and imagining the faces of top USAF staff when they read it.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/first-version-of-f-35s-will-not-outdo-a-10-in-battlefield-capabilities-1.340143

Just having a blast seeing all the current F-35 news and imagining the faces of top USAF staff when they read it.

url]

Truthfully, I'd like to see what the USMC has to say about it when VMFA-121 goes full operational here in July. Interesting what their take will be.

Just having a blast seeing all the current F-35 news and imagining the faces of top USAF staff when they read it. https://www.stripes.com/news/us/first-version-of-f-35s-will-not-outdo-a-10-in-battlefield-capabilities-1.340143

"Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., said some critics have called for the costly development project to be scrapped.

“However, we are past that decision point. We just need to make this program work,” she said"

Just need to make it work...even if it bankrupts us, great logical thinking and way to sell your soul.

no worries well always just throw a pod on it call it a day

You mean the gun pod that is canted 2 degrees nose low and has about a second and a half of bullets?

Talked to a -35 test pilot last night, he chooses the -35 BVR, but a Hornet/Viper WVR

You mean the gun pod that is canted 2 degrees nose low and has about a second and a half of bullets?

Talked to a -35 test pilot last night, he chooses the -35 BVR, but a Hornet/Viper WVR

Solution: moar gun pawds!

Go to the source!

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/20150414/103032/HHRG-114-AS25-Wstate-BogdanC-20150414.pdf

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/20150414/103032/HHRG-114-AS25-Wstate-SullivanM-20150414.pdf

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/20150414/103032/HHRG-114-AS25-Wstate-GilmoreM-20150414.pdf

I haven't read or watched this stuff (and I probably won't) because I'm hip deep in the other NDAA hearings, but I encourage anybody interested in this topic to access what was actually written and said.

For the FOGs: What was the typical annual flight hours a pilot used to get back in the day, including the dark days of the Carter Administration? My biggest concern about the F-35 is the hourly flight cost. Fighter Pilots aren't flying enough as it is already. I know it's a big issue in the Raptor community and is one of the main reasons why the AF is having a hard time retaining experienced fighter pilots. I know there have been bad times in the past but I think during the Reagan days it was something like 300+ a year.

Edited April 16, 201510 yr by xcraftllc

300+ seems about right. I ended up with 1200 in the T-38 in a little over 3 years and 2900 in the Hawg in 15 with only 6 years active, 2 years full time Reserve and the rest part time.

Working F-35 issues for the Reserves before I retired, I was astounded by the number of sims required. Sitting in a briefing at Hill, some dudes are briefing their plan and saying the sims will run from 9-5. Some of my Reserve buddies and I start cranking numbers...#sims*#pilots*#sims*hours required per sim and figure that they'll need to run from 5am to midnight assuming 100% sim status. That was a few years back that's old data.

Sample size of one (including FTU time):

3yrs in F-15C - 633hrs

6yrs in F-22A - 699hrs

Sample size of one (including FTU time):

3yrs in F-15C - 633hrs

6yrs in F-22A - 699hrs

What is the typical sortie duration?

Man, sims are the worst-best thing that happened to military aviation. Absolutely awesome tools for emergency training and other high-risk flying that requires a bit of familiarization to make safer. The problem though is that the command uses them as a 1 for 1 substitute for actual flying when the budget is tight. There are infinite ways in which that isn't the case. I hope the F-35 program doesn't go in that direction.

What is the typical sortie duration?

0.7 - 1.3 hrs

Man, sims are the worst-best thing that happened to military aviation. Absolutely awesome tools for emergency training and other high-risk flying that requires a bit of familiarization to make safer. The problem though is that the command uses them as a 1 for 1 substitute for actual flying when the budget is tight. There are infinite ways in which that isn't the case. I hope the F-35 program doesn't go in that direction.

While I think I understand your concern, I disagree slightly. In live flying, you can't see aircraft blowing up in front of you (or not), surface to air missiles launching (and assessing whether or not they're tracking you), your own missile flyouts (does the missile even come off the jet, let alone track towards the target), your wingman's missiles and timeouts, etc. Nor can you "take the gloves off" of your 5th gen aircraft and break airspace rules (supersonic), block adherence, etc.

In these instances, this is better than a one for one swap of sim for live. The vids in these sims are getting pretty impressive.

Sims will not replace live flying altogether, but the fighter sims of 2015 aren't the EP focused sims of 2005.

For locations without threat emitters, sims remain the best way to simulate many threats in the higher-end spectrum...especially for anyone training for the SEAD game.

How does the networking profiles with larger formations work regarding training? A simple thumbs up or down will suffice. The F-35 sim was pretty frigging impressive but I never got to see multiple sims working together. The LM guys put together a sim profile of an F-35 doing CAS for me but their version of CAS and my version of CAS weren't exactly in the same ballpark.

In live flying, you can't see aircraft blowing up in front of you (or not), surface to air missiles launching (and assessing whether or not they're tracking you), your own missile flyouts (does the missile even come off the jet, let alone track towards the target), your wingman's missiles and timeouts, etc. Nor can you "take the gloves off" of your 5th gen aircraft and break airspace rules (supersonic), block adherence, etc.

In these instances, this is better than a one for one swap of sim for live. The vids in these sims are getting pretty impressive.

Sims will not replace live flying altogether, but the fighter sims of 2015 aren't the EP focused sims of 2005.

No I see what you're saying, that's pretty good stuff.

How does the networking profiles with larger formations work regarding training? A simple thumbs up or down will suffice. The F-35 sim was pretty frigging impressive but I never got to see multiple sims working together. The LM guys put together a sim profile of an F-35 doing CAS for me but their version of CAS and my version of CAS weren't exactly in the same ballpark.

Not F-35 - specific (of course), but a related data point:

Here at WRI, I had a long conversation last quarter with one of the check airman sim instructors about the subject of networked sims (our sims are in the midst of upgrading, to network with sims outside the building). Big Blue's intent is to network ALL sims together so every MDS can sim with/against each other as one big happy family, but when the sim folks ask questions like "How is the scheduling of all these networked sims going to work?", or "What happens when the sim instructor in one jet/crew position in the network needs to take a few minutes to "reset" a student - does everyone else have to sit there and wait, burning their valuable training time doing nothing?", Big Blue's answer is that they'll figure it out later. I asked those two questions myself, along with several other questions related to networked sim scheduling/ops, and every response was a shoulder shrug and "We don't know because they don't know, and they're in no hurry to figure out an answer." Our sim instructors know it will be a scheduling nightmare just with the C-17 sim across the parking lot, much less a sim 3-4 timezones away...

It's a cool idea, and I can see it being an awesome training tool for everyone involved, but I can also see it being one scheduling error away from being a total clusterfuck/waste of time for everyone involved.