- Reaction score
- 1,674
- Points
- 1,060
Oldgateboatdriver said:
I think the move from LRIP to FRP is based on a structurally complete design that does not need further modification
- Reaction score
- 22,050
- Points
- 1,360
Chris Pook said:
:nod:
Any time annual production approaches 5% of total anticipated production, one is probably past LRIP...150/yr on 3000+ is probably around the break-point, less the political/perception factor that Mr. Pook refers to earlier.
Regards
G2G
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
- Reaction score
- 4,712
- Points
- 1,160
Sure sounds like a plane that doesn't work. These were as close to real dogfights as you can get without the 2-way live fire, no computer modeling here.
- Reaction score
- 27,533
- Points
- 1,090
Interesting that on the source of the Alert 5 article there is no mention of any 8:0 kill ratio.
- Reaction score
- 4,712
- Points
- 1,160
dapaterson said:
This source article? http://www.acc.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/5725/Article/808248/10-questions-on-the-f-35a-lightning-ii.aspx
It doesn't mention specifics on the sorties flown, but 0 losses against F-15E Red Air is pretty excellent, even if the ratio is 6 or 5 to 0. Could also be even higher than 8:0 as well.
- Reaction score
- 27,533
- Points
- 1,090
No indication of RoE that friendly / hostile air were under. No indication of what systems were in use - did the F35s have E3 coverage and the F15s none? Not knowing the conditions of the test, we don;t know what the test measured, or what it did not.
- Reaction score
- 27,533
- Points
- 1,090
Trusting manufacturers not to game the system. How's that Volkswagen diesel doing for you?
- Reaction score
- 4,268
- Points
- 1,260
There you go looking for informed opinion again ....dapaterson said:
dapaterson said:Trusting manufacturers not to game the system. How's that Volkswagen diesel doing for you?
That wasn't the manufacturer's graphic or claims. It was done by 388th at Hill AFB after (I believe) green flag. I agree with you that its not clear what the setup was, and the particulars, which makes it difficult to draw specific conclusions.
That being said, I'd suggest that in my research and interactions with individuals who operate the F-22 and the F-35, that this sort of "exchange rate," will be pretty common... even in numerically unbalanced scenarios against the new fighter. There have been several other exercises with similar outcomes (some of which were formal and others' not so, some of which have been made public) as well as other comments, that illustrate the aircraft's capabilities.
You mention the E-3 in your post, which I think really illustrates how different the F-35 is to other aircraft. For aircraft like the F-15 the E-3 is viewed as a force multiplier, giving the pilot a better situational awareness at all levels. The Sentry only provides a marginal benefit for F-35s: JSF pilots have better situational awareness in their immediate tactical environment due to the higher data input and sensor fusion systems, and perhaps equal operational perspectives due to sensor fusion and Link-16 connectivity. E-3s' intelligence gathering and analysis capabilities are less valuable to a pilot who arguably has better situational awareness of his immediate surroundings: the Sentry basically becomes another sensor platform feeding raw data into the F-35. Probably the best way to understand it is that the F-35 has roughly as good maneuverability as other aircraft, with superior situational awareness and low observability to boot: you're not likely to have many losses to other aircraft.
I'm sure that there will also be setups (likely at Redflag) where you'll see a F-22, Rafale, Eurofighter, or a Growler get gun cannon footage of them taking down the hot new F-35, accompanied by the usual chorus of criticism about what a terrible aircraft this is. However those are usually done to place pilots of the F-35 in a disadvantageous position that strips away all of the aircraft's innate advantages, and focus on specific skills at the merge that they are perhaps less competent in.
I know this all sounds like a very positive review, but its pretty hard to ignore the operators' views on this topic, and the growing body of results. I think much of the negative opinion in the early years were by individuals who had never operated, much less even seen the JSF, reacting to what was viewed as a plane that was promised to be super duper "stealth fighter." However as increasing numbers of pilots are trained and operated on the aircraft, and others try to confront it in exercises, the opinion has changed significantly. I believe that outside of some individuals who operated with F-22s over the Levant, very few Canadian pilots have been exposed to this sort of capability, which is why its not well understood outside of certain circles within DND.
suffolkowner said:
I'm not 100% on this, but the Full Rate ProductionDecision Review can only occur after DOT&E has completed its work and the design is complete, so there are statutory elements to it. Then again people think DOT&E is a political body, so....
However it has significant effects on the program. Perhaps the largest is the ability for it to access 10 USC 2306b, which is the Multi year procurement approach. The reason why DoD wanted to do a "block buy" was that without FRP, they can't actually use the proper multi-year approach, so they needed an alternative.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
dapaterson said:Trusting manufacturers not to game the system. How's that Volkswagen diesel doing for you?
Well I am very happy with my TDI, I'll let you know tomorrow if I feel the same way when they announce the package they will be offering to try to keep their customer.
Similar threads
