F-35 Lightning II

[Orel]

Lokheed Martin selecciona a la española EINSA como proveedor del Posicionador de Cargas Externas del F-35 Lightning en su versión de exportación.
05 de Diciembre de 2014



Cinco años antes, en el año 2001, el VAP-60i fabricado y diseñado completamente por EINSA, había resultado elegido como el sistema de cargas para todos los aviones de combate de la Royal Air Force (RAF) incluido el misil de crucero Storm Shadow...
Aunque en el año 2006 no se llegó a cerrar ningún acuerdo con Lockheed Martin, la empresa española, basándose en su trayectoria y experiencia en posicionadores de cargas, desarrolló por su cuenta el posicionador VAP-40D ATEX, que no solamente cumplía las especificaciones establecidas por Lockheed Martin, sino que las mejoraba en numerosos aspectos y del que suministró ocho unidades a la Fuerza Aérea de Noruega. El VAP-40D ATEX (que cumple la normativa ATEX relativa a la atmósfera explosiva), años después, es la base del modelo seleccionado para el F-35 Lightning por Lockheed Martin.

http://www.defensa.com/index.php?option ... Itemid=162

[MedalOfHorror]

Hablando del F-35

[MedalOfHorror]

Siguiendo con el tema de los costes y leyendo el informe del SAR sobre el F-35...voy y me encuentro con esto en relación con los costes:

Although the unitized costs for the entire F-35 program decreased slightly when compared to figures from the 2012 Milestone (MS) B estimate, the F-35A CTOL unitized cost figure shown in the Table above increased slightly relative to the comparable MS B figure. There are three considerations that result in a slight increase for the F-35A unitized cost shown above: 1) discrete modelling for Air Force squadrons by geographic location and active or reserve components; 2) no change in the fuel burn rate for the F-35A variant; and 3) updated Depot-Level Repairable (DLR) reliabilities and costs as discussed in detail in the following section on Total O&S Costs. Given the significant increase in military capabilities provided, it is reasonable to expect F-35A to cost more to operate and sustain than 4th generation legacy aircraft.

Y sobre cómo no creerse los números hasta extrapolarlos y compararlos:

The F-35 program office estimate of $916.8B TY$ ($541.1B BY 2012 dollars) differs from the CAPE estimate in primarily four areas: reliability, depot overhaul, government/contractor manpower and F-35A fuel consumption. In each of these cases, the F-35 program office elected to use the latest technical data provided by F-35 personnel working in conjunction with the Services. The CAPE used a different data source for reliability as described above. In the case of depot overhaul, government/contractor personnel, and F-35A fuel consumption the CAPE used different technical assumptions than the program office. Incorporating the same technical baseline for these four areas results in less than two percent difference between the CAPE and F-35 program estimates, as opposed to the current ten percent difference

Todo en negro sobre blanco: http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/u ... 13-SAR.pdf

[alfavega]

Cambian el color de los tanques de los camiones de abastecimiento de combustible para el F-35, si no lo creéis leer este artículo.

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... downs.aspx

[Orel]

Efectivamente, el F-35 no acepta temperaturas elevadas en el combustible repostado, con lo que han pintado con ese recubrimiento especial los camiones de combustible para que no se caliente. A largo plazo instalarán aparcamientos cubiertos para que los camiones de repostaje estén a la sombra... para quejarse luego de cazas con parasol, aquí hasta el camión de repostaje.
Es mucho más barato y sencillo aplicar ese tratamiento a los camiones (4.000 dólares cada uno) y poner techos parasol que cambiar lo que fuese necesario en el F-35.

[polluelo]

A todos los aviones se les controla la temperatura del combustible. Y la presión de repostado. Es la única manera de que cosillas como el peso y volumen sean las correctas porque están relacionadas.

Aquí no es necesario porque todos los camiones en todas las bases están debajo de un parasol desde hace, como poco, cincuenta años.



Armilla, que no es que sea precisamente una de las mas punteras.

Valiente chorrada de noticia.

[Silver Surfer]

Alguien va a tener que conducir semejante "blanco" de combustible alrededor de una zona de combate.

[Chorbis]

Y ahí va un vídeo (en inglés) sobre el tema de los camiones de combustibles....................

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rwhYzZ3UIc

[polluelo]

De verdad que alucino. Así que si el combustible está a temperatura ambiente, pongamos a 40º, el avión no puede enfriar algo que está a 300.

Y cuando el resto de los aviones hacen lo mismo usando el pellejo del avión a 40º, exactamente como este, ¿no hay problemas?

[Chorbis]

No tendrá que ver con el recubrimiento radar o la estructura interna de los depósitos que se degrade con el combustible. Creo que los compuestos y el combustible rociado encima de ellos no son muy amigos

[polluelo]

Me imagino que en diez años que lleva volando habrian tenido tiempo de darse cuenta de que se degradaba. Y si se degrada si el combustible viene de una cisterna verde, ¿deja de hacerlo si viene de una blanca? Y si viene de una cisterna aparcada debajo de un techado, ¿ya no les ocurre nada a los depósitos?

[polluelo]

Aunque ya no es interesante, la versión de la Usaf y der la oficina del programa:

""This is not an F-35 issue; there are no special restrictions on the F-35 related to fuel temperature. The F-35 uses the same fuel as other military aircraft. It can fly under the same temperature conditions as any other advanced military aircraft," the Pentagon's F-35 Joint Program Office told CNBC. "

" There is no fuel temperature upper limitation on F-35 operations that would prevent sorties, and no sorties have been cancelled as a result of fuel temperature,” Kyra Hawn, deputy spokesman at the JPO, said in an email this morning. “Daily F-35 operations at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, and Luke Air Force Base have been unaffected by hot environment or fuel temperature.”

De hace un rato. El problema al que tratan de anticiparse en Luke es que, cuando tengan la base completamente operativa, van a tener dando vueltas 144 aviones y por tanto van a tener que mantener cisternas aparcadas a pleno sol. El problema son los camiones, no los aviones, así que están mirando si sale mas rentable hacer aparcamientos por toda la plataforma o pintarlos en colores claros.

[Silver Surfer]

El primer F-35 italiano listo para marzo 2015. Tambien algo de los japoneses: http://aviationweek.com/defense/first-f ... name--id~~

[champi]

Sobre el F-35 y el CAS: http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/ ... f6244571=1

Aaron Mehta / 4 days ago
...
Helping to drive that work is Maj. Gen. Jay Silveria, who commands the USAF Warfare Center at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. Silveria, the highest-ranking officer yet checked out on the F-35, sat down with a small group of reporters on Dec. 5 to talk about flying the jet and how his team is testing and developing tactics for the fifth-generation fighter.
...
Q: Are you seeing any concerns about using the F-35 for CAS?

A. [The F-35] is going to be able to do the CAS mission effectively. We’ve already executed on the ranges at night and at day, able to receive targets from terminal air controllers on the ground and able to attack and prosecute targets within timeframes that are well acceptable in a battlefield situation. So we’ve already seen that. Which means, if we’re already seeing it now, I know it’s going to get better.

The beauty of fusion is — it brings all the data together and it fuses it, but what that really does for you is time. I didn’t have to process it between my ears, but the airplane can now fuse it all together. And much [more quickly], the data fusion is available on a target, it can be targeted, a munition can delivered much, much quicker than in a 4th-gen where you would have to interpret the data, move it to another sensor, move it to a targeting system, then determine a target. The fusion makes it much quicker. So if we’re doing it now, the fusion is going to only make it much quicker.

Q: How much time do you gain from fusion?

A. That’s a harder question… Here’s a better way to describe it: in this airplane, in the F-35, I’ve done some CAS in the daytime with an A-10 weapons school instructor who is an F-35 instructor now. He gets me pointed in the general direction of a target on the ground and I use my helmet. I put my helmet over there, and with one-switch actualization all my sensors now look at that spot. Just like that, instantly.

Now, in a 4th-gen plane, I would have to get a sensor worked over to there. I would have to get information off of that sensor. I would have to move that information somewhere else in the airplane and then I would target it. So when I put my helmet over there and I went one-switch actualization, all of my sensors went to that spot and everything in the airplane said, “OK, we’re ready to go.” So all I had to do was get in a weapons solution and release on that spot I found on the ground. Whereas if I was in an F-16, if I got a sensor on there, whether I got a targeting pod or something else, I would have to take that information and then turn it into a target in the system.

We’re talking about minutes. Which matters a lot. Seconds are going to count in a close air support situation, so it’s much faster.

Q: Is your assumption that most CAS will be done with an external weapons load?

A. We’re not necessarily making assumptions in the CAS on the weapons load. We are developing tactics on how best to prosecute a target on the ground. But clearly when we write those tactics, external payloads, we’ve had the tradeoff discussion here; external payloads come with a tradeoff of LO [low observability], of weight, etc.

It depends on the scenario. If you’re in a scenario, say early in a conflict where you expect air to air threat and surface to air threat, then you are going to use and rely on your internal carriage and your LO capabilities of the airplane. And the fact your weapons load is less because it doesn’t have external, you’re gaining that tin the early parts of a conflict. Then in the scenario I described the surface to air threats or air to air threats are held back and contained, so now an air component commander doesn’t necessarily need the LO capability of the airplane and then may decide to configure it differently in that situation. So I think what the airplane will do will then provide that LO when you need it and when you don’t obviously you can do something different.

We’re not there yet. We’re not developing [tactics] on the external load.

Is there anything super-surprising in there? Not particularly. But as someone who is checked out on the F-35 and flies it somewhat regularly, Silveria is worth a close listen.

Y sobre el mantenimiento en Europa, Italia, RU y Turquía se repartirán la mayoría del pastel: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... pe-407030/

Y ya de paso, Canadá publica el informe en el que se comparaba al F-35 con las alternativas de "4ª generación", y el resultado es que estos cumplen sobrados menos en el caso de ... ir a la guerra con otro país : http://www.montrealgazette.com/News/pol ... story.html

[polluelo]

Evidente, a quien se le ocurriria comprar un avión de guerra para ir a la guerra.