F-35 Lightning II

[polluelo]

Muchas veces puede que nos gusten las respuestas rebuscadas.

Es un avión de pruebas, lo mismo un simulador, si le dices al regulador que estas usando Jp-4 el indicador te dice que estás usando ese. O lo mismo lo mide automaticamente y la densidad del combustible en ese momento, que es como se comprueba, coincide con la del Jp-4 y el motor se adapta a ese combustible.

A mi me parece mas raro que tenga blocados blancos, si es que eso son los triangulos rojos, y esté con el aviso del dump encendido. ¿quien se pone a tirar combustible en medio de un combate?

[champi]

Me imagino que es entonces como cuando a una calculadora de los chinos le calcas a dos botones a la vez y se ven todos los dí­gitos en pantalla...

Por otra parte, los israelí­es pujando por el mantenimiento: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ce-367277/

By: Arie Egozi Tel Aviv
Source: Flight International

Israel's air force has again expressed its opposition to the idea of performing heavy maintenance work on its future fleet of Lockheed Martin F-35 combat aircraft outside Israel.

As part of the US stealth fighter programme, Lockheed and the US Air Force want to establish regional maintenance centres for the F-35, with one such facility planned for Italy.

During recent talks between the Israeli air force and the USAF, Israel's opposition to using an overseas facility was underlined. A source close to the issue said the Americans understand the Israeli service's "special needs", and that alternative ways are now being evaluated to perform heavy maintenance on the F-35 at its own bases.

Deliveries from Israel's first order for 20 conventional take-off and landing F-35As are expected to start in early 2017, the source said, adding there is also an understanding that the air force will get permission to interface some Israeli-developed systems or equipment following their arrival.

This possibility applies mainly to the aircraft's electronic warfare suite, as previous Israeli requests to equip the type with domestically manufactured equipment were rejected.

[champi]

Interés a largo plazo de Singapur, EUA, Brasil, Arabia y la India http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asi ... ory_1.html

...
Singapore also has said it will buy F-35, although it hasn't set numbers yet, and there may be longer-term interest from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Brazil and India, said Hardy, of IHS Jane's.
...

[champi]

Artí­culo extenso de opinión, donde se destaca como los pilotos británicos están encantados con él, no así­ con sus polí­ticos. Uno de las decisiones más criticadas es la de cambiar de versión, ya que supone que gran parte del dinero invertido en desarrollo se gastó en una versión que no van a utilizar, por no hablar de los portas... También se deja entrever que ahora mismo no serán capaces de cumplir en plazo con las 138 unidades previstas. Así­ que se les abren varias posibilidades, todas ellas implicando mayor coste. Una de ellas es dilatar el periodo de adquisición (en teorí­a la mejor de las opciones), otra es renunciar a algunas unidades (pero perderí­an parte de la producción), y la última supondrí­a la venta a terceros (la más improbable, ya que necesitarí­an también la aprobación de EEUU y no serí­a fácil encontrar clientes): http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/home/mosl ... lane-.html

Más de opinión, en este caso en contra de la utilidad de la versión "B" de un oficial de los marines: http://mcgazette.blogspot.com/2012/01/g ... stovl.html

Posted by Peter J. Munson

Thom Shanker from the NYT reports this morning about Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's decision to take the F-35B Lightning II off of probation. The B variant is a short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) jet capable of taking off from short landing strips or the deck of an amphibious ship (as opposed to a catapult-assisted launch and an arrested landing on a full-sized carrier). The Marine Corps' story is that STOVL is needed for (a) use in amphibious scenarios and (b) expeditionary scenarios where landing sites are limited. Shanker alludes to this in discussing "the importance to the Marine Corps of coming up with a replacement for its Harrier jump-jet, which has proved its value in countering insurgencies and terrorists in rugged, remote areas."

But has the Harrier really proven its unique value in countering insurgencies, etc? The Harrier has surely been a large part of Marine aviation since 9/11, but its STOVL characteristics were rarely, if ever, critical to the conduct of operations. If anything, the capability was a liability when it came to the requirement for long on-station times, multiple ordnance options, and tedious scanning of compounds and cities with targeting pods in support of troops on the ground. Marines often refer to the plane by saying "one man, one bomb, one hour." It is not that the Harrier has been incapable or has failed in its support of Marines on the ground. However, the STOVL capability forces a tradeoff in terms on-station time and weapons carriage. The F/A-18, especially in the two-seat D version, is far more capable of staying on station longer, conducting better scans using targeting pods, and carrying more weapons to give the ground units more options in these fights where one might need to level a building or might need to take out a small group of insurgents not far from a civilian-inhabited compound.

While Harriers have conducted some forward rearming and refueling at shorter strips, these were more driven by the Harrier's limitations and the desire to validate its expeditionary capability than a value added to the fight. That is, while a Harrier was rearming and refueling, a Hornet would be overhead, sensor still on target, refueling from a KC-130, more weapons still on the wing.

So, when the program hits a rough spot again, which history suggests is very possible, and when the budget adjusters come knocking, the Marine Corps needs to be honest about how much STOVL capability it really needs to maintain its close air support capability aboard amphibious shipping, how soon unmanned aerial systems can fill that gap, and what the best option is for the rest of our close air support needs.

Australia también podrí­a reformar su calendario de adquisiciones: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/ ... ying-f35s/

By Rod McGuirk - The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Jan 30, 2012 8:34:01 EST

CANBERRA, Australia — Australia is reviewing its timetable for buying 12 troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, the defense minister said Monday after the United States announced a rethink of its purchase schedule for the futuristic warplanes.

Australia is a funding partner in developing the JSF, which the U.S. Defense Department describes as the largest fighter aircraft program in history. The Lockheed Martin Corp. JSF program has been troubled by repeated blowouts in cost as well as delivery schedules.

Most of the funding for the fighter comes from the United States, while Canada, Turkey, Britain, Italy, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands are also funding partners.

Australian Defense Minister Stephen Smith said Monday that Canberra is only contractually obligated to take delivery of two of the warplanes. They will be based in the United States and be available from 2014 for training Australian pilots.

Smith said Australia is reconsidering its schedule of buying another 12 during the following three years.

"We will now give consideration to whether the timetable for the purchase of those 12 Joint Strike Fighters should occur on the same timetable," Smith told reporters.

Smith is concerned that any decision by the U.S. to reduce the number of jets it produces for its own forces would create another cost blowout.

Smith said in August last year that he would announce in 2012 whether Australia will invest in an alternative fighter such as the Boeing Co. Super Hornet to ensure that schedule delays do not compromise Australia's air force capabilities.
...

[Orel]

donde se destaca como los pilotos británicos están encantados con él

Está claro que será un gran pájaro.

The F/A-18, especially in the two-seat D version, is far more capable of staying on station longer, conducting better scans using targeting pods, and carrying more weapons to give the ground units more options

Vaya, pues menudo plan. De todos modos, es un tanto injusto ya que tení­an que comparar al F-35B con el Harrier, y ahí­ el JSF sale ganando seguro. Otra cosa es que, como dicen, han visto que el STOVL apenas se usa realmente y que les merecerí­an más la pena más Rhinos ó F-35C.

E ingleses y australianos planteándose alargar las entregas, recortar... Para que luego critiquen sólo a alguno por lo que les pasa a todos.

Un saludo

[polluelo]

Hay una gran diferencia que tu "fijación" por el Efa te impide ver, uno es un avión que lleva operativo un puñado de años al que se le alargan los plazos y sigue sin terminar de ofrecer todo lo solicitado hace veinte años, el otro no deja de ser un prototipo. Es normal que en el periodo de pruebas los periodos, los planes y las previsiones se fastidien, que ocurra cuando hay doscientos aviones iguales en vuelo operando desde hace diez años ya no es tan "como todos".

[Orel]

Y dale con la puñetera "fijación"
Oye, que también digo que va a ser un gran pájaro
Y sí­ que es bastante "como todos". Por ejemplo, en el caso de capacidad AS del Tiffie, recuerdo que los 3 socios que la querí­an era para más tarde (algo menos RU) y con la llegada de la crisis no hizo más que retrasarse más (doble retraso). Otros que la pidieron desde el principio la han tenido retrasada, pero antes, obviamente. O el AESA. Ya se tení­a un AESA listo y probado para el Tiffie en 2007. Pero de cara al futuro vieron mejor algo más revolucionario y se pusieron con otro. ¿Mala decisión dada la crisis que vení­a? Puede. Sin embargo otros se han quedado con AESAs que ahora están bien, pero en nada estarán superados. Eso sí­, ya lo tienen.
Depende. En el Tiffie se han dejado mucho tiempo en desarrollarle cosas como el DVI, la fusión de sensores, el protocolo para el MIDS o el visor de casco (todo lo cual ha resultado más difí­cil de lo esperado), cosas que no se ven mucho "desde fuera" pero que todos los que lo vuelan afirman que marca diferencia. Al menos eso: tener un caza con retraso (¡que nunca he negado que lo tenga, y grande!) pero que sea eficaz respecto a lo que se puede enfrentar.
Y si ya hablamos de retraso en entregas, eso ya no es culpa del avión ni de que cueste desarrollarle algo, si no que no hay pelas.

Un saludo

[polluelo]

Pues entonces no es como todos, tu mismo lo reconoces.

En un lado se han juntado el hambre con las ganas de comer, el retraso asumido en añadir nuevas caracteristicas y la crisis. En el otro tenemos la crisis. Y mientras que en un modelo vemos como los propios socios son los primeros que hacen todo lo posible por cargarselo, y algún dia puede que se arrepientan, en el otro vemos que los socios no solo no reculan como se venia diciendo machaconamente sino que se van añadiendo nuevos primos.

Por mucho que nos empeñemos o nos duela las situaciones no son iguales, uno es un programa que podria haber sido magní­fico y que se va a quedar a medio camino y el otro es un programa que contra viento y marea tiene todas las pintas de superar todas los problemas para convertirse en la nueva vara de medir para el resto.

[Orel]

Pues entonces no es como todos, tu mismo lo reconoces...
...
...no solo no reculan como se venia diciendo machaconamente...

Aún no lo sabemos (y no le deseo ningún mal al F-35). ¿Cuántos aviones han firmado? Poco puedes recortar si aún no has firmado nada. De todos modos al F-35 le pillará una situación económica mucho mejor que al Tiffie, ya que a éste le pilló plena crisis cuando estaban negociando la T3 y el desarrollo de nuevas capacidades. Cuando se empiece a comprar el F-35 a saco, la economí­a habrá mejorado muchí­simo. A poco.
No hay más que ver los compis del Tiffie (que se queda sin T3B y le alargan entregas): F-22 recortado a 180 aviones, Rafale produciéndose a mí­nima cadencia alargando producción sin saber sobre las dos futuras tranches restantes, Gripen recortado por Suecia a "sólo" 100 aviones propios, los dos posibles desarrollos rusos de la época (de Mig y Sujoi) fueron cancelados... ¿Quién se libra? ¿No es parecido?

para convertirse en la nueva vara de medir para el resto.

Eso no lo dudo.

[Orel]

Gracias a Mauricio, en el FMG:
http://i1092.photobucket.com/albums/i40 ... g60-62.png
Holanda y RU listos para recibir su primer F-35 este año.

[champi]

Italia reduce su pedido a 90 unidades: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0 ... akeup.html

By Chiara Vasarri and Sabine Pirone

(Updates with comment from analyst in fourth paragraph, from Lockheed in sixth.)

Feb. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Italy will reduce its planned order for Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 fighter jets by about 40 and trim the size of the military as part of a program to reduce defense spending, Defense Minister Giampaolo Di Paola said today.

Italy will purchase 90 F-35s rather than the planned 131, Di Paola said in Rome before a joint defense committee of both houses of parliament. The nation will also slash military manpower by about 30,000 soldiers and 10,000 civilians, he said.
...
“Italy's decision won't have a huge impact on the program, but it's probably symptomatic of lower F-35 sales overall,”said Paul Brant, a defense analyst at Collins Stewart in London, who predicts that production may drop by 15 percent. “I imagine most nations will bring down their numbers. The U.S. will probably cut the total it orders by about 500 from the original 2,400.”
...
Di Paola said today that Italy had spent 2.5 billion euros ($3.3 billion) on the F-35, and that a review had indicated one- third fewer planes would suffice. Lockheed, the world's biggest defense contractor, said it understood the financial challenges facing global defense budgets and appreciated Italy's continued commitment to the jet, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter.
...

[champi]

Se instala el motor en el primer F-35 holandés: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -f_35.html

Engine for First Dutch JSF Aircraft
(Source: Netherlands Ministry of Defence; issued February 15, 2012)

The first Joint Strike Fighter designated for the Netherlands has had its jet engine installed. The Netherlands has thus far ordered two of these F-35 fighter aircraft as test aircraft.

Personnel of Lockheed Martin installed the Pratt & Whitney engine, which measures 5.5 by almost 1.5 metres. Production is running according to schedule.

Testing

The aircraft, to which the air force will give tail number F-001, was transferred to the last assembly line in the factory in October 2011. Lockheed Martin has scheduled ground tests for late March 2012. That will include testing of the fuel system and the radar equipment. That phase will be followed by the first test flights.

Y primeras pruebas con armamento externo: http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... |FRONTPAGE

Feb. 20, 2012 - 01:30PM |
By DAVE MAJUMDAR | Comments


An F-35A version of the Joint Strike Fighter is seen during testing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. (Paul Weatherman / Lockheed Martin)

The U.S. Air Force's F-35A version of the tri-service Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has begun flight testing with external stores at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., plane-maker Lockheed Martin said Feb. 20.

The JSF test force flew a plane loaded with two AIM-9X short-range air-to-air missiles, each carried on an external pylon. Additionally, the jet carried two 2,000-pound bombs and two AIM-120 radar-guided air-to-air missiles inside its twin internal weapon bays. A photo accompanying the Lockheed release indicates that the aircraft was also carrying four additional pylons that were not loaded.

The fifth-generation fighter is designed to carry up to 18,000 pounds on 10 weapon stations. Four of those weapon stations are inside its two weapon bays, the rest are on each wing. The wing weapon stations would only be used when stealth is not a priority as external carriage would betray the jet to enemy radars.

[Orel]

Sobre exportación del F-35, no sólo a Corea, y cadencia de producción anual y pedidos yanquis anuales esperados:

Lockheed Dismisses Korea F-35 Schedule Issue
Feb 21, 2012

SINGAPORE — A Pentagon decision to reduce near-term F-35 purchases will not hinder Lockheed Martin from meeting South Korea's demand for an early 2016 first delivery under the F-X3 fighter program, insists David Scott, director of F-35 international customer engagement for the prime contractor.

Current production capacity can build 48 aircraft annually, and with the U.S. looking to buy around 30 aircraft per year, there are slots to meet South Korea's demands, as well as other near-term international buyers such as Japan, Turkey, Italy and Norway.

A Joint Strike Fighter steering board will convene soon to update and reconcile purchase plans. If there is need for extra tooling to be acquired either at Lockheed Martin or in the F-35 supply chain, there would be time to do so, Scott tells Aviation Week during the Singapore air show.

The South Korean competition to supply 60 fighters will pit the F-35A against the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle and, potentially, European bidders.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... le%20Issue

[champi]

Fotos en vuelo con el cañón externo: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ed-368756/





A 23 de febrero, 1.704 vuelos y sobre 2.500h de vuelo. De ellos, 114 vuelos en lo que llevamos de año.

Para ampliar: http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... |FRONTPAGE

Todo marcha bien, pero hay algo de preocupación en cuanto al desarrollo del software y la presentación de datos en el casco. Respecto al gancho de la versión "C", el problema del calor generado en postcombustión y lo del combustible:

...
Other problems such as the tailhook, fuel-dump system, and heat from the jet's afterburner damaging the tail surfaces at supersonic flights are relatively simple to solve, Ebersole said. As the program goes forward, there will be more problems that come to the surface, but that is case with any aircraft development program.
...

[poliorcetes]

Lo del pod de cañón me parece un atraso brutal. Me recuerda a los primeros F4, puesto de urgencia porque con los misiles no podí­an zumbar a los vietnamitas. Ya fue absurdo que no pusieran nuestro mauser, que les habrí­a ahorrado bastantes kilos, pero encima ocupar ese espacio vital... lamentable