Por Tierra Mar y Aire
Moderadores: Lepanto, poliorcetes, Edu, Orel
por alejandro_ el Mar Jul 21, 2015 1:26 pm
Como ya he comentado en su hilo correspondiente, el problema de CMANO es que es una caja negra, es decir, no sabemos nada mas que los parametros de entrada y los de salida. Asi que es una interpretación de la realidad que no conocemos lo proxima que está a la realidad.
por Roberto Montesa el Mar Jul 21, 2015 2:16 pm
Orel escribió:
Y para ser justos, unos días después ese mismo blog publicaba un artículo de un entendido (editor jefe de la revista Aerospace de la Royal Aeronautical Society) diciendo lo contrario: los F-35 ingleses con Meteor derribarían sin problemas Su-35S rusos a gran distancia. Eso sí, con Meteor, no AMRAAM
por Voronezh el Mar Jul 21, 2015 2:53 pm
alejandro_ escribió:Como ya he comentado en su hilo correspondiente, el problema de CMANO es que es una caja negra, es decir, no sabemos nada mas que los parametros de entrada y los de salida. Asi que es una interpretación de la realidad que no conocemos lo proxima que está a la realidad.
A mí lo que me sorprende es que ni siquiera con un A-50 logran detectar los F-35. Claro que Lockheed Martin, uno de los principales contratistas del F-35, participa en este simulador.
Saludos.
por Shipbreak el Mar Jul 21, 2015 9:07 pm
por bandua el Mié Jul 22, 2015 12:41 am
ese es el tema con todas las simulaciones, necesitan datos fiables y probablemente las que hagan con los datos más fiables no sean públicas. Al final puedes ir ajustando parámetros y hacerlas públicas cuando sale algo que te gusta. Si lo que sale no te gusta nadie se entera. A los rusos les sale que gana suckoi, a los franceses rafale, usa f35, etc...Voronezh escribió:alejandro_ escribió:Como ya he comentado en su hilo correspondiente, el problema de CMANO es que es una caja negra, es decir, no sabemos nada mas que los parametros de entrada y los de salida. Asi que es una interpretación de la realidad que no conocemos lo proxima que está a la realidad.
A mí lo que me sorprende es que ni siquiera con un A-50 logran detectar los F-35. Claro que Lockheed Martin, uno de los principales contratistas del F-35, participa en este simulador.
Saludos.
Lockheed Martin compró el Microsoft ESP para desarrollar el simulador Prepar3D. Microsoft ESP es la variante profesional del simulador 'Microsoft Flight Simulator'.
CMANO es un simulador muy diferente a P3D. Este ultimo es un entorno para pilotar aviones. CMANO es un simulator táctico/estrategico de guerra aeronaval.
Los desarrolladores de CMANO son fanboys, como todos y se basan en la percepción de la realidad que se les presenta. Un ejemplo. Debido al articulo que salio en War is boring sobre la maniobrabilidad del F-35, le han bajado la maniobrabilidad de 5 a 4.5. Al final lo malo es que los parámetros son subjetivos y no hay datos suficientes para defender ninguna postura.
por Voronezh el Mié Jul 22, 2015 9:17 am
bandua escribió:ese es el tema con todas las simulaciones, necesitan datos fiables y probablemente las que hagan con los datos más fiables no sean públicas. Al final puedes ir ajustando parámetros y hacerlas públicas cuando sale algo que te gusta. Si lo que sale no te gusta nadie se entera. A los rusos les sale que gana suckoi, a los franceses rafale, usa f35, etc...
por Orel el Mié Jul 22, 2015 10:49 am
Dudo mucho que War is Boring tenga datos fiables dado que es solo un blog.
Tim Robinson is editor in chief of the Royal Aeronautical Society’s flagship monthly magazine AEROSPACE, where this article originally appeared. He can be found online at http://www.aerosociety.com/ or @RAeSTimR.
por Orel el Jue Jul 23, 2015 1:45 am
por champi el Sab Jul 25, 2015 8:34 am
por Chorbis el Sab Jul 25, 2015 10:48 am
Orel escribió:Comienzan las pruebas de disparo de cañón en el suelo:
http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123454036
por champi el Mar Jul 28, 2015 12:03 pm
By Colin Clark on July 27, 2015 at 6:34 PM
WASHINGTON: During the Marine’s recent operational readiness test of the F-35B, four of the Marine aircraft went up against nine enemy aircraft.
“It went very poorly for the bad guys,” Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, deputy commandant for aviation, told me this afternoon. Davis provided few details, saying they were classified, He did say that the F-35s faced a threat that “we have never put an F-16 or a Harrier against.” The F-35Bs, he said, did a “great job.”
I asked Davis about the recent news that the F-35A did not fare that well in dogfight conditions against an F-16. “I love the F-16. It was a great airplane. Still is pretty good, buti would not want to be in a fight against an F-35.”
In a clear message to A-10 advocates, Davis said the F-35B performed extremely well at Close Air Support missions using Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) and laster-guided GBU-12s. The aircraft does need a cannon, he conceded, for some missions. The gun is currently undergoing its first tests mounted on an aircraft but it won’t be deployed on the plane until 2017 when the Block 3F software is installed. But Davis was unequivocal in his enthusiasm for the aircraft.
Davis said he had made his recommendation about the F-35B’s Initial Operating Capabilitity to Marine Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford: “He’s got all the paperwork now and he’s going through it.” Breaking D readers will remember that Dunford has been nominated to become the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and has been a bit busy recently dealing with nomination hearings and such.
Davis said early models of the F-35B are currently maintaining a 60 percent to 65 percent mission readiness rate, something he expects to rise substantially as more newer planes come to the line. He noted a training squadron with newer planes was “getting 70 to 75 percent rates the other day.” The overall goal is 80 percent later in the program.
The Marines plan to buy 353 F-35Bs and Davis said he has heard absolutely nothing to convince him that number should be cut. It seems pretty certain he has recommended to Dunford that IOC be approved, but, as he put it, that’s the commandant’s decision.
2015-07-27 By Ed Timperlake and Robbin Laird
...
Question: We last talked several years ago with regard to the LO materials approach.
How would you characterize progress since that time?
Each of the tested aircraft has demonstrated, empirically, that the airplanes have not changed noticeably, or at all.
Despite hundreds, and in some cases as we’re approaching thousands of hours on those airframes, we’re not seeing significant degradation in the system.
...
Question: Do you see the lessons learned from legacy aircraft so that when the F35 hits the fleet in large numbers, not only are you getting advantage from the additional 2,000 extra hours, but the air frame having the advantage of being designed and built with 21st century materials technologies?
The result, clearly, is the F-35 LO system is an order of magnitude reduction in maintenance compared to all other LO systems. That was our objective; that kind of durability and that kind of supportability, which 21st century materials and manufacturing technologies can provide.
We’re very encouraged by what we see so far.
And the Low Observables Health Assessment System or LOHAS that provides awareness of what the signature maintenance requirements are has been extremely successful too.
We’re seeing ridiculously low LO maintenance burden, almost to the point of questioning credulity by people who see the numbers.
It is amazing how little maintenance the jet requires regarding LO.
...
Question: You have referred to two parts of your organization, the Materials and Processes or M and P, group and the OML group.
What is the OML group?
We have two materials and processes organizations on the program. We have the folks that are responsible for the airframe, the structure, and the subsystems. They’re the ones that do the qualifications of subsystems.
They’re the ones that do all the corrosion testing of the black boxes and working with the Vehicle Systems and Airframe Design Teams to make sure that we have an integrated structure that meets the 8,000-hour durability goal.
Then we have our team, which is Signature Materials and Processes.
We’re responsible for all of the coatings and all the ancillary repair materials and things that go with the coatings.
Everything from the structure out that makes the jet meet its goals from a signature standpoint. The outer mold line spray coating that we have all over the jet is something that the signature materials and processes team is responsible for.
We’re trying to use our qualification testing, our initial evaluation of material systems, in a way that ensures that they have a long life under the wide varieties of environments that we expect the airplane to see.
Then we also recognize that things always happen and even if the material doesn’t intrinsically fail, there’s always a possibility of somebody dropping the tool box or running into the edge of a panel or dropping a cover on the deck of the ship.
Damage is going to happen, so we also have to design, right from the very beginning, compatible repair materials – that work in an operational environment and, in fact, have the same durability as the original materials.
This is maybe a unique point, none of our repair materials are actually repair materials only.
Everything that we use in the field for repair is also used as part of initial production of the airplane, so they’re not limited life repairs. When you make a repair it’s as good as the original and so you don’t have to go back 1,000 hours later or two years later and repair it again because you’ve got some short-term repair material that you’ve slapped on.
Question: You just told us that you really are pre-investing in to less depot maintenance throughout the jet’s service life.
How does the process change because of the pre-investment dynamic?
It doesn’t absolutely require depot personnel or depot facilities to affect wide-scale repair of the LO should that be necessary so there’s greater operational flexibility.
The greatest innovations to reduce depot dependence were the manufacture of stealth materials into the structural skins and development of very durable topical materials.
There’s no requirement to strip and recoat our airplane; we’ll just need paint “refresh” like other airplanes.
Our team culture of synergistic cooperation between engineering disciplines, manufacturing, and sustainment is also unprecedented on this program.
Supportable LO, or SLO, is a hybrid organization combining Sustainment and Signature Design that provides a streamline of mutually-shared requirements that improves performance, lowers the cost of manufacturing and translates into availability and affordable stealth.
...
por Orel el Jue Jul 30, 2015 7:31 pm
The U.S. Navy Doesn’t Seem to Care That the F-35 Can’t Dogfight. To the sailing branch, the stealth fighter is a sensor
The Navy apparently doesn’t care that its F-35C is a poor performer in raw kinetic terms. In the sailing branch’s evolving battle scheme, the JSF will focus on finding targets... for older F/A-18 fighters and missile-armed warships to shoot down.
...Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker, the Navy’s top aviator, called the JSF’s sensor combo a “game-changer.” “Suck[ing] in all that information,” an F-35 can paint “a great, clear picture of who’s good and who’s bad.” And that can help solve one of the Navy’s biggest problems: identifying targets at long range inside enemy lines so that surface ships and non-stealthy F/A-18 fighters can bring to bear their SM-6 and AIM-120 missiles, which can travel farther than the shooters’ sensors can see.
...Indeed, the Navy is building an entire battle plan around the F-35’s sensors and its ability to share sensor data via data-link, all while avoiding detection by enemy forces. “The F-35 will lead the way ashore, disabling information nodes and grids, while providing the air-ground task force with unprecedented awareness of opposing challenges,” the Navy explained in its Naval Aviation Vision planning document from 2014.
...The Navy has a name for this battle plan: “Naval Integrated Fire Control - Counter-Air” or NIFC-CA. There’s actually a lot more to it than just F-35s, F-18s and destroyers. At its heart, NIFC-CA is actually an expanded version of the Aegis system that equips all of the Navy’s cruisers and destroyers...
...Critically, the F-35 is the only stealthy contributor to the NIFC-CA network that the Navy acknowledges, so it’s arguably the best sensor platform for gathering data for the network even when enemy radars are scanning and enemy fighters are patrolling... the F-35 might be able to sneak past defenders without firing a shot. For an F-18 to do the same thing, it’d first have to fight its way through opposing forces.
If it’s sneaking and sensing instead of merely fighting, a JSF might not need to be a superior dogfighter
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u- ... ebd1cb5e26
por Orel el Vie Jul 31, 2015 10:21 am
por PelotonRueda el Vie Jul 31, 2015 6:58 pm
Según un reciente informe, los seis F-35B que han sido evaluados sobre el USS WASP, han tenido una disponibilidad particularmente baja y una falta evidente de fiabilidad. Es en todo caso, lo que ha recientemente declarado Michael Gilmore, director de los ensayos operacionales del departamento americano de la defensa.
por Orel el Sab Ago 01, 2015 1:50 am
Usuarios navegando por este Foro: No hay usuarios registrados visitando el Foro y 0 invitados