via Armada
The second Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II for the Netherlands rolled out of the F-35 production facility on March 2. This is the latest step in the production process leading to its eventual assignment to Eglin AFB later this summer. The Netherlands is planning to use this conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) jet, known as AN-2, for training and operational tests for pilots and maintainers. AN-2 will undergo functional fuel system checks before being transported to the flight line for ground and flight tests later this year.Seeing that the Netherlands will be one of only a small few European Air Forces with stealth capability, they'll be able to provide top cover for the Germans and French when the EU takes on capable opponents without US help.
SIDENOTE: What the fuck Lockheed? You guys getting rattled by the critics? Why isn't this in my normal news feed...now I have to keep up with 5 different sources (all from your company) to get F-35 news? GEEZ. You're getting as bad as the confused and socially inept military! Get it together public affairs geeks.
By critics, do you actually mean pilots?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.defensenews.com/article/20130306/DEFREG02/303060011/F-35-Report-Warns-Visibility-Risks-Other-Dangers?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s
Gonna turn on the pilots now?
This is from GTX at Secret Projects (part 1 of 2)
ReplyDeleteYet again we have an example of people ‘cherry picking’ select parts of a report and then trying to blow them out of all proportion. If one reads the latest DOT&E Report on the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter’s Readiness for Training Operational Utility Evaluation in its entirety you will gain a better perspective on these supposed issues.
The following statements (also from the report, though interestingly not included in much of the ‘cherry picking’ shown to date) are enlightening:
• “In mid-2010, the Joint Strike Fighter Program Executive Officer (JSF PEO) requested an assessment of the readiness to begin F-35A pilot training…” – (Exec Summary and also repeated elsewhere) What? The Program asked DOT&E to do this assessment/report? Aren’t they and everyone else involved with the JSF focussed only on covering things up??? If anything, the program should be praised for getting independent assessors involved to help ensure the system is developed efficiently.
• “The training syllabus used in this evaluation, the Block 1A syllabus, is an early phase … of what will eventually become the complete training syllabus … This partial syllabus is the first 6-8 weeks of a full syllabus that will take approximately 40 weeks to complete…” – (Pg 2) we are only looking at a small fraction of the overall training. Therefore to try to make any conclusive assessments regarding this are fraught with danger. This would be akin to having a single test drive in a car and then making a damning claim that the car will never be suitable for driving by anyone.
Part 2 of 2
ReplyDelete• “The 33 FW trained four student pilots…”– (Pg 8) that’s right, this assessment was based upon only 4 pilots + their instructors. Hardly a sample size that presents a basis for definitive conclusions. In fact this is emphasised by the next point;
• “The pilot surveys developed and administered by the JOTT provided limited data. The construction of the surveys and the limited sample sizes precluded any meaningful quantitative analyses of the responses...” – (Pg 10) emphasising the fact that using this report to make definitive conclusions is fraught with danger.
• Regarding the “out-of-cockpit visibility” issue, we get this one Pg 17/18: “It remains to be seen whether or not, in these more advanced aspects of training, the visibility issues will rise to the level of safety issues, or if, instead, the visibility limitations are something that pilots adapt to over time and with more experience.” – therefore, not to downplay the observations/comments by the pilots in question (covered in the same section), but one needs to keep in mind that this is an assessment by a small number of pilots, based upon a small part of the training without consideration for the operational arrangements that may yet be developed. It is also based upon a comparison with earlier platforms such as the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18. I am sure that when pilots first started to operate fighters with enclosed cockpits there were similar concerns about lack of out-of-cockpit visibility along with concerns about ability to escape in an emergency. Did such concerns prevent the aircraft from being used successfully in combat though? No. Did they outweigh the advantages enclosed cockpits gave? No. Perhaps people need to keep this in mind before damning the F-35…especially if you keep in mind that the aircraft has a new advantage that previous aircraft do not, i.e. the EODAS!
Overall, despite the DOT&E Report concluding that “Given its many significant limitations, the results of the OUE should not be used to make decisions regarding the readiness of the JSF system to support training in an F-35A initial qualification course. The limitations, workarounds, and restrictions in place in an air system this early in development limit the utility of training. Also, little can be learned from evaluating training in a system this immature.” The final line in this para (on Pg 43 BTW) is most telling: “However, this evaluation revealed some areas where the program needs to focus attention and make improvements”