 |
| An F-35A conventional take-off and landing aircraft completed the first in-flight missile launch of an AIM-120 over the Point Mugu Sea test range on June 5, 2013. (Courtesy F-35 Program Office) |
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
Holy crap its about time, looks nice.
ReplyDeleteWhen will it fire one from internally? I would think that would be a priority.
ReplyDeleteThey did fire from internally, the weapons bay is open.
DeleteAh, O.K. I thought it was some sort of telemetry device.
DeleteWhat's up with the dots?
ReplyDeleteThey help program measure distance and orientation from a video .
ReplyDeleteKind of late with 100 or so planes around, so much testing is still to be done ,that means just one thing these first planes will probably require a mayor investment to bring them up to specs once test are finished.
All the sensors, radar, etc required for Block 3F is already in every F-35.
ReplyDeleteOnly minor computer upgrades are required.
Per the latest budget each Early LRIP to Block 3I upgrade will cost 6 million (parts and labor). This upgrade includes:
--------------budget quote---------------
The block upgrade program retrofits United States Air Force Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) aircraft and integrated systems procured under the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) contracts to a final Block 3F configuration. The retrofits to enable the final Block 3F configuration are comprised of hardware and software. The hardware per aircraft includes new radar modules, new Integrated Core Processor
modules and rack, and new electronic warfare modules. Aircraft need to be updated to a final Block 3F configuration to avoid cost associated with maintaining multiple configurations of aircraft at operating locations. Some will require multiple modifications to reach the final Block 3F configuration.
This effort (MN-F3513) focuses on upgrading Blocks 1B, 2A, and 2B aircraft from LRIPs 2-5 to a Block 3i configuration. Block 3i is a stepping stone to a Block 3F configuration. It includes the procurement of Tech Refresh 2 (TR2) hardware for the Block 3i configuration. The long-lead parts include new radar modules, new Integrated Core Processor (ICP) modules and rack, and new Electronic Warfare (EW)
modules.
---------------------------------------------------
The upgrade from Block 3I to Block 3F is a software only patch and will be relatively cheap and quick.
We will see that in couple of years i am almost certain that you will be looking at lot more than software patches and operational hardware.
ReplyDeleteRemember to big to fail to big to prosecute on courts etc .
They started the long lead items for the upgrade already. They are confident of what is required.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as "too big to prosecute" as any illegality would be pursued, or did you forget the taker fiasco that caused the re-bid of the whole program... twice.
Sorry.. Tanker fiasco :)
DeleteYou think
Delete''Forgotten is the lesson of Arthur Andersen, the accounting firm that was charged with obstruction of justice in the bankruptcy of Enron. The charges against the firm put it out of business, and 28,000 employees — most of whom had nothing to do with the Enron case or the shredding of documents — lost their jobs. Making matters worse, the conviction of Arthur Andersen was overruled on appeal by the Supreme Court. Prosecutors decided not to pursue the case.
Ever since then, the Justice Department has been much more cognizant of the collateral damage of bringing a criminal case against a company — as opposed to prosecuting the individual employees responsible for the crime.
According to Justice Department guidelines, before bringing a criminal case, prosecutors must consider “the nature and seriousness of the offense, including the risk of harm to the public, and applicable policies and priorities, if any, governing the prosecution of corporations for particular categories of crime.”
The conventional wisdom is that simply charging a company with a crime raises the possibility of putting the firm out of business because customers, suppliers, counterparties and others will stop doing business with it. That is debatable, but it is a view that has been widely adopted by prosecutors.''
So??
DeleteThere has been no credible allegation of a crime in relation to the F-35's development and if they did, they would prosecute.
There is no such thing as "too big to prosecute".
Recent practice of out of court deals that can be booked as business expense shows that in practice 'too big to fail' and 'too big to jail' is a reality. F35 program is riding on to big to fail card for past several years
ReplyDelete"Too big to fail" doses not mean "will not succeed"...
ReplyDeleteAs issues have come up, they have been dealt with and nothing remains that is a showstopper.
Get over it. :)
The program is a fraud from the get go.It doesn't have it's software, It needs it's radar replaced to meet block 3F specs, as well as it's CPU, which is the brain of the thing ( i thought it would mention that as you claimed all upgrades are minor), needs new EW modules.Thee Helmer display is fucked and doesn't work consistently or as designed, and the aircraft itself was approved over it's competition only because the prototype that won had no internal weapons bay so it outperformed it's competition which did.The thing can't ourfly and F-16. It's payload is shit, it's range is garbage, and it's a given that it's lone selling point, it's stealth capability will be a mere memory not too long into it's projected service life of what, 35-40 years?the plane is a joke and cost overuns have made sure that we will NEVER have enough to meet the airforces requirements. Lowering requirements to keep the program alive is what the F-35 is all about.The bottom line is defense contractors make their momney on research and development, not the actual finished product, so they foist this piece of shit on us that they have top perpetually redesign and refit.This thing sucks filthy asshole, and you sir, can get the fuck over it.Everyone involved with this clusterfuck should be strung up by their balls and set afire.
DeleteAs the saying goes, “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”
DeleteWhile you are certainly able to let your opinion be known, many of the “Facts” are just wrong in so many ways.
1. It doesn't have it's software” – Not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that the software is not done by Block 3I, well yes, it is still in SDD. The plan fror the F-35 from the beginning was to upgrade as it goes till it gets to 3F.
2. “It needs it's radar replaced to meet block 3F specs” – The plan for the F-35 and for that matter any fighter going through SDD is to start with some basic functionality and go through upgrades till you meet the final spec. All previous designs went IOC with a much reduced feature set and upgraded with Blocks later on. We see this in the F-15/16/18/22 and the Eurocards like EF & Rafale. The goal of the F-35 is to arrive at 3F with all the hardware that it thinks it will need (FLIR/IRST/AESA/MAWS/Jammer/Datalinks/etc). The F-35 has planned on 2 major hardware upgrades to the F-35 called Tech Refreshes (TR’s) for the SDD program. TR-1 happened
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/dfccd5f8.jpg
Notice that with TRs, the entire system is not replaced, just new cards added or swapped out (1 core CPU swapped out for Quad core CPUs, etc).
That being said, here is what the FY2014 budget says about the TR-2 upgrade: “The hardware per aircraft includes new radar modules, new Integrated Core Processor modules and rack, and new electronic warfare modules.” Note that only individual modules are being replaced, not whole systems. These are the only details known about TR-2, so as more comes out (like the slide above) we will get a better idea of it’s capabilities. As a clue, the TR-2 upgrade in the FY2014 budget only costs $4 million a plane in parts.
For a comparison, the F-22’s “Common Configuration” took the 81 middle F-22s (not the oldest and not the newest) and brought them up to the newest standard. That cost $8.3 million per plane in parts. Compared to that and the fact that TR-2 should take about a week to install, that’s sounds minor to me.
As far as the rest of your bloviating about fraud, cost, schedule, capabilities, etc… I’ll let other bloggers, posters, and the program speak for itself.
In F35 case it means no mater the cost and result as F35 might not be the next F16 or F4 design is probably to much of a compromise with VTOL version dictating the fuselage size and propulsion to much.
ReplyDeletei'm mostly happy to sit back and watch the F-35 debate. but a couple of issues with that statement. first the F4 was not an ideal design, nor was it an ideal fighter. pretty far from it. it was designed as a fleet defense airplane, and a missile truck. it morphed into a fair dogfighter by a mix of slats and pilot skill. it was a good mud mover because it could lift alot but the F8 which was its competition was better in every instance.
Deletenext you have the F16. again. it morphed into a nice dogfighter but when developed was a one trick pony. two sidewinders and a gun. it got heavier. it got less maneuverable. it got better. better because of avionics.
VTOL dictating the design i think is a canard put out to help kill the program. whether or not that is true or not is really up to congress. ask them...they're the ones that pushed for a single plane design.
VTOL needed a huge single engine and a cross section to house the lift fan that pretty much dictated the planes fuselage speed and acceleration .No other 5 gen design out there ither prototype or proposed design has even remotely the same bulk to it .
ReplyDeleteF4 was an interceptor and a bomb truck and could serve navy and airforce with minimal changes. F16 was a one trick pony like you say but a cheap one at that so it became the low end in F15 F16 mix most nato partners wanted F15 but it cost far to much so F16 was adapted to serve as multirole plane while keeping cost low . F35s biggest problem is cost, very few planes got cheaper(look at the price of F16 or F18 nowdays) with time so its quite unreasonable to expect F35 to do so. Same reason Euro canards fail to score big they are playing a role of an F15(Eurofighter) something beween f15 and F18(rafale) but customers want cheap F16 type planes. Third euro canrd the Gripen is a bit small but at least it got some sales outside home turf.
i'm getting dragged into a conversation to defend a plane that i think might be costing the Marine Corps balance...on top of that i'm being forced to defend it. amazing.!!!. nevertheless. compare the Eurofighter, the Rafale, and the Gripen to the F-35 in terms of tech, performance and sales.
Deletethe F-35 is winning going away.
If "no matter the cost" was true, then Congress & the DoD would have increased it's annual budget in order to stick to the original SDD timeline.
ReplyDeleteThey did not, so it is not.
The F-35 took several lessons from the F-4 (no gun) & F-16 (minimal avionics) and has everything needed from IOC.
btw, The USAF being the largest buyer would not allow anything other than a single engined layout, period.
What do you mean when you say the F-35 took a lesson from the F-4 regarding no gun? Are you saying F35 should or should not have a gun? From everything I've ever read the F4 NOT having a gun was a huge mistake.
DeleteThe F-35A, which will represent the VAST majority of F-35s in use, has an internal gun.
DeleteThe gunpod for the B/C is specifically designed to operate from them with minimal drag, vibration, RCS increase, etc and can be mounted as needed. The gunpod actually carries more ammo than the internal gun of the A.
Slightly off topic question:
DeleteCan the A model still carry a gun pod??
Sure.. it's on the list but I think that it will be the last thing certified....
DeleteEuro canards newer stood a chance but that has more to do with politics than anything else. US sway in what NATO partners buy is huge(JSF was ordered by partners before anything was built) while on the other hand you have Eurofighter that is Europes to big to fail project no mater the cost and rafale + Gripen that were solo projects and suprisingly made it that far look at the wikipedia for Sweden and France any imagine going it solo developing a fighter and it doesn't stop there there are submarines, mayor surface ships,missle sistems,armor,space projects all designed and built for relatively small home custumer.
ReplyDeleteits interesting to see the "debate" here, and i put in quotes because it seems like one person is picking data to fit their views, unlike spud and sol doing it right, using data to form their views :).
ReplyDeletei will say i am always mystified why a plane has to be better at everything than every other plane. i remember watching a documentary and it said the best planes are those that weren't the fastest, best turning, most maneuvererability, if you have one of those as "the best" it will sacrifice others, the F16, 15, 18, etc they have great abilities but there are other aircraft that can out perform them in one area or another, the reason the aircraft are so good though is two main features, one is the abilities they do have go together well and they are perfect for their roles even if they dont max out, and the pilots behind the stick. I am not worried the 35 isnt "more" maneuverable than legacy fighters (although it can definitely hold its own) because it has other systems that will help it win the fight and have the best pilots in the world in the seats.
ok my rant for the day :)