Jump to content


Photo

F-35C Procurement Curtailed


  • Please log in to reply
538 replies to this topic

#521 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,380 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 12 June 2017 - 0729 AM

from my blog
http://defense-and-f...in-next_16.html

Thus I disagree with your "ultimate" assessment.


Feel free to. The E-2 still provides persistant coverage at longer range at all angles in a frequency that is effective against fighter sized stealth aircraft. If the F-35 can provide additional capability closer the threat axis, great.

#522 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,380 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 12 June 2017 - 0734 AM

On the other hand, not all AEGIS ships, are a part of a CSG, but they might operate with flattops, with F-35B´s, or they might operate in a littoral environment, with land-based fighers present. They might also operate without AEW and fighters present, and would therefore benefit, if they had a OTH-targeting UAV on board (or rather in the air). A airborne AEW/OTH-targeting UAV, could also be used as a relay station, for ASW UAV´s.


In the US such ships would be amphibs and the planes would be USMC. In which case they would never generally never be available in sufficient numbers for a CAP. On occasion the USN has loaded LPH/LHAs with all STOVL fighters at the expense of their primary mission, but I think its happened all of twice. But yes its a useful capability. I just think that the datalink would more often be used as a secondary ISR utility while the F-35 was performing other missions (strike, CAP, etc) rather than having an F-35 dedicated to missile interception guidance.

#523 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 13 June 2017 - 0943 AM

hypoxia delivered by F-35A, all planes at Luke AFB grounded:

 

http://www.af.mil/Ne...cal-flying-ops/
 

 

Luke AFB temporarily cancels F-35A local flying ops

By Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs, / Published June 09, 2017
WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- The 56th Fighter Wing at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, cancelled local flying operations today for F-35A Lightning II aircraft due to a series of five incidents in which pilots have experienced hypoxia-like symptoms.

According to base officials, since May 2, 2017, five F-35A pilots assigned to Luke AFB have reported physiological incidents while flying. In each case, the aircraft's backup oxygen system operated as designed and the pilot followed the correct procedures, landing the aircraft safely.

"In order to synchronize operations and maintenance efforts toward safe flying operations we have cancelled local F-35A flying,” said Brig. Gen. Brook Leonard, the 56th Fighter Wing commander. “The Air Force takes these physiological incidents seriously, and our focus is on the safety and well-being of our pilots. We are taking the necessary steps to find the root cause of these incidents."

Wing officials will educate U.S. and international pilots today on the situation and increase their awareness of hypoxia symptoms. Pilots will also be briefed on all the incidents that have occurred and the successful actions taken by the pilots to safely recover their aircraft. Flight medicine will brief physiological symptoms and also the extensive measures that are being taken to analyze data collected from the incidents. Finally, the 56th Operations Group will hold an open forum to discuss any concerns pilots may have given these recent occurrences.

Currently, the local flying operations cancellation is limited to Luke AFB.

Air Force senior leaders are aware of the incidents and are providing support and resources as necessary to protect pilots. More broadly, the F-35 Joint Program Office has stood up a formal action team of engineers, maintainers and aeromedical specialists to examine the incidents to better understand the issue. These subject matter experts will share the data across the F-35 enterprise and with partner nations.

 

 

 

One-quarter of F-35 fighter jets grounded over oxygen issues (reuters)



#524 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,380 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 13 June 2017 - 1107 AM

I don't know why oxygen systems are so hard for the US to handle as of late? F-18, F-22, F-35, and I think at one point F-15s. Why is a technology decades old becoming a stumbling block now?

#525 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,090 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 13 June 2017 - 1123 AM

Obviously, LockMart needs to recruit some German super-engineer that would solve the issue by looking at his books.



#526 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,094 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:everything (almost)

Posted 13 June 2017 - 1217 PM

I don't know why oxygen systems are so hard for the US to handle as of late? F-18, F-22, F-35, and I think at one point F-15s. Why is a technology decades old becoming a stumbling block now?

Modern aircraft use on board oxygen generators instead of O2 bottles to save weight and space.



#527 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 13 June 2017 - 1333 PM

It may also be related to survivability; stored oxygen caused lots of secondary fire troubles when pierced by fragments.

The oxygen required for multi-hour missions doesn't take up terribly much space and storage isn't terribly heavy, though. It was a fairly compact subsystem in 1944's P-51D (~6 hours endurance) already.

I think the entire oxygen generator idea came up because missions have become nearly open-ended with aerial refuelling. You can't design an aircraft for a 2-5 hrs combat mission if you have to expect occasional 8 hrs combat missions even of single seat types.

 

The problems could be solved with old school oxygen systems if accessibility and some volume reserves were available and the requirement limited to a specific endurance.



#528 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,380 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 13 June 2017 - 1337 PM

So is this a problem unique to US aircraft because foreign aircraft can't expect that level of tanking support and use bottled oxygen?

#529 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,090 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 13 June 2017 - 1337 PM

Of course. Those noobs at LockMart...

#530 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,090 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 13 June 2017 - 1341 PM

So is this a problem unique to US aircraft because foreign aircraft can't expect that level of tanking support and use bottled oxygen?


Nope, plenty of European planes use that system.

#531 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 13 June 2017 - 1818 PM

https://aerocontent....ort_Systems.pdf



#532 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,380 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 14 June 2017 - 0111 AM

So is this a problem unique to US aircraft because foreign aircraft can't expect that level of tanking support and use bottled oxygen?


Nope, plenty of European planes use that system.


Well, that's why I fail to see why several different US aircraft types seem to share this problem when I've never heard of other countries' having this issue. I'd like to think we were good at this?

#533 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 14 June 2017 - 0504 AM

AFAIK the flight altitude makes a difference. The F-22 in particular flies higher than usual, 60,000 ft is apparently its preferred combat altitude.

Typhoon can fly very high as well, but probably doesn't do so very often.

 

The OBOGS systems differ as well, as you can see at the link I provided.



#534 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,090 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 14 June 2017 - 0555 AM

Also:

 

http://breakingdefen...-flight-limits/

 

But this thread was about F-35C.


Edited by sunday, 14 June 2017 - 0604 AM.


#535 Olof Larsson

Olof Larsson

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,237 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 14 June 2017 - 1150 AM

It may also be related to survivability; stored oxygen caused lots of secondary fire troubles when pierced by fragments.

The oxygen required for multi-hour missions doesn't take up terribly much space and storage isn't terribly heavy, though. It was a fairly compact subsystem in 1944's P-51D (~6 hours endurance) already.

I think the entire oxygen generator idea came up because missions have become nearly open-ended with aerial refuelling. You can't design an aircraft for a 2-5 hrs combat mission if you have to expect occasional 8 hrs combat missions even of single seat types.

 

The problems could be solved with old school oxygen systems if accessibility and some volume reserves were available and the requirement limited to a specific endurance.

 

The O2-system of the P-51D, only provided O2 for the breathing mask.

 

The air-system of a modern aircraft provide O2 for the breathing mask, air (heated or cooled, depending of the need) for the cockpit,

air for the G-suit, gas for pressurizing fuel tanks, gas for cooling avionics and so on.



#536 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 15 June 2017 - 1010 AM

So is this a problem unique to US aircraft because foreign aircraft can't expect that level of tanking support and use bottled oxygen?


Nope, plenty of European planes use that system.


Well, that's why I fail to see why several different US aircraft types seem to share this problem when I've never heard of other countries' having this issue. I'd like to think we were good at this?


It could be all manner of things. a design defect in the life support systems, a problem with scheduling maintenance for these parts. Defective parts delivered by cheapest bidding sub-contractor. A bad habit of the crews damaging the devices. really, it could be anything. Will take a proper investigation to determine what, why and who.

#537 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,857 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 11 July 2017 - 0801 AM

Task & Purpose article about the F-35 helmet sensors, with .gifs and video:

http://taskandpurpos...m_content=image

This Never-Before-Seen Nighttime F-35 Helmet Cam Footage Is Both Intense And Revealing

Screen-Shot-2017-07-10-at-12.35.37-PM-84



#538 Mr King

Mr King

    Major Washout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of corn syrup and fake breasts
  • Interests:Odds and Ends

Posted 11 July 2017 - 1540 PM

That is neat



#539 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,380 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 11 July 2017 - 1646 PM

DELETED

Edited by Josh, 11 July 2017 - 1646 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users