2019 F-35 News and Discussion

Read the forum code of contact

Profile picture for user Vnomad

Member for

9 years 10 months

Posts: 2,661

The advantage of a pod is you can easily change it, set it (or not) for a mission. The F-35 isnt really FOC and its sniper XR based EOTS is already obsolete, whatever arguments on ecan use to try to say the opposite.That is the disadvantage of inner mounted stuff (agree it has advantages for stealth etc.)

Just FYI the Damocles pod that the Rafale has been lugging around for the last decade (and will continue to use for a while yet), is also a generation behind contemporary Rafael/LM offerings. There too people could scream "obsolete!!" but given that it was getting the job done (much like the EOTS), the worst you could call it is 'obsolescent'.

Also, the EOTS is like the OSF, it pops right out. Functionally, it isn't significantly different from a pod. Originally, only half the F-35 fleet was supposed to be equipped with them but the operators later decided they wanted to retain it on all units on all missions, making it a standard part of the aircraft.

Finally you have apparently no idea of SCAF advances, neither of SNECMA work on engines. Definition phase is done, Demonstrator is contracted and scheduled for 2025. For the sake of your knowledgeKAveri is a variable cycle engine and it is indian...

The SCAF is still in a conceptual stage. Assuming it bears fruit (far from a given at this stage), it'll enter service with a new engine earliest by 2035. The F-35 re-engining is expected around 2025. There's no comparison between the maturity of the two.

And no, the Kaveri is very much a conventional engine, the "variable-cycle" bit is a difference in terminology (and long pre-dates Safran involvement). The Kaveri has a constant bypass ratio which makes it very different from what GE & PW are working on.

Member for

9 years 2 months

Posts: 4,168

DamoclesIS obsolete. Escellent pod or very long distance laser designation of MBT etc., but For the rest...

That's why there is Talios coming. So basically EOTS is same as PESA / AESA antennason RAfale?

Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

16 years 10 months

Posts: 12,109

The advantage of a pod is you can easily change it, set it (or not) for a mission. The F-35 isnt really FOC and its sniper XR based EOTS is already obsolete, whatever arguments on ecan use to try to say the opposite.That is the disadvantage of inner mounted stuff (agree it has advantages for stealth etc.)

Everyone knows what the advantages or disadvantages of a pod are. A pod is not something that is exclusive to just a few countries. The F-35 customers can demand an external pod mounted EO/IR anytime they like and there will be multiple suppliers from around the world world bidding to supply it to them given that the program is churning out 131 aircraft this year alone. No one has yet demanded anything like that probably because they are satisfied with what is the baseline, and what is in the pipeline.

You have also completed made up a disadvantage of an LRU such as the EOTS. An upgraded EOTS is available to the program RIGHT NOW if it chooses to accelerate its testing and procurement. Majority of rafales are flying around with PESA and most of them with older generation pods. I guess most of the Rafale's haven't achieved FOC yet by your totally absurd logic.

Finally you have apparently no idea of SCAF advances, neither of SNECMA work on engines. Definition phase is done, Demonstrator is contracted and scheduled for 2025. For the sake of your knowledgeKAveri is a variable cycle engine and it is indian...

I am well aware of where SCAF stands and where SNECMA is or isn't. Perhaps you need to understand the difference between "definition" phase being done, and what GE and P&W have done with AETD and what they are about to do with AETP or what GE had done with ADVENT prior to that. There are about 6 engines currently being fabricated which will be put through some hard testing in the next couple of years. This is well beyond "definition" unless one is totally blind to reality.

AETP was a transition effort for the concluded AETD program which itself built on ADVENT. Both AETD and ADVENT were hardware focused efforts that were successfully concluded. Both GE and P&W are fabricating engines as we speak and not currently winding up the definition phase.


That's why there is Talios coming.

Incredible that the Rafale hasn't achieved FOC yet since the Talios is "still coming".

. So basically EOTS is same as PESA / AESA antennason RAfale?

The Radar is a far more important sensor given how it covers the entire mission set of each and every F-35 type. The EOTS and EODAS provide a very comprehensive passive capability along with sensor fused inputs from other sensors. The EOTS NG would build on capability as would enhancements to the radar. It isn't just one capability or upgrade that will magically upgrade the aircraft to a standard. The program put together a comprehensive SDD set of requirements and now is executing on another set of enhancements and modernization. It is quite likely that some program in the US or abroad will have some component that is more modern than even the block 4 F-35 and some of those same features will be in F-35 block 5. This is a reality when you are balancing a whole host of factors such as scope, cost, time-frame, upgrade-cycles, and other competing needs. The operators for good reason look at the overall capability in totality, and also focus on the force size and whether that is competitive given the threat.

Profile picture for user Vnomad

Member for

9 years 10 months

Posts: 2,661

DamoclesIS obsolete. Escellent pod or very long distance laser designation of MBT etc., but For the rest...

That's why there is Talios coming. So basically EOTS is same as PESA / AESA antennason RAfale?

The PESA isn't actually going anywhere until the Rafale MLU program starts in the next decade. Until then the bulk of the French fleet will remain PESA-equipped. And the EOTS is similar to it in the sense that it'll suffice until the Advanced EOTS enters service. Like, say the Mirage, it's obsolescent, not obsolete.

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 5,903

Last but not least, an internally mounted sensor will be shielded from external perturbations far more efficiently than a podded one. That plays a big part in signal acquisition.
Also, if I do remember right, Qatar ordered US manufactured pods for their Rafale..

Member for

9 years 2 months

Posts: 4,168

Last but not least, an internally mounted sensor will be shielded from external perturbations far more efficiently than a podded one. That plays a big part in signal acquisition.
Also, if I do remember right, Qatar ordered US manufactured pods for their Rafale..

Fairly logical, they are already using same family (simbology etc.)

Vomad PESA AESA antennas are LRUs exactly as EOTS is. 2 hours is neded to swap antennas. It is complete misconeption to think tyat "old Rafale" have PESA while "new" have AESA. The backend was always itended to receive AESA antennas.

(Bloomberg) — Durability testing data indicates service-life of initial F-35B short-takeoff-vertical landing jets bought by Marine Corps “is well under” expected service life of 8,000 fleet hours; “may be as low as 2,100″ hours

https://about.bgov.com/blog/stagnant-f-35-reliability-means-fewer-available-jets-pentagon/

May be exagerated.

Profile picture for user SpudmanWP

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,197

Not to mention complete lack of context

Member for

9 years 2 months

Posts: 4,168

That's why i added a comment spud ;)

Profile picture for user Vnomad

Member for

9 years 10 months

Posts: 2,661

Vomad PESA AESA antennas are LRUs exactly as EOTS is. 2 hours is neded to swap antennas. It is complete misconeption to think tyat "old Rafale" have PESA while "new" have AESA. The backend was always itended to receive AESA antennas.

FYI I didn't say anything about 'old' or 'new' Rafales. That the radar is fairly easy to upgrade doesn't change the fact that the bulk of the French fleet will be PESA equipped to the middle of the next decade. Point being, just because there's something new available doesn't mean make existing technology obsolete.

Member for

9 years 2 months

Posts: 4,168

Only read in diagonal, quite worried about ALIS. (in the end, despite arguing etc on forums we are allied and a poorly functioning ALIS would not be a good news)

Profile picture for user SpudmanWP

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,197

The heavy lifting is done (90% reduction of open issues over last year's numbers) and there were very few issues with the jet itself. IIRC the only one was accuracy issues with the F-35A's gun (F-35B/C pod is fine).
.

Based on F-35A gun testing through September 2018, DOT&E currently considers the accuracy of the gun, as installed in the F-35A, to be unacceptable.

- F-35A gun accuracy during SDD failed to meet the contract specifi cation. Although software corrections were made to the F-35 mission systems software to improve the stability of gun aiming cues, no software or hardware corrections have yet been implemented to correct the gun accuracy errors.

- Investigations into the gun mounts of the F-35A revealed misalignments that result in muzzle alignment errors. As a result, the true alignment of each F-35A gun is not known, so the program is considering options for re-boresighting and correcting gun alignments.

- During air-to-air gun testing, F-35A operational test pilots received intermittent “unsafe gun” cockpit alerts while attempting gun attacks. These alerts occurred with two diff erent aircraft; the root cause is under investigation.

- F-35B and F-35C air-to-ground accuracy results to date with the gun pod have been consistent and meet the contract specifi cations. They do not show the accuracy errors of the internal gun on the F-35A.

Availability improved only slightly, mostly due to parts & the needs for Depots.

Profile picture for user SpudmanWP

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,197

Am I the only one who can't edit a post?

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 5,903

seems to be general. Page nbr buttons at the bottom of each pages don't work either

Member for

12 years 9 months

Posts: 2,626

WASHINGTON --- Durability testing data indicates service-life of initial F-35B short-takeoff-vertical landing jets bought by Marine Corps gis well underh expected service life of 8,000 fleet hours; gmay be

as low as 2,100 hours, the Pentagon test office says in 2018 annual report obtained by Bloomberg thatfs scheduled for release this week.

That means some jets are expected to start hitting service life limit in 2026.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/199539/f_35b-service-life-%E2%80%9Cas-low-as-2%2C100-hours%E2%80%9D-instead-of-8%2C000%3A-iot%26e.html

Mmm... how does that come about? Design or execution flaws in structure? Wonder how much it will cost to fix (if reported reduction in service life hours is true). Also wonder if LM would be paying.

Profile picture for user FBW

Member for

9 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...A-iot%26e.html

Mmm... how does that come about? Design or execution flaws in structure? Wonder how much it will cost to fix (if reported reduction in service life hours is true). Also wonder if LM would be paying.

That's why they do fatigue testing. The bulkhead issue in early "B" models has been known for years (hangover from SWAT). I don't recall the wing carry through structure being mentioned before in previous reports, but I'll have to go back and look.

Truth be told, the report doesn't state if the issue affects: 5, 10, 20+ early "B" models. If it's only a small number, I'll doubt if they will bother to modify them as most will end up as static maintenance trainers and the like.

I was most surprised by the continuing depot issues considering the rhetoric from up high about increasing mission capable rates. That and mean time to repair requirements being relaxed.

Profile picture for user Marcellogo

Member for

6 years 10 months

Posts: 1,765

[USER="40269"]FBW[/USER]

I was most surprised by the continuing depot issues considering the rhetoric from up high about increasing mission capable rates. That and mean time to repair requirements being relaxed.

Allow me to reply with the (translated trough Google) words I just found on this month's issue of our main defence related magazine. (RID- n°2 Febbraio 2019)

...returning to the burden of maintenance for F-35, which is advertised to be much more maintainable than F-117 or F-22, not to mention the forbiddingly heavy B-2, we will still have to wait some time to get real data i.e. calculated on frames with already a few hours of flight on the field and not the actual ones directly performed by the company or by ad hoc experimental departments for the development of specific tactics and methods of use and not by AF average maintenance crews.

Profile picture for user Marcellogo

Member for

6 years 10 months

Posts: 1,765

P.S: italics are my personal modification of the translator result in hope of made it more clear, bold and underlined one is my personal pointing out of the main issue there (and to any informations you get from producers' sources).

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 5,903

The stated early blocks can be anything but Bees flying in operation. Same thing for the fleet wide availability rates. Notice that the numbers are understood to be well above 50%, something well above other platforms despite the challenge linked to USMC operations..