F-35B/C Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)

[pilot_man]

Canted Pylons for one....

But even without that, Fixed pylons with no active range source providing no data to the Pilot as to where his AIM Point should be.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. We do have an active range source, we have multiple range sources, and we have several cues as to where our Aim point is.


Add to that the flight profile you need to be in to fire rockets, the max range of your typical 2.75" FFAR, your biggest warheads being 17lbs, not being able to carry anything but RC fuze type HE warheads or smoke, etc etc... Look go back and look at me and Flash yelling at each other about Rockets and you'll get a pretty good idea of why there isnt a whole lot of reason for you to have them. It'd be a waste of a pylon if you could do it.

Again, lots of words and I don't get what you're saying here. The Hornet does carry rockets, the Super doesn't due to the pylons.

Shooting rockets is an art. The guys that were flying Hueys and Cobras in Vietnam could drop them in the bed of a moving pickup truck, and they were doing it with feel and a grease pencil mark on the windscreen. Ive got a fully active Helmet Mounted sight with constant laser ranging and articulating pylons and its hard enough to hit anything with them because of the inherent inaccuracy of the weapon and the fact that we dont shoot hundreds upon hundreds of them anymore.

I think you should stick to what you know, and that isn't FW A/G.

 

[Fog]

FWIW, Bloomberg is reporting today (Dec 16) that the new DOD bill in the Senate cuts $1bn from the F-35 program in the form of 5 F-35As & 2 F-35Bs this year as part of ~ $9bn in total reductions for the DOD. Interestingly, the bill keeps $450mm for the GE alternate-engine program for the F-35 (F136) & buys 9 more F-18E/Fs for the Navy.

 

[Flying Toaster]

Interestingly, the bill keeps $450mm for the GE alternate-engine program for the F-35 (F136) & buys 9 more F-18E/Fs for the Navy.

Is that in addition to or does that include the 150 E/F's they are already buying?

The more this JSF fiasco drives on, the smarter the Navy looks for buying some more E/F's and at least having a temporary out. I'd love to have been in the room when someone decided "lets pin our nations air supremacy for the next 50 years on one GIANT procurement process because we have a history of doing those sooo well..."

 

[Fog]

FT: That's in addition to the 124/150 already on order in that multi-year procurement announced a couple of months ago. It now looks like the 1st F-35s won't reach IOC until 2016. God knows when or if the Marines' F-35Bs ever get there. I have a feeling the ultimate buy of Navy F-35Cs will be 50-75% of original plans and the best the USMC can hope for is to replace their Harriers one-on-one w/ F-35Bs. FWIW.

 

[RHPF]

Of note, the DOD has said it neither needs, nor wants the second engine, the F136. Things like cutting the procurement by $1B, but adding $500M for second engine funding (both against DOD request) to appease Congressional employers drives me nuts. It's the same with the earmark business. We don't need a second engine, and that $500M is further funding towards the F136, not final costs of development. Sometimes I think we deserve some (a lot of?) the issues we have with our state of the fleet and procurement.

Anyone know what the guys at VFA-101 are doing at Eglin? With a IOC of 2016, I have no clue what they plan to use all those bodies for.

 

[phrogdriver]

Something tells me that some good guys may have been visited by the bad timing fairy. I've met that bitch myself!

 

[Flying Toaster]

Another interesting snippet from the article-

"The bill provides $2.1 billion to fully fund the Navy’s request for 35 Boeing and Textron Inc. V-22 tilt-rotor Osprey and $1.8 billion for additional Boeing P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft."

Is that for those F-35 engines they realized wouldn't fit on C-2's, or as a replacement of the 53?

 

[Uncle Fester]

Neither; the money for all Marine aircraft is ultimately Navy money. It just goes in a big green pot.

Believe me, it'll be big news if NAVAIR ever decides to buy some Devil's Whirlybirds for the Navy.

 

[helolumpy]

Neither; the money for all Marine aircraft is ultimately Navy money. It just goes in a big green pot.

Believe me, it'll be big news if NAVAIR ever decides to buy some Devil's Whirlybirds for the Navy.

The Boeing VP spoke at Newport a couple of years ago and he said that ADM Mullen (when CNO) went on the record and said the Navy was committed to buying 48 Ospreys.
The number was based on keeping the unit cost at the right level to allow the Marines to buy the number of airframes they need/want.

The Navy buy would come at the very end of the Marine Corps buy, so it would be in the 2015 and beyond time frame.

I've never seen anything saying the Navy is backing away from that commitment.

In classic Navy fashion, Mullen asked Boeing to do a study and find the best use of the Osprey for the Navy. His initial thought would be for the Heavy Lift VOD mission if the 53 is retired from the Navy inventory.

 

[Uncle Fester]

The Boeing VP spoke at Newport a couple of years ago...the Navy was committed to buying 48 Ospreys...The Navy buy would come at the very end of the Marine Corps buy, so it would be in the 2015 and beyond time frame...I've never seen anything saying the Navy is backing away from that commitment...

Uh-huh. And the check's in the mail and I never exceeded max G and of course the car's never been in an accident and I won't cum in you, baby, I swear...

 

[BarrettRC8]

Uh-huh. And the check's in the mail and I never exceeded max G and of course the car's never been in an accident and I won't cum in you, baby, I swear...

This might be the best statement I've ever seen on AWs.

 

[phrogdriver]

Somehow I think if they wanted it badly they'd at least throw some spaghetti at the wall and at least write down what the hell they want it for. I don't think Congress is just going to throw the Navy some aircraft without some plausible story.

 

[coolhandlukesd]

Somehow I think if they wanted it badly they'd at least throw some spaghetti at the wall and at least write down what the hell they want it for. I don't think Congress is just going to throw the Navy some aircraft without some plausible story.

Would this be a good reason?
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/12/17/2010121700326.html

 

[helolumpy]

From the NAVAIR website:

http://www.navair.navy.mil/v22/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.detail&id=188


"Smith is one of a new category of Marine pilots who will fly and fight with the $69.5 million MV-22 Osprey—in his case, with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 162 (VMM-162 in naval aviation shorthand). The service has replaced its trusty CH-46E medium-lift tandem-rotor helicopters, predecessors of the Boeing Chinook, with the MV-22, the Marine version of the Bell-Boeing Osprey. The Marines ultimately plan to buy 360 Ospreys for their 18 medium-lift squadrons; the Air Force wants to buy 50 of its own version, and the Navy, perhaps 48. Carrying troops for assault missions is the primary job of a medium-lift squadron, followed by moving supplies and equipment."

 

[Uncle Fester]

Well, if there's one word that means ironclad certainty in defense acquisition and planning, it's "perhaps".