F-35 JSF

  • 644 Respostas
  • 128574 Visualizações
*

asalves

  • Membro
  • *
  • 166
  • Recebeu: 53 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 16 vez(es)
  • +4/-4
Re: F-35 JSF
« Responder #630 em: Outubro 15, 2018, 10:05:43 am »
Parece que ainda não é desta...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-us-canada-45827795

The US military has temporarily grounded its entire fleet of F-35 fighter jets in the wake of a crash in South Carolina last month.

Inspections are to be carried out on faulty fuel tubes.

An official report questioned earlier this year whether the F-35 was ready for combat after dozens of faults were found.

The F-35 is the largest and most expensive weapons programme of its type in the world.

The programme is expected to last several decades and global sales are projected to be 3,000. The US government's accountability office estimates all costs associated with the project will amount to one trillion dollars.

In a statement, the F-35 Joint Program Office said the US and its international partners had suspended flight operations while a fleet-wide inspection of fuel tubes was conducted.

"If suspect fuel tubes are installed, the part will be removed and replaced. If known good fuel tubes are already installed, then those aircraft will be returned to flight status.

"Inspections are expected to be completed within the next 24 to 48 hours."

The aircraft, which uses stealth technology to reduce its visibility to radar, comes in three variants.

The crash in South Carolina involved an F-35B , which is able to land vertically and costs around $100m (£75m).

The pilot in that incident ejected safely but the aircraft was destroyed.
F-35 fighter jets prepare to land for first time
Image caption F-35 fighter jets prepare to land for first time

The plane, manufactured by Lockheed Martin but including parts made in several other countries, has been sold to a number of nations, including the UK, Japan, Italy, Turkey and South Korea.

    Why the RAF's new F-35 jets matter

The Ministry of Defence in London said the UK had decided to "pause some F-35 flying as a precautionary measure while we consider the findings of an ongoing enquiry".

But the MOD said F-35 flight trials from the aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, were continuing and the programme remained on schedule to provide UK armed forces with "a game-changing capability".
Presentational grey line
No going back

By Jonathan Marcus, Defence and Diplomatic Correspondent

The temporary suspension of all F-35 flights is an embarrassment given the extraordinary cost of this frequently troubled programme. But the problem has already been identified as faulty fuel tubes. Once these are checked or replaced the aircraft will be back in the air.

The F-35 is only just entering service but it is already the most expensive weapons programme of all time.

It will equip the US Air Force and Marine Corps as well as several of Washington's allies. It represents a step-change in capability but the F-35's complexity has inevitably thrown up problems.

However there is no going back now. It promises to be the centrepiece of US air power for decades to come.

While its costs per aircraft are coming down there are still questions about how many planes the US can afford and whether it should also buy a cheaper, less capable aircraft alongside the F-35.
Presentational grey line

The F-35, first used in combat by Israel earlier this year to carry out two strikes, is designed for use by the US Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy.

It boasts avionics, sensors and communications that allow data to be shared quickly with operational commanders.

Eu não percebo nada disto mas uma coisa é ter dificuldades na integração dos sistemas, ou no software IA. Agora um tubo de combustível? Estamos a falar da Lockhead ou do zé manel que nunca construiu aviões. É que quão difícil é falhar na conceção de um tubo de combustível, não se pode dizer que é alta tecnologia. vibrações, forças G's, resistência a deformações térmicas, já deviam ter experiência nisso tudo. OU andam a contratar indianos para desenvolver e fornecer os tubos.

Há erros neste F-35 que parecem de amadores
 

*

mafets

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 4728
  • Recebeu: 771 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 536 vez(es)
  • +34/-15
Re: F-35 JSF
« Responder #631 em: Outubro 15, 2018, 10:37:11 am »
Parece que ainda não é desta...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-us-canada-45827795

The US military has temporarily grounded its entire fleet of F-35 fighter jets in the wake of a crash in South Carolina last month.

Inspections are to be carried out on faulty fuel tubes.

An official report questioned earlier this year whether the F-35 was ready for combat after dozens of faults were found.

The F-35 is the largest and most expensive weapons programme of its type in the world.

The programme is expected to last several decades and global sales are projected to be 3,000. The US government's accountability office estimates all costs associated with the project will amount to one trillion dollars.

In a statement, the F-35 Joint Program Office said the US and its international partners had suspended flight operations while a fleet-wide inspection of fuel tubes was conducted.

"If suspect fuel tubes are installed, the part will be removed and replaced. If known good fuel tubes are already installed, then those aircraft will be returned to flight status.

"Inspections are expected to be completed within the next 24 to 48 hours."

The aircraft, which uses stealth technology to reduce its visibility to radar, comes in three variants.

The crash in South Carolina involved an F-35B , which is able to land vertically and costs around $100m (£75m).

The pilot in that incident ejected safely but the aircraft was destroyed.
F-35 fighter jets prepare to land for first time
Image caption F-35 fighter jets prepare to land for first time

The plane, manufactured by Lockheed Martin but including parts made in several other countries, has been sold to a number of nations, including the UK, Japan, Italy, Turkey and South Korea.

    Why the RAF's new F-35 jets matter

The Ministry of Defence in London said the UK had decided to "pause some F-35 flying as a precautionary measure while we consider the findings of an ongoing enquiry".

But the MOD said F-35 flight trials from the aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, were continuing and the programme remained on schedule to provide UK armed forces with "a game-changing capability".
Presentational grey line
No going back

By Jonathan Marcus, Defence and Diplomatic Correspondent

The temporary suspension of all F-35 flights is an embarrassment given the extraordinary cost of this frequently troubled programme. But the problem has already been identified as faulty fuel tubes. Once these are checked or replaced the aircraft will be back in the air.

The F-35 is only just entering service but it is already the most expensive weapons programme of all time.

It will equip the US Air Force and Marine Corps as well as several of Washington's allies. It represents a step-change in capability but the F-35's complexity has inevitably thrown up problems.

However there is no going back now. It promises to be the centrepiece of US air power for decades to come.

While its costs per aircraft are coming down there are still questions about how many planes the US can afford and whether it should also buy a cheaper, less capable aircraft alongside the F-35.
Presentational grey line

The F-35, first used in combat by Israel earlier this year to carry out two strikes, is designed for use by the US Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy.

It boasts avionics, sensors and communications that allow data to be shared quickly with operational commanders.

Eu não percebo nada disto mas uma coisa é ter dificuldades na integração dos sistemas, ou no software IA. Agora um tubo de combustível? Estamos a falar da Lockhead ou do zé manel que nunca construiu aviões. É que quão difícil é falhar na conceção de um tubo de combustível, não se pode dizer que é alta tecnologia. vibrações, forças G's, resistência a deformações térmicas, já deviam ter experiência nisso tudo. OU andam a contratar indianos para desenvolver e fornecer os tubos.

Há erros neste F-35 que parecem de amadores
Não é nada pá, lá estás a ser mauzinho. Aquela então do Gancho...  ;D :nice: :jok: :amazing:

https://theaviationist.com/2012/01/09/f-35c-hook-problems/

Citar
"F-35C unable to land aboard aircraft carriers" report says. U.S. Navy and Royal Navy have something to be worried about.

By David Cenciotti
As highlighted by an interesting article published on F-16.net, among all the other flaws listed in the JSF Concurrency Quick Look Review dated 29 November 2011 (an official document recently leaked), there is one issue that might have a significant impact on American and British naval aviation’s future plane.

According to the leaked report, the F-35C, the variant developed for the U.S. Navy (and chosen by the UK for its future aircraft carrier), is unable to get aboard a flattop because of its tailhook design issues.

During specific tests conducted at NAWC-AD (Naval Air Warfare Center – Aircraft Division) Lakehurst, the F-35C failed to engage the MK-7 arresting gear with a disappointing score of 0 successes in 8 attempts. Considered that arrestment testing takes place on a normal airport, without the thrill of bad weather, pitching deck, nearby obstacles, low fuel, lack of alternate airfields and all those factors that make a trap on an aircraft carrier the scariest kind of flying.

Root cause analysis points to some AHS (Arresting Hook System) design issues:

aircraft geometry (short distance between the Main Landing Gear tires and the tailook point)
tailkook point design, with scarce ability to scoop low positioned cables
tailkook hold-down ineffective performance in damping bounces relative to the deck surface profiles.
In other words, the distance of 7.1 feet between the tires and the tailhook is too short and the responsive dynamics are such that the cable lies nearly flat on the deck by the time the tailkook point should intercept it for arrestment.









Cumprimentos
"Nunca, no campo dos conflitos humanos, tantos deveram tanto a tão poucos." W.Churchil

http://mimilitary.blogspot.pt/
 

*

Stalker79

  • Perito
  • **
  • 467
  • Recebeu: 69 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 552 vez(es)
  • +9/-6
Re: F-35 JSF
« Responder #632 em: Outubro 15, 2018, 04:29:10 pm »
Eu só digo que neste momento nem de borla ficava com os F35, não havia LPM´s que chegassem para os prejuizo dos erros e "revisões" que a Lockheed tem de fazer ao bicho
Venha o upgrade V mas é e lá pra 2030 vêsse!!!
 ;D
 

*

mafets

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 4728
  • Recebeu: 771 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 536 vez(es)
  • +34/-15
Re: F-35 JSF
« Responder #633 em: Outubro 27, 2018, 05:49:49 pm »
Grande galo. No dia que os Belgas escolheram a maquineta...  ;D ;)

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/413232-pentagon-grounds-24-f-35s?fbclid=IwAR2ZiCeIWz2JvG32Yu4iFXRkkmD7vB4cXMXMwljRNekBB1W0rEyNR88sIXo

Citar
The U.S. military has grounded roughly 24 F-35 joint strike fighters with higher flight hours, citing new fuel system inspections needed after the entire fleet was grounded earlier this month.

The F-35 Joint Program Office said on Thursday that it found two new parts needing inspection on older models of the fifth-generation jet. The Pentagon in early October grounded all versions of the Lockheed Martin-made aircraft to examine the fuel tubes within the engines, made separately by Pratt & Whitney.

ADVERTISEMENT
“The joint government and industry technical team has completed their assessment of the fuel supply tubes within the Pratt & Whitney engine on F-35 aircraft,” the office said in a statement.

“In addition to the previously identified failed tube, the analysis has identified two additional fuel supply tubes that require inspection.”

The F-35 JPO declined to say how many jets are grounded.

Only a couple dozen F-35Bs — the Marine Corps variant — would be kept out of the skies for the new analysis, according to Defense News and Marine Corps Times, the first outlets to report on the inspections.

The outlets also reported that the two additional tubes are made by the same supplier as the tube that first caused the fleet-wide grounding.

The F-35 office stressed that the two fuel tubes have not failed, and that “engineering data collected during the ongoing investigation established the requirement for a time-phased inspection based on engine flight hours.” 

“The inspection maintains F-35 fleet safety standards as older engines may require fuel tube replacement. The procedure to inspect and replace can be done by flightline maintenance without removing the engine.”

F-35s that have not reached the flight hours threshold are still in operation, the office added.

Lockheed Martin referred questions to the JPO and to Pratt & Whitney, but noted that they continue to work with the two “to minimize impact to the fleet.”

“Pratt and Whitney builds the F135 engine and contracts directly with the F-35 Joint Program Office — and they can best address technical questions related to the engine,” the company said in a statement.

The Pentagon first announced it had grounded all F-35s on Oct. 11 after a fuel tube in the F-35 engines were suspected to have caused an F-35B crash on Sept. 28, near the Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, S.C.

The pilot safely ejected from the fighter in that crash.



Cumprimentos
"Nunca, no campo dos conflitos humanos, tantos deveram tanto a tão poucos." W.Churchil

http://mimilitary.blogspot.pt/
 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 14338
  • Recebeu: 742 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 730 vez(es)
  • +54/-48
Re: F-35 JSF
« Responder #634 em: Novembro 02, 2018, 04:35:38 pm »
The F-35 Is the Wrong Choice for Belgium
The stealth fighter is complex, expensive and unreliable

WIB AIR October 30, 2018 David Axe

Belgium reportedly has chosen the American-made F-35 to replace its old F-16s.

The F-35 is a technological marvel, with radar-absorbing skin coatings that help it to avoid detection.


But it’s also complex, expensive and unreliable. Unable to fly as frequently as the F-16 can do, and too expensive to buy in large numbers, the F-35 despite its impressive technology actually represents a backward step for the Belgian air force.

In buying a small number of F-35s to replace a much larger fleet of F-16s, Belgium is repeating the mistake that the The Netherlands and Denmark made years earlier when they, too, chose the F-35 over a less expensive fighter such as the Gripen or even an upgraded F-16.


News agency Belga first reported the Lockheed Martin-made F-35’s victory over the Eurofighter — a joint British, German, Italian and Spanish warplane — in a long-running competition to replace more than 50 F-16s that Belgium acquired in the 1980s and upgraded with new weapons and software in the early 2000s.

Belgium reportedly will buy just 34 F-35s for $4.1 billion, with deliveries beginning in 2023. The air force operated 56 F-16s, also built by Lockheed, until an accident in early October that resulted in one F-16 firing its gun during maintenance, destroying a second F-16 and damaging a third.

A new F-16 with the latest enhancements costs around $70 million. By contrast, each F-35 sets back taxpayers $120 million.
But maintenance costs account for most of a fighter’s overall expense. Owing to its complexity and the cost of maintenance to its stealth coating, the F-35 costs as much as $28,000 per flight hour, according to Forbes. An F-16 costs just $8,000 per flight hour.

Worse, the F-35 is unreliable. In 2017, just half of the U.S. Air Force’s F-35’s were flyable at any given time, according to official figures that Air Force Times obtained. Seventy percent of single-seat F-16s were flyable.


With just 34 F-35s, Belgium could rapidly run out of air power. Around half might be flyable on any given day. Of those 17 flyable jets, most will be busy on training flights. A handful will be deployable for war. Denmark, which is paying $3.1 billion for 27 F-35s, has stated a goal of deploying four jets to a war zone for a year at a time every three years.
Belgium might manage to deploy five F-35s. And the pilots of those five jets will be less skilled than they might have been had they trained with a more reliable aircraft. Owing in part to the lack of flyable aircraft, U.S. Air Force fighter pilots fly on average just 16 hours per month in 2018, according to Air Force Times.

They need to fly as many as 25 hours a month to maintain fighting skills, according to John Venable, a former F-16 pilot who is now an analyst with the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation.

F-35s aren’t reliable enough to support intensive training. That could cost lives during wartime. The F-35 “will needlessly spill the blood of far too many of our pilots,” warned Winslow Wheeler, a former analyst with the Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C.

If Belgium chose a simpler warplane — a new F-16 or Sweden’s Gripen — it could buy more of them and fly them more often than it could do with the F-35. That likely would mean a larger deployable force with better pilots.
In reportedly choosing the F-35, Brussels seems to be betting that the plane’s ability to avoid detection by enemy forces is worth its higher cost and lower reliability. But stealth is just one way a warplane wins in battle. Superior sensors and weapons, pilot prowess and even sheer numbers can also mean the difference between victory and defeat.

Moreover, stealth in essence is a countermeasure targeting specific types of sensors. The F-35 is designed to defeat the kinds of X-band radars that other warplanes and some ground-based air-defenses use to detect enemy jets.

To sidestep the F-35’s design attributes, countries such as Russia, China and Iran are developing radars that emit at lower frequencies — and also adding infrared and visual sensors to their air defenses. It’s for that reason that Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the F-16, called stealth a “scam.”

New sensors could eliminate the F-35’s sole advantage over cheaper and more flyable planes. If and when that happens, Belgium will be left with an air arm that’s smaller and less reliable than it was just a few years earlier, with no technological advantage to justify those liabilities.

The F-35 is the wrong choice for Belgium.

https://warisboring.com/the-f-35-is-the-wrong-choice-for-belgium/
7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.

 

*

Charlie Jaguar

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1637
  • Recebeu: 434 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 201 vez(es)
  • +31/-3
Re: F-35 JSF
« Responder #635 em: Novembro 03, 2018, 05:47:41 pm »
The F-35 Is the Wrong Choice for Belgium
The stealth fighter is complex, expensive and unreliable

WIB AIR October 30, 2018 David Axe

Belgium reportedly has chosen the American-made F-35 to replace its old F-16s.

The F-35 is a technological marvel, with radar-absorbing skin coatings that help it to avoid detection.


But it’s also complex, expensive and unreliable. Unable to fly as frequently as the F-16 can do, and too expensive to buy in large numbers, the F-35 despite its impressive technology actually represents a backward step for the Belgian air force.

In buying a small number of F-35s to replace a much larger fleet of F-16s, Belgium is repeating the mistake that the The Netherlands and Denmark made years earlier when they, too, chose the F-35 over a less expensive fighter such as the Gripen or even an upgraded F-16.


News agency Belga first reported the Lockheed Martin-made F-35’s victory over the Eurofighter — a joint British, German, Italian and Spanish warplane — in a long-running competition to replace more than 50 F-16s that Belgium acquired in the 1980s and upgraded with new weapons and software in the early 2000s.

Belgium reportedly will buy just 34 F-35s for $4.1 billion, with deliveries beginning in 2023. The air force operated 56 F-16s, also built by Lockheed, until an accident in early October that resulted in one F-16 firing its gun during maintenance, destroying a second F-16 and damaging a third.

A new F-16 with the latest enhancements costs around $70 million. By contrast, each F-35 sets back taxpayers $120 million.
But maintenance costs account for most of a fighter’s overall expense. Owing to its complexity and the cost of maintenance to its stealth coating, the F-35 costs as much as $28,000 per flight hour, according to Forbes. An F-16 costs just $8,000 per flight hour.

Worse, the F-35 is unreliable. In 2017, just half of the U.S. Air Force’s F-35’s were flyable at any given time, according to official figures that Air Force Times obtained. Seventy percent of single-seat F-16s were flyable.


With just 34 F-35s, Belgium could rapidly run out of air power. Around half might be flyable on any given day. Of those 17 flyable jets, most will be busy on training flights. A handful will be deployable for war. Denmark, which is paying $3.1 billion for 27 F-35s, has stated a goal of deploying four jets to a war zone for a year at a time every three years.
Belgium might manage to deploy five F-35s. And the pilots of those five jets will be less skilled than they might have been had they trained with a more reliable aircraft. Owing in part to the lack of flyable aircraft, U.S. Air Force fighter pilots fly on average just 16 hours per month in 2018, according to Air Force Times.

They need to fly as many as 25 hours a month to maintain fighting skills, according to John Venable, a former F-16 pilot who is now an analyst with the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation.

F-35s aren’t reliable enough to support intensive training. That could cost lives during wartime. The F-35 “will needlessly spill the blood of far too many of our pilots,” warned Winslow Wheeler, a former analyst with the Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C.

If Belgium chose a simpler warplane — a new F-16 or Sweden’s Gripen — it could buy more of them and fly them more often than it could do with the F-35. That likely would mean a larger deployable force with better pilots.
In reportedly choosing the F-35, Brussels seems to be betting that the plane’s ability to avoid detection by enemy forces is worth its higher cost and lower reliability. But stealth is just one way a warplane wins in battle. Superior sensors and weapons, pilot prowess and even sheer numbers can also mean the difference between victory and defeat.

Moreover, stealth in essence is a countermeasure targeting specific types of sensors. The F-35 is designed to defeat the kinds of X-band radars that other warplanes and some ground-based air-defenses use to detect enemy jets.

To sidestep the F-35’s design attributes, countries such as Russia, China and Iran are developing radars that emit at lower frequencies — and also adding infrared and visual sensors to their air defenses. It’s for that reason that Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the F-16, called stealth a “scam.”

New sensors could eliminate the F-35’s sole advantage over cheaper and more flyable planes. If and when that happens, Belgium will be left with an air arm that’s smaller and less reliable than it was just a few years earlier, with no technological advantage to justify those liabilities.

The F-35 is the wrong choice for Belgium.

https://warisboring.com/the-f-35-is-the-wrong-choice-for-belgium/

Esta nova EPAF vai dar água para a barba e diminuir a capacidade de combate das nações europeias que adquiriram o F-35 durante uns tempos valentes, senão indefinidamente face à polivalência de um sistema de armas como o F-16. A não ser que a Lockheed emende a mão, esqueça a cada vez menos importante furtividade do aparelho, e surja, por exemplo, com uma versão "D" mais musculada e fazendo pleno uso daquele potente motor e das potencialidades convencionais do aparelho. Imagino um F-16 equipado com aquilo...

É que às nações aderentes e compradoras do F-35 bastaria perguntarem-se a si mesmas o seguinte: se a USAF planeia ter várias centenas de F-16 operacionais até 2048 (e Israel, por exemplo, não abdicará dos seus F-15 e F-16 em prol de mais F-35), que confiança será possível então depositar no Lightning II?
Saudações Aeronáuticas,
Charlie Jaguar

         "PER ASPERA AD ASTRA"
               (Por Caminhos Árduos, Até Às Estrelas)
 

*

typhonman

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 2791
  • Recebeu: 45 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 3 vez(es)
  • +10/-13
Re: F-35 JSF
« Responder #636 em: Novembro 03, 2018, 07:55:04 pm »
The F-35 Is the Wrong Choice for Belgium
The stealth fighter is complex, expensive and unreliable

WIB AIR October 30, 2018 David Axe

Belgium reportedly has chosen the American-made F-35 to replace its old F-16s.

The F-35 is a technological marvel, with radar-absorbing skin coatings that help it to avoid detection.


But it’s also complex, expensive and unreliable. Unable to fly as frequently as the F-16 can do, and too expensive to buy in large numbers, the F-35 despite its impressive technology actually represents a backward step for the Belgian air force.

In buying a small number of F-35s to replace a much larger fleet of F-16s, Belgium is repeating the mistake that the The Netherlands and Denmark made years earlier when they, too, chose the F-35 over a less expensive fighter such as the Gripen or even an upgraded F-16.


News agency Belga first reported the Lockheed Martin-made F-35’s victory over the Eurofighter — a joint British, German, Italian and Spanish warplane — in a long-running competition to replace more than 50 F-16s that Belgium acquired in the 1980s and upgraded with new weapons and software in the early 2000s.

Belgium reportedly will buy just 34 F-35s for $4.1 billion, with deliveries beginning in 2023. The air force operated 56 F-16s, also built by Lockheed, until an accident in early October that resulted in one F-16 firing its gun during maintenance, destroying a second F-16 and damaging a third.

A new F-16 with the latest enhancements costs around $70 million. By contrast, each F-35 sets back taxpayers $120 million.
But maintenance costs account for most of a fighter’s overall expense. Owing to its complexity and the cost of maintenance to its stealth coating, the F-35 costs as much as $28,000 per flight hour, according to Forbes. An F-16 costs just $8,000 per flight hour.

Worse, the F-35 is unreliable. In 2017, just half of the U.S. Air Force’s F-35’s were flyable at any given time, according to official figures that Air Force Times obtained. Seventy percent of single-seat F-16s were flyable.


With just 34 F-35s, Belgium could rapidly run out of air power. Around half might be flyable on any given day. Of those 17 flyable jets, most will be busy on training flights. A handful will be deployable for war. Denmark, which is paying $3.1 billion for 27 F-35s, has stated a goal of deploying four jets to a war zone for a year at a time every three years.
Belgium might manage to deploy five F-35s. And the pilots of those five jets will be less skilled than they might have been had they trained with a more reliable aircraft. Owing in part to the lack of flyable aircraft, U.S. Air Force fighter pilots fly on average just 16 hours per month in 2018, according to Air Force Times.

They need to fly as many as 25 hours a month to maintain fighting skills, according to John Venable, a former F-16 pilot who is now an analyst with the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation.

F-35s aren’t reliable enough to support intensive training. That could cost lives during wartime. The F-35 “will needlessly spill the blood of far too many of our pilots,” warned Winslow Wheeler, a former analyst with the Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C.

If Belgium chose a simpler warplane — a new F-16 or Sweden’s Gripen — it could buy more of them and fly them more often than it could do with the F-35. That likely would mean a larger deployable force with better pilots.
In reportedly choosing the F-35, Brussels seems to be betting that the plane’s ability to avoid detection by enemy forces is worth its higher cost and lower reliability. But stealth is just one way a warplane wins in battle. Superior sensors and weapons, pilot prowess and even sheer numbers can also mean the difference between victory and defeat.

Moreover, stealth in essence is a countermeasure targeting specific types of sensors. The F-35 is designed to defeat the kinds of X-band radars that other warplanes and some ground-based air-defenses use to detect enemy jets.

To sidestep the F-35’s design attributes, countries such as Russia, China and Iran are developing radars that emit at lower frequencies — and also adding infrared and visual sensors to their air defenses. It’s for that reason that Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the F-16, called stealth a “scam.”

New sensors could eliminate the F-35’s sole advantage over cheaper and more flyable planes. If and when that happens, Belgium will be left with an air arm that’s smaller and less reliable than it was just a few years earlier, with no technological advantage to justify those liabilities.

The F-35 is the wrong choice for Belgium.

https://warisboring.com/the-f-35-is-the-wrong-choice-for-belgium/

Esta nova EPAF vai dar água para a barba e diminuir a capacidade de combate das nações europeias que adquiriram o F-35 durante uns tempos valentes, senão indefinidamente face à polivalência de um sistema de armas como o F-16. A não ser que a Lockheed emende a mão, esqueça a cada vez menos importante furtividade do aparelho, e surja, por exemplo, com uma versão "D" mais musculada e fazendo pleno uso daquele potente motor e das potencialidades convencionais do aparelho. Imagino um F-16 equipado com aquilo...

É que às nações aderentes e compradoras do F-35 bastaria perguntarem-se a si mesmas o seguinte: se a USAF planeia ter várias centenas de F-16 operacionais até 2048 (e Israel, por exemplo, não abdicará dos seus F-15 e F-16 em prol de mais F-35), que confiança será possível então depositar no Lightning II?

Caro CJ,

Pelo que li a Lockheed estará a desenvolver um misto de F-22 e F-35, para vender ao Japão, poderá estar aí a resposta a essas "dúvidas" do JSF.

Quanto a Chel Havir e a USAF, são Forças Aéreas que bastante maiores que a nossa e aonde é quase impossível ter todos os caças furtivos, por razões de orçamentos..

Pela mesma ótica, nada nos impede de ter por exemplo 12 F-35A e uns 20 F-16V (modernizados a partir de células de F-16C, por exemplo, para poderem levar tanques conformais etc.).

Cumprimentos
Artigo 308º

Traição à Pátria

Quem, por meio de violência, ameaça de violência, usurpação ou abuso de funções de soberania:

a) Tentar separar da Mãe-Pátria, ou entregar a país estrangeiro ou submeter à soberania estrangeira, todo o território português ou parte dele
 

*

Get_It

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1715
  • Recebeu: 182 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 412 vez(es)
  • +7/-1
Re: F-35 JSF
« Responder #637 em: Novembro 03, 2018, 09:26:08 pm »
Pela mesma ótica, nada nos impede de ter por exemplo 12 F-35A e uns 20 F-16V (modernizados a partir de células de F-16C, por exemplo, para poderem levar tanques conformais etc.).
A opinião pública e os custos de duas linhas logísticas e de treino diferentes serão problemáticos para um país que nem moderniza três das suas cinco fragatas.

Cumprimentos,
:snip: :snip: :Tanque:
 

*

typhonman

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 2791
  • Recebeu: 45 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 3 vez(es)
  • +10/-13
Re: F-35 JSF
« Responder #638 em: Novembro 03, 2018, 09:39:47 pm »
Pela mesma ótica, nada nos impede de ter por exemplo 12 F-35A e uns 20 F-16V (modernizados a partir de células de F-16C, por exemplo, para poderem levar tanques conformais etc.).
A opinião pública e os custos de duas linhas logísticas e de treino diferentes serão problemáticos para um país que nem moderniza três das suas cinco fragatas.

Cumprimentos,

Não é problemático, a Grécia consegue 3 ou 4 frotas diferentes, assim como outros países OTAN.

O problema cá são as prioridades, basicamente podem-se queimar 15 mil milhões do nosso dinheiro com os bancos, mas não se podem ter 2 linhas de manutenção diferentes.
Está visto que as Forças Armadas, vão ter capacidade combatente mínima, e vamos andar a entreter a OTAN com as nossas tretas do costume...

Basicamente, na FAP temos quase 8000 mil militares e temos 30 F-16 + 5 P-3C e algumas baterias AAA de 20 mm ( operacionais) ? , o resto é aeronaves de apoio, sem capacidade de combate, ah esperem... temos SAM ? Radares 3D móveis ? Centros CI4?
Artigo 308º

Traição à Pátria

Quem, por meio de violência, ameaça de violência, usurpação ou abuso de funções de soberania:

a) Tentar separar da Mãe-Pátria, ou entregar a país estrangeiro ou submeter à soberania estrangeira, todo o território português ou parte dele
 

*

Get_It

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1715
  • Recebeu: 182 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 412 vez(es)
  • +7/-1
Re: F-35 JSF
« Responder #639 em: Novembro 03, 2018, 09:52:55 pm »
Não é problemático, a Grécia consegue 3 ou 4 frotas diferentes, assim como outros países OTAN.

O problema cá são as prioridades, basicamente podem-se queimar 15 mil milhões do nosso dinheiro com os bancos, mas não se podem ter 2 linhas de manutenção diferentes.
Cá falas em defesa e são capazes de perguntar para defender de quê/quem. Na Grécia falas em defesa e começam a falar sobre defender contra os turcos. Prioridades...

Diria que desde a entrada em serviço dos A-7 que se tornou culturalmente e, por extensão, economicamente impossível de vir a ter Portugal a operar duas aeronaves de combate aéreo em simultâneo. Na minha opinião, a única hipótese remota que existiria seria operar uma dupla de F-35A (até me ri agora a imaginar Portugal a conseguir adquirir os F-35) e de TA-50. Isto porque sempre daria para dizer que os TA-50 são aeronaves de treino.

Cumprimentos,
:snip: :snip: :Tanque:
 

*

typhonman

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 2791
  • Recebeu: 45 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 3 vez(es)
  • +10/-13
Re: F-35 JSF
« Responder #640 em: Novembro 03, 2018, 10:06:12 pm »
Não é problemático, a Grécia consegue 3 ou 4 frotas diferentes, assim como outros países OTAN.

O problema cá são as prioridades, basicamente podem-se queimar 15 mil milhões do nosso dinheiro com os bancos, mas não se podem ter 2 linhas de manutenção diferentes.
Cá falas em defesa e são capazes de perguntar para defender de quê/quem. Na Grécia falas em defesa e começam a falar sobre defender contra os turcos. Prioridades...

Diria que desde a entrada em serviço dos A-7 que se tornou culturalmente e, por extensão, economicamente impossível de vir a ter Portugal a operar duas aeronaves de combate aéreo em simultâneo. Na minha opinião, a única hipótese remota que existiria seria operar uma dupla de F-35A (até me ri agora a imaginar Portugal a conseguir adquirir os F-35) e de TA-50. Isto porque sempre daria para dizer que os TA-50 são aeronaves de treino.

Cumprimentos,

A Espanha vai gastar milhões, em A-400, MRTT, Patriot, Reapers,NH-90 SSGs etc... para defender de quem/quê?

Se vamos por aí...

Nos anos 90 a FAP conseguiu manter 3 esquadras de combate, 201, 304 e 301 e ainda uma de MPA, a 601, ou seja 4 esquadras de combate, se não me engano entre 94 e 98, mantivemos 20 F-16A, 20 A-7P e mais de 40 Alpha-Jet, mais os 6 P-3P..

Estes eram os tempos em que a FAP teve alguma força no pós ultramar ! Nem os 40 F-16MLU conseguimos alcançar ( pasme-se, num país de QUASE 11 milhões de pessoas não se consegue arranjar 45 pilotos para F-16). Falei nos pilotos porque aqui no fórum diz-se "para que queres os aviões se não tens pilotos". Pois bem, acho que a própria FAP e o governo assim o decidiram para não gastar dinheiro.

Um país como o nosso, tem de frota orgânica do estado ( militar) 12 AW-101, 5 AW-119 e 5 Lynx ( 22 helis), de 3 ramos diferentes !

Basicamente se um dia houver um grande sismo em Lisboa, e os EH-101 ficarem danificados pela queda dos hangares ou estruturas aonde se encontram, o país fica com 5 helis ligeiros A-119 e 5 Lynx ( se não forem perdidos também)... Façam certos exercícios e vejam ao estado a que chegamos !
Artigo 308º

Traição à Pátria

Quem, por meio de violência, ameaça de violência, usurpação ou abuso de funções de soberania:

a) Tentar separar da Mãe-Pátria, ou entregar a país estrangeiro ou submeter à soberania estrangeira, todo o território português ou parte dele
 
Os seguintes utilizadores agradeceram esta mensagem: LM, mayo

*

Charlie Jaguar

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1637
  • Recebeu: 434 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 201 vez(es)
  • +31/-3
Re: F-35 JSF
« Responder #641 em: Novembro 04, 2018, 10:54:53 am »
Pela mesma ótica, nada nos impede de ter por exemplo 12 F-35A e uns 20 F-16V (modernizados a partir de células de F-16C, por exemplo, para poderem levar tanques conformais etc.).

Tu e eu já andamos a degladiar argumentos acerca disto desde os tempos do saudoso 9G's.  ;)

Em relação ao que escreveste anteriormente em resposta ao amigo Get_It, subscrevo quase na totalidade o que lá está embora sejam assuntos na sua grande maioria para outros tópicos. No que diz respeito a termos, ou voltarmos a ter, mais do que uma frota distinta de aviões de combate, sabes tão bem quanto eu que isso é neste momento impossível por uma série de razões já aqui sobejamente faladas. Só estou a ver a possibilidade da FAP possuir mais do que um modelo de caça/caça-bombardeiro em serviço na eventualidade de uma guerra, e isso ninguém quer que aconteça (a guerra, propriamente dita).

Eu não desgosto do F-35 atenção; acho que tem a possibilidade de a médio prazo ser uma excelente aeronave de ataque se se conseguir ver livre das restrições impostas pela "sagrada" furtividade, já que a nível de sistemas, e assim que todos os problemas de software forem superados, será sem dúvida um sistema de armas ímpar. E com o desenvolvimento avançado por parte de russos e chineses de tecnologia radar anti-stealth e SAM's, e a sua futura exportação, os dias de suposta intocabilidade de sistemas de armas como o F-22, F-35 e B-2, etc, deverão ter os dias contados. E é nesse cenário que a polivalência do "velhinho" F-16 continuará a ser determinante e a estar presente através de versões avançadas como o Viper Block 70/72.

As recomendações da FAP [o optar pela modernização para o F-16V] foram muito bem estudadas, acredita. Sendo um ramo fortemente influenciado pelas tendências e doutrinas norte-americanas, não será surpreendente se daqui a década e meia ou duas décadas virmos o F-35 com a Cruz de Cristo estampada; porém, até lá, haverá tempo para o Lightning II maturar e se averiguar das suas reais capacidades. E o F-16V, para além de ser a "escolha segura", faz perfeitamente a ponte entre o MLU "late OFP"/Block 50/52/52+ e o F-35 ao ser considerada uma aeronave de combate de geração 4.5 com total interoperabilidade com sistemas de 5ª geração, assim se avance de facto por cá com o Viper. O que interessa é que se avance, e o mais rapidamente possível, porque isto de estar a reactivar células A/B e a modernizá-las para MLU para a FAP faz pouco ou nenhum sentido tendo em conta que é imperioso e urgente uma decisão em relação ao futuro dos nossos F-16.

Abraço!  ;)
« Última modificação: Novembro 04, 2018, 10:58:20 am por Charlie Jaguar »
Saudações Aeronáuticas,
Charlie Jaguar

         "PER ASPERA AD ASTRA"
               (Por Caminhos Árduos, Até Às Estrelas)
 
Os seguintes utilizadores agradeceram esta mensagem: LM, asalves

*

asalves

  • Membro
  • *
  • 166
  • Recebeu: 53 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 16 vez(es)
  • +4/-4
Re: F-35 JSF
« Responder #642 em: Novembro 05, 2018, 12:33:59 pm »
Pela mesma ótica, nada nos impede de ter por exemplo 12 F-35A e uns 20 F-16V (modernizados a partir de células de F-16C, por exemplo, para poderem levar tanques conformais etc.).
A opinião pública e os custos de duas linhas logísticas e de treino diferentes serão problemáticos para um país que nem moderniza três das suas cinco fragatas.

Cumprimentos,

Aqui há tempos li que os pilotos dos F-16 andavam a fazer as horas de voo mínimas por questões orçamentais. Agora imaginem com o custo por hora de voo dos F-35  ;D ;D

Até o Centeno perdia o resto de cabelos pretos que ainda tem.
 

*

ICE 1A+

  • Perito
  • **
  • 599
  • Recebeu: 387 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 37 vez(es)
  • +27/-0
Re: F-35 JSF
« Responder #643 em: Novembro 07, 2018, 08:33:52 pm »
Parece que ainda não é desta...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-us-canada-45827795

The US military has temporarily grounded its entire fleet of F-35 fighter jets in the wake of a crash in South Carolina last month.

Inspections are to be carried out on faulty fuel tubes.

An official report questioned earlier this year whether the F-35 was ready for combat after dozens of faults were found.

The F-35 is the largest and most expensive weapons programme of its type in the world.

The programme is expected to last several decades and global sales are projected to be 3,000. The US government's accountability office estimates all costs associated with the project will amount to one trillion dollars.

In a statement, the F-35 Joint Program Office said the US and its international partners had suspended flight operations while a fleet-wide inspection of fuel tubes was conducted.

"If suspect fuel tubes are installed, the part will be removed and replaced. If known good fuel tubes are already installed, then those aircraft will be returned to flight status.

"Inspections are expected to be completed within the next 24 to 48 hours."

The aircraft, which uses stealth technology to reduce its visibility to radar, comes in three variants.

The crash in South Carolina involved an F-35B , which is able to land vertically and costs around $100m (£75m).

The pilot in that incident ejected safely but the aircraft was destroyed.
F-35 fighter jets prepare to land for first time
Image caption F-35 fighter jets prepare to land for first time

The plane, manufactured by Lockheed Martin but including parts made in several other countries, has been sold to a number of nations, including the UK, Japan, Italy, Turkey and South Korea.

    Why the RAF's new F-35 jets matter

The Ministry of Defence in London said the UK had decided to "pause some F-35 flying as a precautionary measure while we consider the findings of an ongoing enquiry".

But the MOD said F-35 flight trials from the aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, were continuing and the programme remained on schedule to provide UK armed forces with "a game-changing capability".
Presentational grey line
No going back

By Jonathan Marcus, Defence and Diplomatic Correspondent

The temporary suspension of all F-35 flights is an embarrassment given the extraordinary cost of this frequently troubled programme. But the problem has already been identified as faulty fuel tubes. Once these are checked or replaced the aircraft will be back in the air.

The F-35 is only just entering service but it is already the most expensive weapons programme of all time.

It will equip the US Air Force and Marine Corps as well as several of Washington's allies. It represents a step-change in capability but the F-35's complexity has inevitably thrown up problems.

However there is no going back now. It promises to be the centrepiece of US air power for decades to come.

While its costs per aircraft are coming down there are still questions about how many planes the US can afford and whether it should also buy a cheaper, less capable aircraft alongside the F-35.
Presentational grey line

The F-35, first used in combat by Israel earlier this year to carry out two strikes, is designed for use by the US Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy.

It boasts avionics, sensors and communications that allow data to be shared quickly with operational commanders.

Eu não percebo nada disto mas uma coisa é ter dificuldades na integração dos sistemas, ou no software IA. Agora um tubo de combustível? Estamos a falar da Lockhead ou do zé manel que nunca construiu aviões. É que quão difícil é falhar na conceção de um tubo de combustível, não se pode dizer que é alta tecnologia. vibrações, forças G's, resistência a deformações térmicas, já deviam ter experiência nisso tudo. OU andam a contratar indianos para desenvolver e fornecer os tubos.

Há erros neste F-35 que parecem de amadores

Nem imaginas as dezenas de companhias do mundo inteiro que trabalham para o sistema F35
A Lockheed Martin não fabrica tubos de combustível!

Da uma olhada aqui:
http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=F-35_JSF
O erro pode acontecer em qualquer ponto da cadeia.
Agora imagina quantas outras empresas não são fornecedoras de materiais e componentes para estas que estão diretamente ligadas ao projeto.
Uma teia enorme! E não é só com a construção do F35 que se passa isto. Hoje em dia e com tudo.
O fecho da linha de montagem do F35 ia causar transtorno em muito lugar e empresa no mundo inteiro.
É assim que um projeto destes alcança os milhares de biliões!

 

*

mafets

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 4728
  • Recebeu: 771 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 536 vez(es)
  • +34/-15
Re: F-35 JSF
« Responder #644 em: Novembro 17, 2018, 06:12:15 pm »
Não há nada que não lhe aconteça... ;D :P

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a25100725/f-35-vulnerability-hacked/?fbclid=IwAR3bdugHrXXGHwewBxNjWT_9CsI7kY4v0MPRjmd2-NEy9npIMOw-hgCVyyY

Citar
The F-35's Greatest Vulnerability Isn't Enemy Weapons. It's Being Hacked.
The high-tech fighter can hide from radar, but hackers are a different matter.

The F-35 Lightning II can evade radar while infiltrating enemy airspace to deliver a knockout blow. It's a sophisticated, stealthy fighter with one big vulnerability—being hacked. As the plane finally reaches full production, the Air Force is racing to plug holes that could allow hackers to exploit the jet's connected systems—with disastrous results.

The aircraft itself is pretty secure. As Air Force Times explains, there are multiple layers of security surrounding the jet, including PIN numbers for individual pilots and secure authentication in crafting mission packages for uploading into the aircraft computer. A faraway hacker could not, for example, start up the aircraft and force its engine to explode, or cause the airplane to roll off the runway and crash.

F-35 PILOTS ARE FOND OF SAYING THAT THE PLANE IS AS MUCH COMPUTER AS FIGHTER JET.

But whether we're talking about a home computer, phone, tablet, or a hugely expensive fighter jet, vulnerabilities add up the more you're connected with the outside world. Much of the F-35's strength lies in its ability to connect to the wider military and harness big data about the mission.

The worldwide F-35 fleet is connected to at least two secure networks designed to maximize efficiency. The first is the Autonomic Logistics Information System, or ALIS, which keeps track of individual aircraft issues and the location of spare parts and equipment worldwide. Here’s a Lockheed Martin video that describes ALIS:

Every F-35 squadron, no matter the country, has a 13-server ALIS package that is connected to the worldwide ALIS network. Individual jets send logistical data back to their nation’s Central Point of Entry, which then passes it on to Lockheed's central server hub in Fort Worth, Texas. In fact, ALIS sends back so much data that some countries are worried it could give away too much information about their F-35 operations.

Another networking system is the Joint Reprogramming Enterprise, or JRE. The JRE maintains a shared library of potential adversary sensors and weapon systems that is distributed to the worldwide F-35 fleet. For example, the JRE will seek out and share information on enemy radar and electronic warfare signals so that individual air forces will not have to track down the information themselves. This allows countries with the F-35 to tailor the mission around anticipated threats—and fly one step ahead of them.

Although the networks have serious cybersecurity protections, they will undoubtedly be targets for hackers in times of peace, and war. Hackers might try to bring down the networks entirely, snarling the worldwide logistics system and even endangering the ability of individual aircraft to get much-needed spare parts. Alternately, it might be possible to compromise the integrity of the ALIS data—by, say, reporting a worldwide shortage of F-35 engines. Hackers could conceivably introduce bad data in the JRE that could compromise the safety of a mission, shortening the range of a weapon system so that a pilot thinks she is safely outside the engagement zone when she is most certainly not.

Even the F-35 simulators that train pilots could conceivably leak data to an adversary. Flight simulators are programmed to mirror flying a real aircraft as much as possible, so data retrieved from a simulator will closely follow the data from a real F-35.

In an interview with Defense News, Brig. Gen. Stephen Jost, director of the Air Force F-35 Integration Office, says there are “a lot of nodes of vulnerability that we’re trying to shore up.” Not only is the worldwide networking system vulnerable, wireless systems used to support the F-35 could also be points of entry for hackers.

F-35 pilots are fond of saying that the plane is as much computer as fighter jet. While the use of computers and worldwide networking is a benefit to all of the jet’s operators, the U.S. military and F-35 customers worldwide must be sure the aircraft—and the equipment that supports it—is properly armored against cyber threats. The alternative could be the jet’s greatest advantages being quietly turned against it, the extent of the damage known only once the shooting starts.





Cumprimentos
"Nunca, no campo dos conflitos humanos, tantos deveram tanto a tão poucos." W.Churchil

http://mimilitary.blogspot.pt/