Citação de: Charlie Jaguar em Março 22, 2019, 09:32:12 amCitação de: NVF em Março 21, 2019, 06:06:34 pmMas quanto ao 35, este artigo é muito elucidativo: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-f-35-isnt-ready-war-48312O artigo é tão extenso que nem vou transcrevê-lo aqui.Credo! Os russos e chineses, a ler isto, devem-se estar todos a rir. Agora fora de brincadeiras: ler o artigo na National Interest ou o original do POGO faz levantar sérias preocupações. Dá mesmo vontade de afirmar que, face ao descrito, é caso para nos interrogarmos se os aliados dos EUA que estão a comprar o F-35 estarão totalmente cientes de onde se estão a meter. Talvez só mesmo Israel.Adoptar um caça de última geração, porém assolado por graves defeitos e lacunas, e que irá assumir nalguns países integralmente a capacidade de combate aéreo dessa nação, é de uma irresponsabilidade que pode raiar a loucura, e um claro e grave enfraquecimento face ao recrudescimento militar russo e chinês. Os teóricos da conspiração teriam aqui terreno fértil para conjecturar várias hipóteses. https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2019/03/f-35-far-from-ready-to-face-current-or-future-threats/
Citação de: NVF em Março 21, 2019, 06:06:34 pmMas quanto ao 35, este artigo é muito elucidativo: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-f-35-isnt-ready-war-48312O artigo é tão extenso que nem vou transcrevê-lo aqui.Credo! Os russos e chineses, a ler isto, devem-se estar todos a rir.
Mas quanto ao 35, este artigo é muito elucidativo: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-f-35-isnt-ready-war-48312O artigo é tão extenso que nem vou transcrevê-lo aqui.
O F-35A esta a correr como previsto e tem demonstrado bons resultados na Red Flag e já esta abaixo dos 90M€.
F-35 Still Can’t Shoot StraightThe report does provide some detail on the developmental testing for the 25 mm gun, though nearly all of the details are actually old results already reported in previous years. The gun is of major significance for close air support because accurate strafing is almost always a better choice than bombs or missiles when troops are endangered by close-in enemies or when enemy targets are close to civilians. The report includes a combination of this and previous years’ testing results for each of the three F-35 models’ guns, but the most significant results involve the F-35A’s. Like most aspects of the F-35 program, because there are three service-specific aircraft, there are three different guns: an internally mounted cannon for the Air Force’s F-35A, and a belly-mounted gun pod carrying 220 rounds for the Marine Corps’ F-35B and the Navy’s F-35C, though because of differences in the shape of each variant, the gun pods are not interchangeable. DOT&E reports that, based on a small sample of developmental flight tests, the Marine Corps’ and the Navy’s model gun pods have met their engineering accuracy specifications.In contrast, the Air Force’s F-35A’s internally mounted gun continues to demonstrate poor accuracy during testing, as in years past. The gun shoots long and to the right of targets when pilots aim using cues projected into their helmets. Adjustments to the helmet’s targeting software should be able to correct the cues to match with bullet impacts, but repeated attempts over a period of at least two years have failed. Investigators first found misalignments in the gun mounts in 2017; according to the 2018 report, “the true alignment of each F-35A gun is not known.”It is unlikely that many ground troops will be willing to trust the F-35—as they do the A-10—to fire safely at enemy targets close to their positions.Due in no small part to the inadequacy of the testing program, still other questions remain about the effectiveness of the gun’s ammunition against real targets encountered in combat. The developmental testing phase tested three ammunition types: the PGU-23, a training and practice round; the PGU-47 armor-piercing high explosive incendiary round; and the PGU-48 frangible armor-piercing round. The incendiary round is mainly for use against light armor, as it is designed to penetrate thin armor plate before detonating with a delay inside the target. The last is a nontraditional, non-explosive fragmenting round meant to punch a hole through lightly armored targets and set off secondary detonations when it penetrates into fuel or stored ammunition. Live fire effectiveness testing of the ammunition to date has been against small numbers of obsolete vehicles, obsolete planes, and plywood silhouette dummies—none of which resemble the most common threats troops encounter.Flight testing of the gun and its ammunition has been even more limited. According to the report, there were just 19 air-to-ground strafing test missions for the F-35A “through July 2018,” in which aircraft fired approximately 3,400 rounds of the three ammunition types, approximately 70 passes of 50 rounds apiece, since the F-35A carries only 182 rounds. (For comparison, the A-10’s 30 mm gun can carry 1,350 rounds.) In order to gather useful data on ammunition effectiveness, gun flight tests need to cover at least three approach angles and three opening ranges. The report does not shed light on the specifics of the test program, but simple arithmetic suggests that if the evaluators tested each round in all the appropriate scenarios, then they only have one or two sets of data for each ammunition type, far from the amount of data needed to properly determine performance. Nothing in the report indicates that there will be much more gun-effectiveness testing, or that there will be any of a sort that would be sufficient to compare effectiveness of the A-10’s 30 mm gun with the F-35A’s 25 mm gun, with realistic targets and numbers of passes.The F-35 is supposed to meet or exceed the combat performance of the aircraft it is slated to replace. The F-35A is intended to eventually replace the A-10 in the close air support role. Until engineers can make the F-35A’s gun shoot straight, and demonstrate this conclusively in testing, it is unlikely that many ground troops will be willing to trust the F-35 as they do the A-10 to fire safely at enemy targets close to their positions. And likely fewer still would be willing to entrust their lives to the F-35’s 182 25 mm rounds instead of the 1,350 30 mm rounds the A-10 can carry.https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2019/03/f-35-far-from-ready-to-face-current-or-future-threats/
Aircraft Durability Showing CracksThe services had expected the F-35 to fly for half a century, but it is possible that many of the legacy aircraft it is meant to replace may still be in service by the time the first F-35s have been scrapped. All F-35s are supposed to have a service life of 8,000 hours, a standard military aircraft lifespan. To ensure the design will last, each model is required to undergo three lifetimes’ worth (24,000 hours) of structural load testing to determine if they can handle the representative stress placed on them during takeoffs, landings, and in flight. In the course of this life testing over the years, engineers have found numerous instances of cracks and wear in the test airframes’ structural components and joints. For example, an attachment joint between the vertical tail and the airframe on an F-35A failed during testing in October 2010. This forced a redesign of the joint that was later incorporated into the manufacturing process. That test aircraft, after this repair and others, went on to complete the full three lifetime tests, and, according to the 2018 report, is currently undergoing a complete evaluation to determine what other fixes are needed and whether F-35As do indeed have an 8,000-hour life.https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2019/03/f-35-far-from-ready-to-face-current-or-future-threats/
Testers have also identified an issue with the arresting hook on the Air Force’s F-35A conventional takeoff variant. The F-35A, like other Air Force aircraft, is equipped with a single-use tailhook for emergency-landing situations when the pilot suspects a braking failure. Testing on the F-35A’s tailhook began in 2016. Testing engineers found that the arresting hook is causing damage to the aircraft due to “up-swing.” They originally rated this a Category I “Medium” deficiency. At this meeting, the deputy director of engineering, this time with the concurrence of the testing sites, downgraded the deficiency to Category II “High,” with instructions to study the maintenance- and replacement-cost data to better define the difference between “major damage” and “non-major damage”—but without actually proposing any fixes to the problem.https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2018/08/f-35-program-cutting-corners-to-complete-development/
The average program unit cost for each F-35 has more than doubled, from $62.2 million at the program’s inception in 2001 to an average $158.4 million in 2018.https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2018/08/f-35-program-cutting-corners-to-complete-development/
US Air Force performs first F-35A rapid crew swap exercise....The USAF can perform rapid crew swaps with the F-35A due to the aircraft's Prognostics Health Management (PHM) system, which reports the aircraft's status to pilots and maintainers and tells them if there is an unsafe issue with the aircraft. If the F-35A lands with no issues, which the service calls Code-1, it can then shutdown the engine, swap crew, and confidently put the aircraft immediately back in the air without performing a full post-operation maintenance inspection. The USAF said this is a unique capability for a single-engine fighter.Until now it was not safe to perform rapid crew swaps with legacy single engine fighters because a full post operation maintenance inspection was required when an aircraft engine is shut down completely. This includes running through checklists, visually inspecting the engine, aircraft structure, and systems, a common practice with legacy aircraft such as the Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon.
Notícias variadas sobre o F-35. A Lockheed Martin espera que o Lightning II atinja uma taxa de disponibilidade de 80% até Setembro, quer nos EUA como nos clientes estrangeiros. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-on-track-to-hit-80-mission-capability-rate-by-457284/Reacções da Polónia e Grécia à abertura do Departamento de Defesa norte-americano em vender o F-35 a mais nações aliadas. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/poland-hopeful-of-speeding-f-35-acquisition-457275/ http://www.ekathimerini.com/239274/article/ekathimerini/news/greece-to-examine-f-35-acquisition-says-defense-ministerSerá que as aeronaves destinadas a Ankara podem ir parar a Atenas? E finalmente uma questão que anda a ser relegada para segundo plano, mas que exige muita atenção: o nível de ruído causado pelo F-35 e que é bem superior, por exemplo, ao do F-16 e que pode ser prejudicial à saúde. Se em países como a Holanda isso parece não levantar problema, outros há em que o assunto está a ser investigado como é o caso da Austrália que começou a receber queixas relativas ao ruído do Lightning II após a chegada dos primeiros exemplares à base de Williamtown. Nos EUA isso já é motivo de preocupação entre as populações, encabeçando a lista os Estados do Vermont e Arizona.https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/03/31/vermont-air-guards-last-f-16-fighter-plane-set-to-depart/https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/03/28/burlington-council-approves-resolution-asking-to-cancel-f-35-basing/http://www.citizensforalivableboise.org/news/-5-f-35-noise-studies-show-the-f-35-is-much-louder-than-the-f-16-and-a-10http://www.tucsonforward.com/files/F-35_Noise_fact_sheet_07-2014.pdfImagino então se um dia este bicho aterrar em Monte Real. Se de cada vez que há exercícios começam a chover os telefonemas a dizer que os animais de criação das propriedades em redor da base estão apavorados ou morreram com o susto, na eventualidade do Lightning II aparecer na BA5 não vão sobrar capoeiras ou coelheiras a ninguém porque será uma limpeza.
http://www.ekathimerini.com/239304/article/ekathimerini/news/greece-to-consider-f-35-purchaseEste artigo fala também na Roménia.E nós ? Ah, nós temos a ferida a continuar a sangrar.
Ainda não vi nem ouvi o F-35, mas posso confirmar que o B-1B faz um cagarim que é obra. Os F-111E/F também eram bem ruidosos, mais até que o F-14A, apesar de disporem da mesma motorização.
Japanese Defense Ministry sources say a Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) F-35A Lightning II disappeared from radar at around 19:30 hrs local time on 9 April 2019. Japan’s Lightning programme consists out of 147 aircraft. In December 2018, the Japanese MoD announced its decision to increase its procurement of F-35s from 42 to 147. They stated the aircraft will be a mix of 105 F-35As and 42 F-35Bs. The F-35As of the JASDF belong to 302 Hikotai and are based at Misawa air base (Japan). Currently, Scramble is aware of the delivery of twelve F-35s to the squadron. More news about the disappearing will follow! #F35 #JSF #Lightning #aviationincident NOS RTL Nieuws F-35 Lightning II #avgeek #aviation #JASDF 防衛省航空自衛隊＜Japan Air Self-Defense Force＞ 323 TES Promo Andre Steur Dennis Luyt