abonnement Unibet Coolblue
  zondag 24 februari 2013 @ 19:14:39 #76
30789 RonaldV
Phabulous Phantoms
pi_123291711
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 24 februari 2013 19:04 schreef M5 het volgende:

[..]

Ze hadden er 916, waarvan 292 crashed zijn met 115 doden. In totaal 2.575 F-104's geproduceerd
Even snel over de duim: zij bestelden ruim 35% van alles dus. Nog steeds een respectabel aantal. Heb je ook de statistieken waaruit blijkt dat het grootste deel van de doden viel in de jaren voordat de training werd aangepast? Op Wikipedia staat een stukje over de aanpassing van de Luftwaffe-training door Johannes Steinhoff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Air_Force#Cold_War
- "Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed" Bruce Springsteen - War
- Door controle aan de landsgrenzen op te heffen kan men nu grenzenloos gaan controleren...
- Privacy Matters
  zondag 24 februari 2013 @ 19:52:33 #77
35623 PPL
Autumnus Sempre
pi_123293711
Niet om het een of ander; is de F-104 in Nederland niet opgevolgd door de F-5?
Tussen de regels door lijkt het net alsof de F-16 direct na de F-104 'kwam'.
Staat wellicht los van de JSF discussie, maar als je kijkt naar Lockheed die wordt opgevolgd door Northrop, zet dat de lockheed-affaire in een iets ander daglicht.

Van de eerder door sp3c genoemde WIkipedia-pagina:
Het recente proefschrift van Anet Bleich, een biografische studie over het leven van de PvdA-politicus J.M. den Uyl uit 2008, bevestigt eerdere berichten dat prins Bernhard zich naast de Lockheed-kwestie tevens gevoelig had getoond voor gunsten en giften van nóg een vliegtuigfabrikant, Northrop.
Burnt to the core but not broken
  Moderator zondag 24 februari 2013 @ 20:11:57 #78
14679 crew  sp3c
Geef me die goud!!!
pi_123294998
afaik deden beide toestellen gelijktijdig dienst in verschillende rollen ... F16 verving beide types
Op zondag 8 december 2013 00:01 schreef Karina het volgende:
Dat gaat me te diep sp3c, daar is het te laat voor.
  zondag 24 februari 2013 @ 20:14:09 #79
30789 RonaldV
Phabulous Phantoms
pi_123295150
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 24 februari 2013 19:52 schreef PPL het volgende:
Niet om het een of ander; is de F-104 in Nederland niet opgevolgd door de F-5?
Tussen de regels door lijkt het net alsof de F-16 direct na de F-104 'kwam'.
Staat wellicht los van de JSF discussie, maar als je kijkt naar Lockheed die wordt opgevolgd door Northrop, zet dat de lockheed-affaire in een iets ander daglicht.
Nee, de NF-5 en F-104 vlogen naast elkaar vanaf ca. 1970. De NF-5 heeft het wel langer volgehouden bij de KLu: tot 1991. Maar dat waren Canadair toestellen, waar Northrop (officieel) niets mee te maken wilde hebben.

Edit: en zoals Sp3c zegt: zowel de F104 als de NF-5 werden vervangen door de F-16.
Edit2: de F-104 was er trouwens al vanaf 1962. De laatste vertrok in 1984 naar Turkije.

[ Bericht 4% gewijzigd door RonaldV op 24-02-2013 20:20:08 ]
- "Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed" Bruce Springsteen - War
- Door controle aan de landsgrenzen op te heffen kan men nu grenzenloos gaan controleren...
- Privacy Matters
pi_123295671
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 24 februari 2013 19:01 schreef RonaldV het volgende:

[..]

Dat kon ook haast niet anders met de hoeveelheden die de Duitsers besteld hadden. Ik heb de cijfers zo snel niet bij de hand, maar zij bestelden zo ongeveer de helft van alle Starfighters ooit gebouwd, geloof ik.
Niet alleen dat, maar de Luftwaffe had ook veel minder ervaring met straaljagers dan bijvoorbeeld de Klu. Op het moment dat de F-104 in dienst kwam bestond de Luftwaffe nog maar amper 5 jaar, en het gebrek aan ervaring kwam terug in de verliescijfers.

Ook meen ik dat de Duitsers minder monteurs per F-104 hadden dan andere landen.
  zondag 24 februari 2013 @ 20:24:34 #81
35623 PPL
Autumnus Sempre
pi_123295867
Pfff... kan mij dat nauwlijks voorstellen tegenwoordig; meerdere types bij de KLu.
Dank voor de opheldering, weer wat geleerd.
Burnt to the core but not broken
  zondag 24 februari 2013 @ 20:26:20 #82
30789 RonaldV
Phabulous Phantoms
pi_123295991
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 24 februari 2013 20:21 schreef von_Preussen het volgende:

[..]

Niet alleen dat, maar de Luftwaffe had ook veel minder ervaring met straaljagers dan bijvoorbeeld de Klu. Op het moment dat de F-104 in dienst kwam bestond de Luftwaffe nog maar amper 5 jaar, en het gebrek aan ervaring kwam terug in de verliescijfers.

Ook meen ik dat de Duitsers minder monteurs per F-104 hadden dan andere landen.
De ervaring met straaljagers klopt, maar het lag vooral ook aan de manier van opereren door de Luftwaffe. Steinhoff (één van de allereeerste jet-piloten ter wereld, met 176 kills op zijn naam!) toonde dat aan in 1966. Klik zijn naam maar even aan in mijn vorige post, dan kun je het lezen.
- "Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed" Bruce Springsteen - War
- Door controle aan de landsgrenzen op te heffen kan men nu grenzenloos gaan controleren...
- Privacy Matters
  zondag 24 februari 2013 @ 20:30:14 #83
30789 RonaldV
Phabulous Phantoms
pi_123296268
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 24 februari 2013 20:24 schreef PPL het volgende:
Pfff... kan mij dat nauwlijks voorstellen tegenwoordig; meerdere types bij de KLu.
Dank voor de opheldering, weer wat geleerd.

Zoek voor de grap de verschillende types eens op, en de aantallen waarin ze bij de KLu aanwezig waren. Soms was een vliegtuig net twee jaar binnen toen het volgende type al binnengehaald werd. De aantallen (en verlies ratios) waren enorm. Het aantal jet-squadrons ook. We hebben nu het (lachwekkende) aantal van 60 vliegtuigen in 4 squadrons operationeel. In 1992 hadden we er 180 in 9 squadrons. In de jaren 60 waren de aantallen nog veel hoger.
- "Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed" Bruce Springsteen - War
- Door controle aan de landsgrenzen op te heffen kan men nu grenzenloos gaan controleren...
- Privacy Matters
  zondag 24 februari 2013 @ 20:40:07 #84
30789 RonaldV
Phabulous Phantoms
pi_123296949

48 F-16s van de '1st Fighter Wing' (de onofficiele aanduiding van de 3 F-16 squadrons op Volkel), midden jaren 80. Dit is nu zo ongeveer de hele KLu. De foto is wel een beetje vals trouwens. Elk squadron had destijds 16 kisten toegewezen. Voor het maken van deze foto moesten alleen wel in allerijl een aantal kisten snel op wielen gezet worden en uit de onderhouds-docks achter in de de rij gezet worden. De reden dat ze achteraan moesten: er zitten geen motoren in. Niettemin een indrukwekkende foto.
- "Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed" Bruce Springsteen - War
- Door controle aan de landsgrenzen op te heffen kan men nu grenzenloos gaan controleren...
- Privacy Matters
pi_123402112
Lockheed dispute clouds Turkey’s F-35 commitment

Turkey has been one of the keenest partners in the multinational Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) consortium, but major disputes with the leading manufacturer in this huge program have weakened Turkish enthusiasm.

Last month, Turkey’s defense procurement authorities announced they were postponing an order to purchase the country’s first two F-35 fighter jets to be built by the JSF partnership. They cited “rising costs and technological failures” for their decision.

“Due to the current state of the JSF... and the rising cost ... it was decided to postpone the order placed on Jan. 5, 2012, for the two aircraft,” the undersecretariat for Defense Industries (SSM) said. It was also said that the decision was taken because the technical capabilities of the aircraft were “not at the desired level yet.” But Turkey still intended to buy 100 more F-35s in the long run.

Privately, procurement officials admit there was a “certain degree of psychological deliberation at work too.” By that they meant a “bandwagon effect,” which had added Turkey to a list of skeptical partners.

An SSM official said that it would be safer for Turkey to join the skeptical partners in order not to “stand alone in the dark.”

In December, JSF partner Canada threatened to reconsider its purchase of the F-35. Shortly after that, Australia followed, saying that it would buy 24 Boeing-F/A 18 Super Hornets if it saw any more delays in the JSF program. European partners Britain and the Netherlands are considering delays in their orders and questioning rising costs. Also, Italy reduced its JSF order by 30 percent last year as part of a broader reduction in government spending.

But Lockheed Martin F-35 program vice-president Steve O’Bryan said last week: “We will continue to drop the price of the airplane out to approximately 2020 where the U.S. government estimate is for an airplane, with the engine and all mission equipment, to be approximately $67 million. That is better than any fourth generation fighter out there today in terms of cost.”

That’s relieving but, for Ankara only if put into a formal guarantee. Recently, the SSM requested “cost guarantees” from the JSF consortium. “We don’t’ want to walk in complete darkness in regards to our budgeting,” said one SSM official. “We want to clearly see what kind of costs would be ahead of us.”

Industry sources said it would be surprising if the JSF group at this stage committed itself to any price when there are several unknowns in the program. “It’s not only Turkey. Other partners are also wary of fluctuations in [cost] estimates and a general cost trend upwards,” said one source. “But I am not sure if Lockheed Martin can commit itself to any set price.”

One concern for the future of the ambitious program is that any reduction in number will make individual planes more expensive, because Lockheed will be unable to spread development and other costs as widely. The average cost per plane has doubled since Lockheed won the development contract in 2001. Since then, the United States has cut its total order by 400 planes.

Lockheed says it still expects to sell about 3,000 of the fighters over the next 25 years, including 2,443 to the U.S.

Turkey, which has spent nearly $1 billion for the future fighter, is not considering an altogether withdrawal at this stage. But costs are not the only snag.

In another contentious issue, Turkey demands to obtain software source codes which the U.S. has been reluctant to share. Turkey announced in March 2011 that it was placing its order for 100 jets on hold due to the ongoing source code refusal issue. Ankara said the negotiations for access to the F-35 source codes, including codes that can be used to control the aircraft remotely had not yielded satisfactory results and that under these conditions Turkey could not accept the aircraft.

“We have not inched forward for the solution of this problem,” the SSM official said. “We don’t know what else we could do to tell our [American] counterparts that access to source codes is essential for us.”

The Air Force headquarters looks impatient about delays. An Air Force officer said that further delays could disrupt operational requirements and planning at the headquarters. “In that case we may have to sit down with the procurement people and devise a stop-gap plan,” he said.

SSM officials ruled out a potential Eurofighter Typhoon order, but say Ankara could consider an F-16 purchase. “We can compensate for rising costs with larger work share for our domestic industry. We also think that technical failures are not failures but just delays. If things get worse we can consider an F-16 buy,” he said.

Turkey is one of nine countries that are part of a U.S.-led consortium to build the F-35 fighter. The others are Britain, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, Norway and Denmark.

F-35 orders from Pentagon - Reuters

U.S. Air Force 1,763 F-35As
U.S. Navy 260 F-35Cs
U.S. Marine Corps 340 F-35Bs; 80 F-35Cs
Britain 138 F-35Bs
Turkey 100 F-35As
Australia 100 F-35As
Italy 60 F-35As; 30 F-35Bs
Netherlands 85 F-35As
Canada 65 F-35As
Norway 52 F-35As
Japan 42 F-35As
Denmark 30 F-35As
Israel 19 F-35As

By Burak Bekdil

http://www.turkishweekly.(...)f-35-commitment.html
  woensdag 27 februari 2013 @ 18:11:08 #86
30789 RonaldV
Phabulous Phantoms
pi_123417940
Pentagon F-35 program chief lashes Lockheed, Pratt&Whitney

By Jane Wardell

AVALON, Australia | Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:02am EST

Feb 27 (Reuters) - The Pentagon program chief for the F-35 warplane slammed its commercial partners Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney on Wednesday, accusing them of trying to "squeeze every nickel" out of the U.S. government and failing to see the long-term benefits of the project.

U.S. Lieutenant-General Christopher Bogdan made the comments during a visit to Australia, where he has sought to convince lawmakers and generals to stick to a plan to buy 100 of the jets, an exercise complicated by the second grounding of the plane this year and looming U.S. defence cuts.

Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp, is sole supplier of engines to the $396 billion F-35, or Joint Strike Fighter. Lockheed Martin provides the body of the radar-evading jet, the most expensive combat aircraft in history.

"What I see Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney doing today is behaving as if they are getting ready to sell me the very last F-35 and the very last engine and are trying to squeeze every nickel out of that last F-35 and that last engine," Bogdan told reporters at the Australian International Airshow in southern Victoria state.

"I want them both to start behaving like they want to be around for 40 years," he added. "I want them to take on some of the risk of this program, I want them to invest in cost reductions, I want them to do the things that will build a better relationship. I'm not getting all that love yet."

A Lockheed Martin executive at the airshow declined to comment when reached by Reuters, saying he was unaware of Bogdan's comments. Executives from Pratt & Whitney could not immediately be reached for comment.

Bogdan caused a stir shortly after joining the F-35 program last August when he described the relationship between the government and Lockheed Martin as the worst he'd ever seen. There had been little improvement since then, he said.

"Are they getting better? A little bit," he said. "Are they getting better at a rate I want to see them getting better? No, not yet."

If the project stays on track, Pratt & Whitney will eventually provide 4,000 engines and Lockheed Martin 3,000 planes.

The Pentagon plans to buy 2,443 of the warplanes in the coming decades, although many analysts believe U.S. budget constraints and deficits will reduce that number.

Australia, a close American ally, is considering doubling its fleet of 24 Boeing Co F/A-18 Super Hornets amid delays and setbacks in the F-35 project. That means Canberra could buy far fewer F-35s than initially planned.

LEAKS

Bogdan was also critical of what he suggested were leaks from Pratt & Whitney's camp about the engine issue, which led the Pentagon to suspend F-35 flights last Friday.

Two sources told Reuters that Pratt & Whitney is 99 percent sure the fan blade problem that grounded the jets was not caused by high-cycle fatigue, which could force a costly design change, and the aircraft could be flying again within the week.

"Until all those tests are done and I see the results, I don't know what's going on," Bogdan said. "However ... my gut would tell me it's on the spectrum of the minor side - 99 percent is bold, flying next week is bold."

Bogdan also gave the example of taking six months to close a deal with Pratt & Whitney for engines on its fifth bloc of jets, shortly after General Electric Co had been dropped as a second supplier of engines for the program, leaving Pratt & Whitney as sole supplier for the next 40 years.

"Now, you would think a company like Pratt & Whitney that was just given the greatest Christmas gift you could ever, ever get for a company would act a little differently," Bogdan said.

Bogdan is flying back to the United States this weekend, just in time to hear about the future of U.S. military budgets, which are slated to be cut by nearly $500 billion over the next decade, an amount which could double unless Congress acts in the next week to avert spending reductions known as "sequestration".

Bogdan said he was confident the F-35 program would remain on track and on budget if he was given the discretion to deal with any cuts.

The risk is that money is cut from the $6 billion set aside for the development program by the end of October next year.

"I need every penny of that $6 billion to get over the finish line," Bogdan said. "If they take money out of development something's going to have to give. I'm either going to have to push the program out or I'm going to have to shed capability."

Budget cuts aside, Bogdan said he was confident of bringing the cost of each plane down to around $90 million by 2013, compared to around $120 million now.

Budget cuts have already forced Italy to scale back its F-35 orders, and Turkey has delayed its purchases by two years. Orders from Japan and Israel have buoyed the project, and additional Israeli orders are expected in 2013.

Lockheed is building three different models of the F-35 for the U.S. military and eight countries that helped pay for its development: Britain, Canada, Italy, Turkey, Denmark, the Netherlands, Australia and Norway

Reuters

Misschien dat de fabrikanten nu eindelijk gaan begrijpen hoe het werkt?
- "Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed" Bruce Springsteen - War
- Door controle aan de landsgrenzen op te heffen kan men nu grenzenloos gaan controleren...
- Privacy Matters
pi_123418948
Dat die F136-motor van GE nu definitief afgeschoten is wist ik nog niet, da's niet zulk goed nieuws voor de NL'se bij de JSF betrokken industrie.
  woensdag 27 februari 2013 @ 18:56:37 #88
30789 RonaldV
Phabulous Phantoms
pi_123419705
quote:
0s.gif Op woensdag 27 februari 2013 18:40 schreef Radegast het volgende:
Dat die F136-motor van GE nu definitief afgeschoten is wist ik nog niet, da's niet zulk goed nieuws voor de NL'se bij de JSF betrokken industrie.
Die motor is jaren geleden al afgeschoten als besparingsmaatregel. Niet zo handig, want die was nou juist ingevoerd naar aanleiding van de ervaringen van USAF met Pruttel&Wilnie tijdens het F-16 programma. Vanaf het moment dat er een concurrent op de markt was, hield P&W veel beter zijn productie in de gaten.
- "Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed" Bruce Springsteen - War
- Door controle aan de landsgrenzen op te heffen kan men nu grenzenloos gaan controleren...
- Privacy Matters
  woensdag 27 februari 2013 @ 19:16:49 #89
74865 Pumatje
Wij stelen die kazen!
pi_123420842
Dat is inderdaad het hele idee achter concurrentie.. :)

maargoed, kosten he..geld.
[DEF] SC#8 Pumatje, niet geboren maar door de baas verstrekt
pi_123424115
quote:
0s.gif Op woensdag 27 februari 2013 18:11 schreef RonaldV het volgende:
Feb 27 (Reuters) - The Pentagon program chief for the F-35 warplane slammed its commercial partners Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney on Wednesday, accusing them of trying to "squeeze every nickel" out of the U.S. government and failing to see the long-term benefits of the project.
Dat is dan ook wat een commercieel bedrijf beoogd, en een bedrijf als Lockheed Martin zit wat dat betreft goed, net als een aantal Nederlandse banken, dat bedrijf, en zeker dit project, zijn nu eenmaal 'to big to fail', dus er is veel geld te halen. Verder heeft die Bogden helemaal gelijk, deze bedrijven hebben een enorme kans gekregen met deze contracten, daar zitten lange termijn winsten aan. Maar met een relatief korte termijn bonuscultuur en het gegeven dat het programma eigenlijk geen concurrenten heeft, maken het ook weer moeilijk om dat lange termijn denken goed aan te pakken.
  woensdag 27 februari 2013 @ 21:45:13 #91
74865 Pumatje
Wij stelen die kazen!
pi_123430569
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 24 februari 2013 18:59 schreef RonaldV het volgende:

[..]

Nee hoor, de F-16 is gekozen omdat men tevoren al had aangegeven dat de 4 Europese NATO partners (België, Denemarken, Nederland en Noorwegen) de winnaar van de USAF LWF-competitie zouden aankopen, ongeacht welk toestel dat zou worden. Daarmee werd de Europese keus de keus van de USAF. De Europese alternatieven kwamen niet in aanmerking wegens te duur (MRCA/Tornado, waar NL al uitgestapt was om de prijs), te Frans (die bovendien net uit de NAVO gestapt waren) of te neutraal (Zweden zou in geval van oorlog kunnen weigeren om reserve onderdelen te leveren).
Nou ik heb nog genoeg kranten hier liggen die toch echt wel heeeel moeilijk deden om de F-16. :)
Afgelopen zomer nog een krat van mijn opa opengetrokken met kranten, en kwam artikel na artikel tegen waar gezeik in voorkwam over de F-16 en kosten etc etc.

zal hem eens een x zoeken.
[DEF] SC#8 Pumatje, niet geboren maar door de baas verstrekt
  donderdag 28 februari 2013 @ 08:29:13 #92
30789 RonaldV
Phabulous Phantoms
pi_123443866
quote:
0s.gif Op woensdag 27 februari 2013 21:45 schreef Pumatje het volgende:

[..]

Nou ik heb nog genoeg kranten hier liggen die toch echt wel heeeel moeilijk deden om de F-16. :)
Afgelopen zomer nog een krat van mijn opa opengetrokken met kranten, en kwam artikel na artikel tegen waar gezeik in voorkwam over de F-16 en kosten etc etc.

zal hem eens een x zoeken.
Oh, er werd wel moeilijk gedaan over de aanschaf van de F-16, maar dat was pas nadat de selectie was geweest. Achterhoede gevechten, waarschijnlijk nog gevoed door de overige fabrikanten of hun lobbyisten.
- "Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed" Bruce Springsteen - War
- Door controle aan de landsgrenzen op te heffen kan men nu grenzenloos gaan controleren...
- Privacy Matters
pi_123477044
- stop maar met trollen -

[ Bericht 96% gewijzigd door Cobra4 op 28-02-2013 21:42:10 ]
Mijn Nederlands is bagger dat is bij mij bekend !!!!
pi_123499815
quote:
Lockheed F-35 Flights Permitted to Resume, Pentagon Says

[..]

The affected engine had been subjected to “prolonged exposure to high levels of heat and other operational stresses” in testing, the Pentagon F-35 office said today in a statement.

Inspections of other F-35 fighter jets didn’t find any other “cracks or signs of similar engine stress,” and no redesign will be needed for the engines built by United Technologies Corp. (UTX)’s Pratt & Whitney unit, according to the statement.

[..]
http://www.bloomberg.com/(...)e-pentagon-says.html
pi_123720063
Don't shoot the messenger, er is weer een rapport: http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info-memo-20130215.pdf

quote:
F-35 Report Warns of Visibility Risks, Other Dangers

WASHINGTON — Significant visibility issues could lead to dangerous flight conditions, according to test pilots who have flown the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

That is just one of several issues identified by the Pentagon's chief weapons tester in a February report, published online today by the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight.

Other issues include flawed radar, ongoing challenges with the high-tech helmet required to fly the jet, and potential issues with the touch screen control interface.

The operational utility evaluation (OUE) itself was extremely scaled down from the type of testing that is normally done with such a program, to the point where the authors of the report conclude that “the results of the OUE should not be used to make decisions regarding the readiness of the JSF system to support training inexperienced pilots in an F-35A initial qualification course.”

“Due to the immaturity of the aircraft, the workarounds required to support flight operations, and very limited mission systems capability little knowledge can be gained from the OUE applicable to F-35 sustainment under normal squadron training operations or to sustainment of combat capable aircraft in operational units,” found the report.

“Additionally, the F-35 Joint Reliability and Maintainability Evaluation Team (JRMET) data for the F-35A fleet suggest that the program is not meeting reliability growth targets to meet operational requirements documents (ORD) requirements.”

Inspectors offered up five major categories of training tasks that are normally included in the fighter transition syllabus for other jets. Of those five, only one category was accomplished fully; two others were accomplished partially, and two were not accomplished due to system immaturity.

Additionally, testers found eight “serious” risk areas that need to be dealt with in the jet. Those range from a lack of flight test hours increasing the risk of a Class A mishap to the potential failure of the ejection seat in use with low-rate initial production (LRIP) 2 and 3 production craft.

Other issues identified as high risk include the fact LRIP 2 and 3 planes do not have an automated sensor that automatically releases an ejected pilot from their harness and upon submersion in water, which could lead to drowned pilots; the lack of protection from lightning strikes; and ongoing issues with pilot-vehicle interface that if not corrected leaves the authors with “no confidence that the pilot can perform critical tasks safely.”

“The F-35A air vehicle enabled the successful completion of the Block 1A syllabus for four student pilots during the period of the OUE, training them to safely take-off and fly in clear weather conditions, accomplish formation flight with another F-35 or F-16 aircraft, and land the aircraft — but not train for combat,” according to the report. “Only a very limited set of the full mission systems capability are working.”

The training syllabus was limited by flight restrictions for the jet. The F-35 is currently prohibited from flying at night or during weather conditions such as rain. Overall, “In a mature fighter aircraft, the familiarization phase is followed by several combat-oriented phases, such as air combat, surface attack, and night tactical operations,” according to the report. “The F-35A does not yet have the capability to train in these phases, nor any actual combat capability, because it is still early in system development.”

Pilot Comments Less Than Stellar

The most attention-grabbing part of the report features comments from the pilots who flew the initial OUE training flights. Each student accomplished six flights and one taxi-only maneuver in a Block A-1 configured F-35A.

Pilots identified a number of issues, many of which stemmed from the immaturity of the aircraft.

All four pilots commented that there was poor visibility from the cockpit, which appears to be the result of design flaws.

One pilot said he had difficulty seeing other aircraft due to the location of the canopy bow, while others identified the lack of rear visibility as a major, potentially deadly, flaw.

“The head rest is too large and will impede aft visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements,” commented one pilot quoted in the report. “Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned every time.”

“The majority of responses cited poor visibility; the ejection seat headrest and the canopy bow were identified as causal factors. ‘High glare shield' and the HMD cable were also cited as sources of the problem,” reads the report.

Most worrisome for JSF supporters is this conclusion: “Of these, only the HMD cable has the potential to be readily redesigned.”

Another common complaint involved the failure of the radar system.

“The radar performance shortfalls ranged from the radar being completely inoperative on two sorties to failing to display targets on one sortie, inexplicably dropping targets on another sortie, and taking excessive time to develop a track on near co-speed targets on yet another sortie,” according to the report.

All of the pilots had issues with the helmet-mounted display (HMD) at some point in their training flights. While acknowledging that the JSF program is working to further develop the helmet, the authors of the report say the pilot comments make it “clear that some of these issues have the potential to significantly hamper more advanced combat training and operational capability in the future if not rectified.”

Not all complaints were unanimous. One pilot complained about the touch screen interface used to control the radios, saying it “is not readily accessible, requires more channelized attention, has no tactile feedback, and is error prone - particularly during demanding phases of flight or under turbulent flight conditions.”

Other pilots did not publicly share any concerns they had with the touch screen, which the report says could be because it was not an issue raised in exit interviews.

Sustainability Questioned

Speaking at a Washington-area conference Tuesday, Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the head of the F-35 Joint Program Office, told an audience that his biggest concerns with the plane were not technological, but rather sustainment issues.

When talking affordability, the general called operations and sustainment (O&S) costs “the big gorilla.” While he took issue with the $1 trillion sustainment figure that is often used, he said if O&S costs aren't reduced, the plane could “potentially be unaffordable in the future.”

The OUE report also identified potential sustainment and maintenance concerns.

“In spite of the low demand on the aircraft in number and in capability, availability at times exceeded the demand by only a slim margin,” found the report, an issue driven by long maintenance times.

The OUE team highlighted the issue of engine replacements as one potential trouble situation.

“An example where maintainability needs to improve is engine replacement. One unscheduled engine removal and replacement occurred during the OUE, which required 39 hours of elapsed maintenance time,” according to the report.

“For the five unscheduled engine removal and replacements that have occurred in the F-35A fleet, the mean elapsed maintenance time for this task is 52 hours. The ORD threshold is for a maximum crew of four maintainers to remove and install the engine within 120 minutes.”

Portable Maintenance Aids (PMAs), devices that are used for electronic forms management, also experienced difficulties. In addition to long load times, in some cases the PMAs would lead to errors that required outside technical assistance.

“In one instance, the PMA indicated an F-35A required a left tire change when it needed a right tire change. Maintainers could not fix the error themselves; the change required an FSR and extended the aircraft turn time,” found the report.

In his comments Tuesday, Bogdan said he hoped to inject competition into sustainment and maintenance components of the JSF program.
http://www.defensenews.co(...)-Dangers?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
pi_123763457
Second F-35 For The Netherlands Rolls Out Of F-35 Production Facility

FORT WORTH, Texas, March 7, 2013 – The second Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Lightning II for the Netherlands rolled out of the F-35 production facility on March 2. This is the latest step in the production process leading to its eventual assignment to Eglin AFB, Fla., later this summer. The Netherlands is planning to use this conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) jet, known as AN-2, for training and operational tests for pilots and maintainers. AN-2 will undergo functional fuel system checks before being transported to the flight line for ground and flight tests later this year.

  donderdag 7 maart 2013 @ 21:33:29 #97
74865 Pumatje
Wij stelen die kazen!
pi_123764946
mooie kist zeg
[DEF] SC#8 Pumatje, niet geboren maar door de baas verstrekt
  Eindredactie Frontpage / Forummod vrijdag 8 maart 2013 @ 14:56:24 #98
168091 crew  Cobra4
mr. Dkut
pi_123791702
Piloten JSF kunnen niet achterom kijken

WASHINGTON -
De JSF-straaljager is technologisch hoogstaand, maar gewoon achterom kijken is voor de piloten erg moeilijk. Testvliegers klagen steen en been dat ze nauwelijks zicht naar achteren hebben vanuit de cockpit, wat erg gevaarlijk is bij luchtgevechten op korte afstand.

„Het zicht naar achteren zorgt ervoor dat de piloot iedere keer wordt neergeschoten”, klaagt een van de vliegers. Een ander zegt dat het „vrijwel onmogelijk” is om te zien of er een vijandelijk toestel achter de F-35 zit tijdens een luchtgevecht. Ook vinden de JSF-vliegers het moeilijker om zicht te houden op vliegtuigen waarmee ze in formatie vliegen.

De klachten staan in een evaluatierapport voor het Pentagon van de F-35 Lightning II uit februari. Een Amerikaanse defensiewaakhond heeft het openbaar gemaakt. Het rapport concludeert dat het zicht naar achteren mogelijk een groot probleem blijft voor alle F-35-piloten in de toekomst. Een eenvoudige oplossing is er niet, vanwege het ontwerp van het vliegtuig. Bij de voorgangers van de F-35, zoals de F-16, was expliciet rekening gehouden met het zicht van de piloot naar achteren.

De rapportage niet alleen kritisch over 'de dode hoek' van de F-35. Het bevat een waslijst met problemen die nog niet zijn opgelost. Zo is de betrouwbaarheid van de toestellen nog ondermaats. Ook zijn verbeteringen nodig aan onder meer de radar, de geavanceerde helm voor de piloten en de ergonomie in de cockpit van onder meer de radio- en navigatieapparatuur.

De F-35, ook wel JSF of Joint Strike Fighter genoemd, is de beoogde opvolger van de F-16 bij de Koninklijke Luchtmacht. De vliegtuigen zijn nog in de testfase. De ontwikkeling loopt inmiddels jaren achter op schema. Het programma wordt geplaagd door aanhoudende technische problemen en kostenoverschrijdingen.

De tweede Nederlandse F-35 heeft deze week de fabriek verlaten in Fort Worth in Texas. Het eerste Nederlandse toestel liep vorig jaar van de band.

Bron: http://www.telegraaf.nl/b(...)hterom_kijken__.html
"Any officer who goes into action without his sword is improperly dressed." - "Mad Jack" Churchill DSO MC
  zondag 10 maart 2013 @ 22:41:27 #100
74865 Pumatje
Wij stelen die kazen!
pi_123890727
Ben een beetje klaar met dat ding, ondanks dat het een mooi apparaat is.
[DEF] SC#8 Pumatje, niet geboren maar door de baas verstrekt
abonnement Unibet Coolblue
Forum Opties
Forumhop:
Hop naar:
(afkorting, bv 'KLB')