Page 83 of 277 FirstFirst ... 3373757677787980818283848586878889909193133183 ... LastLast
Results 1,231 to 1,245 of 4142

Thread: JSF (F-35 Joint Strike Fighter) News

  1. #1231
    Member Conqueror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Farnham, England, United Kingdom
    Posts
    35

    Default

    CatpainSlackbladder

    Again, I am grateful for the response. But it still doesn't answer the question.

    My basic considerations are these: We'll imagine Britain buys, let's say, 100 F-35Cs. A couple of years go by and Britain knows that the U.S. has updated the software. But Britain has been required to despatch its carrier(s) to the South Atlantic to protect the Falkland Islands. I reckon a software upgrade could be transmitted to the carrier over a secure datalink. On the other hand, if the Americans won't release the source code, the only way to upgrade our aircraft is to (a) fly them to Italy or (b) fly them to wherever in the U.S. Neither option seems very sensible.

    It was my understanding that the constant stumbling block was Congressman Henry Hyde. I am aware that Hyde has now left the Congress but has anybody stepped into his place? Will Britain be given the source code to enable it to maintain its own aircraft at the peak of their capabilities?

    If it's not going to happen, there is no point in buying them. Navalising Typhoons, that are only Mach 0.1 slower, would be a far better option.

  2. #1232
    Senior Member ViktorNavorski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    On Red Tape
    Posts
    1,534

    Default

    They haven't even finish writing the damn code yet. The F-15, F-16, F-18, etc. with whatever code they had were never fully released on exports and the JSF will be no different. There isn't going to be any secret or back door kill switch, hardware or software, or any blocks or whatever else to make it an inferior "export" version.

    Some of these code will never be fully released because they are proprietary data that took years and billions of dollar in R&D that deal with how well OUR systems communicate with each others. You won't get them and you won't need them because on top of the fundamental code that EVERYONE will get regarding how the aircraft operate at its peak, you will write in YOUR own proprietary code because obviously your weapons and other systems will not always be the same across the board for every operators of the JSF. The Israelis already said they wanted their own stuffs in the JSF, so obviously no one else is going to use their code and the IDF doesn't need the U.S. version of it. The trend will be the same for everyone else.

  3. #1233
    Senior Member Alpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Observe Overreact Destroy Apologize
    Posts
    5,101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Conqueror View Post
    Navalising Typhoons, that are only Mach 0.1 slower, would be a far better option.
    Navalising the Typhoon would be a more-or-less completely new aircraft. Not going to happen.

  4. #1234
    Member SpudmanWP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    937

    Default

    Block upgrades include not only software, but also hardware. This can include upgraded CIP cards, radar modules, comms units, etc. These can be installed in the field unless there is some significant structural change needed.

    However, if you are looking to the block upgrade in order to employ newer weapons, that may not be needed. UAI (Universal Armament Interface) is an "open source" program that will allow participating weapon manufacturers to create "drivers" for their weapons. These "drivers" can be downloaded onto the F-35 during the mission planning stage (as long as the weapon passes separation tests on the F-35). Instead of 6 years @ $25million, it can take as little as 3 months @ $2million to do weapon integration. So far 85% of all F-15Es have UAI and the F-16s are due to get it in a couple of years.

  5. #1235
    Member Conqueror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Farnham, England, United Kingdom
    Posts
    35

    Default

    ViktorNavorski

    Thanks very much, but you obviously don't kniow the answer either. But thanks for the effort.

  6. #1236
    Member Conqueror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Farnham, England, United Kingdom
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Alpheus

    Sorry to have to disagree.

    Look at http://www.defencetalk.com/naval-eur...lopment-31926/

  7. #1237
    Senior Member Beast of war's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,036

    Default

    F-35A AF-10 And AF-11 First Flights
    The fifth and sixth production models of the F-35 Lightning II, F-35A AF-10 and AF-11, completed their inaugural flights on 29 June and 1 July 2011, respectively, from NAS Fort Worth JRB. (AF-11 first flight shown in photo.)
    [IMG]http://i53.*******.com/2e6h56fdotjpg[/IMG]
    F-35A ,AF-11

    CODE ONE

  8. #1238
    Senior Member ViktorNavorski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    On Red Tape
    Posts
    1,534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Conqueror View Post
    ViktorNavorski

    Thanks very much, but you obviously don't kniow the answer either. But thanks for the effort.
    Thanks for the condescending tone and false gratitude, with that attitude no wonder you're still trolling for an answer to suit your holier-than-thou opinion.

  9. #1239
    Senior Member Ren987's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    France
    Age
    30
    Posts
    2,035

    Default

    [SIZE="3"]Israel, U.S. Strike F-35 Technology Deal
    [/SIZE]
    Jul 6, 2011; By Alon Ben-David, Amy Butler, Robert Wall; Le Bourget

    A major obstacle blocking Israel’s purchase of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been cleared, perhaps signaling that the U.S. is relaxing its hard-line approach to exporting JSF technologies that may be crucial to securing additional foreign sales.

    The U.S. has been cautious about sharing sensitive technologies for the stealth fighter, but existing program partners and international competitions—*such as in Japan—are increasing pressure on it to do so. The breakthrough comes as more international JSF partners near buying decisions. However, the added numbers will likely have only little impact on the debate about the F-35 unit cost, since initial procurement numbers for non-U.S. buyers are relatively small compared to the Pentagon’s purchases.

    By far the most contentious fight over F-35 technology has centered on Israel, which wants to adapt the aircraft to use indigenously developed electronic warfare (EW) equipment. After strongly resisting this for some time, Washington now has agreed to allow Israeli F-35s to be rewired so that Israeli EW systems can be installed on the aircraft. That would allow Israel to gradually add indigenous EW sensors and countermeasures on its fighters once it receives its first squadron.

    Story continues : http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...hannel=defense

  10. #1240
    Senior Member Beast of war's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,036

    Default

    F-35C Lightning II carrier variant aircraft CF-2 performing Jet Blast Deflector (JBD) tests at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey. The JBD, located behind the catapults aboard aircraft carriers, deflects high energy exhaust from the engine to prevent damage and injury to other aircraft and personnel located in close proximity. JBD testing is one portion of the tests required to ensure the F-35C is compatible aboard the aircraft carrier.

  11. #1241
    Member Dankster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    805

    Default

    ^ I don't think I've ever seen the F35C at that angle. The bigger wings are more apparent. I'm taking a liking to it's appearance as well, it's growing on me.

    I've been wondering: Why is it that there is no "A" for "Attack" in the F-35's designation? As in F/A-35? Given that it is a Joint Strike Fighter and all.

  12. #1242
    Cunning Linguist Ratamacue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Colorado, US
    Age
    26
    Posts
    13,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dankster View Post
    ^ I don't think I've ever seen the F35C at that angle. The bigger wings are more apparent.

    I've been wondering: Why is it that there is no "A" for "Attack" in the F-35's designation? As in F/A-35? Given that it is a Joint Strike Fighter and all.
    The F/A designation for the F/A-18 (the only aircraft that carries it) came about because there were originally going to be two different versions, the F-18 fighter and the A-18 attack aircraft. As design continued they were able to integrate all the A2A and A2G capabilities in to one airframe, and the result was redesignated the F/A-18. It's also worth noting that from 2002 to 2005 the F-22 was designated F/A-22, but this was just a political ploy by the Air Force to emphasize the A2G capabilities that had been put in to the Raptor.

    Personally, I prefer the way it is. Every other multirole/fighter-bomber aircraft in the US inventory has had the F designator (or P in the case of USAAF aircraft way back in the day), as with the F-15E, F-14D, F-111, F-4, F4U, F6F, F4F, P-51, P-47, and on and on.

  13. #1243
    Member Dankster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    805

    Default

    ^ Now I never knew that about the Hornet. I learned something new today, thanks!

  14. #1244
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Don't know, don't care.
    Posts
    28,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dankster View Post
    ^ I don't think I've ever seen the F35C at that angle. The bigger wings are more apparent. I'm taking a liking to it's appearance as well, it's growing on me.

    I've been wondering: Why is it that there is no "A" for "Attack" in the F-35's designation? As in F/A-35? Given that it is a Joint Strike Fighter and all.
    "F/A" was a gimmick invented by Hornet promoters back in the day. It isn't a standard designation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratamacue View Post
    The F/A designation for the F/A-18 (the only aircraft that carries it) came about because there were originally going to be two different versions, the F-18 fighter and the A-18 attack aircraft.
    It was more a political thing than a correct designation (similar to the F/A-22 nonsense). It should have been F-18. (Of course the Super Hornet should have been the F-24 and the JSF the F-25 but that's what happens when politics stuffs it's snout into places it doesn't belong.)

  15. #1245
    Member Dankster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    805

    Default

    Yeah, what was up with the use of "35" instead of "24"? Is there any particular reason or no?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •