F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Another FRP Definition?
Another reference for FRP? Could it be 60+50+50? Or only 60 USAF and 50 combined USN/USMC? Probably the first one because the 'USN/USMC' have an almost equal number of aircraft requirement. I'll dig around for more definitions of FRP.
Pentagon Updates F-35 Cost Estimates, Schedule AIN Defense Perspective 13 Apr 2012 Chris Pocock
Pentagon Updates F-35 Cost Estimates, Schedule | Aviation International News
____________________________
F-35 factory: One aircraft per day by 2016 July 2008 Grace V. Jean
F-35 factory: One aircraft per day by 2016
______________
USAF Reserve Definitions of their stuff:
Air Force Reserve - Definitions - FRP
________________
This'll be a doozy def: http://at.dod.mil/docs/DefenseAcquisitionGuidebook.pdf (30Mb)
Pentagon Updates F-35 Cost Estimates, Schedule AIN Defense Perspective 13 Apr 2012 Chris Pocock
"The latest Selected Acquisition Report on the Lockheed Martin F-35 program has updated the Pentagon’s cost estimates. The eight international partners may take some comfort from the predictions of future unit recurring flyaway costs, once full-rate production begins. That is, if they defer the majority of their buys until then, which seems increasingly likely....
...The average unit recurring flyaway cost (URFC) is given as $78.7 million for the F-35A, $106.5 million for the F-35B, and $87 million for the F-35C, in 2012 dollars. But this assumes an unchanged ultimate U.S. Air Force procurement of 1,763 F-35As and 680 F-35B/Cs, plus an international partner buy of 697 aircraft plus 19 for Israel. The URFC does not include the cost of initial training, spares and support. However, AIN believes that it is a more useful measure than the average procurement unit cost (APUC), which is also quoted in the report, since this amortizes a number of other costs. Also, the average URFC figures mask the substantially higher URFCs of the low-rate initial production (LRIP) aircraft. For example, the LRIP F-35As are costing between $100 and $125 million, and the 19 for Israel are quoted at $144.7 million in this report....
...Full-rate production, meaning an annual rate of 60 F-35As for the U.S. Air Force and 50 F-35B/Cs for the Marine Corps and Navy, is now due to begin in 2018...."
...The average unit recurring flyaway cost (URFC) is given as $78.7 million for the F-35A, $106.5 million for the F-35B, and $87 million for the F-35C, in 2012 dollars. But this assumes an unchanged ultimate U.S. Air Force procurement of 1,763 F-35As and 680 F-35B/Cs, plus an international partner buy of 697 aircraft plus 19 for Israel. The URFC does not include the cost of initial training, spares and support. However, AIN believes that it is a more useful measure than the average procurement unit cost (APUC), which is also quoted in the report, since this amortizes a number of other costs. Also, the average URFC figures mask the substantially higher URFCs of the low-rate initial production (LRIP) aircraft. For example, the LRIP F-35As are costing between $100 and $125 million, and the 19 for Israel are quoted at $144.7 million in this report....
...Full-rate production, meaning an annual rate of 60 F-35As for the U.S. Air Force and 50 F-35B/Cs for the Marine Corps and Navy, is now due to begin in 2018...."
____________________________
F-35 factory: One aircraft per day by 2016 July 2008 Grace V. Jean
"...Modern warplanes typically have been built in small quantities over the course of many years. The Navy’s F/A-18, which has been in production for more than 20 years, is being built at a rate of 42 aircraft per year. But the F-35 Lightning II is expected to be built at an unprecedented rate — as many as 230 fighters per year.
...Once the line ramps up to full-rate production — possibly as early as 2016 — the company estimates it will assemble about 21 fighters per month, or roughly one aircraft per working day.
The moving assembly line is the only way to reach that rate of production, O’Bryan says. The F-35 measures 51 feet in length. “If the plane doesn’t move 51 feet a day … you’re not going to produce one a day.”..."
...Once the line ramps up to full-rate production — possibly as early as 2016 — the company estimates it will assemble about 21 fighters per month, or roughly one aircraft per working day.
The moving assembly line is the only way to reach that rate of production, O’Bryan says. The F-35 measures 51 feet in length. “If the plane doesn’t move 51 feet a day … you’re not going to produce one a day.”..."
______________
USAF Reserve Definitions of their stuff:
"Full Rate Production. Contracting for economic production quantities following stabilization of the system design and validation of the production process."
________________
This'll be a doozy def: http://at.dod.mil/docs/DefenseAcquisitionGuidebook.pdf (30Mb)
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 6th Nov 2013 at 23:04. Reason: Xtra Story
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
"...Modern warplanes typically have been built in small quantities over the course of many years. The Navy’s F/A-18, which has been in production for more than 20 years, is being built at a rate of 42 aircraft per year. But the F-35 Lightning II is expected to be built at an unprecedented rate — as many as 230 fighters per year.
............In the 1960s, most of the thousands of McDonnell employees were involved in delivering the Phantom. Between 1966-67, production averaged 63 F-4 aircraft each month. Production peaked at 72 Phantom aircraft a month in 1967........
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some mixed messages it seems; only a couple of days ago General Bogdan said they had no definitive target price for the F35 starting 2019 but the price has to come down no matter what, he said.
Also uncertainties continue past 2016 acc. to the General, what is certain that there will be no more future orders beyond 2400 for the US DoD, the US NAVY is still not 100% on board to take all of its F35's ,the latest promising successes with the X47 and SH are still a serious reason why the NAVY might choose to save some money and partially opt out of the JSF somewhere in the next decade.
Also the 78.7-106.5-87 million for the A-B-C is still without the engine, and with the original order volumes which is still a big IF, also all new discovered issues which lead to extra costs have to be paid by the customers from now on, and that's a big risk with so many things left untested.
What is certain is that LM, the Pentagon and the other parties involved have gotten the press fully under control, it is downright laughable to read article upon article in various press sources who are all literally identical word for word and no more than statements straight out of the LM press map.
Also uncertainties continue past 2016 acc. to the General, what is certain that there will be no more future orders beyond 2400 for the US DoD, the US NAVY is still not 100% on board to take all of its F35's ,the latest promising successes with the X47 and SH are still a serious reason why the NAVY might choose to save some money and partially opt out of the JSF somewhere in the next decade.
Also the 78.7-106.5-87 million for the A-B-C is still without the engine, and with the original order volumes which is still a big IF, also all new discovered issues which lead to extra costs have to be paid by the customers from now on, and that's a big risk with so many things left untested.
What is certain is that LM, the Pentagon and the other parties involved have gotten the press fully under control, it is downright laughable to read article upon article in various press sources who are all literally identical word for word and no more than statements straight out of the LM press map.
What is certain is that LM, the Pentagon and the other parties involved have gotten the press fully under control, it is downright laughable to read article upon article in various press sources who are all literally identical word for word and no more than statements straight out of the LM press map.
Damn straight. Villainous reptiles.
LM has also played "new media" quite well - but it's a field where the contractor has the advantage because there is very little money in it. For instance, there's one DC-based defense news site that has two fully-paid-up LockMart shills on its "board of contributors" and (surprise) takes a pro-JSF line.
As for "FRP": the legal definition doesn't include a fixed units-per-year number. Under the reforms that introduced LRIP, production is normally restricted to "low rate" until the system has passed IOT&E. The total of LRIP is formally limited to ten per cent of the planned complete production run, although there is a waiver provision that JSF will have to use. In fact, JSF LRIP rate is supposed to get higher than any other fighter since the Cold War days of the F-16 - and that's what counts if you want to make cost comparisons.
Damn straight. Villainous reptiles.
LM has also played "new media" quite well - but it's a field where the contractor has the advantage because there is very little money in it. For instance, there's one DC-based defense news site that has two fully-paid-up LockMart shills on its "board of contributors" and (surprise) takes a pro-JSF line.
As for "FRP": the legal definition doesn't include a fixed units-per-year number. Under the reforms that introduced LRIP, production is normally restricted to "low rate" until the system has passed IOT&E. The total of LRIP is formally limited to ten per cent of the planned complete production run, although there is a waiver provision that JSF will have to use. In fact, JSF LRIP rate is supposed to get higher than any other fighter since the Cold War days of the F-16 - and that's what counts if you want to make cost comparisons.
Last edited by LowObservable; 7th Nov 2013 at 15:59.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
On the other hand, the number could shrink.....
Dutch Parliament Clears F-35 Purchase
WASHINGTON — The Dutch Parliament has ratified the government’s choice of the F-35 as the Netherlands next-generation fighter, putting an end to a 15-year debate.
The vote on whether the stealthy plane will replace the Dutch fleet of F-16s occurred the evening of Nov. 7.
“This is a very important moment in history: Finally we can give clarity to our military and to our international partners,” Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, the Dutch minister of defense, said in a statement released by the government. “With this choice for the F-35, we provide the Dutch Armed Forces with the best aircraft available to deal with the challenges of our time and of the future.”...........
The purchase will be for 37 of the F-35A conventional-take-off-and-landing variants, which will be the most widely produced model of the jet. The US Air Force intends to purchase more than 1,700 F-35As.
The Dutch have budgeted €4.5 billion (US $6 billion) for the F-35, which they believe will cover the 37 planes — a number the government’s statement says could grow. “If, within the given financial parameters, there is room to purchase more aircraft in the coming years, the Netherlands will do so,” the statement read..............
Dutch Parliament Clears F-35 Purchase
WASHINGTON — The Dutch Parliament has ratified the government’s choice of the F-35 as the Netherlands next-generation fighter, putting an end to a 15-year debate.
The vote on whether the stealthy plane will replace the Dutch fleet of F-16s occurred the evening of Nov. 7.
“This is a very important moment in history: Finally we can give clarity to our military and to our international partners,” Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, the Dutch minister of defense, said in a statement released by the government. “With this choice for the F-35, we provide the Dutch Armed Forces with the best aircraft available to deal with the challenges of our time and of the future.”...........
The purchase will be for 37 of the F-35A conventional-take-off-and-landing variants, which will be the most widely produced model of the jet. The US Air Force intends to purchase more than 1,700 F-35As.
The Dutch have budgeted €4.5 billion (US $6 billion) for the F-35, which they believe will cover the 37 planes — a number the government’s statement says could grow. “If, within the given financial parameters, there is room to purchase more aircraft in the coming years, the Netherlands will do so,” the statement read..............
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Dutch have budgeted €4.5 billion (US $6 billion) for the F-35, which they believe will cover the 37 planes — a number the government’s statement says could grow. “If, within the given financial parameters, there is room to purchase more aircraft in the coming years, the Netherlands will do so,” the statement read..............
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
Quite right. Presumably because 37 actually translates into about 24 in the operational fleet. But then at a £100m a copy (or more), I doubt that the Dutch will be the last to face this issue.
S41
Quite right. Presumably because 37 actually translates into about 24 in the operational fleet. But then at a £100m a copy (or more), I doubt that the Dutch will be the last to face this issue.
S41
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It most certainly is not enough, that's why the cooperation with Belgium will be intensified to provide air cover (QRA) with enough jets.
Also it won't do all tasks the F16 had, most notably the nuclear task, according to the defense minister , the Dutch JSF will no longer have a nuclear role like the F16 had before, also some other tasks, like Recce will be done with drones iso dedicated F16's.
As for the Belgians, it seems ever more likely that we will also join the JSF party, probably with an even more insignificant number of jets (23-28), certainly now that our Minister of Defence, P de Krem is a candidate for the position of NATO-Chief , the chance becomes ever more likely that our Air Forces interests will be coupled with the political ambitions of some ambitious politician and everybody knows that without the support of the US, nobody can become chef of NATO.
So a combined force of 60-ish jets seems not unlikely.
But honestly, what does all this matter it's not like we're going to do anything useful with those jets anyway.
What struck me as funny is how almost everyone these days is mainly emphasising on how important the F35 is as a jobs program, Politicians and almost all others involved with this program both on this side of the pond and in the US and Canada are almost all hammering solely on the economic importance of the F35.
Military reasons have taken a back-seat completely in this whole debate.
At least they're being honest about it.
The latest discussions however have put some serious question marks at the economic spin off numbers as initially promised.
With the volume of work already allocated to Japan and Israel, the Tier 1 level certainties the UK has and the addition of new partners (Korea and Singapore very likely) and the knowledge that the Dutch are the firts that have officially reduced their orders by more than half it becomes very unlikely that the promised work-share remains the same.
Also it won't do all tasks the F16 had, most notably the nuclear task, according to the defense minister , the Dutch JSF will no longer have a nuclear role like the F16 had before, also some other tasks, like Recce will be done with drones iso dedicated F16's.
As for the Belgians, it seems ever more likely that we will also join the JSF party, probably with an even more insignificant number of jets (23-28), certainly now that our Minister of Defence, P de Krem is a candidate for the position of NATO-Chief , the chance becomes ever more likely that our Air Forces interests will be coupled with the political ambitions of some ambitious politician and everybody knows that without the support of the US, nobody can become chef of NATO.
So a combined force of 60-ish jets seems not unlikely.
But honestly, what does all this matter it's not like we're going to do anything useful with those jets anyway.
What struck me as funny is how almost everyone these days is mainly emphasising on how important the F35 is as a jobs program, Politicians and almost all others involved with this program both on this side of the pond and in the US and Canada are almost all hammering solely on the economic importance of the F35.
Military reasons have taken a back-seat completely in this whole debate.
At least they're being honest about it.
The latest discussions however have put some serious question marks at the economic spin off numbers as initially promised.
With the volume of work already allocated to Japan and Israel, the Tier 1 level certainties the UK has and the addition of new partners (Korea and Singapore very likely) and the knowledge that the Dutch are the firts that have officially reduced their orders by more than half it becomes very unlikely that the promised work-share remains the same.
The spin-off argument was always "2 per cent of 3000/4000/5000/6000 jets is better than 20 per cent of 300 jets, or even 100 per cent offset on your 50-jet order".
Both numbers are under pressure, the percentage from work packaged out to FMS customers, and the top-line from reality.
Both numbers are under pressure, the percentage from work packaged out to FMS customers, and the top-line from reality.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
For 'NITRO104' interest in South Korean F-35 situation:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post8133223
S.Korea would get F-35s with full combat capability -Pentagon 07 Nov 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
S.Korea would get F-35s with full combat capability -Pentagon | Reuters
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post8133223
S.Korea would get F-35s with full combat capability -Pentagon 07 Nov 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"Nov 7 (Reuters) - If South Korea decides to order Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets for delivery in 2017, the aircraft would come with the software needed to carry a full load of weapons, Lockheed and the Pentagon's F-35 program office said Thursday, refuting a claim made earlier this week by a Boeing consultant....
...officials with Lockheed and the F-35 program office told Reuters the 3F software would be released to the F-35 fleet in the third quarter of 2017. That would allow the jet to achieve its full combat capability and carry a full load of weapons in time for the delivery schedule that South Korea is seeking, they said.
Lockheed planned an initial release of the 3F software for developmental flight testing in September 2014, said company spokesman Eric Schnaible.
South Korea has said it needs delivery of the first new fighter jets in 2017 so it can start replacing its aging current fleet of warplanes. To ensure delivery in 2017, Seoul would have to place initial orders of F-35 jets in the ninth batch of jets, which is expected to carry the 3F software.
"If (the South Koreans) decide to procure F-35s, then aircraft ordered in lot 9 or later will be configured with 3F software," said Rear Admiral Randy Mahr, deputy F-35 program manager, in a statement responding to a Reuters query....
...He [Mahr] said there was "some risk" in the current schedule for completion of the 3F software, since it depended to some extent on the success of the 2B software, and the 3I export version....
...One defense official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said both the Marine Corps and Air Force had clearly decided that the F-35 offered so many additional capabilities that they were moving ahead with the 2B software rather than wait for completion of the later software.
"I'd rather go across the line with the 2B software in the fifth-generation F-35 than an advanced version of the fourth generation fighters out there today," said the official."
...officials with Lockheed and the F-35 program office told Reuters the 3F software would be released to the F-35 fleet in the third quarter of 2017. That would allow the jet to achieve its full combat capability and carry a full load of weapons in time for the delivery schedule that South Korea is seeking, they said.
Lockheed planned an initial release of the 3F software for developmental flight testing in September 2014, said company spokesman Eric Schnaible.
South Korea has said it needs delivery of the first new fighter jets in 2017 so it can start replacing its aging current fleet of warplanes. To ensure delivery in 2017, Seoul would have to place initial orders of F-35 jets in the ninth batch of jets, which is expected to carry the 3F software.
"If (the South Koreans) decide to procure F-35s, then aircraft ordered in lot 9 or later will be configured with 3F software," said Rear Admiral Randy Mahr, deputy F-35 program manager, in a statement responding to a Reuters query....
...He [Mahr] said there was "some risk" in the current schedule for completion of the 3F software, since it depended to some extent on the success of the 2B software, and the 3I export version....
...One defense official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said both the Marine Corps and Air Force had clearly decided that the F-35 offered so many additional capabilities that they were moving ahead with the 2B software rather than wait for completion of the later software.
"I'd rather go across the line with the 2B software in the fifth-generation F-35 than an advanced version of the fourth generation fighters out there today," said the official."
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Lockheed-Martin Now Sole Candidate in Fighter Project [email protected] / Nov. 11, 2013
The Chosun Ilbo (English Edition): Daily News from Korea - Lockheed-Martin Now Sole Candidate in Fighter Project
"Lockheed Martin's F-35 is emerging as the sole qualified candidate as Korea's search for a new-generation fighter jet starts all over again.
The Defense Ministry in September decided against Boeing's F-15SE because of its unsatisfactory stealth capability.
The next-generation fighter project is worth W8.3 trillion (US$1=W1,065).
"The Air Force has recently revised requirements for the F-X project and recommended them to the Joint Chiefs of Staff," a government source said...."
The Defense Ministry in September decided against Boeing's F-15SE because of its unsatisfactory stealth capability.
The next-generation fighter project is worth W8.3 trillion (US$1=W1,065).
"The Air Force has recently revised requirements for the F-X project and recommended them to the Joint Chiefs of Staff," a government source said...."
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
4th F-35B for UK Ordered + CVF RAMP is UP
Here is a MOD story about the final RAMP up + FOURTH F-35B ordered for the testing innit:
The final section of the flight deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth has been fitted onto the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier. 11 Nov 2013
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/r...ier-ramping-up
HMS Queen Elizabeth Bow November 11:
All sizes | HMS Queen Elizabeth Bow November 11 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
The final section of the flight deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth has been fitted onto the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier. 11 Nov 2013
"...The 300-tonne section of ramp, which is 64 metres long and 13 metres wide, is the final exterior piece of the aircraft carrier to be fitted. At its highest point, the take-off ramp is 6 metres above the flight deck, which will allow aircraft to be propelled into the air.
The pictures come on the same day as MOD announces that a fourth Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft has been ordered from Lockheed Martin. The UK has already taken delivery of 3 Lightning II jets and Royal Navy and RAF pilots are training on the aircraft in the USA.
This fourth jet, which is specially designed to be a test aircraft, will help boost the ongoing training available...."
The pictures come on the same day as MOD announces that a fourth Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft has been ordered from Lockheed Martin. The UK has already taken delivery of 3 Lightning II jets and Royal Navy and RAF pilots are training on the aircraft in the USA.
This fourth jet, which is specially designed to be a test aircraft, will help boost the ongoing training available...."
HMS Queen Elizabeth Bow November 11:
All sizes | HMS Queen Elizabeth Bow November 11 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 12th Nov 2013 at 02:49. Reason: Photo Link Caption
A question, Spaz. If the fourth aircraft is "specially designed to be a test aircraft" will it ever be part of our operational fleet? I'm only going on previous pregrammes where the development and test airframes were never capable of becoming operational. For example, the development Typhonns have all been in museums for years.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Hmmm.... 'CM' I am not all knowing about the F-35 programme - particularly any country other than my own (I guess I'll have to include the good ole USofA because they have it all eh). AFAIK a test aircraft is 'orange-wired' which apparently means something (recording devices can be specifically attached for test purposes I gather). This aspect of the F-35 does not interest me that much. You will gather I'm interested in NavAv. Your question has not been answered though - perhaps others more knowledgeable will have a go?
The 'test' aircraft will have to be able to send back the data for recording also according to this video:
Test Pilot Tuesday Episode 25 Published on Apr 16, 2013
The 'test' aircraft will have to be able to send back the data for recording also according to this video:
Test Pilot Tuesday Episode 25 Published on Apr 16, 2013
"F-35 test pilot Paul Hattendorf answers the question, "Since the F-35 is a single seat aircraft, how is data from test flights provided to engineers?"
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 12th Nov 2013 at 07:22.
Something like that, Spaz. Dunno about this one, but in every programme that had test and development aircraft they were built very differently to the "real thing" and could not later be adapted to become part of the fleet. So perhaps the UK wants to be seen to be owing test beds. That said, because they are so different to the production jets, I wonder what use they will be for training as the article claims. The potential result is that we now own four aircraft that, given the US could be doing all the testing with appropriate jets they halready have, that will be redundant and ready to go to the RAF Museum in a couple of years. Or are they test beds for greater things?
Anyone have any thoughts on that?
Anyone have any thoughts on that?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some test jets are so 'heavily' wired that it would be difficult to make them operational due to non-compliance with current approved operational configuration.
For example, the USAF recently retired a CV-22 to its museum after it was deemed to be too different to the operational birds' config to be brought up to that standard...probably had a few hours on it too!
The other issue with test jets is, although they typically have lower total airframe hours on them (the two RAAF ARDU F/A-18s are by far our lowest time jets, despite one of them being the first built), they spend more time at the edge of the performance envelope and thus have a very different fatigue life index.
For example, the USAF recently retired a CV-22 to its museum after it was deemed to be too different to the operational birds' config to be brought up to that standard...probably had a few hours on it too!
The other issue with test jets is, although they typically have lower total airframe hours on them (the two RAAF ARDU F/A-18s are by far our lowest time jets, despite one of them being the first built), they spend more time at the edge of the performance envelope and thus have a very different fatigue life index.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, modern aircraft like the F-35 run everything through their computers... even the operational aircraft.
All flight data, including data from sensors that only special test aircraft used to have but which are now installed on production aircraft - flight profiles - everything.
Operational examples of the F-35 and similar aircraft now record and can transmit to other aircraft or ground stations data that only specially-equipped test aircraft used to be able to gather.
All flight data, including data from sensors that only special test aircraft used to have but which are now installed on production aircraft - flight profiles - everything.
Operational examples of the F-35 and similar aircraft now record and can transmit to other aircraft or ground stations data that only specially-equipped test aircraft used to be able to gather.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Perhaps this phrase from the UK fourth F-35B report needs to be fleshed out:
I have seen comments that if the 'test' aircraft are required back in the operational fleet then, as is the situation for any LRIP aircraft being upgraded airframe and otherwise, there is sense in going through that process at the appropriate time; which may minimise expense of same. Probably I would have thought the 'test' aircraft are going to be useful for UK specific future testing - even when the overall F-35 tests are over? Perhaps they will be useful for UK specific tests back in UK such as SRVLs and whatnots.
"...This fourth jet, which is specially designed to be a test aircraft..."
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, modern aircraft like the F-35 run everything through their computers... even the operational aircraft