Vervanging F-16's
Forum rules
- Flyboy
- Scramble Master
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: 14 Sep 2006, 09:39
- Type of spotter: F4
- Subscriber Scramble: Flyboy
- Location: Hillywood
- Contact:
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Slijtage komt door vlieguren, niet klokuren.
En ja: de airpolicing boven de Balkan kost veel vlieguren. En die gaan ten koste van de training stelt Trouw.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
En ja: de airpolicing boven de Balkan kost veel vlieguren. En die gaan ten koste van de training stelt Trouw.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Last edited by Flyboy on 15 Dec 2014, 18:29, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Goed Flyboy, dan niet. Geen zin om het nog een keer uit te leggen. Volgens mij begrijp je het zelf ook wel, maar probeer je alleen maar een nieuwe stok te vinden om de JSF mee te slaan. Prima, veel plezier ermee.
Erwin
Erwin
- Flyboy
- Scramble Master
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: 14 Sep 2006, 09:39
- Type of spotter: F4
- Subscriber Scramble: Flyboy
- Location: Hillywood
- Contact:
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Helaas beste Erwin, ik heb niets tegen de JSF, sterker:
Waar ik zo de pest in heb is dat er zulk gekonkel is en dat er mensen zijn die er met open ogen intuinen en het hard roepend verdedigen (ieder heeft weliswaar recht op zijn mening, maar helaas mogen domme mensen ook stemmen)
Wat ik eerder heb geroepen (maar daar lezen sommige blijkbaar overheen): Wees eerlijk over je ambities als politiek en trek het geld er voor uit. Dit omdat we niet nog eens een keer een militaire missie weg moeten sturen met te weinig wapens waardoor er doden vallen. Dat schijnen de politici niet te willen snappen en de industrie met haar lobbyisten interesserend het niet zolang ze maar kunnen verkopen.
Dus: als we voorop willen lopen en 'iets' kunnen doen in de wereld: trek er dan het geld voor uit (lees: koop 85 JSF-en zoals oorspronkelijk de bedoeling was) en pas anders je ambities aan en koop materiaal wat daar bij past (hier mag je invullen wat je wilt). Maar niet JSF-en kopen en er dan niets me kunnen zoals nu het geval is of om dan achteraf te zeggen: "Goh, 37 zijn er eigenlijk toch te weinig, er moeten er wel een paar bij..."
Nog dezelfde dag verschijnt er een artikel waaruit blijkt dat er inderdaad met die 35(+2 testtoestellen) niet veel effectief gedaan kan worden.Verder vind ik echt dat de mensen die ons land verdedigen het beste materiaal in voldoende mate ter beschikking moeten hebben, en dan doet het mij pijn dat we vanwege geilheid naar de JSF er maar 35 van (van de oorspronkelijke 85) gaan kopen en dan een politiek correct document opstellen waarin we nog gaan beweren dat dat wel voldoende is. Of jij moet informatie uit een achterkamertje hebben dat er straks nog wel een vervolgopdracht komt (kaasschaaf methode, is ook al eerder vertoond).
Waar ik zo de pest in heb is dat er zulk gekonkel is en dat er mensen zijn die er met open ogen intuinen en het hard roepend verdedigen (ieder heeft weliswaar recht op zijn mening, maar helaas mogen domme mensen ook stemmen)
Wat ik eerder heb geroepen (maar daar lezen sommige blijkbaar overheen): Wees eerlijk over je ambities als politiek en trek het geld er voor uit. Dit omdat we niet nog eens een keer een militaire missie weg moeten sturen met te weinig wapens waardoor er doden vallen. Dat schijnen de politici niet te willen snappen en de industrie met haar lobbyisten interesserend het niet zolang ze maar kunnen verkopen.
Dus: als we voorop willen lopen en 'iets' kunnen doen in de wereld: trek er dan het geld voor uit (lees: koop 85 JSF-en zoals oorspronkelijk de bedoeling was) en pas anders je ambities aan en koop materiaal wat daar bij past (hier mag je invullen wat je wilt). Maar niet JSF-en kopen en er dan niets me kunnen zoals nu het geval is of om dan achteraf te zeggen: "Goh, 37 zijn er eigenlijk toch te weinig, er moeten er wel een paar bij..."
- Stratofreighter
- Scramble Master
- Posts: 22176
- Joined: 25 Jan 2006, 08:02
- Location: Netherlands
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Nou, de arbo-arts/bedrijfsarts nog eens extra loslaten op piloten helpt niet.Nilson wrote:Ziekte.....hoe durven ze! Vliegen met je snottebel !
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Bij een verstopte neus/forse verkoudheid moet je vooral niet vliegen.
Er zijn tig piloten die hadden gewild dat ze zich achteraf toch ziek hadden gemeld.
Permanente gehoorschade en zo....
November 2024 update at FokkerNews.nl....
- Nilson
- Scramble Master
- Posts: 4424
- Joined: 06 Sep 2002, 13:08
- Type of spotter: gooseproof
- Subscriber Scramble: Nilson
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Poldermentaliteit , toen ik nog op dammen zat !
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
life is good, but a good life is better
-
- Scramble Master
- Posts: 3523
- Joined: 03 Dec 2006, 22:10
- Type of spotter: zo snel afgekeurd, ik kreeg geen kans S5 te worden
- Location: Airshows, EHKD, Where HAT eh took me
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Lijkt me dat er ook nog kisten achter de hand worden gehouden voor het geval dat de QRA kisten een probleempje ontwikkelen tijdens hun QRA dienst. De vliegers die die QRA vervullen willen trouwens wel graag iedere maand hun salaris vangen, dus geld kost die QRA toch ook wel.Flyboy wrote:De bewaking van het Nederlandse luchtruim bestaat uit twee (2) toestellen die op QRA staan. Dat kost geen inzet en geld, en er blijft dus ook niets over. Of denk je dat we actief een 24 uur Combat Air Patrol boven het land hebben vliegen?
De Zamboni heeft kramp in zijn achterwiel
Jan Maarten Smeets, Heerenveen 31 oktober 2009
Jan Maarten Smeets, Heerenveen 31 oktober 2009
- Flyboy
- Scramble Master
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: 14 Sep 2006, 09:39
- Type of spotter: F4
- Subscriber Scramble: Flyboy
- Location: Hillywood
- Contact:
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Het zou ver gaan om alle kosten uit te werken, maar er staat hier ergens wat een vliegtuig per vlieguren kost. Denk aan x uren onderhoud per vlieguren, brandstof, etc. Het maandsalaris van de piloot (en crewchief) valt hierbij in het niet.
Inmiddels lees ik dat ook 'de kamer' is geïnformeerd dat er maar 4 vliegtuigen overblijven voor missies in het buitenland. Ik vraag me af wanneer het argument voor compensatie van vredesverliezen ten tonele gebracht gaat worden. Daarbij kan je ook weer een paar vliegtuigen extra gaan bestellen.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Inmiddels lees ik dat ook 'de kamer' is geïnformeerd dat er maar 4 vliegtuigen overblijven voor missies in het buitenland. Ik vraag me af wanneer het argument voor compensatie van vredesverliezen ten tonele gebracht gaat worden. Daarbij kan je ook weer een paar vliegtuigen extra gaan bestellen.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
- Stratofreighter
- Scramble Master
- Posts: 22176
- Joined: 25 Jan 2006, 08:02
- Location: Netherlands
Re: Vervanging F-16's
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news ... ed-4491021
Fokker signs F-35 wing component production agreement with Lockheed
19 January 2015
Fokker has signed an agreement with Lockheed Martin for the production of additional wing components for the next batches of F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter aircraft.
Under the terms of agreement, the company will the manufacture flaperons and outboard leading edge flaps (OLEF) for the ninth and tenth low rate initial production batches of the fifth-generation fighter.
One hundred highly qualified specialists will gain employments at Fokker in Hoogeveen between 2015 to 2017, thanks to the agreement.
The contract also represents an additional value of tens of millions of dollars.
Fokker chief executive officer Hans Büthker said: "The selection for the follow-on production orders is a very important step.
"This (additional wing component) order will secure employment for around 100 employees,
a figure that will be doubled if the total production order is received."
Netherlands Special Envoy for industrial participation Maxime Verhagen said: "28 Dutch companies are already directly involved in the F-35 programme, and probably more than 100 more as subcontractor.
November 2024 update at FokkerNews.nl....
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Echt een verbetering...
"...The gun on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet will fire in 2017, according to the Pentagon.
Joe DellaVedova, a spokesman for the F-35 program office, said the fifth-generation stealth fighter’s GAU-22 gun and the Electro-Optical Targeting System — two key systems to provide close air support to ground troops — will be operational with the installation of the Block 3F software update in fiscal 2017.
The Jan. 7 statement from the program office followed recent news articles in The Daily Beast quoting unnamed Air Force officials saying the gun won’t work for most pilots until 2019 and that the targeting system is already outdated compared to similar systems on existing fourth-generation fighters..."
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/08/penta ... e-in-2017/
"...The gun on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet will fire in 2017, according to the Pentagon.
Joe DellaVedova, a spokesman for the F-35 program office, said the fifth-generation stealth fighter’s GAU-22 gun and the Electro-Optical Targeting System — two key systems to provide close air support to ground troops — will be operational with the installation of the Block 3F software update in fiscal 2017.
The Jan. 7 statement from the program office followed recent news articles in The Daily Beast quoting unnamed Air Force officials saying the gun won’t work for most pilots until 2019 and that the targeting system is already outdated compared to similar systems on existing fourth-generation fighters..."
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/08/penta ... e-in-2017/
- Alpha Kilo One
- Scramble Master
- Posts: 4496
- Joined: 25 Apr 2005, 16:17
- Type of spotter: F5
- Subscriber Scramble: Jein 😉
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Still makes me laugh: 182 rounds......
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
"Nix bliev wie it es"
- Coati
- Scramble Addict
- Posts: 1561
- Joined: 25 Jun 2005, 19:53
- Type of spotter: S5
- Subscriber Scramble: No
- Location: Meppel, Netherlands
Re: Vervanging F-16's
until you are on the receiving end...F-35B and C have 220 rounds btw.
And look at this:
Typhoon 27mm 150 rounds.
JAS 39 Gripen Mauser BK 27 27 mm 1 120 rounds
MiG-29M GSh-30-1 30 mm 1 100
Rafale DEFA 30M791 30 mm 1 x 125
Su-27 GSh-30-1 30 mm 1 150
So the competition is flying around with even less bullets...
So it looks pretty much like a normal number for modern fighters (with undoubtely better accuracy and fire control systems). 500-1100 rounds are common for 3rd and 4th generation aircraft.
And look at this:
Typhoon 27mm 150 rounds.
JAS 39 Gripen Mauser BK 27 27 mm 1 120 rounds
MiG-29M GSh-30-1 30 mm 1 100
Rafale DEFA 30M791 30 mm 1 x 125
Su-27 GSh-30-1 30 mm 1 150
So the competition is flying around with even less bullets...
So it looks pretty much like a normal number for modern fighters (with undoubtely better accuracy and fire control systems). 500-1100 rounds are common for 3rd and 4th generation aircraft.
Last edited by Coati on 02 Feb 2015, 22:13, edited 1 time in total.
create your own database with www.spottingmode.com
- Stratofreighter
- Scramble Master
- Posts: 22176
- Joined: 25 Jan 2006, 08:02
- Location: Netherlands
Re: Vervanging F-16's
182 granaten voorraad? Er zijn meerdere (zeer) moderne fighters die het met ongeveer hetzelfde aantal moeten doen...
Die brandstoftemperaturen, da's een lastiger verhaal...
http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... downs.aspx
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/the- ... -jet-fuel/
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f- ... 1668120726
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... hades.html
Die brandstoftemperaturen, da's een lastiger verhaal...
http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... downs.aspx
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/the- ... -jet-fuel/
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f- ... 1668120726
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... hades.html
November 2024 update at FokkerNews.nl....
- Coati
- Scramble Addict
- Posts: 1561
- Joined: 25 Jun 2005, 19:53
- Type of spotter: S5
- Subscriber Scramble: No
- Location: Meppel, Netherlands
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Niet echt, alle moderne fighters hebben limieten in fuel temperaturen (ook de F-16). Is geen specifiek F-35 probleem.
Hier ook een uitleg van het eerdere bericht over de witte truck:
Air base prepares in case F-35 can't take hot fuel
Jane Wells | @janewells
Tuesday, 9 Dec 2014 | 5:55 PM ET
In the long bumpy road toward the F-35 fighter's deployment, nothing may be stranger than the story about hot fuel.
Lockheed Martin and 33rd Fighter Wing maintainers work with 96th Fuels Flight Airmen during a dual hot pit session at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.
Photo: Samuel King Jr. | Flickr Commons
Lockheed Martin and 33rd Fighter Wing maintainers work with 96th Fuels Flight Airmen during a dual hot pit session at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.
The Air Force reported that crews at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona were wondering if the military's expensive new state-of-the-art jet fighter might not be able to tolerate fuel that exceeds a certain temperature. This is an issue particularly important at Luke, where summer temperatures can exceed 110 degrees.
Clarifying an earlier story posted on CNBC, a spokesman for the base said that in a proactive measure to offset future potential problems, crews decided to repaint some fuel trucks with white reflective paint to deflect heat and keep the fuel cooler inside.
"Every jet has a threshold," said Major Matt Hasson of Luke AFB public affairs, though no one can provide CNBC with an exact temperature for the F-35.
So far, however, "The jets are performing phenomenally...there's no problem."
"This is not an F-35 issue; there are no special restrictions on the F-35 related to fuel temperature. The F-35 uses the same fuel as other military aircraft. It can fly under the same temperature conditions as any other advanced military aircraft," the Pentagon's F-35 Joint Program Office told CNBC.
So why repaint the trucks? Maj. Hasson said the base wants to get ahead of any potential issues as its fleet of F-35s expands from a handful to a total of 144.
Luke AFB is one of seven bases testing the F-35 and beginning pilot training. Fuel trucks at Luke sit near runways and do not have any shade from the sun. Repainting trucks for $3,900 each is a relatively cheap solution.
So far, only one truck has been repainted. Whether the new paint solves the problem is still being determined. The idea has also been tested at Edwards Air Force Base in Southern California, another area where the heat hits triple digits, but Maj. Hasson said Edwards was doing a general test of the concept. It was not related to the F-35 specifically.
The new paint job at Luke "ensures the F-35 is able to meet its sortie requirements," Chief Master Sgt. Ralph Resch, fuels manager at the 56th Logistics Readiness Squadron, said in an item posted on the Air Force website. "We are taking proactive measures to mitigate any possible aircraft shutdowns due to high fuel temperatures in the future."
Maj. Hasson said "aircraft shutdowns" does not mean engine shutdowns, but a shutdown in general operations due to high fuel temperatures.
Read MoreLockheed signs $4.7 billion deal for more F-35 fighters
There have been no publicly reported cases of current jet fighters experiencing problems with hot fuel. At the same time, repainting trucks bright white could make them easier targets if based in hostile territory subject to high temperatures, such as deserts. Temperatures in Iraq, for instance, can exceed 120 degrees.
"The long-term fix is to have parking shades for the refuelers," Resch said. The Air Force is also testing the idea of maintaining fuel trucks' traditional green color and instead covering them with a heat-reflective coating.
Lockheed Martin last month signed a $4.7 billion deal for 29 more of the aircraft for the United States and five close allies. It's anticipated that eventually 200 of the aircraft will be in operation in eight countries. (edit: eh...maak daar maar iets meer van!)
Editor's note: An earlier version of this story cited Air Force sources who indicated that the F-35 can't tolerate fuel that exceeds a certain temperature. The Air Force base public affairs office implied to CNBC at that time that crews testing the state-of-the-art jet fighter discovered the problem and were trying to solve it. The Air Force subsequently said that its efforts, which include repainting fuel vehicles, were meant to be proactive in case of future problems rather than designed to fix existing issues.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102253195#
Hier ook een uitleg van het eerdere bericht over de witte truck:
Air base prepares in case F-35 can't take hot fuel
Jane Wells | @janewells
Tuesday, 9 Dec 2014 | 5:55 PM ET
In the long bumpy road toward the F-35 fighter's deployment, nothing may be stranger than the story about hot fuel.
Lockheed Martin and 33rd Fighter Wing maintainers work with 96th Fuels Flight Airmen during a dual hot pit session at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.
Photo: Samuel King Jr. | Flickr Commons
Lockheed Martin and 33rd Fighter Wing maintainers work with 96th Fuels Flight Airmen during a dual hot pit session at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.
The Air Force reported that crews at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona were wondering if the military's expensive new state-of-the-art jet fighter might not be able to tolerate fuel that exceeds a certain temperature. This is an issue particularly important at Luke, where summer temperatures can exceed 110 degrees.
Clarifying an earlier story posted on CNBC, a spokesman for the base said that in a proactive measure to offset future potential problems, crews decided to repaint some fuel trucks with white reflective paint to deflect heat and keep the fuel cooler inside.
"Every jet has a threshold," said Major Matt Hasson of Luke AFB public affairs, though no one can provide CNBC with an exact temperature for the F-35.
So far, however, "The jets are performing phenomenally...there's no problem."
"This is not an F-35 issue; there are no special restrictions on the F-35 related to fuel temperature. The F-35 uses the same fuel as other military aircraft. It can fly under the same temperature conditions as any other advanced military aircraft," the Pentagon's F-35 Joint Program Office told CNBC.
So why repaint the trucks? Maj. Hasson said the base wants to get ahead of any potential issues as its fleet of F-35s expands from a handful to a total of 144.
Luke AFB is one of seven bases testing the F-35 and beginning pilot training. Fuel trucks at Luke sit near runways and do not have any shade from the sun. Repainting trucks for $3,900 each is a relatively cheap solution.
So far, only one truck has been repainted. Whether the new paint solves the problem is still being determined. The idea has also been tested at Edwards Air Force Base in Southern California, another area where the heat hits triple digits, but Maj. Hasson said Edwards was doing a general test of the concept. It was not related to the F-35 specifically.
The new paint job at Luke "ensures the F-35 is able to meet its sortie requirements," Chief Master Sgt. Ralph Resch, fuels manager at the 56th Logistics Readiness Squadron, said in an item posted on the Air Force website. "We are taking proactive measures to mitigate any possible aircraft shutdowns due to high fuel temperatures in the future."
Maj. Hasson said "aircraft shutdowns" does not mean engine shutdowns, but a shutdown in general operations due to high fuel temperatures.
Read MoreLockheed signs $4.7 billion deal for more F-35 fighters
There have been no publicly reported cases of current jet fighters experiencing problems with hot fuel. At the same time, repainting trucks bright white could make them easier targets if based in hostile territory subject to high temperatures, such as deserts. Temperatures in Iraq, for instance, can exceed 120 degrees.
"The long-term fix is to have parking shades for the refuelers," Resch said. The Air Force is also testing the idea of maintaining fuel trucks' traditional green color and instead covering them with a heat-reflective coating.
Lockheed Martin last month signed a $4.7 billion deal for 29 more of the aircraft for the United States and five close allies. It's anticipated that eventually 200 of the aircraft will be in operation in eight countries. (edit: eh...maak daar maar iets meer van!)
Editor's note: An earlier version of this story cited Air Force sources who indicated that the F-35 can't tolerate fuel that exceeds a certain temperature. The Air Force base public affairs office implied to CNBC at that time that crews testing the state-of-the-art jet fighter discovered the problem and were trying to solve it. The Air Force subsequently said that its efforts, which include repainting fuel vehicles, were meant to be proactive in case of future problems rather than designed to fix existing issues.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102253195#
create your own database with www.spottingmode.com
- Alpha Kilo One
- Scramble Master
- Posts: 4496
- Joined: 25 Apr 2005, 16:17
- Type of spotter: F5
- Subscriber Scramble: Jein 😉
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Ach ja, de Phantom "hoefde" eerst ook geen proppeschieter.
Wat is er nu goedkoper dan een paar kogels ergens in jagen?
En omdat de concurrentie het ook niet heeft, hoeft het niet?
Lijkt me niet echt het sterkste argument.
Wat is er nu goedkoper dan een paar kogels ergens in jagen?
En omdat de concurrentie het ook niet heeft, hoeft het niet?
Lijkt me niet echt het sterkste argument.
"Nix bliev wie it es"
- Flyboy
- Scramble Master
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: 14 Sep 2006, 09:39
- Type of spotter: F4
- Subscriber Scramble: Flyboy
- Location: Hillywood
- Contact:
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Uit nieuwsgierigheid... Hoeveel 'rounds' heb je nodig voor een 'kill' (toch het primaire doel bij ACM). Bij de invoering van de F-16 werd al gesteld dat die de kabel doormidden kon schieten van het gesleepte doel. Dat zal nu niet slechter geworden zijn. (En nu even geen retoriek zoals bij de Raptor als "They never get that close...")Alpha Kilo One wrote:Still makes me laugh: 182 rounds......
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]