"The F-35 is a supersonic, single-seat, single-engine aircraft capable of performing and surviving warfare missions."
More of a dream then anything else.
I am curious what initial F-35 pilot training will accomplish?
AETC estimated that Air Force F-35A aircraft (CTOL) would fly 25 hours per month and constrained the number of students to be trained by that planning factor. In the Revised Draft/Final SEIS, the utilization rates for the CTOL remains at 17 sorties per month per aircraft. In the FEIS, the Marine Corps flight operation tables were initially planned for each student to perform an average of 5.3 landings per sortie. After further analysis on fuel capacity and time available, a new planning factor of 250 landings per student for the entire training was used. Most missions during the tactical phases of the training will be conducted with limited fuel available (which constrains the time available) to perform multiple practice landings.
OK, well, the CTOL is supposed to have a combat radius of 600 miles. Subsonic with effective ground speed being a big variable, you would think that you want your pilots to experience this kind of mission. But there is limited fuel on hand? Or budgeted? Do you want them to learn some air-to-air refueling? Do you want them to arrive at an "operational" squadron having already done 4,5,6,7, hour missions?
Gun practice is mentioned but unless a miracle happens with the helmet or they put a HUD in the jet, there will be no gun training.
So, an operational squadron will get a pilot that has had a few short flights, dropped some guided bombs (the only air-to-ground munitions mentioned in the study) and pushed the flare/chaff button a few times.
Great, quality training.
There is a lot in the report about runway capability and traffic capacity. I wonder if this is why the Navy is moving its T-6 training out to New Mexico and other places to get it out of the way?
At no part in the report is weather mentioned in relation to the aircraft's current operating limits. There are certain types of fasteners in the F-35, in order to save on cost and weight. They have high risk to lighting conditions. The aircraft's, fuel inerting is not up to a reasonable performance level. These things will have an effect on how many missions can be done in a day. Interesting is that in Florida, early afternoon is the most common time for thunderstorms to roll in.
While the big noise over the F-35 is on the topic of sound, I consider waste water of interest:
Wastewater
The JSF IJTS is estimated to produce 91,272 gallons of wastewater per day or 33.3 million gallons per year (Table 3-21) under the No Action Alternative. The rinse water resulting from the two freshwater aircraft rinses would be allowed to be absorbed directly into the ground without first being processed by a wastewater treatment facility (Brown, 2006b). An estimate for the rinses is still included to account for the potential of some water ending up in the wastewater stream. However, the wastewater calculation assumes all the rinsewater enters the wastewater stream, thereby providing a conservative estimate (Brown, 2006b).
Stealth aircraft usually means some pretty rotten materials. I am familiar with some of the Hazmat reduction in the F-35 design from what I saw of a 2006 briefing, but given the historical track record of stealth aircraft, this should be a watch item.
The report has some interesting global warming CO2 alarmism that you can find if you are curious. These poor assumptions don't help the credibility of the report.
They went for the whole carbon footprint gimmick. I would just go with keeping clean water tables and air thank you very much.
USAF assumptions on mishap rates:
Since the F-35 is a new aircraft, mishap rates have not been established. Historically, mishap rates for new military aircraft are highest during the initial phase of its operational life and decrease steadily throughout the aircraft’s lifetime. In order to avoid skewing the analyses with highly fluctuating data that occur in the very early stages of an aircraft’s operational life, it was assumed that the F-35A (CTOL) and F-35C (CV) variants would have a mishap rate equal to that of the F-16. This assumption was based on the fact that these are single-seat, single-engine, air-to-air superiority fighters with an attack role, which would be employed in a similar operational manner. Similarly, the AV-8B Harrier (STOVL) was used to predict mishaps rates for the F-35B,based on performance, structural, and operational similarities of both aircraft. Though the performance of the F-35 cannot be predicted, given the expected improvements in single engine technology and system safety, the F-35 should deliver an even better safety record than previous single engine aircraft. As such, the Air Force would not expect the F-35 destroyed aircraft rates to exceed the initial rates of the F-16.
Yeah, well, OK. We shall see. I will be happy if the pilot gets out OK. The pilot's ability to eject from the aircraft, like everything else in the program, reeks of having been under-tested.
After going through the report, I would not locate a military training area in this location. I think Eglin has out-lived its usefulness to be anything other than a low capacity, National Guard base. For high performance (or in this case alleged high-performance) initial aircraft training, there are too many people nearby and a high quantity of delicate water tables.
No comments:
Post a Comment