some F35 info

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Token said:
Hmmm...there are minimum height and weight requirements for pilots in all services. Since I am pretty sure the male weight requirement is something over 136 pounds (for USAF, not sure of the exact number but it was more than 136) this should be a non-problem....as long as they don't allow females to fly. DOH!

T!
Click to expand...

Got this from a career field website. I think the requirements are still the same;

"Pilots have to meet the Air Force's height, weight and physical conditioning requirements. They must be 64 to 77 inches tall when standing, and 34 to 40 inches tall when sitting. They must weigh 160 to 231 pounds, depending on height. Depending on age, men cannot have more than 20 to 24 percent body fat, while women cannot have more than 28 to 32 percent body fat. Pilots also must be able to complete a minimum number of push-ups and sit-ups and finish a timed 1 ½-mile run."
 
Is that it, a mile and a half, I walk longer to my fridge!! :lol:
In my Rangers days, we ran 3km, fired a salvo, another 3km fired a second salvo and then a third 3km and a final salvo, timed as well, with all the gear....surprised I got the gold medal for it, especially since my glasses kept steaming up....and I still have sore legs and catching my breath from it!!

I guess that's what you get, with an ex French Foreign Legion platoon leader...
 
Lucky13 said:
Is that it, a mile and a half, I walk longer to my fridge!! :lol:
In my Rangers days, we ran 3km, fired a salvo, another 3km fired a second salvo and then a third 3km and a final salvo, timed as well, with all the gear....surprised I got the gold medal for it, especially since my glasses kept steaming up....and I still have sore legs and catching my breath from it!!

I guess that's what you get, with an ex French Foreign Legion platoon leader...
Click to expand...

:lol: what they omitted that you have to do that mile and a half in a specified time.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
:lol: what they omitted that you have to do that mile and a half in a specified time.
Click to expand...

Not at all young man, it was a time limit alright....only good thing was, that it was fresh, not freezing, it's fresh down to -25C, after that it's cold and below -40C, then it's freezing! :lol:
Would like to see the UK handle a proper winter....on the other hand, maybe not! :lol:

GrauGeist said:
I think Jan got off a little easy there...just imagine if the platoon leader was a cheerful USMC Gunny...
Click to expand...

Our platoon leader would've made a USMC Gunny look and sound like a Sunday school teacher, this one was, how should I put this nicely....unique? :lol:

Didn't even get a chance to get warm in our uniforms, before we were sent out on a week long march in the mountains, on the border to Norway....30km's a day, for a week...b*stards!

Wouldn't mind to be fit like that again! pmsl
 
It isn't a rant, Joe, and it isn't misplaced. It's my opinion and I have it for several reasons. This is a discussion forum, right? I'm not happy with this program and you are, as far as I can see. I believe we're stuck with the F-35 and I hope it can be operated so as to be successful. It seems possible if we have the intelligence to do it. I'm less worried about it now that I know the low-g level is sustained turn, not airframe strength, and thanks for that.

Let's just say we all hope it lives up to the possible promise level. The gun still took too long to fit, unless we bought over 100 airplanes and never got them into a position where shooting the gun was on the test card. If we did that, then the people to slap are probably in the Air Force, and not working for the manufacturer.

Either way, you don't need 100+ airplanes to shoot the gun. 2 will do just fine, a test mule and a production-representative example for evaluation. Maybe 3. But we damned for sure don't need 100. If we did, we'd never have fielded a plane before in history. We certainly wouldn't have bought the B-2 if we needed 100 before seeing it's full potential. Or the B-1, F-15, F-16, etc. They bought the B-29 off the drawing board and it was in production before the first one flew.

The entire F-35 program has been riddled with poor decisions and I'm not the only one who thinks so or the program wouldn't be one of the sore spots in Military procurement and in Congress. So I'm in some good company with my doubts. The Generals who are touting it have to spout the company lime or they'll get reassigned or retired. I think we all know that.

Since it's so close to being operational, we'll know soon enough as I have pointed out before. Rough spots being what they are, I can allow we seem to over the worst part. Now we have to operate it correctly and achieve a successful program. I am with the people who want that outcome. We have too much money in it for me to really want it another way. I still don't and don't have to like the way we got here. It's water under the bridge now, but we shouldn't forget the issues we faced or we'll just do it again, possibly even worse, next time.

And that's precisely what I'm worried about ... the next one. This one has already cost more than was wise. We've all done a thing or two that was stupid and got away with it. The trick is not not do it again next time.
 
GregP said:
It isn't a rant, Joe, and it isn't misplaced. It's my opinion and I have it for several reasons. This is a discussion forum, right? I'm not happy with this program and you are, as far as I can see. I believe we're stuck with the F-35 and I hope it can be operated so as to be successful. It seems possible if we have the intelligence to do it. I'm less worried about it now that I know the low-g level is sustained turn, not airframe strength, and thanks for that.

Let's just say we all hope it lives up to the possible promise level. The gun still took too long to fit, unless we bought over 100 airplanes and never got them into a position where shooting the gun was on the test card. If we did that, then the people to slap are probably in the Air Force, and not working for the manufacturer.

Either way, you don't need 100+ airplanes to shoot the gun. 2 will do just fine, a test mule and a production-representative example for evaluation. Maybe 3. But we damned for sure don't need 100. If we did, we'd never have fielded a plane before in history. We certainly wouldn't have bought the B-2 if we needed 100 before seeing it's full potential. Or the B-1, F-15, F-16, etc. They bought the B-29 off the drawing board and it was in production before the first one flew.

The entire F-35 program has been riddled with poor decisions and I'm not the only one who thinks so or the program wouldn't be one of the sore spots in Military procurement and in Congress. So I'm in some good company with my doubts. The Generals who are touting it have to spout the company lime or they'll get reassigned or retired. I think we all know that.

Since it's so close to being operational, we'll know soon enough as I have pointed out before. Rough spots being what they are, I can allow we seem to over the worst part. Now we have to operate it correctly and achieve a successful program. I am with the people who want that outcome. We have too much money in it for me to really want it another way. I still don't and don't have to like the way we got here. It's water under the bridge now, but we shouldn't forget the issues we faced or we'll just do it again, possibly even worse, next time.

And that's precisely what I'm worried about ... the next one. This one has already cost more than was wise. We've all done a thing or two that was stupid and got away with it. The trick is not not do it again next time.
Click to expand...
The fact is Greg is you are entitled to your opinions and I'll be the first to admit this program isn't perfect and neither was the development of the F-35's predecessors, but as stated I'll call you (or anyone for that matter) on media generated bullsh!t half truth and flat out lies, and it doesn't necessarily have to be about the F-35. We're not decision makers on this program and the development process is being done for a reason, like it or not and I could tell you those making decisions are a lot smarter than you and I. What is apparent is the total bullsh!t the press and detractors have come up with to demonize this aircraft. "Hot Fuel," ejection seats that won't support a 135 pound pilot, the F-35B burning up the tarmac and flight decks, the aircraft not being able to pull 9gs is just a few things that's been fed to the general public and those who can't grasp that what didn't work in 1970 can now work. People need to think outside the box and not hold on to outdated technology beliefs and nostalgia.
 
Last edited:
Lucky13 said:
I'm still waiting for the first jet developed, according to plans and on the money, maybe I missed it! pmsl...
Click to expand...

Me too...

Just read a portion of "Have Blue." Chapters 4 and 5 go into the issues with the F-117A. Tail redesign, fuel leaks, RAM coating failures, etc. I know for a fact that the F-117A had issues with it's landing gear supplier (Menasco) improperly heat treating some landing gear components. If the press knew some of these issues the F-117A would have never reached production.
 
For that matter, look into the development of the F-111...

The TFX project ruffled alot of feathers because it called for a joint project between the USAF and the USN, even though both wanted seperate aircraft. This fact doomed the project to infighting, arguing and all sorts of nonsense during it's entire development.

Then it was plagued by other problems, both paper and physical...causing delays, cost over-runs and a great deal of political posturing.

If that wasn't bad enough, when the F-111 finally took to the air, they discovered that the wing pivots suffered failures as well as a flaw in the horizontal stab, causing it to fail. This caused a serious sh!t storm, with people calling for congressional hearings and the usual angry mob rhetoric. It also halted the F-111's service for three years until the issues could be addressed.

However, once those problems were ironed out, it's service for well over 20 years was exceptional, even setting records in several cases.

Moral to the story here: it's always the same old story, just switch the aircraft's name and no one would notice :lol:
 
GrauGeist said:
For that matter, look into the development of the F-111...

The TFX project ruffled alot of feathers because it called for a joint project between the USAF and the USN, even though both wanted seperate aircraft. This fact doomed the project to infighting, arguing and all sorts of nonsense during it's entire development.

Then it was plagued by other problems, both paper and physical...causing delays, cost over-runs and a great deal of political posturing.

If that wasn't bad enough, when the F-111 finally took to the air, they discovered that the wing pivots suffered failures as well as a flaw in the horizontal stab, causing it to fail. This caused a serious sh!t storm, with people calling for congressional hearings and the usual angry mob rhetoric. It also halted the F-111's service for three years until the issues could be addressed.

However, once those problems were ironed out, it's service for well over 20 years was exceptional, even setting records in several cases.

Moral to the story here: it's always the same old story, just switch the aircraft's name and no one would notice :lol:
Click to expand...

Spot on - the only thing I have to add to this is the fact that the F-111 went into service in 1967. Many people can't grasp the fact that we could make aircraft do things today that was deemed impossible 48 years ago and still believe that air combat, equipment and tactics haven't evolved since then. Call it stupidity, naivety, or a refusal to accept technology - I call it the "Flat Earth Society," with Pierre Sprey being the CEO!!!

2356136219_bffea244b6.jpg
 
lmao Joe!

There's actually people who believe we weren't smart enough to put men on the moon, because: we didn't have the technology, we would fry from the radiation, too hot, too cold, the Saturn couldn't possibly go that far (which it didn't, but it pushed them that far) and on and on and on. Therefore it's a fraud.

In regards to the F-111, yes, I should have mentioned it entered service in '67, suffered a series of catastrophic failures and was put on hold in '68 and resumed service three years later in '71 after the bugs were worked out.
 
The media has made the F-35 look like that Lockheed built the thing on their own and then sold it to the DoD in the same manner as you would buy a car. What should have been done is the media, educating themselves about the nuts and bolt of the program and then questioning of the redundancy of flight testing, revealing that the majority of the cost over runs occurred with the approval of the government and that the whole concept of this aircraft derived from civil servants, not LMCO.

The F-117A was an unsolicited offering to the DoD that proved the stealth concept worked. The F-35 is 3 times the aircraft that the F-117A was, even with it's so-called performance liabilities, but again the media is there to sell stories and make the American public believe that air combat is exactly what was shown in the movie Top Gun.

1bite.jpg
 
Most of my opinions aren't bullshit and your job isn't to censor me as a moderator; it's to stop me from being uncivil, and I've tried not to be so. Otherwise, I am free to disagree with you ... in a civil manner. Doesn't mean either of us is right, but I'd lean towards you in a pinch out of experience with the F-35 program. Actually I HAVE. I don't quite feel so bad about it now as I did a month ago. I didn't buy any of the arguments you mentioned above except for the structural limits, that you have explained. Again, thanks for that. Nice to know. Placated on that score and happily so.

The matter of the gun is simple. If the electronics (including stealth) is falling behind, move that milestone back and the simpler ones forward. The gun should be VERY simple, perhaps except for the RAM door. In project management, PERT tasks are rearranged all the time to take advantage of slack time to move other tasks ahead with the eventual aim of bringing the project in on time and on budget if possible. If they aren't, someone is making mistakes. The gun should have been one of the easier nuts to crack.

The program was abysmal from a management standpoint. It may produce a decent aircraft anyway, but that is yet to be proved. We (U.S.A.) aren't the habit of fielding bad airplanes, so the F-35 may serve well and I admit that. I don't have to like how we got here and I don't. You've been involved and so probably know more about the airframe. I know way more about the actuators (issues a few years ago)/ lift fan (no real issues) and some of their ramifications. If the issues I DID know about have been fixed, they may do fine. If not we still may have a latent defect.

I'll assume they have been fixed and let that go.

That doesn't excuse a decade and more of publicly bad decisions to get us to this point. It means we finally may have gotten it under control and I can accept that. Perhaps you should accept that the program was and is fundamentally flawed in execution. That's what I hate ... bad management in the development stage. We had it in spades. Not because we had issues that needed to be solved ... that's engineering and is expected. It is because of how it was managed.

As a 25+ year department and project manager, I can't and don't approve of or forgive it. As a result, I would give serious thought to suing the manufacturer to recover some cost.

But ... as you so eloquently point out, I am not in charge. In fact, serious investigation MAY prove the departure from sanity was all caused by government meddling. They DO that.

If so, drop the case, clean house, and move on. If not, go for it. If the fault is about equally shared, let it go, chalk it up to the fates and consider it water under the bridge not to be repeated on my watch. Life happens.

I have no preconceptions about it at all; I dislike the way it happened; I am miffed at the expense for the results. Investigation may well prove your theory (primarily government meddling if I read you right) as well as mine (possible contractor mismanagement, and I DID say possible) and I can live with either result, really. Perhaps the manufacturer is blameless almost entirely. It would be nice to know one way or the other.

I don't have a vendetta with any manufacturer; I expect good management and good decision making when my money is involved ... most of the time. Sometimes it just goes wrong, and that is sometimes unavoidable. Sometimes it IS avoidable. The decisions MAY have BEEN good at the time. The press very certainly didn't paint it that way, not that they are all that believable on ANY subject including the weather. I simply have little other exposure to the insider F-35 facts after leaving Parker-Hannifin. I believe maybe you have. But one line answers with no background facts don't cut it with me or any decent manager. I want background data before I "go away."

Personally, I WOULD like to hear the STOVL version went supersonic and can regularly do so if desired ... and may well have missed it as I have been engaged in teaching new (to me) electronics courses for a college, so have little time for investigating it for now. We have a 3-semester electricity program and I just finished semester 2. Have to teach semester 3 starting in January and haven't really looked at Programmable Logic Controllers since 1990. Makes it, shall we say, interesting to say the least. I'll have a busy Christmas "off" time getting and staying ahead of the students.

Cheers, and Merry Christmas / Happy Hangover ... err ... Holidays.

I think I'll just bow out of this discussion since I seem to be the only reluctant participant. I STILL have concerns, but will stifle them and wait for some operational facts before returning except to read / troll. If the F-35 stubs it's toes in combat, you can bet on comments in here. If it doesn't, I'll be delighted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Venomstick121
Gulf of Sidra 1981 Info wanted
Replies
7
Views
627
Barrett
B
F
Allison J33 -A-24 Info
Replies
1
Views
578
mjfur
M
WARSPITER
SR-72 Darkstar info
Replies
8
Views
623
SaparotRob
SaparotRob
M
Some Interesting Vietnam Shots
Replies
5
Views
744
Gnomey
Gnomey
Dronescapes
Experimental Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base. Some rare, unclassified footage
Replies
2
Views
288
Thumpalumpacus
Thumpalumpacus
Back