F-35 hits top design speed in flight testing

via F-16.net

November 4, 2011 (by Bjørnar Bolsøy) - After the busiest month of flight testing to date and concluding three weeks of successful ship trials on the USS WASP the F-35 has reached its maximum design speed of Mach 1.6.
The record flight was flown at Edwards AFB by AF-1, as the jet is called, on October 25, a few days after the USS Wasp returned to its homeport of Naval Station Norfolk on October 21. In all two jets, BF-2 and BF-4, accomplished 72 short takeoffs and 72 vertical landings on the WASP.

According to a Lockheed Martin progress report, since the last flight test update issued on September 20, the program has completed 185 test flights, bringing the total for the year to 837.

● October was the busiest month for flying in the history of the F-35 flight test program, with F-35 aircraft executing 122 flights. The F-35B aircraft known as BF-2 accomplished 22 flights, the most ever for an F-35 in one month.

● F-35Bs completed their 500th flight on Sept. 30. In October, F-35Bs executed the most vertical landings (73) for a single month in the history of the flight test program, including the 200th vertical landing for the program Oct. 4.

● AF-12 and AF-13 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) aircraft were delivered to the 33d Fighter Wing at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., on Oct. 19 and 26, respectively. This marked the fifth and sixth delivery of CTOL jets to Eglin and the 12th overall delivery of an F-35 to the Department of Defense in 2011.

● As of Nov. 3, F-35C carrier variant (CV) jets had executed 59 successful catapult launches and three arrestments.

● F-35C aircraft achieved 200 flight hours on Sept. 22.

Cumulative flight test activity for 2011:

● F-35A CTOL jets have flown 407 times.
● F-35B STOVL aircraft have completed 296 flights.
● F-35C CV jets have flown 134 times.

In all the F-35 has completed 1432 sorties since it's first flight on November the 3rd 2006.

Bjornar gives us a flight test update along with the news that the F-35 has hit the top design speed.  I'm certain that it'll fly faster.

 

F-35B Ship Suitability Testing

F-35B Ship Trials

F-35B ship suitability testing aboard the USS WASP (LHD-1) in October 2011.

Raytheon Hydra. What happened to it?

Remember the Raytheon Hydra?

It was suppose to be a tech demonstrator which would eventually lead to an entry into the SOCOM light strike, internally carried vehicle competition.

I haven't seen a thing on it since.  Anyone know what happened?

Who's desperate?

My bud ELP has an article out on the possibility of F-35 sales to India.  Read it here but the juicy bits are below...

Looking at the news and there is all the sudden there is a lot out there about India and the F-35.

One word: desperation. As in desperation of the U.S. government and lockmart (one in the same) to keep the F-35 program alive by any means necessary.

ELP!

There is desperation. 

But it doesn't reside with anyone associated with the F-35 program.

It definitely must live in the hearts of the executives running the Typhoon and Rafale programs!

It must definitely reside in the hearts of the critics of the program.  If suddenly the Indians decide on the F-35 then that will be another loss for the Typhoon ... first rejected by the Japanese and then decided against by India would be a couple of body blows that would effectively knock the Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen and lets be honest --- F-16 and F-18 out of any further competitions.

U.S. Marines and French Soldiers Train Together in Hawaii

Question for Marine Planners.

Hey all.  Quick question and I hope you have the answer.

How do we expand Marine Special Ops while shrinking the size of our Corps?  If we say screw it and expand MSO, then do we still need to have MEU Special Ops capable or do we revert to pre-1990's setup and shrink our mission set?

If our Corps does shrink to below 180,000 then what does that do to our force structure?  Do we go to 2 full strength reinforced Divisions and place the third in cadre status?  What about the air wing?  Does our requirement for fighters, helos and such go down?  What about lift for a MEF?  Do we need fewer Marine Personnel Carriers, Marine Amphibious Combat Vehicles and JLTV/Humvee Upgrades?

Long story short, we can't plan jack until we get the personnel question answered.  And from what I can see, we won't know that until next year.

Marathons in a war zone?

Capt. Frazer Alexander, a vehicle maintenance officer with 1st The Queen’s Dragoon Guards, and a native of Luxembourg, slowly hobbles away from the finish line of the Marine Corps Marathon Forward aboard Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan, Oct. 30. Alexander was the overall winner of the marathon and finished in 2 hours and 49 minutes. More than 300 coalition service members participated in the 26.2-mile marathon, which has been held annually aboard Leatherneck since 2009. The race is a satellite edition of the Marine Corps Marathon in Washington, D.C., one of the most popular marathons in the U.S.

Say it out loud and see if it makes sense to you.

They're running marathons in a war zone.

Say it again and see if this crap makes sense.

They're running marathons in a war zone.

Are we operating at max effort to accomplish the mission or is the mission now the mission.  One thing is certain.  Its a counter insurgency for some of our forces.  Anti-terrorist for others and it would appear to be pure dee nation building for the majority.  And with that being the case, its time to leave.

The 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit and Amphibious Squadron 8 (PHIBRON 8) conducted their first at-sea training evolution

House Armed Services Subcommittee Chairmen wants the USMC spared from budget cuts!

Thanks Jonathan for the article.  The Marines do indeed have friends in high places.

Decimating the 9-1-1 Force
Budget Cutters Must Spare U.S. Marines

By Rep. J. Randy Forbes , chairman of the U.S. House Armed Services readi­ness subcommittee; and Rep. W. Todd Akin , chairman of the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee.

From the birth of the U.S.Marine Corps in November 1775 to the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima in March 1945 to the current pursuit of terror­ists and efforts to ensure stabili­ty in the Western Pacific, U.S.

Marines have always been rec­ognized as Americans willing to go in harm’s way at a moment’s notice and stay as long as we ask them to. But that vision is at risk.

At a time when the Marines have been in combat for 10 years, Congress and the adminis­tration have taken to hacking away at the defense budget. For the Marines, even the reductions already enacted threaten to cut to the bone. Americans must rec­ognize that the future may be one without the Marine Corps as we know it.

Today, the Marines are 202,000 strong. The commandant says he needs at least 186,800 to carry out the missions asked of him. But the roughly $465 billion in defense cuts enacted under the Budget Control Act will slash the ranks to 173,000, nearly 14,000 short of the minimum requirement.As it stands, 29,000 Marines are on track to be separated from ser­vice. However, if automatic de­fense cuts under sequestration are triggered, the Marines will be slashed to 145,000 — the smallest Corps in more than five decades.

Our commanders will be short a staggering 41,600 Marines needed to meet requirements and 57,000  – or more than one in four — will be pink-slipped.

But that’s just the numbers. The impact on the Corps in terms of its capability will be devastating.

Noncombat evacuation opera­tions would likely only be possi­ble in a peaceful environment; rarely do we ask the Marines to go into an embassy to rescue Americans under peaceful cir­cumstances. It would mean the end of some Marine Expedi­tionary Units — the same Marines deployed aboard Navy ships that serve to deter potential aggres­sion and stand ready to respond as America’s 9-1-1 force to unfore­seen crises.

It would also mean longer de­ployments and less time at home for those Marines fortunate enough to keep the job they love.

It doesn’t end there. In addition to decimating the Marines in service, these cuts would force the smaller Corps to operate in an austere training environment.

After a decade spent wearing down their equipment in Iraq, the Corps won’t even be able to re­pair or replace the equipment they’ve been using.

At the same time, the Navy will likely be forced to cut two carrier strike groups and shrink its fleet of amphibious ships to less than half the current Marine Corps require­ment. This type of radical change to our ability to project power from the seas hardly seems wise when the U.S. has been increasing­ly challenged with the diplomatic hurdles necessary to secure over­seas bases and airfields.

The United States is a mar­itime nation and always will be.

As the commandant observed, the Marines provide an ideal “middleweight force” that is “most ready when the nation is least ready.” Before leaving office, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it best: “Our record of pre­dicting where we will use military force since Vietnam is perfect. We have never once gotten it right.” In an increasingly dangerous and unpredictable world, we will continue to need the versatility the Marines can provide, whether we like it or not.

- from the electronic version of DefenseNews.com