banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 08:25 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2023, 09:35 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 11/04/17
Posts: 853
Post Likes: +438
Aircraft: G36 TN
Precision is Riveting
[youtube]https://youtu.be/u51C84-We4E[/youtube]

_________________
King of Infinite Space...
ATP, Master CFII, AGI, Gold Seal
BPPP Accredited Instructor


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2023, 12:10 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/30/22
Posts: 1357
Post Likes: +716
Location: 0W3
Aircraft: Mooney 252/Encore
I got to tour the factory as part of a professional conference a number of years ago.

To build an F-16 wing, they put a huge piece of aluminum into a big CNC router/mill, pushed the button and it removed a HUGE amount of chips, and out came the basic wing structure.


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2023, 13:17 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/08/12
Posts: 812
Post Likes: +953
Location: Ukiah, California
Cool! I didn't realize the F-16 was still in production.

Dan


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2023, 13:40 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/23/13
Posts: 8012
Post Likes: +5717
Company: Kokotele Guitar Works
Location: Albany, NY
Aircraft: C-182RG, C-172, PA28
Username Protected wrote:
Cool! I didn't realize the F-16 was still in production.


I think it's mostly to support foreign sales. USAF is upgrading radars on existing planes, but I don't think they're buying new ones. The strategic plan (according to an analyst a couple of weeks ago) is to replace all F-16s and A-10s with F-35s, so I don't expect that they'll buy any new ones.


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2023, 16:01 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 07/02/14
Posts: 1978
Post Likes: +1993
Location: Lakeville, Minnesota (KLVN)
Aircraft: J35
Had a tour years ago during a work visit. The CNC machines at the beginning of the line were amazing.

As we got to the end of the line I got to sit in one that was almost finished. It was an amazing and overwhelming experience!



Username Protected wrote:
I got to tour the factory as part of a professional conference a number of years ago.

To build an F-16 wing, they put a huge piece of aluminum into a big CNC router/mill, pushed the button and it removed a HUGE amount of chips, and out came the basic wing structure.

_________________
N340Q
J35

ASEL&MEL ASES CFII MEI BPPP Instructor


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2023, 17:49 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 08/02/09
Posts: 1330
Post Likes: +403
Company: Nantucket Rover Repair
Location: Manchester, NH (MHT)
Aircraft: Cessna N337JJ
Username Protected wrote:
Cool! I didn't realize the F-16 was still in production.


I think it's mostly to support foreign sales. USAF is upgrading radars on existing planes, but I don't think they're buying new ones. The strategic plan (according to an analyst a couple of weeks ago) is to replace all F-16s and A-10s with F-35s, so I don't expect that they'll buy any new ones.


How does a F-35 replace an A-10? I know an A-10 is good at only a few types of missions but it does them well and being a low tech airplane I would think it costs less to operate. Lastly they have already been paid for.

If an F-35 was to do a mission currently being done by an A-10 how would it do taking hits from small guns?

Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2023, 17:58 
Online


 Profile




Joined: 11/20/16
Posts: 6409
Post Likes: +7875
Location: Austin, TX area
Aircraft: OPA
I don't think anything replaces an A-10 except, perhaps, an AC-130.

But the war in Ukraine is showing that CAS is pretty dangerous business in any conflict with semi modern surface to air defenses.


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2023, 19:07 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/23/13
Posts: 8012
Post Likes: +5717
Company: Kokotele Guitar Works
Location: Albany, NY
Aircraft: C-182RG, C-172, PA28
Username Protected wrote:
How does a F-35 replace an A-10? I know an A-10 is good at only a few types of missions but it does them well and being a low tech airplane I would think it costs less to operate. Lastly they have already been paid for.

If an F-35 was to do a mission currently being done by an A-10 how would it do taking hits from small guns?


Keep in mind that this is not my argument… the A-10 no longer does the missions it was intended to do, and bombs are smart and accurate enough that they can do the CAS role with just about anything that can drop them. You can’t use the A-10’s gun without being in range of the enemy’s gun, making it a far less effective weapon to employ. The A-10 is not part of USAF’s long term plan.


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2023, 19:34 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/21/14
Posts: 5098
Post Likes: +3642
Company: FAA Flight Check
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KOKC)
Aircraft: King Air 300F/C90GTx
Username Protected wrote:
I don't think anything replaces an A-10 except, perhaps, an AC-130.

But the war in Ukraine is showing that CAS is pretty dangerous business in any conflict with semi modern surface to air defenses.

One of the basic tenets of successful/effective CAS is Air Superiority.
That hasn't happened in the Ukrainian theater.


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2023, 20:44 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/24/18
Posts: 477
Post Likes: +476
Location: KHFD
Aircraft: F33A
I used to travel to the LM plant often when I worked on the JSF program. The factory is incredible. When it was strictly F-16 production, raw material would go in the front door and a mile later out would pop a F-16.

There's a great video where they moved the build stations for the F-16 to make way for the F-35. They had all the main lifting gantries, plus multiple forklifts set to pickup a huge platform (probably 100 feet wide by 150 feet wide or larger). Many hundreds of tons. The video starts out with everyone in position, and you get the sense they will slowly lift everything and move it down the line at a measured, slow pace. Instead, they bells go off and everything is moving at a very high speed. There are safety guys besides the forklifts and they are running at full speed trying to keep up.

Sadly, I can't find the video on youtube

Art


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 24 Feb 2023, 10:48 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/30/22
Posts: 1357
Post Likes: +716
Location: 0W3
Aircraft: Mooney 252/Encore
Username Protected wrote:
How does a F-35 replace an A-10? I know an A-10 is good at only a few types of missions but it does them well and being a low tech airplane I would think it costs less to operate. Lastly they have already been paid for.

If an F-35 was to do a mission currently being done by an A-10 how would it do taking hits from small guns?


It can't, but the USAF keeps insisting it can.

One interesting thing is, a friend of mine (who is here on BT) managed, a few years ago, to get a copy of the USAF doctrine. It turns out, the way the USAF keeps insisting that the F-35 can do Close Air Support is.......

They redefined CAS. To the USAF, officially now, CAS is preventing personnel and materiel from getting to the battle area.

To the rest of the world, CAS is support of troops in contact, ie, the battle field.

All the ground guys I have met want an A-10 to respond to their request for support.

Also, the A-10C has a lot of the same capabilities with digital messaging, handling off of targets, helmet mounted sight/designator, etc, that the F-35 has.


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 24 Feb 2023, 11:24 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 02/21/11
Posts: 511
Post Likes: +591
Location: Northside of Atlanta
Aircraft: RV-6 & RV-10
The problem with the A-10 is it wouldn’t be survivable near a modern battlefield. Hopefully, F-35’s will be. Now, if the mission is to hold down an insurgency, the A-10 or AC-130 is big medicine.

The question is what is the appropriate balance between these and other platforms to handle contingencies? You probably want to have all of ‘em, but ultimately the budget drives what you can afford. The USAF has been smart in “defunding A-10’s” because the blowback always results in more money and they get to keep the A-10’s anyway.


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 24 Feb 2023, 12:02 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/21/14
Posts: 5098
Post Likes: +3642
Company: FAA Flight Check
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KOKC)
Aircraft: King Air 300F/C90GTx
Username Protected wrote:

One interesting thing is, a friend of mine (who is here on BT) managed, a few years ago, to get a copy of the USAF doctrine. It turns out, the way the USAF keeps insisting that the F-35 can do Close Air Support is.......

They redefined CAS. To the USAF, officially now, CAS is preventing personnel and materiel from getting to the battle area.

To the rest of the world, CAS is support of troops in contact, ie, the battle field.

Terry - I know your background and am thankful for such service, so take this post in more of an ASKING tone than a challenge.

Having an ingrained love for the CAS mission myself, I am interested in the above part of your post where your BT friend says that the USAF has redefined CAS.
The following link is from a source stating that this is from AFDP 3-03 (Air Force Doctrine Publication 3-03 - Counterland Operations).
In it it clearly states the differencee between what you say the USAF has redefined CAS as - Air Interdiction - and what you state is the true definition of CAS.

AI:
Quote:
In the definitions of air interdiction (AI) and CAS, the requirement for detailed integration is a key difference between the two missions. When targets are not in close proximity to friendly forces, detailed integration may not be required because the possibility of friendly fire is lower. Since AI should not require detailed integration, aircrew employ munitions according to the ROE and target identification standards set forth in theater guidance, without the need for additional clearance.


CAS:
Quote:
Close air support (CAS) is defined as air action by aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and that require detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces (Joint Publication 3- 09.3, Close Air Support).


My own service defines CAS in USMC publications as (ref MCWP 3-23.1:
Quote:
CAS is an “air action by fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft against
hostile targets which are in close proximity to friendly forces and
which require detailed integration of each air mission with the fire
and movement of those forces.” (Joint Publication (Joint Pub) 1-02,
DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms)


Distance is not set but the detailed coordination required is still a deciding factor:
Quote:
The word “close” does not imply a specific distance; rather, it is situational. The requirement for detailed integration based on proximity, fires, or movement is the determining factor


I have mentioned the tenets required for effective use of CAS, to include:
1. Air Superiority
2. SEAD
3. Target MArking
4. Favorable weather
5. Prompt response
6. Aircrew and Terminal Controller Skill
7. Weaponeering
8. Communications and Information Systems
9. Comand and Control (C2)

And to help make #1 more clear - a definition of Air Superiority:
Quote:
air superiority - That degree of dominance in the air battle of one
force over another which permits the conduct of operations by the
former and its related land, sea and air forces at a given time and
place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force. (Joint
Pub 1-02)


Of course all of these take from the JP 3-09.3, Close Air Support -2019.

Note: Sorry for the huge thread drift.
For an attempt to try and bring it back on track -
I never got to tour the FTW F-16 production plant but did have lots of engineer type friends from the early 90s who worked on the F-16s and the eventually cancelled USN's A-12 Avenger strategic stealth bomber. I'm sure it was much like the McD production plant at KSTL that I did have the opportunity to visit in 1993. Quite impressive the coordination of such a massive undertaking.


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 24 Feb 2023, 20:57 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/30/22
Posts: 1357
Post Likes: +716
Location: 0W3
Aircraft: Mooney 252/Encore
Username Protected wrote:
The problem with the A-10 is it wouldn’t be survivable near a modern battlefield. Hopefully, F-35’s will be.


So how will the F-35 survive? If you put more than 2 bombs on it, it is not longer stealth.

And the B and C models don't have guns, so need to carry a gun pod, again, kills the stealth.

And finally, when was the last "modern" air battlefield?


Top

 Post subject: Re: F16 & F35 Production Facilities
PostPosted: 24 Feb 2023, 21:00 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/30/22
Posts: 1357
Post Likes: +716
Location: 0W3
Aircraft: Mooney 252/Encore
Username Protected wrote:

One interesting thing is, a friend of mine (who is here on BT) managed, a few years ago, to get a copy of the USAF doctrine. It turns out, the way the USAF keeps insisting that the F-35 can do Close Air Support is.......

They redefined CAS. To the USAF, officially now, CAS is preventing personnel and materiel from getting to the battle area.

To the rest of the world, CAS is support of troops in contact, ie, the battle field.

Terry - I know your background and am thankful for such service, so take this post in more of an ASKING tone than a challenge.

Having an ingrained love for the CAS mission myself, I am interested in the above part of your post where your BT friend says that the USAF has redefined CAS.
The following link is from a source stating that this is from AFDP 3-03 (Air Force Doctrine Publication 3-03 - Counterland Operations).
In it it clearly states the differencee between what you say the USAF has redefined CAS as - Air Interdiction - and what you state is the true definition of CAS.

AI:
Quote:
In the definitions of air interdiction (AI) and CAS, the requirement for detailed integration is a key difference between the two missions. When targets are not in close proximity to friendly forces, detailed integration may not be required because the possibility of friendly fire is lower. Since AI should not require detailed integration, aircrew employ munitions according to the ROE and target identification standards set forth in theater guidance, without the need for additional clearance.


CAS:
Quote:
Close air support (CAS) is defined as air action by aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and that require detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces (Joint Publication 3- 09.3, Close Air Support).


My own service defines CAS in USMC publications as (ref MCWP 3-23.1:
Quote:
CAS is an “air action by fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft against
hostile targets which are in close proximity to friendly forces and
which require detailed integration of each air mission with the fire
and movement of those forces.” (Joint Publication (Joint Pub) 1-02,
DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms)


Distance is not set but the detailed coordination required is still a deciding factor:
Quote:
The word “close” does not imply a specific distance; rather, it is situational. The requirement for detailed integration based on proximity, fires, or movement is the determining factor


I have mentioned the tenets required for effective use of CAS, to include:
1. Air Superiority
2. SEAD
3. Target MArking
4. Favorable weather
5. Prompt response
6. Aircrew and Terminal Controller Skill
7. Weaponeering
8. Communications and Information Systems
9. Comand and Control (C2)

And to help make #1 more clear - a definition of Air Superiority:
Quote:
air superiority - That degree of dominance in the air battle of one
force over another which permits the conduct of operations by the
former and its related land, sea and air forces at a given time and
place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force. (Joint
Pub 1-02)


Of course all of these take from the JP 3-09.3, Close Air Support -2019.

Note: Sorry for the huge thread drift.
For an attempt to try and bring it back on track -
I never got to tour the FTW F-16 production plant but did have lots of engineer type friends from the early 90s who worked on the F-16s and the eventually cancelled USN's A-12 Avenger strategic stealth bomber. I'm sure it was much like the McD production plant at KSTL that I did have the opportunity to visit in 1993. Quite impressive the coordination of such a massive undertaking.


I did not read the document, I only know of what I was told. And the person who did read it, is like you, a HUGE fan of effective CAS.

As it was stated at the time, CAS was not supporting troops in contact.

If I get a chance to talk to the person, I will find out what document.

But CAS, as you and I define it, is NOT a mission that the F-35 will be effective at doing.

Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.SCA.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.concorde.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.