backtop


Print 29 comment(s) - last by drewsup.. on Apr 8 at 8:14 AM

Marine and Navy pilots took first night flights in January

An F-35A fighter took off from Eglin Air Force Base on its first nighttime training mission late last month. Prior to this flight, the Air Force version of the advanced fighter was prohibited from operating at night or during adverse weather.
 
One of the issues which prohibited nighttime flights involved symbols displayed to the pilot that traditionally differ between the Air Force and Navy/Marines versions of aircraft. The Air Force has a different airworthiness authority, AFLCMC, than the NAVAIR standards already incorporated into the F-35 night systems.


[Image Source: Lockheed Martin]
 
“Back in [training] the displays the pilots were looking at were confusing to Air Force pilots but not confusing to Navy and Marine Corps pilots because a lot of the symbology was of Navy origin," described Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan.
 
To get around this issue, the Air Force trained 15 pilots on simulators at Elgin and at the plant in Ft. Worth until the Air Force was sure its pilots were ready for night operations.
 
Despite the recent good news that South Korea chose the F-35 as its next generation fighter, there are still lingering fears that software delays could continue to set the program back.

Source: Defense News





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: bleh
By gamerk2 on 4/3/2014 11:25:43 AM , Rating: 3
I for one am not opposed to having a large AF, I'm opposed to the JSF. It does NOTHING better then planes we already have. I'd rather build more F-22's [which are now CHEAPER], and keep the A-10 and F15-E around for the ground attack role. This approach would be a lot cheaper then building 2000 JSF's, and grant more capability.


RE: bleh
By MrBlastman on 4/3/2014 12:47:46 PM , Rating: 2
Those that don't want a JSF fail to understand the importance and usefulness its existing cousins, such as the F-16 and F-18, provide.


RE: bleh
By inperfectdarkness on 4/3/2014 2:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
I would rather have had the F22's as well, but the armchair strategists were out in full force cheering congress on when they decided to axe product before we hit the 200 unit mark.

The A-10 needs to go. It's a great plane, but everything it does would be done better by a drone. Put an MQ9 on steroids and you have a viable alternative to the venerable A10.

We don't have nearly enough F15's for ground attack, and the navy can't use them at all. What the JSF does "better"--at this point--is simply provide lower Mx-per-flight-hour operating costs, and that's fine with me. F16's and 18's are so long in the tooth that they just cannot stick around much longer. The F18E/F did nothing to substantially improve upon the F14 (in fact, it's worse in many areas), but the Mx involved in keeping it airworthy is night and day. That's the same thing that we see now with the F16/18's. Sucks, yes, but flying a plane will make it wear out. You simply cannot design a plane to fly forever. Every DC3 in existence has pretty much had every rivet, every rib, every inch of skin replaced.


RE: bleh
By corduroygt on 4/4/2014 12:04:05 AM , Rating: 2
A-10 is great but not needed. Drones + AC-130 can do everything it can


"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki