Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I like the Temptations (Motown in general.) one of their hits was a song titled "Ball of Confusion" though the title fits the next, a line from that song "And the band played on... seems to fit the story below better.
http://www.janes.com/article/63907/u...ing-line-issue

It won't be too long depending on the severity of this issue (Which is more then a minor one.) before NAVAIR will make it's decision to ground the F-35B/C aircraft to conduct inspections of those lines.

This plane is getting noticed again the AERO L-39NG. The current model is making headway in Africa and parts of Asia in sales and general interest where funding is limited. The plane gives these countries a less expensive option which covers the need for a Trainer/Interceptor/Ground Attack aircraft.

Keeping my eye on this one.
http://www.janes.com/article/63912/a...of-development

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

This would be comical if the bloody thing was not so expensive, etc...

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Excellent choice of oldies capt.

I was not able to discern from the reading if the issue is design or maintenance, where the maintenance contractor did not use parts to specification.

=====

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Apparently some wiring from has an issue. It seems not all f-35's are affected, just the ones that used a particular batch faulty of wiring. Probably a manufacturing fault rather then intentional sub-quality parts.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Update on the F-35 ejection seat issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s7-3EUXC_w

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Interesting but perhaps, like all that series of videos, a bit propagandaish...

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I'm inclined to agree with IronDuke99, "...a bit propagandaish."

I would prefer to know who published the video, although Martin Baker the mfgr of the ejection seat is listed as a source.

I don't know of any 135 pound pilots. Anyone know the Air Force or Navy physical requirements?

As for missile kills in SE Asia, the document sources describes missile kills while not addressing gun kills or the low ratio of 2:1 US vs Vietnamese engagements that inarguably was attributed to lack of dog fighting training.

Two quotes:

The F-4 was brought into the Air Force inventory for the air superiority role without a gun, but by the onset of the Vietnam War the fighter employed the M-61 Gatling gun carried externally in the SUU-16 pod.

And:

During the 1972 campaign, fifty-percent of the kills were made with guns. However, it was standard procedure to fire missiles as a deterrent, this tended to bias the statistical base on the relative effectiveness of missiles for this time period.Sparrow (AIM-7) long-range air-to-air missile


Source:
http://www.afarmamentmuseum.com/vietnamwar.html

I'd venture to say Lockheed Martin public relations contracted this Dragon029 to produce these so-called myth busters.

=====

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

The only real difference would be USN pilots will of course have to meet carrier deck quals, it's not enough to just land on an airfield (Naval Air Station)which they will do of course when the squadron isn't deployed. Physical standards should be about the same, below are the current USAF one's...

1. What are the vision requirements if I hope to be an Air Force Pilot?

Pilots must have normal color vision, near visual acuity of 20/30 without correction, distance visual acuity of no worse than 20/70 in each eye correctable to 20/20 and meet other refraction, accommodation and astigmatism requirements. Corrective eye surgery may also disqualify applicants for pilot or other specific roles.

In addition to vision requirements, becoming an Air Force Pilot requires you to meet strict physical, medical and academic requirements. A final determination on your eligibility will be determined by working with a recruiter through the full application process.

2. What are the general qualifications to fly?

Becoming an Air Force Pilot requires you to meet strict physical, medical, vision and academic requirements. Applicants must achieve qualifying scores on the AFOQT exam, meet all requirements and pass a selection board prior to age 28. A final determination on your eligibility will be reached by working with a recruiter through the full application process.

Generally speaking, pilot candidates must:

Have a standing height of 64–77 inches and sitting height of 34–40 inches.
Meet Air Force weight and physical conditioning requirements. Have no history of hay fever, asthma or allergies after age 12.
Have normal color vision with near visual acuity of 20/30 without correction and distance visual acuity of no worse than 20/70 in each eye, correctable to 20/20.
Meet refraction, accommodation and astigmatism requirements—corrective eye surgery could be a disqualifier
Have or be within 365 days of receiving a baccalaureate degree (BA or BS) in any major with a GPA of at least 2.5.

Note that if you have prior flight time, this is a plus in being considered for a Pilot/Combat Systems Officer (CSO) assignment.

3. What are the height and weight requirements to join the Air Force?

Air Force careers are often physically demanding. We maintain strict height and weight requirements throughout your career. If you have attained full-grown height and are too short or too tall to meet our requirements, there is no possible recourse. You can, however, manage your weight to meet our requirements. Learn more about Air Force height and weight requirements. Applicants should check with their local Air Force Recruiter for the requirements and must meet these requirements in order to apply for the Air Force.

Note that applicants must be a minimum of five pounds under their max weight. If the maximum weight for your height is 190 pounds, you must be 185 pounds or less. If an applicant is within five pounds of the maximum weight or over their maximum weight and has a muscular build, they may be authorized to apply. For advice regarding your specific situation, talk to your local recruiter.


Well as recently measured for my body armor, I meet the height and sitting height (Does not include your butt.) standards @ 75" and 36" (I'm torso long)I can qualify. The rest is another story!?! By example I fall between medium to large boned/75"/or 190.5cm/250lbs/or 17.85 stone. By current military standards for my height I should not weigh more than 215lbs/or 15.35 stone.

Though I've lost around 30lbs and am keeping it off over the last 16 months, I'll just say I haven't weighed that much (215) since I played "European" Football in college.

I in my career saw about three different standards while in for Ht./Wt. The above example came about ~3yrs after I retired in 2002. It is still used today with some minor variation. The only exception to all this, is in the USMC (And I've seen this a few times.) where a Marine will fully meet all physical requirements but, due to their uniform appearance fail to meet the standards.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I forgot to add all the information I posted in the last came from FAQ's from this website. Didn't want anyone to think "I pulled it out of the thin air" or for that matter anywhere else, have to get ready for work and "Matthew" and it looks like from the latest models he's going to be a real SOB!!
https://www.airforce.com/careers/det...FcscgQod1vsJuQ

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Oh don't get me wrong I know those vids are paid propaganda, but they still provide useful (if slanted) information.

As to 135# or less pilots, the more females that get into aviation the more this will come up.