F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
thunderchief
Senior Member
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
On all versions but it is rectified by now .
On all versions but it is rectified by now .
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
Actually, Col Kloos states that in any combat configuration he has seen in 2000 hrs in the F-16, the F-35 with same as load-out is SUPERIOR, the A model has been to 9.9 Gs in testing at Edwards AFB, the F-35 is not the F-22, it will come in at the same price point, with one less engine, and lots less kinematic performance, BUT, it will be far more capable, (they swear it will be), when it comes to situational awareness, and in particular, its helmet mounted sight will enable off bore sight launches of A2A weapons, that is how the Euro-Fighter "stays with" the F-22 up close and personal...
Obviously the F-35B will achieve IOC before the A or C, which in effect negates anything Pierre Spey would "pontificate" up-on. At one point the "fighter mafia" were a bunch of bright lads, now they are "old gunfighters" living in their past glorys, not nearly as "quick" as they once were, the one thing that does remain relevant in my opinion, is that a fighter aircraft needs a "gun"????? The A model gets it, the B and C will have to "make do", that's just the way the old ball bounces???
Actually, Col Kloos states that in any combat configuration he has seen in 2000 hrs in the F-16, the F-35 with same as load-out is SUPERIOR, the A model has been to 9.9 Gs in testing at Edwards AFB, the F-35 is not the F-22, it will come in at the same price point, with one less engine, and lots less kinematic performance, BUT, it will be far more capable, (they swear it will be), when it comes to situational awareness, and in particular, its helmet mounted sight will enable off bore sight launches of A2A weapons, that is how the Euro-Fighter "stays with" the F-22 up close and personal...
Obviously the F-35B will achieve IOC before the A or C, which in effect negates anything Pierre Spey would "pontificate" up-on. At one point the "fighter mafia" were a bunch of bright lads, now they are "old gunfighters" living in their past glorys, not nearly as "quick" as they once were, the one thing that does remain relevant in my opinion, is that a fighter aircraft needs a "gun"????? The A model gets it, the B and C will have to "make do", that's just the way the old ball bounces???
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
Actually this relates to the fuel-draulics system shut off valve, and the inerting system for venting the tanks that are close to empty or nearly so. In observing the F-18 Advance the two external conformal tanks on top of the wings aft of the cockpit is a very bad idea, whether in combat or in the event of a forced landing, that's just a bad place to haul jet-A, but that is just my concern. Fuel contained with-in the fuselage, or under the fuselage or wings is a much safer configuration, external tanks may be "jettisoned" in an emergency....but stored on top of the wing, well its going to be right there with ya, the whole way........humh???
Actually this relates to the fuel-draulics system shut off valve, and the inerting system for venting the tanks that are close to empty or nearly so. In observing the F-18 Advance the two external conformal tanks on top of the wings aft of the cockpit is a very bad idea, whether in combat or in the event of a forced landing, that's just a bad place to haul jet-A, but that is just my concern. Fuel contained with-in the fuselage, or under the fuselage or wings is a much safer configuration, external tanks may be "jettisoned" in an emergency....but stored on top of the wing, well its going to be right there with ya, the whole way........humh???
kwaigonegin
Colonel
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
True, however if the Raptor had continue on with it's original procurement plan and development path, it's very likely there would've been improved variants by now say a C/D version which will most likely include Off boresight engagement capabilitities and EODAS-like system. Again very short sightedness of our politicians and some of their Pentagon cronies on both sides of the aisle in this one.
As to the same platform argument for all intend and purposes the Bravo might as well be a totally new aircraft alltogether.
Anyway enough beating a dead horse. The F-35 is here to stay and will be the preeminent fighter aircraft of the US and NATO for the next 35 years.
True, however if the Raptor had continue on with it's original procurement plan and development path, it's very likely there would've been improved variants by now say a C/D version which will most likely include Off boresight engagement capabilitities and EODAS-like system. Again very short sightedness of our politicians and some of their Pentagon cronies on both sides of the aisle in this one.
As to the same platform argument for all intend and purposes the Bravo might as well be a totally new aircraft alltogether.
Anyway enough beating a dead horse. The F-35 is here to stay and will be the preeminent fighter aircraft of the US and NATO for the next 35 years.
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
I still maintain, if we get the economy rolling (and with the energy situation being what it is, there is mno reason whatsoever with the right admin in power that we cannot) that we can and should build another 300 Raptors too.
I would also like to see a strike vesion of an advanced F/A-23 Black Wido built. That would be an awesome aircraft too and we have the capability of building a highly stealythy version of that perhaps to fill the LRS requirement.
Anyhow, the F-35, once all is said and done, with it's 5th generation stealth, it's very significant situational awareness, the wepaons systems that will be available to it, and it's AEW&C and cooperative engagement capabilities is going to be a very huge force mulitplier for the US Air Force, the US Marines, and the US Navy in the decades to come...despite, and in spitre of its detractors
This is true, and there will probably be 2700 or more US F-35 aircraft of all varieties.
I still maintain, if we get the economy rolling (and with the energy situation being what it is, there is mno reason whatsoever with the right admin in power that we cannot) that we can and should build another 300 Raptors too.
I would also like to see a strike vesion of an advanced F/A-23 Black Wido built. That would be an awesome aircraft too and we have the capability of building a highly stealythy version of that perhaps to fill the LRS requirement.
Anyhow, the F-35, once all is said and done, with it's 5th generation stealth, it's very significant situational awareness, the wepaons systems that will be available to it, and it's AEW&C and cooperative engagement capabilities is going to be a very huge force mulitplier for the US Air Force, the US Marines, and the US Navy in the decades to come...despite, and in spitre of its detractors
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
Jeff you think is not bored than the F-35, especialy C variant get only one reactor for operations over the sea, less safe maybe all the latest fighter/bomber also AEW, EW, Trp... use by USN get two engines ?
The mainly fault of the F-35 is her maniability only about 5G, several reports and USAF have confirm officially, no doubt for it, all others fighters can evolve up to 9G. This is one clear handicap for two things particularly for evasive maneuvers against missiles and close air to air combat. Fortunately this bad maniability is offset by the AN/AAQ-37 which warns faster the pilot to explain simply.
Jeff you think is not bored than the F-35, especialy C variant get only one reactor for operations over the sea, less safe maybe all the latest fighter/bomber also AEW, EW, Trp... use by USN get two engines ?
The mainly fault of the F-35 is her maniability only about 5G, several reports and USAF have confirm officially, no doubt for it, all others fighters can evolve up to 9G. This is one clear handicap for two things particularly for evasive maneuvers against missiles and close air to air combat. Fortunately this bad maniability is offset by the AN/AAQ-37 which warns faster the pilot to explain simply.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
Forbin your reports are not entirely accurate. The F-35 can certainly pull 9Gs unless she is fully loaded up to the max. Also there is a difference between instantaneous turn rates and sustained turn rates. An F-35 can certainly pull 9G instantenoues and ever more maybe 9.5+ but sustained may be lower. Sustained turn rate is basically maintaining G pull throughout the envelope w/o losing significant speed or altitude. Now an F-35 is probably not going to be as maneuverable as the Raptor, the Typohoon, Rafale not even the good ole Viper however it is by no means sloppy especially with it's impressive suite of avionics to make up for some lacking atributes in the kinematics department.
As to the single engine question, the F-135 was deemed reliable enough that the USN has obviously OK'd it for carrier operations. There have been aircraft of many types that has single engine before like the A4s, A-7s, Goshawks, Super Etandards that operated off carriers so it's definitely not something unique to the F-35.
Forbin your reports are not entirely accurate. The F-35 can certainly pull 9Gs unless she is fully loaded up to the max. Also there is a difference between instantaneous turn rates and sustained turn rates. An F-35 can certainly pull 9G instantenoues and ever more maybe 9.5+ but sustained may be lower. Sustained turn rate is basically maintaining G pull throughout the envelope w/o losing significant speed or altitude. Now an F-35 is probably not going to be as maneuverable as the Raptor, the Typohoon, Rafale not even the good ole Viper however it is by no means sloppy especially with it's impressive suite of avionics to make up for some lacking atributes in the kinematics department.
As to the single engine question, the F-135 was deemed reliable enough that the USN has obviously OK'd it for carrier operations. There have been aircraft of many types that has single engine before like the A4s, A-7s, Goshawks, Super Etandards that operated off carriers so it's definitely not something unique to the F-35.
Last edited:
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
The US for years operated fighters and attack aircraft very reliably that were single engine aircraft. F-8 Crusader, A-4 Skyhawk, A-7 Corsair, etc. Now they will do so again.
Well, kwaig pretty much said it all.
The US for years operated fighters and attack aircraft very reliably that were single engine aircraft. F-8 Crusader, A-4 Skyhawk, A-7 Corsair, etc. Now they will do so again.
thunderchief
Senior Member
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
Read carefully between lines what he said ! In actual war , F-35 won't be bounced by fighters carrying tons of bombs and missiles . For example ,Mig-21s in Vietnam war were often armed just with 2 AAMs , and Mig-17 were guns only . Therefore , it is entirely possible that F-35 encounters Mig-29,Flanker ,J-10 or even F-16 with light air-to-air configuration . And then you have this :
Read carefully between lines what he said ! In actual war , F-35 won't be bounced by fighters carrying tons of bombs and missiles . For example ,Mig-21s in Vietnam war were often armed just with 2 AAMs , and Mig-17 were guns only . Therefore , it is entirely possible that F-35 encounters Mig-29,Flanker ,J-10 or even F-16 with light air-to-air configuration . And then you have this :