F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

[Air Force Brat]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

At first I didn't like the artists' drawing of the F-35c layout, somehow I felt the wings were too large. However, this picture made me feel otherwise, the A and B models have wings that are too small .

Right Scyth, but the A and B and C, have a "lifting body" formed fuselage, as well as a very efficient wing with high lift devices, they are very close to the F-16 proportionally, the C on the other hand is closer to the F-15 in wing area, but is overbuilt for carrier ops, so rather heavy, they had a devil of a time getting her short final speed under 145KTS, and that is smoking to roll into the traps. The C is very pretty with those large wings and stabilizers. Now the A has a G limit of 9, the B is has 7, and C will go to 7.5, in the same neighborhood as the F-18s...

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

F35-A grey fueling port in the back looks kinda like a Blackwidow's mark in grey. gun bulge above left intake.
F35-B no Gun bulge, May have gun pod mounted under hull Will have seems for lift fan on back.
F35-C bigger wings.

 

[Jura The idiot]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

...

Hope that helps.

It sure does. Thank you, and also TE, for the reference to "black widow markings", it was important to me, an amateur Knowing what to look for, I used google again ("f-35a+refueling"), look:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[delft]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

From Marine Forum Daily News ( which came back after three weeks holiday ):

17 May

AUSTRALIA
The government is considering acquisition of F-35B fighters … to operate from CANBERRA class helicopter carriers
(rmks: should require – expensive – modification/strengthening of flight deck)

Did anyone expect that Canberra was not fit for this purpose?

 

[Jura The idiot]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

...

Did anyone expect that Canberra was not fit for this purpose?

delft I don't know who expected what but I used google, found in a very recent article this, quote

Australia is soon to bring into service two large ships called landing helicopter docks. Though they resemble small aircraft carriers, the Government has maintained until now they would be used only to deploy helicopters and troops.

end of quote from

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

It's logical, The Design they selected is based on the Juan Carlos I Class Multi purpose carrier, Which it's self will carry F35B's and does carry Harriers. given the tensions in thee pacific right now, putting Lightning Bravo's on those decks would be a smart move.

 

[Air Force Brat]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

It's logical, The Design they selected is based on the Juan Carlos I Class Multi purpose carrier, Which it's self will carry F35B's and does carry Harriers. given the tensions in thee pacific right now, putting Lightning Bravo's on those decks would be a smart move.

Amen Brudah! Awesome News and SMART!

 

[Jeff Head]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

It's logical, The Design they selected is based on the Juan Carlos I Class Multi purpose carrier, Which it's self will carry F35B's and does carry Harriers. given the tensions in thee pacific right now, putting Lightning Bravo's on those decks would be a smart move.

I believe the Juan Carlos has already been set up for the JSF...designed to carry them with all the appropriate structural strength and heat treating necessary.

Since the Canberras are built like the Juan Carlos, I expect they too will have that strengthening and heat treatment. The Aussies retained the ski jump when they did not absolutely have to for a pure LHD role, and many of us figured at the time that this was indication that they would reserve the ability to go to the Bravo JSF if they thought it necessary.

I still believe that ultimately they will.

 

[Jura The idiot]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

F-35 & Italy:

Posted on InsideDefense.com: May 20, 2014

EAST HARTFORD, CT. -- Lockheed Martin's new F-35 Final Assembly Check Out facility in Italy has taken delivery of its first F135 engine as international participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program ramps up, according to engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney.

In a May 20 press release, the company said the engine is the 137th delivered to date, and the first to be built at its newly-established F135 production facility at West Palm Beach, FL.

The bulk of F135 engine production takes place at Pratt's engine facilities here, which includes the short-takeoff and vertical-landing (STOVL) variant for the Marine Corps and the conventional and carrier variants for the Air Force and Navy.

"This is the beginning of a new chapter in the F-35 program as we begin to deliver engines outside of the U.S.," Pratt's Director of F135 Programs Cheryl Lobo said in the press release. "The Italian industrial base is ramping up their production and will continue to support production and sustainment for decades to come."

In another press release, given to reporters at a media even in Connecticut, Pratt said the results of a series of live fire tests, including ballistics damage tests, have been favorable.

The tests were performed by the Naval Air System Command's weapons survivability laboratory at China Lake, CA, to demonstrate the capabilities and vulnerabilities of the three F135 engine variants, the press release said. Testing included propulsion system tests, dynamic and static engine ballistic tests and total fuel ingestion tests. According to the Navy's joint aircraft survivability program office (JASPO), which was quoted in the press release, the test results were favorable.

"[The] STOVL propulsion system was very tolerant of the damage with little performance loss over the course of the testing," a JASPO report said. "[The] propulsion control system is very capable in its ability to withstand and accommodate damage via built in redundancies . . . [and] the engine showed a high tolerance of ingested fuel."

Comment on the test results of the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) and carrier engines was not provided in the press release.

The Defense Department is buying 29 F-35s in fiscal year 2014 including 19 for the Air Force, six for the Marine Corps and the Navy is buying four, according to budget documents. The Marine Corps is working to achieve initial operational capability on its variant, the F-35B, in FY-15. The Pentagon wants to buy 34 aircraft in FY-15.

The Navy's contracting office is due to award the next contract for CTOL, CV and STOVL engines in May 2015.

The JSF program includes nine international partner countries, including the U.K., Italy and Australia and foreign military sales customers -- most recently South Korea.

Pratt and Whitney paid travel costs for reporters to the media event.

EDIT
This last sentence inspired me to use google and I found this press release

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Inst]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Right Scyth, but the A and B and C, have a "lifting body" formed fuselage, as well as a very efficient wing with high lift devices, they are very close to the F-16 proportionally, the C on the other hand is closer to the F-15 in wing area, but is overbuilt for carrier ops, so rather heavy, they had a devil of a time getting her short final speed under 145KTS, and that is smoking to roll into the traps. The C is very pretty with those large wings and stabilizers. Now the A has a G limit of 9, the B is has 7, and C will go to 7.5, in the same neighborhood as the F-18s...

Problem is that the F-35s have increased weight compared to the teen series fighters due to internal weapons bays, so amount of wing area / lift needs to increase proportionally to compensate. In the F-35C's case, while, it has a decent wing area and thus a reasonable wing loading, the additional weight of the F-35C limits its TWR and limits its acceleration.

The good news is that if the F-35's EODAS / LOAL / anti-missile dazzler systems work as intended, maneuverability, as Lockmart insists, is obsolete and the F-35's poor WVR kinematics are irrelevant.

As far as claiming that you can just eyeball performance, remember the MiG-25 debacle where American satellite imaging convinced Congress that the Soviets were preparing a super-fighter capable of outperforming all existing American fighters. It turned out that the MiG-25 was actually designed as an interceptor, and that the MiG-25's high weight (something invisible to eye-ballers) prevented it from having good flight characteristics.