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

Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Jeff Head said:
No problem with any of that my friend.

My comment was simply that STOVL aircraft are worthwhile. 2nd, that single engine aircraft can and have performed very well.

Clearly, forcing the JSF to have the Bravo while trying to maintain Alpha and Charlie commonality has forced compromises into the design...and I take no issue with that.

In the end, I believe it will work out fine...but it is clear that a separate design for each would have produced better aircraft in each individual role.
Click to expand...


The F-35 will have a bag of "tricks" that no one has seen before, and the only aircraft that will likely defeat it BVR would be the F-22, will it all work and integrate as planned, probably, but it will take a great deal of engineering and technical prowess that is beyond my own comprehension. My big concern is will all these operational considerations be resolved in the final product, we have yet to see any videos of even playfull "rolling" much less any serious maneuvering, if someone has those I would "love" to see them. In contrast PAK-FA has flown at MAKs and the J-20 has done several rolls and max rate turns in videos's, the US is conservative, but it is unusual to say the least, it almost harkens back to the "wobbling goblin" the unofficial pilot designation for the F-117, that nick-name had the K-Bosch put on it by the powers that be, for the Knight Hawk designation, myself I prefer to call the F-35 the ThunderHogge II, which is probably more accurate than Lightning???? by the way, the F-117 is the ONLY airshow aircraft I have seen lose a complete outer wing section during an air-show with just a light pull???? boom!
 
F

Franklin

Captain
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Air Force Brat said:
The F-35 will have a bag of "tricks" that no one has seen before, and the only aircraft that will likely defeat it BVR would be the F-22, will it all work and integrate as planned, probably, but it will take a great deal of engineering and technical prowess that is beyond my own comprehension. My big concern is will all these operational considerations be resolved in the final product, we have yet to see any videos of even playfull "rolling" much less any serious maneuvering, if someone has those I would "love" to see them. In contrast PAK-FA has flown at MAKs and the J-20 has done several rolls and max rate turns in videos's, the US is conservative, but it is unusual to say the least, it almost harkens back to the "wobbling goblin" the unofficial pilot designation for the F-117, that nick-name had the K-Bosch put on it by the powers that be, for the Knight Hawk designation, myself I prefer to call the F-35 the ThunderHogge II, which is probably more accurate than Lightning???? by the way, the F-117 is the ONLY airshow aircraft I have seen lose a complete outer wing section during an air-show with just a light pull???? boom!
Click to expand...

The F-35 seems to be doing a roll at 1:14 and and a few times more in this video.

[video=youtube;XpV0kmO4aps]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpV0kmO4aps[/video]
 
Last edited:
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Franklin said:
The F-35 seems to be doing a roll at 1:14 and and a few times more in this video.
]
Click to expand...


Thank you so much Franklin, that is just what the Dr. ordered, I hope we get some airshow footage from somewhere this summer, but it looks to do a very nice aileron roll, and seems to overshoot the wings level on each one, so it must have a fairly high rate of roll. Neat, very neat, thanks bud....
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Here are a couple of really good videos of the testing in terms of control, maneuverability, etc.

Intentional Control Departure:


[video=youtube;aWji8AcOYGA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWji8AcOYGA[/video]
​

High Angle of attack Testing


[video=youtube;mfWHHuLILs0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfWHHuLILs0[/video]
​
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Good review of F-35B and F-35C testing in 2013. Watch some of the significant off angle video footage at about 5:00 and later. Great stuff:


[video=youtube;voUNeb_JzLY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voUNeb_JzLY[/video]
​
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

cyan1320 said:
Saw this in the news yesterday
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


anyone got any thought to this?
Click to expand...
Yes...two:

First, let's speak to the article title stating that the F-35B "can't land". They are talking about a vertical landing Here's my comment and answer to that


[video=youtube;8gMXpCWRZac]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gMXpCWRZac[/video]
​

Such a contention is hogwash and thisauthor knows it. The video above was the UK's first Vertical landing with a UK F-35B in March of this year. The US has been performing hundreds of such landings over the last four years.

2nd, regarding the real issue of the artricle and the heat treting necessary for the F-35B to land. What is simply happening is the military personnel making sure that the jet exhaust does not harm the landing surface. Even with Harriers, the landing surface had to be able to withstand their heat. The F-35B produces more heat. But once treated, as the above video proves, they can and do land quite nicely.

The QE carriers will have their decks heat treated to handle such landings, as do the US vessels, and others that will carry the aircraft.

The US has been performing these operations at sea since 2011.


[video=youtube;ZxNJmLWQ56I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxNJmLWQ56I[/video]
​
 
Last edited:
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Jura said:
Even I know that F-35B can land LOL

Jeff, you know I ask dumb questions :)
Click to expand...
Jura, any sincere question is good question, and not dumb at all. In the end, each and every one of us have many things to learn.

My point above was not with the question regading the article, but with the article itself. A journalist should know better. It is their job to investigate.

Jura said:
How bad the field can be for a save F-35B landing? I mean could it be a dirt road, a meadow maybe??
Click to expand...
Well, the F-35B, like the harrier, is going to be able to land on any flat surface that can support its weight, and that is not likely to be significantly structurally impacted by the jet blast...or catch fire.

So, it could land on a road, a flat deck, an airfield, a field, etc. as long as those criteria I mentioned above are met.

Now, for vessels, airfields, decks, etc. the fact that the structure can suppport the wieght and not fail, does not mean that it will not be damaged. That is why ships, and even airfields are being heat treated for regular use of the F-35B.

A flat place on the ground for forward staging will work...but you also want to make sure you do not start a forest fire or something, and you also want to make sure that no significant FOD would potentially damage the aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top