F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Equation
Lieutenant General
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
Well I understand your affection for the F-22 (who wouldn't be?), as I stated before the art of making the plane is NOT totally lost. Before Lockheed Martin started to shut down on the project, they filmed and interview the entire process, along with people working at the the assembly line to get a detailed recording of it. When it's done, every data recorded is secretly stashed away. When the time is needed to produce some more for whatever the reason, Lockheed Martin can always look at the recordings to see the details on how it's done in a more quicker pace, than say by just dusting the old blue prints and start from scratch.
Well I understand your affection for the F-22 (who wouldn't be?), as I stated before the art of making the plane is NOT totally lost. Before Lockheed Martin started to shut down on the project, they filmed and interview the entire process, along with people working at the the assembly line to get a detailed recording of it. When it's done, every data recorded is secretly stashed away. When the time is needed to produce some more for whatever the reason, Lockheed Martin can always look at the recordings to see the details on how it's done in a more quicker pace, than say by just dusting the old blue prints and start from scratch.
escobar
Brigadier
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
I am ok with all you have said but
Can you explain with details??
So it is a good project??
NB: I am not saying the F-35 is a bad aiplane.
I am ok with all you have said but
What are you calling Christian nation???
Can you explain with details??
they are asking The F-35 "to do immensely more than it was ever designed to do" and you said it is not a "bad project"??
So it is a good project??
NB: I am not saying the F-35 is a bad aiplane.
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
Well like all airplanes the F-35 has gained weight, as all the interested parties need this, or need that. This severely taxs the F-35 aerodynamically as well as the powerplants ability to provide the desired performance. In order to achieve the economy of scale, the F-35 has been thrust upon all three branches of service that have a need for a fighter bomber, the Navy, Marines, and the Air Force to "save" money. As weight goes up pieces that were likely well designed are machined, acid etched etc, to remove material and "save" weight. As we are finding, the aerodynamic loads are much greater than imagined. For example the A model of the Air Force is stressed to 9gs +, but has been equiped with the heavier landing gear required for carrier operations, as a result of these compromises, the inboard forward wing rib exhibits surprising stress fractures and will have to be redesigned to carry the additional load. The airframe exhibits buffeting in an unexpected area of the flight regime at fairly high mach, .85-.90, and median angle of attack around 20+ degrees, early suspicions are now showing the vertical stabiliser is being subjected to far more stress than expected and "may" need to be built up, although some changes to the flight control system are showing a "lot of improvement" as per the test pilots. So while the initial design is basically very simple and sound, and likely would have resulted in a beautifull little airplane that flew very well, hence my assertion that its not a bad airplane, all these additional expectations have resulted in an airplane with lots of issues, most minor, some probably not. My comments on our system of government are relevant in that lots of people and different nations, even are trying to have their needs for a fighter bomber met by one little airplane that has of necessity become three nice little airplanes that are being asked to do some difficult things. Some of these problems will be resolved, and some of the high expectations will likely have to be revised downward in order to get to full production. The QLR and POGO reports fully detail these concerns, as well as some possible fixes. IMO respectfully
Well like all airplanes the F-35 has gained weight, as all the interested parties need this, or need that. This severely taxs the F-35 aerodynamically as well as the powerplants ability to provide the desired performance. In order to achieve the economy of scale, the F-35 has been thrust upon all three branches of service that have a need for a fighter bomber, the Navy, Marines, and the Air Force to "save" money. As weight goes up pieces that were likely well designed are machined, acid etched etc, to remove material and "save" weight. As we are finding, the aerodynamic loads are much greater than imagined. For example the A model of the Air Force is stressed to 9gs +, but has been equiped with the heavier landing gear required for carrier operations, as a result of these compromises, the inboard forward wing rib exhibits surprising stress fractures and will have to be redesigned to carry the additional load. The airframe exhibits buffeting in an unexpected area of the flight regime at fairly high mach, .85-.90, and median angle of attack around 20+ degrees, early suspicions are now showing the vertical stabiliser is being subjected to far more stress than expected and "may" need to be built up, although some changes to the flight control system are showing a "lot of improvement" as per the test pilots. So while the initial design is basically very simple and sound, and likely would have resulted in a beautifull little airplane that flew very well, hence my assertion that its not a bad airplane, all these additional expectations have resulted in an airplane with lots of issues, most minor, some probably not. My comments on our system of government are relevant in that lots of people and different nations, even are trying to have their needs for a fighter bomber met by one little airplane that has of necessity become three nice little airplanes that are being asked to do some difficult things. Some of these problems will be resolved, and some of the high expectations will likely have to be revised downward in order to get to full production. The QLR and POGO reports fully detail these concerns, as well as some possible fixes. IMO respectfully
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
I agree with Air Force Brat. We are discussing the Strike F-35 and not US foreign policies' past or present. We can agree to disagree on performance & costs of the F-35. Dwelling on historical events is also on dangerous grounds, as a good number of nations have gone thru' periods of "bad history" e.g. The Roman Conquests, or Facist Italy or Nazi Germany during WW II. Are we going to continuously blame the Italian or the German Governments or their people now? We can bring up lot's & lot's of historical "skeletons in selected countries' cupboards", & quite recent ones too. No point to be undiplomatic, frivolous & practice "Upmanship", just to irritate other nationals . Having said a mouthful, I have a different opinion to Air Force Brat's preference to the Raptor. Though a Navy Veteran, I like the F-35.
I agree with Air Force Brat. We are discussing the Strike F-35 and not US foreign policies' past or present. We can agree to disagree on performance & costs of the F-35. Dwelling on historical events is also on dangerous grounds, as a good number of nations have gone thru' periods of "bad history" e.g. The Roman Conquests, or Facist Italy or Nazi Germany during WW II. Are we going to continuously blame the Italian or the German Governments or their people now? We can bring up lot's & lot's of historical "skeletons in selected countries' cupboards", & quite recent ones too. No point to be undiplomatic, frivolous & practice "Upmanship", just to irritate other nationals . Having said a mouthful, I have a different opinion to Air Force Brat's preference to the Raptor. Though a Navy Veteran, I like the F-35.
Equation
Lieutenant General
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
I agreed, but you got to give the F-35 a chance. It it indeed quite an airplane, it does a lot for its size and money. To me its like comparing apples to oranges as these two aircraft's are built totally for different role. The reason the government are heading to the F-35 way is because maybe they felt the North American air space is secure enough with the current inventory of the F-22 and later add on such as the F-35 makes it all the better. I don't know what's the real reason, but that's just my take.
I agreed, but you got to give the F-35 a chance. It it indeed quite an airplane, it does a lot for its size and money. To me its like comparing apples to oranges as these two aircraft's are built totally for different role. The reason the government are heading to the F-35 way is because maybe they felt the North American air space is secure enough with the current inventory of the F-22 and later add on such as the F-35 makes it all the better. I don't know what's the real reason, but that's just my take.
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
When the JSF was being conceived, the USAF was to have several hundred Raptors and legacy Eagles, so the air dominance role was adequatly catered for. The biggest partner, the UK was to have it's Typhoons for that. So they now researched a concept for a fighter bomber that would be "good enough" in areal combat but could focus on it's primary mission and be rather low priced at that.
Then the Raptor # got cut short, so the F-35 will have to take over a somewhat larger part of the areal combat role as well. All the partner nations involved and also needed to keep the cost down want the JSF as a true multi role fighter, mainly replacing legacy F-16 (type) fighters in service with these forces.
That's how the JSF grew "out of it's design shoes" to some extent. And changing requirements after a design has already been conceived is truely difficult. Even more so today when these programs drag out over ever longer time frames, partly because of loosing bidders protesting the decision, or a changing political landscape, or whatever. So there's constantly new tech that wants to be integrated wich wasn't available when the design was made. Instead of just choosing a design and then promtly manufacturing it.
We have a similar problem with the Typhoon here really, only going the other way. When it was thought up as the "Fighter 90" (reference to the time frame when it was to be introduced, in Germany at least) it's job was to replace McDonnell F-4Fs & Tornado F-3s in the air-defense / intercept role to defend western europe against intruding warsaw pact fighters & bombers. The Tornado fighter bombers were still rather up to date and a replacement could be thought up in the future.
Then the SU collapsed, forces were shrunk, money was cut, modernization was delayed into the future. When the EF finally became ready, the Tornados became rather dated as well. There's no money for two types any more, so the EF has to become a multirole fighter taking over both roles. And introducing all that A-G stuff into the EF is causing quite a mess. Not to much in the UK it seems, as the Brits just hang the stuff onto the plane and drop it. But much more so here in Ger, since just every minor thing has to be contracted, company tested & approved and so on. So the plane gets more expensive, numbers get cut again, and depoyment dates get delayed into the future.
On a side note, I think the consolidation process that took place over the years in the domain of aeronautical industries in particulat, and defense industry in generall may be a contributing factor to that mess, since competition has decreased. Even though said procvess may, on the other hand, have been the only way to keep these ever more expensive and challanging programs going, in times of shrinking butgets.
When the JSF was being conceived, the USAF was to have several hundred Raptors and legacy Eagles, so the air dominance role was adequatly catered for. The biggest partner, the UK was to have it's Typhoons for that. So they now researched a concept for a fighter bomber that would be "good enough" in areal combat but could focus on it's primary mission and be rather low priced at that.
Then the Raptor # got cut short, so the F-35 will have to take over a somewhat larger part of the areal combat role as well. All the partner nations involved and also needed to keep the cost down want the JSF as a true multi role fighter, mainly replacing legacy F-16 (type) fighters in service with these forces.
That's how the JSF grew "out of it's design shoes" to some extent. And changing requirements after a design has already been conceived is truely difficult. Even more so today when these programs drag out over ever longer time frames, partly because of loosing bidders protesting the decision, or a changing political landscape, or whatever. So there's constantly new tech that wants to be integrated wich wasn't available when the design was made. Instead of just choosing a design and then promtly manufacturing it.
We have a similar problem with the Typhoon here really, only going the other way. When it was thought up as the "Fighter 90" (reference to the time frame when it was to be introduced, in Germany at least) it's job was to replace McDonnell F-4Fs & Tornado F-3s in the air-defense / intercept role to defend western europe against intruding warsaw pact fighters & bombers. The Tornado fighter bombers were still rather up to date and a replacement could be thought up in the future.
Then the SU collapsed, forces were shrunk, money was cut, modernization was delayed into the future. When the EF finally became ready, the Tornados became rather dated as well. There's no money for two types any more, so the EF has to become a multirole fighter taking over both roles. And introducing all that A-G stuff into the EF is causing quite a mess. Not to much in the UK it seems, as the Brits just hang the stuff onto the plane and drop it. But much more so here in Ger, since just every minor thing has to be contracted, company tested & approved and so on. So the plane gets more expensive, numbers get cut again, and depoyment dates get delayed into the future.
On a side note, I think the consolidation process that took place over the years in the domain of aeronautical industries in particulat, and defense industry in generall may be a contributing factor to that mess, since competition has decreased. Even though said procvess may, on the other hand, have been the only way to keep these ever more expensive and challanging programs going, in times of shrinking butgets.
Equation
Lieutenant General
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
LOL...it's a figure of speech! You're right nowadays architects, designers, and engineers uses black and white digital prints in either 24"x36" size sheets or 36"x48" depending on the scale and scope of the project.
I would be very much surprised if LM still uses blueprints. I would think even many architects will have moved on to more modern methods.
LOL...it's a figure of speech! You're right nowadays architects, designers, and engineers uses black and white digital prints in either 24"x36" size sheets or 36"x48" depending on the scale and scope of the project.