F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
Word is Mitt's team has been reading my, ...LOL! You think?
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
IMO no more F-22s should be built until the kinks are fixed and a reliable fully operational Raptor is available.
I think the USMC should be made to get rid of it's F-18C Hornets and upgrade to Super Hornets or go with F-35Cs.
IMO no more F-22s should be built until the kinks are fixed and a reliable fully operational Raptor is available.
I think the USMC should be made to get rid of it's F-18C Hornets and upgrade to Super Hornets or go with F-35Cs.
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
Yeah I like the C, I think that extra wing and horizontal stab area make it look more manueverable, although it has a 7.5 g limit to the A's 9g limit. Were your referring to the breathing issue or the corrosion issue or something else on the Raptor bd? Also word on the street is that some of the Marines can kick the superbugs butt with their buggs, and that they don't want to loose the Hornet?
Yeah I like the C, I think that extra wing and horizontal stab area make it look more manueverable, although it has a 7.5 g limit to the A's 9g limit. Were your referring to the breathing issue or the corrosion issue or something else on the Raptor bd? Also word on the street is that some of the Marines can kick the superbugs butt with their buggs, and that they don't want to loose the Hornet?
Last edited by a moderator:
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
Well Duh! of course he's reading your blog, making you sec def if he wins is he? Well I would prolly just roll over and die from joy if BHO is gone in November, and to get the Raptor back, now that would be Christmas. Many of the proponents of the F-35 really have O understanding of the Hi/Lo concept, and we've never gone this route before to eliminate the Hi in the mix. I really think they should implement some of changes from the F-35 line, which has much tighter tolerances, better LO coverings, and the latest block upgrades, that would stimulate J-20 testing and production, and likely T-50 as well although if the Russians don't sell the Su-35, they may not have the cash to go all out on the T-bird?
Well Duh! of course he's reading your blog, making you sec def if he wins is he? Well I would prolly just roll over and die from joy if BHO is gone in November, and to get the Raptor back, now that would be Christmas. Many of the proponents of the F-35 really have O understanding of the Hi/Lo concept, and we've never gone this route before to eliminate the Hi in the mix. I really think they should implement some of changes from the F-35 line, which has much tighter tolerances, better LO coverings, and the latest block upgrades, that would stimulate J-20 testing and production, and likely T-50 as well although if the Russians don't sell the Su-35, they may not have the cash to go all out on the T-bird?
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
There may be merit to some of the exotic materials being the root...but I am confidant they will address the issue.
I know this. When the pilots are healthy nothing else can touch it.
I agree...and I think they can do that. it seem,s to me that the issue with the impact to the pilot and flight crews was not talked about or heard of for several years and it is only in the last few years it has been an issue. Perhaps some upgrade introduced the problem...it is wierd that it is also impacting the mainteance crews.
There may be merit to some of the exotic materials being the root...but I am confidant they will address the issue.
I know this. When the pilots are healthy nothing else can touch it.
Kurt
Junior Member
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
The F-35C looks like a good choice to create a fighter worth the name in numbers at an affordable price. Giving the USMC the F-35C could mean that they become carrier interoperable on a STOBAR basis with lighter bombload and a fighter orientation. Fully interoperable with catapults could happen if something like ELMAG progresses that will benefit from the split development costs and higher production calculations for not so limited demand.
Why are the Russians and the USA so fixed on a high-low mix of two different new types of aircrafts? Why not develop a brand new fighter concept and evolve the legacy fighter concept from an increasingly strike oriented fighter role into a state of the art bomber and secondary role fighter? This maximises economies of scale and offers better used hardware options to the less afluent allies. We realized the basics in Europe, but passed out on most of the evolution part.
This is the route taken by the F-18 Super Hornet or the F-15 Strike Eagle and the F-15 Silent Eagle. These are really cheap in comparison to any F-35 bomber development, safe bets and can be ready in numbers on time. US allies will always have a good chance of longterm investments into a modern alliance interoperable aircraft. Plus, investing into the improvement of fewer types, leads to more outstanding results per type.
These are evolutions from old fighter designs, not old fighter designs. They are meant to be the up-to-date low part of the mix, but not the expensive jump ahead that is the high part of the mix. Reminds one of the Flanker family, despite currently serving as the high part until PAK FA. The new fighter type is always the high part of such a mix, but this development inevitably results in lower pay-off in capability increase per innovation cost. The jump ahead must be in the field of fighters because it is hardest to keep via evolution in step with the revolutions in air combat.
With the Raptor ambition got ahead of affordability, so it's currently sheer luck that a F-35C development exists, but it would be possible to outright decide on a more numerous F-22 that is F-35ized or the other way round to evolve from the F-35C. Central problem will be the cost control and progress management. It might be a lesson learned to first have a kind of F-35C that can serve as a very advanced trainer on carriers with lots of wear and tear for a short service life with subsequent evolutionary upgrades to the envisioned F-22 level. Going all the way in one go seems to be a safe bet on getting lost somewhere.
This leaves two types of aircrafts, the low part bomber version of an evolved design from a legacy fighter and the high part fighter design as a jump ahead. The fighter design gets introduced in a small series as a carrier aircraft for a short service life under stress and will then be evolved into the full blown fighter envisioned. Evolution offers more overview to cut off routes that endanger overall project goals instead of working on a revolution with predictable cost overruns. Of each type two variants will be each necessary, catapult-arrestor capable and non-catapult-arrestor capable. If a number of airframes can be modified on demand from one variant into another, the numbers of expensive to maintain high-stress carrier variants could be kept low via surge capability, while acquiring many flight hours per such aircraft within a short time. This will make the carrier variant always the first to be phased out and replaced by the latest model with more compareable contemporary capability. The carrier variant itself is already on a lower capability level as a fighter or bomber via the additional investment into structural strengthening, so having always the latest model will in part compensate, especially via the continuous weight savings.
The US has a tradition of two competing designs. If they feel afluent enough one design can go on to a carrier version (with Marines and Navy) and the other becomes a land version. That could alter the picture into a maximum of four types, one carrier based fighter(F-35C?) and bomber (F-18), one land based fighter(F-22/F-23/F35C-land version?) and bomber(F-15). The Marines could take the bomber variant on their carriers for ground support or sea control and the Navy can focus on the fighters.
Most nations use land based STOL aircrafts as naval aircrafts. The US is unlikely to ever fight far away from a waterway that can serve as the cheapest flexible bulk transport for fuel, munitions and spares for STOL airfields to be created on spot, including tiny islands or "raids" on coasts not far away from the place to bomb. A ferry, with air and missile defences (that can be landed or on board or both), etablishing a forward airfield on a coast, could offer a lot of advantages otherwise limited to carriers. Land based aviation seems to fly long hours to their area of operation and engines have a limited timespan of safe uninterrupted use. How will this not be the expensive and inefficiency creating part about using the F-35 land based variant for bombing in comparison to any mobile carrier based aviation? Add the development for missiles to more precisely hit longtime known places - will the investments into defending and keeping them operational pay off?
The F-35C looks like a good choice to create a fighter worth the name in numbers at an affordable price. Giving the USMC the F-35C could mean that they become carrier interoperable on a STOBAR basis with lighter bombload and a fighter orientation. Fully interoperable with catapults could happen if something like ELMAG progresses that will benefit from the split development costs and higher production calculations for not so limited demand.
Why are the Russians and the USA so fixed on a high-low mix of two different new types of aircrafts? Why not develop a brand new fighter concept and evolve the legacy fighter concept from an increasingly strike oriented fighter role into a state of the art bomber and secondary role fighter? This maximises economies of scale and offers better used hardware options to the less afluent allies. We realized the basics in Europe, but passed out on most of the evolution part.
This is the route taken by the F-18 Super Hornet or the F-15 Strike Eagle and the F-15 Silent Eagle. These are really cheap in comparison to any F-35 bomber development, safe bets and can be ready in numbers on time. US allies will always have a good chance of longterm investments into a modern alliance interoperable aircraft. Plus, investing into the improvement of fewer types, leads to more outstanding results per type.
These are evolutions from old fighter designs, not old fighter designs. They are meant to be the up-to-date low part of the mix, but not the expensive jump ahead that is the high part of the mix. Reminds one of the Flanker family, despite currently serving as the high part until PAK FA. The new fighter type is always the high part of such a mix, but this development inevitably results in lower pay-off in capability increase per innovation cost. The jump ahead must be in the field of fighters because it is hardest to keep via evolution in step with the revolutions in air combat.
With the Raptor ambition got ahead of affordability, so it's currently sheer luck that a F-35C development exists, but it would be possible to outright decide on a more numerous F-22 that is F-35ized or the other way round to evolve from the F-35C. Central problem will be the cost control and progress management. It might be a lesson learned to first have a kind of F-35C that can serve as a very advanced trainer on carriers with lots of wear and tear for a short service life with subsequent evolutionary upgrades to the envisioned F-22 level. Going all the way in one go seems to be a safe bet on getting lost somewhere.
This leaves two types of aircrafts, the low part bomber version of an evolved design from a legacy fighter and the high part fighter design as a jump ahead. The fighter design gets introduced in a small series as a carrier aircraft for a short service life under stress and will then be evolved into the full blown fighter envisioned. Evolution offers more overview to cut off routes that endanger overall project goals instead of working on a revolution with predictable cost overruns. Of each type two variants will be each necessary, catapult-arrestor capable and non-catapult-arrestor capable. If a number of airframes can be modified on demand from one variant into another, the numbers of expensive to maintain high-stress carrier variants could be kept low via surge capability, while acquiring many flight hours per such aircraft within a short time. This will make the carrier variant always the first to be phased out and replaced by the latest model with more compareable contemporary capability. The carrier variant itself is already on a lower capability level as a fighter or bomber via the additional investment into structural strengthening, so having always the latest model will in part compensate, especially via the continuous weight savings.
The US has a tradition of two competing designs. If they feel afluent enough one design can go on to a carrier version (with Marines and Navy) and the other becomes a land version. That could alter the picture into a maximum of four types, one carrier based fighter(F-35C?) and bomber (F-18), one land based fighter(F-22/F-23/F35C-land version?) and bomber(F-15). The Marines could take the bomber variant on their carriers for ground support or sea control and the Navy can focus on the fighters.
Most nations use land based STOL aircrafts as naval aircrafts. The US is unlikely to ever fight far away from a waterway that can serve as the cheapest flexible bulk transport for fuel, munitions and spares for STOL airfields to be created on spot, including tiny islands or "raids" on coasts not far away from the place to bomb. A ferry, with air and missile defences (that can be landed or on board or both), etablishing a forward airfield on a coast, could offer a lot of advantages otherwise limited to carriers. Land based aviation seems to fly long hours to their area of operation and engines have a limited timespan of safe uninterrupted use. How will this not be the expensive and inefficiency creating part about using the F-35 land based variant for bombing in comparison to any mobile carrier based aviation? Add the development for missiles to more precisely hit longtime known places - will the investments into defending and keeping them operational pay off?
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
A F35 pure fleet was supposed too be the Marine Fleet.
I am wondering these days If the F35 has the same O2 issues and if not then why not try and install the life support system from s lightning into the raptor?
A F35 pure fleet was supposed too be the Marine Fleet.
I am wondering these days If the F35 has the same O2 issues and if not then why not try and install the life support system from s lightning into the raptor?
Kurt
Junior Member
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
The STOVL variant of the JSF is the least capable fighter version possible at the same price. If this JSF aircraft is to fly ground combat missions with all these pesky firing guns and flying shrapnels it's like handing out Aston Martin's instead of Jeeps for the next firefight. They both can do the job, but repairing the Aston Martin will be a tad more expensive, compensated by the better looks before combat.
The Harrier is a winged fancopter and as such it is a major improvement of the attack helicopter and not a fighter-bomber like F-35A or F-35C. The Harrier is the most advanced attack copter design and the debate should be about Cobra, Apache and Harrier and a corresponding requirement for costs, armour and stealth. The knowledge and avionics from the JSF project could contribute a lot to this aircraft. He might even have a friend via a V-22 with a GAU-8, but both of them need to be rugged and cheap to maintain in their environment.
Why don't they just take the F-22 and fit it with two GAU-8 underwing and go ground combat hunting for Taleban in Afghanistan? That's an as reasonable suggestion as the whole F-35 B concept.
The STOVL variant of the JSF is the least capable fighter version possible at the same price. If this JSF aircraft is to fly ground combat missions with all these pesky firing guns and flying shrapnels it's like handing out Aston Martin's instead of Jeeps for the next firefight. They both can do the job, but repairing the Aston Martin will be a tad more expensive, compensated by the better looks before combat.
The Harrier is a winged fancopter and as such it is a major improvement of the attack helicopter and not a fighter-bomber like F-35A or F-35C. The Harrier is the most advanced attack copter design and the debate should be about Cobra, Apache and Harrier and a corresponding requirement for costs, armour and stealth. The knowledge and avionics from the JSF project could contribute a lot to this aircraft. He might even have a friend via a V-22 with a GAU-8, but both of them need to be rugged and cheap to maintain in their environment.
Why don't they just take the F-22 and fit it with two GAU-8 underwing and go ground combat hunting for Taleban in Afghanistan? That's an as reasonable suggestion as the whole F-35 B concept.
Last edited:
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
Yes.
Doubt it. They'd have to prove it to me. The longer the marines keep the C flying the more maintenance intensive those birds become... I think the reason the USMC turned down the Super-bug is two fold.
1) They wanted an all F-35 fleet as has been pointed out.
2) Some general thought by keeping the Cs the USMC would be pulled from carrier air wings eventually and only make traditional deployments to Japan, Okinawa, Iraq & Afghanistan. Just my opinion.
Yes.
Doubt it. They'd have to prove it to me. The longer the marines keep the C flying the more maintenance intensive those birds become... I think the reason the USMC turned down the Super-bug is two fold.
1) They wanted an all F-35 fleet as has been pointed out.
2) Some general thought by keeping the Cs the USMC would be pulled from carrier air wings eventually and only make traditional deployments to Japan, Okinawa, Iraq & Afghanistan. Just my opinion.