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

[Air Force Brat]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

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.

Actually the combat edge, upper pressure vest is the primary culprit, the the release valve is failing and won't allow it to deflate when the Gs decrease, staying fully inflated it is like an elephant sitting on your chest. The Raptor will pull and maintain 9.5 gs in a sustained turn, it is at the upper limits of human physiology. [Please refrain from relating your RPV nightmares, I really don't want my head to explode with one more goof-head telling me about the joys of unmanned aircraft]. The Raptor is, and will likely remain the only true fifth gen aircraft in the world. Fifth gen was defined as Supermanueverable, Supercruise, Stealth, Integrated Combat Systems, able to network with other platforms, Advance Radar and Weapons systems. The F-35 is "not" supermanueverable, able to supercruise, and not nearly as stealthy as the Raptor, although it does employ L/O technology, and its Integrated Combat Systems, and ability to network with other combat systems is mind boggleing. The Raptors emergency O2 system will be fully automated and those systems have been ordered installed "Post Haste".

 

[Air Force Brat]

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?

Kurt, son this is sheer genius dude, You keep spouting this stuff and the bad guys heads will explode, I think I need one of those special aluminum foil hats to protect my head though, you must be a Ron Paul supporter. Wait, there I got my hat on, go ahead! Let er Rip!

 

[Kurt]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Kurt, son this is sheer genius dude, You keep spouting this stuff and the bad guys heads will explode, I think I need one of those special aluminum foil hats to protect my head though, you must be a Ron Paul supporter. Wait, there I got my hat on, go ahead! Let er Rip!

It's very kind of you to turn into a genius anyone who explains what people on the other side of the Atlantic actually do and suggests some possible modifications to current practice.
Your aluminium hat is cheap and has no style. I prefer my gold foil hat.

 

[Air Force Brat]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

It's very kind of you to turn into a genius anyone who explains what people on the other side of the Atlantic actually do and suggests some possible modifications to current practice.
Your aluminium hat is cheap and has no style. I prefer my gold foil hat. View attachment 6845

I love you man! I just couldn't resist a cheap shot, I have to agree, could you send me one of those, you are obviously a gentleman, and your response does prove that! You obviously wisely recieved my wise-acre comment in the spirit it was given, we are friends on here aren't we.

Now back on topic, as the Air Force Brat, I have fashioned myself as something of an informed bystander, so for the purpose of discussing aircraft a brief primmer!

1. Fixed wing on Fuse=Fixed Wing Aircraft

2.Wing on top flopping all over the place=Rotary Wing Aircraft

3. Air Force Brat=Old almost pilot, actually I still am, son of a Real Pilot! Hey and could ya please expidite that hat, today is the homecoming parade, and thanx I do love you guys, in a nice manly way, you are my brothers!

 

[Air Force Brat]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

"""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 par""""

1. Hi--F-15--ATF--F-22 - Air Superiority-or A2A - F-22 has a secondary but quite effective ground attack capability- costs a little more - nothing on this planet is in the league of the F-22 in A2A, very stealthy, super manueverable, super cruise, hence the Hi designation.
Production of the F-22 was cancelled due to politics and money -185 Raptors extant as of 8:26 Am Central Time- Stupidity

2. Lo--F-16--JSF--F-35 - Fighter-Attack or A2G - F-35 designed after the ATF as a follow on strike aircraft to replace A-10, F/A-18, F-16, role expanded to include secondary A2A capability, not bad, but nowhere near the F-22 in A2A- hence the Lo designation.
Touted as able to carry both A2A and A2G roles and superior to the F-22, [def not], sold to 8 partner nations, lots of political support [I can hear it Oinking], to big to fail? Lots and Lots and Lots of issues, structural cracking, afterburners melting, fan doors not functioning, and we haven't even begun High Alpha testing yet? In production due to politics- will likely be far more expensive than Raptor-IMHO

""""With the Raptor ambition got ahead of affordability""""", not really, fifth gens will be expensive- but one F-22 can take on eight F-15s and win- every time! Cost effective? prolly IMHO

""""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.""""

Complimentary designs hence the Hi/Lo designation, F-22 clear the air of enemy aircraft and bad AA, F-35 follow on heavy strike and ground support, the old 1-2 punch, in todays very hostile anti aircraft environment any fourth gen aircraft is in a very grave situation, and please no RPV nonsense, and yes I know all about all that bus,,, by the way the Air Force cancelled the global hawk and choose to go back to the U-2 because the pilot does a better job for less money! That won't change IMHO!

 

[Kurt]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I love you man! I just couldn't resist a cheap shot, I have to agree, could you send me one of those, you are obviously a gentleman, and your response does prove that! You obviously wisely recieved my wise-acre comment in the spirit it was given, we are friends on here aren't we.

Now back on topic, as the Air Force Brat, I have fashioned myself as something of an informed bystander, so for the purpose of discussing aircraft a brief primmer!

1. Fixed wing on Fuse=Fixed Wing Aircraft

2.Wing on top flopping all over the place=Rotary Wing Aircraft

3. Air Force Brat=Old almost pilot, actually I still am, son of a Real Pilot! Hey and could ya please expidite that hat, today is the homecoming parade, and thanx I do love you guys, in a nice manly way, you are my brothers!

You can look at a very interesting aircraft that was at the origin of US attack helicopter design, the AH-56 Cheyenne:

Contemporaries with similar role to this aircraft are the Harrier, the A-10, the Cobra, the Blackhawk and the Apache. All of them are intended for the air to ground combat role. The Russians studied this compoundcopter approach with their Kamov V-100 design and neither made it their choice. In the US the choice of the army was driven by political influence on technology permitted for their use as outlined in the Key West Agreement(

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

) that was not exercised on the Navy and Marine Corps who could do what fitted them best. So the Marines had the Harrier and Cobra, the Air force doubled on the same targets as the Apache with the A-10.
I see them as different chosen approaches for a very similar destructive task. It's not necessary to replace each of them with the same old approach and you can modify the old agreement. If you look at the British army and see what they did with their less famous Harriers you'll see what a STOVL aircraft is about other than naval requirements.
Germany was a Cold War frontline state with the Fulda Gap - our economic center within one day strike distance from the most feared part of the Red Army armoured ground forces. We couldn't care less what would kill these tank columns as long as they were stopped. In German memory the UK Harriers and the US Apache were both to serve from dirty mobile frontline airfields and kill these tanks before they kill us. If you look at the characteristics of such ground attack crafts, no matter what kind of wings they have, they are within a weight category, have specific armour and repair requirements and all share core parameters of minimum airfield requirements.
I did never see an Apache take off, but I guess you can do that more fuel efficient with a very short runway length as hovering for direct vertical take off requires a lot more energy and power output from every flying object. This would make it a STOVL with a very extreme short runway length and in order not to confuse non-pilots you call it VTOL because the "S" part is negligible in comparison to other requirements for space.

Btw., having a long ancestry of engineers gives me no skills to repair my car.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

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.

Actually the Harrier is a Jet-coptor. the Lightning's STOVL system is a lift fan where the AV8 uses directed thrust the Engine. The problems of the AV8 are First this system can stall easily, pisses Fuel like a race horse and it's Avionics are dated and hard too manage. It's Cheaper too use Attack Helicopters

The Concept of a Pure lightning fleet would also mean a more flexible fleet as among the Marines stated goals is a Jamming pod for the lightning that would enable them too retire the EA-6B Prowler. A program I hope the USAF joins in on as it would allow the only US Jet service with out a SEAD asset too get back into the game.

Mounting a Gau 8 on a Osprey is a bit well weight heavy a bushmaster cannon would seem a better option if you wanted a light weight Vtol gunship.

Now Back in the 1980's the USAF experimented with mounting a Gun pod on F16's packing the Gau 13 a 4 barreled derivative of the Gau 8 problems however popped up as the gun was unstable. although the ballistics were impressive the wing mount was not stable enough. the USAF sold them off too the Marines who I Think used them on there landing craft.



Cobra and Apache will likely be replaced as part of the JMR program Sikorsky has show concept art for a X2/Raider antitank compound likely offering range speed like the Cheyenne and fire power like the Apache with all the modern goodies.

 

[ABC78]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I just watched a c-span video and was blown away at by some of the statements made by journalist Frank Oliveri about the cost for the F-35. The procurement cost for 2443 F-35's was suppose to be around the mid 200 billion dollars but has cost 400 billion and rising. But just as shocking is the 1.1 trillion to operate it.

[video]http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/308067-1[/video]

If you don't have the time to watch the whole video jump to 1:32:03 to hear this statistic.

 

[Air Force Brat]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I just watched a c-span video and was blown away at by some of the statements made by journalist Frank Oliveri about the cost for the F-35. The procurement cost for 2443 F-35's was suppose to be around the mid 200 billion dollars but has cost 400 billion and rising. But just as shocking is the 1.1 trillion to operate it.

[video]http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/308067-1[/video]

If you don't have the time to watch the whole video jump to 1:32:03 to hear this statistic.

I believe the 1.1 trillion is to operate the aircraft over its anticipated life span, 2500 Lightnings will prolly never happen, but thats not really fair to look that far into future, thats not been done before. But it will not be cheaper than the F-22 for a long time if ever, but they didn't tell us that now did they?

While I believe they should revive the Raptor, it too is expensive, but it is a very high performance tactical aircraft. In contrast the F-35 is a very technically sophisticated aircraft, with modest performance, on par with gen 4 aircraft, it banks its survivability on technical aspect of L/O with faboulous situational awareness, but unlike its big sister, it is not supermanueverable, it will not supercruise-[in fact as fighters go, its s-l-o-w], and it is considerably less stealthy than the Raptor. It was "designed to complement the Raptor", NOT to replace it. I'm not an engineer, but the Lightning and the Raptor are two totally different animals.

The Lightning is unlikely to be built in the quantities initially envisioned, "everyone", and I do mean everyone is contemplating reducing their "buy" including the USAF who was to be the largest operator of the F-35. It will be much more expensive than intitially projected, and as technical "hairballs" continue to crop up, for ex the helmet mounted display, projected to be fixed by the end of summer, not gonna happen, this is a critical aspect of the F-35s situational awareness and fire control, the price will go up and the "buy" down also increasing price! It has the potential to be a good airplane, it is somewhat eclectic, particularly the B model with the lift fan, I'm feeling that its a more "European" character, and may not be a good match here in the US, with its wide open spaces.

 

[delft]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

You can look at a very interesting aircraft that was at the origin of US attack helicopter design, the AH-56 Cheyenne:
View attachment 6847View attachment 6848
Contemporaries with similar role to this aircraft are the Harrier, the A-10, the Cobra, the Blackhawk and the Apache. All of them are intended for the air to ground combat role. The Russians studied this compoundcopter approach with their Kamov V-100 design and neither made it their choice. In the US the choice of the army was driven by political influence on technology permitted for their use as outlined in the Key West Agreement(

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

) that was not exercised on the Navy and Marine Corps who could do what fitted them best. So the Marines had the Harrier and Cobra, the Air force doubled on the same targets as the Apache with the A-10.
I see them as different chosen approaches for a very similar destructive task. It's not necessary to replace each of them with the same old approach and you can modify the old agreement. If you look at the British army and see what they did with their less famous Harriers you'll see what a STOVL aircraft is about other than naval requirements.
Germany was a Cold War frontline state with the Fulda Gap - our economic center within one day strike distance from the most feared part of the Red Army armoured ground forces. We couldn't care less what would kill these tank columns as long as they were stopped. In German memory the UK Harriers and the US Apache were both to serve from dirty mobile frontline airfields and kill these tanks before they kill us. If you look at the characteristics of such ground attack crafts, no matter what kind of wings they have, they are within a weight category, have specific armour and repair requirements and all share core parameters of minimum airfield requirements.
I did never see an Apache take off, but I guess you can do that more fuel efficient with a very short runway length as hovering for direct vertical take off requires a lot more energy and power output from every flying object. This would make it a STOVL with a very extreme short runway length and in order not to confuse non-pilots you call it VTOL because the "S" part is negligible in comparison to other requirements for space.

Btw., having a long ancestry of engineers gives me no skills to repair my car.

Your looking for the acronym V/STOL, forgotten in the propaganda campaign for JSF, now F-35.