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

[delft]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

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.

I object to the word "European". It was designed to fit the political environment in the US Congress.

 

[Air Force Brat]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I object to the word "European". It was designed to fit the political environment in the US Congress.

Well I should properly have said "British", and I was referencing that to the Harrier, kind of an odd duck, and no, it was shopped to the partners as a "Euro centrist design", since that is most of the market, smaller, lighter, more efficient, not needing lots of acreage for operation, and being able to operate off the "battle damaged" airfield. Besides after years of importing MGs, Austins, Coopers, BMWs, Saabs, and Volvos, the idea that we could export a fighter aircraft with a "European Flavor" appeals to the US congress. LOL Its ok, you can call me an "American", or "Westerner" or "Rebel", or a "Hillbilly", just don't call me a "Yankee". Have a good day pappy, and glad I got under your skin, ye olde Dutchman, you prolly drive a VolksWagen. LOL

 

[Kurt]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Well I should properly have said "British", and I was referencing that to the Harrier, kind of an odd duck, and no, it was shopped to the partners as a "Euro centrist design", since that is most of the market, smaller, lighter, more efficient, not needing lots of acreage for operation, and being able to operate off the "battle damaged" airfield. Besides after years of importing MGs, Austins, Coopers, BMWs, Saabs, and Volvos, the idea that we could export a fighter aircraft with a "European Flavor" appeals to the US congress. LOL Its ok, you can call me an "American", or "Westerner" or "Rebel", or a "Hillbilly", just don't call me a "Yankee". Have a good day pappy, and glad I got under your skin, ye olde Dutchman, you prolly drive a VolksWagen. LOL

Unfortunately it goes the way of all American weaponry, there's nothing without stealthy goldplating because you can't fly to war with anything but the flying equivalent of an Aston-Martin, even if it's meant to be a low level bomber. Just outsource more of the low part of aircraft development to Sweden, they can do it (look at the Gripen) and design something as "overwhelming"(D-English for magnificient) as the Raptor in the US.

 

[Air Force Brat]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Unfortunately it goes the way of all American weaponry, there's nothing without stealthy goldplating because you can't fly to war with anything but the flying equivalent of an Aston-Martin, even if it's meant to be a low level bomber. Just outsource more of the low part of aircraft development to Sweden, they can do it (look at the Gripen) and design something as "overwhelming"(D-English for magnificient) as the Raptor in the US.

Well Kurt, what are you complaining about, lots of US assets where scattered about the continent to protect y"all from the bad guys, and I don't think you pay US taxes, so you should just say Thank You! as for Sweden designing something superior to the Raptor, well don't hold your breath, the Raptor is just that, it defines everything else, and the fact that it is the "Gold Standard" in air superiority is unlikely to change in the near term. IMHO Brat, but thanx for noticing, we like the attention!

Anyway the A model has completed her Air Start testing, and is ready to begin Hi Alpha testing, so we'll have to see how our little gold plated bird flys, should begin within the next month. Give us something more productive to talk about Heh?

 

[Kurt]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Well Kurt, what are you complaining about, lots of US assets where scattered about the continent to protect y"all from the bad guys, and I don't think you pay US taxes, so you should just say Thank You! as for Sweden designing something superior to the Raptor, well don't hold your breath, the Raptor is just that, it defines everything else, and the fact that it is the "Gold Standard" in air superiority is unlikely to change in the near term. IMHO Brat, but thanx for noticing, we like the attention!

Anyway the A model has completed her Air Start testing, and is ready to begin Hi Alpha testing, so we'll have to see how our little gold plated bird flys, should begin within the next month. Give us something more productive to talk about Heh?

The perspective from the other side of the pond?
Sweden built the cheapest European and American fighter with lots of payload, even more so if you look at fuel and weight- it's about the low component JSF, not the high component Raptor. You mix that up. The Gripen is the essence of a robust, reliable and cheap bomber-fighter, take note and add some affordable JSF features and maybe increase size, range and bombload.
As for stealth, the high reliance and expenses of US designs on low-observeability design and coating might be a development cul-de-sac because detection designs like passive radar negate much of its effectiveness. The question is always about the right balance between different demands and perhaps the US has overcomplicated total designs with manyfold repercussions by too much stealth requirements.
Europe on its own is very capable of handling an invasion by the rest of Eurasia and North Africa. The US outposts are a remnant from the Cold War when the US needed to help secure these positions in Europe because losing them would have given the Soviets enough technical skill and know-how to marginalize the US. Ever since WWII increasing population numbers in the US have shifted the balance away from Europe. I don't think it is justified to call for Europeans to thank the US for having their stuff all around. We have a mutual alliance agreement and Europe honours that alliance by supporting the US in many of her adventures despite that popular opinion considers them dangerous and stupid endeavers. Support is not always military as from the Anglo-Saxon sea-power alliance, but on the other hand neither do the not-so-eager countries receive the same degree of US-cooperation (look at intelligence clearances).


I'm curious how your birdies will fight against ours, especially the Eurofighter that has been breed for aerodynamic instability. So far it sounded like turkey shooting and some serious redesigning efforts for the rest of the JSF batch. The Raptor seems OK, we mutually shot down each other and a lot depends on system integration with the F-22 having more goodies on board. That's reasonable because European aircrafts operate in - Europe - that is a different environmenment from Alaska and other Pacific bases.

The JSF is a bvr fighter (often called a missile truck) and should be a cost efficient bomber. Sounds like a good theory. Thrust vectoring can likely compensate for wing area deficits, but still no report indicates much wvr surviveability. I'm curious how they will handle that issue in the country where E/M theory originated.
How will they handle the increasing use of passive radar and improved optic detection (laser radar, PIRATE) that work in combination? If stealth loses value supercruise could help because it's all nice that you see something, but an efficient reaction needs some time and until things are in place the birds may be gone. The whole concept is very much interdependent with estimates on other system's intelligence capabilities and imbalances. If an enemy ever has a serious air defence I bet my money on the rapid introduction of a new design.
I stand by my word that I still don't understand what's going on in the minds of the Marine Corps that wants to buy their STOVL JSF. Pretty much a novum deviating from prior STOVL concepts centered around light aircrafts.

Perhaps you could tell a bit more about the stealth maintenance issue of the JSF, they seem to have made very interesting progress in this field. Another question that always arises if you look at these birds is the enormous effort of calculations and modeling spent on the peculiar shapes of these designs.

 

[Franklin]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Europe is an American outpost. Most of the European gold are in American vaults, European militaries are full of American weapons if not sub systems like the Mk. 41 lauchers or the AEGIS defence systems. Europe is dependent on American led structures like NATO for its security and American dollars for bailing out PIIGS nations because we have to get the IMF involved. Europe has about a 100000 US soldiers on its territory. The Americans have bases in Europe that are off limits to the locals. So inside Europe we are been told by the Americans were we can and cannot go. The American soldiers stationed in Europe do not subject them selfs to the law of the land but rather US military law. If tomorrow one of the American soldiers causes a deadly traffic accident then he will not go in front of a local court but he will go in front of a US military court. Just like in 1998 in Italy when an American EA-6B Prowler cut the cable of a skilift where 20 people plunge to their deaths. The pilots and navigator where later cleared by a US court marshal that blamed the entire incident on faulty navigation maps. Europe is a transit point for American adventures in the Middle East and despite public opposition European nations are involved with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the sanctioning of Iran. Iran was one of the few countries that was willing to sell oil to Greece on credits, now that oil has been cut off for Greece and leaving the Greeks in the lurch because EU went along with US and Israeli designed sanctions against Iran. Even Greece went along because they need USD for their bailout.

 

[navyreco]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Lockheed Closer To Tailhook Design Fix For F-35C

Lockheed Martin officials are creeping closer to a solution to problems with the tailhook design for the U.S. Navy F-35C.

The original design failed to snag the arresting wire in early testing owing to two problems: the point of the hook was not sharp enough to scoop under the wire and securely grab it, and a dampener device was not sufficient to maintain a hold on the wire. Essentially, the hook was bouncing upon landing, reducing the likelihood of a successful arrested landing.

Lockheed Martin, the F-35 prime contractor, has redesigned the hook to address those problems. An interim version, which has a sharpened point but lacks the dampener, was tested.

In three of five recent attempts, the redesigned hook did capture the wire; the failures were due to the pilot landing the aircraft too far from the wire for a successful arresting. This testing “was highly successful in demonstrating that when presented the wire . . . it will grab the wire,” says J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed Martin’s vice president of test and evaluation for the F-35 program. He briefed reporters Sept. 18 during the annual Air Force Assn. conference in Washington.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Is LM somewhat blaming the pilots ?

 

[Air Force Brat]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Lockheed Closer To Tailhook Design Fix For F-35C

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Is LM somewhat blaming the pilots ?

Yes, they are pointing out that the failures are due to the pilot missing the "zone"! I should point out that it may be as simple as positioning or it could be they missed the target sink rate and failed to compress the oleo struts enough for the hook to snag the wire. A trap is really a very precisely controlled "collision" as the aircraft sinks onto the deck in a very high sink rate, compressing the struts, while the pilot simulataneously throttles up to bolter, just in case he misses all four wires. I believe he targets the second wire? It is very counter-intuitive to the airman, it is in fact, airplane abuse!

 

[bd popeye]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

. A trap is really a very precisely controlled "collision" as the aircraft sinks onto the deck in a very high sink rate, compressing the struts, while the pilot simulataneously throttles up to bolter, just in case he misses all four wires. I believe he targets the second wire? It is very counter-intuitive to the airman, it is in fact, airplane abuse!

there are now only three wires..the fourth are being removed. the Ford class will be built with only three.

Have you ever compared an USN aircraft landing gear to an USAF landing gear? No comparison...not even close. USN sea borne aircraft are built to take a pounding.

 

[delft]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Have you ever compared an USN aircraft landing gear to an USAF landing gear? No comparison...not even close. USN sea borne aircraft are built to take a pounding.

All sea borne aircraft are built to to take a pounding, the design vertical velocity is twice that of land based aircraft - except perhaps the Harrier?
All the more reason to design for either land or sea basing and only later look at adapting for the other case, as in F-4 and Su-33.