I thought the skin was purely composites or titanium.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
there is 16.7% steel used for F-35C according to LM. The skin is never made of titanium, only some of the structures under the skin are. Also titanium oxidization is TiO2 which is white, not red.
Clearly not sure if the B-21 will end up overweight, frail and build in smaller quantity than needed.
F-117 was supposed to have a radar and never got one but at least have been a success somewhat. After that the A-12 got just a glimpse before the abyss, RAH-66 Comanche failed in disgrace, F-22 was madly cut in number, B2 too. 767 tankers are a never ending nightmare. So many program got a kick where it hurt.
F-35 have been build in number way before their systems got tested and now it seems that it will never get what it is supposed to have.
It's clearly sad for the US aviation industry. At least they got the C-17 right and the F-18E\F was common sense. General Atomics drones industry with predator and reaper are a big winner. I think they are the real success of the last 30 years in the US.
F-35's problem is that it replies on future technology that isn't achievable. It is kind of "we will have it when we need it". This is an over-confidence without grasping of reality. It is the same as wonder weapon mentality.
The current F-135 engine provide maximum 191KN thrust, the ACE is 200KN, the improvement of power isn't much, but only the fuel efficiency. The problem of F-35 is however more about total power rather than efficiency. One example is that the cooling power of F-135 was designed at 15kW, but F-35 today uses 30kW already, block 4 need 40kW. No matter how efficient ACE can be, the total power is far less than needed.
F-119 is 135kN, two would give 270kN far more than 200kN of ACE. Essentially the problem is F-35 being a single engine airframe trying to do a twin engine airframe's work with unavailable engine technology breakthrough.
Therefor, F-35 is a dead end. It is the same mistake as railgun of Zumwalt. Also similar to EMALS. All of them are designed on the hope of "the critical technology challenge will be solved in time, one way or another".
B21 isn't a fighter, so it's number of adoptation isn't any indication of less F35. However, NGAD is. Let's wait and see if US makes the same kind of higher-than-realistic expectation like they made on F-35/Zumwalt/EMALS.
The current F-135 engine provide maximum 191KN thrust, the ACE is 200KN, the improvement of power isn't much, but only the fuel efficiency. The problem of F-35 is however more about total power rather than efficiency. One example is that the cooling power of F-135 was designed at 15kW, but F-35 today uses 30kW already, block 4 need 40kW. No matter how efficient ACE can be, the total power is far less than needed.
F-119 is 135kN, two would give 270kN far more than 200kN of ACE. Essentially the problem is F-35 being a single engine airframe trying to do a twin engine airframe's work with unavailable engine technology breakthrough.
Therefor, F-35 is a dead end. It is the same mistake as railgun of Zumwalt. Also similar to EMALS. All of them are designed on the hope of "the critical technology challenge will be solved in time, one way or another".
B21 isn't a fighter, so it's number of adoptation isn't any indication of less F35. However, NGAD is. Let's wait and see if US makes the same kind of higher-than-realistic expectation like they made on F-35/Zumwalt/EMALS.
This is the most important thing going forward for all United States Armed Forces programs. Can they drop silly requirements and pie in the sky technology and put out reliable, affordable and effective platforms (Air Force, Navy or otherwise).
More closeups. These photos are from all three variants. All landing gear closeups are from the C-variant aircraft.
More closeups. These photos are from all three variants. All landing gear (and most wing) closeups are from the C-variant aircraft.
More closeups. These photos are from all three variants. All landing gear (and most wing) closeups are from the C-variant aircraft.
More closeups. These photos are from all three variants. All landing gear (and most wing) closeups are from the C-variant aircraft.