F35

JW381
Profile picture for user JW381
Posts
10642
Joined
7/21/2009
Location
Harrisburg, OR US
JW381
Edited Date/Time 10/28/2015 5:44pm
Seen the Lighting II in the news a lot lately. First operational unit, Canada likely cancelling their orders, lowering the performance requirements, running up the price, etc.

On the one hand, it sucks that Canada will be pulling out because part of the aim of the project was to arm our coalition Air forces with the newest tech, and the according budget had those pending sales in mind. But on the other hand, you can't blame the new PM when the 35 has largely under performed thus far. It can't turn, cant run, and isn't as stealthy as advertised. So why spend the money, more money than originally alloted, on a product that may not be worth it.

I was also curious if anyone knew why the C model took the biggest hit in the accel requirement. I would have thought the B model would be the slowest. The accel time for the C model is a lifetime.
|
Harry Backmon 10/28/2015 10:22am
10/28/2015 10:22am
Isn't the C the carrier variant? That does a lot to the weight. The landing gear have to be very beefy, for example.
JW381
Profile picture for user JW381
Posts
10642
Joined
7/21/2009
Location
Harrisburg, OR US
JW381 10/28/2015 10:36am
10/28/2015 10:36am
Harry Backmon wrote:
Isn't the C the carrier variant? That does a lot to the weight. The landing gear have to be very beefy, for example.
I believe the wingspan is larger, too. Still, I wouldn't expect such a dramatic difference in power. I know there's a lot of opinion involved in this particular project, but I think Lockheed shit the bed. Or maybe the JSF program itself was too over zealous. A stealth mulit-role fighter/attack aircraft to service 3 branches of the military. Thats a tall order.
Harry Backmon 10/28/2015 10:42am
10/28/2015 10:42am
I haven't seen the figures, J-Dub, so I really can't speak to them. A lot of times these problems are made out to be much worse than they are. That is not to say there are not problems with this jet - because there are. We need a replacement for the legacy Hornet. Like, ten years ago. They better do something.

The Shop

See All »
71Fish
Profile picture for user 71Fish
Posts
1794
Joined
11/29/2011
Location
Ogden, UT US
71Fish 10/28/2015 11:17am
10/28/2015 11:17am
If you want to see a very good representation on how gov't acquisitions work, check out "The Pentagon Wars" movie. It's over the top, but not far from the truth. Requirements get added and added to a once "good" program, costs go up, quantities get slashed so the cost per unit goes way, way up.

I'm all for a new acft that does, or will do what the F-35 will do, but what sours my stomach is the talk of replacing the A-10 with this.
JW381
Profile picture for user JW381
Posts
10642
Joined
7/21/2009
Location
Harrisburg, OR US
JW381 10/28/2015 11:51am
10/28/2015 11:51am
71Fish wrote:
If you want to see a very good representation on how gov't acquisitions work, check out "The Pentagon Wars" movie. It's over the top, but not...
If you want to see a very good representation on how gov't acquisitions work, check out "The Pentagon Wars" movie. It's over the top, but not far from the truth. Requirements get added and added to a once "good" program, costs go up, quantities get slashed so the cost per unit goes way, way up.

I'm all for a new acft that does, or will do what the F-35 will do, but what sours my stomach is the talk of replacing the A-10 with this.
I'll check it out, sounds interesting. In this case, the requirements got lowered. Sustained G requirement was less for all three models, and the accel time from mach .8 to 1.2 (I believe that's the range) all got lowered, the C model more than the A and B.

Agree on the Warthog. For the battle space we're involved in now, the A10 is a workhorse. Its rugged and reliable. It does its mission very well.
Homey55
Profile picture for user Homey55
Posts
974
Joined
2/18/2010
Location
Brandon, MS US
Homey55 10/28/2015 12:56pm
10/28/2015 12:56pm
I think the project had problems from the get-go and it turned a lot of people off. I hear a lot of talk about a manned/unmanned "FXX" that is the next big thing.
71Fish
Profile picture for user 71Fish
Posts
1794
Joined
11/29/2011
Location
Ogden, UT US
71Fish 10/28/2015 1:26pm
10/28/2015 1:26pm
Homey55 wrote:
I think the project had problems from the get-go and it turned a lot of people off. I hear a lot of talk about a manned/unmanned...
I think the project had problems from the get-go and it turned a lot of people off. I hear a lot of talk about a manned/unmanned "FXX" that is the next big thing.
The next big thing is a new bomber.
JW381
Profile picture for user JW381
Posts
10642
Joined
7/21/2009
Location
Harrisburg, OR US
JW381 10/28/2015 1:32pm
10/28/2015 1:32pm
Homey55 wrote:
I think the project had problems from the get-go and it turned a lot of people off. I hear a lot of talk about a manned/unmanned...
I think the project had problems from the get-go and it turned a lot of people off. I hear a lot of talk about a manned/unmanned "FXX" that is the next big thing.
71Fish wrote:
The next big thing is a new bomber.
I was surprised by that news, to be honest.
Homey55
Profile picture for user Homey55
Posts
974
Joined
2/18/2010
Location
Brandon, MS US
Homey55 10/28/2015 1:58pm
10/28/2015 1:58pm
71Fish wrote:
The next big thing is a new bomber.
I meant the next multi-role fighter. You are right though, the bomber should be announced any day now, right?

I still think the B-2 is way more advanced than we are led to believe and I am also surprised that they are looking at a new bomber.
Andy_Greenney 10/28/2015 2:24pm
10/28/2015 2:24pm
Surely the limiting factor in modern aircraft is the G force the pilot can withstand? Unmanned must be the way to go?
JW381
Profile picture for user JW381
Posts
10642
Joined
7/21/2009
Location
Harrisburg, OR US
JW381 10/28/2015 3:18pm
10/28/2015 3:18pm
Andy_Greenney wrote:
Surely the limiting factor in modern aircraft is the G force the pilot can withstand? Unmanned must be the way to go?
That is a true statement, but I don't know if that applies here. I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but the G limits imposed on the F35 are far less than what a meatbag is capable of withstanding. Maybe someone else can chime in, but to me that means that the performance of the airplane is hindered by its own design, not the presence of a human pilot. Is the design weakened because a pilot is on board? Possibly, but I can't think of how or why that would be the case. From what I've read, it's more about the design, such as the delicate skin of the 35.
Sunhouse
Profile picture for user Sunhouse
Posts
3590
Joined
3/2/2009
Location
NO
Sunhouse 10/28/2015 5:25pm
10/28/2015 5:25pm
Don't worry about numbers. They don't mean much anymore. I'm not the biggest fan of the F35, but it does bring something new. It can basically see and shoot down multiple top modern enemy fighters loooong before they even know there is an F35 airborne. It is not reliant on speed, maneuvrability or agility.

What does bother me is how the technology may be hacked and thus fighting the F35 will be done by computer nerds, and not fighter pilots or SAMs
JW381
Profile picture for user JW381
Posts
10642
Joined
7/21/2009
Location
Harrisburg, OR US
JW381 10/28/2015 5:44pm
10/28/2015 5:44pm
Sunhouse wrote:
Don't worry about numbers. They don't mean much anymore. I'm not the biggest fan of the F35, but it does bring something new. It can basically...
Don't worry about numbers. They don't mean much anymore. I'm not the biggest fan of the F35, but it does bring something new. It can basically see and shoot down multiple top modern enemy fighters loooong before they even know there is an F35 airborne. It is not reliant on speed, maneuvrability or agility.

What does bother me is how the technology may be hacked and thus fighting the F35 will be done by computer nerds, and not fighter pilots or SAMs
Not as stealthy as advertised. Thats a big issue.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/28/new-u-s-stealth-jet-ca…

early
Profile picture for user early
Posts
8289
Joined
2/13/2013
Location
University Heights, OH US
Fantasy
2231st
early 12/15/2022 1:36pm
12/15/2022 1:36pm

Kinda wild video, hope the pilots ok. I saw a Harrier at an airshow do a vto about 25 years ago and it blew my mind.

 

JW381
Profile picture for user JW381
Posts
10642
Joined
7/21/2009
Location
Harrisburg, OR US
JW381 12/15/2022 1:52pm
12/15/2022 1:52pm
early wrote:
Kinda wild video, hope the pilots ok. I saw a Harrier at an airshow do a vto about 25 years ago and it blew my mind....

Kinda wild video, hope the pilots ok. I saw a Harrier at an airshow do a vto about 25 years ago and it blew my mind.

 

I just saw this a few minutes ago. Didn't expect to see a seven year old thread pop up from it though! I have actually come along way in my opinion of Fat Amy, especially after seeing both the A and C models at an airshow this summer. That F-135 burns something fierce. Everything else that I've read has really re-shaped my opinion.

Anyway, very interesting video and also hope the pilot is ok. Before I knew the outcome, I was thinking there was no way he was supposed to be descending that fast and steady. Definitely looks like something went wrong.

2
early
Profile picture for user early
Posts
8289
Joined
2/13/2013
Location
University Heights, OH US
Fantasy
2231st
early 12/15/2022 2:03pm
12/15/2022 2:03pm
JW381 wrote:
I just saw this a few minutes ago. Didn't expect to see a seven year old thread pop up from it though! I have actually come...

I just saw this a few minutes ago. Didn't expect to see a seven year old thread pop up from it though! I have actually come along way in my opinion of Fat Amy, especially after seeing both the A and C models at an airshow this summer. That F-135 burns something fierce. Everything else that I've read has really re-shaped my opinion.

Anyway, very interesting video and also hope the pilot is ok. Before I knew the outcome, I was thinking there was no way he was supposed to be descending that fast and steady. Definitely looks like something went wrong.

I knew there was an F35 thread somewhere. What's really impressive is that the search feature of New Vital is actually usable!

1
1

Post a reply to: F35