# Awesome F-35 vid



## comiso90 (Oct 13, 2008)

Sunday Eye Candy: Awesome F-35B Video Shows US Marines Already Have Transformers

So many moving parts... it has to be a maintenance nightmare!..

.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 13, 2008)

Great clip but I have to laugh at some of the comments.

_"The video was done two years ago for Northrop Grumman. Our reader was one of the three people who did it and he's quite surprised to find it online, since it is under NDA.

The one depicted is the X-35 [the prototype that won the contract for the Joint Strike Fighter and became the F-35]. I don’t know who posted it on YouTube, but the level of NDA’s was substantial where we were not even allowed to showcase it on our demo reel."_

Northrop is just a subcontractor. The writer is full of you know what.

Here's the X-35's in a hover - same thing...

BTW I was there when this clip was taken.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm7_PPE-8nk_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GjrPvSBGXE_


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 13, 2008)

What have we learned form the Harrier? This must be a safer machine to fly. Why? What makes it safer?

So many moving parts..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 13, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> What have we learned form the Harrier? This must be a safer machine to fly. Why? What makes it safer?
> 
> So many moving parts..



The lift fan and the "snake" exhaust make it a better VTOL platform. It's actually a lot less complicated than it seems. Many of the components are "Line Removable Units" (LRUs) mechanical, electrical and avionics.

A lot of thought went into the design and that's why Lockheed beat out the Boeing team when this contract was awarded several years ago.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 13, 2008)

Does it rely on radar absorbing material as much as the F-117 did or is the shape the primary stealth tribute?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 13, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> Does it rely on radar absorbing material as much as the F-117 did or is the shape the primary stealth tribute?


Both but more the material its made from.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 13, 2008)

The Boeing design used essentially ducts to channel exhaust. While you might think that is simpler, the pressures induced, structural impact and resulting maintenance are far more complex with respect to recurring costs.

As FlyboyJ noted, the F-35 mechanisms are fairly simple and compared to a four nozzle Harrier much simpler, mechanically efficient, and fuel efficient. The major hurdle for the F-35 is the transmission to the lift fan. The ability to harness the sheer horsepower sent via shaft (torque) to the lift fan is phenomenal.

I suspect that the liftfan transmission was the ballbreaker in favor of Lockheed vice Boeing. The transmission couples 27,000hp (20MegaWatts) of power to the lift fan. Remove the liftfan, and you now have a direct energy source capable of powering offensive lasers, directed microwave energy devices or superpowerful RF generators for airborne electronic warfare. With Boeing, the design was limited in this area. Welcome to the future of air warfare.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 13, 2008)

Besides Matt, the X-32 was one ugly airplane. 

I think that liftfan is going to bring a lot of longevity to the design - I could see planes going in for retro fit to either remove or install the liftfan as the mission dictates.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 14, 2008)

Yyyyyeeepppp.  She's not beautiful, but she's pretty enough to ask to dance.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 14, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Remove the liftfan, and you now have a direct energy source capable of powering offensive lasers, directed microwave energy devices or superpowerful RF generators for airborne electronic warfare.



Yikes.... the rules are changing!

.


----------



## Glider (Oct 14, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Besides Matt, the X-32 was one ugly airplane.



Have to second that. I saw a mock up when the decision was still to be made and you have never seen such an ugly jet in your life. From the front it reminded me of a basking shark with its mouth wide open. 
How they made it stealthy I have no idea.

The two things that worry me about the F35, is a) the lift fan is that its extra weight in normal flight and b) the added compleixty of having two engines and their associated plumbing.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 14, 2008)

There is only one engine on the F-35. And the lift fan is only for the STOVL version. And the extra weight is of concern, but that is a price one pays for STOVL capability. I personally think STOVL is an unnecessary capability. With the possible exception of the Falklands, has there ever been a historical need for STOVL that couldn't be solved in other fashion (e.g., making use of existing highway infrastructure)? I don't think so. It is a means of making use of smaller surface ships and nothing more. There is a high price to pay for that.


----------



## Glider (Oct 14, 2008)

I wasn't clear but it was the STVOL version I was meaning. Re the requirement for SVTOL, I agree its close but I think the Marines like operating their Harriers from the assult ships and I am not brave enough to disagree with them.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 14, 2008)

Me either. But as an engineer I can fault them for shoddy requirements.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 14, 2008)

Hey I know, let's ask Marine Mkloby. He'll eat anything. Kloby?


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 14, 2008)

I bet nobody gets that. It sucks to get old.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 14, 2008)

"Mikey"

STOL is worth it for the Marines. I can imagine situations where they will need forward landing area.

The reason why the Harrier hasn't been vital to the mission so far is that we havent fought bad guys capable of taking out our runways.

F-22 for air superiority and the F-35 for flexibility is a good combo.

.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 15, 2008)

Yeah. But F-35A and F-35C. But F-35B? I'm dubious.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2008)

USAF - Marines - Navy - F-35A, B, and C. I'm not sure in what order but I was told that was the original plan.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 16, 2008)

F-35A CTOL for AF
F-35B STOVL for Marines
F-35C for Navy (larger wings/structural/landing gear)

Ofcourse the production lines do overlap, but that is the current production line planning.


----------

