# OOps didn't think about this one. F35b bomb fitting problem



## Torch (Mar 5, 2015)

New Small Diameter Bomb Doesnâ€™t Fit Inside Marineâ€™s F-35B | Military.com


----------



## Airframes (Mar 5, 2015)

Just stick it on top, and roll to release - simples !!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2015)

More F-35 bashing. The problem has been known since 2007 and it may not be the fault of LMCO as the specification for the weapons bay was issued years prior.

This aircraft will be a game changer. Those who continually bash it either have an agenda, base their bias on the 2011 Rand Report (most issues have been fixed that were identified on that report) or just don't know or understand its capabilities.

This Woman Flew an F-35 Simulator with Her Mind | Military.com


----------



## pbehn (Mar 5, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> More F-35 bashing. The problem has been known since 2007 and it may not be the fault of LMCO as the specification for the weapons bay was issued years prior.
> 
> This aircraft will be a game changer. Those who continually bash it either have an agenda, base their bias on the 2011 Rand Report (most issues have been fixed that were identified on that report) or just don't know or understand its capabilities.
> 
> This Woman Flew an F-35 Simulator with Her Mind | Military.com



There was a similar story in UK press I didnt know we planned to use this bomb but hey why spoil a good story.

They had similar problem with the mosquito, cut the fins problem solved , simples!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2015)

pbehn said:


> There was a similar story in UK press I didnt know we planned to use this bomb but hey why spoil a good story.
> 
> They had similar problem with the mosquito, cut the fins problem solved , simples!



I saw another story of this where they could actually carry this bomb but not in the numbers planned, I believe 4 in lieu of 6


----------



## pbehn (Mar 5, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I saw another story of this where they could actually carry this bomb but not in the numbers planned, I believe 4 in lieu of 6



Thats how it was reported here too, almost half a story about very little.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2015)

If the SDB has problems to fit, how would the 'normal size' bombs fit?
The coolest/most ironic (depending from the PoW) thing is that countries that purchased the Super Bug, or even the late versions of F-15/F-16 look smart now. The UCAVs also look like winners.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 5, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> If the SDB has problems to fit, how would the 'normal size' bombs fit?


It is a question of numbers only six fit instead of eight. In UK we will have to fly more missions to drop the bombs we dont have.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2015)

Okay, roger that.


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 5, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> More F-35 bashing.



I think they're just poking your buttons


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> I think they're just poking your buttons



They try


----------



## Torch (Mar 6, 2015)

She did have a problem parking the plane thou  That is pretty amazing.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 6, 2015)

Maybe one day something positive will be written about this contraption. The last time we had a debacle luke this, the F111; at least the AF got good use out if it. Not this clunker.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 7, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> Maybe one day something positive will be written about this contraption. The last time we had a debacle luke this, the F111; at least the AF got good use out if it. Not this clunker.



Once again Sys, you make closed minded comments about this aircraft with no basis for debate, basing your comments on aircraft and concepts 50 years old. It had problems, like any other sophisticated combat plane to enter service, but it's now on schedule and on budget. If you bothered to actually READ the article this issue involved the F-35B, the Marine bird, and it had NOTHING to do with the AF. 

I guess you're still drinking the Yahoo cool aid. 

In the mean time...

US Program Chief: Singapore Nearing F-35 Buy


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 9, 2015)

See, I _told_ yous, you should have bought, upgraded and then later, bought the licence rights for the Blackburn Buccaneer, _simples!_

_Or,_ maybe, just maybe....brought the TSR.2 back to life.... 

No, no....I know, buy the Gripen!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 9, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> No, no....I know, buy the Gripen!



We'll have to think about that one...


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 9, 2015)

Mind you, he walked away from that crash.....well, kinda.. 
Could probably have crashed another few times, before coming up to the price of the F-35...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 9, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Mind you, he walked away from that crash.....well, kinda..
> Could probably have *crashed another few times*, before coming up to the price of the F-35...





And he may!!..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2015)

Just to prove my point a bit more, this was out today;

Doggle That Boon, Fellas: In Which We Revisit The F-35

It brings up the small diameter bomb issue on the F-35B, a problem identified in 2007. Do a little reseach and you'll find that the F-35A flew about the same time the GBU-39 was entering service, the F-35B flew two years later. The author omits the fact that the F-35B could still carry the GBU-39, just not as many as planned until the the aircraft is modified. It also neglects to say that the specification for the weapos bay isn't something that LMCO comes up with like an option whem you buy a car...

More negative press and cool aid for those who are thirsty for some sensationalism.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 12, 2015)

Oooooh.....please...please..._please..._I just _love_ sensationalism...!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 12, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Oooooh.....please...please..._please..._I just _love_ sensationalism...!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 12, 2015)

Not bashing here but the aircraft in my opinion is kind of small to have a internal bombs bay. Aniway good machine, expensive but probably we going to see those in action soon.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 12, 2015)

CharlesBronson said:


> Not bashing here but the aircraft in my opinion is kind of small to have a internal bombs bay. Aniway good machine, expensive but probably we going to see those in action soon.


They also have the option for wing pylons. You lose the stealth capability but you may fly a mission where stealth isn't a factor


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 12, 2015)

Over priced.
Underwhelming
Already dated
Logistics monster
A flying turkey.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> Over priced.
> Underwhelming
> Already dated
> Logistics monster
> A flying turkey.



Gee Sys, could you come up with some substance to back up your simpleton rant?


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 13, 2015)

I could, but then I'd get banned for aggressive, offensive language!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> I could, but then I'd get banned for aggressive, offensive language!



If you keep it simple we may cut you some slack!


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 13, 2015)

Oh good grief, don't encourage him!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 13, 2015)

Naaaah....don't know enough to do it, I just know that it has its flaws, but so does Gripen, no fighter is perfect, but the F-22/35 are both bl**dy expensive to have flaws, mind you though, if I may ask, how much will it cost to do the same the same to their airframes, as what SAAB done to their bird, A/B, C/D and to the Next Generation versions, the E/F? The same increase in range etc., etc.?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Naaaah....don't know enough to do it, I just know that it has its flaws, but so does Gripen, no fighter is perfect, but the F-22/35 are both bl**dy expensive to have flaws, mind you though, if I may ask, how much will it cost to do the same the same to their airframes, as what SAAB done to their bird, A/B, C/D and to the Next Generation versions, the E/F? The same increase in range etc., etc.?



I think about the same if LMCO was building the same airframe and the reason why I say that is because the differences in variants between the A/B, C/D and E/F seem a lot less complex then what's lumped into the F-35. You also have one prime contractor, that being Saab in lieu of 3 US branches of the military, several partner nations and dozens of contracted directed sub-contractors to deal with. That alone is one of the reasons why the F-35 experienced cost over runs in the beginning of the program and there is NO manufacturer that could have done this without some type of schedule slip or cost increase. Additionally there were changes thrown in by all 3 branches of the US services that few want to discuss.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 13, 2015)

My concern with the F 35 is that I am British and live near the North Sea. It isnt the Med. and it isnt the Persian Gulf I can foresee a good few planes lost or written off landing in a storm, each aircraft being 2% of the RN total capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2015)

pbehn said:


> My concern with the F 35 is that I am British and live near the North Sea. It isnt the Med. and it isnt the Persian Gulf I can foresee a good few planes lost or written off landing in a storm, each aircraft being 2% of the RN total capability.



Well that's the compromise with this very expensive aircraft. In theory you should never lose one, but then again one B-2 was lost and that was at $1 billion a copy


----------



## pbehn (Mar 13, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well that's the compromise with this very expensive aircraft. In theory you should never lose one, but then again one B-2 was lost and that was at $1 billion a copy



I laugh when I see the term "all weather capability" There are times when I am sure no aircraft would be launched around the UK, the problem is after launching them can they always get back, storms can b;ow up in a few hours.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I laugh when I see the term "all weather capability" There are times when I am sure no aircraft would be launched around the UK, the problem is after launching them can they always get back, storms can b;ow up in a few hours.



While I could somewhat share your feelings I did a little research and there's been only one UK combat aircraft lost in the north Sea since 2005 and it was not weather related.

UK Military Aircraft Losses


----------



## pbehn (Mar 13, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> While I could somewhat share your feelings I did a little research and there's been only one UK combat aircraft lost in the north Sea since 2005 and it was not weather related.
> 
> UK Military Aircraft Losses


Its Politics FlyboyJ. The Carrier borne variant does nothing to defend the UK but may tempt future politicians to "project" in order to secure a position as a peace envoy. If Putin decides to roll in to Europe carrier borne AC are not what I want to see. I am not knocking the aircraft just the decision to put a massive part of our defence budget on two carriers + aircraft + support vessels.

Normal North sea weather


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 13, 2015)

The F22 was designed as a fighter. And a great one it is. Is the F35 a fighter or a bomber? Its does neither very well and from the beginning it should have been designed as a bomber and optimized for that role. 

In the end, it will be a historical footnote as POS airframe that should have been cancelled at an early stage.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 14, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> The F22 was designed as a fighter. And a great one it is. Is the F35 a fighter or a bomber? Its does neither very well and from the beginning it should have been designed as a bomber and optimized for that role.
> 
> In the end, it will be a historical footnote as POS airframe that should have been cancelled at an early stage.



A modern Me 262?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> The F22 was designed as a fighter. And a great one it is.


When it works - maybe you should focus on that. Right now it has one of the lowest FMC rates (if you even know what that is) in the USAF. It has issues, fixable issues, but like any other sophisticated piece of military hardware, issues.


syscom3 said:


> Is the F35 a fighter or a bomber?


 BOTH, but it's primary mission is to drop bombs and it's been that from the beginning.


syscom3 said:


> Its does neither very well


Says who? Pierre Spey four years ago? Do you say that because it isn't super maneuverable when it doesn't have to be, or maybe you think being able to maneuver like an F/A-18C isn't good enough??? 
http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/typhoon-aerial-combat/

From a Typhoon pilot

"No doubt the F-35 will be, when available, a very capable aircraft: its stealth design, extended range, internal carriage of stores and a variety of integrated sensors are definitely the ingredients for success in modern air-to-ground operations.

However, when time comes for air dominance, some other ingredients like thrust to weight ratio and wing loading tend to regulate the sky. And in that nothing comes close to a Typhoon, except an F-22 which has very similar values. *The F-35 thrust to weight ratio is way lower and its energy-manoeuvrability diagrams match those of the F/A-18, which is an excellent result for a single engine aircraft loaded with several thousand pounds of fuel and significant armament*."



syscom3 said:


> and from the beginning it should have been designed as a bomber and optimized for that role.


It is and has been - the primary mission of this aircraft is to drop bombs, kill badguys who challenge it in the air BVR and fly home. I guess you're yearning for "TOP GUN" type excitement 


syscom3 said:


> In the end, it will be a historical footnote as POS airframe that should have been cancelled at an early stage.


Your biased and unsubstantiated opinion fed by ignorance and cool aid. Please update the news portion of your browser because you have brought up nothing but old news and dated issues with regards to the F-35.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2015)

Here Sys, the F-22 has it's detractors as well...

Problem-plagued plane hits ISIS: F-22 goes into combat - CNN.com
F-22 Too Much For Human Physiology - Business Insider
F-22 program produces few planes, soaring costs - LA Times
Air Force tells stealth pilots it has no cure for 'Raptor cough' â€” RT USA
Air Force 'Confident' F-22 Raptor Fighter Problem Solved - ABC News


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 14, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> They also have the option for wing pylons. You lose the stealth capability but you may fly a mission where stealth isn't a factor



Thanks for the reply, losing stealth capabilities is bad if the mission would be penetrating Russian airspace, or attacking warships, but I think wont matter much in the future missions of the Raptor, most like bombing some rebel muslim army in the Middle east.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2015)

CharlesBronson said:


> Thanks for the reply, losing stealth capabilities is bad if the mission would be penetrating Russian airspace, or attacking warships, but I think wont matter much in the future missions of the Raptor, most like bombing some rebel muslim army in the Middle east.



It also depends what model we're talking about. The F-35B is the V/STOL version and the one having the issue with the small diameter bomb. The F-35A/C USAF/ USN version have no such issue AFAIK as they don't have the lift fan installation. The aircraft is adaptable to the mission.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Its Politics FlyboyJ. *The Carrier borne variant does nothing to defend the UK but may tempt future politicians to "project" in order to secure a position as a peace envoy. If Putin decides to roll in to Europe carrier borne AC are not what I want to see.* I am not knocking the aircraft just the decision to put a massive part of our defence budget on two carriers + aircraft + support vessels.
> 
> Normal North sea weather



That's a military/ political issue that really has nothing to do with this aircraft. I would think the Typhoon would be the primary aircraft used for the defense of the UK


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 14, 2015)

If the F-35's primary mission is to drop boom-booms, why is it then called _F_-35, I thought that _F_ was reserved for fighters...is this gonna be one of them there turkeys, jack of all Trades, king of none?


----------



## pbehn (Mar 14, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> While I could somewhat share your feelings I did a little research and there's been only one UK combat aircraft lost in the north Sea since 2005 and it was not weather related.
> 
> UK Military Aircraft Losses



Flyboy I looked at the links, but that is in the main after we had no harriers or carriers in operation.


here is a list of sea harrier, ejection history which may not be the total of write offs. I count 28 ...a substantial number, some are understandable operational stuff but even an all singing all dancing plane can have a bird strike. I am not knocking the F 35 in any way just I dont think its a great choice for us in Uk especially the vertical take off version.

SeaHarrier

After a decade or two of having no carriers once we have 2 with F 35s on board I am sure our idiot politicians will see some place they really must be used.

Unless there are MASSIVE oil fields around the Falklands I cannot see any real use for the carriers and F35s....but then I believe there are massive reserves there lol


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 14, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well that's the compromise with this very expensive aircraft. In theory you should never lose one, but then again one B-2 was lost and that was at $1 billion a copy


----------



## pbehn (Mar 14, 2015)

If it wasnt for the white foam I wouldnt be able to see a thang!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 14, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> If the F-35's primary mission is to drop boom-booms, why is it then called _F_-35, I thought that _F_ was reserved for fighters...is this gonna be one of them there turkeys, jack of all Trades, king of none?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 14, 2015)

CharlesBronson said:


> Thanks for the reply, losing stealth capabilities is bad if the mission would be penetrating Russian airspace, or attacking warships, but I think wont matter much in the future missions of the Raptor, most like bombing some rebel muslim army in the Middle east.



http://theaviationist.com/2015/01/19/a-10-strela-iraq/
Those rebel muslims have 9K32 Strela-2 (NATO reporting name SA-7 Grail) SAMS


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 15, 2015)

How many Super Hornets, do you get for one B-2?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> How many Super Hornets, do you get for one B-2?


About 8 depending on model. The F/A-18 Growler is $95 mil a copy


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 16, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> http://theaviationist.com/2015/01/19/a-10-strela-iraq/
> Those rebel muslims have 9K32 Strela-2 (NATO reporting name SA-7 Grail) SAMS




Strela-2 was old news by the time of 1st Desert Storm, if not earlier. A bulls-eye hit was not sufficient many times to bring down the lowly A-4 of Israel's AF or Super Galeb of Yugoslavia/Serbia (though we bagged that type sometimes, along a number of the less resilient Galebs and Jastrebs), let alone the sturdy A-10. The level of countermeasures the modern combat aircraft has today means the guidance system can be fooled in no time.

By now any non-western armed force worth that name switched from Strela-2 to the Igla.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

