Second opinions needed about some ww2 aircraft remarks..

FLYBOYJ · Jun 20, 2005

wmaxt said:
the lancaster kicks ass said:

what about the JSFs we're supposed to get?? if you drop them will we still get ours??

Click to expand...

The current word is that the problems, mostly weight gain, have been corrected and the JSF F-35 is on target for production and delivery. I think delivery will allow operations to start in 2012 for the Marines and the following year for the Air Force and Navy. It wouldn't surprise me if the Brittish version matched the Marine as that version matches up with verticle take off etc. The first pre-production aircraft will fly next year.
This data is the most current per June 2005 Air Force Magazine. Also neither this year or next years budget for the F-35 will be touched.

Eventuly the F-35 will replace the Hornet.

wmaxt

I think the weight gain issue wasn't really an issue. I know people who designed the X-35 and they purposely thought of additional weight in the production version. As issue internal at Lockheed is, although smaller, if the F-35 will out perfoprm the F-22?!?

wmaxt · Jun 20, 2005

FLYBOYJ said:
wmaxt said:

the lancaster kicks ass said:

I think the weight gain issue wasn't really an issue. I know people who designed the X-35 and they purposely thought of additional weight in the production version. As issue internal at Lockheed is, although smaller, if the F-35 will out perfoprm the F-22?!?

Click to expand...

According to this article it was real enough, especialy in the STOVL - Marine/British version, to have threatened the program. It was airframe weight that already exceeded the projected weight growth of the production version.

wmaxt

Click to expand...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 20, 2005

The JSF is the ulitimate in aircraft desing at the moment. And I agree the Carriers and JSF are a perfect match.

the lancaster kicks ass · Jun 20, 2005

but because of the way they go into hover the JSF can't use it's VTOl abilities in flight like the harrier can.......

FLYBOYJ · Jun 20, 2005

the lancaster kicks ass said:
but because of the way they go into hover the JSF can't use it's VTOl abilities in flight like the harrier can.......

For maneuvering, quite true, it has a huge fan that gives it it VTOL capability, however its supposed to still be super maneuverable and does have the benefit of thrust vectoring in the "tail snake."

FLYBOYJ · Jun 20, 2005

wmaxt said:
FLYBOYJ said:

wmaxt said:

the lancaster kicks ass said:

I think the weight gain issue wasn't really an issue. I know people who designed the X-35 and they purposely thought of additional weight in the production version. As issue internal at Lockheed is, although smaller, if the F-35 will out perfoprm the F-22?!?

Click to expand...

According to this article it was real enough, especialy in the STOVL - Marine/British version, to have threatened the program. It was airframe weight that already exceeded the projected weight growth of the production version.

wmaxt

Click to expand...

Hmmmm - interesting.

I know the systems engineers were given bounses for weight savings, many of them made lots of money! At the time however, the goal was to beat the Boeing team.

Click to expand...

Glider · Jun 20, 2005

As I understand it the latest threat to the J35 is that the USA will not give the UK access to some of the key software which would make us dependent on the USA for any upgrades and enhancements.
This is considered to be unacceptable as we often tweak aviation equipment from the USA. Sometimes we do it well (helicopters) and sometimes we don't (Phantom), but we do like to tinker.

FLYBOYJ · Jun 20, 2005

You're probbly quite correct, although the UK has an advantage as BAE Systems, the UK partner in the JSF is now the 3rd largest US defense contractor behind Boeing and Lockheed. Many people forgot about that when British Aerospace bought North Amaerican Marconi a few years ago.

I'm sure a lot of "politicing" will be going on!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 21, 2005

The thrust vectoring is very impressive. What Russian Fighter was it that had it also?

the lancaster kicks ass · Jun 21, 2005

the yak-38 i believe...........

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 21, 2005

I thought it was a Sukhoi.

Aha yeah the Su-37 and the Su-47 have thrust vectoring.

the lancaster kicks ass · Jun 21, 2005

ok sorry i missunderstood your question, the Yak-38 was the Russain "equvilant" of the harrier......

plan_D · Jun 21, 2005

It was the Yak-36.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 21, 2005

No the Yak-38 was also a VTOL aircraft along with the Yak-36.

FLYBOYJ · Jun 21, 2005

Nice shots - but the Yak-38 - HORNET FOOD!

Glider · Jun 21, 2005

One good point about the Yak 38 is that it had the best ejector seat for a VTOL plane at the time. The problem with a VTOL plane is that it tends to roll when having an accident firing the pilot in any direction but up.
The Yak 38 seat automatically went off if it rolled in the hover past a certain point, and then could tell which way was up, adjust the seat giving the pilot enough height.

And before anyone else says it, its a good job the pilot had a good seat as they would need it.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 21, 2005

Yeah I was never impressed by her. She seemed to me to be a lame attempt to copy the harrier. She was an interesting design though.

Okay this came in late and was meant for Flyboy's post.

the lancaster kicks ass · Jun 22, 2005

looks good though.......

cheddar cheese · Jun 22, 2005

The Yak-36 has a monumental penis sticking off the front

FLYBOYJ · Jun 22, 2005

the lancaster kicks ass said:
looks good though.......

Good enough to eat!

Second opinions needed about some ww2 aircraft remarks..

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Captain

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Attachments

Major General

Lieutenant Colonel

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Attachments

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Captain

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

Major General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Attachments

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads