some F35 info

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Some very smooth landings on the USS Wasp. The Harrier always kind of wobbled its way down onto the deck. Good to see the Corps pushing towards IOC for VMFA-121. Cool vids!
 
GrauGeist said:
Honestly, name me one thing that the military is involved with, that doesn't have cost over-runs?

I can guarantee you that the media would be hard-pressed to find one thing that hasn't gone over budget for the past 75 years.
Click to expand...

True. In terms of achievement the B 29 would probably be termed an abject failure if it didnt drop the bomb that won the war (which it wasnt actually designed for). However post war the B 29 won a bigger war and Boeing controlled the long haul market for decades. I personally have a feeling that the cost of the F 35 will reap massive benefits in new video imaging and computing technologies.
 
pbehn said:
True. In terms of achievement the B 29 would probably be termed an abject failure if it didnt drop the bomb that won the war (which it wasnt actually designed for). However post war the B 29 won a bigger war and Boeing controlled the long haul market for decades. I personally have a feeling that the cost of the F 35 will reap massive benefits in new video imaging and computing technologies.
Click to expand...

That's very debatable as the B-29 was extremely effective in fire-bombing Japan and spawned many successful tanker and cargo variants (one of which is still in use today), but yes, the cream of the top acft like the Raptor, Typhoon, and (soon to be) F-35 are revolutions in software design.
 
pbehn said:
True. In terms of achievement the B 29 would probably be termed an abject failure if it didnt drop the bomb that won the war (which it wasnt actually designed for). However post war the B 29 won a bigger war and Boeing controlled the long haul market for decades. I personally have a feeling that the cost of the F 35 will reap massive benefits in new video imaging and computing technologies.
Click to expand...

Small munitions, automated aircraft assembly lines and graphite composites as well. From what I understand the surface coatings on the F-35 are a little more resilient than what we seen on the F-117 and B-2
 
ScreamingLighting said:
That's very debatable as the B-29 was extremely effective in fire-bombing Japan and spawned many successful tanker and cargo variants (one of which is still in use today), but yes, the cream of the top acft like the Raptor, Typhoon, and (soon to be) F-35 are revolutions in software design.
Click to expand...

The B29 was designed as a high altitude bomber ..many other AC could have dropped incendiaries at night and if that was the brief for the B29 it would have been a much different AC. I am aware of the tanker cargo and transport variants but in the immediate post war it was the head start in passenger craft that gave boeing its lead.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Small munitions, automated aircraft assembly lines and graphite composites as well. From what I understand the surface coatings on the F-35 are a little more resilient than what we seen on the F-117 and B-2
Click to expand...

Technology is technology just because it is designed for an aircraft doesn't mean it only applies to aircraft. I worked at a company that made some of the inner parts of the Large Hadron Collider (the bits close to the plasma). Making internally copper coated highly alloyed stainless tubes that have zero gauss at minus 270C seems extreme and of little value but a company that can satisfy the requirement learns a lot and wins future clients.

FBJ I was generalising you are being specific, I can guarantee that before you spin off this mortal coil you will see something in every day life that started as an off shoot of the F 35 programme. It is the way life works, George Cayley (1773-1857) had all sorts of ideas related to flight his greatest idea was what everyone would recognise as a bicycle wheel.
 
Last edited:
pbehn said:
The B29 was designed as a high altitude bomber ..many other AC could have dropped incendiaries at night and if that was the brief for the B29 it would have been a much different AC. I am aware of the tanker cargo and transport variants but in the immediate post war it was the head start in passenger craft that gave boeing its lead.
Click to expand...

But none had the range of the B-29 (except the B-32), and none could carry the payload (except the Lanc). And even so, what an aircraft's designed for doesn't necessarily mean it's not good in a different role. Take the F-16, it was originally a lightweight fighter designed for close in dogfights and no other purpose, and look what it is today. And Boeing got that lead because it had far and away the most experience designing large planes, eg the B-29. (The B-29 was also good enough at dropping incendiaries and night that it was again used in Korea in the same role.)
 
ScreamingLighting said:
But none had the range of the B-29 (except the B-32), and none could carry the payload (except the Lanc). And even so, what an aircraft's designed for doesn't necessarily mean it's not good in a different role. Take the F-16, it was originally a lightweight fighter designed for close in dogfights and no other purpose, and look what it is today. And Boeing got that lead because it had far and away the most experience designing large planes, eg the B-29. (The B-29 was also good enough at dropping incendiaries and night that it was again used in Korea in the same role.)
Click to expand...

SL you are missing the point I am making. It does not matter that the B 29 was designed as a high altitude bomber with conventional bombs but made its name dropping A bombs and doing night raids, the point is the investment in MAKING the engines work gave the US a lead in reliable high output piston engines to tide the world over until Jet and turbo props took over. The point I am making is that the B 29 was a great investment even though it never fulfilled its brief of dropping iron bombs accurately from high altitude.
 
pbehn said:
Technology is technology just because it is designed for an aircraft doesn't mean it only applies to aircraft. I worked at a company that made some of the inner parts of the Large Hadron Collider (the bits close to the plasma). Making internally copper coated highly alloyed stainless tubes that have zero gauss at minus 270C seems extreme and of little value but a company that can satisfy the requirement learns a lot and wins future clients.

FBJ I was generalising you are being specific, I can guarantee that before you spin off this mortal coil you will see something in every day life that started as an off shoot of the F 35 programme. It is the way life works, George Cayley (1773-1857) had all sorts of ideas related to flight his greatest idea was what everyone would recognise as a bicycle wheel.
Click to expand...
I understood exactly where you were going, I was being specific because there are some on here who aren't as "broad minded." All one as to do is look at the Apollo program and all the technology offshoot that came from there...
 
Just in case I'd show my ugly mug here again.....hang on.....d*mmit....too late for that....anyway, nothing is to be taken as criticism against Lockheed etc., as you know me, I'm 30+ years or so behind you lot and every modern jet is ugly etc., etc., and the F-4 Phantom, F-8 Crusader, J35 Draken etc., are the hottest jets on landing gear....
At the same, I appreciate the discussion as I learn a lot about the F-35...
Just wanted to point that out gentlemen!

Btw, a tad off topic, a voice in the back of my noggin is annoying me, wasn't Grumman founded by a Norwegian, or am I remember it wrong somewhat?
 
Lucky13 said:
Just in case I'd show my ugly mug here again.....hang on.....d*mmit....too late for that....anyway, nothing is to be taken as criticism against Lockheed etc., as you know me, I'm 30+ years or so behind you lot and every modern jet is ugly etc., etc., and the F-4 Phantom, F-8 Crusader, J35 Draken etc., are the hottest jets on landing gear....
At the same, I appreciate the discussion as I learn a lot about the F-35...
Just wanted to point that out gentlemen!

Btw, a tad off topic, a voice in the back of my noggin is annoying me, wasn't Grumman founded by a Norwegian, or am I remember it wrong somewhat?
Click to expand...

No worries mate, just as long as you're not wearing a polyester leisure suit!

Leroy Grumman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
FLYBOYJ said:
No worries mate, just as long as you're not wearing a polyester leisure suit!

Leroy Grumman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Cheers J! I wonder where I got the Norway thing from... :lol:

Torch said:
SECNAV: F-35C should be Navy's last manned strike jet
Click to expand...

Noticed that today as well...

FLYBOYJ said:
I saw that - I take it with a grain of salt, the guy was a "black shoe." I'm sure there's folks in the USAF who welcome that ;)
Click to expand...

Black shoe?! :confused: :lol:
 
Lucky13 said:
Black shoe?! :confused: :lol:
Click to expand...

'Surface' sailors, they serve on ships and wear "black shoes." :rolleyes:

Brown Shoe - aviation naval officers and senior enlisted members, due to the dark brown footwear worn in uniform. Brown Shoes may serve on ships too depending on what type of aircraft they work on, MUCH COOLER PEOPLE! ;)

AD.jpg


gunner-sbd-dauntless.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Venomstick121
Gulf of Sidra 1981 Info wanted
Replies
7
Views
765
Barrett
B
F
Allison J33 -A-24 Info
Replies
1
Views
759
mjfur
M
WARSPITER
SR-72 Darkstar info
Replies
8
Views
719
SaparotRob
SaparotRob
M
Some Interesting Vietnam Shots
Replies
5
Views
867
Gnomey
Gnomey
Dronescapes
Experimental Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base. Some rare, unclassified footage
Replies
2
Views
534
Thumpalumpacus
Thumpalumpacus
Back