some F35 info

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

I see it that way, too, but it WAS hyped as having a significant air-to-air capability that we now realize is not really the case.
This is what LMCO says about it..

"The F-35 and the F-22 are the world's two premier fighters, but there are some differences between the aircraft. The F-35 is optimized to be a multirole fighter, with the ability to perform air-to-air, air-to-ground and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. While the F-22 is superior to the F-35 in air-to-air missions, the F-35's air-to-air capability is superior to all other fighters. The F-35 is better than any other fighter aircraft, including the F-22, for air-to-ground strike missions."


https://www.f35.com/about

From Wiki, this is how the F-35 came about, it's purpose and those responsible for it.

"Project formation

The JSF program was the result of the merger of the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF) and Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) projects. The merged project continued under the JAST name until the engineering, manufacturing and development (EMD) phase, during which the project became the Joint Strike Fighter.

The CALF was a DARPA program to develop a STOVL strike fighter (SSF) for the United States Marine Corps and replacement for the F-16 Fighting Falcon. The United States Air Force passed over the F-16 Agile Falcon in the late 1980s, essentially an enlarged F-16, and continued to mull other designs. In 1992, the Marine Corps and Air Force agreed to jointly develop the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter, also known as Advanced Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (ASTOVL). CALF project was chosen after *Paul Bevilaqua persuaded the Air Force that his team's concept (if stripped of its lift system) had potential as a complement to the F-22 Raptor. Thus, in a sense the F-35B begat the F-35A, not the other way around.

The Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program was created in 1993, implementing one of the recommendations of a United States Department of Defense (DoD) "Bottom-Up Review to include the United States Navy in the Common Strike Fighter program." The review also led the Pentagon to continue the F-22 Raptor and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet programs, cancel the Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) and the A/F-X programs, and curtail F-16 and F/A-18C/D procurement. The JAST program office was established on 27 January 1994 to develop aircraft, weapons, and sensor technology with the aim of replacing several disparate US and UK aircraft with a single family of aircraft; the majority of those produced would replace F-16s. Merrill McPeak, former Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, has complained that Les Aspin's decision to force all three services to use a single airframe greatly increased the costs and difficulty of the project.

In November 1995, the United Kingdom signed a memorandum of understanding to become a formal partner, and agreed to pay $200 million, or 10% of the concept demonstration phase.

In 1997, Canada's Department of National Defense signed on to the Concept Demonstration phase with an investment of US$10 million. This investment allowed Canada to participate in the extensive and rigorous competitive process where Boeing and Lockheed Martin developed and competed their prototype aircraft.

JSF competition

Two contracts to develop prototypes were awarded on November 16, 1996, one each to Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Each firm would produce two aircraft to demonstrate conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL), carrier takeoff and landing (CV version), and short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL). McDonnell Douglas' bid was rejected in part due to the complexity of its design. Lockheed Martin and Boeing were each given $750 million for the development of the concept demonstrators and definition of the Preferred Weapon System Concept (PWSC). The aim of this funding limit was to prevent one or both contractors bankrupting themselves in an effort to win such an important contract.

Also in 1996, the UK Ministry of Defense launched the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft project. This program sought a replacement for the Sea Harrier (and later the Harrier GR7); the Joint Strike Fighter was selected in January 2001.

During concept definition, two Lockheed Martin airplanes were flight-tested: the X-35A (which was later converted into the X-35B), and the larger-winged X-35C. Arguably the most persuasive demonstration of the X-35's capability was the final qualifying Joint Strike Fighter flight trials, in which the X-35B STOVL aircraft took off in less than 500 feet (150 m), went supersonic, and landed vertically – a feat that Boeing's entry was unable to achieve.

Outcome

The contract for System Development and Demonstration (SDD) was awarded on 26 October 2001 to Lockheed Martin, whose X-35 beat the Boeing X-32. One of the main reasons for this choice appears to have been the method of achieving STOVL flight, with the Department of Defense judging that the higher performance lift fan system was worth the extra risk. When near to the ground, the Boeing X-32 suffered from the problem of hot air from the exhaust circulating back to the main engine, which caused the thrust to weaken and the engine to overheat.

The United States Department of Defense officials and William Bach, the UK Minister of Defense Procurement, said the X-35 consistently outperformed the X-32, although both met or exceeded requirements. The development of the JSF will be jointly funded by the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark.

Lockheed Martin's X-35 would become the basis of the F-35 Lightning II, currently in development. On April 6, 2009 US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that the US would buy a total of 2,443 JSFs."


*EDIT: BTW Paul Bevilaqua is the Lockheed engineer who invented the lift fan on the F-35B.

Paul Bevilaqua - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
We have a multi role aircraft thats good in a few roles and nothing great in
one. And we cant afford them

Call it for what it is. A turkey.
 
Last edited:
I saw this in Yahoo news today. The F35B is turning into an unmitigated disaster.

Our New Stealth Jet Can?t Land - Yahoo News

Once again old news and utter BS - look at the date of the article - May 26, 2014!!!! This has been addressed and dealt with months ago. Oh something I read that shows the bias against this aircraft...

"The main engine exhaust, the engineers said, was hot and energetic enough to have a 50% chance of spalling concrete on the first VL. ("Spalling" occurs when water in the concrete boils faster than it can escape, and steam blows flakes away from the surface)"

Note - 50% "CHANCE"

The "main engine" does not blow hot gases down, all the hovering energy is from the lift fan.

From Wiki..

"The configuration of the propulsion system is somewhat like a vertical ducted turboprop embedded into the center of the aircraft's fuselage. The three-bearing swivel module (3BSM) is a thrust vectoring nozzle at the tail of the aircraft which allows the main turbofan cruise engine exhaust to pass either straight through with reheat capability for forward propulsion in conventional flight, or to be deflected downward to provide aft vertical lift.

In "lift" mode for assisted vertical maneuvers, 29,000 hp is diverted forward through a driveshaft from the engine's low-pressure (LP) turbine via a clutch and bevel-gearbox to a vertically mounted, contra-rotating lift fan located forward of the main engine. The fan efflux (low-velocity unheated air) discharges through a thrust vectoring nozzle on the underside of the aircraft, thus balancing the aft lift generated by the 3BSM. Owing to the significant increase in LP turbine expansion ratio, implied by the large power off-take, the exhaust of the turbofan is switched from a mixed to unmixed configuration. For lateral stability and roll control, bypass air from the engine goes out through a pair of roll-post nozzles in the wings on either side of the fuselage. For pitch control, the areas of exhaust nozzle and LiftFan inlet are varied conversely to change the balance between them while maintaining their sum, and with constant turbine speed. Yaw control is achieved by yawing the 3BSM. Forward, and even backward, motion is controlled by tilting the 3BSM and Lift Fan outlet."


Kind of funny, you post this OLD article but yet the Marines (VMA-121) are about to deploy the first units in a few months. I'm sure they'll do that KNOWING the F-35 will tear up their runways! :rolleyes:

Here's a NEW article on the F-35...

F-35A testing took back seat to F-35B IOC preparation in 2014 - IHS Jane's 360
 
Last edited:

I take these reports with a grain of salt for several reasons. No one from within the pentagon is confirming this, it would be politically beneficial to do so. And even if they got "some" data, they have to be able to exploit it to their own purposes. So far they built a "stealth' fighter prototype that resembles the F-22 and smokes like an F-4.

"Just because you got part of a recipe, you have to have the kitchen to cook it in."
 
THe F-35 is a remarkable aircraft if you can look past the price tag. It has all this great technology that has been implemented into an aircraft, and the amount of information available to the pilot is mind blowing.

Here is a video of the demonstrator to give you a idea of what is going on in the cockpit. Of course, none of the real good stuff is shown, but its a idea.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oyCzT6sB_4

Here is my plane AF-03 doing GCAS testing.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkBA9cCAtTY

Our 2014 year in review

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNQOeZpRT3E
 
FYI

Boeing P-8A 2014 flyaway cost - $179.81 million

F-35 cost $85/ $100 million depending who you ask...

Mind you, the P-8A will never be built in the numbers planned for the F-35.
 
It will be shot down with no effort. Its not really good at anything. Just average. A hugely expensive mediocre mistake. If it was for an attack role, at least design it for that role. And dont throw away taxpayer funds to adapt it for the marines. Let them design a dedicated Harrier replacement.
 
It will be shot down with no effort. Its not really good at anything. Just average. A hugely expensive mediocre mistake. If it was for an attack role, at least design it for that role. And dont throw away taxpayer funds to adapt it for the marines. Let them design a dedicated Harrier replacement.

Your biased and uneducated opinion. You know nothing about this aircraft except what been poured into your glass by yahoo news. I've shown more than enough evidence that this aircraft is not only a game changer, but has taken a bashing in the media from those who either don't have a clue or who just have an agenda against LMCO, the program, the military or all of the above.
 
Last edited:
"....The B-2 cost 800 million a copy in 1997 dollars, they are worth 2 billion a copy today. They seen combat and 23 were built, 22 are left."

To fly none stop from Whitman AFB to Af'stan return is an incredible mission. The B-2 is an amazing achievement. Worth every penny
 
It will be shot down with no effort. Its not really good at anything. Just average. A hugely expensive mediocre mistake. If it was for an attack role, at least design it for that role. And dont throw away taxpayer funds to adapt it for the marines. Let them design a dedicated Harrier replacement.

Is this a good time to remind everyone that the cost of a combat drone is $500 million. Something that for certain will last minutes in a defended airspace.

If we rule out drones and the F35 because of cost, can I ask what you would use to attack the enemy with?
 
Once again old news and utter BS - look at the date of the article - May 26, 2014!!!! This has been addressed and dealt with months ago. Oh something I read that shows the bias against this aircraft...

"The main engine exhaust, the engineers said, was hot and energetic enough to have a 50% chance of spalling concrete on the first VL. ("Spalling" occurs when water in the concrete boils faster than it can escape, and steam blows flakes away from the surface)"

Note - 50% "CHANCE"

"Spalling" is a property with many causes. It may be caused by moisture but has many other potential causes. There are many types of concrete and many ways to screw up its application. I used to test pipeline concrete "weight coat" and blast furnace refractories for spalling resistance, no one lands jet aircraft on a sub sea pipe line or furnace wall. A badly laid drive will spall quickly without any heat applied. If you want to land an aircraft on a concrete pad choose a concrete that can withstand the weight, thermal shock and searching action of the jet stream. Not a dig at you Flyboy, I cant stand misuse of "science" to make a point. Is anyone seriously suggesting the F35 will take off from supermarket car parks or that special landing pads are a major problem in light of the total cost of the plane.
 
Hi All

I have a question, considering the high cost of combat aircraft do you think that we would consider a joint venture with our NATO allies in developing the next generation fighter?
 
Hi All

I have a question, considering the high cost of combat aircraft do you think that we would consider a joint venture with our NATO allies in developing the next generation fighter?

Well the UK is a contractor on the J35. From Wiki
The F-35 is descended from the X-35, which was the winning design of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. It is being designed and built by an aerospace industry team led by Lockheed Martin. Other major F-35 industry partners include Northrop Grumman, Pratt Whitney and BAE Systems.
and
F-35 JSF development is being principally funded by the United States with additional funding from partners. The partner nations are either NATO members or close U.S. allies. The United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Turkey are part of the active development program;[11][12] Several additional countries have ordered, or are considering ordering, the F-35.



Joint ventures are a great idea in theory but can be a nightmare in practice, politiking horsetrading and simple dishonesty become the norm.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back