some F35 info (2 Viewers)

[Token]

Of course, the test I saw quoted the F-16 pilot as saying the F-35, even light, couldn't fight, couldn't run, and couldn't disengage.

Tongue-in-cheek here, but hey, it plays into the conversation.

Viper drivers think their aircraft is the end-all, Eagle drivers think theirs is, and Hornet drivers think theirs is. And lets not even go where the elitist F-22 folks minds are centered.

It is pretty well laid out in this song (sung by F-16 pilots):

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXpyK26bwgk

As for BVR vs WVR, another Dos Gringos song:

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

T!

 

[Torch]

UK To Buy 138 F-35s, Purchase P-8 Poseidon | Defense content from Aviation Week

 

[rochie]

On P-8's there have been reports of a Russian sub off seen off scotland but guess what, this island nation i live in has zero maritime patrol aircraft !

 

[fastmongrel]

On P-8's there have been reports of a Russian sub off seen off scotland but guess what, this island nation i live in has zero maritime patrol aircraft !

Thats the Con-Lib cutbacks coming to haunt us. Now its just the Conservative cutbacks we need to worry about. 20,000 less troops 9,000 of whom have ended up living on the streets, 37,000 less Police, Police dog numbers cut by half and local anti terrorist intelligence funding cut, anti fundamentalist programs in known recruitment areas for terrorists not cutback just plain old gone. The list goes on and gets bloody scarier.

A Ruskie sub playing about in our territorial waters is the least you should be worried about. If Cameron gets his way and we go and start bombing the Daesh in Syria then people are going to die in Britain just so Osborne can say he's cutting the deficit (hes not by the way its higher than it has been since about 1950 as a percentage of GDP).

I am pretty apolitical and believe the only good politician is one torn apart by rabid dogs and then set on fire but endangering the security of the country for reasons of ideology is the work of madmen or idiots.

 

[parsifal]

Makes you wonder where the tax money is spent. In our country we have a new scheme, the Disability Support Scheme, funding god knows what and soaking up something like 40% of our national budget. Meanwhile industries go to the wall, defences allowed to fall apart, border protection a joke. The other day a vessel full of skinnies came to within 200m of Christmas Is before being "spotted " by the Navy. Actually, they came close to the shore and just shouted across the water for sanctuary.

 

[gumbyk]

I can agree that the difference between 4-point-something and 5-point something isn't much. That isn't the issue. I'm wondering why a military attack plane with the word "fighter" in the name, even if it is an "attack-fighter" or a "fighter-bomber" or a "stealth-fighter," can't sustain 8-g like they could 80 years ago, plus a 50% safety factor before failure.

What 1935 aircraft could sustain 8g? What pilots could sustain 8g without a G-suit?

 

[gumbyk]

I thought someone said the F35 didn't have guns?
See F-35 jet fire 3,300 rounds a minute from the air - CNN Video

 

[GregP]

I should have said withstand, not sustain.

And I said it couldn't shoot, and I have been correct up until now. It is simply idiotic that we can't put a gun on a plane for 14+ years. The solution is simple. Put in the gun and work out the RAM gun cover issues while the pilots learn to shoot with armed aircraft. There is no excuse that makes an sense for not clearing it to shoot live ammo before now.

Yes, we have to work out the gun cover, but that can be done offline with an engineering prototype and have the solution retrofitted to armed aircraft in service. It's easy. Make a modular gun cover and simple remove and replace the non-RAM unit with the RAM unit when it gets developed. You can use the unarmed prototype for radar tests. Maybe a few bolts and/or some rivets? How tough can it possibly be?

Answer: Not very. It should have been child's play to come up with it before now. It is a classic example of stupid decisions in development.

Doesn't mean the aircraft is turkey; it means the decision process was fundamentally flawed and cost a LOT more than it needed to cost.

That is not an F-35 failure. It is a program failure by the manufacturer, pure and simple.

 

[GrauGeist]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood the F-35 to have been designed from the onset to be armed with the GAU-22/A cannon instead of the traditional M61 20mm.

 

[gumbyk]

I should have said withstand, not sustain.

And I said it couldn't shoot, and I have been correct up until now. It is simply idiotic that we can't put a gun on a plane for 14+ years. The solution is simple. Put in the gun and work out the RAM gun cover issues while the pilots learn to shoot with armed aircraft. There is no excuse that makes an sense for not clearing it to shoot live ammo before now.

Yes, we have to work out the gun cover, but that can be done offline with an engineering prototype and have the solution retrofitted to armed aircraft in service. It's easy. Make a modular gun cover and simple remove and replace the non-RAM unit with the RAM unit when it gets developed. You can use the unarmed prototype for radar tests. Maybe a few bolts and/or some rivets? How tough can it possibly be?

Answer: Not very. It should have been child's play to come up with it before now. It is a classic example of stupid decisions in development.

Doesn't mean the aircraft is turkey; it means the decision process was fundamentally flawed and cost a LOT more than it needed to cost.

That is not an F-35 failure. It is a program failure by the manufacturer, pure and simple.

Greg, I think you're getting worked up and letting yourself down a bit here.

You know as well as many of us do that designing a light-weight aircraft to withstand 10g is a whole lot different to designing a large aircraft to withstand those same forces. The bigger the aircraft the harder it is to strengthen it for those design limits. That's why airliners aren't designed to these limits.

And I think you know what is involved in any 'small' retrofit...

 

[Lucky13]

On P-8's there have been reports of a Russian sub off seen off scotland but guess what, this island nation i live in has zero maritime patrol aircraft !

You'll, sorry....we'll end up with a our own U-137!

 

[Vanshilar]

I should have said withstand, not sustain.

And I said it couldn't shoot, and I have been correct up until now. It is simply idiotic that we can't put a gun on a plane for 14+ years. The solution is simple. Put in the gun and work out the RAM gun cover issues while the pilots learn to shoot with armed aircraft. There is no excuse that makes an sense for not clearing it to shoot live ammo before now.

Um, or it simply isn't a high priority. The gun is a low enough priority that they're even making it optional for the B and C variants.

For example, the F-22 didn't test fire its gun until 2003:

F-22 Milestones, Part 2 | Code One Magazine

The F-22 is generally around 10 years ahead of the F-35; the F-22 winner was announced in 1991 while the F-35 winner was announced in 2001. So by your metric, it took 12 years for them to fire the F-22's gun, while it took 14 for the F-35 -- and this for a plane that is largely single mission (air superiority with missiles and gun) without having to worry about the ground until later in its development. Similarly, I couldn't find a record of when the Rafale first fired its gun, but final approval for operational use of its gun was granted in mid-2000, for a plane that first flew in 1986:

Fox 3 - 2 by avia lduo

Looking around, for the Eurofighter Typhoon, it seems to have first fired its gun in flight in 2004, and it's a contemporary of the Rafale:

https://www.eurofighter.com/news-and-events/2004/04/eurofighter-typhoon-guns-and-missiles

In all these cases, it seems like the gun is fired only around a year or two before the plane's IOC; the F-22 IOC'ed in 2005, the Rafale IOC'ed in 2002, and the Typhoon IOC'ed in 2005. So the F-35A is on-track, with a gun test in 2015 and a planned IOC of 2016.

Long story short, the timeline for the F-35 to fire its gun seems to be about average for modern fighter aircraft. If you think its first gun trials are unacceptably late, you should be similarly upset about those other aircraft.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I should have said withstand, not sustain.

And I said it couldn't shoot, and I have been correct up until now. It is simply idiotic that we can't put a gun on a plane for 14+ years. The solution is simple. Put in the gun and work out the RAM gun cover issues while the pilots learn to shoot with armed aircraft. There is no excuse that makes an sense for not clearing it to shoot live ammo before now.

Yes, we have to work out the gun cover, but that can be done offline with an engineering prototype and have the solution retrofitted to armed aircraft in service. It's easy. Make a modular gun cover and simple remove and replace the non-RAM unit with the RAM unit when it gets developed. You can use the unarmed prototype for radar tests. Maybe a few bolts and/or some rivets? How tough can it possibly be?

Answer: Not very. It should have been child's play to come up with it before now. It is a classic example of stupid decisions in development.

Doesn't mean the aircraft is turkey; it means the decision process was fundamentally flawed and cost a LOT more than it needed to cost.

That is not an F-35 failure. It is a program failure by the manufacturer, pure and simple.

Greg - once again I think your rant is misplaced. If this portion of the program is on schedule and on budget, its a non issue. Just because you think it's taken too long to get the gun operational doesn't mean squat - hell, I'm pissed off because it's taken so long to get a proton laser energizer particle beam cannon on the A-10!!!

 

[GrauGeist]

...hell, I'm pissed off because it's taken so long to get a proton laser energizer particle beam cannon on the A-10!!!

Well Joe, hang in there! They're working on it!

Turbulence-taming Turret: Lockheed Martin Prototype Expands Laser Performance at Jet Speeds · Lockheed Martin

U.S. Navy Tests Laser Weapons - US News

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Here's some more rumor mill...

Next Big Future: US Air Force Might Buy 72 new upgraded F-15 2040C or upgraded F-16 Fighter Jets

The U.S. Air Force "is struggling to afford 48 F-35s a year" for the first years of full-rate production a senior Air Force officer told Aerospace Daily Defense Report.

I like these articles that go on rumor and never names the actual person. Kind of funny that on the next line;

"Boeing is proposing an "F-15 2040C" series of upgrades that would extend the life of the fourth-generation F-15C air superiority fighter to complement the fifth-generation F-22 Raptor."

More non-sense in the next paragraphs...

"Full rate-production is slated to begin in 2019 and the U.S. Air Force wants to buy 60 planes in 2020, and 80 F-35 per year after that. This year, the Air Force is to receive 28 F-35s, whereas in 2016 the number is slated to increase to 44. By 2038, the service wants to have 1763 F-35 aircraft in service. However, this procurement schedule might not be financially feasible for the Air Force."

Again no references, no USAF or Pentagon officials verifying this.

 

[Torch]

http://theaviationist.com/2015/12/04/first-italian-f-34-accepted-by-itaf/

 

[michaelmaltby]

F-35: A Christmas Miracle for the Pentagon's Problem Child?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

F-35: A Christmas Miracle for the Pentagon's Problem Child?

"The blow was softened, however, the following month when the Pentagon received word that Canada will stand by its pledge to invest $150 million in the F-35 development, but will also hold a new fighter competition to examine alternatives."

Let's have our cake and eat it too!

"On the technical side, F-35 engineers believe they have found a solution for the troubled ejection seat, which could kill pilots who weigh less than 136 pounds, Defense News reported. That solution has not been confirmed though."

Ahhh, the ole ejection seat problem that's from on several other aircraft using the same seat with no issues!

 

[Token]

"On the technical side, F-35 engineers believe they have found a solution for the troubled ejection seat, which could kill pilots who weigh less than 136 pounds, Defense News reported. That solution has not been confirmed though."

Ahhh, the ole ejection seat problem that's from on several other aircraft using the same seat with no issues!

Hmmm...there are minimum height and weight requirements for pilots in all services. Since I am pretty sure the male weight requirement is something over 136 pounds (for USAF, not sure of the exact number but it was more than 136) this should be a non-problem....as long as they don't allow females to fly. DOH!

T!

 

[buffnut453]

Just fit 'em with ballast. Simples.

(and, yes, I was only joking...a little).