It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

First F-35 Joint Strike Fighter rolls out

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:33 AM
link   
No, not at all shugo. The F-35 uses some F-22 technologies but is not a version of it, it is a new design and always was.




posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   
KPI,

that view from the other side raises more questions though; as well as a bleed air inlet above the starboard intake duct, there is a 'bump' with what appears to be a sensor radome over the port duct:


Refuelling boom? Cannon? Sensors?



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
PM,

>>
that view from the other side raises more questions though; as well as a bleed air inlet above the starboard intake duct, there is a 'bump' with what appears to be a sensor radome over the port duct:
>>

No, you had it right. The ECS cooling system (I think) raises a fairing on the starboard side while the 25mm GAU-12 is on the port (as with the F-16)-

www.aerospaceweb.org...

The refueling probe being in the right side of the nose.

As a sidenote, the F-22s cooling system turned out to be a major hassle because they were expecting it to operate efficiently during supercruise at the same time they were using fuel to supposedly cool the leading edges and so had limits as to how much of either they could dump or extract into a local freestream airflow over the upper body without violating supersonic stealth rules.

Without /that/ problem, I can only speculate that the JSFs are particularly volume cramped if they are sticking that many lumps and bumps outside a VLO enclosure moldline. I've heard some rather harsh words used regarding the JSF electronics densities vs. cooling systems design requirements early in development but I thought they had things more or less fixed. As I recall the original idea was to develop some kind of super-compact microchannel plate design that halved the installational size of conventional fin-in-fluid types. While increasing efficiency by 2-3 times. This didn't work out quite the way they wanted it to (expensive and unreliable) be as a 'productionized' system. While the constant redesign of the wingroot as well as requirements for the weapons bay and tunnel areas kept eating volume until the amount of reinforcement needed to the skins for a full pass through duct just wasn't worth it. My best guess is that this scab-on is whatever came out of the CDR as an semiconformal system.

I remember Boeing having a similarly hard time getting the X-32's 'cheek' installations to work at all conditions of Mach point and AOA airflow after the change in the foward-vice-rear swept inlet system disallowed mounting ECS systems inside the intake.

Still don't like the gun. Most especially because the USMC 'CAS' variant forgoes the internal cannon altogether and _when mounted_ includes something like 225rds for the external pod gun.

180rds out of a rotary is one of those 'nothing flat' type conditions and if the gun is burst-limitered (which IMO, is a no-no for strafing area targets, the only thing the gun is reasonably good for) WHY DO YOU NEED FIVE BARRELS ANYWAY?!

IMO, the weight would be better expended giving the type both boom and probe IFR hardware ala F-105. There being no excuse for running around chasing a panty when you can motor along and 'be serviced' at twice the transfer rate and half the complexity of 'do you swing Navy?' tanker track planning variables.

Heck, with 20,000lbs onboard, I would like to know where the USN thinks they're going that a few converted F/A-18Es can get them home without USAF targeting and BMC2 'might as well tank too' support.

The way things are looking to me, they will either have to buy a LOT more Bug II's or face a triple-threat deckload of F/A-18C and E supporting the F and F-35. Which means that the single seat Super Horrors are going to be doing an awful lot of 'combat tanking' for both the Bug-1 (500nm) to a deep ranging F-35 strike.

Just on deck cycle times, this simply _does not_ make sense to me. Better by far to have a constant 'migration' of UCAV lumberers and then push forward X units into Y station time at radius based conditions, solely on the expenditure of weapons or flight time on assets already at the pointy end of the cue.


KPl.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Are the air intakes further aft on the production version as they appear to be?



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Templar,

defence-data.com...
www.afa.org...

The Inlets were indeed moved aft by an amount I can't quantify from searching. The nose was also extended roughly five inches and I think it's index line has been increased. Probably to increase look angle over the nose for carrier approach. Obviously the canopy itself is different without the need to accomodate a plenum well in the A and C models as backup planned for the X-35C, the total loftline of the spine also being approximately 1" higher.

Most obvious of the changes however is that of the inlet profile itself-

www.aerofiles.com...

Having gone from a 'dagger' type, dual-sweep, separator that creates some kind of vortice interaction with the boundary hump (something pioneered on the F-16 'basking mouth' testbed).

To a single sweep-

www.defence.gov.au...

line which is nominally all about production simplicity but which I personally believe has more to do with providing adequate massflow to the engine and perhaps reducing the ram on high-Q areas.

It should also be noted that the wing has an increased area of about 10ft and a different LERX so that measures from the root forward are probably not reliable.


KPl.



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join