|
reply posted on 1-3-2004 @ 07:23 AM by roniii259
|
hehe he, my area will get jsf's and super hornets for for oceana and f-22's at langely afb and ther was a proposal for a navy f-22 ill get a pic up
when i get home
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 1-3-2004 @ 05:32 PM by Laxpla
|
I would suppose single engin would reduce heat signature a little.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-3-2004 @ 05:40 PM by Jeffrey
|
Very nice Natalie. Very well put together and great sources of info. I'd figure that the navy version would of been smaller in width then the
others because of deck space on u.s carriers.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-3-2004 @ 05:50 PM by American Mad Man
|
the navy version is actually wider because they need bigger wings to land on carriers...
plus i thought the navy scraped their F-22 ideas?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 1-3-2004 @ 07:53 PM by intelgurl
|
Originally posted by Jeffrey
Very nice Natalie. Very well put together and great sources of info. I'd figure that the navy version would of been smaller in width then the
others because of deck space on u.s carriers.
Thank you Jeffrey...
Yes, the carrier version (CV) of the F-35 does have a wider wingspan, however the outer 1/3rd of the wing folds up to give more room in tight carrier
storage.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
the navy version is actually wider because they need bigger wings to land on carriers...
plus i thought the navy scraped their F-22 ideas?
American Mad Man, yes you are correct about the wings and needing additional lift to get off the carrier... regarding the F-22 and the Navy... I think
Bios addressed that on the first page of this thread, saying that whatever interest the navy had in the F-22 ended in 2001. He gave a link on it to a
US Navy web site...
Good find for him...
Natalie~
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-3-2004 @ 08:00 PM by cmdrkeenkid
|
Originally posted by ghost
My only gripe is that I still think it should have been a twin engine aircraft like the F/A-18. I personally don't believe that a single engine
aircraft has enough of a safety magin for combat.
Tim
[Edited on 1-3-2004 by ghost]
the single engine will reduce heat signature, as someone already said. also, it makes it easier to design it as a stealth aircraft. plus i believe
that a single engine helps manueverability.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-3-2004 @ 08:16 PM by American Mad Man
|
anyone have any clue how many of these bad boys we are gunna get?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-3-2004 @ 09:07 PM by Laxpla
|
So, any word on the 100 kw laser? I read all of the articles and it sounds interesting. Right now, Iam so proud to be a Americian
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-3-2004 @ 10:03 PM by intelgurl
|
Originally posted by American Mad Man
anyone have any clue how many of these bad boys we are gunna get?
The Air Force's F-35A version of the craft is a conventional takeoff and landing airplane to replace the F- 16 Falcon and A-10 Thunderbolt II.
It will partner with the F-22 Raptor. The Air Force plans to buy 1,763 of the aircraft.
The Navy's F-35B version of the plane is a carrier-based strike fighter to complement the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. It will replace earlier versions of
the F/A-18 as well as the A-6 Intruder, which already has left the inventory. The Navy plans to purchase 480 JSF aircraft.
The Marines want 609 of the new aircraft to replace their AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18 Hornets.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-3-2004 @ 10:06 PM by intelgurl
|
Originally posted by Laxpla
So, any word on the 100 kw laser? I read all of the articles and it sounds interesting. Right now, Iam so proud to be a Americian
Under development - TRW (soon to be purchased by Northrop Grumman I believe) and Raytheon are competing for the DoD's buy...
Raytheon currently has better optics and hence a longer range...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 1-3-2004 @ 10:19 PM by cmdrkeenkid
|
another question...
how will atmospheric conditions affect the laser? i'm sure they will be incorporating something to help keep the beam narrow due to distortions...
but would this be any harder due to the smaller confines of the f-35?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-3-2004 @ 10:25 PM by intelgurl
|
Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
how will atmospheric conditions affect the laser? i'm sure they will be incorporating something to help keep the beam narrow due to distortions...
but would this be any harder due to the smaller confines of the f-35?
Well, it IS a laser - so it is still susceptible degradation of beam intensity due to dust and vapor...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-3-2004 @ 10:27 PM by EliteXizer
|
Wow, what a detailed topic!
This fighter looks kick arse.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-3-2004 @ 10:29 PM by cmdrkeenkid
|
Originally posted by intelgurl
Well, it IS a laser - so it is still susceptible degradation of beam intensity due to dust and vapor...
well i know, and sorry for my lack of technical terms but... in that one laser on the one 747 don't they vibrate the diodes or something so the beam
stays tighter? or something like that... i just remember that something is done to help focus the laser better.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 1-3-2004 @ 10:30 PM by American Mad Man
|
as for this laser - is it defensive only, or could it be used in an offensive role?
also, what kind of fire rate/limit would it have? would it be powered by the aircrafts engine?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-3-2004 @ 12:52 AM by Lampyridae
|
Originally posted by intelgurl
Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
Great thread intelgurl  We needed a good thread about the F-35. There's a lot of speculation going around about it.
The australians aren't very happy about the progress of the F-35 project. I believe I read something about it here on ATS, somewhere on ATS, can't
seem to find the thread anymore...
It was that news article posted on ATSNN about the Aussies and their apparent disatisfaction that motivated me to do this F-35 post.
I actually included some of what is on this post in the ATSNN one, here's the link:
TERRORISM: Joint Strike Fighter - Not what Australia Wanted
F-35 & AIM-9's
One interesting point that came up in that discussion was why does the F-22 have it's AIM-9 in an internal bay and the F-35 only have it available
for external mounting. (internal mounting is more stealthy).
My answer was at the time an educated guess and has since been confirmed by someone I know who is affiliated with the AIM-9X program.
The answer is that the AIM-9 requires a forward looking bay from which to "sniff out" targets. (In-fuselage bays in the belly of the plane will not
work for the AIM-9).
The F-22 has 2 side bays specifically for 2 AIM-9 missiles in each bay. The F-35 does not have these side bays due to the need to stay within the
required cost parameters.
It also bears mentioning that the F-35 can still internally mount other air-to-air munitions such as the AIM-120, so it is not unprotected in that
regard.
[Edited on 28-2-2004 by intelgurl]
Interesting, and very possibly a dangerous stuff-up... remember the F-4s that orignally came equipped without cannons because "dogfights were dead?"
I assume that the F-35 will be able to mount a future general -purpose all-aspect missile, though.
The USMC and RN come without the internal Mauser cannon, so if they're not carrying it externally, they're going to be in a sword fight with a bow
and arrow, so to speak. I expect that the intel, threat assessment and the total destruction of enemy air power that accompanies a modern NATO-style
air campaign will cover the gaping tactical hole!
Maybe an external, stealthy IR pod could "sniff" for the AIM-9?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 2-3-2004 @ 06:11 AM by intelgurl
|
Originally posted by Lampyridae
Maybe an external, stealthy IR pod could "sniff" for the AIM-9?
I am not certain why the Marines and the British opted to go without a gun system onboard , it seems foolish to me ...
As for the absense of internal bay accomodations for the AIM-9, the F-35 still has radar guided AIM-120's, and the AIM-132 ASRAAM missile which is a
short range heat-seeker, (as is the AIM-9) and the newly revamped Hughes-Bae P-31 version has similar performance to the AIM-9.
I personally like the idea of having an AIM-9X located in a side-bay as the F-22 has...but that's just my opinion...
[Edited on 2-3-2004 by intelgurl]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-3-2004 @ 06:17 AM by intelgurl
|
Originally posted by American Mad Man
as for this laser - is it defensive only, or could it be used in an offensive role?
also, what kind of fire rate/limit would it have? would it be powered by the aircrafts engine?
Eventually the laser could be used in a dogfight scenario - in that respect it could be an offensive weapon.
as for the rate of fire - that is an unknown... depending on cooling issues...
the powering of the laser unit would be with the drive shaft that is designed to turn the lift fan.
[Edited on 2-3-2004 by intelgurl]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-3-2004 @ 06:44 AM by Lampyridae
|
Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
how will atmospheric conditions affect the laser? i'm sure they will be incorporating something to help keep the beam narrow due to distortions...
but would this be any harder due to the smaller confines of the f-35?
Atmosphere-based lasers have to be pulsed at approximately 200Hz, to achieve a self-focusing effect. Yes, and dust, water vapour etc. would most
likely scatter the beam, reducing penetration and possibly accuracy. What's most likely is that the beam would be IR, not visible light. The amount
of light scattering off of a 100 kw killshot would blind just about everybody in the immediate vicinity, and that's something you definitely don't
want to do in today's PR wars! Also, I think the IR beam has better atmospheric and damage properties, but don't quote me on that... I'm no expert.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-3-2004 @ 07:06 AM by ghost
|
Lockheed-Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Originally posted by ghost
My only gripe is that I still think it should have been a twin engine aircraft like the F/A-18. I personally don't believe that a single engine
aircraft has enough of a safety magin for combat.
Tim
[Edited on 1-3-2004 by ghost]
the single engine will reduce heat signature, as someone already said. also, it makes it easier to design it as a stealth aircraft. plus i believe
that a single engine helps manueverability.
I don't see what single engine has to do with stealth. If you look at all the known stealth aircraft: F-117, B-2, and F-22; have two or in the case
of the B-2 four engines.
Tim
|
copyright & usage
|
|
