Lockheed-Martin F-35 "Lightning II" - Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Two reasons for having two engines: survivability and (some) maneuverability. The US Navy likes twin-engined combat aircraft because they can still fly back - hence the adoption of the YF-17 to become the F-18, over the F-16. With two engines, you can also get a decent roll through thrust vectoring - I think the Su-37s a pretty good example of that, correct me if I'm wrong.

Other than that, having two engines is just a pain in the rear for the ground crew, who have twice as much work to do!




posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lampyridae
Interesting, and very possibly a dangerous stuff-up... remember the F-4s that orignally came equipped without cannons because "dogfights were dead?"

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.

Ok, I called a source at Lockheed who admitted that he did not know exactly why the F-35B for the USMC & UK does not have an internally mounted gun but he speculated that the space allocated for the lift fan was probably where the ammunition storage was for the A & C models.

He did say that he was pretty sure that there was an external gun pod being worked on although he had no details... but it backs up information that can be found on Zion Mainframe's Air-Attack.com web site concerning the F-35B and an externally mounted gun.

This brings up something else - If the ammunition store for the F-35 is where the lift fan is, then the F-35 with the laser unit would likewise not be able to have an internally mounted gun...
of course the laser unit could be rather devastating against another aircraft as has already been discussed...

[Edited on 2-3-2004 by intelgurl]



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 09:40 AM
link   
There is a hell of a lot of info here! This will be a very usefull resource






posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lampyridae
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.


Thanks for explaining that so throughly to me!



Originally posted by ghost
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


that did come to mind (except the f-22, i thought that was single engine as well), but i was thinking along the lines of that the two engines would create humps on the top and bottom of the craft, creating more of a radar signature.



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I herd that it would be a 27mm mouser(Spelling......)



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   
The single engine design will:

1) reduce the overall cost of the system
2) reduce maintenance requirements
3) make a VTOL version easier to design and manufacture
4) provide adequate thrust-to-weight power for an a/c of this size



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetsetter
I herd that it would be a 27mm mouser(Spelling......)

Right...

The internally mounted gun system will be the "Advanced 27 mm Cannon" being developed by a team led by Boeing, with Mauser-Werke of Germany and Primex Technologies and Western Design of USA. The cannon is a single barrel, gas-operated lightweight revolver gun that fires electrically-primed ammunition at 1800 shots per minute.

Also, regarding the previous questions concerning the F-35B model not having an internal gun, my acquaintance at Lockheed called me back and gave me details on the external gun pod that it will use.

He said that the gun pod manufactured by a Boeing led team, also contains the Advanced 27 mm Cannon and can mount to the wing or fuselage, is capable of being fired at supersonic speeds and retaining accuracy, can be reloaded in less than 5 minutes or a new one installed in less than 10 minutes.

This is also the gun chosen to be on the Eurofighter Typhoon.


Below: F-35's Advanced 27 mm Cannon



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Being is making the gun? ahahhahahahhaha
they made the x-32, the competitor to the x-35 and the loser, but now theyre makin part of the plane ( not just the gun), ironic huh?



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Actually it happens all the time.



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Very interesting about the cannon. IS there anymore info about its shells or any specs?



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 02:24 AM
link   
[Edited on 3-3-2004 by Jeffrey]



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 02:38 AM
link   
27mm is one large shell...

and intelgurl, you said it was electicaly primed. What is the reason for this?

Is it more of an explosive round that needs an electronic timer so to speek like on the OICW or is it for some other reason?



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Electrically primed ammo, IF it's the ammo type I'm thinking about, uses an electrical pulse to fire the round. Reason it's used is because it's more accurate. Only guns that use electrically primed ammo are varmint guns, for blowing away poor defenceless little prairie dogs.

Normally, you have a reciprocating bolt a bit like a jackhammer that flies forward and slams the firing pin into the primer, which sets off the round. In automatic weapons, the gas produced by the exploding gunpowder drive the bolt back ready to fire again. Having this bolt slamming around inside your weapon does affect accuracy slightly. Some guns fire from a "closed bolt," meaning the bolt just slips forward a little and strikes the first round. These are more accurate than "open bolt" weapons, where the bolt is held back, then flies forward as you pull the trigger. Most assault rifles fire from a closed bolt, machine guns from an open bolt, because open bolts help cool the weapon.

Also, removing the bolt would reduce weight - it's quite heavy. Do aircraft cannons even use bolts?

Also, removing the bolt would cut down on friction, beefy firing mechanisms wear and tear and IR signature. Compare that dainty little gun to the 20mm vulcan below.

Hmmm, these _javascript functions are not behaving...



This is the 20mm M61A1. widely used in most U.S. attack aircraft.

[Edited on 3-3-2004 by Lampyridae]

[Edited on 3-3-2004 by Lampyridae]



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Here's some more facts on aircraft cannons:

A Good Page On The F-16's M61A1

As noted here, the M61A1 wastes some 5-9 rounds after every firing when it clears the chambers - they get stored back inthe drum and can't be used. Also, the gun needs to spin up before firing, which may interfere with accuracy and number of rounds on target.

Not an aircraft cannon per se, but the principle is the same:

Gatling Guns



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
I heard the F/X 35 lost to the FA/22, the raptor and its variants will be taking all of the roles of the proposed F/X 35

your joking right?

No way, the F-35a,b,c was up against he X-35.

The YF-22 was up against the YF-23(big mistake not chosing this baby).

And besides the F-35 has different roles compared the the YF-22, it is not meant for air superiority, it will be a strike aircraft.



posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
27mm is one large shell...

and intelgurl, you said it was electicaly primed. What is the reason for this?

Is it more of an explosive round that needs an electronic timer so to speek like on the OICW or is it for some other reason?


It is large but many Russia aircraft use 30mm.


jra

posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   
One of my concerns with the F-35 is what they are wanting it to replace. I can see it filling the role for the F-16 and F/A-18's no problem, but the A-10 and A-6? I think that's pushing it. Especialy with the A-10. That thing can take a beating and then some. I don't think the F-35 could take much of a pounding.

I guess I just don't see one fighter being able to handle all the differnt tasks. It's been attepted before with out much success as my understanding goes. I think if they want to replace the A-10, they should just design something new or just improve the original design. Better to have something excellent at doing one job, rather than something that could end up doing a bunch of jobs somewhat poorly.

But I guess we'll see how the F-35 turns out. I think it's a great jet. I'm just concerned is all.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 12:38 AM
link   
The A-10 was designed to cut down Warsaw Pact tanks in swathes in Western Europe. It's not suited for today's modern combat styles - precision strike, etc. It just doesn't have the inbuilt night-fighting capability and other niceties that other modern strike aircraft have.

The A-6 was the Navy's first all-weather strike aircraft, could haul an enormous bombload and drop them roght on target. But these days you only need 1 or 2 bombs on target. For sheer mass destruction we have B-2s with cluster bombs.

Air superiority is not much of a problem for the US Navy now... the F-14's purpose was to protect carrier fleets from attack aircraft (but not nukes or nuclear cruise missiles!). But I wonder if the F-35 is up to tomorrow's air superiority role...



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 12:53 AM
link   


Air superiority is not much of a problem for the US Navy now... the F-14's purpose was to protect carrier fleets from attack aircraft (but not nukes or nuclear cruise missiles!). But I wonder if the F-35 is up to tomorrow's air superiority role...


that was a concern of mine as well - those F-14's are getting a bit long in the tooth, and the navy could have had a F-22 variant! I guess they are satisfied that the JSF will do the trick



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:08 AM
link   
To my knowledge... the F/A-117X was supposed to take over the F/A-18, and the F-14... but, I haven't heard anything about it since 03'.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join