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

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   
They were testing it nearby at the Patuexent naval base in Ctol and STOVL modes.




posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
Thanks. I always thought the F-15 had ground strike capability.....I thought I was losing my mind for a sec.
have u ever heard of the F-15E Strike Eagle? its a bomber



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   
just wonderin when is the actual date they'll go into service cause my flight mag said they got delayed or is that the F-22 im thinking of?
hey man i think we need 2 calm down and not bite each others heads off just cause he didnt know about the F-15 doesnt mean u need 2 bite his head off.(if iv, as usual, missed ur point please correct me)



posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bios electric

Originally posted by COOL HAND

But there is no STOVL version of the Raptor, nor is there a navy carrier version in the works, although the navy did initially show an interest in the Raptor, they ended that in 2001.


Where did you hear that from? The Navy was never looking for the Raptor to fill any role.

Cool Hand, I didn't say they were looking for it to fill a roll, just that they showed an interest in it.
Try this link ... I can give you others, but this should at least substantiate my statement.
www.nawcwpns.navy.mil...



[Edited on 27-2-2004 by bios electric]

You are correct that the Navy was briefly interested in the Raptor, but you are completely misinterpreting that article. Here is a brief explanation of the actual Naval ATF program:

www.aerospaceweb.org...

The Navy dropped out of the ATF before the F-22 officially won the contract, which was in 1991. The Navy has had no effort to acquire the F-22 since that time.

The article you found is about testing of the F-22, which the Navy has been supporting since 2000. The Raptor Combined Test Force (CTF) is located at Edwards AFB in southern California. However, the Edwards range is too small for some of the testing. In particular, the aircraft cannot fire missiles over Edwards because there isn't enough space for them to come down safely. Instead, the F-22 has conducted nearly all of its missile shots over the Navy test ranges at China Lake (land range) and Point Mugu (sea range). Both of these bases are part of the Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) Weapons Division (WD). One or two shots have also been done in New Mexico at the Army's White Sands Missile Range. The article you linked to describes the cooperation between the Air Force and Navy to conduct this testing and has nothing to do with any Navy plans to buy the plane.

Furthermore, the article goes on to describe more technical involvement Navy employees have had in preparing the Raptor to enter service. The Sidewinder missile was invented at China Lake in the 1950s, and China Lake has been the leader in developing new versions of this IR-guided missile ever since. As a result, the people who work there have a great deal of expertise in integrating the missile aboard new aircraft, like the F-22, and making sure it will work properly. This quote from the article describes that work:

"Keeter said WD is acting as the primary agent for the integration of the AIM-9M on the platform of the F-22. That involves all the associated tasks assuring the weapon will work in the environment, the pre-launch and post-launch testing and assuring it will separate cleanly, he said."

The AIM-9M and AIM-120C flight tests will probably be completed sometime this summer.



posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Since I wrote the aerospaceweb.org pages referenced in intelgurl's original post, I wanted to correct a few misconceptions about the F-35 I've seen in this thread.

Gun: The Air Force's CTOL variant is the only version with an internal gun. However, it is not the Mauser 27-mm cannon that many have mentioned. Lockheed originally hoped to install that gun, but Boeing purchased the rights to manufacture it in the US. In what was probably an act of vengeance for losing the JSF contract, Boeing charged such an exorbidant price for the Mauser cannon that Lockheed decided to scrap the idea altogether. The GAU-12 25-mm cannon will be carried instead. The GAU-12 may not be as powerful as the Mauser cannon, but it at least carries more ammunition rounds. The Navy and Marines have both decided not to carry an internal gun in their planes to save cost and weight. Both planes will instead be able to carry a special gun pod on a centerline pylon in between the two weapons bays. The pod will carry the same GAU-12 cannon but with a larger ammo supply. Supposedly, the gun pod will be stealthy enough that it will not significantly impact the radar cross section of the plane, though I have yet to see how this feat will be accomplished. You can see more details about the gun and other weapons features of the F-35 at this page:

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Stealth characteristics: In order to save costs and make the plane easier to maintain, sacrifices have been made in the F-35's stealth characteristics. In other words, the F-35 is not as stealthy as it could be. I've been told that the plane has a radar cross section "an order of magnitude" greater than the F-117. The aircraft is still very difficult to detect by radar, but it is not as good as the F-117, B-2, or F-22. You can read more about radar cross section here:

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Maneuverability: The F-35 will probably not be as maneuverable as the F-16 it replaces, but will be more than adequate since the plane's primary role is ground attack rather than air-to-air combat. However, you may be surprised at just how agile the F-22 is for a plane its size. I didn't believe it until I saw it in action, but the F-22 can turn circles around the F-16. The F-22's advanced control system and integrated thrust vectoring have produced maneuverability that is truly remarkable.

Production Run: Officially, the Air Force plans to buy 1,736 CTOL models, the Navy up to 480 CV models, the Marine Corps up to 609 STOVL models, the RAF 90 STOVL, and the Royal Navy 60 STOVL. However, those numbers are all very much in doubt. The Navy was forced into the JSF program kicking and screaming. Even though the service has no true stealth aircraft (the F-18E/F is remarkably good though), the Navy has never liked the program since it feels like it is being forced to accept an Air Force plane. In particular, the Navy prefers aircraft with two engines for greater reliability. Both the Navy and even the Air Force would be willing to abandon the F-35 in a heartbeat if funding limitations were to threathen their favorite planes--the F-18E/F and F-22. Both services prefer these planes because they are larger, have more range, can carry more payload, and (most importantly) have more room for growth in the future. The only US service that is absolutely desperate for the F-35 is the Marines since their Harriers are not likely to last much longer. The Harrier has proven to be the most accident-prone and maintenance-intensive combat plane in the US arsenal, and the Marines are very eager to send them into retirement. Further complicating matters is the fact that all three services face signifcant funding constraints, and it is likely that the JSF production numbers listed above will be cut significantly as a result. The Navy and Marines combined their air wings last year, and they will almost surely cut their total F-35 purchase as a result. Another impact of that realignment is that the Marines will probably receive a mix of CV and STOVL models. The conventional aircraft will most likely be flown by Marine pilots based on Navy aircraft carriers while the STOVL wings would be based on land and aboard amphibious assault ships. The Air Force also recently hinted that its F-35 buy will be cut, but I haven't heard by how much. Things aren't much better in the UK where there are also rumors of cutting back on F-35 buys. There are also suggestions that the UK might cut back on the STOVL version and buy some cheaper CTOL or CV variants instead. Some of these could potentially be based on England's next-generation aircraft carriers that will be much larger than the current Invincible class.

Unit Cost: The ultimate goal of the F-35 program was to develop a plane that could be bought in large enough quantities to keep the cost per plane relatively low. The original estimate was around $35 million apiece, though it's already up to at least $50 million each. Given recent development problems at Lockheed, difficulties amongst the international partners who are fighting over production rights, and the likely cutbacks in production described above, I've seen estimates as high as $75 to $100 million each. The aircraft should still be much less expensive than the F-22, but it will almost surely be a costly plane in its own right.



posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 06:55 AM
link   
wheter or not the Navy likes it or not they need the f-35 for its stealth. The us congress would not support another aircraft development so the JSf is the navy's only choice. Besides the Navy is only buing about 300 so they will be used as SEAD or the F-117 missions and the navy will rely on Super Hornets more.

Mourn the loss of the tomcat



posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 07:36 AM
link   
You are correct that the Navy was briefly interested in the Raptor, but you are completely misinterpreting that article. Here is a brief explanation of the actual Naval ATF program:

No, the Navy was never interested in the Raptor. It was decided from the beginning to be strictly an AF aircraft.

The Navy had plans on their own aircraft, that was to be a purely carrier arcraft.



posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   
just wonderin whats the next idea u think theyll do after the f-35?



posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   
[Edited on 5-4-2004 by Facefirst]



posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
You are correct that the Navy was briefly interested in the Raptor, but you are completely misinterpreting that article. Here is a brief explanation of the actual Naval ATF program:

No, the Navy was never interested in the Raptor. It was decided from the beginning to be strictly an AF aircraft.

The Navy had plans on their own aircraft, that was to be a purely carrier arcraft.


Perhaps our only bone of contention is over semantics. The Navy was looking for an F-14 replacement in the late 1980s and early 1990s just as the Air Force's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program was nearing the selection of a winner. The two aircraft that were competing for the ATF contract were the Lockheed YF-22 and Northrop YF-23. The Navy participated in the ATF program at a very low level and began creating its own requirement called the Naval Advanced Technology Fighter (NATF). So you are correct that the Navy was not directly involved in what became the F/A-22 Raptor, but the service was in communication with both contractors about the possibility of developing carrier-based versions of their fighters.

Regardless, the Navy abandoned the NATF before the F-22 was named winner of the ATF competition, so the Navy never had any involvement in the Raptor program itself. By this time, the Navy had committed to the infamous A-12 Avenger. The A-12 was supposed to be an A-6 replacement and the Navy's advanced stealth aircraft of the future. Unfortunately, that program was a total disaster and died a quick death in the defense cutbacks of the first Bush administration. Following the A-12's demise, Lockheed sensed an opportunity and proposed a new navalized version of the F-22, but the Navy had no interest. The Navy had instead decided to develop the F-18E/F both as a replacement for the F-14 in the air-defense role and the A-6 in the ground attack role.

I'd be much happier if the Navy had decided to buy a carrier-based F-22 after all. The Super Hornet is a pretty good plane and much better than many give it credit for, but the F-22 is absolutely fantastic.


[edit on 18-8-2004 by aerospaceweb]



posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Aerospaceweb: would you say then that the US Navy's importance is being somewhat undermined here as a result? With the current emphasis on (and requirment for) force projection, would you say that there is some possibility of an Air Force project that could make the presence of a carrier task force unnecessary? For example, the current studies of the B-3 - do you see the Navy becoming less important as a result?



posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 06:10 AM
link   
As someone who's been involved in testing both the F-18E/F and the F-22 over the past five years, I'd be much happier if the Navy had decided to buy a carrier-based F-22 fater all. The Super Hornet is a pretty good plane and much better than many give it credit for, but the F-22 is absolutely fantastic.


No, what they should have done is go with the Tomcat-21. That would beat the F/A-18 in every category, plus it just looks really cool.

Not choosing to proceed with that programs is, IMHO, one of the biggest mistakes that the Navy ever made.



posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 07:16 AM
link   
aerospaceweb,
Thank you for setting the record straight on some of these issues, your sharing your expertise is greatly appreciated.
Do you know when they decided against using the Mauser cannon? Was it early on in the development or recently?

Regarding your statement about the maneuverability of the F-22 being unbelievable...
I have heard about it's capabilities, but have only had the oportunity to see the Raptor taking off and landing, certainly not any of the manuevers that are attributed to vectored thrust and the like... (heavy sigh)

Anyway, thank you again for clarifications and corrections.
Natalie~



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
aerospaceweb,
Thank you for setting the record straight on some of these issues, your sharing your expertise is greatly appreciated.
Do you know when they decided against using the Mauser cannon? Was it early on in the development or recently?


The first time I heard this information was in October 2003, so the decision must've been made prior to that. I found additional information in a Lockheed newsletter in an article about the subcontractor General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products (GDATP).

"GDATP was selected in September 2002 for the development, integration and supply of the F-35 GAU-12 Gun System. The company designs, develops and produces high-performance armament systems; a full range of advanced composite-based products; biological and chemical detection systems; tactical deception equipment; and mobile shelter systems."

www.lmaeronautics.com...

Furthermore, the following information is available on GDATP's site.

25mm Gatling Gun System

General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products (GDATP)
has been awarded a system development and demonstration
contract to design, produce, and integrate the Joint Strike
Fighter's (JSF) gun system. GDATP is developing an internal and
external gun system based on the GAU-12/U 25mm Gatling gun.
An internally mounted gun system will arm the F-35A
Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) aircraft variant and an
externally mounted gun system will arm the F-35B Short Takeoff
and Vertical Landing (STOVL) and F-35C Carrier-Based (CV)
aircraft variants.

www.gdatp.com...




Originally posted by intelgurl
Regarding your statement about the maneuverability of the F-22 being unbelievable...
I have heard about it's capabilities, but have only had the oportunity to see the Raptor taking off and landing, certainly not any of the manuevers that are attributed to vectored thrust and the like... (heavy sigh)


The best information I've seen comes from test pilot reports. US fighters have traditionally had much larger turn radii than the foreign aircraft they are usually pitted against (e.g. the F-4 vs. the MiG-21 in Vietnam). As a result, US fighter pilots are used to flying aircraft that lag behind their opponents in close-in engagements. That isn't true of the F-22. Almost every report a newly trained F-22 pilot raves about the plane's ability to keep the nose pointed directly at the target no matter how much the opponent is maneuvering. This capability is quite an advancement over today's top of the line fighters like the F-14 and F-15.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by aerospaceweb]



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by aerospaceweb
I'd be much happier if the Navy had decided to buy a carrier-based F-22 after all. The Super Hornet is a pretty good plane and much better than many give it credit for, but the F-22 is absolutely fantastic.


No, what they should have done is go with the Tomcat-21. That would beat the F/A-18 in every category, plus it just looks really cool.

Not choosing to proceed with that programs is, IMHO, one of the biggest mistakes that the Navy ever made.


The Tomcat-21 was a nice upgrade, but the ASF-14 was more interesting to me. It was an even more radical redesign over the original F-14 than the F-18E/F was over the original F-18. The ASF-14 would have included methods of reducing the RCS, increased engine thrust for supercruise, and thrust vectoring. Unfortunately, NAVAIR (the command in charge of buying Navy aircraft) has become dominated by the so-called "F-18 Mafia." They seem to have it in for any and all other aircraft.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by aerospaceweb]



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   
just wonderin (again) whats going to supprt the f-35 in combat u know since its a a2g thing although it has a a2a capacity what would be its support aircraft?



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Now, what is this "mauser cannon" intelgurl mentioned?

Shattered OUT...

NEVERMIND, i know what the mauser cannon is, a 27mm cannon developed by a boeing-led team.

That will be the revolutionary gas operated cannon the JSF and other next generation aircraft will be armed with.

[Edited on 7-4-2004 by ShatteredSkies]



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Now, what is this "mauser cannon" intelgurl mentioned?

Shattered OUT...

NEVERMIND, i know what the mauser cannon is, a 27mm cannon developed by a boeing-led team.

That will be the revolutionary gas operated cannon the JSF and other next generation aircraft will be armed with.

[Edited on 7-4-2004 by ShatteredSkies]

Shattered,
as Aerospaceweb has stated, the Mauser cannon is no longer the weapon for the F-35, the JSF will now be fitted with General Dynamics' GAU-12/U 25mm Gatling gun...



posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
just wonderin (again) whats going to supprt the f-35 in combat u know since its a a2g thing although it has a a2a capacity what would be its support aircraft?


Other F-35s. And the F-22.

F-35 is not a dedicated air to ground craft, and in air-air is probably almost as good as anything this side of the -22.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Jane's Defence has added a non-subscriber extract addressing the cost over-runs, security, and export issues associated with the JSF program. It is a good read and makes me with I had the money to subscribe to Jane's.

JSF security technology costing up to US$1bn

Up to US$1 billion of the projected cost overrun on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is attributable to the development of 'anti-tamper' (AT) technology to protect stealth features on the JSF, together with a 'sanitized' and probably less stealthy export configuration of the fighter.





top topics
 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join