It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


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

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 03:23 AM
Australia is probably going to buy the JSF but i think we would be better off getting some Su-34's like Indonesia did. They only cost $35 mil and fit the role we need better than the JSF. That or some F/A 18 E's would be good, although a bit expensive at $57 mil per plane and can't carry as much weight in bombs/missiles as the Su-34.

The JSF would be a good replacement for our F/A 18's but i don't think they are such a good replacement for the F-111's. These are some of the reasons i think the Su-34 would be the best plane for that role.

It will be the new Russian theater strike aircraft, substituting initially for the Su-24 Fencer (the Russian equivalent of the F-111).

Su-34 is a two seat ("arm-to-arm") strike variant that first flew in 1990. It features frontal wings and a large flattened nose with sharp edges (like the SR-71) reduce radar cross-section. This new ship-borne fighter is fitted with two AL-31FP engines with vectored thrust. Using them allows either the take-off distance or maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of the aircraft to be increased by 10-15 per cent.

[edit on 18-11-2004 by Trent]

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 05:43 AM

Originally posted by rodling
ppl what u think off Su 30MK Flanker???

Origin: Russia
Type: Two Seat long-range multi-role interceptor
Max Speed: 1,320 mph/2,125 km/h
Max Range 1,864 miles/3,000 km
Dimensions: Span 48ft 3in/14.7m
Length 72ft/21.9m
Height 19ft 6in/5.9m
Weight: Maximum take-off 83,775 lb/38,000 kg
Powerplant: Thrust vectoring AL-31FP turbofans
Armament: Su-30 maximum load is 17,636lb/8,000kg. Typical armament comprises 10 AAMs, including a mix of up to 6 extended-range AA-10 Alamo and up to 6 R-73 close-air combat AAMs, with options of AA-12 Adder

i know it's already out but still..

SWWEEETTTT Plane ,probably better than the F-22/JSF at striking ground targets,the fact that the latter planes are stealth mean they must have few or no external weapons as they will be picked up by ground radar.However,since JSF was designed with a bit of stealth (still less than F-22),it should be rather useful anyway,particularly for taking out ground defenses.

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:45 PM

Originally posted by intelgurl
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.

Something needs clearing up. the AIM-9 may be too big for the JSF bays but I believe the specialist equipment needed to launch heatseekers from an internal bay (like the F-22) will at least be optional in the JSF.

I say that because the RAF and the australian air force have plenty of AIM-132 ASRAAM missiles which air also heatseeking AA missiles. It's either an upgrade problem with the AIM-9L/M/X missiles or it simply doesn't fit.

The AIM-132 is thinner than the AIM-9 and is relatively new so may fit internally into the JSF.

ASRAAM's are already standard fit on Eurofighter Typhoon, the aussie F-18's and the Tornado F3.

Sidewinder: Length ( 2.87 m ) Diameter (0.13 m ) Finspan ( 63 cm )
ASRAAM: Length ( 2.73 m ) Diameter ( 0.168 m ) Finspan ( 45 cm )

(compare the fins on an ASRAAM or ASMT to those on a Sidewinder)

Side doors for a bunch of JSF's would be a cool idea but they would have to be really small (just for ASRAAM's and maybe ASMT ) or the profile of the aircraft may have to change. If the missiles were pinned to the inside of the doors it could be a very small bay indeed.

Would it be worth it? Definately, at least to the Navy. Bear in mind with this mod the planes could carry 4x AMRAAM and 2x ASRAAM, and considering the RN will use the plane as an air superiority aircraft for fleet defence (as well as a strike plane) something tells me they would love this upgrade. It would basically give them a "mini-F-22" albeit not quite so good.

Edit: Is it just me, or do Brimstone and the Joint Common Missile look really similar??

[edit on 22-11-2004 by Cjwinnit]

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 01:33 PM
Hmm, it's getting interesting:

"While all three versions had an initial slate of intended users, the situation is now somewhat fluid. With real-world performance of the Harrier being seen as positive, USAF is considering the F-35B (Stovl). The Royal Navy is considering ordering the F-35C (carrier) variant for its large CVF carriers."

Anecdotally, I've read in a few places that the RAF is looking at the F-35 A as a strike platform.

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:11 PM
F-35 has a brilliant design for a stealth striker.

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 07:18 AM

Originally posted by plutonian
F-35 has a brilliant design for a stealth striker.

True, any modification is really icing on the cake.

Speaking of modifications, which AAR systems will they be using? My guess is the USN and the USMC use probe-and-drouge (hence F-35 B and C), and the USAF (F-35 A) is going to stick with flying boom for the forseeable future? I wonder, if the USAF get a few F-35 "C" , whether they will want that variant to be both or one type....

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Cjwinnit
Something needs clearing up. the AIM-9 may be too big for the JSF bays but I believe the specialist equipment needed to launch heatseekers from an internal bay (like the F-22) will at least be optional in the JSF.

I say that because the RAF and the australian air force have plenty of AIM-132 ASRAAM missiles which air also heatseeking AA missiles. It's either an upgrade problem with the AIM-9L/M/X missiles or it simply doesn't fit.
CJ, I believe you are correct, because the F-35 will definitely carry the AIM-132 ASRAAM internally, while the AIM-9X is set to be external at this point. As was mentioned previously, the Raptor will carry the AIM-9M/X in the side bays.

I have seen test video of the AIM-9X being fired in high off-boresight shota, and the seeker definitely did not have a target on launch. The missile gets pre-launch data from the JHMCS, and on launch it makes a hard turn to XYZ and the seeker then picks up whatever target is in it's field of view.

So I would say that as long as the AC is fitted with the entire JHMCS package, IR AAM's can be launched from internal bays without the missile seeing the target prior to launch.

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 12:22 PM
As to the original post, I can say, with 100% certainty and validated fact by multiple LM employees that, yes, the JSF is going to be the workhorse of airborn forces around the world for the next 20-50 years. However, it would be more accurate to state it is replacing the F-16, rather than the F-22. Both have entirely different mission specs and needs, and the JSF's versatility is more closely match to the F-16, as opposed to the much more specialized F-22. Additional confirmation is available in the form of public sales records to our own armed forces and other countries.

It is a truly remarkable plane.

Additional technically non-confidential information, but probably largely unknown to the general public, is the capacity for the JSF to use High Energy Weapon (HEW) lasers. This is not to say they are currently outfitted, but rather they have the right potential to deal with the increased heat load, thanks to the AIR-fan near-vertical lift design (as opposed to Boeing's x-plane design, which involved jets), and the type of fuel used. Fuel, burning hotter, turns out not to be a problem for the engine design, it merely makes the plane fly faster. So it can be used as a coolant. Ambient heat generated by the laser(s) can be vented by the air fan. It's really quite brilliant. Currently, the only obstacle is managing to overcome the difficulties inherent in targeting something through several hundred or thousand feet worth of atmosphere. Since the amount of damage a laser can cause is largely determined by power AND the length of exposure to the target, a "dancing spot" of two variable feet will likely not cut the mustard, but it might just cause enough extra heat load to disable an aircraft or a missile. Since most aircraft and airborn weapons are built to operate at near-maximum heat-load, you needn't cut them in half, you only have to heat them up a little bit more. So don't expect us to see Star Wars-style laser beam fights anytime soon, but you can reasonably expect for anti-missile defense and air-to-air offense systems on the JSF to include lasers that will disable dangers. This information was made public at the 2004 Dallas IEEE MetroCon. The speaker was LM's own Mike...something...Jones, I think...

In any event, the JSF is truly a revolutionary design and marks the crowning achievement of currently known fighter-jet innovation. Thank god they're on our side...

[edit on 11/24/2004 by thelibra]

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 01:13 PM
This may clear up some things:

F-35 internal weapons

F-35 external weapons

F-35 weapons bay

It is also not surprising that the weapons to be carried by both the F-35 and F-22 are comparable to those carried by the F-16 and F-15, respectively. Both the F-15 and F-22 were designed primarily for air-to-air combat and feature a corresponding weapons load of air-to-air missiles. As discussed in a previous question about the F-22 weapons carriage capacity, the aircraft is equipped with four internal bays. Two small side bays are designed for the short-range AIM-9M Sidewinder air-to-air missile while the two center bays were each sized around three medium-range AIM-120C AMRAAM missiles. The F-35, being a much smaller aircraft, has only two center bays. The location and size of these two bays, as well as six external wing pylons, can be seen in the following image. The diagram compares the weapons stations on the CTOL and largely identical short takeoff and landing (STOVL) variants of the JSF versus the carrier-based (CV) model that has a larger wing.

General layout of weapons bays and external hardpoints on the JSF variants
Compared to the JSF, the F-22 Raptor is indeed larger in size and internal volume. Nevertheless, the F-22 suffers from one key limitation. Its center bays were designed around the AIM-120 AMRAAM that is only about 12 ft (3.65 m) in length and has a maximum fin span of about 1.5 ft (0.45 m). These dimensions are quite sufficient for the aircraft's primary role as an air superiority fighter. However, the end of the Cold War forced the Air Force to change priorities and give the F-22 a stronger ground attack capability. Unfortunately........................
More at

[edit on 11/24/04 by jetsetter]

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 01:54 PM
Does the F-35 and/or the F-22 have an internal laser designator? Ive never heard about it and only thought that they would use GPS guidedmunitions insead. How many SDB cna the F-35 carry?

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 04:51 PM
I believe 8 internally and a number more on hardpoints.

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 06:24 PM

Originally posted by roniii259
Does the F-35 and/or the F-22 have an internal laser designator?

The F-35 will have an internal laser designator built by BAE systems in the AF and Navy versions, I'm not sure about the STOVL version, but if it will carry paveways also, you would expect the same.

The F-22, I don't know. AFAIK the only bombload planned is the GBU-32 and GBU-39 SDB JDAMS, so it may not have an internal designator.

posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 10:51 AM
I hate to add something so frivolous to all these intelligent discussions, but it did mean something to me: If you are big fan of the F-35, you get to see a couple of them in "Superman Returns" during the shuttle launch scene near the beginning. They are chase planes for the jet that's carrying the shuttle, and there are a couple of really good shots of them. (They're computer generated, of course, but they look real.) I didn't like the movie but it was cool seeing the F-35s and thought I'd pass that along. Hope it's not too silly a post; just trying to let interested people know that the jet got some screen time in Superman.

posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 01:06 PM
That would be a good addition to my 'planes spotted in movies' thread. That is, if I or anybody else could remember where it was

Also, maybe I should have known better but I was surprised this week to discover that that the F-35A that has just been built is not actually representative of the production model, but a unique one off as several key areas were redesigned during its construction to such a degree that is actually way different from the current standard and it will be at least a couple of years before a production standard F-35 is flown.

[edit on 30-6-2006 by waynos]


posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 05:17 PM
Hey, now that I think about it. Wasn't the F-35 supposed to get an Official name already? Was that delayed too or did I miss it or what? I thought I remember reading that it was supposed to get one by mid June.

posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 06:33 PM
Here's more on it's EOTS andim quite impressed. It's has plenty of sensors in it.
Thanks to the Rangefinders it doesn't necessarily always need radar to target


posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 09:29 PM

Originally posted by jra
Hey, now that I think about it. Wasn't the F-35 supposed to get an Official name already? Was that delayed too or did I miss it or what? I thought I remember reading that it was supposed to get one by mid June.

The F-35 is supposed to be named on July 7th.

posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:18 AM
Intelgirl do you already know the name of the plane? I am hoping for the Black Mamba because that was the best name out of an unimpressive group of names that were in the finals. here is to the FB-23

posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:35 AM
I hated Black Mamba, but then I hated them all so I am sure to be unimpressed when the chosen name is announced, unless the list was a 'decoy'? (fingers crossed)

posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 10:01 AM
Waynos my fingers are broken already from hoping that someone wakes up and changes the list. I already expressed my strong distain for the official list in a previous post so I’ll leave it at that.

<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in