Export F35 to be `monkey model`, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 9-7-2009 @ 12:33 PM by Harlequin
reply to post by C0bzz



Delta SSD is the issue - and whilst `above board` it only applies to crypto - the talk is that it covers everything , the US gets teh full monty whilst the rest don`t;


edit:

these being the same lockheed people who refuse to admit the aircraft is still overweight , that the F135 is not actually the best engine , and teh internal bays are actually too small and reguire redesigned ordnanace to go into them.

and yes the pictures of the bays do show quite well why they are too small.

[edit on 9/7/09 by Harlequin]


reply posted on 10-7-2009 @ 01:17 AM by Harlequin








[edit on 10/7/09 by Harlequin]



reply posted on 10-7-2009 @ 03:27 AM by C0bzz
reply to post by Harlequin



After some searching, those pictures are of AA-1, the first F-35, it is not weight optimised, and them photos must of been taken back in 2006, or maybe earlier as it is not painted.

Here is the aircraft in Feb. 24, 2009.

www.jsf.mil...

www.jsf.mil...

The flight was the first time they opened the weapon bay doors. Why is the F-136 better, and why is the F-35 still overweight?

[edit on 10/7/2009 by C0bzz]


reply posted on 10-7-2009 @ 06:47 AM by Harlequin
reply to post by C0bzz



the bay`s are still the same design and crammed full as before - they can`t change mcuh if anything without a very costly redesign and `fix` for aircraft allready on the production line.


F136 - produces more thrustthan the F135 , is allready reported to be more fuel effiecient and is lighter.

the F35 is weighing in at 49,000lbs in A2A config , with a 42,000 lb thrust engine , is walking backjwards in thrust to weight ratio.

the wing area is 460 square feet , smaller than that of the typhoon, with a wing load of 108 lb.foot - thats enourmous and add together to make an aircraft , with those numbers , less able to be `flung around` than the F-105 , which has amoungst the worst combat record ever.

those bays - 1 bomb and 1 self defence missile per side

it is not a good package - and remove the best feature set and the countries funding it must ask ` why?`


reply posted on 10-7-2009 @ 09:07 AM by C0bzz
the bay`s are still the same design and crammed full as before - they can`t change mcuh if anything without a very costly redesign and `fix` for aircraft allready on the production line.

I agree - however the weapons do fit.

There is also structural support for other options than the current inboard AMRAAM store and outboard JDAM/JSOW store.

F136 - produces more thrustthan the F135 , is allready reported to be more fuel effiecient and is lighter.

Well it's years behind the F135. The F136 has only 800 SDD & non-SDD hours while the F135 is at 11800 hours in SDD alone and it's flying on aircraft too. Additionally I have seen no figures for either engine, only the F135 has a "do not exceed weight" of 6504 lb. Both engines are supposed to be indistinguishable from eachother from a pilots perspective, and completely interchangable.

I don't see how the F136 is better than the F135 when there are no figures (only "reports") for either, and furthermore the F136 is YEARS behind the F135. And certainly, I don't see why LM Aero would tell everyone the F136 is better, that's even more absurd - it would be like Boeing telling everyone the F110-129 is better than the F100 with the F-15.

the F35 is weighing in at 49,000lbs in A2A config , with a 42,000 lb thrust engine , is walking backjwards in thrust to weight ratio.

The F-35 would have to be made of unobtainium to get a >1 T/W ratio when loaded up with 18,840lb of fuel. That's a 0.40 fuel fraction right there; if you load up an Eagle or Viper with that fraction you end up with an Eagle with 3 600 gallon tanks and an additional 3000lb of conformal tank fuel, and a Viper with 3 370 tanks to even get to a 0.35 fraction (and these tanks are subsonic only IIRC).

If you do the math in such a case the F-35 is close to the F-15SE (only the F-35 is flying CLEAN), and better than a block 52 F-16 (only the F-35 is clean). If you don't need the range then lighten the F-35 up and the result is similar.


*F-35 at 67% fuel.
*F-15SE has regained 3000lb of fuel in the conformal tanks / bays, is 500lb lighter than F-15E, and has weightless conformal bays (100% fuel).
*Gripen NG are estimates and does NOT have a growth F414 engine.
*F-22 fuel capacity is a bit off.

And no, the F-35 is not overweight, they have an extra 250lb of weight reduction that can be included, if nessesary.

the wing area is 460 square feet , smaller than that of the typhoon, with a wing load of 108 lb.foot - thats enourmous and add together to make an aircraft , with those numbers , less able to be `flung around` than the F-105 , which has amoungst the worst combat record ever.

F-105 this, F-105 that. Guess the F-16 (with one of the BEST combat records) which the F-35 beats sucks too, eh? And the F-15SE doesn't fare much better, or does the Gripen, for that matter. Besides, the F-35 is designed to fight far more like an F-16 than the Thud.

IIRC, the price of the F-16 doubled during development, and furthermore huge amounts were procured before development was finished.

those bays - 1 bomb and 1 self defence missile per side

Yep, it's pretty small. However it is likely we can vary internal and external munitions depending on the threat. The LO will be destroyed however it will be smaller than any generation 4 aircraft by a large margin which is still tactically significant.

remove the best feature set and the countries funding it must ask ` why?`

Agreed.



If it were that bad then Israel wouldn't be calling it "the ideal fighter plane" that "they'd like to have very much".

[edit on 10/7/2009 by C0bzz]


reply posted on 19-7-2009 @ 05:45 AM by Ulala
reply to post by BLV12



And why should fellow NATO nations ... each committed by treaty to defend the United States ... have to pay full whack for dumbed down aircraft ? Especially when considering the governments of the UK, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Denmark, Norway & Holland have chipped in nearly $5 billion towards its development ?

The F-35 isn't a US creation. It's as international an aircraft as the Tornado was.


reply posted on 19-7-2009 @ 08:25 AM by WestPoint23
Not this again...

Originally posted by C0bzz
I agree - however the weapons do fit.


Of course the weapons fit. This is such a laughable point. For starters, as far as common sense goes, you do not design the most expensive weapons system ever, and the most sophisticated fighter aircraft yet to be produced, without the stated internal weapons fitting.

Only someone without an argument would irresponsibly speculate and post irrelevant images as evidence.

Weight.

Several years ago, he said, weight was a critical issue, as it was cutting deeply into the payload that the F-35B could take off with vertically. The program was allowed a year’s delay as weight-cutting ideas of all kinds were explored and implemented. As a result of the redesigns that ensued, “we’ve been tracking now for several years to a three percent weight growth projection,” which is half of what Naval Air Systems Command anticipated. The weight savings applied to the F-35B provided some bonus payload for the Air Force and Navy versions, although the F-35B weapons bay had to be modified and as a result can only accommodate weapons up to the size of a 1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munition. The Air Force and Navy variants can still carry the 2,000-pound JDAM.

“We learned a lot of lessons from legacy programs” and from the F-22, Crowley said, about “structural problems that grew weight,” and these have been avoided. Also, the computer-aided design of the F-35 has allowed for far more precision in building parts—twice the computing capability available during the F-22’s design.

As a result, weight is well understood and thoroughly under control, Crowley said. In fact, he has the luxury of about 250 pounds of weight savings that are ready to go if necessary. For now, though, the additional weight reduction isn’t needed, and implementing the cuts would add cost, so they’re being held in reserve.

The weight purge of a few years ago was so “intensive,” Crowley said, that “there’s not thousands of pounds” of weight left to be saved on the F-35. However, even with a three percent annual weight growth, the key performance parameters, or KPPs, won’t be affected.

“All of our predictions for performance are based on an end-of-life, worst-case” scenario relative to the F135 engine’s power capacity, “so the true performance of the jet, throughout its life, will be much better.

Link (2009)


Weapons.

Adding to the throng during a recent visit to Australia was Brigadier General Charles Davis USAF, and Program Executive Officer (PEO) for the JSF Program Office, who told a Canberra media roundtable 10 October that the JSF had been designed to complete all USAF F-22A ‘Raptor’ missions, as well as more complex types of strike missions not required of the F-22A. In air-to-air missions, Davis admitted two F-35As might be needed for each F-22A to successfully complete some missions, noting F-22As carried up to eight air-to-air missiles internally (six AIM-120C AMRAAM/two AIM-9X ‘Sidewinder’), while the F-35A can carry only four (either AIM-120C AMRAAM and/or AIM-132 ASRAAM). While F-22As therefore had an advantage in air-to-air combat against larger formations of enemy aircraft, called 2-V-4 and 4-V-8 (two against four and four against eight), Davis revealed the F-35A’s internal carriage weapons bays have volume to carry more than four missiles, with studies underway to develop a new rack to carry additional weapons.

Link PDF (2006) Page 23



The F-35 carries a diverse load of weaponry. Almost every air to ground weapon in the U.S. arsenal will eventually be integrated into the jet. These weapons include a host of laser guided weapons, satellite guided munitions, and air to ground missiles. While the perceived lack of weapons payload is the one of the main criticisms levelled at the JSF, Davis points out that the aircraft can carry a huge load of weapons externally once the enemy air defense systems have been destroyed. During the opening days of a war, Davis said weapons have to be carried internally in order to maintain the maximum level of stealth. In a full stealth configuration, the primary weapons load is limited to two 2000 lbs JDAM satellite guided munitions and two air to air AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. In the future, however, the JDAM will be exchanged for as many as eight, possibly more, 250 lbs Small Diameter Bombs (SDB), allowing a single jet to strike as many as eight or more separate targets, Davis said.

In a pure stealth air to air configuration, the F-35 currently carries four AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles internally in its weapons bays, Davis said. While this configuration gives the jet a significant punch, Davis said studies have been undertaken that would increase the stealth air to air war load to six to possibly as many as eight air to air missiles which would be carried internally. The jet can also carry air to air missiles externally should the need arise and stealth is no longer a concern, Davis said.

Link (2008)





reply posted on 20-7-2009 @ 01:27 AM by BLV12
Originally posted by Ulala
reply to
post by BLV12



And why should fellow NATO nations ... each committed by treaty to defend the United States ... have to pay full whack for dumbed down aircraft ? Especially when considering the governments of the UK, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Denmark, Norway & Holland have chipped in nearly $5 billion towards its development ?

The F-35 isn't a US creation. It's as international an aircraft as the Tornado was.


Oh, it's an International thing is it? The only thing that is International about it is the funding and work share.
The aircraft was designed by the Americans. Not Australia, not Norway..

Why should they get a dumbed down aircraft? Because that's life.
Or do you think the US is going to go selling state of the art aircraft with the same capabilities as those which will be in service in the US? Don't be so naive.

The Germans don't even sell submarines that are as capable as their own, what makes you think the United States will sell state of the art stealth fighters that are as capable as those which will be in service with the US?


reply posted on 20-7-2009 @ 01:52 AM by C0bzz
The Germans don't even sell submarines that are as capable as their own, what makes you think the United States will sell state of the art stealth fighters that are as capable as those which will be in service with the US?

Personally, the fact that the US Government, Lockheed Martin, and the RAAF all in one room told me so.

Why should they get a dumbed down aircraft? Because that's life.
Or do you think the US is going to go selling state of the art aircraft with the same capabilities as those which will be in service in the US? Don't be so naive.

Probably due to the fact that the partners are paying a disproportionately large amount of the development costs, compared to the amount of aircraft they might procure. They are paying for that priveledge. Or are you really that naive to think that the UK, for example, is paying for >10% of the development costs while procuring <4% of total production, for a downgraded aircraft, inferior to many 4++ generation aircraft despite being significantly more expensive? Well, if so, then I hope every single partner nation bugs out of JSF and forces the programme to crash by negating any "economies of scale".

Why should they get a dumbed down aircraft? Because that's life.
Or do you think the US is going to go selling state of the art aircraft with the same capabilities as those which will be in service in the US? Don't be so naive.

So what? They're selling F-16's, and F-15's that are significantly better than there own, and have been selling identical versions for a long, long time. Additionally they may even offer an export version of the top of the line F-22.

[edit on 20/7/2009 by C0bzz]
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



In Case Of Videos Of Flying People
  Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags
First flight for \'flapless\' plane - the Evolution of Aviation
  Posted 15 days ago with 4 member flags
F22 mishap or more that meeets the eye?
  Posted 3 days ago with 4 member flags
Boeing X-37 and X-40 - the ultimate history
  Posted 8 days ago with 3 member flags
Its a bird, its a plane, no its a ....
  Posted 16 days ago with 0 member flags