It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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
remove the best feature set and the countries funding it must ask ` why?`
Who actually thought it wouldn't?
Originally posted by C0bzz
I agree - however the weapons do fit.
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.
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.
this is the same lockheed that have screwed it up with bugged and potentially dangerous software - and you still believe them?
Of course the weapons fit. This is such a laughable point.
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by C0bzz
Personally, the fact that the US Government, Lockheed Martin, and the RAAF all in one room told me so.
[edit on 20/7/2009 by C0bzz]