It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

UK ordering first 14 F-35's

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Iwinder
 


The weight reduction wasn't so much so it could fly, but to meet range/speed parameters closer than it was.



The F-35’s standard weapons payload is two guided air-to-air missiles and two guided air-to-ground bombs. They can carry additional weapons externally under their wings, but at the expense of their stealthiness, Smith said.

The $392 billion program is seven years behind schedule. The military has not allowed the fleet to fly at full throttle. Or within 25 miles of lightning. Or with weapons.



www.azcentral.com...

that's just pathetic..

it can carry just 4 weapons for all that money....pathetic.and it can't go near lightning.

you can twist the facts all you like but you cannot defy the laws of physics.




posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Oh beckybecky, ye of short sight.

That's one plane. Do you think they'll fly alone?

I'd bet there'd be a few F-22's in formation somewhere not too far, and probably some expendable F-15's not far way, along with AWAC and other support.


Judging from what I've read of your posts, you'd throw away the whole picnic table if one ant were found on it.
Now THAT is pathetic.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by beckybecky
 


And you are showing yet again your utter lack of knowledge. The aircraft is still in testing. That means identifying and fixing these problems.

You act like these problems are unsolvable, and will always be there.

This aircraft is the most complex aircraft ever built. That means a lot of problems. None of them are unsolvable.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by beckybecky
 


And you are showing yet again your utter lack of knowledge. The aircraft is still in testing. That means identifying and fixing these problems.

You act like these problems are unsolvable, and will always be there.

This aircraft is the most complex aircraft ever built. That means a lot of problems. None of them are unsolvable.


you cannot change the laws of physics:-


the canary sings a different tune:-




The aircraft has been haunted by what the report calls “fatal flaws” that make even the first configuration. An operational evaluation of the F-35A ”Joint Strike Fighter” by the Department of Defense’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the aircraft was considered “unacceptable for combat” and even “unfit for training”.

USAF test pilots have noted a lack of visibility from the F-35 cockpit during evaluation flights and said that this will get them shot down in every combat. Defense spending analyst Winslow Wheeler concluded from the flight evaluation reports that the F-35A “is flawed beyond redemption”.

On 22 February 2013, the U.S. fleet of F-35s was grounded after a routine inspection of a F-35A at Edwards Air Force Base found a crack in an engine turbine blade.

The report also identified a host of additional problems, including:

Aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training.
Ejection seat may fail causing pilot fatality.
Multiple pilot-vehicle interface issues exist, including feedback failure on touch screen controls.
The radar performs poorly, when it works at all.
Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified.
Maintenance tools do not work.
Elements of the helmet made it harder, not easier, to see outside the aircraft

In short, the F-35 is a failure of enormous proportions, and the colossal waste of money is difficult to justify.... cost for just the F-35 alone, which has been termed “flawed beyond redemption”, might well have been saved, but for the arrogance and willful extravagance of those who put this program into action.


gerarddirect.com...


see i am right.you are wrong.again.

these people are up close and personal.PILOTS who actually fly the aircraft report it is utter crap.a f-16 would trounce it.

also it has very availability of less 50%..who complex it is.the more complex the more useless pile of bricks in the f-35 case.

just admit i am right and you are mistaken.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   

abecedarian
Oh beckybecky, ye of short sight.

That's one plane. Do you think they'll fly alone?

I'd bet there'd be a few F-22's in formation somewhere not too far, and probably some expendable F-15's not far way, along with AWAC and other support.


Judging from what I've read of your posts, you'd throw away the whole picnic table if one ant were found on it.
Now THAT is pathetic.



i am very afraid that you are another victim of slick marketing.the plane is a turkey.

fundamental design problems cannot sorted by " "

here is ultimate proof:-

www.counterpunch.org...




Performance Shortfall

Performance—where the chickens come home to roost. The intended performance envelope for the F-35 is, roughly speaking: altitude capability of 50,000 feet; 700 kts./Mach 1.6 airspeed; maximum g rating of 9.0 (-A), 7.0 (-B), 7.5 (-C) ; turn performance of 5.3 sustained g’s (-A), 5.0 sustained g’s (-B), and 5.1 sustained g’s (-C); acceleration from Mach O.8 to Mach 1.2 intended to be within 65 seconds (See Aviation Week.); angle of attack (AoA) capability to 50 degrees.

At the moment, however, this all seems wishful thinking. Undeveloped software, combined with disappointing results in real-world flight tests (“results of air vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations” (30) ) have triggered flight restrictions and rolled back overly optimistic Key Performance Parameters (KPPs). For these and a variety of conditions that should not be occurring, flights are limited to top speeds of 550 (not 700) kts. (38) and altitudes of 39,000 feet (38) rather than 50,000 feet; AoA to be no greater than 18 degrees (vs. 50 degrees)…as well as the imposition of other “aircraft operating limitations that are not suitable for combat” (38). KPPs for sustained g’s in a turn have been weakened—by 20 percent for the –A (5.3 down to 4.6)(30), by 10 percent for the –B (5.0 down to 4.5) (32), and by 2 percent for the –C (5.1 down to 5.0) (33). Transonic acceleration from Mach 0.8 to M. 1.2 suffers significantly: with the –A version, it takes 8 seconds longer; 16 seconds longer with the –B; and a worrisome 43 seconds longer with the –C…an increase of about two thirds. Although the F-35 is essentially a strike aircraft, acceleration capability could be critical in combat.

Transonic roll-off (where one wing loses lift sooner than the other when a shock wave forms at the top of the wing as the airflow reaches the local speed of sound) and buffet (or shaking of the entire aircraft) as more surfaces form shock waves and boundary layer flow becomes turbulent—both were more serious than expected in the –B and –C versions, especially with the latter, whose wingspan is greater than that of the other variants: another possible problem in a combat situation.

Some fighter pilots offered their comments on FlightGlobal: ” ‘What an embarrassment, and there will be obvious tactical implications,’ another highly experienced fighter pilot says. ‘[It's] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft.

‘At higher altitudes, the reduced performance will directly impact survivability against advanced Russian-designed “double-digit” surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems such as the Almaz-Antey S-300PMU2 (also called the SA-20 Gargoyle by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), the pilot says. At lower altitudes, where fighters might operate in the close air support or forward air control role, the reduced airframe performance will place pilots at increased risk against shorter-range SAMs and anti-aircraft artillery” ( See GlobalFlight).



read and weep.

profusely.


The F-35 needs to die. It was supposed to save costs not shoot them into the stratosphere. VTOL is a waste of money and cripples fixed wing aircraft performance. Stealth is expensive to maintain.

lacks the range and altitude to complete missions, it lacked load carrying ... the F-35, hasso many systems built-in and so "dense" that upgrades are nearly impossible.COMPLEXITY? what a laugh.

Trying to fit the Air Force, Navy, Marine, and foreign needs all in one air frame only makes the complexity worse especially with conflicting requirements. We asked for too much and now will we get less for it while paying a whole lot more.

It could have been a decent jet if the Marines had not demanded it also be a jeep.

edit on 18-2-2014 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)




i1238.photobucket.com...



i1238.photobucket.com...

edit on 18-2-2014 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by beckybecky
 


I will admit you are right when you can show aircraft that were ready for combat prior to IOC and at the same stage of development.

You seem to think they should go from first flight to combat and since they didn't it sucks.

Why do you think it takes so long to develop aircraft now? They're so complex it takes this long to work problems out.

As for harping on reliability, look at the F-22 and B-2. They both are lucky to hit 70%.

As for the other quotes, for every negative one, I can find one that raves about it.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Glad to see the government has its priorities right, not enough money to spend on affordable housing or extra funding for the emergency services yet it has a spare 120 billion for some go fast thingys, awesome.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   

beckybecky

Insert utter biff here



Are you for real or just trolling for a reaction?

2 points:

1. Your uncle reads aviation week and so he tells you stuff

2. You werein the forces and saw a plane

I call Wah on you but you are doing a good job!



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by beckybecky
 


I will admit you are right when you can show aircraft that were ready for combat prior to IOC and at the same stage of development.

You seem to think they should go from first flight to combat and since they didn't it sucks.

Why do you think it takes so long to develop aircraft now? They're so complex it takes this long to work problems out.

As for harping on reliability, look at the F-22 and B-2. They both are lucky to hit 70%.

As for the other quotes, for every negative one, I can find one that raves about it.


I fear you have been watchimg too much top gun or that firefox film by client eastwood.

All the people involved say it is a turkey including the pilots.

here you sit making excuses for it.

I have been vindicated again.This time by the chinese.

the chinese who stole a copy from lockheeds database after hackimg it.

they built it.

found it had FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS and was a turkey.

They have ditched it already and are trying to flog it to the export market.

its called the j20 or j31.

There is a thread here on ATS about it.

i win again.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 02:25 AM
link   

beckybecky

I fear you have been watchimg too much top gun or that firefox film by client eastwood.


Unlike you, I have actual, honest to God real experience working on aircraft, and have followed numerous testing programs. Since you're such an aviation genius, please, show me what modern aircraft have gone through testing with zero problems, and were combat ready prior to IOC.



All the people involved say it is a turkey including the pilots.


Really?


The Marine Corps’ top F-35 trainer, Col. Art Tomassetti, said young aviators don’t need to learn to read analog gauges and memorize unsafe RPMs or temperatures the same way they used to; instead the F-35’s glass cockpit has green, yellow and red indicators that give such info in a second. And BAE’s test pilot, Peter Wilson, a longtime British Harrier driver, said flying the B was simply “magic.”
Wilson described how much work it took monitoring the Harrier’s controls, controlling its power, and generally trying to put the airplane where he wanted as he hovered and landed. (“You had to be an octopus to fly the Harrier,” Tomassetti quipped.) With the F-35B, Wilson said, he pushes a single button, and the jet can slow from 200 knots to a hover by itself, “as the airplane looks after you.”

defensetech.org...


“Just flying F-35 is the highlight of my career, so being able to come to the USS Wasp and fly F-35 from an LHD class Marine ship is staggering,” says Royal Air Force Sqdn Ldr Jim Schofield. “I’m very excited about what [the F-35] is going to bring the UK and all the partner nations in terms of capability.”

www.flightglobal.com...


Royal Navy maintainer LtCdr Robin Trewinnard-Boyle added, “For the U.K., this is the future of our aviation… The aircraft is performing fantastically out at sea. What we’re seeing is the aircraft is much easier to fly but as far as I’m concerned much easier to maintain as well. This aircraft has very much been designed with the maintainer in mind. All the components we need to change, the work we have to do is considerably easier and quicker.”

www.f35.com...



I have been vindicated again.This time by the chinese.

the chinese who stole a copy from lockheeds database after hackimg it.

they built it.

found it had FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS and was a turkey.

They have ditched it already and are trying to flog it to the export market.

its called the j20 or j31.

There is a thread here on ATS about it.


Wow, you don't even know what the name of it is, yet you seem to know everything else about it. The J-31 is not a copy of the F-35, and it was never meant to be flown by the PLAAF. It was designed from the start to be an export fighter, and a way for them to get practice in working with advanced materials.


i win again.


Maybe when you go back and actually get some experience in what you're talking about you can claim to have "won again".



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Congrats on being a mod Zaphod. Clearly beckybecky has raised some issues about the F-35. No doubt the F-35 program has taken much longer than planned and has had more than it's fair share of problems. Obviously the flight performance is inferior to many other fighters currently in service and it will have to rely on stealth and advanced sensors to have any kind of edge in air to air combat, which is extremely rare now anyway. Some of the best info I've seen on the F-35 is here.

www.ausairpower.net...

This aviation expert is somewhat critical of the whole JSF concept, but I think the US and partners have put so much time and money into the program it is probably beyond being cancelled at this point. I think we'll end up with a jet which can do the air to ground role quite well and it's highly advanced and classified stealth and sensor package has capabilities which are not fully understood outside the military. The flight performance, payload and range do look sub par and obviously less importance has been placed on these, whether this design philosophy will be proved good or bad time will tell.

Personally I think it needs 2 engines and bigger wings but I doubt that's going to happen. Whether it ends up being a great jet or just OK it looks like we're stuck with it.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 


Thanks.

Oh, it has quite a few issues. But they're fixable. And the most important aspect of the aircraft has so far not run into too many problems.

To write the aircraft off before they reach IOC or even have any kind of real numbers, based on problems with the test program is crazy.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


My main question about the F-35 is when will it be fully operational and see active service and what will it's operational performance really be like? Seems like it is far from ready for USAF or US navy service and it's flight performance has been revised downward from an already modest baseline. Hmm it really doesn't look like a good air to air jet. It's supposed to be multi role but for the US navy and other countries like Australia it is going to be all they have for air to air. If I was a fighter pilot I don't think I'd be too impressed at all with the limited flight performance mainly the high mach, high altitude, high g areas it seems to fall short. Can stealth and sensors make up for these shortcomings I don't know. It is certainly nowhere near the F-22 which apart from the maintenance issues is a jet which I think is a real masterpiece in terms of airframe design.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 


The B model will see IOC in 2015, the A in 2016, and the C in 2019.

It won't be a great dogfighter, but there are a couple things it will be able to do that nothing else will be able to, that could make all the difference.

It should be pretty similar to the Hornet, performance wise, when all is said and done.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Well some could argue the days of the dogfight are gone and air to air engagements are increasingly rare but remember they designed the F-4 Phantom with no internal gun with such thinking and that was a mistake. The top speed, acceleration and g performance look a bit below the F/A-18C and E.

I can think of a few ways the F-35 could be very decent for air to air mainly a longer range AAM. What are your thoughts on the F-35 flight performance do you think it will be good enough?



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 


It seams like the DoD has the same ideas about longer legged AAM's.

DefenseTech

I think if they can get as good of a AAM as the Russians new stuff and with longer legs then that coupled with the sensors suite and radar the F35 will have then we may actually see a true end to close in dog fighting when an F35 is involved.
With advanced sensors, the latest AESA's and networked data links to other assets, you don't need to get anywhere close to the merge to identify friend from foe and get shots off at longer ranges.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 


It's slightly below the F-18, but it's not a lot below it. They both suck at transonic acceleration.

Honestly, I see it as a hub for a combined air arms kind of thing. The F-35 will deal with long range threats, with the new AAMs that will eventually come online, and datalink to other aircraft and allow them to deal with closer threats.

The biggest role for the F-35 is going to be a counter for certain threats.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Zaphod58


The biggest role for the F-35 is going to be a counter for certain threats.


See I would love to here what this classfied special mission is and this "thing that over aircraft cant do" really does seem intresting.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Oh it's quite interesting. And the threat they're going to counter is scary as hell.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Zaphod58


Oh it's quite interesting. And the threat they're going to counter is scary as hell.


Llllllllliiiiiikkkkkkeeeeee?

Your teasing us now



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join