The F-35 Thread

[Antartis]

 

HD 720p

[mvsgas]

Man I didn't notice before check the nose landing gear doors

I wonder what other things have changed physically?

[mvsgas]

:D

GZWsaJDc8PI&feature

Now I'm trying to find a video of the cobra maneuver with no music added so I can try to hear this.

To many videos with music over it... I just lost interest.

 

96Kx6b7oKA8

Edited December 30, 2010 by mvsgas

[mikoyan]

wow great videos! would be great to have a long talk with this guy! can't wait to se the f-35 on an airshow!

[Krebs20]

Anyone who has this months AOPA magazine had an article about the F35. Looking for its web version for sharing.

[tflash]

Some news about the state of the F-35 testing:

 

http://bit.ly/hvlPXV

 

I have the impression problems are being overrated and all in all the program is moving ahead in a very acceptable way.

[GGTharos]

Same bruhaha that went on with the F-22.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

F-35 now costs $135 million apiece. F-22 is about $360 million apiece!? WOW!

 

Defense Secretary Puts F-35 on "Probation" as Part of Budget Cuts

[Pilotasso]

Projected price in a long run production will be about 60 million. There are countries with orders on the 50 million (though I suspect they are selling it below preduction costs right now).

 

Still..NOT cheap.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Projected price in a long run production will be about 60 million. There are countries with orders on the 50 million (though I suspect they are selling it below preduction costs right now).

 

Still..NOT cheap.

I see those numbers as well. And I don't know what mathematics is applied to come upt with the number like that. If a budget is about $300 billions and the number of airplanes produced about 2500 then the cost per piece is about $120 million? Maybe, they are counting on producing 5000 F-35's. Is there a market for 5000 F-35's?

[mikoyan]

I would like to know what is the cost to build one without the development costs. Still 60 millions is a lot; but how much is a fully loaded f-16? Have you guys seen the f-16 being offered to India; it is like an f-35 without stealth; wow!

[Mist3ri0]

i searched this thread for multiple keywords but the most curious thing for me about the f35B wasn´t really discussed:

the whole vertical lifting system is build like 95% of a yak-38 rather than a harrier setup.

were the russians just right with their concept or is it just a matter of the whole aircraft construction which system performs best on a given airframe?

[hassata]

The idea is that these replace the steam gauges by being as reliable.

 

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-squadron-shot-down-by-the-international-date-line-03087

[GGTharos]

I think you are misunderstanding what was said.

[hassata]

Possibly. Don't know if this has been posted:

 

SbnWg4v6iHk&feature

[tflash]

The probation has only partly to do with costs, but unfortunately there do seem to be real problems with F-35B development: http://bit.ly/gH02SG

 

In short, solving the reliability issues would add weight to the F-35B in a way that would compromise its performance.

 

They have two years to solve this, but the F-35B is now de facto seriously delayed. Since this information will have been already available before it became public, I would guess it has influenced the British decision to opt for F-35C. They otherwise faced the prospect of sailing for +15 years the seas with aircraft carriers that ... don't carry aircraft.

[Pilotasso]

I would like to know what is the cost to build one without the development costs. Still 60 millions is a lot; but how much is a fully loaded f-16? Have you guys seen the f-16 being offered to India; it is like an f-35 without stealth; wow!

 

The cost of a brand new block 52+ is about 35 million. A block 60 is near 60 million.

[Mnemonic]

CHIL - Collaborative Human Immersive Lab

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/chil/

 

 

I would say - "classic" full-immersive VR system from Lockheed Martin for collaborative work in VR environment for the small group of people.

As hardware they use VR helmets from Virtual Research VR1280

http://www.virtualresearch.com/products/vr1280.htm

And data gloves CyberGlove II

http://www.inition.co.uk/inition/dispatcher.php?URL_=product_glove_cyberglove2&SubCatID_=26&model=products&action=get&tab=summary

 

There's also advanced optical tracking system, which detect positions of IR-reflectors on the partisipants costumes, which allow them to build full-sized avatars in virtual world.

 

 

CHIL system used during development of different Lockheed Martin's products,

including F-35 fighter for fast and secure development of aircraft construction and service procedures.

 

[Sticky]

CHIL - Collaborative Human Immersive Lab

 

Would be cool to have something like that at home one day, a much lighter version ofc. I wonder what the picture is really like wearing those..

[Pilotasso]

First production aircraft for the airforce has flown!

 

It will be delivered this spring.

 

http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=2956&thisSection=military

 

and video:

 

eDlCTH723AE

Edited February 26, 2011 by Pilotasso

[mvsgas]

 

The second production model of the F-35 Lightning II, F-35A AF-7, completed its inaugural flight on 4 March 2011 from NAS Fort Worth JRB with Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti at the controls. The F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant flew for 1.3 hours. AF-7 is the second and final aircraft from Low Rate Initial Production Lot 1.

[mvsgas]

n6lK5gzuWf4

[Antartis]

F-35 (AF-1) hits Mach 1.53 at 39,000 ft.

Even as U.S. Air Force test pilots put the F-35 through its training syllabus at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., they are gradually pushing the Lightning II to its limits.

Later this year, the first training F-35s will head to Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., where the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and international partners will train operational pilots to fly the new stealth fighter.

 

 

"We expect the first jet to be delivered to the 33rd Fighter Wing in June, and that by the end of September, six F-35As would be delivered to the base to train pilots and maintainers," said Michael Rein, spokesman for F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

But first, the F-35 must complete "maturity testing," said Lt. Col. Hank "Hog" Griffiths, an F-35 test pilot and director of the integrated Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) test force.

"What we're going to do is, is we're going to take the airplane here at Edwards and fly it in the exact envelope and configuration that Eglin is going to fly it in and then we're going to go out there and execute the Eglin syllabus here at Edwards."

The tests will determine how well the aircraft performs in the training envelope and whether that envelope is sufficient for initial training, Griffiths said.

The F-35 has been tested at the speeds and altitudes required for the Eglin training course, but the airframe needs more flight hours on it, Griffiths said. Normally, an aircraft needs to have 2,025 hours in the air before the Air Force orders production to start, but the F-35 has accumulated only 1,332 as of June 6, he said.

The maturity tests are being performed by two test pilots from the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School, who will go on to become the first two instructors at Eglin, Griffiths said. The pair will then train and certify additional F-35 instructor pilots.

Meanwhile, the Edwards test pilots are also pushing the F-35 into high-speed tests.

Within the past month, they have moved from a top speed of Mach 1.3 to Mach 1.53 at 39,000 feet. Soon, the pilots hope to hit the aircraft's maximum speed of 700 knots.

"We're taking baby steps out there to make sure our air data system is meeting our predictions, so therefore we don't just jump out to Mach 1.6," Griffiths said.

Still, tests are progressing rapidly.

"We're in the process of clearing out that envelope pretty quickly," he said.

Once the aircraft achieves its maximum airspeed, the pilots will begin testing g-loading at high airspeeds and various altitudes. Most of the envelope will be rated to 9 G, Griffiths said.

Then the pilots will start the tests again, this time laden with weapons.

Compare And Contrast

The F-35's ability to carry weapons and a large fuel load inside its own skin makes the plane far less draggy on a combat mission than the F-16 or F/A-18, which sling missiles, bombs and fuel tanks below their wings and fuselage, Griffiths said . Moreover, a combat-laden F-16 loses much maneuverability, whereas the F-35 is barely affected by carrying 18,000 pounds of internal fuel and 5,000 of internal weaponry.

"It flies fantastic," he said.

Griffiths declined to compare the F-35 to the F-16s he once flew. But he noted the F-16 is only technically an 800-knot and Mach 2.02 aircraft. In practical terms, most pilots will never see speeds above 700 knots or Mach 1.6 because real-world load-outs don't allow it.

The F-35 can't supercruise like the F-22 Raptor, but the test pilots have found that once they break the sound barrier, supersonic speeds are easy to sustain.

"What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said. "So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities up in the air."

Retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, formerly the Air Force intelligence chief and a veteran F-15 pilot, said having that kind of capability is a huge advantage.

"I'm real happy to hear that in fact is the case, because speed gives you a variety of advantages," he said. "It allows you to employ your air-to-air missiles from a range much greater than otherwise would be the case."

Though the F-35's maximum speed is Mach 1.6, the F-35 test program will eventually push the jet a little beyond that limit to make sure operational pilots have a margin of safety, Griffiths said.

The other main major focus of testing at Edwards is mission systems testing, Griffiths said. Pilots are testing Block 1 software, a further development of which will be released as part of an expanded training envelope and is needed for training at Eglin early next year.

Pilots training at Eglin will have some basic synthetic aperture radar modes for ground mapping; some imagery from the Electro-Optical Targeting System, akin to a internally mounted targeting pod; infrared images from six cameras called the Distributed Aperture System; simulated GPS and laser-guided weapons; and some basic electronic warfare system capabilities, he said.

The aircraft will also carry AIM-120 missiles and some air-to-ground weapons. The goal is to clear those capabilities this year, Griffiths said.

Like his Navy and Marines Corps counterparts, Griffiths offered unqualified praise for the F-35's sensor suite, which even in its infancy is proving extremely capable.

Jittery Display

The one concern that Griffiths voiced was about the helmet-mounted display, which is still showing jittery images.

But he said new software loaded June 7 onto one of the Edwards jets is intended to help fix the problem. If all goes as planned, the only hardware change that will be required will be to fix the night-vision system, which still does not offer the resolution that is needed.

As of May 31, Griffiths said, the Edwards F-35s had flown a total of 2,513 test points against a plan of 1,995. As of that date, the F-35A was hitting all of its key performance parameters, and radar cross-section testing is exceeding specifications.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6792072&c=FEA&s=CVS

[topol-m]

Griffiths declined to compare the F-35 to the F-16s he once flew. But he noted the F-16 is only technically an 800-knot and Mach 2.02 aircraft. In practical terms, most pilots will never see speeds above 700 knots or Mach 1.6 because real-world load-outs don't allow it.

 

The question is what speeds the F-35 is capable of achieving with "real-world load-outs", in both cases, internal weaponry only and with external load-out? I guess the 1.53 mach test has been done with an aircraft not fully loaded with fuel and with no weapons.

[OutOnTheOP]

as I understand the physics, the weight of the aircraft has NO impact on maximum speed in level flight. Only drag and thrust. Weight only impacts accelleration in level flight. Obviously, a heavy aircraft wouldn't maneuver or climb as well.

 

Anyhow, point is the drag factor and thrust are identical regardless of how much (internal) fuel or weapons are carried. Therefore, maximum speed is also unaffected. The time it takes to GET to maximum speed might be a little increased, is all.

 

*edit* in fact, if we're talking pure aerodynamic efficiency, as measured in the world of projectile ballistics, a heavier weight-to-drag ratio is preferable. But that's for unpowered, ballistic projectiles, so your mileage may vary.

Edited June 18, 2011 by OutOnTheOP