The F-35 Thread

[Pilotasso]

and horizontal stabilizers, and a lower G limit. 7.5 G as opposed to 9, but test pilots say the C turns better at slow speeds.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Pilotasso

[GGTharos]

With a larger wing area, of course it does - lower wing loading. You don't necessarily need 9g capability, 7.5 is enough for a lot of fights probably.

[rogue_blade]

the C is also lacking in T/W ratio

[tflash]

Given the power available I really do not think there is a worry. I like these big wingers. And I trust the Navy about aircraft. ;-)

[Pilotasso]

the C is also lacking in T/W ratio

 

Yes, it does, when its full of fuel. Then again others don't have the option of having so much gas and range.

Just like the flanker when its half way spent its an excellent dogfighter. Plus, it should outperform any other plane with a war load. Superhotnet specially, oh and by the way massively out accelerate and outrun it while at it.

[mikoyan]

My only objection is the unit cost, how on earth small countries are going to replace f-16s with this. I believe that they should develop a export version at a more reasonable price. Now how many f-16 have been lost in normal operation incidents? can small countries and the US finance the same amount of loses for an f-35 operational life. I figure that it will be safer but still, this thing will be doing a tons of different missions with different environments.

[Antartis]

New videos from lockheed Martin

 

 

[Pilotasso]

Australia seems to have reached an agreement with LM for a price tag of 60 mil per F-35A.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2929031.htm

[mikoyan]

Australia seems to have reached an agreement with LM for a price tag of 60 mil per F-35A.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2929031.htm

 

60 mil doesn't look that bad I was expecting 100 per aircraft;still a bit steep for a small country looking to replace its f-16s or old migs and mirages. How much is for a comparative fighter? how much is an f-18f a grippen? a rafale eurofighter ang mig-35?

[exec]

LM says F-35A will cost as much as the new versions of F-16 and F-18.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/103973-lockheed-martin-confident-it-will-beat-pentagons-f-35-cost-projection

[diveplane]

well least the 35 is a good cheap alternative , america is short on money, and obama put a big pause on military spending here,

 

unit cost US$150 million =F22

Unit cost US$89.5 million =F35

 

lot of money to kill some bad guy .

[Pilotasso]

Your missing the point. Its alot of money as deterrent. Killing the bad guy means you failed somewhere.

[hitman]

https://home.lmaero.lmco.com/news/index.cfm?news_id=MzE3OQ==

They are talking about reducing cost for the F-35 by 20% this year.

[Groove]

APG-81 on F-35

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/northrop-grummans-apg-81-radar-sensor-performs-flawlessly-on-first-mission-systems-flight-of-lockheed-martin-f-35-aircraft-2010-06-22?reflink=MW_news_stmp[url=http://www.marketwatch.com/story/northrop-grummans-apg-81-radar-sensor-performs-flawlessly-on-first-mission-systems-flight-of-lockheed-martin-f-35-aircraft-2010-06-22?reflink=MW_news_stmp][/url]

[hitman]

Didnt know the link I posted was only good for comps at work. Heres the quote:

 

 

New York Times

By CHRISTOPHER DREW

Published: June 17, 2010 WASHINGTON - Lockheed Martin is negotiating to cut the price for the next group of its new F-35 fighter planes to at least 20 percent less than Pentagon officials projected last fall, Robert J. Stevens, the chief executive, said Thursday.

The company, which has been under pressure because of costly delays, is likely to build those planes under a contract with a fixed price, Mr. Stevens said. He said Lockheed could earn bonuses for meeting production milestones.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently revamped the F-35 program and removed the general in charge, after long delays caused the Pentagon's projected costs to soar by 64 percent to $382 billion for 2,457 planes.

Mr. Stevens told reporters that the contract would start a transition to fixed prices for the stealth planes two years earlier than planned. He would not say what that price was likely to be for the next group of 32 planes.

But he said Lockheed was confident enough that it was regaining control of the F-35 program, the Pentagon's largest, to start bearing more of the risk instead of leaving the federal government obligated to cover any cost increases.

Mr. Stevens also said that Lockheed, the world's largest military contractor, had begun to trim spending throughout the company in recognition of "the new reality we face," with military budgets tightening in response to economic woes.

To reinforce the need to cut costs, Mr. Stevens said that he would not attend one of the industry's most lavish promotional events, the Farnborough International Airshow outside London, next month. He said Lockheed would send only half as many people as usual.

Bruce L. Tanner, Lockheed's executive vice president and chief financial officer, said in an interview that it could save hundreds of millions of dollars through the cost-cutting, which began in February.

Last month Mr. Gates also called for cuts in the Pentagon bureaucracy to free more money for troops in the field.

The Air Force, the Navy and the Marines are all buying their own versions of the F-35, known as the Joint Strike Fighter. Eight other nations have invested in developing the F-35 and could buy hundreds of the planes.

Mr. Stevens said on Thursday that the $382 billion estimate over 25 years "shows the potential" if nothing changed in the program. But, he said, "we're determined to beat the government cost estimate."

The Pentagon has already ordered 31 of the planes. The contract now being negotiated would cover 32 more.

Not counting the research and development costs, the Pentagon recently projected that the 2,457 planes could cost an average of $92.4 million before adjusting for inflation, compared with an estimate of $50 million in 2002.

Mr. Stevens said that if the Pentagon kept buying the planes at the planned pace, Lockheed believed it could bring the cost down, by 2014 to 2015, to a level comparable to updated and fully loaded versions of older fighters. That would mean reducing the price of each F-35 to $65 million or less.

[hitman]

India: Lockheed to Offer F-35 Fighters to Navy

June 28, 2010

 

 

 

Press Trust of India New Delhi, Jun 28 (PTI) US defence major Lockheed Martin today said it will offer its latest fifth generation F-35 fighters to meet Indian Navy's requirements for carrier-based combat aircraft.

"We have received the Request for Information (RFI) from the Navy seeking information about the F-35 aircraft, which are capable of taking off from aircraft carriers. We are going to offer our aircraft to them," Lockheed Martin Vice President Orville Prins said here.

He said presentations had been given to the Indian Navy about both the 'B'and 'C' versions of the aircraft in the recent past.

The B version the F-35 is a short take-off and vertical landing aircraft and the C version is an aircraft carrier-based version.

The Navy, which will acquire the under-construction Indigenous Aircraft Carrier around 2015, is likely to build another larger-size carrier and is looking to procure fighter aircraft for it.

..........

[Antartis]

http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes/Meyer/docs/Joint%20strike%20fighter.pdf

[onehitxzibit]

http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes/Meyer/docs/Joint%20strike%20fighter.pdf

Only two internal AIM-120's? Isn't that too few?

[Exorcet]

http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes/Meyer/docs/Joint%20strike%20fighter.pdf

 

Page 56 is a low blow.

 

Only two internal AIM-120's? Isn't that too few?

 

Yes, it's 4. But I guess this is old.

[hitman]

Rolls-Royce Defends Its F-35 Engine

July 07, 2010

 

 

CongressDaily

By Otto Kreisher

July 7, 2010

Faced with a veto threat from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Rolls-Royce officials Wednesday claimed that producing their alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would save taxpayers billions of dollars and the promise of better performance in the future.

"It is important to the warfighter, the industrial base and the taxpayer that this program continues to exist," said Dennis Jarvi, president of Roll-Royce's U.S. operations.

At a National Press Club briefing, the officials also emphasized how deeply the London-based corporation is embedded in the United States, with 6,500 employees at 18 facilities in a dozen states, $3 billion in U.S. revenue and $1 billion in U.S.-made exports.

Stressing the extent of their U.S. production, which includes the F-136 jet engine they are developing with General Electric Co., is part of the intense political battle over the propulsion systems for the F-35, potentially the largest aircraft contract ever.

The battle within Congress over the alternate engine is geographical, not partisan, with lawmakers' support frequently based on which of the manufacturers and suppliers are located in their districts.

The Pratt & Whitney engine that already powers more than a dozen F-35s in the test program is produced primarily in Connecticut, with major components from Michigan and other states.

Rolls-Royce is developing the F-136 engine at its Indianapolis factory, and GE claims that the engine would create 4,000 new jobs across the country, many of them in or near its Lynn, Mass., engine plant.

Gates insists that the military does not need and cannot afford the alternate Rolls-Royce-GE engine and repeatedly has warned that he will urge President Obama to veto any defense bill that continues to fund it.

The House ignored that threat in May and approved the fiscal 2011 defense authorization that includes $485 million to continue developing the alternate engine.

The Senate Armed Services Committee, despite the support of Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, did not authorize the alternate engine in its version of the fiscal 2011 bill, which is awaiting action by the full Senate.

Neither chamber has acted on the defense appropriations bill.

During Wednesday's briefing, Jarvi cited a Government Accountability Office report that found competition in defense programs normally produces 20 percent savings. With a predicted cost of production and life-time support for the F-35 engines of at least $100 billion, that would mean a potential savings of $20 billion, for an investment of the $3 billion he said it would cost to complete F-135 development.

"We're not looking for a hand-out. All we're looking for is an opportunity to compete," Jarvi said.

Gates has insisted that the alternate engine would cost more. He also has said that the Rolls-GE engine is not meeting performance specifications.

Jarvi disputed that, noting that the engine has passed Defense Department performance certifications 10 times, with the latest approval in June.

Although Gates has complained that the F-136 is years behind Pratt's F-135 jet, Rolls-Royce officials said the late start allowed them to take advantage of a finished air frame design to produce an engine with a greater air intake capacity. That would mean lower internal temperatures and longer engine life, or additional power, they said.

...

[hitman]

Pratt & Whitney's F135 Breaks Sound Barrier on F-35B

July 06, 2010

 

 

Aviation International News

July 4, 2010

Pratt & Whitney’s F135 engine has achieved a first for the Lockheed Martin F-35 program by accelerating the F-35B STOVL version through the sound barrier last month. The test aircraf–BF-2–climbed to 30,000 feet and accelerated to Mach 1.07 at the off-shore test track near NAS Patuxent River in Maryland on June 14. The F-35 has supercruise capability and does not require the use of engine afterburner to achieve supersonic flight. The F135’s 28,000-pound dry thrust (without augmentor) is capable of accelerating the fighter beyond Mach one, and with the augmentor lit the thrust increases to 43,000 pounds. This is the third F-35 test aircraft to fly supersonic after two other F-35A CTOL jets earlier in the flight-test program. At this point the F135 program has completed more than 17,600 hours of testing, culminating in the conventional takeoff and carrier variant aircraft receiving Initial Service Release in February 2010. Bennett Croswell, vice president of F135 and F119 engine programs said, “This is truly a historic accomplishment, not just for Pratt & Whitney and the F135 team, but really for all of military aviation. This is the first time ever, in the history of aviation, that a production-ready, stealthy, short takeoff vertical landing capable aircraft has flown supersonic.”

...

[Antartis]

Inside the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10648250

 

Check to video

[104th_Crunch]

Canada to buy 65 F-35 jet fighters in C$9 bln deal

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100716/wl_canada_nm/canada_us_fighters

 

Opposition politicians are against the buy as the $9 billion buy was not tendered to anyone else. No comparisons or competitive bids. They have a point, if a seller knows you are not comparing with anything else, they can charge you almost what they like, as they know you are going to go ahead with the buy anyway.

[Pilotasso]

Some times you wonder WTF canada is doing...

[topol-m]

Some times you wonder WTF canada is doing...

 

:laugh: