The F-35 Thread

[Ross-impress]

Nice video Pilot..

[Basher54321]

Does "ready for combat" imply AG stores? I'm a bit sceptical. If your already at war then that's great, if your just placing aircraft on QRA or for just plain national air sovereignty duties in peace time, which is 99% of what a single fighter fleet will be doing, well that sucks, since they will indeed have nothing but wingtip missiles.

 

The scenario is even more evident for users who now have nothing but block 52+ and block 61's with conformal fuel tanks and F129 or F229 (even F132) when considering best performance and economy.

 

 

Nothing stopping any force having a single tank or no tanks for QRA I suppose - that is still a viable combat loadout.

 

 

Carried stores are mission dependent really - but even F-16s on CAP over the CONUS often have 2 wing tanks so max top speed is limited to around M1.6. Yes they can jettison them and get far better performance - but you still have to put up with the drag and extra fuel consumption before hand - then if you drop them they are not cheap - but on the other hand this was never a major issue before!

 

 

F-16E Blk60 with CFTs and 4-6 missiles (no pods) wouldn't have the range but would be near M2.0 capable being much faster and accelerate great from take off. Internal EWS/Sensor fusion / FLIR and AESA radar make this bird fantastic IMO.

 

The US F-16s can only dream of the above - also notice Sniper pods are sometimes used for long range ID further affecting performance.

[slowhand]

some nice pic's and lil intel:thumbup:http://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-nothing-americas-most-expensive-124300220.html

[Heli]

 

 

[Hummingbird]

some nice pic's and lil intel:thumbup:http://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-nothing-americas-most-expensive-124300220.html

 

"Designed for the Navy, the F-35C features longer wings to create drag for the jet to slowly land on aircraft carriers"

 

:doh:

 

The larger wings are there to provide the lift necessary for this aircraft to even be able to operate from a carrier, seeing as the F-35A & B would fall off into the water like bricks if they ever tried to launch from a carrier :D (excl. the B's VTOL ofcourse)

Edited May 6, 2015 by Hummingbird
small spelling error corrected

[aaron886]

No, they'd just land at an unacceptably high angle of attack. Same result though... no arrestment.

[Sierra99]

Not much different from F-16/18.

 

Actually very different. The F-16 was designed and procured as a Fighter. After it was in service the propeller heads got together in a back room and talked about hanging bombs and missiles on it...low and behold it turned out to be pretty good at that mission too.

 

The F-16 not "designed" as a multi-role fighter...it became one because it's original design allowed it without compromise.

[Hummingbird]

No, they'd just land at an unacceptably high angle of attack. Same result though... no arrestment.

 

Haha, as I said: Lift ;)

 

A F-35A would drop right into the sea after launch, it simply doesn't have the necessary lift in comparison to actual carrier aircraft, esp. in the take off configuration.

[aaron886]

Launch or recovery if at reasonable combat weight, the jet would not be so close to the lift limit as to not be able to stay aloft. So no, it would not drop into the sea after launch unless it was prohibitively loaded.

[Rogue Trooper]

 

 

 

This is the sweetness of the F-35... total battle field awareness.

Mutts nuts this bird will be.

[Hummingbird]

Launch or recovery if at reasonable combat weight, the jet would not be so close to the lift limit as to not be able to stay aloft. So no, it would not drop into the sea after launch unless it was prohibitively loaded.

 

I doubt it, esp. as both the F-35A & B lack the large flaps needed for sufficient lift in the launch stage. As for landing the AoA will be way too high.

 

There's a reason the C version features such a massive increase in wing area, because that's what it took to make the aircraft carrier capable to a satisfactory level. The B ofcourse has its' VTOL capability, but that's limited to operations with no external stores.

 

Funny thing is the F-35C is probably going to be the most capable fighter of all three, and only because of that extra wing area that the basic version lacks so badly. That big wing is not only going increase the number of conditions that the aircraft will be able to operate under, but also the amount of weapons the aircraft can carry. It's a pure win win situation, and with that wing I actually see it as a decent fighter.

 

The only version I see a problem with per se is the F-35A, as the C version basically makes it redundant. The F-35B has its place, as it's going to replace the Harrier and will mainly be doing A2G, but the F-35A? Nah..

[Exorcet]

Actually very different. The F-16 was designed and procured as a Fighter. After it was in service the propeller heads got together in a back room and talked about hanging bombs and missiles on it...low and behold it turned out to be pretty good at that mission too.

 

The F-16 not "designed" as a multi-role fighter...it became one because it's original design allowed it without compromise.

 

I wasn't talking about origins though. Just the range of roles.

 

I doubt it, esp. as both the F-35A & B lack the large flaps needed for sufficient lift in the launch stage. As for landing the AoA will be way too high.

I think that might have been it. The A/B won't operate from a carrier not necessarily because of lift limits, but AoA limits. You could launch an A and immediately pull up to 25 degrees AoA, and maybe with full AB you'd avoid the water, but it's definitely not a great way to go about flying.

 

Funny thing is the F-35C is probably going to be the most capable fighter of all three, and only because of that extra wing area that the basic version lacks so badly. That big wing is not only going increase the number of conditions that the aircraft will be able to operate under, but also the amount of weapons the aircraft can carry. It's a pure win win situation, and with that wing I actually see it as a decent fighter.

 

The only version I see a problem with per se is the F-35A, as the C version basically makes it redundant. The F-35B has its place, as it's going to replace the Harrier and will mainly be doing A2G, but the F-35A? Nah..

 

I think the A will be the dominant fighter. The C might win in a very slow dogfight, but its transonic acceleration and maneuverability will probably suffer. The A also has a g limit advantage and 5000 lb weight advantage going into TWR.

 

Against a non stealth aircraft, the A has all the BVR advantages. Stealth vs Stealth might make it more complicated. It depends on whether you end up with WVR dogfights or just sneak attacks where only one side sees the other. On paper, the A is already as good as the F-16, maybe even better with internal weapons.

[aaron886]

No, they'd just land at an unacceptably high angle of attack.

As for landing the AoA will be way too high.

...

I guess we're in agreement now? There's a difference between an unacceptably high angle of attack and "falling into the water."

 

The only version I see a problem with per se is the F-35A, as the C version basically makes it redundant.

 

Do you not think the Air Force would have then taken the Charlie variant as well? Come on, man. :huh:

[Hummingbird]

...

I guess we're in agreement now? There's a difference between an unacceptably high angle of attack and "falling into the water."

 

The AoA is high because of a lack of wing to generate the necessary lift at acceptable AoA's (i.e. the A & B versions lack the lift), which is what is going to make the aircraft plummit off the carrier in any theoretical launch scenario.

 

Do you not think the Air Force would have then taken the Charlie variant as well? Come on, man. :huh:

 

Not considering it was a later adaptation. There's probably other factors, such as cost, at play here as well.

[Hummingbird]

I think the A will be the dominant fighter. The C might win in a very slow dogfight, but its transonic acceleration and maneuverability will probably suffer. The A also has a g limit advantage and 5000 lb weight advantage going into TWR.

 

Against a non stealth aircraft, the A has all the BVR advantages. Stealth vs Stealth might make it more complicated. It depends on whether you end up with WVR dogfights or just sneak attacks where only one side sees the other. On paper, the A is already as good as the F-16, maybe even better with internal weapons.

 

I dunno, I doubt it to be honest.

 

The F-35C is supposedly just as fast as the F-35A, and the energy loss in turns will be much lower with the giant amount of extra lift available (~50% increase in wing area is pretty massive) versus the rather small loss in TW ratio. So in any WVR engagement the F-35C should have it in the bag easy. BVR is another issue ofcourse, but I doubt there will be any difference there.

 

It also needs to be mentioned that the F-35C also has the advantage of a 400-500 kg extra internal fuel capacity.

[Exorcet]

I dunno, I doubt it to be honest.

 

The F-35C is supposedly just as fast as the F-35A, and the energy loss in turns will be much lower with the giant amount of extra lift available (~50% increase in wing area is pretty massive) versus the rather small loss in TW ratio. So in any WVR engagement the F-35C should have it in the bag easy. BVR is another issue ofcourse, but I doubt there will be any difference there.

 

It also needs to be mentioned that the F-35C also has the advantage of a 400-500 kg extra internal fuel capacity.

 

The lift gain is offset by the F-35's body lift, which looks significant. The C makes the most lift, but it's not a gain proportional to just wing areas. Given that the fuselages are the same though, only one aircraft can posses the better area distribution for trans/supersonic flight. I'd imagine that would be the A since it's most likely to be used in the fighter role given how widespread it will be. Also if you look at the dimensions of the A, it's basically a slightly bigger F-16. Wing loading and TWR is practically the same as the F-16, as are the length and wingspan (though aspect ratio is a bit worse).

 

As for fuel load, the A actually has a better fuel fraction. The C's wing allows it to achieve better range, but it's most likely going to gobble fuel much faster in combat because of the added weight. The loss of acceleration from the weight and the drag (at high speed) will only compound this.

[NineLine]

[NineLine]

But there are no fuel pylons except for the centerline. I never loaded a 600g tank , maybe it could be those. Where did you get the figure?

 

Start an F-16 thread if you like, this is the F-35 thread, please try to keep on topic.

[mvsgas]

Sorry. No need. I was in the process to responding to Hummingbird when the thread changed.

Edited May 7, 2015 by mvsgas

[mvsgas]

 

I wonder the effect the weapons bays have on STOVL? It appears like they have to be open for vertical landing or take offs.

[mvsgas]

On another topic;

This is a direct PDF link

Inspector general Quality Assurance Assessment on the F-35 (2013)

 

This is a direct PDF link

Quality assurance report March 11 2015

Edited May 8, 2015 by mvsgas

[NineLine]

[HiJack]

Can we have the shower at 8:52 implemented on Nellis please? :D

[mvsgas]

Can we have the shower at 8:52 implemented on Nellis please? :D

 

We call that a "Bird Bath" It is normally used on air bases that are close to the sea like Eglin AFB or Kunsan AB. You wouldn't find one in Nellis AFB AFAIK.

[mvsgas]

Click on image to enlarge

First female F-35 pilot begins training

 

Lt. Col. Christine Mau, 33rd Operations Group deputy commander, navigates her F-35A through the “bird bath” after returning from her first flight on Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., May 5, 2015. Mau, who previously flew F-15E Strike Eagles, made history as the first female F-35 pilot in the program. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Marleah Robertson)