The F-35 Thread

[tflash]

The F-35's DAS system is INSANE! Any word on the UK backing out from purchasing 35's? A few of my British sim-buddies said that they we're.

 

They are still in, but they would slash their order by half it is understood in the upcoming SDR.

[Mnemonic]

[tflash]

 

BF-03. I must say, the more I see it, the more I like it!

[Mnemonic]

BF-03. I must say, the more I see it, the more I like it!

Yes, beautiful!

 

By the way Dino Cattaneo

http://indiafoxtecho.blogspot.com/2010/02/f-35a-beta-version-ready-for-test.html

Is about to release his F-35A for FSX :)

 

Beta-screens looks nice:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_BtrUCGKwx9k/S4sWpN11psI/AAAAAAAAAnA/4SPGA2NvUBg/s1600-h/f35Betaready.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BtrUCGKwx9k/S4OTNAvANoI/AAAAAAAAAm4/keu8R1HIW6k/s1600-h/F35_BetaCRcomplete.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_BtrUCGKwx9k/S3nuIIdHtSI/AAAAAAAAAmw/Xw_O0qye-6I/s1600-h/Image1.jpg

 

And a pit:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BtrUCGKwx9k/S3nuHqEws1I/AAAAAAAAAmg/2UO5VqPzi7k/s1600-h/Image5.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BtrUCGKwx9k/S3nuHBJ6d6I/AAAAAAAAAmY/4VWLzGethUk/s1600-h/Image6.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BtrUCGKwx9k/S3nuG2zbXFI/AAAAAAAAAmQ/f-32wkk7Y8U/s1600-h/Image9.jpg

Edited March 1, 2010 by Mnemonic

[exec]

My favourite one:

 

[Wilde]

:facepalm:

I just spent a couple of minutes looking at those pictures wondering how they got shot and who leaked them. Only then I realized this are actually screens from a game! Screw you fooling me by linking them in this part of the forum! :lol:

[Mnemonic]

Screw you fooling me by linking them in this part of the forum! :lol:

OMG, I was just noticed that F-35 which we discuss here soon will have nice interactive model for FSX, that's all :)

[Wilde]

OMG, I was just noticed that F-35 which we discuss here soon will have nice interactive model for FSX, that's all :)

 

Yeah, no offense mate. They look so real! Nice job by whoever did that.

[zakobi]

Lol, if those pictures from the games are correct rewarding the real model, isn't the hotas quit big?

[Lucas_From_Hell]

My favourite one:

 

 

Oh my, that's probably the ugliest thing I've ever seen! What a horrible angle :doh:

 

About the HOTAS being too big, it's about the same as the Rafale HOTAS (which, of course, is quite big :music_whistling:)

[Mnemonic]

Oh my, that's probably the ugliest thing I've ever seen! What a horrible angle :doh:

How can you name this beauty?

[Udat]

Anyone know why they didn't go for a falcon-style canopy; i mean without the view-obstructing beam at the front?

 

Edit: come to think of it, that goes for a lot of aircraft.. Must be aerodynamical and mybe to an extent structual concerns and/or limitations I'll wager.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Udat

[GGTharos]

DAS. Seriously, do I need say more? Forget the canopy rail, you can see right through the fuselage :D

[Pilotasso]

Integral buble canopies are much more expensive to produce than framed ones, not to mention the one on the F-35 is made to be aerodynamic (no rear view).

 

It also reduces the ammount of transparencies to be coated with special materials to prevent radar from reflecting on the inside of the cockpit, wich again reflects on costs.

[sobek]

Integral buble canopies are much more expensive to produce than framed ones, not to mention the one on the F-35 is made to be aerodynamic (no rear view).

 

It also reduces the ammount of transparencies to be coated with special materials to prevent radar from reflecting on the inside of the cockpit, wich again reflects on costs.

 

The question is whether the artificial all around view is any less expensive :)

[Pilotasso]

The question is that artificial view would be still present anyway regardless of cockpit designs. Its not there just because of fuselage, which btw is still there under your feet ;)

[Mugatu]

Yep, now is that a dead pixel or a T-50 sitting on my 6 :)

 

The question is whether the artificial all around view is any less expensive :)

[LaRata]

More News . . .

 

" Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other Pentagon officials have made it clear in recent weeks that they are unhappy about the F-35 joint strike fighter program. "

 

" Lockheed was "cannibalizing" parts from fuselages being built by Northrop to repair aircraft on the assembly line and in preflight testing. "

 

" But Wheeler said it's a mistake to continue buying more F-35s in 2011 and beyond, before all the quirks and capabilities of the airplanes can be determined by extensive testing. That's a view that the Government Accountability Office has voiced repeatedly when it said the F-35 plans were far too ambitious and optimistic. "

 

" The Pentagon reports indicate that writing and testing critical software for the F-35's highly complex communications, weapons and surveillance systems is slightly ahead of schedule.

 

But in a report to Congress in January, the Pentagon's weapons testing office said software development was 12 months behind schedule. Writing and debugging software for Lockheed's F-22 took several years. "

 

 

http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/02/28/2003601/documents-detail-serious-problems.html

 

LaRata

Edited March 2, 2010 by LaRata
update

[LaRata]

More News ...

 

" Navy chief optimistic F-35 will enter fleet on schedule . . .

 

During an interview at the Pentagon, Chief of Naval Operations Gary Roughead said the Navy is reviewing recent program changes, but he believes the Navy will benefit from being the last of the services to receive the F-35 and, ultimately, will stick close to its 2014 date for initial operational use. "

 

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0310/030310cdpm1.htm

 

" Air Force secretary says F-35 cost to breach legal limit . . .

 

During a breakfast with reporters, Donley called it probable that the aircraft program, the largest weapons system on the Pentagon books, would exceed the limits set by the 1982 law. The statute requires congressional notification when unit costs are at least 15 percent over budget and harsher sanctions -- including termination -- when the cost spirals to 25 percent or more over budget. "

 

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0310/030210cdpm2.htm?oref=rellink

 

LaRata

[Groove]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/11/jsf-faces-fire-risk-head-tester/

 

The Pentagon’s head of operational testing and evaluation is “concerned” that a recent decision to remove fuses and fire extinguishers from the Joint Strike Fighter program means more planes may be lost to enemy fire and may increase the risk from fires resulting from fuel leaks and related risks.

 

more behind the link

[topol-m]

the move was approved “as an acceptable system trade to balance weight, cost and risk,” but he said, “I remain concerned regarding the aircraft’s vulnerability to threat-induced and safety-related fires.”

 

Weight? How heavy are these shutoff fuses and dry bay fire extinguishers? :huh: And "balancing risk"? After reading the article it seems to me more like playing with risk rather than balancing.

[zakobi]

Why i do fell it's stupid to not include them, i think you can put it this way: If the aircraft is hit, what are the changes of it still being airworthy, without counting on any fires onboard?

 

What i mean is, that the chances of survival after a hit isn't that back anymore as it once was...

[vanir]

I noticed early in the thread discussion about Australia's Flanker concerns and the F-35 inadequacy argument.

I read the RAAF issued magazine (called unsurprisingly, RAAF Magazine) edition which featured the article ostensibly referred to, which was several years ago.

 

The article included interview with RAAF commanders, whose opinion differed as presented with Parliament/political decision to purchase at that time a medium sized force of F-35 as tabled to replace both the older model Hornets and the F-111 which are long past their use by date, but remain in service because of no suitable replacement with the range requirements.

 

The RAAF commander (no way I can recall a name, sorry) was concerned since at that time he placed the range capabilities of the F-35 in the Hornet class in terms of the necessary Force Interdiction role for the ADF, ie. having a limited range off shore without aerial refuelling.

With what he knew at that time about the proposed, actual delivered specifications of the F-35 in action he felt it was a good Hornet replacement but left a gaping void in a very important role of the RAAF which can presently only be filled by keeping the F-111 in service.

He proposed a smaller force of F-35 to be purchased so that two or three squadrons of F/A-22 (in the proposed multirole variation) could compliment them and take on the role of the F-111.

 

The ADF is importantly concerned not only with Australia's defence, but also with Australia's "territorial interests" which requires a long range penetration strike aircraft in service with the RAAF.

 

This argument is moot however, since the purchasing authorities have reconsidered the order and we are getting the SuperHornet to replace the F-111, which the RAAF is apparently quite happy with, and will also continue an order for F-35 to replace our older model Hornets with in the air defence role.

 

The concern about the Flanker was mostly regarding its loaded and unrefuelled range, a very good air superiority performance, and a very good combat load all in one package. Also in trying to think well forward in purchasing agreements, there was some contention of whether and which rather excellent prototyped Flanker variations might have entered export service with small regional nations by the time Australia got its update deliveries.

Indonesia with a force of Su-30MKI and a nasty change of government would be a daunting prospect for example. They have a very wide lethal range and we'd have to bring aerial tankers into the threat zone. We've got what, three?

 

Also consider that the middle of the Pacific does kind of put things on Flanker footing.

Personally I feel better we're adding SuperHornets to the mix, but I'd still prefer either Raptors or a switch to some new variant superFlankers.

 

I'd be more excited about the JSF if Australia was in Europe.

[GGTharos]

The flanker isn't quite 'the thing' that its being cracked up to be - sure, unrefueled range is great, but the long range it must fly ANYWAY means a straight run into this 'lethal zone' at high altitude which makes interception easier. SuperHornets are already superior (lower RCS, pretty spiff radar, huge A2A payload) and the F-35's A2A range is just fine, too.

[LaRata]

F-35 only have 2 x Aim and low speed / Range ( M 1.8 ) . A good Interceptor ???

 

The Super Bug have only maximun speed of M 1.8 .

 

This planes need more speed ... The SU will not going all the way in the same vector.

 

LaRata