HiJack Posted April 16, 2012 Posted April 16, 2012 First UK plane flies! And its a B model. Shes a looker! Make sure it carries the right stuff :D http://www.kongsberg.com/en/kds/products/missile%20systems/jointstrikemissile/ (HJ)
Daze Posted April 16, 2012 Posted April 16, 2012 First UK plane flies! And its a B model. Shes a looker! I'll fly it one day ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] First to Fight, First to Strike.
Jona33 Posted April 17, 2012 Posted April 17, 2012 Funnily enough I'm sure I saw a B hovering in the area around Lakenheath, Mildenhall, Honington yesterday. I might have been mistaken but I did think it was one. @Daze, Second that. Always remember. I don't have a clue what I'm doing
Pilotasso Posted April 17, 2012 Posted April 17, 2012 Looks like the brits will have their vertical capability back too: http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=19482 Prime minister cans F-35C back to the original F35B plans. I wounder why they took so much time to realize re-converted the already built huls to operate catapults would be more expesnive than the diference in price tag between the B and the C. .
amalahama Posted April 17, 2012 Posted April 17, 2012 (edited) Looks like the brits will have their vertical capability back too: http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=19482 Prime minister cans F-35C back to the original F35B plans. I wounder why they took so much time to realize re-converted the already built huls to operate catapults would be more expesnive than the diference in price tag between the B and the C. Well capabilities aren't the same either, B version carries less fuel, MTOW is lighter and payload bay is smaller than C's. To be fair, C seems the winner version to me; that bigger wing should help a lot to reduce the high wing load that this aircraft suffer, making it more capable in dogfights. Regards! Edited April 17, 2012 by amalahama
aaron886 Posted April 17, 2012 Posted April 17, 2012 Are they still planning to outfit the Prince of Wales with catapults?
Jona33 Posted April 18, 2012 Posted April 18, 2012 Are they still planning to outfit the Prince of Wales with catapults? I doubt it. The B being VTOL is quite handy and isn't a bad choice. One question, can it perform hybrid landings. Always remember. I don't have a clue what I'm doing
Pilotasso Posted April 18, 2012 Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) They canned the catapults, see the link I provided above. The original design was without them and modifying the carriers to add them would be expensive, more expensive than the difference in costs between the B and C. No to mention, when you cram last minute alterations more often than not incurr in unforseen complications, cots and delays. Well capabilities aren't the same either, B version carries less fuel, MTOW is lighter and payload bay is smaller than C's. To be fair, C seems the winner version to me; that bigger wing should help a lot to reduce the high wing load that this aircraft suffer, making it more capable in dogfights. Regards! I hear ya, but the VTOL capability might come in handy. Perhaps thats more important than the extra range (not that the B has any less than the other embarked aircraft today) or dogfighting capability. Edited April 18, 2012 by Pilotasso .
tflash Posted April 18, 2012 Posted April 18, 2012 So it seems it was the right version's first flight: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
tflash Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 Cameron's U-turn nears: http://www.channel4.com/news/u-turn-on-governments-aircraft-carrier-programme [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Pilotasso Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 those news have been around for a while, awsome plane but I cant just imagine how they can afford both it and 2 more large carriers. .
aaron886 Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 Stupid politicians are stupid politicians the world 'round...
tflash Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 In the mean time Lockheed-Martin is spamming the press with a desperate attempt to save the public perception of their boondoggle: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/11/real-consequences-of-delaying-f-35-program/ The only relevant and meaningfull line in this ariticle is the last sentence: Both are consultants to Lockheed Martin, prime contractor for the F-35. Pathetic. The US Navy seems already to have made up its mind about all this: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2012-05-11/us-navy-solicits-concepts-super-hornet-successor [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
kam Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 Cameron's U-turn nears: http://www.channel4.com/news/u-turn-on-governments-aircraft-carrier-programme We end up with the F-35 that has to take off with less payload, has a shorter range and needs to return with more fuel, sounds like a winner :doh:. I'd have loved it if the QE carriers had EMALS with the F-35C, but from the moment there was word of it. I knew it was too good and sensible to be true. I know (well, hope) they will be basing their decision on more data than I have, such as the F-35C hook issue, delays to its construction etc. But then you see reports like this where the MoD were overestimating the cost of having cats and traps. I wonder how much it's going to cost to run the B rather than the C in the long run, we'll find out... Intel 5820k | Asus X-99A | Crucial 16GB | Powercolor Devil RX580 8GB | Win 10 x64 | Oculus Rift | https://gallery.ksotov.co.uk Patiently waiting for: DCS: Panavia Tornado, DCS: SA-2 Guideline, DCS: SA-3 Goa, DCS: S-300 Grumble
Jona33 Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 Stupid politicians are stupid politicians the world 'round... Don't matter what country it is they'll always screw up. Always remember. I don't have a clue what I'm doing
Pilotasso Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 We end up with the F-35 that has to take off with less payload, has a shorter range and needs to return with more fuel, sounds like a winner :doh:. I'd have loved it if the QE carriers had EMALS with the F-35C, but from the moment there was word of it. I knew it was too good and sensible to be true. I know (well, hope) they will be basing their decision on more data than I have, such as the F-35C hook issue, delays to its construction etc. But then you see reports like this where the MoD were overestimating the cost of having cats and traps. I wonder how much it's going to cost to run the B rather than the C in the long run, we'll find out... The carriers were not designed to take catapults in the first place. It might not make much sense to you but the designers who know better than you and me have always been saying F-35C was in the political agenda only, politicians werent listening. Technicaly speaking retrofitting the carriers would delay the carriers delivery and cause a big cost overruns and unforseen problems. Much like the Indians and chinese (who have got nice aircraft but no carriers to operate them from). Correct decision to come back to F-35B. :) 1 .
kam Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 The carriers were not designed to take catapults in the first place. It might not make much sense to you but the designers who know better than you and me have always been saying F-35C was in the political agenda only, politicians werent listening. Technicaly speaking retrofitting the carriers would delay the carriers delivery and cause a big cost overruns and unforseen problems. Much like the Indians and chinese (who have got nice aircraft but no carriers to operate them from). Correct decision to come back to F-35B. :) True, I just hope that everything comes together as it should and we have a decent naval air wing again. There's interesting commentary about this whole situation (and much more) on this site. Intel 5820k | Asus X-99A | Crucial 16GB | Powercolor Devil RX580 8GB | Win 10 x64 | Oculus Rift | https://gallery.ksotov.co.uk Patiently waiting for: DCS: Panavia Tornado, DCS: SA-2 Guideline, DCS: SA-3 Goa, DCS: S-300 Grumble
Shnider Posted May 14, 2012 Posted May 14, 2012 RAAF Delays The Australian government has decided to push back the delivery schedule of the F-35A to the RAAF by two years to "save money". :( This was just one in a series of cuts made to the ADF to help return the Australian budget to surplus. :thumbdown: http://news.yahoo.com/australia-delays-f-35-plane-orders-aid-budget-031538501--business.html
tflash Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Northrop Grumman's F-35 DAS and Radar Demonstrate Ability to Detect, Track, Target Ballistic Missiles: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/northrop-grummans-f-35-das-and-radar-demonstrate-ability-to-detect-track-target-ballistic-missiles-2012-06-26 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Snoopy Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Article and pictures... http://www.engadget.com/photos/lockheed-martin-f-35-lightning-ii-cockpit-demonstrator-hands-on/#5148190 We spend hundreds of hours on board a variety of airplanes each year, most often en-route to a trade show or product launch event, but occasionally we have a rare opportunity to hop on board military aircraft, to test out unrelated products, or, even more unusually, to take a seat behind the yoke. Sadly that's not what we're doing today -- well, not exactly. We are taking a closer look at the F-35 fighter jet at Lockheed Martin's Fighter Demonstration Center just outside our nation's capital, but, being in the middle of a corporate complex, there's no actual Lightning II on hand. We were able to take a simulated ride, however -- this isn't your ordinary 4D sickness-inducing amusement park thrill. The F-35 is by far the most advanced Lockheed jet to date, with updated radar, all-internal weapons, improved tracking systems, 360-degree infrared coverage with a visor readout, and a full-stealth design, not to mention the incredibly capable glass cockpit powered by more than 9.3 million lines of software code, and an overall smoother experience for pilots that could end up spending shifts of 12 hours or longer in flight. The F-35 has already seen plenty of field time in the US, with more than 500 flights already in 2012, and it's set to make its way to the UK armed forces next week and the Netherlands later this year, but while the aircraft is quite familiar to the pilots tasked with flying it, the public hasn't had an opportunity to experience Lockheed's latest airborne warrior. We flew a simulated mission within a grounded duplicate of the flyable F-35 cockpit, and the capabilities and improvements are quite clear -- you definitely don't want to encounter an F-35 from a previous-generation aircraft. The dual 8 x 10-inch touch-enabled displays combine to give you 8 x 20 inches of real estate, with dedicated modules for the weapons systems, targeting, and navigation easily accessible -- you can also move them to different panels depending on your current objective. A pair of joysticks at the left and right side provide direct access, letting you move a cursor to track enemy crafts or ground-based targets as well, and a very slick heads-up-display mounted in the helmet provides infrared mapping and instrument readouts. Overall, it seems to be an incredibly powerful system. Unfortunately, the mock-up on display here isn't accessible to the public, but you can join us for a behind-the-scenes look just after the break. v303d Fighter Group Discord | Virtual 303d Fighter Group Website
mvsgas Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 New Flight Control modes for F-35C taken from http://www.jsf.mil/news/index.htm http://www.jsf.mil/video/f35test/2012%2007%2025%20-%20CF-03%20Interview.wmv?fuseaction=home.VideoPlay&key=DC80FEC8-B7B9-40DD-BE53-CC7D78682946 To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
Recommended Posts