The F-35 Thread

[Maximus_G]

There's no problem sir, just a terminological clarification.

[GGTharos]

If you're arguing that 'nothing gets redefined, it's just the push and pull of technology', then I sort of agree :)

[Pilotasso]

Sorry but 12 A-A missiles is quite a bit, excluding the wing hardpoints. and 12 250lb JDAMS?

 

IMO the F-35 has potential, but I want to see how it preforms in combat scenarios.

 

That photo shows wingtip AMRAAM's, That's news to me, the other variants are being tested with pylons only.

[xaoslaad]

That picture does not seem based in reality. As far as I can find there are just two internal stations, with the outboard one being used primarily for A-G weapons (though admittedly capable of carrying A-A missiles). Where did it come from. Any accompanying text to explain?

 

Doesn't look like enough space for 6 missiles. Maybe 3 if you had a proper ejector rack for two.

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/3168/146hx9.jpg

[GGTharos]

Correct, that image is fantasy.

 

There's some talk of re-designing the bay to have more space in it, but this picture, who knows where it came from.

[SilentGun]

Well (I'm not saying your wrong) the pic that shows one AMRAAM and a JDAM Is an F-35A or B (most likely) the F-35C doesn't have the ability to VTOL so it probably has more space. (Plz don't judge me :) )

[Exorcet]

Well (I'm not saying your wrong) the pic that shows one AMRAAM and a JDAM Is an F-35A or B (most likely) the F-35C doesn't have the ability to VTOL so it probably has more space. (Plz don't judge me :) )

If it's an honest mistake, no problem. It does sort of look authentic, sort of, but fact checking important.

 

Also, note the F-22 like nozzle in the drawing. I think someone was just having some fun.

[fltsimbuff]

Not much different from F-16/18.

 

I've had some real concerns about the capabilities of the F-35 in the past, but it does look like it will make a very good replacement for aircraft such as the F-16.

 

The main issue I have with it now, is that as the program becomes more and more expensive, the USAF seems to be willing to sacrifice more things at the altar of the F-35 to justify the cost. "Sure, it will cost a few million more, but we can replace the A-10 too!"

 

I am waiting for them to say "With an AESA radar this powerful, why would we need so many AWACS planes anyway?" :)

[Pilotasso]

The F-35 is not a vertical upgrade to the F-16.

The F-35 may overlap the F-16 in some mission roles, however they are very fundamentally different aircraft for different missions profiles.

 

Of the 26 countries using the F-16, most will have to look somewhere else for a more direct replacement.

[Maximus_G]

USN wants moar.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/can-americas-6th-generation-fighter-jets-rule-the-skies-12613

Another source agreed that the F/A-XX might be more geared toward the air-to-air mission. The second official cited two major reasons. First, the F-35C can cover the strike role, and second, the sheer number of enemy aircraft that future carriers might faceoff against. “The F/A-XX requirements may well be biased towards fleet air defense versus strike operations,” the second official said. “The primary issue is the likely threat of numerical superiority in multiple dimensions.”

...

The first industry official, for his part, said that the Navy needs to develop the F/A-XX with an air-to-air bias. Basic attributes would include high-supersonic cruise capability at altitudes between 50,000 and 60,000 feet, stealth, advanced sensors and advanced weapons. “I think you can always make a good fighter into a good striker,” the official said.

[Exorcet]

It's not surprising, the F-35A is the only one that I would really call a fighter and in that case it's clear that it wasn't meant to be a F-22. The F-35 should be more than capable in air to air at the present time, but I think it will become obsolete in that role faster than it does in the air to ground role.

[Pilotasso]

USN wants moar.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/can-americas-6th-generation-fighter-jets-rule-the-skies-12613

 

hah, Ironically that might actually sell more than the F-35, a USN fighter.

 

The articles assumption about the PAK-FA, in particular the J-20 maybe wrong (too much speculation performance wise) but the emphasis on AA pretty much closes the circle begun 40 years ago with the TOMCAT, the first agile of the teen series in an era dominated by interceptors and bombers.

Edited April 17, 2015 by Pilotasso

[NineLine]

Guys, once again, this is a thread about the F-35 and info on that. Please stay on topic.

[Aginor]

@Sith: My problem is that someone merged the thread my post was going to be in with this one. :(

[NineLine]

@Sith: My problem is that someone merged the thread my post was going to be in with this one. :(

 

Ah, ok... anyways, lets drop to extra stuff and keep it a F-35 thread please.

[SkateZilla]

Israel has purchased 14 more F-35s, added onto the original contract of 19

[NineLine]

[mvsgas]

Click on image to enlarge

Lockheed Martin test pilot Paul Hattendorf was at the controls of F-35A AF-1 for a maximum asymmetrical load flight test on 13 March 2015. The test, flown from Edwards AFB, California, involved takeoffs and landings and up and away flight with two 500-pound GBU-12 bombs and an AIM-9X on the left wing as well as a 2,000-pound GBU-31 bomb and an AIM-120 missile in the left weapons bay.

 

Pilots from the 61st Fighter Squadron at Luke AFB, Arizona, flew the squadron’s 1,000th F-35 training sortie on 31 March 2015. The first F-35A arrived at Luke on 10 March 2014 and recorded the 1,000 sorties milestone just a little more than a year later. That's the fastest time to 1,000 F-35 sorties so far for any US military flying squadron. The first official class of student pilots is scheduled to begin at the Academic Training Center, a 145,000-square-foot two story state-of-the-art training center, in May 2015. There are currently twenty F-35As assigned at Luke, two of which belong to the Royal Australian Air Force, an F-35 pilot training partner nation.

Edited April 25, 2015 by mvsgas

[HiJack]

 

Awesome image SiThSpAwN. You really get a view of the size of the single F135 engine compared to the F/A-18s two engines. No wonder that it gives some logistical challenges for carrier operation shipping engines in and out of the carrier. What is the turnover schedule for a F135 engine anyway?

[SkateZilla]

Glad to see the VF-101 logo again.

[Pilotasso]

Myth busting the F-35

 

Some debunking of F-35 shortcomings.

 

ZtZNBkKdO5U

 

The Video is interesting, however when they address the manoeuvrability being similar to that of F-16 or F-18 they talk about speed with loadouts and angles of attack but decline to give any hints about what's the turn radius like or how it would handle in close quarters. I' also interested in climb and interception capabilities.

[Basher54321]

Some debunking of F-35 shortcomings.

 

The Video is interesting, however when they address the manoeuvrability being similar to that of F-16 or F-18 they talk about speed with loadouts and angles of attack but decline to give any hints about what's the turn radius like or how it would handle in close quarters. I' also interested in climb and interception capabilities.

 

 

No way to tell without EM charts

 

A plausible intercept profile consists of a clean F-35 - or maybe with 2 x AIM-9X on the wings - only a short range intercept with no tanks would see the 16/18 likely best it for acceleration - but with far less range.

 

 

The only application where the F-16 needs minimal stores is probably this:

 

[Weta43]

Interesting that they did the voice over with a synthetic speech generator (so tempting to suggest a reason :) ).

 

Am I being too cynical when I think that what he didn't claim is as interesting as what he did ? Although he mentioned that the F-35 could pull a higher AoA than the F-18, he (do you still say 'he' when it's a computer ?) doesn't actually say that it can out-turn an F-18 in any sense, even in the limited way that he states the F-35 is 'practically' faster than an F-16..

[Tirak]

Interesting that they did the voice over with a synthetic speech generator (so tempting to suggest a reason :) ).

 

Am I being too cynical when I think that what he didn't claim is as interesting as what he did ? Although he mentioned that the F-35 could pull a higher AoA than the F-18, he (do you still say 'he' when it's a computer ?) doesn't actually say that it can out-turn an F-18 in any sense, even in the limited way that he states the F-35 is 'practically' faster than an F-16..

 

There's a wonderful video floating around of an F-35 test pilot, and he makes a comment to the effect that 'the F-35 is not a great airshow plane', and he's right. When stripped down flying clean, it has almost the same performance as when it's kitted out to fight. The fourth generation F-16 is capable of hitting Mach 2, completely clean. Practically, it will never enter combat without something on the wing, which instantly puts it down to the same practical speed as the F-35. Absolute speed, F-16 wins, ready for combat, F-35 does.

 

The guy who made this video is likely going to be making more, he's got a thread over on f-16.net where he's gathering information and taking advice from people about what to present. I'm totally with you though that the synthetic voice isn't a great choice :lol:

[Pilotasso]

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.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Pilotasso