Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/18/2006 8:49:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/18/2006 8:51:14 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 8:55:22 AM EDT
I love the idea of the F-35 JSF. In many instances, the technology on it is more advanced than what is on the F-22.

It would be nice if we bought 400 JSFs...or more.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 8:57:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:


Theoretically, with enough sensors on the aircraft, a pilot can look down where he would normally see his knees, and essentially see through the structure of the aircraft to a target directly below.




Cool technology!
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 9:03:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

Originally Posted By vito113:


Theoretically, with enough sensors on the aircraft, a pilot can look down where he would normally see his knees, and essentially see through the structure of the aircraft to a target directly below.




Cool technology!



O hell yea, that kick ass.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 9:15:05 AM EDT
Here's an interesting tidbit. The USAF version will have an internally mounted 25mm gatling cannon while the USMC and Navy versions will have an external pod-mounted version. I guess it will probably be a conformal mounting like the Harrier. www.gdatp.com/products/lethality/jsf/jsf.htm

General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products (GDATP) has been awarded a system development and demonstration contract to design, produce, and integrate the Joint Strike Fighter’s (JSF) gun system. GDATP is developing an internal and external gun system based a derivative of the GAU-12/U 25mm Gatling gun. An internally mounted gun system will arm the F-35A Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) aircraft variant and an externally mounted gun system will arm the F-35B Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) and F-35C Carrier-Based (CV) aircraft variants.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 9:20:24 AM EDT

Why the differences between the three services?

The different core missions not withstanding, is it (for example) that important that the Navy have an arresting hook version instead of the STOVL version simply to have the arresting hook version
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 9:22:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CFII:

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

Originally Posted By vito113:


Theoretically, with enough sensors on the aircraft, a pilot can look down where he would normally see his knees, and essentially see through the structure of the aircraft to a target directly below.




Cool technology!



O hell yea, that kick ass.



Go watch "Macross Plus" to get an idea of just where this kind of tech is leading to. I've always been a firm believer in the "life imitates art" philosophy when it comes to things like this.

I remember a story that was in the book about the making of "Space: 1999". Some of the people involved in making that show toured the plant where Concorde was built. One of the techs asked who they were. They replied that they were in television. That lead to the inevitable "what shows have you done?" They hemmed and hawed a bit and finally mumbled "Thunderbirds" (among others).

They were swamped with techs and designers wanting to talk about the designs of the craft and their capabilities, their ideas for similar craft in the real world. Almost all were serioius fans of the show.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 9:22:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By danpass:
Why the differences between the three services?

The different core missions not withstanding, is it (for example) that important that the Navy have an arresting hook version instead of the STOVL version simply to have the arresting hook version



The STOVL version is different enough that there are major differences in payload/range. The internal fan takes up a rather large chunk of real estate behind the pilot, where the F-35C (and F-35A) will have a fuel cell.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 9:36:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By danpass:
Why the differences between the three services?

The different core missions not withstanding, is it (for example) that important that the Navy have an arresting hook version instead of the STOVL version simply to have the arresting hook version



The STOVL version is different enough that there are major differences in payload/range. The internal fan takes up a rather large chunk of real estate behind the pilot, where the F-35C (and F-35A) will have a fuel cell.



The Navy version needs a lot of stronger structures and space to be able to land on a carrier.

Why can't the USAF use the Navy version you ask?

Well all that beefed up structure comes with a cost. IIRC only two 1000lb bombs and 2 AMRAAMS vice 2x 2000lb bombs and 2x Amraams in the USAF version, no gun on the navy version, a gun on the AF version, and I believe the AF version is rated for higher G's.

I could be wrong on some counts...

Give it already is 70 to 90 percent common there is not THAT much cost savings to over come the lack of abilities when operating off land.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 9:58:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By danpass:
Why the differences between the three services?

The different core missions not withstanding, is it (for example) that important that the Navy have an arresting hook version instead of the STOVL version simply to have the arresting hook version



The STOVL version is different enough that there are major differences in payload/range. The internal fan takes up a rather large chunk of real estate behind the pilot, where the F-35C (and F-35A) will have a fuel cell.



The Navy version needs a lot of stronger structures and space to be able to land on a carrier.

Why can't the USAF use the Navy version you ask?

Well all that beefed up structure comes with a cost. IIRC only two 1000lb bombs and 2 AMRAAMS vice 2x 2000lb bombs and 2x Amraams in the USAF version, no gun on the navy version, a gun on the AF version, and I believe the AF version is rated for higher G's.

I could be wrong on some counts...

Give it already is 70 to 90 percent common there is not THAT much cost savings to over come the lack of abilities when operating off land.



Exactly.
And most of the differences are built into the airframe.
That means it's not a repair or spare parts issue, as the parts that can be replaced or forward-repaired are common amongst the variety of airframes.

Enough commonality to spread the development costs (except for the F-25B STOVL) across the entire series of aircraft, driving down the final cost-per-airframe. This means more F-35s, just like the F-16.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 10:13:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/18/2006 10:23:54 AM EDT by danpass]

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By danpass:
Why the differences between the three services?

The different core missions not withstanding, is it (for example) that important that the Navy have an arresting hook version instead of the STOVL version simply to have the arresting hook version



The STOVL version is different enough that there are major differences in payload/range. The internal fan takes up a rather large chunk of real estate behind the pilot, where the F-35C (and F-35A) will have a fuel cell.



The Navy version needs a lot of stronger structures and space to be able to land on a carrier.

Why can't the USAF use the Navy version you ask?

Well all that beefed up structure comes with a cost. IIRC only two 1000lb bombs and 2 AMRAAMS vice 2x 2000lb bombs and 2x Amraams in the USAF version, no gun on the navy version, a gun on the AF version, and I believe the AF version is rated for higher G's.

I could be wrong on some counts...

Give it already is 70 to 90 percent common there is not THAT much cost savings to over come the lack of abilities when operating off land.




See, thats the thing, the USMC Harrier lands on amphibious assault ships (carriers too sometimes)!

As far as my limited knowledge knows, using an arresting hook dictates all that other structure. Is it so important to have that 'aura' of "our pilots aviators gotta catch a hook"

[range considerations aside]



edit: clarification
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 10:14:31 AM EDT
Two words:
Aerial rearming.

"initiating re-arming sequence."
*clunk clunk whirr whirr pffsssstttttttthhhhhhhhhhhh*
"rearming sequence complete"

Or
Fly into the bay of a super large cargo plane mid-air and have techs re-arm and refuel, then re-deploy!
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 10:31:06 AM EDT
Have you guys heard any rumors of the USAF version having the lift fan drive of the STOV/L series, without the fan? I heard somewhere that it could drive a power source for a weapons-grade laser that's in the works.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 10:38:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
Have you guys heard any rumors of the USAF version having the lift fan drive of the STOV/L series, without the fan? I heard somewhere that it could drive a power source for a weapons-grade laser that's in the works.



Just on here.

But there's a ton of PTO stuff you can get for a John Deere, imagine what the DoD could come up with.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 10:46:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
Have you guys heard any rumors of the USAF version having the lift fan drive of the STOV/L series, without the fan? I heard somewhere that it could drive a power source for a weapons-grade laser that's in the works.

All F-35 engines have the take-off shaft used to power the S/VTOL fan, the plan is for the AF version (and possibly the Navy version?) to incorporate a laser. Power take off, its not just for your manure spreader anymore.

Kharn
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 10:51:21 AM EDT

Theoretically, with enough sensors on the aircraft, a pilot can look down where he would normally see his knees, and essentially see through the structure of the aircraft to a target directly below.

This is an extension of 1950s technology.

Female pilots have to wear special underwear so the male pilots can not see them nekkid.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 11:06:01 AM EDT
And it converts into a giant battle mech!!!

Link Posted: 1/18/2006 11:19:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Airwolf:
Go watch "Macross Plus" to get an idea of just where this kind of tech is leading to.



A real-life YF-19 w/ the full-view canopy & dislpay, & minus the "transformer robot-mech", would simply rock.

Link Posted: 1/18/2006 12:01:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By danpass:

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By danpass:
Why the differences between the three services?

The different core missions not withstanding, is it (for example) that important that the Navy have an arresting hook version instead of the STOVL version simply to have the arresting hook version



The STOVL version is different enough that there are major differences in payload/range. The internal fan takes up a rather large chunk of real estate behind the pilot, where the F-35C (and F-35A) will have a fuel cell.



The Navy version needs a lot of stronger structures and space to be able to land on a carrier.

Why can't the USAF use the Navy version you ask?

Well all that beefed up structure comes with a cost. IIRC only two 1000lb bombs and 2 AMRAAMS vice 2x 2000lb bombs and 2x Amraams in the USAF version, no gun on the navy version, a gun on the AF version, and I believe the AF version is rated for higher G's.

I could be wrong on some counts...

Give it already is 70 to 90 percent common there is not THAT much cost savings to over come the lack of abilities when operating off land.




See, thats the thing, the USMC Harrier lands on amphibious assault ships (carriers too sometimes)!

As far as my limited knowledge knows, using an arresting hook dictates all that other structure. Is it so important to have that 'aura' of "our pilots aviators gotta catch a hook"

[range considerations aside]

edit: clarification



What are you gonna do if the lift fan is broken, the fan doors won't open or the three-bearing swivel for the engine doesn't operate? The F-35B will have to land like any other naval aircraft, only with stubbier wings than the F-35C.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 12:16:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 12:27:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/18/2006 12:28:48 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 1:20:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/18/2006 1:21:24 PM EDT by danpass]

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By danpass:
Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:
Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
Originally Posted By danpass:



See, thats the thing, the USMC Harrier lands on amphibious assault ships (carriers too sometimes)!

As far as my limited knowledge knows, using an arresting hook dictates all that other structure. Is it so important to have that 'aura' of "our pilots aviators gotta catch a hook"

[range considerations aside]

edit: clarification



US Navies LHA(R)... the return of the Light Fleet Carrier....

img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/SHIP_LHA-R_lg.jpg




ooooohhhhh... very nice.

Or is it merely a refit of the current amphibious assault ships

edit: Googling reveals that it may be a bit of both
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 1:37:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 4:10:53 PM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 2:48:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/19/2006 2:50:29 AM EDT by Charging_Handle]
Interesting stuff as always Andy. The F-35 is gonna kick major ass, even though the F-22 is getting all the glory.

Oh, and for the poster who earlier was wishing we'd buy 400 F-35's, you should be happy to know that we'll probably end up buying 1500-2000 of them! The Navy and Marines will probably take 400 or more each with the USAF getting the rest. So there should be plenty of F-35 goodness in the skies in coming years.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 3:44:02 AM EDT
Maybe retiring the FRS-2 is Tony's way of getting out of troubling military actions

"You see George, I'd love to go and bash Iran with you, but we just retired our navy fighters, so there's not a lot we can do. I really can't send RAF Harriers in without heavy escort, and we don't want to be a burden to you guys..."

That way, he doesn't get his New Labour arse kicked by his old Labour communist party. Gordon Brown will be PM by the time the F-35 comes on the scene. Not Tony's problem.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 3:52:03 AM EDT
Jon Beesley was one of the Lockheed F-22 test pilots while I was part of the test program.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 7:14:55 AM EDT
Have you guys read about the JSF and the F-22 in the P.N.A.C?
It's really offensive, the PNAC wants to stop JSF's, and downgrade the # of aircraft carriers, but supports the F-22.

I lived in Dayton while the F-22 was being developed, and I am a licensed pilot... however I fear the raptor is a bit of a white elephant.

Link Posted: 1/19/2006 7:29:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/19/2006 7:30:57 AM EDT by LonePathfinder]
Why don't they put angled decks on the new LHAR's? It would give more options to the USMC. Maybe even allow Harrier deployments off of them in small numbers. It could also allow Helo ops forward and JSF ops (landing or taking off) on the angled deck.

I mean its just deck space and a bit of a over hang....
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 7:43:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:
Why don't they put angled decks on the new LHAR's? It would give more options to the USMC. Maybe even allow Harrier deployments off of them in small numbers. It could also allow Helo ops forward and JSF ops (landing or taking off) on the angled deck.

I mean its just deck space and a bit of a over hang....





I think that will be a variant forced on the Navy by Congress when the UCAVs become a more mature technology. That and when they see the final bill for the CVN-21s.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 7:52:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:
Why don't they put angled decks on the new LHAR's? It would give more options to the USMC. Maybe even allow Harrier deployments off of them in small numbers. It could also allow Helo ops forward and JSF ops (landing or taking off) on the angled deck.

I mean its just deck space and a bit of a over hang....



My understanding is that during Gulf War 2, the amphibious assault ships became "Harrier Carriers" after the Marines (and all equipment) went ashore.

jsut some links when googling "harrier carrier"

www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=6134

www.flagshipnews.com/archives_2003/apr032003_10.shtml

Approximately two squadrons per ship.

Problem is that the mainstream Navy gets real nervous about the mention of 'baby' carriers. Gets real territorial if you know what I mean.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 7:53:18 AM EDT

I would like to hear from Harrier pilots that are/have deployed
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 8:38:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:57:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/19/2006 10:03:21 AM EDT by metroplex]
F-302 >> F-35

Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:44:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:
Why don't they put angled decks on the new LHAR's? It would give more options to the USMC. Maybe even allow Harrier deployments off of them in small numbers. It could also allow Helo ops forward and JSF ops (landing or taking off) on the angled deck.

I mean its just deck space and a bit of a over hang....

The Harrier and Marines' JSF do not need the angled deck, they lands vertically. They can already do helicopter ops at the rear while doing Harrier/JSF short-take-offs on the ramp at the front.

Kharn
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:44:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:
Why don't they put angled decks on the new LHAR's? It would give more options to the USMC. Maybe even allow Harrier deployments off of them in small numbers. It could also allow Helo ops forward and JSF ops (landing or taking off) on the angled deck.

I mean its just deck space and a bit of a over hang....



They don't need it, it will carry 20-25 F-35B's JSF's and 25-35 MV-22 Ospreys along with 1,800 Marines.

All the aircraft are STVOL/VTOL.


ANdy



Isn't that usually an OR on the aircraft?
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 12:18:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 12:22:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By danpass:

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:
Why don't they put angled decks on the new LHAR's? It would give more options to the USMC. Maybe even allow Harrier deployments off of them in small numbers. It could also allow Helo ops forward and JSF ops (landing or taking off) on the angled deck.

I mean its just deck space and a bit of a over hang....



My understanding is that during Gulf War 2, the amphibious assault ships became "Harrier Carriers" after the Marines (and all equipment) went ashore.

jsut some links when googling "harrier carrier"

www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=6134

www.flagshipnews.com/archives_2003/apr032003_10.shtml

Approximately two squadrons per ship.

Problem is that the mainstream Navy gets real nervous about the mention of 'baby' carriers. Gets real territorial if you know what I mean.



Look at the PNAC, it's got a lot of brass in the navy hacked-off I've heard.
Top Top