Jump to content
Baseops Forums
HiFlyer

F-35 Lightning info

Recommended Posts

On 5/18/2018 at 2:17 PM, SurelySerious said:

He missed the boat a while back: Fat Amy. 

 

I also assume it’s not “panther”...it’s “sex panther,” but maybe that’s not fit for print in a questionable internet blog. 

I was going to vote for “Cougar”.

A little thick through the middle, but still reasonably sexy and I’d still do......I mean fly it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2018 at 8:21 AM, Boomer6 said:

"The United States already has more than 150 of the aircraft, whose sensors pilots say give them the most extensive overview about a battlefield of any combat jet available." 

Sensors pilots.. That sounds pretty neat. 

Looks like punctuation isn’t that writer’s strongest asset. 

I believe it should read:

”..........aircraft whose sensors, pilots say, give them the most.........”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone got a safety award here...

Nothing expensive right in that spot either. Nope.

F-35.png

Edited by DEVIL
Dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transitioning from purely a Heritage Flight demo to a full-up-demo has been the plan for at least a year.  

The airshow convention starts in 11 days, and the Demo Team schedules (and personnel) will be announced Tuesday, 4 Dec.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/f-35-air-to-air-missiles-can-now-hit-2-drones-at-once-changing-air-combat
So many jokes to be made here with so little time but I'll give it a go:
F-35's can now shoot half the targets of a Viper (the jet it's replacing)
Now the F-35 can shoot it's AMRAAMs all at once.
 

There must be more to the story here. If the test guy says it’s a big deal, there is probably a technical detail about “how” it was done missing from the article.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

No no, let’s talk around it! If the classification guide says particular capes are unclass, then we can aggregate all those capes here and discuss their employment and weaknesses!

Let me tweet a link to FSB first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26269/usmcs-older-f-35bs-may-only-be-able-to-fly-around-a-quarter-of-their-expected-service-life

So we accommodated the USMC requirement for a lifting fan to the detriment of performance of the other variants and now the B model may only have a 2,100 hour lifespan? Insanity.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The B model is a perfect example of how fucked our requirements/acquisition process is. That said, I bet they’ll fly well past 2100 hrs, with a substantial profit for LM on the back of SLEP-related work. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SLEP and strengthen the airframe.  Forget STOVL, remove the fan, put in another fuel tank.  CTOL only ops.

Or turn the timed out B models into the worlds first LO FSAT QF-35s for TTP development against LO opponents.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Forget STOVL, remove the fan, put in another fuel tank.  CTOL only ops

Makes too much sense, and threatens the Marine's MEU woobie.  They'll continue to prioritize protecting cultural norms and politics over fiscal responsibility and combat capability.  The best way to resolve this problem for all is shitcan the B-model and buy the Marines light attack (boat capable) to replace Harriers.  Everyone wins...which is why it won't happen.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Makes too much sense, and threatens the Marine's MEU woobie.  They'll continue to prioritize protecting cultural norms and politics over fiscal responsibility and combat capability.  The best way to resolve this problem for all is shitcan the B-model and buy the Marines light attack (boat capable) to replace Harriers.  Everyone wins...which is why it won't happen.

Yup
Why the hell didn’t they realize the obvious after 20+ years of Harrier ops and ask for small conventional carriers and get a 35C capable of operating from a new smaller carrier (non-nuke) with amphib support capability?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't even need the C - what they need is CAS for the ground unit in a permissive environment (light attack, etc).  There is no situation in which a MEU is going into a threat environment by themselves that requires 5th gen capes.  A MEU is not storming Iran's or China's beach by themselves, a MEU is not starting WW3 in Ukraine, etc.  The MEU concept is viable for rapid response to problems in 3rd world countries that aren't rocking operational IADs or even just a few autonomous S-300/400s.  If those things exist, the MEU is not going to be the answer for the problem.  Additionally, a Marine rifleman charging into Indonesia or Africa (for example) is far better supported by something purpose built for CAS - they should want light attack FW and RW, or something like a re-engined A-10 that can fly off the boat.  FWIW the Marine F-35 guys I've been around have done a great job learning and adapting to the new missions of the F-35, but their $100M aircraft and awesome OCA skills are going to be of low utility when their bros on the ground storm Embassy X and it's a classic 3-09.3 CAS fight.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, brabus said:

They don't even need the C - what they need is CAS for the ground unit in a permissive environment (light attack, etc).  There is no situation in which a MEU is going into a threat environment by themselves that requires 5th gen capes.  A MEU is not storming Iran's or China's beach by themselves, a MEU is not starting WW3 in Ukraine, etc.  The MEU concept is viable for rapid response to problems in 3rd world countries that aren't rocking operational IADs or even just a few autonomous S-300/400s.  If those things exist, the MEU is not going to be the answer for the problem.  Additionally, a Marine rifleman charging into Indonesia or Africa (for example) is far better supported by something purpose built for CAS - they should want light attack FW and RW, or something like a re-engined A-10 that can fly off the boat.  FWIW the Marine F-35 guys I've been around have done a great job learning and adapting to the new missions of the F-35, but their $100M aircraft and awesome OCA skills are going to be of low utility when their bros on the ground storm Embassy X and it's a classic 3-09.3 CAS fight.

Agreed - pretending they are really going to be fighting all alone for two weeks is just ridiculous.

As for a CAS focused asset to suggest for a revamp of USMC tactical aviation, an attack focused version of the yet to be built Sea Gripen would be my suggestion.  

Relatively low cost to acquire and operate, still in development so an attack focused variant is probably technically / financial feasible vice expensively modifying an in-production design. 

About $40 mil a tail and $4k per hour, relatively cheap in the military jet world.

Larger canards & loiter flaps , BLC for slower approach to a small deck carrier, more gas, more efficient engine, integrated EO/IR sensor, etc... launch off the boat and recover to it, launch off the boat then land at a captured austere airfield/road as the MEU moves inland from the beach with its STOL capability. 

Basically a modernized A-7 with some signature reduction and defensive A-A capability.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 11:35 PM, Clark Griswold said:

Agreed - pretending they are really going to be fighting all alone for two weeks is just ridiculous.

Agreed.

While I can think of one situation in which the B model might provide some advantage - Being able to stage an aircraft with hi-capes from countless ships (targets), that potentiality is certainly not worth the cost in diminished capes to the A and C model.

We could, and would have been just fine with a mix of A and Cs, if we even needed them at all. Truth be told, Superhornets were the answer to our problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

Agreed.

While I can think of one situation in which the B model might provide some advantage - Being able to stage an aircraft with hi-capes from countless ships (targets), that potentiality is certainly not worth the cost in diminished capes to the A and C model.

We could, and would have been just fine with a mix of A and Cs, if we even needed them at all. Truth be told, Superhornets were the answer to our problem.

Yeah - the whole sorted history of the JSF/CALF is something to behold.

Giving up on the B model as it is now, STOVL, and modifying it would be my choice but as there are foreign buyers and a metric shit ton of politics at all levels this is likely not viable without some proof converting the B models to something else was viable.

Take a few of the early B models facing early fatigue life issues and begin the engineering experiment, as they likely will not see full service life the risk and life-cycle loss is relatively low.

New fuel tank, structural upgrades and improvements to the weapons bays that the B model had due to the lift fan.  

Getting rid of all this probably would open up a lot of possibilities for the B:

1920px-F-35B_STOVL_Engine_and_Lift_Fan.J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×