Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Old 21st Nov 2008, 22:20
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: In the Doghouse...
Posts: 89
One thrust vectored F-22 most likely would be able to down 4 Typhoons in short order. Let the war game begin
But you can buy three Typhoons for the cost of one F-22, and Stealth isn't the be all and end all...
tonyosborne is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2008, 22:42
  #22 (permalink)  
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,643
Yes Americans I refer to you but thought due to interlect I had better explain
...assume "interlect" is the main power source for the interwebs - is it measured in Amps or Volts?
Two's in is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 01:22
  #23 (permalink)  
brickhistory
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Pints..............
 
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 01:58
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Friends and neighbors,

Regarding export sales of the F-22: Israel as well as Japan wants F-22's and F-35's with no restrictions. This is an issue. The DoD isn't entirely confident that the latter day Israelites or perhaps the Japanese wouldn't try to reverse engineer and perhaps re-sell some highly classified technologies if they got these aircraft. (Well, at least the Japanese pay for their American military equipment.)

Wwhat does this have to do with F-22 for UK or Australia? Selling F-22's to UK or Aus. would set a precedent for overseas F-22 sales, thereby increasing pressure from the aforesaid countries to get F-22's also.

Note to all Ppruners: thius is the 2nd time I have posted sentiments such as these on PPRuNe.org. The first such post mysteriously disappeared. Let's see what happens to this one.
Modern Elmo is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 03:45
  #25 (permalink)  
MOLWillie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I fully understand your island's dilema, Archimedes.

Now tell me how a Typhoon would take on a thrust vectored SU30 if it came to the fight. Me thinks a SU30 would have lots of fun flying around a Typhoon before the kill.
 
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 14:57
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
As has been said earlier*, it can have all the kit and buttons to push you want but if a monkey is flying it well.............................

* a LOT earlier....
glad rag is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 15:18
  #27 (permalink)  
brickhistory
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Stalin(?):

Quantity has a quality of its own.

Lessons for both the Typhoon (still cannot believe the Germans went along with that name) and Raptor owners.

Not gonna be enough of either for some adversaries.
 
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 16:29
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Mol W, I know almost nothing about Typhoon or how the fighter chaps operate it (Almost the perfect qualification to make a comment PPRuNe)

I'd guess they might use better C3I, ASACS, BVR AAM, IRST, HMS, IR AAM, EW, SA, training and tactics, etc.
Ivan Rogov is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 16:58
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 353
Disclaimer: This is a politics-free question coming from someone whose flying experience extends to a whole fifteen minutes on the Cessna 152.

This outrageously-expensive thrust vectoring thing, then. It seems to me to allow the aircraft to make very abrupt pitch changes without actually changing the direction of flight, presenting the belly of the thing to the oncoming air and slowing down to a near-stop in the process. At that point, as it hangs almost motionless in the air, I'm fairly confident I could bring it down with a spud gun let alone some form of sophisticated anti-aeroplane device.

How is this abrupt-pitch-excursion thing actually useful? Don't canards on the Typhoon have the same effect?

P
Phil_R is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 17:24
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: at the edge of nowhere, dogleg England
Age: 37
Posts: 229
Canards have another job - to keep the air going over the wing rather than smack into the underside in high angles of attack.

And as for how useful thrust vectoring is, ask the folks at Lockheed Martin who put an F-16 with thrust vectoring up against its conventional cousins (often with odds not in favour) and it still held its own. Now imagine what an aircraft designed with thrust vectoring from the word go could do.

(See also: F-15 ACTIVE, X-31)
BombayDuck is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 17:44
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Originally Posted by Brickhistory
Lessons for both the Typhoon (still cannot believe the Germans went along with that name)
Why ever not? Germany had a Typhoon all of its own, a world record breaking light plane in its day, and the basis for one of the worlds greatest piston engined fighters.

Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 19:12
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
It seems to me to allow the aircraft to make very abrupt pitch changes without actually changing the direction of flight, presenting the belly of the thing to the oncoming air and slowing down to a near-stop in the process.

Thrust vectoring allows more than that. Compared to the same platform without thrust vetoring, thrust vectoring enables the aircraft to shorten its radius of turn, take off and land shorter, and point the a/c's nose at an angle away from the aircraft's velocity vector -- useful for air to air weapons which need to be aimed.

However, the combat utility of maneuvers which deplete both aircraft kinetic energy and potential energy is open to question. A tail side followed by three back flips and a falling leaf may not be a winning set of maneuvers.
Modern Elmo is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 19:55
  #33 (permalink)  
MOLWillie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Phil R,

Canards are fine with some airspeed when you have airflow passing over them. At low airspeed they are somewhat 'limp' when a rapid pitch movement is required.

Thrust vectoring is effective for pitch at any speed, also throttle dependent.

Now if they really want to nudge the tail of the craft around the lateral axis fast, why don't they include side thrust vectoring in proportion with the rudders?

How about reaction control jets in the nose for pitch control similar to what the Space Shuttle uses for steering control?
 
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 20:10
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 1,909
Now tell me how a Typhoon would take on a thrust vectored SU30 if it came to the fight.
MOL, there are a variety of potential methods open to the Typhoon driver, just as, in the past, F3 drivers have employed a variety of tactics and procedures in exercises to cause much consternation against more manoeuvrable platforms such as the M2K and even the F-15. But they don't get discussed in open forum for the enlightenment of persons such as your good self...
Archimedes is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 21:58
  #35 (permalink)  
brickhistory
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Why ever not? Germany had a Typhoon all of its own, a world record breaking light plane in its day, and the basis for one of the worlds greatest piston engined fighters
The Typhoon I'm referring to had RAF roundels and had a starring role, among other places, at Falaise.

I would have thougth (somewhat tongue in cheek) that they'd not really go for that name in cooperation with the RAF.

Doesn't matter, I'm firmly on the F-22 side. Hope/wish we buy more of them.
 
Old 22nd Nov 2008, 22:27
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Originally Posted by Brickhis
The Typhoon I'm referring to had RAF roundels and had a starring role, among other places, at Falaise.

I would have thougth (somewhat tongue in cheek) that they'd not really go for that name in cooperation with the RAF.
Well its true that the Luftwaffe do tend to favour the original name, Eurofighter.

Although of late they have shown a new interest in its air to surface role. To the extent they will now replace one squadron of Tornados, even though that will entail keeping a squadron of air to air F4s on a while longer. Perhaps the loss of all those tanks, to its 'namesake' had something to do with it.
Jetex Jim is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2008, 08:16
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,557
EF2000 Euroblighter was named 'Typhoon' after a meeting between the major European partners some years ago..........


UK: "We need a name for this new jet. We don't think that ‘Spitfire II’ would be terribly suitable, so we suggest following on the 'wind' tradition started by Tornado. How about 'Tempest'?"

Germany: "Nein! Ve are with this not happy being. Verdammte Englanders did my father in his Me262 mit ein Hawker Tempest shoot down. Ve suggest Sturm!"

UK: "No, sorry old chap. Too many memories of Storm Troopers goose-stepping across Europe..... We'd prefer 'Hurricane'"

Germany: "Nein. This is not possible."

UK: "OK - something else then. How about 'Typhoon'.....?"

Germany: "Nein! You also had those in the Second Weltkrieg. Ve do NOT vant unser aircraft so named being"

UK: "Ah - but you had a 'Typhoon' or rather 'Taifun' as well. Bf 108 Taifun, if you recall. In fact Lufthansa still have one in the Deutschen Lufthansa Berlin-Stiftung....along with a Ju 52!"

Germany: "Ach Himmel! Sie haben recht. Ve did indeed. Perhaps ve can consider this?"

UK: "OK - perhaps. Or what about 'Cyclone'? No-one has ever had any aeroplane called 'Cyclone'?"

Germany: "Hmm. Sehr interesting. Zis ist perhaps OK. Ja - ve are liking 'Cyclone', oder, wie sagt man auf Deutsch, 'Zyklon'. Ve can fur das Singleseaterflugzeug 'Zyklon A' have, und für das Doppelseaterjagdbomberflugzeug, vielleicht 'Zyklon B'......"

UK: "Ahhh - we don't think that would be a terribly good name. We want to sell our jet overseas. We don't think that 'Zyklon B' would go down terribly well with some of our potential Middle Eastern customers......"

Germany: "Ach so. Perhaps then ve should agree on 'Taifun'!"

UK: "Yes. ‘Typhoon’ it is then. Spot of lunch, old chap?"

Germany: "Danke"

Italy: "Lunch? Si, we agree."

Spain: "¿Qué?"
BEagle is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2008, 18:36
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Lol (I really did). So true!
Backwards PLT is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2008, 03:34
  #39 (permalink)  
MOLWillie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lockheed Martin press release:

Norway Recommends Lockheed Martin F-35, Multi-National JSF Partnership Remains Strong | Lockheed Martin
 
Old 24th Nov 2008, 10:22
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Liverpool
Age: 34
Posts: 1
Well it has been announced that the British Armed Forces will now be buying 330 F-35b's rather than the original 140 - odd or however many it is.

With majority going to the Royal Navy, who need it to replace the ever ageing Harrier GR9 (how many times MORE will they update it?).

But there is a desperate need to get the F-35.

Also, let us note, us Brits are not AGAINST the americans, if you didn't have us (and vice versa) then we would be in a chaotic crisis situation!

Regards, Matt.
Gaffaraf is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.