F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
43,000 lbst is a lot to play with in the subsonic regime. But the combined effects of stuffing a 4500 lb capacity weapon bay into the midriff, ramming a THING the same diameter as a regional jet's engine into a hole behind the cockpit, and keeping the beast short enough to fit on an elevator that was designed in the 1960s for helicopters, sort of catch up with you as you pass 0.9.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fife, Scotland
Age: 78
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35Bs grounded after engine problem discovered - Top Story - Northwest Florida Daily News
“It hasn’t really affected our ability to do anything other than fly,”
Not a problem then, I'm sure the new missiles available can be launched whilst it is still on on the ground.
“It hasn’t really affected our ability to do anything other than fly,”
Not a problem then, I'm sure the new missiles available can be launched whilst it is still on on the ground.
Happened 3 weeks ago. The fault has been analysed, and a fix is in the works.
Chances of this jet (Dave B) being cancelled is a bit less than zero.
Chances of this jet (Dave B) being cancelled is a bit less than zero.
Last edited by Mk 1; 6th Feb 2013 at 10:23.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by M609; 6th Feb 2013 at 16:50.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Between INV and SAM
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question
Ok.... I know this thing has power to burn etc etc but when you look at it, it just doesn't seem to be aerodynamic enough to be supersonically efficient.
Back in the good old days the designers caught onto the idea of area rule and 'waisted' fuselages. This aircraft just doesn't seem to conform so where does it's supersonic capability come from? Is it really just down to raw power?
Back in the good old days the designers caught onto the idea of area rule and 'waisted' fuselages. This aircraft just doesn't seem to conform so where does it's supersonic capability come from? Is it really just down to raw power?
M609,
Nice picture. Can you make it a bit smaller?
Looks like they're on their way into Pensacola. I think that's the entrance to Mobile Bay in the background.
Courtney
Nice picture. Can you make it a bit smaller?
Looks like they're on their way into Pensacola. I think that's the entrance to Mobile Bay in the background.
Courtney
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
HarrySpotter - There is an old saying that might apply in part here.
Proof that with a big enough engine even a brick could fly....and the F-4 needed two!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/cd..._stovl_004.jpg
And of course the alternative didn't fall out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down........ fdump, fdump, fdump.......did it?
And of course the alternative didn't fall out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down........ fdump, fdump, fdump.......did it?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the X-32 has entered the thread, did the wrong design win?
I know in the past the US used competing designs run in parallel for longer to ensure a backup and keep the pressure on the companies to produce the goods, but obviously that has an obvious up front additional cost implication, in hindsight was removing that concept a mistake?
Was the X-32 a worse design and/or Boeing a more risky company, I know it looked ugly but was it more likely to mature in to the required platform?
I know in the past the US used competing designs run in parallel for longer to ensure a backup and keep the pressure on the companies to produce the goods, but obviously that has an obvious up front additional cost implication, in hindsight was removing that concept a mistake?
Was the X-32 a worse design and/or Boeing a more risky company, I know it looked ugly but was it more likely to mature in to the required platform?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a lot lighter, had a very revolutionary one piece wing and the method of VTOL was certainly a lot less complex than the one used in the F35, more like the Harrier type, meaning that it also could be used during flight (no mess with doors , extra fans gearboxes/shafts etc.)
The wing-load was spectacularly low compared with the F35, 85lb/ft² vs 130 for the F35 (both at MTOW).
Therefore contrary to the 35 it had some serious growth potential both for fuel-load growth and MTOW growth.
I suspect that for the Navy and Air force versions (and also the MARINES if the CoG would've allowed for it) the cockpit would probably placed a few foot further forward like happened with the F22 production vs the YF22 which would have made it a lot prettier as an added bonus.
Because of the lighter weight, the inherent strength of all thing triangle shaped (like this Delta was), it would have come out a lot cheaper I strongly suspect.
The prototype VTOL version had some issues with hot air coming into the inlet while hovering, but I fail to see why that would have been a difficult issue to solve either by lengthening the inlet, repositioning the forward thrusters or feeding air partially from a topside inlet port.
All the equipment could be at least the same as todays F35, the sensors, avionics, Radar etc..., so that's basically a non issue.
Just imagine a 50,000lbs 590sqftwing vs a 60,000/70,000 lbs 460/670sqftwing fighter, a lower Vapp for carrier ops, more weight margin for the VTOL, more place for internal bays for the F32 2xside + 1 under the fuselage like in the F22 which means 6 AMRAAMS or 2 AMRAAMS and 2x2000lbs bombs.
I suspect that the choice was made for the F35 (even if the USAF clearly preferred the X32) because LM had nothing left to build in the longrun contrary to Boeing who still had the SH an F15 combined with all the other programs that where still having long term potential.
The MARINES got lured by the higher top end speed of the F35 and the NAVY was less outspoken as to which platform they preferred but they had a slight preference for the X35.
I wonder how much the last 2 regret their choice nowadays knowing that raw performance is exactly where the F35 under-performs consistently on all 3 variants mostly because it's too heavy, too bulky(draggy) and structurally at its limits.
All this in hindsight off course so purely academic I admit.
Doesn't take away the fact that in my opinion the X32 is a lost opportunity, I believed that ever since the X35 won by what I suspect was a mainly political decision to keep LM relevant, the fact that the UK was so deeply involved with RR probably also helped.
The wing-load was spectacularly low compared with the F35, 85lb/ft² vs 130 for the F35 (both at MTOW).
Therefore contrary to the 35 it had some serious growth potential both for fuel-load growth and MTOW growth.
I suspect that for the Navy and Air force versions (and also the MARINES if the CoG would've allowed for it) the cockpit would probably placed a few foot further forward like happened with the F22 production vs the YF22 which would have made it a lot prettier as an added bonus.
Because of the lighter weight, the inherent strength of all thing triangle shaped (like this Delta was), it would have come out a lot cheaper I strongly suspect.
The prototype VTOL version had some issues with hot air coming into the inlet while hovering, but I fail to see why that would have been a difficult issue to solve either by lengthening the inlet, repositioning the forward thrusters or feeding air partially from a topside inlet port.
All the equipment could be at least the same as todays F35, the sensors, avionics, Radar etc..., so that's basically a non issue.
Just imagine a 50,000lbs 590sqftwing vs a 60,000/70,000 lbs 460/670sqftwing fighter, a lower Vapp for carrier ops, more weight margin for the VTOL, more place for internal bays for the F32 2xside + 1 under the fuselage like in the F22 which means 6 AMRAAMS or 2 AMRAAMS and 2x2000lbs bombs.
I suspect that the choice was made for the F35 (even if the USAF clearly preferred the X32) because LM had nothing left to build in the longrun contrary to Boeing who still had the SH an F15 combined with all the other programs that where still having long term potential.
The MARINES got lured by the higher top end speed of the F35 and the NAVY was less outspoken as to which platform they preferred but they had a slight preference for the X35.
I wonder how much the last 2 regret their choice nowadays knowing that raw performance is exactly where the F35 under-performs consistently on all 3 variants mostly because it's too heavy, too bulky(draggy) and structurally at its limits.
All this in hindsight off course so purely academic I admit.
Doesn't take away the fact that in my opinion the X32 is a lost opportunity, I believed that ever since the X35 won by what I suspect was a mainly political decision to keep LM relevant, the fact that the UK was so deeply involved with RR probably also helped.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
X-35 and X-32 are both in the air museum at Pax River so it's easy to compare and contrast these days, at least on the looks...
At the time of the decision LM were still supposed to be building lots of F-22 so not sure about the company politics argument. Personally I suspect thst LM won it as they already had experience of building a '5th Gen' fighter. A lot of people on the programme are ex-F-22, ex-F-117, experienced Skunk works personnel.
Also the decisions were being made by fast jet mates, when style and ego are all important which would you rather be seen stepping out of??
At the time of the decision LM were still supposed to be building lots of F-22 so not sure about the company politics argument. Personally I suspect thst LM won it as they already had experience of building a '5th Gen' fighter. A lot of people on the programme are ex-F-22, ex-F-117, experienced Skunk works personnel.
Also the decisions were being made by fast jet mates, when style and ego are all important which would you rather be seen stepping out of??