More delays for the F-35
Originally Posted by NAB
Correct me if I'm wrong, but carrier approaches usually have a lot less alpha than that recovery there
We may need a QFI like BEags to confirm my simple pilot's view of this.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British test pilot marks milestone in the Joint Combat Aircraft
British test pilot marks milestone in the Joint Combat Aircraft
Even those who doubt the value of the programme ought to realise that this is good news for the UK. RAF TPs have already flown the F-35B and BAE test pilots have flown the F-35C previously but this is the first RAF chap to fly the C.
Even those who doubt the value of the programme ought to realise that this is good news for the UK. RAF TPs have already flown the F-35B and BAE test pilots have flown the F-35C previously but this is the first RAF chap to fly the C.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More External Weapons Tests
PICTURES: F-35B flies with gun pod installed
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&news paperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ae2428ba2-9f16-4be0-90d1-752aa99a673a&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
Pax River in on the act as well, obviously also for day 2 ops.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&news paperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ae2428ba2-9f16-4be0-90d1-752aa99a673a&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
Pax River in on the act as well, obviously also for day 2 ops.
It's great that Schofs is flying it and I have no doubt about its handling capabilites. It's the operational and capability side of it that concerns me. I tak it (once again) that it's a stealth gun pod strapped on there?
Notwithstanding, Schofs is a bloody good operator so I'd be interested to hear what he has to say about off camera. If he's allowed to.
Notwithstanding, Schofs is a bloody good operator so I'd be interested to hear what he has to say about off camera. If he's allowed to.
Courtney, old chum, the only 'carrier' jets I've ever flown were the Buccaneer and F-4. Despite the fact that I only ever flew them from nice, safe land aerodromes, we were still taught to fly them more or less 'the Navy way' - particularly the Buccaneer. Hence hi-AOA blown approaches were the norm with virtually no flare before touchdown - just the merest little 'bijou tweakette' (as once described to me), perhaps. So I'd agree that derotational pitching moments are likely to be significant given the likely vertical velocity component at impact, no matter what the horizontal component for cable engagement requirements might be.
Looking at the video, it seems to be an 'accelerate/stop' manoeuvre rather than a landing - note the jet efflux change during the event.
Looking at the video, it seems to be an 'accelerate/stop' manoeuvre rather than a landing - note the jet efflux change during the event.
Hi Courtney,
The pod is stealthy.
Link to image
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item351577.html
From
http://www.f-16.net/news_article3837.html
The pod is stealthy.
Link to image
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item351577.html
It depends on customer demands. Alternatively the F-35s missionized gun pod could be used to expand the F-35s electronic capabilities. "The gun pod is already there, and it's stealthy, so we see a potential for different types of equipment", says O'Bryan. That could include EW equipment, a reconnaissance pod or even side and aft-looking AESA radar, adding to the F-35's range of powerful capabilities.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article3837.html
I'm impressed, TEEEJ. Even just looking at the pictures I can see the blending that's been done. I take your point.
BEags, thank you. I think that's kind of what I was thinking. 19.2 units AoA, 12th stage BLC, smack it on the deck. Ah, happy navigator's back pain!
Courtney
P.S. I saw your remark about navs and Donny. So harsh!!!
BEags, thank you. I think that's kind of what I was thinking. 19.2 units AoA, 12th stage BLC, smack it on the deck. Ah, happy navigator's back pain!
Courtney
P.S. I saw your remark about navs and Donny. So harsh!!!
Since you're well within visual and acoustic detection range of the target at the point where you use the gun, the point of any stealth-type shaping on the gun pod escapes me.
Unless you're going to sneak through the IADS on the way to perform gun CAS, which also seems improbable.
Unless you're going to sneak through the IADS on the way to perform gun CAS, which also seems improbable.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you in some way suggesting that if you are supporting chaps who are busy bayonetting the enemy that there's every chance that the enemy know, or at least suspect, where you are?
You are clearly wrong because the USMC is buying a fifth generation platform for exactly this task.
Despite the fact you disagree with the USMC you can take a small amount of solace from the fact that you and I agree wholeheartedly. But I'm just a punter on an internet forum - and they're 225,000 tough guys - so you might be backing the wrong horse.
You are clearly wrong because the USMC is buying a fifth generation platform for exactly this task.
Despite the fact you disagree with the USMC you can take a small amount of solace from the fact that you and I agree wholeheartedly. But I'm just a punter on an internet forum - and they're 225,000 tough guys - so you might be backing the wrong horse.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The stealth on the gun (or anything else) is for when you're flying around, into, out of the AOO. Agreed, once you get up close and personal and start strafing people they might notice you - I would hope they would, but not for long!!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the point is that there's no point having a larger RCS than you absolutely have to.
With a stealthy-ish gunpod and internal weapons only you can still be useful in a higher threat environment without advertising yourself to all and sundry.
With a stealthy-ish gunpod and internal weapons only you can still be useful in a higher threat environment without advertising yourself to all and sundry.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely correct shipmate - but if your role, or your position relative to friendlies or baddies is revealing you anyway why have LO? I understand it isn't exactly 'free'. In fact I have heard it said that it's a very expensive way of skinning the cat.
Four weapons plus a cannon isn't a great CAS load, but it's all you'll get from the F-35B. And that's if there's no air threat. Which there may be, so you'll have to give up a station for a slammer. If there isn't...why have LO?
Ah, you say, but for the CAS job job I can give you external pylons.
Ah, I say, but in that case you're no longer LO. You paid masses for a stealthy aircraft and then paid more to dangle stuff off it. And we go back to square one when I ask why you want a LO CAS aircraft, when you clearly don't.
Not 'you' personally...but figuratively speaking.
Four weapons plus a cannon isn't a great CAS load, but it's all you'll get from the F-35B. And that's if there's no air threat. Which there may be, so you'll have to give up a station for a slammer. If there isn't...why have LO?
Ah, you say, but for the CAS job job I can give you external pylons.
Ah, I say, but in that case you're no longer LO. You paid masses for a stealthy aircraft and then paid more to dangle stuff off it. And we go back to square one when I ask why you want a LO CAS aircraft, when you clearly don't.
Not 'you' personally...but figuratively speaking.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All excellent points and what is the point of using an aircraft in broad daylight that tries to be invisible for a CAS role? Do we expect those spear chuckers on the ground to close their eyes?
It's coming toward me...Chuck up a wall of lead!!
What are the benefits of using this type of aircraft with that payload when compared to the F-18? (question)
It's coming toward me...Chuck up a wall of lead!!
What are the benefits of using this type of aircraft with that payload when compared to the F-18? (question)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mach Duex
Glojo. You're right, but the F-18 doesn't have a cloaking device.
It really hurts when I laugh but boy is it a great feeling
Way back when, I believe LM was suggesting that the F-35B would "redefine" CAS by stooging around at medium altitude dropping SDBs. Actual experience in Afg and Iraq told a different story.
Orca - Theoretically the F-35B has six A-to-G stations, with the wing stations designed for 2x 1000-pounders each. However, if you load all of them with weapons your fuel situation is comparable to an F-16 with a warload and no tanks. My guess is that you will any time a B has external weapons it will have tanks = four A-to-G stations, two of which (internal) are either single-store or quad-SDB.
The whole discussion of the value of stealth in CAS leads to another dangerous line of argument: what do we use fighters for, and for which of those uses is stealth worth its cost?
Orca - Theoretically the F-35B has six A-to-G stations, with the wing stations designed for 2x 1000-pounders each. However, if you load all of them with weapons your fuel situation is comparable to an F-16 with a warload and no tanks. My guess is that you will any time a B has external weapons it will have tanks = four A-to-G stations, two of which (internal) are either single-store or quad-SDB.
The whole discussion of the value of stealth in CAS leads to another dangerous line of argument: what do we use fighters for, and for which of those uses is stealth worth its cost?
LO your comparison between an F-16 with no tanks and a F-35B with no tanks (both with a similar combat load) is truly shocking.
Are you saying that the fuel fraction on the F-35B is so bad that its 14,000lbs of internal fuel is equivalent to the 7,100lbs carried by the F-16C?
Are you saying that the fuel fraction on the F-35B is so bad that its 14,000lbs of internal fuel is equivalent to the 7,100lbs carried by the F-16C?
JTO - I just rechecked the numbers. The most recent internal fuel number from LM for the B is 13500 lb. A quick-and-dirty calc - fuel/fuel+oew - is a little under 0.3 for the F-35B and about 0.27 for the F-16C.
However, I believe that's a later F-16C, and the C/D porked up quite a bit during development. The Block 25 was at 0.3.
That should not be surprising. From the early days of the DARPA Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (no, don't laugh) the idea was that if the STOVL had a normal fighter fuel fraction, the CV and CTOL versions would have lots of fuel and range. The B is also about 2500 pounds heavier (empty) than was projected at the start of the program.
However, I believe that's a later F-16C, and the C/D porked up quite a bit during development. The Block 25 was at 0.3.
That should not be surprising. From the early days of the DARPA Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (no, don't laugh) the idea was that if the STOVL had a normal fighter fuel fraction, the CV and CTOL versions would have lots of fuel and range. The B is also about 2500 pounds heavier (empty) than was projected at the start of the program.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
We are arguing the same point I think. I know that the F-35B can carry a lot if you start bolting it to under wing pylons. My question (or point) is why would you pay so much money for stealth if the only way to get the aircraft to do its job is to deliberately lose that capability?
Look at those fuel figures as well.
Why have a STOVL capability when the C gives you 6000 lb more fuel? Show me your desert strip and I will show you a runway within 6000 lbs worth of transit - or even better a CVN. Or we can share the same tarmac and I'll be on task for an hour longer.
The B is only ever going to be of any use when there is a MEU that, by circumstance, has to go into action without a CVN or a land base available near by. Which is unlikely but possible. But it carries a very high price tag for what you actually get in that scenario.
I love the F-35, I have simply never understood the B variant.
Last point. Actually how deployable is the thing? Can it actually jump forward a la Harrier with a container of kit as an underslung load and a CH-53 full of maintainers? It seems so hi-tech that I simply don't believe it. As always - happy to be proven incorrect. Does anyone know how much kit would go with it to an austere base? (Which you don't need because the CVN's just over the horizon and the air force have spooled up the tankers).
We are arguing the same point I think. I know that the F-35B can carry a lot if you start bolting it to under wing pylons. My question (or point) is why would you pay so much money for stealth if the only way to get the aircraft to do its job is to deliberately lose that capability?
Look at those fuel figures as well.
Why have a STOVL capability when the C gives you 6000 lb more fuel? Show me your desert strip and I will show you a runway within 6000 lbs worth of transit - or even better a CVN. Or we can share the same tarmac and I'll be on task for an hour longer.
The B is only ever going to be of any use when there is a MEU that, by circumstance, has to go into action without a CVN or a land base available near by. Which is unlikely but possible. But it carries a very high price tag for what you actually get in that scenario.
I love the F-35, I have simply never understood the B variant.
Last point. Actually how deployable is the thing? Can it actually jump forward a la Harrier with a container of kit as an underslung load and a CH-53 full of maintainers? It seems so hi-tech that I simply don't believe it. As always - happy to be proven incorrect. Does anyone know how much kit would go with it to an austere base? (Which you don't need because the CVN's just over the horizon and the air force have spooled up the tankers).
Orca
Perish the thought that I am trying to promote the F-35B. The basic problem is that it is expensive, lacks performance (particularly range), and yet does not offer any fundamental advantages except the ability (for the US) to put a small number of aircraft aboard LHD/LHA-class ships. (Normally, that is only six F-35Bs. You can put 20-some on board if you take off all the helicopters.)
On land, the B needs C-130 support and therefore uses a 3000-foot runway - and I believe that there are people not a million miles from Linkoping who will sell you a much simpler (not to mention better-looking) jet that will take off and land in 800 metres all day long.
Perish the thought that I am trying to promote the F-35B. The basic problem is that it is expensive, lacks performance (particularly range), and yet does not offer any fundamental advantages except the ability (for the US) to put a small number of aircraft aboard LHD/LHA-class ships. (Normally, that is only six F-35Bs. You can put 20-some on board if you take off all the helicopters.)
On land, the B needs C-130 support and therefore uses a 3000-foot runway - and I believe that there are people not a million miles from Linkoping who will sell you a much simpler (not to mention better-looking) jet that will take off and land in 800 metres all day long.