More delays for the F-35
Well said, guys. I think we're all making pretty much the same point. And I know I said I was starting to like its looks, but that was head on. From the side it reminds me of someone I'd rather forget.
I still find the fuel/range argument surprising. I'm not famed for swallowing the LockMart sales pitch and my F-16 experience is limited to a loose handful of trips in the D, but once you add 2 big bombs, an EO pod, MWS, jammer and a couple of missiles it gets pretty draggy. The F-35 is designed to do all this with internal stores/sytems and (in the case of the A and C) carry a shed load of fuel.
The LockMart slides show the comparison in range of the F35 against their other product and it looked pretty compelling to this critical eye:
The LockMart slides show the comparison in range of the F35 against their other product and it looked pretty compelling to this critical eye:
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Odd that that thing started off life as one of the more graceful jets!
Is it just me or would a better walk round have revealed a lack of control surfaces on the 120s....or are those something different on the tips?
Is it just me or would a better walk round have revealed a lack of control surfaces on the 120s....or are those something different on the tips?
Notwithstanding all the arguments on all sides of this thread, time out! For a small jet, that is really impressive.
Orca, they do look like 120s, don't they? Hmm.
Orca, they do look like 120s, don't they? Hmm.
JTO...
LockMart would rather everyone forgot about this picture:
Load the -16 up like that and it goes farther than the F-35A (590nm)... with a low-altitude segment... and 4 x AAMs rather than two... and 2K LGBs, which the WonderJet can't carry internally.... and by the way today's Viper does better because its jammer is internal, so you might be able to carry another 370 USG bag on the centerline, and it only has one targeting pod.
Ah, say the fans, but the F-35A can carry external tanks too... but ext fuel for the A was defunded in 2008 and in any case it only buys you 70 nm radius, per the briefs to the Noggies in 07-08.
Drop tanks and CFTs are a supremely astro-cool way of gaming the Breguet range equation. The 600 USG drops are like staging a rocket. And of course the F-16 is relatively clean after the target has been converted to fairy dust with the 2k LaserBangenWerfers, while the F-35A has to haul all that weapon bay and tank volume (9 g and 8000 cycles) all the way home.
LockMart would rather everyone forgot about this picture:
Load the -16 up like that and it goes farther than the F-35A (590nm)... with a low-altitude segment... and 4 x AAMs rather than two... and 2K LGBs, which the WonderJet can't carry internally.... and by the way today's Viper does better because its jammer is internal, so you might be able to carry another 370 USG bag on the centerline, and it only has one targeting pod.
Ah, say the fans, but the F-35A can carry external tanks too... but ext fuel for the A was defunded in 2008 and in any case it only buys you 70 nm radius, per the briefs to the Noggies in 07-08.
Drop tanks and CFTs are a supremely astro-cool way of gaming the Breguet range equation. The 600 USG drops are like staging a rocket. And of course the F-16 is relatively clean after the target has been converted to fairy dust with the 2k LaserBangenWerfers, while the F-35A has to haul all that weapon bay and tank volume (9 g and 8000 cycles) all the way home.
Goodness. After a couple of glasses of wine on a Saturday night, I had to read that twice before I even started to make sense of it. But I'm there now and concur.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do those little red triangles mean they can ditch the conformal tanks too?
Neat trick if they can, get in, do the primary and clean the viper up [in stages] on the way out into A-A spec.......these cabs must be a bit of a [relative] bargain by this stage in it's development/costs cycle
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article10.html
&
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-9734.html
Third reply in V interesting but of course unvalidated ...
..." As for upgrading the F-16, lets look at the Blcok 60 compared to an older Block 5
Empty Weight has gone up 29%
Military/Max Thrust has increased 30%/36% respectively
Internal Fuel has increased by 100%
Processing power has gone up nearly a million percent..."
etc, etc.
Neat trick if they can, get in, do the primary and clean the viper up [in stages] on the way out into A-A spec.......these cabs must be a bit of a [relative] bargain by this stage in it's development/costs cycle
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article10.html
&
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-9734.html
Third reply in V interesting but of course unvalidated ...
..." As for upgrading the F-16, lets look at the Blcok 60 compared to an older Block 5
Empty Weight has gone up 29%
Military/Max Thrust has increased 30%/36% respectively
Internal Fuel has increased by 100%
Processing power has gone up nearly a million percent..."
etc, etc.
Last edited by glad rag; 26th Feb 2012 at 09:18.
With you there, Glad Rag. Conformals are normally hard wired and need an engineer to to remove them. Apart from anything else jettisoning those would be a major challenge.
FoxtrotAlpha18,
A WSO? How quaint...
A WSO? How quaint...
Britain 'may struggle to pay for new fighter jets' - Telegraph
Is there any point indeed in continuing with this aircraft, as the order can not be confirmed bu is already expected to be no more than about 50, to share between the R.A.F. and R.N. That they don't think they will be able to acquire as many as that suggests this aircraft is no longer viable or even feasible.
FB
Is there any point indeed in continuing with this aircraft, as the order can not be confirmed bu is already expected to be no more than about 50, to share between the R.A.F. and R.N. That they don't think they will be able to acquire as many as that suggests this aircraft is no longer viable or even feasible.
FB
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Top military pilots grounded by F-35 mess - Questions about safety, cost overruns raise doubts about the entire program's feasibility
"Concerns about the stealth jets' safety, cost overruns and questions about the entire program's feasibility have delayed the training and left about 35 pilots mostly outside the cockpit. The most the pilots do with the nine F-35s at Eglin Air Force Base is occasionally taxi them and fire up the engines. Otherwise their training is limited to three F-35 flight simulators, classroom work and flights in older-model jets.
Only a handful of test pilots get to fly the F-35s."
"Concerns about the stealth jets' safety, cost overruns and questions about the entire program's feasibility have delayed the training and left about 35 pilots mostly outside the cockpit. The most the pilots do with the nine F-35s at Eglin Air Force Base is occasionally taxi them and fire up the engines. Otherwise their training is limited to three F-35 flight simulators, classroom work and flights in older-model jets.
Only a handful of test pilots get to fly the F-35s."
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what is the point of F35 for the UK?
If we originally planned for 138 and now may, perhaps, get 50 at most, years later than planned (and even more years before it starts to achieve operational capability approaching anything like the reasons we were buying them for in the first place), what is it going to do for us, other than pump up a few egos?
Given the very real risk of a major embarrassment of having a shiny new aircraft carrier with no fixed wing aircraft to fly off it for an uncomfortably long time, surely we would be better buying or leasing a known performer (Rafale of Super Hornet), learning how to operate a big carrier again, and then buying F35 when it has been de-risked and operationally proven itself to be worth the expense? And if it doesn't come up to scratch well, just be grateful we didn't buy the mother of all expensive and untested turkeys. If F35 is a world beater, buy it. If it's a laughing stock don't waste a huge chunk of our limited defence budget on it.
If we originally planned for 138 and now may, perhaps, get 50 at most, years later than planned (and even more years before it starts to achieve operational capability approaching anything like the reasons we were buying them for in the first place), what is it going to do for us, other than pump up a few egos?
Given the very real risk of a major embarrassment of having a shiny new aircraft carrier with no fixed wing aircraft to fly off it for an uncomfortably long time, surely we would be better buying or leasing a known performer (Rafale of Super Hornet), learning how to operate a big carrier again, and then buying F35 when it has been de-risked and operationally proven itself to be worth the expense? And if it doesn't come up to scratch well, just be grateful we didn't buy the mother of all expensive and untested turkeys. If F35 is a world beater, buy it. If it's a laughing stock don't waste a huge chunk of our limited defence budget on it.
FoxtrotAlpha - I wouldn't say that. The DOT&E is an advising and reporting function and the USAF and JSFPO are free to ignore it. What happened was that DOT&E memoed a warning about safety, which was initially disputed by JSFPO (which runs testing) and the USAF, and that top leadership intervened.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a Guardian article from today.
UK aircraft carrier plans in confusion as ministers revisit square one | UK news | The Guardian
There could be trouble ahead...
"Cats and Flaps". Tee Hee.
UK aircraft carrier plans in confusion as ministers revisit square one | UK news | The Guardian
There could be trouble ahead...
"Cats and Flaps". Tee Hee.