|
Lightning II
Now that the RAF has a few, would a non-biased pilot correct my views on this aircraft: I subscribe to the principle that if it looks good, it possibly is good. In my opinion F35 looks ugly. I also think that anything with lift engines that are inoperative most of the time are dead weight and ruin performance. It cannot of course use the lift engines for combat manoeuvrability as that enormous barn door would need to be open. There are may other combat jets that out perform it in speed, load carrying capability and range. I'm told that it cannot take-off vertically or inflight refuel. It is very expensive, complicated and thus possibly unreliable. I doubt if it is invisible to radar.
Am I totally wrong? |
If it couldn’t air to air refuel how did it get across the Atlantic? It doesn’t have “lift engines” it has a lift fan driven by THE engine. It’s sensor / weapon capabilities should render combat manoeuvres unnecessary. Cannot speak to it’s stealth capabilities but nothing claims to be invisible except in the Daily Mail. Like the Harrier before it it may well not be able to take off vertically with a weapon and fuel load. That’s why we have brought carriers with long decks and ski jumps. You May be right about its ugliness though but not as ugly as the Boeing submission. |
F-35B is undeniably hideously ugly and carts around dead weight for much of the time when the lift fan isn't in use.
It is capable of probe-and-drogue refuelling - which is how the first 4 crossed the Atlantic. Which, due to the smaller fuel capacity of the F-35B compared with the F-35A and F-35C, required 3 x Voyagers to support them. |
The secretary of the late John Farley was shown how the F35 jet pipe swivelled to provide some of the lift. It is reported that her comment was "it looks like a machine designed to clean out the drains". Far cleverer people than I say it is the right tool for the job.
The Tempest mock up has such a large chin that a wag on these hallowed pages named it "The Brucie". All it needs is a small rug on top of the canopy and job done. |
Originally Posted by Timelord
(Post 10214426)
If it couldn’t air to air refuel how did it get across the Atlantic? It doesn’t have “lift engines” it has a lift fan driven by THE engine. It’s sensor / weapon capabilities should render combat manoeuvres unnecessary. Cannot speak to it’s stealth capabilities but nothing claims to be invisible except in the Daily Mail. Like the Harrier before it it may well not be able to take off vertically with a weapon and fuel load. That’s why we have brought carriers with long decks and ski jumps. You May be right about its ugliness though but not as ugly as the Boeing submission. |
I’m sure the details are somewhere on the “When the F35 is cancelled........” thread but I would guess that the vectorable jet pipe gives respectable manoeuvring capability. |
Originally Posted by sharpend
(Post 10214457)
Thanks for the correction. However, a lift fan, run by the main engine, is dead weight. Moreover, sensor/weapons capability may well be good, but personally any fighter I would want to fly should be manoeuvrable. SAMs now are ultra capable. Finally, no one yet has mentioned complexity/sophistication which sure will affect serviceability. And then there is the cost......
|
Originally Posted by drustsonoferp
(Post 10214472)
Your point about manoeuvrability isn't so different to the lift fan: if you make the aircraft more manoeuvrable than it strictly needs to be, then you add complexity and weight which isn't required for almost all of the rest of the requirements. You much are you willing to degrade eg range, or avionics fit in pursuit of manoeuvrability?
|
Originally Posted by sharpend
(Post 10214478)
Good point, but the question is 'How manoeuvrable should it be?' I'm sure the avionic fit is fantastic (& costly/complex), but range invariable is governed by drag, weight and fuel capacity. 450 nm combat radius is not a lot.
|
F35
I’m not sure if I can be counted as non-biased or knowledgeable but that has never stopped me before. I should add add that I have never flown it and don’t expect to. There is is no thrust vectoring in F35B. The nozzle moves for VSTOL but not for forward flight. Sharpy, I think it’s best not to think of it in terms of just a fighter. It was never designed to get to a merge and beat all comers. It’s role (all the sneaky beaky stuff) is far more than just that. I will not disagree with those that say it is ugly but they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are many on here who talk about TSR2 as being a thing of beauty. Personally I have always thought it hideous. Swings and roundabouts I guess. So in summary, F35 will actually be a very capable aircraft. It has plenty of critics but too many of those are ill informed and those in the know are not about to start crowing on an internet chat room about what makes it so good. BV |
Time will tell. I remember my early days on Jaguar and the many NAVWASS dumps we had. But we had so many we had no room to put them all on the line. Those were the days. The days when our strike force was Jaguar, Tornado, Buccaneer, Harrier, Vulcan. And those were just the bombers. Just hope that reliability is so good that pilot hours are not compromised below the NATO min. We will see. It all depends on what the highly paid help are willing to pay for.
|
Another 5 arrived in the U.K. yesterday supported by three voyagers from the US to UK |
The amount of AAR across the pond reflected the need for diversion reserves as much as anything and doesn't I think say much about the aircraft's range per se, which is surprisingly respectable for a STOVL aircraft - broadly I think in the F-18A/C class (but happy to be corrected). Not forgetting the reduced need for go-around reserves compared to CTOL carrier aircraft. Manoevrability is reasonable if not eye watering and the combination of that, its sensor suite and the latest AIM120D currently being bought for it (and later Meteor) means it should perform well enough in the AD role. It may not be a paragon but it's a good fit for the niche we've created for ourselves and nor is it the turkey that some fervently wish it to be. The truth as ever sits quietly somewhere between the extremes.
|
But Frostchamber, I am readily prepared to accept that I know nothing more than I have read, so Lightning II may be a good aeroplane. But it should be for the price. I only hope that this government provides enough spares, manpower and facilities for it. Remember, 1 F35 = 1000 Mosquitos :)
|
Originally Posted by sharpend
(Post 10214515)
Time will tell. I remember my early days on Jaguar and the many NAVWASS dumps we had. But we had so many we had no room to put them all on the line. Those were the days. The days when our strike force was Jaguar, Tornado, Buccaneer, Harrier, Vulcan. And those were just the bombers. Just hope that reliability is so good that pilot hours are not compromised below the NATO min. We will see. It all depends on what the highly paid help are willing to pay for.
|
A lot more synthetic flying than in your day. Simulator time is like watching pornography - hardly a satisfying substitute for the real thing! |
Originally Posted by Timelord
(Post 10214471)
...I would guess that the vectorable jet pipe gives respectable manoeuvring capability.
-RP |
Originally Posted by drustsonoferp
(Post 10214601)
Flying training and currency is set to be rather different for the F-35. A lot more synthetic flying than in your day, partly because some of the things to be trained are not going to be trained in open skies with anyone watching.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmf...cd8996d775.jpg |
Nice try, glad rag... :ok:
-RP |
Yes but...
Originally Posted by Bob Viking
(Post 10214508)
I’m not sure if I can be counted as non-biased or knowledgeable but that has never stopped me before. I should add add that I have never flown it and don’t expect to. There is is no thrust vectoring in F35B. The nozzle moves for VSTOL but not for forward flight. Sharpy, I think it’s best not to think of it in terms of just a fighter. It was never designed to get to a merge and beat all comers. It’s role (all the sneaky beaky stuff) is far more than just that. I will not disagree with those that say it is ugly but they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are many on here who talk about TSR2 as being a thing of beauty. Personally I have always thought it hideous. Swings and roundabouts I guess. So in summary, F35 will actually be a very capable aircraft. It has plenty of critics but too many of those are ill informed and those in the know are not about to start crowing on an internet chat room about what makes it so good. BV This isn't what is arriving at Marham right now.. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:58. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.