[WIP] Lockheed Martin's F35B Lightning II STOVL

[randomslap 27]

I believe there is the Euro-fighter typhoon but from what I know of that weird looking thing it's used by NATO.

---------- Post added at 22:42 ---------- Previous post was at 22:41 ----------

Oh yeah randomslap if you aren't gonna release it for a while why don't you put a download link for what you have currently done? I am so bored without dat beauty. :(

I am planning to release a "beta" version earlier to the actual release date. If I were to release a early version, you would have to download a 700mb pbo and 500mb or so of that is just unused stuff (planned textures, scripts, etc). I plan to release the beta when the model is complete and stable. I may have a closed alpha sometime next month, but I will assign testers that I trust. These testers can range from players to units.

[randomslap 27]

BTW should the F35B have external fuel tanks. As of today, the real F35B does not have external fuel tanks due to the lift fan's power. However, by 2035 I'm sure the F35B will be a lot more stable than today.

[chortles 263]

Should we take this to mean that you're going specifically for "F-35B 2035"?

[randomslap 27]

Should we take this to mean that you're going specifically for "F-35B 2035"?

Most likely, unless if most of the people disagree. Although I'm not a big fan of the vertical take off stuff, so I don't plan to make that a primary feature but I will have it implemented with some consequences to it. What I plan to do is add most of the ordinances/weapons that a Harrier and/or a F18 would have.

---------- Post added at 21:37 ---------- Previous post was at 21:34 ----------

BTW should the F35B have external fuel tanks. As of today, the real F35B does not have external fuel tanks due to the lift fan's power. However, by 2035 I'm sure the F35B will be a lot more stable than today.

Actually scratch that question :P lol. I'm just gonna add the external fuel tanks.

[chortles 263]

Then the rest of the people can sod off, because just saying "F-35B 2035" has me sold... and truthbetold I'm comfortable with "most of the ordnances/weapons that a Harrier and/or a F18 would have", because what you have in mind for it besides the armament (admittedly stuff I'd like to see on my own port someday) would give it a noticeable difference from both the F/A-18 and the Harrier role-wise and gameplay-wise.

[DusktilDawn 18]

If your aiming for realism and time then I guess we wait until 2035 to see if the F-35B is the same or better XD

[DusktilDawn 18]

Oh yeah randomslap, if your looking for some features the real F-35B has start with when your hovering on it that if you arent moving the plane it stays in the one place. Because in the Harrier irl you have to pay constant attention to it to keep it hovering.

[probad 44]

Do what you feel is right, don't turn this into a community committee project.

[officeramr 269]

If your aiming for realism and time then I guess we wait until 2035 to see if the F-35B is the same or better XD

its gonna end up like the F111...abandoned

[DusktilDawn 18]

its gonna end up like the F111...abandoned

It does look similar to what they are doing with Lockheed Martin's plans for the F-35, but we still can't confirm if it'll make it. I mean give it a chance it's still in development!

[randomslap 27]

Oh yeah randomslap, if your looking for some features the real F-35B has start with when your hovering on it that if you arent moving the plane it stays in the one place. Because in the Harrier irl you have to pay constant attention to it to keep it hovering.

Yeah... I've known that for awhile now. The F35B doesn't need the pilot's attention when hovering in place unlike the Harrier.

[officeramr 269]

It does look similar to what they are doing with Lockheed Martin's plans for the F-35, but we still can't confirm if it'll make it. I mean give it a chance it's still in development!

I think that the USAF should fall back to the F-22 and the USMC and USN should find a non-STOL aircarft

The RAF should learn how to chose aircraft

[kimi_uy 135]

I think it definetely still needs the pilot's attention, the thing is, he's a lot more assisted by the computer :p

---------- Post added at 12:03 ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 ----------

I think that the USAF should fall back to the F-22 and the USMC and USN should find a non-STOL aircarft

The RAF should learn how to chose aircraft

Check what's the cost of maintaining the f-22 fleet...

However, I think the only reason why there's a B variant is because the USMC are obsessed with STOVL aircraft, which IMHO don't justify the spending. BUT, I do consider it an engineering marvel, so that's what i like most about it. Absolute tech-porn.

[officeramr 269]

I think it definetely still needs the pilot's attention, the thing is, he's a lot more assisted by the computer :p

---------- Post added at 12:03 ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 ----------

Check what's the cost of maintaining the f-22 fleet...

However, I think the only reason why there's a B variant is because the USMC are obsessed with STOVL aircraft, which IMHO don't justify the spending. BUT, I do consider it an engineering marvel, so that's what i like most about it. Absolute tech-porn.

But whats better

A few expensive planes that can at least do a decent job at being a fighter jet

OR

Loads of terrible planes which will get destroyed by any super-maneuverable jet with a gun

Especially in a dogfight

really like you said its eye-candy, it looks cool and it hovers, its not practical in reality, its like Lockheed never even looked at the Harrier jet before creating the F-35

[kimi_uy 135]

Loads of terrible planes which will get destroyed by any super-maneuverable jet with a gun

Now there's where I stop expressing My Opinion, because that's all speculation.

Either way, it's not like the USMC doesn't know of the existence of the Harrier, that's what they use currently :p

[rksl-rock 1301]

I think it definetely still needs the pilot's attention, the thing is, he's a lot more assisted by the computer :p

In terms of ArmA simulation the F-35B Hover stabilization is exactly like the ArmA Auto Hover feature. It prevents the Pilot from putting the aircraft into an unstable position. Simple as that.

...

However, I think the only reason why there's a B variant is because the USMC are obsessed with STOVL aircraft, which IMHO don't justify the spending....

Its isn't about the plane. Its about the 4.2 Trillion invested in ships, personnel, training and operational tactics developed over years. Without STOVL the USMC could not independently operate in the way they need to. They have 25 years of tactics and operational knowledge invested in STOVL operations. The F-35 was supposed to be a capability upgrade beyond the Harrier's limited airframe expansion.

[kimi_uy 135]

You're are spot on, but I do believe that having the B variant as part of the program has delayed everything else.

Also the USMC still depends on navy carriers for their fa-18. And it ain't like the marines only use their own birds neither, but I'm diverting into wargaming.

Edited April 8, 2015 by geraldbolso1899

[chortles 263]

In that case chalk it up to the demand (requirement?) for airframe commonality across all three services' aircraft instead of simply having the USMC get a(nother) dedicated STOVL design to fulfill their STOVL requirement.

[rksl-rock 1301]

You're are spot on, but I do believe that having the B variant as part of the program has delayed everything else.

Actually it isn't the B that caused the problems.

It was the BS politics between the USAF, USN, USMC and International Partners. Its called feature/capability creep. Each faction has been lobbying heavily to get their requirements to the top of the list. So instead of the lean common modular platform that was spec'd out originally. We have the aerospace equivalent of the Cute, Geeky, tech savvy chubbie bird that everyone secretly likes to talk to …but no one would actually ask out.

The F-35 in all 3 variants has gained weight massively. Its range has reduced; the internal payload is now similar to the contents of 3 Tesco carrier bags and a Millets 20L rucksack. It’s loaded with absolutely every imaginable gadget that makes up about 20% of its mass, is made by Sony and it can't go 3 hours without being plugged in... Oh and don't put it too near a large EM emitter... it causes interference, glows on radar in the rain or when at the wrong angle, or carrying anything including insects and generates enough static charge on the skin to make your pubes stand on end.

The US Government has loaded so much national pride onto the F-35 it can’t be allowed to fail. The US Military have tried so hard to make it relevant to all known forms of combat, ISR and Peacekeeping roles that its software is as easy to use as Gentoo Linux and as easy to integrate as IOS, Windows 3.1 and Linux Ubuntu but as stable as Windows ME. It’s also probably supported by the same call centre in India that <insert generic crap company> uses for their customer service to save costs. And the bean-counters are still running about naked, screaming, "Why won't you listen!?!? It’s going to end up costing more than the F-22!"

Seriously and in summary: The problem with the F-35 project is that (as with the original F-111 project) too many people are all trying to make one small-ish airframe replace 30 different aircraft types and do it all for 1/3 the cost.

Blame the constant increase to the specs, the unrealistic and ever growing requirements and the bloody stupid politicians forcing engineers to make the ultimate flying swiss army knife.

Also the USMC still depends on navy carriers for their fa-18. And it ain't like the marines only use their own birds neither, but I'm diverting into wargaming.

That is true for the F-18 but for most amphibious and littoral roles supported by LPD and LPH etc it’s the Harrier and soon the F-35 that is an integral part to their operations.

[chortles 263]

That is true for the F-18 but for most amphibious and littoral roles supported by LPD and LPH etc it’s the Harrier and soon the F-35 that is an integral part to their operations.

More or less exactly why I attributed greater "blame" to commonality than a service-specific STOVL requirement.

By the way, where have we seen this before? (Skip to 0:40 unless you like sitting through "what this was supposed to be"):

[kimi_uy 135]

OMG I unleashed the Kraken!

LOL

To clarify my statement, I meant that including the stovl into the mix adds to your swiss army argument.

I'm a believer of the holy trinity of the skies: F-15 (the father), F-16 (The son) and the A10 (the ugly ghost). So the whole All-In-One things feels stupid for me.

Air force wanted the next f22, navy wanted a twin engine and the marines a no-room-for-ordinance-fuel-eating-helicopterish-thing.

Although as a techno-geek, i find the Bravo awesome.

[officeramr 269]

More or less exactly why I attributed greater "blame" to commonality than a service-specific STOVL requirement.

By the way, where have we seen this before? (Skip to 0:40 unless you like sitting through "what this was supposed to be"):

hahaha I lol'd, pretty much what happened with the f-35

[reconteam 19]

Actually it isn't the B that caused the problems.

It was the BS politics between the USAF, USN, USMC and International Partners. Its called feature/capability creep. Each faction has been lobbying heavily to get their requirements to the top of the list. So instead of the lean common modular platform that was spec'd out originally. We have the aerospace equivalent of the Cute, Geeky, tech savvy chubbie bird that everyone secretly likes to talk to …but no one would actually ask out.

The F-35 in all 3 variants has gained weight massively. Its range has reduced; the internal payload is now similar to the contents of 3 Tesco carrier bags and a Millets 20L rucksack. It’s loaded with absolutely every imaginable gadget that makes up about 20% of its mass, is made by Sony and it can't go 3 hours without being plugged in... Oh and don't put it too near a large EM emitter... it causes interference, glows on radar in the rain or when at the wrong angle, or carrying anything including insects and generates enough static charge on the skin to make your pubes stand on end.

The US Government has loaded so much national pride onto the F-35 it can’t be allowed to fail. The US Military have tried so hard to make it relevant to all known forms of combat, ISR and Peacekeeping roles that its software is as easy to use as Gentoo Linux and as easy to integrate as IOS, Windows 3.1 and Linux Ubuntu but as stable as Windows ME. It’s also probably supported by the same call centre in India that <insert generic crap company> uses for their customer service to save costs. And the bean-counters are still running about naked, screaming, "Why won't you listen!?!? It’s going to end up costing more than the F-22!"

Seriously and in summary: The problem with the F-35 project is that (as with the original F-111 project) too many people are all trying to make one small-ish airframe replace 30 different aircraft types and do it all for 1/3 the cost.

Blame the constant increase to the specs, the unrealistic and ever growing requirements and the bloody stupid politicians forcing engineers to make the ultimate flying swiss army knife.

That is true for the F-18 but for most amphibious and littoral roles supported by LPD and LPH etc it’s the Harrier and soon the F-35 that is an integral part to their operations.

Positives and negatives aside the F-35 will be the backbone of US tactical airpower for the next few decades, I think people have to get used to that fact. There are a few things about the aircraft that bother me however. The biggest one is the weight. It went through SWAT and all the variants still seem ~3,000 lbs heavier than they should be. How the hell were the estimates so far off?

At the end of the day it's a damn shame that (for the most part) the aircraft is only meeting its threshold requirements and not the objectives, but this is far from the first time in aviation history where this has been true. I'm hopeful that the F-35A can be something akin to a modern A-7D but with superior air-to-air capabilities. The F-35B should make a fine Harrier II successor, while the F-35C... well the Navy is just going to have to suck it up and accept it. In terms of range, payload, and performance the F-35C is quite comparable to the F/A-18E but with stealth and better avionics so it's not all that terrible despite those horrified at the thought of flying what isn't a "Navy" design.

The decision to severely scale back the F-22 program was a fine example of incredible stupidity but that's another topic entirely.

[alexcroox 29]

Still eagerly awaiting the release of this one! Will it/does it have a main cannon?

[DusktilDawn 18]

Still eagerly awaiting the release of this one! Will it/does it have a main cannon?

Yes the F-35's all have a GAU-22/A Cannon but the F-35A has it internalized Where the F-35B and the F-35C have a external gunpod just under where the weapon bays are but the external gunpod I believe still needs a decade of programming :P