F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

[Desert-Rat 0]

Well i don't think that it can replace the A-10 , because the A-10 has more room for weapons and a bigger maingun and better armor.

The A-10 is a Tankhunter no fightplane out of this sight

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Well i don't think that it can replace the A-10 , because the A-10 has more room for weapons and a bigger maingun and better armor.

The A-10 is a Tankhunter no fightplane out of this sight

I dont know that the A-10 will last that much longer, maybe another 10 years because of the cost to operate. You cant argue with the number of stores etc but compared to more modern platforms the operating cost is quite large. Not to mention the cost of operating a large number of differing aircraft types vs a smaller number of multirole and specialist airframes.

As for Tank killing - with the cost of missiles dropping and the Increase in capability of SAM's i think standoff missiles and medium range As missiles operated from multirole airceaft will probably be used more often than a dedicated CAS platform.

As a note - the F-35 is designed to provide CAP capability as well as Ground attack - while it may not be a dedicated fighter its just as capable. Just like the F-16. In normal operations i expect you'll see the F/A-35 operating with external fule tanks and stores just like the Harrier, Tornado, F-16 and F-18 which it will replace.

[Taconic 0]

Now i must question the wisdom behind making a inferior version of the Raptor?

Let me guess , probably to sell to other countries

Because the F/A-22 costs over $100,000,000 per plane.

The F-35 costs less than half of that, yet manages to perform as well or better than the F/A-22 in most respects. In fact, the F-35 is actually a more sophisticated aircraft in some respects.

There's also the fact that the F-35 is designed to be a joint strike fighter. It is to be used by the Air Force, Marines, and Navy. It will replace the F-16 (F-35A,) F-14 (F-35C,) AV-8B (F-35B,) and eventually the F/A-18 (F-35C. Though, this won't happen for a while given the recent E/F upgrade.) It will also pick up the slack when it comes to replacing the F-15Cs and Es since F/A-22 orders have been cut.

Any country buying an F-35 is getting one hell of an aircraft. There is no other aircraft in the world that offers its capabilities for its price, and that is why countries have lined up around the block to buy them (the UK has even had input on its development.)

[Taconic 0]

it will have some feature the F22 will never have and most (not all i admit) of the electronic capability of the F22.

I've read some comments recently by people who have been to Lockheed presentations and have had some experience with the simulator. I've walked away extremely impressed by the 35. Especially by its sensor suite. I saw a recent video presentation dealing with just that. Very impressive stuff. I can't believe they've managed to keep the cost down with all of that technology.

I dont know that the A-10 will last that much longer, maybe another 10 years because of the cost to operate.

They've been saying that for 10 years.

The A-10C upgrade guarantees that the A-10 still has some life left in it. I don't expect to see A-10s being phased out for F-35s any time soon.

[MontyVCB 0]

i still don't think its up to the task of replacing the A-10 and harrier GR.9 these two planes can carry one hell of alot more ordanace than the F-35 could, but i do see it as a ideal replacement for the Sea Harriers that the RN use

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

i still don't think its up to the task of replacing the A-10 and harrier GR.9 these two planes can carry one hell of alot more ordanace than the F-35 could, but i do see it as a ideal replacement for the Sea Harriers that the RN use  

Well from what ive been reading in some of the Uk Defence white papers and the RFPs that have been published by the US DoD I think its going to be the bean counters that get to say over wht stays in use rather than the Military.

The Harrier is very expensive to operate and support. BAE Systems and Lockheed are making several substantial claims about the serving intervals and costs that the Harrier will never be able to match.

Add to that, the majority of F/A-35 roles for the UK (RAF/RN)and the USMC seem to be configured with External Pylons. So i dont think payload is going to be an issue.

Personally based on capability including radar, comms, targetting and range I think that the F-35 is going to be a very immpressive bit of kit! Event the basic spec will provide more capability than FA2 SHAR or GR7s.

My only real concern is that it lacks the ability to be serviced in the field like the Harrier can be. I've seen Pegasus engines swapped out in the middle of a field, under a camo net in 3 hours. Somehow i cant see the same thing happending with the F-35

[BlackScorpion 0]

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter info...

F-22 Raptor Advanced Tactical Fighter info...

Info of their dimensions, design, weaponry, some basic info, performance etc.

FAS (Federation of American Scientists) US military aircraft list...

Check the JSF, F-35 and F-22, all found in the fighter section.

[FerretFangs 0]

One also has to keep in mind the miniaturization, and increase in efficiency of new air-ground weapons.

Small Diameter Bombs, LOCAAS, Joint Common Missiles as well as all the Joint Service GPS-guided, stand-off ranged munitions negate the need for a dedicated ground-pounder like the A-10. An F/A-35 can carry two dozen LOCAAS, each of which can kill an MBT from 100 hundred miles away. It can carry a dozen SDB's internally, which can strike pinpoint targets, including hardened/buried structures, from more than fifty miles away.

Most important is a vast increase in aircraft/aircrew survivabilty, because the F/A-35 just won't be shot at as often as current aircraft are.

It's a new age of warfare.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

F-35 is designed as a true multi role chassis.

Once implemented it will have many specialised variants depending on wich service they're deployed i.e. Stol for Navy and marines, others depending on requirments.

Some mentioned beancounters and thats exactly right.

1 chasis means lower production costs and lower maintenance costs and easier maintenance and flying training and the list goes on

Its losing contender for the contract by Boeing would also make an interesting addon, big grinning air intake and a huge fan in the centre of the fusselage, also a true V/stol not just stol

[Rommel 2]

awww nuts... this should be moved to OFFTOPIC if it lasts any longer, I guess we should sortive start talking about the real thing and what should be in the addon version etc. Not a debate which is better. (who the hell mentioned the F-22 raptor?)

[cell7 0]

Yes yes.....

I have been keeping up to date with the dicussion and taking notes. I have also accumulated alot of info to make this addon near to the real thing thanks to the links you came up with.

Thanks guys.

[mattxr 9]

lmao the F-35 was two heavy to land on british carriers (not the vtol way) lol so we still have are delightfull harrier.. unless they lighten it up  

and hasnt someone else made a half complete version of this already?

[cell7 0]

...and hasnt someone else made a half complete version of this already?

Yeh. I hav'nt heard more about it. I've wanted to make it for a while. Should have some pics up in a few weeks, first I'm taking time off, on holiday.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

...and hasnt someone else made a half complete version of this already?

Yeh. I hav'nt heard more about it. I've wanted to make it for a while. Should have some pics up in a few weeks, first I'm taking time off, on holiday.

Well USMCRP is making one for VBS so if someone wants to pick up the job for OFP I'm sure it'll appreciated.

Here's some of the stuff I found for him anyway.

Article on MFDs etc

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

And finally I have an XF-32 in the works too:

[Desert-Rat 0]

Looks pretty cool

Hope it will be released soon

[Acecombat 0]

Arghh what a fatso .

Is it also that fat in reallife? I think the ratio from RL/Game is a bit off dont you think RKSL?

[FerretFangs 0]

No, that's fairly spot on. It wasn't a pretty aircraft by today's standards. That's actually the second version of Boeings entry. The first was pretty hideous. I think this actually hurt it in the competition with Lockheed Martin's prototype.

http://images.google.com/imgres?....rl=http

[Desert-Rat 0]

The first version looks very cool ;) it only have 2 wings but was very nice

[Rommel 2]

Thats why I choose the F-35 JSF. Its more....... pretty.

[FerretFangs 0]

Well, it's purely subjective, of course. And it's not really even pertinent, ( It shouldn't be. Tens of billions of dollars and thousands of jobs are on the line, not to mention how important the aircraft is to our national defense. ) what's really important is performance and cost.

Incidently, I thought the YF-23 was a much better looking aircraft than the YF-22. The interesting thing was the Northrop aircraft was a better performer. For instance, it was more stealthy than the Raptor, and had better range, but was also slightly more expensive. The still-new contract with Northrop Grumman for the B-2 bomber was also a factor.

In the end, the Air Force went with the Raptor, over the Black Widow II.

[BlackScorpion 0]

Check the FAS US aircraft link I posted...

I thin they thought the Black Widow II was too big, 'cos it is bigger than the F-15 it was to replace.

Though it truly seems to perform better than Raptor.

And... Boeing JSF (F-32) looks like it's laughing... And it looks pretty ugly...

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Incidently, I thought the YF-23 was a much better looking aircraft than the YF-22. The interesting thing was the Northrop aircraft was a better performer. For instance, it was more stealthy than the Raptor, and had better range, but was also slightly more expensive. The still-new contract with Northrop Grumman for the B-2 bomber was also a factor.

In the end, the Air Force went with the Raptor, over the Black Widow II.

Alot of that decision was based on the ability to manufacture.  With Lockheeds experience of the F22 debacle and the subsequent lessons learnt, it made the prospect of manufacturing F35 alot more realistic than Northrop's proposal.

As for the XF-32...

Arghh what a fatso     .

Is it also that fat in reallife? I think the ratio from RL/Game is a bit off dont you think RKSL?

No its the exact size...I had a very good set of photos and schemeatics courtesy of a chap at Boeing.  It looks a bit fat due to the cropped wings.  The version pictured is the VTOL version.  The Conventional and Carrier versions both have larger wings and a .38m fuselage extension.  By the way the images above are about 2 months old.  Things have come on a bit since then.

The first version looks very cool ;) it only have 2 wings but was very nice

That very config was one reason (out of many) why Boeing lost the competition.  The advantage that Lockheed demonstrator was the actuall final config.  Rather than a pure R&D testbed.

The 3 configs i am making are of the production model with Tail planes.

[MontyVCB 0]

lmao the F-35 was two heavy to land on british carriers (not the vtol way) lol so we still have are delightfull harrier.. unless they lighten it up  

and hasnt someone else made a half complete version of this already?

they may be to heavy for our current carriers, but the Royal Navy have just ordered 2 large carriers to be built...

[havocsquad 0]

Jeeze man, you leave for a week without using the internet and the whole bloody forum creates a topic I should have been first in line to discuss.

Hey RockofSL, what's with the development of the model of the Boeing Hippo?  I know some people like it, but it's now gathering rust or is currently scrap now in Boeing's Phantomworks.   Lockheed deserved the right to crush that X-32 into dust with their superior flight test results and the amazing record making final test flight.  

The X-35B took off in less than 500 ft of runway, went supersonic and landed vertically all in the same flight, with absolutely no modifications to the aircraft.  This was unheard of for a X plane to have such excellent performance capabilities before.  The X-32 constantly had issues when it did its "test requirements".  It had major flight software problem, the direct lift system many times ingested exhaust during VL (very dangerous), they couldn't mid-air refuel, and they had to take parts off and put them back on just to get it to vertically land properly.

My friend sent me a recorded tape of this, I suggest you either watch it when it comes on or buy the VHS/DVD if you wanna learn about the battle between the X-32 and the X-35.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/

A must watch/buy if you are like to keep informed about modern fighters.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Jeeze man, you leave for a week without using the internet and the whole bloody forum creates a topic I should have been first in line to discuss.

We've been there and done that if you remember with your post about F22 vs F35 before.

Quote[/b] ]

Hey RockofSL, what's with the development of the model of the Boeing Hippo?  I know some people like it, but it's now gathering rust or is currently scrap now in Boeing's Phantomworks.   Lockheed deserved the right to crush that X-32 into dust with their superior flight test results and the amazing record making final test flight.  

I made it because i wanted to.  I like unusual aircraft and sometimes the ones that don’t get made are better than the actual make that succeeds them.  Although in this case the Boeing sucked in a big way.

I have to say though....I really do NOT understand why members of this community critise people that make things that never actually got made in the real world properly. I'm not talking about Sci Fi stuff im talking aboutthe X-32, A-12 etc.

Incidentally its not scrap.  It’s on display in a museum somewhere.

Lockheed had huge advantage over Boeing from the start due to their experiences of the F22 program and other VTOL research largely thanks to the work BAE Systems did on their own Harrier replacement/upgrade program.

Boeing started with a blank slate and tried to reinvent the wheel.   Lockheed modified existing wheels and added a few things.  It was really a no brain decision prior to the "Fly off".

Lockheed proved that they could design and manufacture the aircraft at cost and on time - where as Boeing were still changing the design  right up to the last day and were unable to provide a flying combat configuration.

Quote[/b] ]The X-35B took off in less than 500 ft of runway, went supersonic and landed vertically all in the same flight, with absolutely no modifications to the aircraft. This was unheard of for a X plane to have such excellent performance capabilities before...

That isn’t exactly true.  It is true to say that it behaved "on spec" in the monitored Test flights as part of the requirements testing.  But it had more than its share or quirks in development.  Lift fan doors slamming shut on VTOL transition.  Failure of the primary Flight computer due to software crashes (there are 3 computers on board)...the list goes on.

Quote[/b] ]The X-32 constantly had issues when it did its "test requirements".  It had major flight software problem, the direct lift system many times ingested exhaust during VL (very dangerous), they couldn't mid-air refuel, and they had to take parts off and put them back on just to get it to vertically land properly.

All of that is true but there were other success albeit minor that the X-35 struggled to meet.  Some of which were actually over and above the requirements spec listed by the DoD.

Quote[/b] ]My friend sent me a recorded tape of this, I suggest you either watch it when it comes on or buy the VHS/DVD if you wanna learn about the battle between the X-32 and the X-35.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/

A must watch/buy if you are like to keep informed about modern fighters.

I saw it on Discovery some time ago.  Personally I thought it was rather inaccurate one sided bit of Propaganda.  And rather insulting to Boeing and to BAE Systems.  Almost totally ignoring BAE who are a 40% Stake Holder in the Lockheed JSF bid.  Contributing the Centre fuse and most of the Avionics (BAE Sys own what was Lockheed’s Avionics division).  I think the quote "With some supporting work from British Aerospace" was less than gracious acknowledgement for the essentially work on VTOL Transition and Stability.