F-35 Joint Strike Fighter gets official name

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Can Harrier and F-35B take off vertically with weapons and a reasonable amount of fuel then?

Yes they can.  The only problem is the engine cooling.  For the Harrier to do it means having to use all of the the water supply it carries.  This means that it wont be able to hover for very long after after.

The F-35 is claimed to be able to take off wiht a full internal load of 2xAIM 120A and 2x 1000lb JDAM/Gp bombs. Its one of the points in the requested spec.

The reason i say claimed is that since the major re-design was undertaken all the early limits have yet to be retested.  A true VTOL flight was performed in the X-35B and since there is no flying production aircraft at the moment its impossible to verify the claim.  Since the redesign the F-35B is 1700lbs lighter so may well be able to hover with external stores as well, no one knows for sure.

I would have called it a massive acronym, something like.

AMWOM

A massive waste of money.

Actually, to make it fit with other acronyms.

ASMWOTM

A strategic massive waste of tactical money.

Perfect.

“Everything cost more these days.â€

US$50 Million these days is the same as an F-18 cost in the 80’s so I don’t really see that much difference.

[Jinef 2]

You took my comment too seriously ...

Btw. In an Average summer they may be anywhere between 250-400 calls for assistance by Royal Air Force or Royal Navy rescue helicopters. All of them Sea Kings, of a ripe old age of 40 years. Is it not kind of strange to be giving the new merlins to the Navy for ASW and RAF for troop carrying?

I never knew the Royal Navy sunk 300 submarines a year with their ASW helis.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

You took my comment too seriously ...

Btw. In an Average summer they may be anywhere between 250-400 calls for assistance by Royal Air Force or Royal Navy rescue helicopters. All of them Sea Kings, of a ripe old age of 40 years. Is it not kind of strange to be giving the new merlins to the Navy for ASW and RAF for troop carrying?

I never knew the Royal Navy sunk 300 submarines a year with their ASW helis.

I thought you lot were getting merlins in 2008?

Something just for you Jinef Sea King Theme (RAN)

[tankieboy 0]

LMFAO.

I love the look of the Sea King helicopter and wish there was a good one for OFP.

Would'nt it be nice to have the HC4 & Commando Helicopter Force to go with P:UKF's RM...

...Anyhow.

I still think its a dying shame the Harrier is going (AFAIK).

[dm 9]

Btw. In an Average summer they may be anywhere between 250-400 calls for assistance by Royal Air Force or Royal Navy rescue helicopters. All of them Sea Kings, of a ripe old age of 40 years. Is it not kind of strange to be giving the new merlins to the Navy for ASW and RAF for troop carrying?

I never knew the Royal Navy sunk 300 submarines a year with their ASW helis.

I spent a week at RAF St. Mawgan in 2001 (i think, cant remember exactly) with the ATC. Anyho, for those that dont know, St Mawgan is currently the overhaul base for the RAF's Sea King fleet. Of course the obligatory tour to the service hangars was part and parcel of the trip.

As an aside, St Mawgan used to be a Nimrod base, so the Sea Kings are now housed in the Nimrod hangars, looks odd on the inside having huge overhead gantries and head room to fit several Nimrods and the Sea Kings barely coming up to the 1st floor offices

Anyho, back to the point in hand. What was made abundantly clear to us by the techies as we were shown round the hangar, is that the RAF Sea King fleet is in a very unique position. In that due to the extreme load placed on them year round (the afformentioned 200-400 callouts a summer) that the overhauls on the Sea King fleet are much more thourough than "regular" service aircraft. With ALL the stress components being tested/replaced on a regular basis. Making the aricraft essentially "new" in terms of stress components (parts of the skin, cockpit and interior remain the same) Engines, drive shafts, structural spars etc being new.

So while the tailcodes are 40 years old, USUALLY ~70% of the airframe is less than 10. Or so we were told.

[echo1 0]

LMFAO.

I love the look of the Sea King helicopter and wish there was a good one for OFP.

Would'nt it be nice to have the HC4 & Commando Helicopter Force to go with P:UKF's RM...

...Anyhow.

I still think its a dying shame the Harrier is going (AFAIK).

Aside from nostalgia/national pride/cool looks, what does the harrier have that the F-35 wont?

[Messiah 2]

for an ex service ma like Huey, I think its all about nostalgia and national pride... its always nice having something we built, rather than relying on the USA

and to answer Jinef, I'd say it was a case, like for alot of our kit, that the sea king has had no reason to retire yet, and had no decent replacement to match what is a very very capable helicopter, which has seen many roles in its lifetime.

remeber that the Bedfords are still running around... they work, they do the job, and they survive (just)... the sea king has been a workhorse for the army, raf, navy etc and its a case of finding a suitable replacement that can match its multirole use... the Merlin is the obvious replacement...

i agree with the ASW front though... its something that's always perplexed me with the Navy... when was the last time we've run into a submarine to sink? Although with the list of weapons the merlin can carry, its looking like a useful stand off platform too, to extend the defences of a british vessel, as well as being able to perform SAR/troop movements from the ship... wonder if the royal marines will bin their commando sea kings? Imagine a merlin in the same zebra stripe

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Aside from nostalgia/national pride/cool looks, what does the harrier have that the F-35 wont?

- A working flight control system.

- A working In Flight refuelling system.

- Brakes that don’t crack and shatter when used.

- Landing Gear that actually retracts (see the AA1 F-35)

- Weighs less than a small herd of elephants so it can be used on the USMC and RN carrier lifts.

- A decent engine that was developed for the purpose and not politics.

- Software that only comes in one version; Unrestricted and not Export "Lite" versions.

- Field serviceability.

EDIT 1

- The ability to VIFF (Vector in Forward Flight - not that’s its used very often)

- Full control of the Nozzle and lift control (The proposed system uses a function switch i.e.: STOL TakeOff/Landing, STAB - Stabilised hover prior to landing. HOL - Hover on Landing. APRH - Approach to hover etc it works in the Sim but has yet to be proven in real weather - Incidentally most harrier pilots seem to despise the Nozzle management.)

- The ability to use ASRAAM and Meteor (Current US limitations restrict the use of some Missiles etc)

- Brimstone - the F-35 sensor suite isn’t likely to be compatible with Brimstones designations system in the first Tranche and is expected to cost another US$600,000 per airframe to fix.

- Minimal Hot gas ejecta - It’s possible to walk through the exhaust gases quite closely behind the Harrier making it safer to use on carrier decks.  The F-35 will require towing from the parking areas before engine start is allowed.

For the less trusting of the community, I’m not making any of this up - go get a copy of last weeks Flight International and last months Air Forces Monthly.  They both have big articles about the F-35/JCA and all these short comings.

Give me an hour or two and I’ll think of a few more!

EDIT 1 took 15 mins...wonder what will occur to me in the next 90mins!

[Messiah 2]

lmao... this should be good

[dm 9]

lmao... this should be good

Heheh, that it should.

I suppose that there is a key design flaw in the F-35. That it has been designed as a jack of all trades, and thus by definition can be a master of none.

Tho the point about the carrier lifts is moot, since the USN lifts can cope with much heavier aircraft, and the current RN "carriers" are never going to see an F-35, since the new CVN's will take them.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I suppose that there is a key design flaw in the F-35. That it has been designed as a jack of all trades, and thus by definition can be a master of none.

No. that’s not the problem at all. Quite a few aircraft have been designed as a jack of all trades. The problem has been 2 fold.

#1 – US Politics

#2 – Shifting requirements from the USAF and USN.

Ridiculous and unrealistic demands have been made in response to impractical claims made by Lockheed and some other manufacturers. The time scales have meant huge short cuts have been taken meaning that key areas such as large scale airframe production and engine development haven’t been looked at properly. This has added huge sums and delays to the production schedules.

Add to that the insistence of the USAF (the largest single customer) to add more and more requirements to the project at every stage. The results have been an increase in weight and countless design changes slowing production.

Then factor in the US Congress’ reluctance to allow/be dependant on non-US made components and sensible international work shares and expertise.

The F-35 failing isn’t the design or the manufacture. It’s the project management and the insane Politics.

Tho the point about the carrier lifts is moot, since the USN lifts can cope with much heavier aircraft, and the current RN "carriers" are never going to see an F-35, since the new CVN's will take them.

Erm, no it’s not moot at all. While the UK’s invincible class carriers will most likely never see a JCA fly from its decks the USMC will still have the same problem with its LPDs and LPH craft whos lifts are no more highly rated than the UK equivalent.

Incidentally the UK’s CVF carriers will also still have an issue with the F-35B/JCA’s weight. In the pre redesign format the JCA would have to reach 200kts before it could safely lift from the HMS Queen Elizabeth’s “ski jump†deck. Something that is currently impossible with the current deck format and lack of catapults! Lockheed and BAE Systems are currently looking to shed a further 500lbs from the airframe before the F-35B/JCA will be fully carrier capable while equipped with its max load out. Post re-design the herd of Elephants may have been reduced but there are still some rather portly Pachyderms roving around the Lockheed design office.

[EiZei 0]

Just out of curiosity, what other replacements for the harrier brits could have used?

[dm 9]

Touché

Was trying to make a funny with the first statement, but there you go.

I never realised the USMC intended to use the 35B on the LPD/LPH tho, guess thats just a hole in my knowledge.

I agree on the insanity of the politics tho, stupidity seems to be the order of the day when it comes to governmental decisions. (both sides of the pond) As the compainies have already knocked down the walls of international boundary loooong ago.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Just out of curiosity, what other replacements for the harrier brits could have used?

None really. The F-35B is the only affordable STOVL airframe currently planned or in production. Although there was renewed interest in a BAe Kingston's Supersonic Harrier project of the late 70's.

BAE Systems did have several research projects under the FOAS programme (Future Offensive Air System). The project was split into several areas:

- Strategic = Air defence and long range strike

- Tactical = Battlefield Support, SEAD and CAS

- Maritime = Carrier based Strike

- Unmanned = UCAV versions of existing

FOAS research was significantly reduced after the F-35B/JCA announcement and is now focused on expanding the capability of the EuroFighter Typhoon for UK use and developing both support and weapon systems for future UK aircraft.

[echo1 0]

Just out of curiosity, what other replacements for the harrier brits could have used?

The Yak-38?

[dm 9]

The Yak-38?

Which is only 8 years younger than the Harrier (GR.1), and not exactly a great choice due to its entirely different systems.

Weapons intergration etc would be a bitch

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

The Yak-38?  

Which is only 8 years younger than the Harrier (GR.1), and not exactly a great choice due to its entirely different systems.

Weapons intergration etc would be a bitch

Not to mention the fact that it can only really carry two small weapons, it falls out of the sky more often than hail stone, has such a poor range it has to fly slower than my 28 year old Cessna  (slight exageration i know but its close)

[Jinef 2]

Btw, what does RockofSL mean?

[cozza 24]

Rock of South London ? Just a guess. Not a very smart one  

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Btw, what does RockofSL mean?

Rockape of Sol Legion. Sol Legion being my Game Clan.

Rock of South London ? Just a guess. Not a very smart one  

Ha! I'd not thought of that!  Not a bad guess since i do live in South London!

[Shashman 0]

(the ONLY Lightning was the English Electric Lightning IMHO)

The Lockheed P-38 is, and always will be, the original Lightning

[BlackScorpion 0]

And Afaik, the name "Lightning" was given for the P-38 in the UK. Original Lockheed name was apparently Atalanta (atleast that's what Wiki says it to be). Also wierdly, the engines weren't contra-rotating in the "Euro" models.

[Shashman 0]

And Afaik, the name "Lightning" was given for the P-38 in the UK. Original Lockheed name was apparently Atalanta (atleast that's what Wiki says it to be). Also wierdly, the engines weren't contra-rotating in the "Euro" models.

I find that hard to believe

They surely HAD to be contra-rotating, otherwise the torque would uncontrollable, surely?

[Jezz 0]

The p-38's the us tried to sell the uk didnt have counter rotating props but the american ones did as a result we didnt want any.

[Shashman 0]

the p-38's the us tried to sell the uk didnt have counter rotating props but the american ones did as a result we didnt want any

Well, I've just read that it was actually a decision by the RAF to fit unsupercharged, non contra-rotating engines, for commonality with the P-40 Tomahawk's engine, so it's not a case of the US supplying a product the UK was unsatisfied with, as your post seems to suggest. More a case of the UK fiddling around a little too much with a proven aircraft...