Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: F-35 news thread III
jessmo_24    1/12/2011 7:23:24 AM
BF-2s 1st vertical landing. *ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS3ngl1GcaI&feature=player_embedded NAVAIRSYSCOM 10 Jan 2011 "F-35B test aircraft BF-2 accomplishes its first vertical landing and conversion back to normal flight mode at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. The integrated test team is testing both the STOVL and carrier variants of the F-35 for delivery to the fleet. Video courtesy Lockheed Martin."
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43   NEXT
keffler25       3/31/2015 12:40:36 PM
I reads that, you idiot, but you apparently didn't.  See red and yellow for what you did not understand at all.

Now on the missiles... it was not a bait to bring out what Keffler does not know or how little he reads but it just turn out like that... Now I brace myself for the avalanche of claims that it is a lie, etc. Post-after-post, long and crazy like those about the titanium and the aluminum.

 

 

"“We?the U.S. [Department of Defense]?haven’t been pursuing appropriate methods to counter EA [electronic attack] for years,” a senior Air Force official with extensive experience on the F-22 commented. “So, while we are stealthy, we will have a hard time working our way through the EA to target [an enemy aircraft such as a Russian-built Sukhoi] Su-35s and our missiles will have a hard time killing them.”

The problem is that many potential adversaries, such as the Chinese and the Russians, have developed advanced digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) jammers. These jammers, which effectively memorize an incoming radar signal and repeat it back to the sender, seriously hamper the performance of friendly radars.

Worse, these new jammers essentially blind the small radars found onboard air-to-air missiles like the Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM, which is the primary long-range weapon for all U.S. and most allied fighter planes.

 That means it could take several missile shots to kill an enemy fighter, even for an advanced stealth aircraft like the Raptor. “While exact Pk [probability of kill] numbers are classified, let’s just say that I won’t be killing these guys one for one,” the senior Air Force official said. It’s the “same issue” for earlier American fighters like the F-15, F-16, or F/A-18.

Another Air Force official with experience on the stealthy new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter agreed. “AMRAAM’s had some great upgrades over the years, but at the end of the day, it’s old technology and wasn’t really designed with today’s significant EA in mind,” this official said. "
Can I simply note that the USAF official was being 'coy'?
 
You should be up to date truck driver. Not everything I KNOW that is being done are you even aware of, you liar.
 
DRFM is not viable, not that it ever was for HTK. 
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       3/31/2015 12:42:40 PM
You are a liar. I said for equal weight it was TWICE AS STRONG you idiot. 

You said that titanium was less heavy than aluminum... I do not think I am out of line in calling a spade a spade and you dead-wrong!!!!

 

Pathetic. A man that I presume to be older and by now one would expect more judicious is nothing but a wreck trying to cover up his mistakes... sad.

 



 
Quote    Reply

HR    keffler the Belgian   3/31/2015 1:46:09 PM
I guess you cannot trust a Belgian when he says... : "Twice the strength at half the weight."http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emwink.gif" alt="" align="absmiddle" border="0" />"
 
That above is what you actually said and not the "revised" comment you are making now of "twice as strong for the same weight" which by the way... it is also wrong and just exemplifies your lack of knowledge about mechanic of materials.
 
Another reason why I do not think you ever went to college. No basic sciences. So you are piling one error over another.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       3/31/2015 10:49:03 PM
keffler25       3/31/2015 10:41:47 PM
I will help keffler with the math... as I have said before I am positive he does not have a college education. So here I go... Titanium is 60% heavier than Aluminum... yes, heavier. Not half the weight as Keffler claims. But it is stronger. About 40 to 50 percent stronger. Now... I hope this ends almost two days of reading brutalities... my suggestion to Keffler is that he switches the bolts that stick out of the side of his neck and keep his head from falling to the ground from STEEL to Aluminum which is probably what has him all crewed up! Sayonara!!!!
Aluminum .09750 lb/ci Titanium .16300 lb/ci Tensile Yield Strength 6061-T6 45,000 PSI 7075-T6 67,000 PSI Titanium (general) 110,000 PSI
 
See that in RED, you idiot? That's the general strength of titanium versus the two aluminum alloys cited.    
 
Already dealt with you twice, you liar. So here we go again. You didn't interpret the numbers I GAVE YOU right, idiot. 
 
Aluminum .09750 lb/ci

Titanium .16300 lb/ci

Another asset of MEpro http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/%3Ca%20href=" target="_blank" alt="" />http://www.cnczone.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif" alt="" title="smilie" class="inlineimg" border="0" />

Tensile Yield Strength
6061-T6 45,000 PSI
7075-T6 67,000 PSI
 
(Those are aluminum alloys, you  CRETIN.) 
 
Titanium (general) 110,000 PSI
 
That's baseline metal, there are even stronger alloys in use. 
 
Funny that HR couldn't even understand the DATA I* GAVE HIM. 
 
Given that I said the equivalent frame to do the job the cracked aluminum did the metal frame will be twice the strength (won't fatigue at 8000 hours) at half the needed aluminum equivalent weight.     
 
So THAT POSTER, HR, is still a liar, and an idiot, and a psycho.
 
Add that he is illiterate, a fantasist and cannot READ. 
 
Nothing changed for you, HR. You just the proved again that you are a troll and a WOFTAM.  Have a nice time trying to explain that one to your kadogie, Belgian.
 
ROTFLMAOAY!


I guess you cannot trust a Belgian when he says... : "Twice the strength at half the weight."http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emwink.gif"" . com="" cutesoft_client="" cuteeditor="" images="" emwink.gif"="" target="_blank" alt="" />http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emwink.gif" alt="" align="absmiddle" border="0" />"

 

That above is what you actually said and not the "revised" comment you are making now of "twice as strong for the same weight" which by the way... it is also wrong and just exemplifies your lack of knowledge about mechanic of materials.

 

Another reason why I do not think you ever went to college. No basic sciences. So you are piling one error over another.

 



 

 
Say the lie again HR. Maybe if you repeat it enough, a six year old child will believe you.
 
But the rest of us, know that you are a liar...   
 
Quote    Reply

HR    Titanium Keffler   4/1/2015 1:13:14 PM
You said that Titanium was half the weight (false) and twice the strength (closer to correct) than Aluminum. I already posted a link to this... you want me to post it again? I think enough is enough of your name calling and it is time that you apologize to every one in this site for your rudeness.
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       4/1/2015 1:34:13 PM
Still trying to bluff your way through, Belgian? You won't quit the lying so the best response is to show you up. 
 
Educate yourself, cretin.
 
 
Quote    Reply

HR    Keffler said titanium   4/1/2015 1:59:25 PM
I do not have to bluff... your statement stands on its own... you said that titanium was half the weight and twice the strength of Aluminum. And that is of course false. Do you want me AGAIN post a link to your comment??? Help you with that titanium memory of yours!!!
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       4/1/2015 2:34:24 PM
Go ahead, liar. You are trolling the boards so, go ahead, and you will be shot down again.  
I do not have to bluff... your statement stands on its own... you said that titanium was half the weight and twice the strength of Aluminum. And that is of course false. Do you want me AGAIN post a link to your comment??? Help you with that titanium memory of yours!!!

 
Quote    Reply

jessmo_24    F-35 versus F-16 BFM teased   4/2/2015 12:41:33 AM
F-35 versus F-16 teased
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been flown in air-to-air combat maneuvers against F-16s for the first time and, based on the results of these and earlier flight-envelope evaluations, test pilots say the aircraft can be cleared for greater agility as a growth option.

Although the F-35 is designed primarily for attack rather than air combat, U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin test pilots say the availability of potential margin for additional maneuverability is a testament to the aircraft’s recently proven overall handling qualities and basic flying performance. “The door is open to provide a little more maneuverability,” says Lockheed Martin F-35 site lead test pilot David “Doc” Nelson.

The operational maneuvers were flown by Nelson in AF-2, the primary Flight Sciences loads and flutter evaluation aircraft, and one of nine F-35s used by the Edwards AFB-based 412th Test Wing for developmental testing (DT). The F-35 Integrated Test Force at Edwards has six F-35As, two F-35Bs and a single F-35C dedicated to DT work, as well as a further set of aircraft allotted to the Joint Operational Test Team. Work is underway as part of efforts to clear the final system development and demonstration (SDD) maneuvering envelopes on the way to initial operational capability (IOC). The U.S. Marine Corps F-35B IOC is targeted for later this year, the Air Force’s F-35A in 2016, and the U.S. Navy’s F-35C  in 2019.

“When we did the first dogfight in January, they said, ‘you have no limits,’” says Nelson. “It was loads monitoring, so they could tell if we ever broke something. It was a confidence builder for the rest of the fleet because there is no real difference structurally between AF-2 and the rest of the airplanes.” AF-2 was the first F-35 to be flown to 9g+ and -3g, and to roll at design-load factor. The aircraft, which was also the first Joint Strike Fighter to be intentionally flown in significant airframe buffet at all angles of attack, was calibrated for inflight loads measurements prior to ferrying to Edwards in 2010.

The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director. “It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.”

“Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], ‘you don’t have to clamp down so tight,’” says Nelson. Departure resistance was proven during high angle-of-attack (AOA) testing, which began in late 2012 with the aircraft pushing the nose to its production AOA limit of 50 deg. Subsequent AOA testing has pushed the aircraft beyond both the positive and negative maximum command limits, including intentionally putting the aircraft out of control in several configurations ranging from “clean” wings to tests with open weapons-bay doors. Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA.

An “aggressive and unique” approach has been taken to the high AOA, or “high alpha” testing, says Nelson. “Normally, test programs will inch up on max alpha, and on the F-22 it took us 3-4 months to get to max alpha. On this jet, we did it in four days. We put a spin chute on the back, which is normal for this sort of program, and then we put the airplane out of control and took our hands off the controls to see if it came back. We actually tweaked the flight control system with an onboard flight test aid to allow it to go out of control, because it wouldn’t by itself.


 
Quote    Reply

jessmo_24    F-35 versus F-16 BFM teased   4/2/2015 12:47:52 AM
Bahh, I just want to know how wello it did versus the F-16.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics