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
jessmo_24    trouble posting   4/25/2015 6:00:17 AM
anyone having issues posting or making ew threads?
 
Quote    Reply

jessmo_24       4/25/2015 6:03:59 AM
Netherlands Pulls In Maintenance of Italian F-35 Engines
(Source: Netherlands Ministry of Defence; issued April 22, 2015)
(Issued in Dutch; unofficial translation by Defense-Aerospace.com)
Today, the Netherlands signed a so-called Implementing Arrangement with Italy. The selection of the Netherlands for engine maintenance will create jobs and retain high-level knowledge on engine maintenance.

Prior to this Implementing Arrangement (IA), the Netherlands in 2006 signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Italy, in which cooperation is discussed briefly below. This MoU states that the Netherlands intend to have their F-35s assembled in Cameri, Italy and that the Italians in turn will execute their engine maintenance in Woensdrecht, the Netherlands. By signing the IA, it has now been confirmed that the Netherlands, beginning in 2019, will obtain the work for the Dutch and Italian engines.

Employment

For the Netherlands, the IA is of great importance. After the F-35 Joint Program Office last year designated the Netherlands as one of the European countries that may carry out maintenance on the F-35, the Netherlands wanted Italian engine servicing as possible maintenance partner.

By carrying out the engine maintenance in the Netherlands will maintain jobs and also create additional employment. The collaboration also ensures that more advanced knowledge on engine maintenance is retained. Defence is vigorously pursuing the establishment of the engine workshop collaboration with industry and partner countries.

The IA also confirms that the assembly of Dutch F-35 aircraft will take place in the Final Assembly and Check-Out (FACO) facility, located on the Italian air force base at Cameri, in northern Italy. The production of some metal or composite parts (such as, for example, wings or the front part of the fuselage) of the aircraft also takes place at participating F-35 partners. Those parts are supplied to the FACO, where the aircraft is then assembled.

With the IA, The Netherlands have become the first international customer for Italy’s FACO.

The Cameri FACO is a second F-35 assembly line; Lockheed Martin has the main final assembly and check out facility in Fort Worth, Texas.

Meanwhile, there are now six F-35s on the assembly line at Cameri. Lockheed Martin is fully responsible for the quality and the planning of the aircraft.

-ends-
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       4/25/2015 11:42:46 AM
-->F-15C (loaded for interdiction mission with ordnance and 2 drop-tanks) ~1950 km combat radius (no loiter). or 5 hours max known fuel endurance with 5 minutes above Mach 1.
-->F-22A (loaded for interdiction mission with ordnance and 2 drop tanks) ~1850 km combat radius (20 minute loiter) or 2.5-4 hours with an unknown portion of that flight in super-cruise regime after tanks dropped.      
--> F-35A (loaded for interdiction mission with ordnance and internal fuel only) ~1000 kilometers combat radius (no loiter) or 2-3.5 (?) hours endurance. What drop tanks do to extend that number, I don't know.      
 
As a general rule, (with drop tanks omitted and combat loads added) the rule of thumb is 1000-1400 km radius for Russian 'fighter' aircraft and about 700 km-1,000 km on internal fuel for American 'fighter' aircraft. The Americans expect their tanker fleet to make up the difference, while the Russians expect no-refuel during combat, so the two sides design to different standards.      
 

Again don t the F-15C the F-22 and the F-35 have about the same range? Help me out here. whats the range on a F-15 with no conformal or wing tanks? Whats the range of the F-22 with and without super cruise. I dont want calssified data.

Just the ball park.

 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       4/25/2015 12:08:32 PM
That's Carlo Kopp and crew and the short answer to your question (see red) is "NO."
 
The long answer is too involved, but those two 'gentlemen', Peter Goon, and  Carl have been running their con game APA on the Australian gov't for 2 decades without too much success. Most serious researchers know that RAAF has-been (Goon) and his computer IT sidekick give nothing but opinion and claim it as fact. Are their opinions accurate? COMBAT by forces using US and Russian gear shows many of us that most of their APA declarations of fact have not proved to be true. They've claimed their discrepancy in results seen is because US gear has faced Russian 'export models'. They generally fail to account for combat degradation and user competence as an example and they assume optimum conditions which is NEVER the case with anyone's equipment and training.
 
For example I would expect Israelis to slaughter Syrians in the air if the Israelis flew Flankers and the Syrians used Eagles. I just would not expect the 78-1 Bekaa Valley ratio. it would be more like 78-20-25.  But the US equipment would make a difference for the Syrians, just not that much of one. 
 
Now I will be honest. My opinion is that Copp is a con man and not very knowledgeable in subject. But that is my opinion. I will just say, be sure you independently verify everfy claim he makes.  
 
 

Here is what I have a problem with:

 

Will APA ever update there site or release recants for statements. even when proven wrong?

 

here is an example

 


 

Why is the F-111 on this List, Because of Range? The B-52 has range and fire power, but its not considered a hight capability fighter. Why is the Typhoon considered low capability? Its a mach 1.4+ supercruising machine? These people are all over the place.

 
Quote    Reply

jessmo_24       4/25/2015 8:39:04 PM
Keffler are F-15s even allowed to fly without tanks? Thats a whole seperate issue. They are likely comparing a f,-15 With drop tanks and CFT. To a fighter on internal fuel. These numbers would be alot closer then, but I will concede the F-15 has the edge in range. Range alone shouldn't make or excuse You from the high end fighter chart.
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       4/26/2015 1:50:54 AM
 
I'm guessing you mean an F-15 to an F-35? The planes don't even operate the same way.
 
Another example; The F-35C might have more internal fuel than the A or the B because it is a BIGGER (winged) plane with more wing tankage available. The cruise regime for the F-35 clean (any variant), should be a little more efficient than the F-15 clean (better less draggy aircraft in the slipstream with a more efficient engine. But even so, the fuel carried on that smaller plane (even the C) will yield less time in the air, F-35 internal vs F-15 internal. Drop tanks as I wrote will extend that F-35 time at the cost of drag and reduction of cruise speed efficiency, but I also told you, I don't know those numbers. I won't even make a guess at it because I don't know. Copp did (but he doesn't know either) so you should check his assumptions for yourself, if you can.
  
These numbers would be alot closer then, but I will concede the F-15 has the edge in range. Range alone shouldn't make or excuse  You from the high end fighter chart.

That would be a correct assumption. Range is just one of dozens of characteristics in an aircraft that you examine.   
 
A good aircraft should do its primary designed function well. In the case of the F-35, three aircraft do three different things and try to use an almost common air-frame to do it. The air force A model tries to replace the F-16 as a general purpose fighter. The navy C model is more a fighter/attack variant (we used to call them tactical bombers) while the Marine B-version is something of a VSTOL bastard jack of all trades CAS/air superiority aircraft.          
 
My criticism (opinion) is that the planes are forced compromises that may not do their functions as well as a pure designed to purpose aircraft might (EF Typhoon in air superiority for example). LOCKMART started with the VSTOL jet and tried to make it the one size fits all plane. This smelled of the GD F-111 debacle   foisted by the best secretary of  defense ever (SARCASM) Robert McNamara who argued that one size fits all in so many situations. He was utterly incompetent in so many things (my opinion), cars, management, grand strategy, common sense, but the point is that we TRIED something like the F-35 in the F-111 and found it did not work as intended for sound operational reasons.  Made a fair bomber after a lot of work, but it was an expensive  redo.        
 
Is Kopp correct in putting the F-35 in the list of also rans? Based on his track record for accuracy and honest data? My guess is no. (Opinion).
 
Will the F-35 actually wind up like the Mig 29 as a pretty plane that is actually a piece of flying junk?  
 
We don't know enough to make a claim one way or the other. LOCKMART has made a lot of stupid mistakes (Pratt too) but so far the bird seems to meet its (revised) program objectives. I try to be realistic with LOCKMART's past history of producing brilliant concept aircraft that in practice did not work too well. (F-104 was a flying turkey as a Luftwaffe example.) . The F-35 has followed LOCKMART'S usual screwed up corporate mismanagement model.  
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

jessmo_24       4/26/2015 7:10:35 PM
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=27253 Its looking good so far. The tech is sound. They have to get things working right. I think the plane will surprise on WVR.
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       4/27/2015 9:36:40 AM
Now we have some numbers. 4 hours or about 1400 km combat radius with drop tanks for the F-35 in the interdiction configuration.
 
The close numbers match to the F-16 is almost ridiculous.   
 
Quote    Reply

HR    F-35 vs. F-15   4/27/2015 11:23:14 AM
I hate to say the obvious but there is no comparison. The F-35 was designed from the get-go as an attack aircraft. The F-35 was "adapted" for that role to replace the F-111 in interdiction as well as to give the Navy its first real attack aircraft since the A-6. The truth that everyone seems to be tip-toeing around is that with the F-35 we have an aircraft with great range and stealth profile that can fight its way out of an attack mission... many other features that make it a much more economical plane to employ. In air superiority role the F-35 will operate with less fuel... and therefore less weight and better performance. So if you are protecting the airport and flying air-patrols you will do that with half the fuel load.
 
Quote    Reply

HR    F-35 vs. F-15   4/27/2015 11:24:14 AM
I am sorry, the F-15 was adapted to replace the F-111 in interdiction. Not the F-35.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics