PDA

View Full Version : F-35b - stovl



ccmanuals
12-08-2010, 05:11 PM
If this has been posted previously, I apoligize. I thought airplane nuts on the WBF might enjoy this if they haven't seen it. It's a video of the VTOL capabilities of the F35B. This is a high def video and you can go to full screen on your computer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD-J1KksHUQ

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12-08-2010, 05:22 PM
Very interesting for any British people with an interest in the Royal Navy; the STOVL variant of the F35 is what the RN's new carriers are designed around. The great benefit of STOVL operation from carriers is -no steaming into the wind in a nice, straight, line - aircraft can be flown off and on whilst the carrier is doing whatever seems good at the time, and they can be flown off and on in worse weather.

Looking at the F35 I don't see how it can VIFF with that big forward intake, but maybe it can do so on the aft nozzle and the wing nozzles only - I'm sure this has been thought about!

I only hope the release of this video by Lockheed Martin is not in response to a threat of cancellation of this variant. There are rumours...

LeeG
12-08-2010, 05:32 PM
shore is pretty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

The United States intends to buy a total of 2,443 aircraft for an estimated US$323 billion, making it the most expensive defense program ever.[13]

On 11 March 2010, a report from the Government Accountability Office to United States Senate Committee on Armed Services projected the overall unit cost of an F-35A to be $112m in today's money.[35] In 2010, Pentagon officials disclosed that the F-35 program has exceeded its original cost estimates by more than 50 percent.[36] An internal Pentagon report critical of the JSF project states that "affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar"

skuthorp
12-08-2010, 05:54 PM
"An internal Pentagon report critical of the JSF project states that "affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar"
Seeing we're down for a few ourselves I wonder if the govt wants us to know that the casts, and the delivery date, are open ended?

Stiletto
12-08-2010, 05:55 PM
Very interesting thanks. How does one go fullscreen? I'm using Chrome.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12-08-2010, 06:04 PM
The F35A is not the STOVL version - that is the B version. The C version is a conventional CATOBAR plane.

It looks like we Limeys are sucking on the hind tit again. It seems the B variant may be cancelled.

Stiletto
12-08-2010, 06:30 PM
Thanks Donn, I was wondering if it was possible to do it directly, but never mind. Youtube is only a couple of clicks away.


That is indeed a very high resolution video, what a great aircraft!

purri
12-08-2010, 07:18 PM
I did see where the House committee questioned the cost/ value ratio and trimmed even the "standard" model in numbers requisitioned.

paladin
12-08-2010, 09:03 PM
They have always had problems with power to weight ratio, going from carbon fiber to milled titanium for the entire center section. That large vent opening is used only at takeoff....inside is a large horizontal fan powered by the forward thrust engines. When they started construction/design they didn't have an engine to power it. My job was to reduce weight. For every pound of weight that I pared from the airframe, it saved 14 pounds for other uses once you consider fuel/range etc. I saved 16 pounds by integrating all antennas into the airframe, and also reduced drag a considerable amount.

johnwill
12-08-2010, 10:02 PM
The F35A is not the STOVL version - that is the B version. The C version is a conventional CATOBAR plane.

It looks like we Limeys are sucking on the hind tit again. It seems the B variant may be cancelled.

If the F-35B is cancelled, it will be because the British decided not to buy it, due to severe budget problems.

paladin
12-08-2010, 10:13 PM
It looks like we Limeys are sucking on the hind tit again. It seems the B variant may be cancelled.


It was Brits that were doing the vtol design work in Tejas. The entire third floor
design section was all Brit Engineers. I shared office space until they reinstated my TS+++ clearances. Brits were TS level only

capnharv
12-08-2010, 10:55 PM
Ah Chuck-so you're the reason Lockheed won!

When I was on X-32 (the Boeing JSF), our chief engineer kept saying "don't underestimate Lockheed's STOVL system. If they can get it to work, they'll win the contract". Apparently they did.

Of course, having a sexy looking airframe doesn't hurt.

BrianW
12-08-2010, 11:35 PM
It was Brits that were doing the vtol design work in Tejas. The entire third floor
design section was all Brit Engineers. I shared office space until they reinstated my TS+++ clearances. Brits were TS level only

Damn Chuck! Enough said, but a freakin' book would be a plus!

You never cease to amaze...

paladin
12-08-2010, 11:59 PM
I had the first attack while working there, went to emergency room and ended in emergency surgery. They have asked me 4 times to come back, $20K per month, salary and allowances/per diem. I wouldn't last a day there now. Although I do have a new design to drive a silkworm crazy.

schoonerpacket
12-09-2010, 12:01 AM
I was always a fan of the X-32 myself.

CK 17
12-09-2010, 12:06 AM
Cool airplane, who are we gonna fight with it?

purri
12-09-2010, 12:46 AM
You can't. It's short range, slow and under-equipped.

capnharv
12-09-2010, 01:43 AM
Chuck,

Smart move not going back. The work is fun, but it's not worth dying for.

Besides, we'd rather have you here.

Thanks,

Harvey

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12-09-2010, 05:15 AM
You can't. It's short range, slow and under-equipped.

That's familiar ...

It's what was said about the Hawker P1127 in the 1960s.

purri
12-09-2010, 06:22 AM
Yep, requires carriers unless it works in a limited range ground spt role, ideal for euro situations. Why the bleeding obvious do you think the "pigs" aka F-111 have been kept on here for so long. FWIW eurofighters and their ilk can't do it in this hemisphere but in current circumstance Sukhoi and Mikoyans can do it better.

And FWIW to put it out there amongst the many how can JSFs operate from Diego Garcia to do the biz?

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12-09-2010, 06:56 AM
But why would you be operating a STOVL fighter, single seater, single engine, from Diego Garcia? Diego Garcia has a runway, as I recall, and is surrounded by a great deal of ocean.

Bob Adams
12-09-2010, 07:09 AM
Damn Chuck! Enough said, but a freakin' book would be a plus!



I keep telling him the same thing!

Ross M
12-09-2010, 08:19 AM
Does anyone know if the cracks/no cracks dichotomy between USAF & USN design/service philosophies is still in force?

Y Bar Ranch
12-09-2010, 08:25 AM
When I was on X-32 (the Boeing JSF), our chief engineer kept saying "don't underestimate Lockheed's STOVL system. If they can get it to work, they'll win the contract". Apparently they did.

Of course, having a sexy looking airframe doesn't hurt.
Yea, within Naval Aviation circles, the X-32 was known as The Monica.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12-09-2010, 08:32 AM
If the F-35B is cancelled, it will be because the British decided not to buy it, due to severe budget problems.

That's pretty much my point - the USN want a CATOBAR fighter because they already have plenty of conventional carriers, so the costs of a STOVL variant become sky high. The other enthusiasts for STOVL used to the the US Marines.

McMike
12-09-2010, 08:57 AM
Damn Chuck! Enough said, but a freakin' book would be a plus!

You never cease to amaze...

+1.

LeeG
12-09-2010, 10:47 AM
Cool airplane, who are we gonna fight with it?

our mortality

johnwill
12-09-2010, 11:04 AM
Cool airplane, who are we gonna fight with it?

Consider North Korea, Iran, or China for starters. No one wants to fight them, but the best way to avoid that is to deter them from starting something. And if, God forbid, we decide to start something, it is best to take a gun to gunfight.

johnwill
12-09-2010, 11:08 AM
That's pretty much my point - the USN want a CATOBAR fighter because they already have plenty of conventional carriers, so the costs of a STOVL variant become sky high. The other enthusiasts for STOVL used to the the US Marines.

The Marines are still enthusiastic about the F-35B, but may not be able to afford it if the British drop out. Others are interested, Italy, India, and Spain, for example.

LeeG
12-09-2010, 11:08 AM
Consider North Korea, Iran, or China for starters. No one wants to fight them, but the best way to avoid that is to deter them from starting something. And if, God forbid, we decide to start something, it is best to take a gun to gunfight.

and the person with the shiniest most expensive gun will obviously win.

johnwill
12-09-2010, 11:13 AM
You can't. It's short range, slow and under-equipped.

Compared to what? The F-35B roughly doubles the capability of the Harrier, is light years easier to land, and has avionics the Harrier can only wet dream about.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12-09-2010, 11:21 AM
The Marines are still enthusiastic about the F-35B, but may not be able to afford it if the British drop out. Others are interested, Italy, India, and Spain, for example.

You'd be 100% safe in assuming that I deeply disagree with the Government's decision to go for the C variant and for CATOBAR carriers
; I hope the Marines stick with their choice and that the British Government will listen to the Navy and change their mind before it is to late.

Part of the problem is that the two carriers are seen, not merely as a Blair prestige project, but as a device to give employment to Labour voters; a "pork barrel project", in US terms. But that is no reason to equip them with technology that was out of date thirty years ago.

johnwill
12-09-2010, 09:41 PM
You'd be 100% safe in assuming that I deeply disagree with the Government's decision to go for the C variant and for CATOBAR carriers
; I hope the Marines stick with their choice and that the British Government will listen to the Navy and change their mind before it is to late.

Part of the problem is that the two carriers are seen, not merely as a Blair prestige project, but as a device to give employment to Labour voters; a "pork barrel project", in US terms. But that is no reason to equip them with technology that was out of date thirty years ago.

Plus they'll have to spend mega-pounds to convert them to CATOBAR from the planned ski jump deck.
Andrew, I presume you take great pride (you should) in all the innovations the UK has contributed to naval aviation - steam catapult, angled deck, STOVL, ski jump, etc etc etc. Bravo!

BrianW
12-09-2010, 09:44 PM
Others are interested, Italy, India, and Spain, for example.

I've seen how Italy and Spain fly in the 'Stan. They don't need real fighters, just something "zoomie" that they can fly real low in and be a hazard to everyone else in their airspace.

LeeG
12-10-2010, 12:48 AM
so what's the likelyhood of a F35 being used in a role like the A10?

schoonerpacket
12-10-2010, 12:50 AM
so what's the likelyhood of a F35 being used in a role like the A10?
The A-10's like a DC-3! Only thing to replace an A-10 is another A-10!

purri
12-10-2010, 06:01 AM
But why would you be operating a STOVL fighter, single seater, single engine, from Diego Garcia? Diego Garcia has a runway, as I recall, and is surrounded by a great deal of ocean.

Pardon. I was referring to the generic JSFs "capability". As you know DG is the basis of generic sea power projection across that ocean.

LeeG
12-10-2010, 07:04 AM
"An internal Pentagon report critical of the JSF project states that "affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar"
Seeing we're down for a few ourselves I wonder if the govt wants us to know that the casts, and the delivery date, are open ended?

If the JSF is no longer an affordable aircraft but another very expensive one how can it not suffer the same death spiral production that the F22 has experienced?

The549
12-10-2010, 07:17 AM
The A-10's like a DC-3! Only thing to replace an A-10 is another A-10!

dc3...my current fave in x-plane (payware addin)...i can get it both down and up at my tiny tree lined local ap too full flaps.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12-10-2010, 07:31 AM
Plus they'll have to spend mega-pounds to convert them to CATOBAR from the planned ski jump deck.
Andrew, I presume you take great pride (you should) in all the innovations the UK has contributed to naval aviation - steam catapult, angled deck, STOVL, ski jump, etc etc etc. Bravo!

Thanks for the kind words; indeed I do, but it will all be pointless if we don't get the technology we need. The hidden political factor here is that we are meant to be sharing carriers with France, to save money, and they use CATOBAR.

However I still cherish the hope that the RN will come up with a Cunning Plan, just as they did last time their carriers were abolished (the "Harrier carriers" were slipped through the Defence Estimates as something called a "through deck cruiser").

LeeG
12-10-2010, 07:44 AM
The A-10's like a DC-3! Only thing to replace an A-10 is another A-10!

but isn't that what the JSF is supposed to do, replace the A-10?

http://defensetech.org/2010/08/03/f-35-sam-killing-mission-may-have-to-wait-for-new-jamming-technology/#idc-cover

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is intended to replace the F-16 and A-10 as the military’s primary tactical strike aircraft; its stealth will allow it to penetrate advanced enemy air defenses or at least get close enough before it’s detected to knock them out.



Read more: http://defensetech.org/2010/08/03/f-35-sam-killing-mission-may-have-to-wait-for-new-jamming-technology/#ixzz17iDv0cpe
Defense.org

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12-10-2010, 08:01 AM
The anti-SAM role will certainly be done by drones. It's common sense.

johnwill
12-10-2010, 11:48 AM
but isn't that what the JSF is supposed to do, replace the A-10?

http://defensetech.org/2010/08/03/f-35-sam-killing-mission-may-have-to-wait-for-new-jamming-technology/#idc-cover

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is intended to replace the F-16 and A-10 as the militaryís primary tactical strike aircraft; its stealth will allow it to penetrate advanced enemy air defenses or at least get close enough before itís detected to knock them out.



Read more: http://defensetech.org/2010/08/03/f-35-sam-killing-mission-may-have-to-wait-for-new-jamming-technology/#ixzz17iDv0cpe
Defense.org

No one thinks the F-35 can replace the A-10. It will replace the F-16, F/A-18 (A-D), Harrier, and eventually, F-15 (A-D).

LeeG
12-10-2010, 12:38 PM
I don't think it can but that's what various descriptions of it say. Back to my other question, if it's no longer an affordable plane with commonality amongst models but a very expensive plane like the F22 why wouldn't it suffer the same fate of shrinking production? Does it rely on foreign sales?

purri
12-11-2010, 06:03 AM
^ the bleeding obvious. We have already stumped up a few Billion for the "development" costs with no firm date for delivery nor final cost price. Typical MIC .

McMike
12-11-2010, 09:46 AM
From all I've read and heard, the A-10 is like the combat knife; no matter how old the technology, there will always be a use for it. Besides, it looks cool.

CK 17
12-11-2010, 11:50 AM
Consider North Korea, Iran, or China for starters. No one wants to fight them, but the best way to avoid that is to deter them from starting something. And if, God forbid, we decide to start something, it is best to take a gun to gunfight.

I wonder how likely it is that we are going to get in a fight with our biggest trading partner and debt holder. Ironicly if we buy this thing won't china be financing it in some way. . . .

johnwill
12-11-2010, 12:24 PM
I agree with what you say, but there are potential serious conflicts with them. China is clearly on the way to becoming a superpower, and perhaps we (USA) will be less likely to throw our weight around as a result. That seemed to be true during the cold war years, when the Soviet Union balanced our power.

However, China is not our biggest trading partner. That would be Canada.