First Production Model F-35B Delivered

[+starfighter2 117]

First Production Model F-35B Delivered to the Marine Corps:

 

[+JonathanRL 974]

I almost pity the Marines and any others to take delivery of that aircraft. I doubt it will be able to live up to all the hype, and will most likely not be available in the numbers necessary for most countries.

 

How they think that one will be able to replace the Harrier or A-10 is actually beyond me.

[JediMaster 451]

Smart weapons. Let you attack from farther away with equal or better precision. Sure for dumb bombs and rockets and strafing the older planes are likely better, but there's not as much of that nowadays since collateral damage has become a 4-letter word.

[+ST0RM 145]

I worked that ramp (Eglin) for 1.5 years. It's changed a bit. Even more now with sun shades, no F-15s and Marines.

 

Might have to pay a visit to the 58th when we head south in March.

 

-S

[+SidDogg 130]

I almost pity the Marines and any others to take delivery of that aircraft. I doubt it will be able to live up to all the hype, and will most likely not be available in the numbers necessary for most countries.

 

How they think that one will be able to replace the Harrier or A-10 is actually beyond me.

 

.....you know what?

 

+1

 

 

 

 

 

SidDogg

[MigBuster 2,884]

Bout time

[ezlead 42]

Well now Congress can tell The Marines:"You've got one,how many more do you really need?"

[exhausted 55]

I almost pity the Marines and any others to take delivery of that aircraft. I doubt it will be able to live up to all the hype, and will most likely not be available in the numbers necessary for most countries.

 

How they think that one will be able to replace the Harrier or A-10 is actually beyond me.

 

It'll work. The USA is readjusting for conventional war again and I think this is all going to be the right step. I know they have been around my base a lot lately, but catching them is very hard when I'm in the shop!

 

Hoorah! Kill! Semper Fi!

 

Well now Congress can tell The Marines:"You've got one,how many more do you really need?"

 

Heh, with this current lousy congress I wouldn't be surprised at all!

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

First and last............

[Nesher 628]

Congrats to the Marines

hope the a\c will live to the hype, I believe so

[+Typhoid 231]

Well now Congress can tell The Marines:"You've got one,how many more do you really need?"

 

They can just share it and take turns flying it, right?

 

 

seriously - the F-35 looks to be a pretty good aircraft. Looking forward to seeing it hit the fleet.

[+Brain32 265]

Smart weapons. Let you attack from farther away with equal or better precision. Sure for dumb bombs and rockets and strafing the older planes are likely better, but there's not as much of that nowadays since collateral damage has become a 4-letter word.

 

You can attach weapons and electronics to anything, heck the new MiG-21 upgrades can carry smart stand-off weapons which were in SF domain when the plane was made.

What will the F-35 carry that Harrier or A-10 can not? Nothing.

 

It's just faster and more manouverable, but not really a fighter, it's stealthy but not as much as F-22 and to be more usefull it will have to carry ordinance on external pylons meaning even less stealth, if it get's shot down, it's a security liability.

 

There's nothing on this plane I see as significant advantage over the mix of the existing ones, it costs like birds milk, does everything a little bit, nothing really good.

 

I mean don't get me wrong, I love that little plane it has some really cool looks, fancy capatiblities, V/STOL on the B version that looks like transformer, it's cool overall very cool, but I don't see any true essence in it.

 

They should had built the F-23 as a brutal fighter-bomber that would make everybody in the solar system to piss their pants...

[MigBuster 2,884]

You can attach weapons and electronics to anything, heck the new MiG-21 upgrades can carry smart stand-off weapons which were in SF domain when the plane was made.

What will the F-35 carry that Harrier or A-10 can not? Nothing.

 

If someone can upgrade the MiG-21 with a full 360 degree sensor EODAS coverage - good luck with that - and you will still waste your money and end up with a obsolete airframe with no range - with a tiny nose for the radar thanks to sticking the intake at the front (which probably disrupts airflow having it so far forward) - you would be looking at a new airframe as a minimum!

 

 

As for what it can carry - EODAS - 360 tracking of any object around it - which seems almost like a combat sim on easy! - does the F-22 have such SA - no....and it doesn't need draggy external targeting pods like the legacy jets.

 

And the point was that the F-35 is supposed to fly through airspace denied to A-10s and Harriers - which can fly in when the airspace is safer for them - the A-10C is going to be around for long while yet!

 

 

I think people take for granted the cutting edge integrated computer systems going into this bird - like any computer system there will be bugs to be ironed out - but given a few years it will be solid - these things take time.

 

One cool thing I saw in a Grumman paper on Laser weapons was replacing the lift fan in the B at some point with a solid state laser - introducing a new form of DEAD - whereby a single F-35B protects the strikers by just shooting down advanced SAMs in the air - well maybe one for the future

[JediMaster 451]

I don't know about a laser per se, but a microwave weapon or some other type of directed energy weapon is likely. Something that could shoot at a SAM radar and fry its electronics. Something that could fire at a plane and fry ITS electronics.

[+Stary 2,428]

Sadly I'm with Jonathan and Brain32 on this one. I think it will end like F-22, good for next Michael Bay movie: nice sunset shots making kids do whoa!

 

Bring back the Harriers and Hogz!

 

and some blind backup weapons in case the system gets hacked

 

(It's just us jealous poor Europeans you know )

Edited January 16, 2012 by Stary

[Gr.Viper 131]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9016442/Navys-5bn-Harrier-jet-replacement-unable-to-land-on-aircraft-carriers.html

The Royal Navy's multi-billion pound fighter plane programme is under threat amid claims that its new all-purpose jets cannot land on aircraft carriers, it has emerged.

Wait, what?

[+Stary 2,428]

can't land on carrier? maybe... eee... send them to USNavy, let them have it

you know, like the F4U Corsair affair, just the other way around

[MigBuster 2,884]

The F-35B is okay though - hook not required

[+Gocad 26]

The F-35B is okay though - hook not required

 

Which would be especially hilarious for the Royal Navy if they went back to the B model.

 

But if the tailhook issue has any truth in it....wow. Talk about epic fail.

[+SkateZilla 49]

Sadly I'm with Jonathan and Brain32 on this one. I think it will end like F-22, good for next Michael Bay movie: nice sunset shots making kids do whoa!

 

Bring back the Harriers and Hogz!

 

and some blind backup weapons in case the system gets hacked

 

(It's just us jealous poor Europeans you know )

 

Airshow Demos.

[+Brain32 265]

If someone can upgrade the MiG-21 with a full 360 degree sensor EODAS coverage - good luck with that - and you will still waste your money and end up with a obsolete airframe with no range - with a tiny nose for the radar thanks to sticking the intake at the front (which probably disrupts airflow having it so far forward) - you would be looking at a new airframe as a minimum!

 

The Mig-21 example was given to reflect how even very growth limited designs such as mig-21 can still show remarkable growth possibilities to re-enforce my theory that some older jets which are still far newer and more complex than "AK-47 of the skies" and with far greater growth possibilities could still do the job perfectly fine.

Don't forget that F-35 itself is not a big plane either, it's F-16 sized and due to the stealthy shape, it's nose does not provide much room either still enough for the AN/APG-81 though...

 

As for what it can carry - EODAS - 360 tracking of any object around it - which seems almost like a combat sim on easy! - does the F-22 have such SA - no....and it doesn't need draggy external targeting pods like the legacy jets.

 

Sure, no external pods needed but for any meaningful load, external hard points needed very much....which means less stealth, more drag, etc. I highly doubt EOADS couldn't be integrated on F-22 or even some older machines either.

 

And the point was that the F-35 is supposed to fly through airspace denied to A-10s and Harriers - which can fly in when the airspace is safer for them - the A-10C is going to be around for long while yet!

 

The real question is, what kind of airspace denied not only for A-10's and AV-8's but also S-Hornets, Falcons and Eagles would be appropriate for the F-35?

 

It's stealth is already downgraded from very low observability to just low observability, goodbye brother Raptor, hello brother Super Hornet, and on top of that it's internal loadout options are as I said quite low(4!) but hanging external ones means even less stealth.

 

Can such a plane really be appropriate to be sent into airspace with multi-layered air defense and strong air opposition? I mean if for example picking off radars from like 50 miles away with HARMS with awacs supported Eagle escort is too risky how to hell is F-35 suppose to go there and drop say JDAMS on S-300 sam sites and fight Su-35's or God knows what?

What? He will fire JASSM's from far away? Sure that's cool, but the list of JASSM platforms is quite long, B-1/2/52, F-15/16/18...

 

On the other hand, maybe it will not go into fight against multi-layered air defense supported with excellent and well equipped enemy air-force, but what will it do then? Drop JDAM's on some camel-f**ers?

Heck you can do that with T-6 Texan II, but then Lockheed wouldn't collect several hundreds of bilions of dollars from the defense budjet(s)

 

Now sure I'm not an engineer, military strategist or anything like that, just a mere aircraft enthusiast so ofcourse I have apsolutely no idea how will it turn out in the end, but from the info that comes out, I really see nothing spectacular here(except development cost), it's uber cool in looks department, electronics is like it came out from a Star Trek episode, but aerodynamics department is kinda dissapointing as are the load options under max stealth conditions which are not impressive to start with which in turn gives some raising questions on it's mission purpose...

[JediMaster 451]

Of course, most of the "news" that has come out is being written with a decided "OMG this plane is sooooo expensive and look at all the problems it's having!!!!!11111" spin. There is little to no comparison with how plane programs have gone in the past, including costs.

 

For example, the ONLY number most stories report is the "total lifetime cost"...they put in R&D, EMD, production of every plane from first to last, spare engines, maintenance, upgrades, fuel, etc etc etc and, since this one plane will be in larger numbers than any other in US inventory (since there are 3 models across 3 services, and you'd have to add the A-10, F-16, AV-8, and F/A-18 numbers together to compare, and they're too lazy to do that), the number is large. But it's very misleading because it's just an estimate. We don't know the lifecycle costs of any fighter more recent than the F-117 and F-14, the last to be retired, both in quite small numbers compared to the F-35. F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 are all still in service and will be for years to come, so no one knows yet what the total will be.

Good chance the F-35 will be around longer than they project as well.

 

 

[MigBuster 2,884]

The Mig-21 example was given to reflect how even very growth limited designs such as mig-21 can still show remarkable growth possibilities to re-enforce my theory that some older jets which are still far newer and more complex than "AK-47 of the skies" and with far greater growth possibilities could still do the job perfectly fine.

Don't forget that F-35 itself is not a big plane either, it's F-16 sized and due to the stealthy shape, it's nose does not provide much room either still enough for the AN/APG-81 though...

 

 

Sorry what??

 

F-16C: (F-16.net)

 

Dimensions: wingspan 31 feet 0 inches, length 49 feet 4 inches, height 16.6 feet, wing area 300 square feet.

 

Weights: 18,238 pounds empty, 26,463 pounds normal loaded (air-to-air mission), 42,300 pounds maximum takeoff.

 

Internal Fuel: 7,160lb

 

 

 

F-35A: (LM Figures)

Dimensions: wingspan 35 feet 0 inches, length 51 feet 4 inches, height 14.2 feet, wing area 460 square feet.

 

Weights: 29,300 pounds empty, 70,000 pounds max.

 

Internal Fuel: 18,000lb

 

Its body is far larger than the F-16 which is why it can carry far more internal fuel and avionics and fit a weapons bay - the B even has a gap to fit a lift fan!

 

 

 

Against 5th Gen a/c and advanced IADS the MiG-21 is a flying clay pigeon even with advanced missiles and radar - It needs a major airframe design to fit the avionics and range it really needs - and also RCS reductions to stand any chance whatsoever - it is proof that you can only go so far with an airframe. Against the Taliban though its fine Im sure - but so's a Super Tucano to some aspect.

 

 

Sure, no external pods needed but for any meaningful load, external hard points needed very much....which means less stealth, more drag, etc. I highly doubt EOADS couldn't be integrated on F-22 or even some older machines either.

 

If stealth is required it wont be going in with external stores period

 

 

 

 

The real question is, what kind of airspace denied not only for A-10's and AV-8's but also S-Hornets, Falcons and Eagles would be appropriate for the F-35?

 

It's stealth is already downgraded from very low observability to just low observability, goodbye brother Raptor, hello brother Super Hornet, and on top of that it's internal loadout options are as I said quite low(4!) but hanging external ones means even less stealth.

 

 

Sorry by who? - actual RCS figures are not in the public domain for any of these birds - but everything points to the F-35 being in a different league compared to the SH and F-15SE which seem like desperate attempts to reduce the RCS on legacy designs.

 

 

Can such a plane really be appropriate to be sent into airspace with multi-layered air defense and strong air opposition? I mean if for example picking off radars from like 50 miles away with HARMS with awacs supported Eagle escort is too risky how to hell is F-35 suppose to go there and drop say JDAMS on S-300 sam sites and fight Su-35's or God knows what?

What? He will fire JASSM's from far away? Sure that's cool, but the list of JASSM platforms is quite long, B-1/2/52, F-15/16/18...

 

 

Well its down to tactics - might include stealthy UAVs and F-22s if such environment were encountered -

 

 

 

 

Now sure I'm not an engineer, military strategist or anything like that, just a mere aircraft enthusiast so ofcourse I have apsolutely no idea how will it turn out in the end, but from the info that comes out, I really see nothing spectacular here(except development cost), it's uber cool in looks department, electronics is like it came out from a Star Trek episode, but aerodynamics department is kinda dissapointing as are the load options under max stealth conditions which are not impressive to start with which in turn gives some raising questions on it's mission purpose...

 

This article is interesting reading - heres a bit from F-16 pilot Chris Shephard:

 

Chris Sheppard: The legacy fourth-generation fighters, which we speak of being F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, have become more stealthy over time with each subsequent block upgrade as they have taken on some low observable treatments to help achieve a little more stealthiness. It’s really the advanced avionics upgrades that have always been a cornerstone of the new Blocks. Also, by leveraging global positioning systems (GPS) and laser-guide technologies, these aircraft become more effective and precise kinetically armed assets, especially with the evolution of advanced precision-guided weapons.

But there are inherent limits to upgradeability of the legacy aircraft. The fifth-generation aircraft, the F-22 and F-35, are built from the ground up with many advanced capabilities in mind that can’t be attained from adding on or strapping on pods, et cetera, to ‘fourth-generation’ aircraft.

Fifth-generation aircraft are designed from the ground up with very low observable stealth. This is very important from a threat perspective in the advent of already-fielded and future radar, avionics, and weapons. There’s also integrated sensor fusion, where primary sensors – like the APG-81 in the case of the F-35 – are highly integrated with the Electronic Warfare system or the electro-optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS). Sensor fusion is the kind of visceral capability that can’t simply be added to legacy aircraft or retrofitted on later. Sensors and accompanying software must be part of the design architecture from the get-go for fusion-compatible applications. There are other aspects as well — net enabled operations, the ability to gather information and then share the information with users who need the data real time.

As I mentioned before, the F-16 was developed in the late 70’s with countries in the European Participating Air Forces (EPAF). Similarly the F-35 is being developed with eight partner nations, and in the United States with three services, the Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps. In addition, we have security cooperation partners who participate in the Program, with prospective foreign military sales; other countries are already inquiring about the aircraft.

All of these partners will help the coalition with basing options, and the overall team capabilities will be significant. The fleet will have range and persistence, and as I mentioned earlier, the sensors; and the ability to share the information as a team versus having systems that don’t communicate or aren’t designed from inception to communicate with each other.

While the F-16 has gained impressive capabilities with each subsequent Block upgrade, the one core difference with the F-35 is the bottom up approach for integrating capabilities. This includes stealth. Integration is a central idea from the beginning. The F-35 brings all partner nations into a unified advanced warfighting and interoperability standard in one giant leap.

 

 

Read the whole thing:

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-and-legacy-aircraft-the-case-of-the-f-16/

 

 

Some of it might be NG spin - but there are lots of similar views out there!

Edited January 17, 2012 by MigBuster

[MigBuster 2,884]

Of course, most of the "news" that has come out is being written with a decided "OMG this plane is sooooo expensive and look at all the problems it's having!!!!!11111" spin. There is little to no comparison with how plane programs have gone in the past, including costs.

 

For example, the ONLY number most stories report is the "total lifetime cost"...they put in R&D, EMD, production of every plane from first to last, spare engines, maintenance, upgrades, fuel, etc etc etc and, since this one plane will be in larger numbers than any other in US inventory (since there are 3 models across 3 services, and you'd have to add the A-10, F-16, AV-8, and F/A-18 numbers together to compare, and they're too lazy to do that), the number is large. But it's very misleading because it's just an estimate. We don't know the lifecycle costs of any fighter more recent than the F-117 and F-14, the last to be retired, both in quite small numbers compared to the F-35. F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 are all still in service and will be for years to come, so no one knows yet what the total will be.

Good chance the F-35 will be around longer than they project as well.

 

The daggers have been out from the start - the amount of **** written in the press has been beyond belief - the analysis was basically - hmmm doesn't look as good as the F-22 so must be useless