F-35 news roundup

[TaiidanTomcat]

Lockheed was mostly interested in the nozzle. The nozzle was obviously the centerpiece of Yak-141 and success of the program hinged on it, and it proved to work well. Besides no one else in the world had successful design of such nozzle.

Exactly what was gained as been a source of contention on the internet. LM claims that it didn't get much. Remember LM doesn't build the engine...

I wouldn't claim that F-35 is basically LO Yak-141. Other than the nozzle and maybe the overall layout they are fairly different. Btw, there was a LO Yak-141 in works, it is still classified.

Agreed the internet like to think they are more similar than they are.

Yeah, they did do that profile. However, they apparently used to "scrape over" supersonic. Not sure how much that was capabilities and how much was just lack of testflights (they managed to only do under 300 before the program ended) and being careful.

1 crash, and I think hot gas ingestion was an issue as well.

Dunno. I would say F-35 arrangement and Yak-141 are both complicated in their own ways. Controlling 3 engines to work in perfect harmony is hardly easy under zero speed conditions.

I would agree with that.

To answer MarkW's question I assume it had an auto eject, FORGER did afterall.

This quote from the story/interview with General Hostage has prompted a question from me to you folks:

"The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war. In fact, Hostage says that it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can handle."

I understand part of it concerns the early stages of an intense conflict when A2A is the focus it seems, but I have not realized that the F-35 has a better Radar cross section than the Raptor? I always thought/thought I heard that the Raptor was the king here.

A lot of debate about this. It might be better in certain spectrums.

Standing by for the Canadian announcement

[Berkut]

Remember LM doesn't build the engine...

Yeah, and neither does Yakovlev. It was in LM's interest that P&W got it right, straight away. And Yak-141 experience provided such shortcut.

1 crash, and I think hot gas ingestion was an issue as well.

Not sure about hot gas ingestion but the only crash was combination of things. It was landing and due to sidewind it made the aircraft to loose height faster than usual. The main gear punctured a fueltank.

MarkW was asking about Harrier autoejection, which i believe it did not have.

I am also very surprised that F-35 has better RCS. Someone who has worked with F-35 (and F-22 too i believe) have clearly stated that RCS of F-22 is superior, atleast from the front.

[IrishGreek]

I am also very surprised that F-35 has better RCS. Someone who has worked with F-35 (and F-22 too i believe) have clearly stated that RCS of F-22 is superior, atleast from the front.

Yea, I always thought I heard/read that the F-22 was better because it's 'all round' stealth, versus just the 'head on' of the F-35.

What do I know...

[Micro]

Honest question and not looking to troll at all, but has the F-35 been able to make an arrested landing yet. Google has been no help either saying yes or no. Sorry if it's already been discussed.

[Check Six]

Regarding the F-35 and F-22 RCS;

Since the F-35 is a much smaller a/c (Like AV-8B vs F-15E size difference) than the F-22, can I safely assume the physical size might have something to do with the F-35's smaller RCS?

[Check Six]

Honest question and not looking to troll at all, but has the F-35 been able to make an arrested landing yet. Google has been no help either saying yes or no. Sorry if it's already been discussed.

I believe it's already been covered in this thread.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Yeah, and neither does Yakovlev. It was in LM's interest that P&W got it right, straight away. And Yak-141 experience provided such shortcut.

so they didn't get much?

Not sure about hot gas ingestion but the only crash was combination of things. It was landing and due to sidewind it made the aircraft to loose height faster than usual. The main gear punctured a fueltank.

Sorry I did not mean to make it sound like that was the cause of that crash. I was saying that offhandedly, HGI was an issue with the Yak plane. my mistake

Re the F-35 Hook. The Hook is working in the tests and the latest GAO and JSF program office report basically says its fixed and is now waiting on a CVN to verify this year.

[IrishGreek]

Link to other post did not work... sorry,

but is on page 248. With a story about upcoming carrier tests.

Edited June 9, 2014 by IrishGreek

[Berkut]

Since the F-35 is a much smaller a/c (Like AV-8B vs F-15E size difference) than the F-22, can I safely assume the physical size might have something to do with the F-35's smaller RCS?

Not at all.

so they didn't get much? :cheers:/>

Opposite, they got basically half of the plane handed to them... ;) No one in the world had data and experience that Yakovlev had with the nozzle.

[Alan in Yorktown]

Honest question and not looking to troll at all, but has the F-35 been able to make an arrested landing yet. Google has been no help either saying yes or no. Sorry if it's already been discussed.

We have established several pages back that it has indeed both trapped & boltered (or the pilot boltered, depending on how you understand the word to be defined)

[Micro]

Link to other post did not work... sorry,

but is on page 248. With a story about upcoming carrier tests.

Cool. Thanks, Irish.

[IrishGreek]

Here is a story from USNI about the F-35B aproaching IOC

IOC Story

[TaiidanTomcat]

Australia's first F-35 before paint.

http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/06/raaf-f-35a-au-1-revealed/

[Ken Cartwright]

Australia's first F-35 before paint.

http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/06/raaf-f-35a-au-1-revealed/

So they do pre-shading then, it looks like :)/>

[Aaronw]

Regarding the F-35 and F-22 RCS;

Since the F-35 is a much smaller a/c (Like AV-8B vs F-15E size difference) than the F-22, can I safely assume the physical size might have something to do with the F-35's smaller RCS?

I had not realized there was such a size difference between the F-35 and F-22, particularly with the smaller A and B models. In 1/72 almost 2" in fuselage length and 1 1/2" in wingspan between the F-22 and F-35B.

[Alan in Yorktown]

I had not realized there was such a size difference between the F-35 and F-22, particularly with the smaller A and B models. In 1/72 almost 2" in fuselage length and 1 1/2" in wingspan between the F-22 and F-35B.

A few years back at the Langley AFB airshow they has a (real) F-22 parked next to a F-35 mock-up (or 1:1 scale replica if you prefer). The Raptor is not only larger, it has a different length:span:height ratio than the 35; the F-35 sort of looks 'stumpy' by comparison. I know that for a while all the official photos showed the F-35 from its most complementary angle, about half-way between the fuse & wing leading edge and slightly above.

[Aaronw]

A few years back at the Langley AFB airshow they has a (real) F-22 parked next to a F-35 mock-up (or 1:1 scale replica if you prefer). The Raptor is not only larger, it has a different length:span:height ratio than the 35; the F-35 sort of looks 'stumpy' by comparison. I know that for a while all the official photos showed the F-35 from its most complementary angle, about half-way between the fuse & wing leading edge and slightly above.

From a purely modeling perspective this increases my interest in building a kit of these aircraft, at least they won't be easily confused boring grey jets sitting side by side in the case. These jets are screaming for some WW1 lozenge or dazzle camo schemes.

[TaiidanTomcat]

^Everything looks good in lozonge^

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-given-green-light-for-f-35-jet-decision/article19151099/

Also:

Mr NIKOLIC: You mentioned the F22, and I note recent comments from General Michael Hostage where he talked about the F35 and the F22 almost as a pigeon pair, saying that you had to have the F22 in order to make the F35 valid, basically, in a US context. Did he say that because of the comments you make about the supercruise and turning capability, that even though they are not often used they are necessary in some situations? Do you agree with those comments that without the F22, the F35 perhaps becomes much less of a capability?

Air Marshal Browne : It was an interesting set of comments, so I went back to him this week and asked Mike to put them in context. The context of the interview that he did was all about—if you have read further back in the interview he talks about why you needed the F35 and why you needed the numbers—his argument around the fact that he needed the F22 numbers to add to the F35. I can read the comments if you would like. He sent me them the other day.

CHAIR: I would prefer you tabled them rather than reading them because we are running sort of time for Mr Nikolic before we move on to other questions.

Air Marshal Browne : I can, but I think it is important because there was a lot of commentary around that particular comment and I think it would be nice to clarify it.

CHAIR: If you can condense it to the maximum extent possible, that would be great.

Air Marshal Browne : He said:

I believe that the comments I made in the interview with th e Air Force Times on 2 February and my comments that I do not keep the F22 viable and the F35 frankly will be irrelevant have been taken out of context by folks in Austr alia. The overall context was an acquisition focus about building the United States military force capable of independently engaging a near-peer competitor on their own turf with the densest and most dangerous integrated air defence system. I was asked why I needed to upgrade the F22 if I had the F35. I said in that context a reduced USAA F fleet of 763 F35s — we had just finished a conversation on how I needed 1 , 763 F35s and not a single aircraft less — would not provide the air combat capability necessary without the additional 180-plus F22 s. The question I answered was about the F22, not the F35. Of note, I used the reference to the F35 to emphasise the importance of the F22, not to denigrate the F35. It was in that context of an independent US majo r combat operations with a near- peer competitor.

It goes on, but I will table the rest of the comments.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommjnt%2F0b6ee58c-c085-45b2-b846-270356b353dc%2F0004;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F0b6ee58c-c085-45b2-b846-270356b353dc%2F0000%22

Edited June 13, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat

[dryguy]

Can I ask what exactly is the 'preshading' on the actual jet? Does it gave something to do with maintaining flush panel edges for low rcs?

[MarkW]

It defines certain panel edges. Some of those are permanent and others aren't.

[eraucubsfan]

This maybe a repost, but still a neat video.

[Check Six]

I had not realized there was such a size difference between the F-35 and F-22, particularly with the smaller A and B models. In 1/72 almost 2" in fuselage length and 1 1/2" in wingspan between the F-22 and F-35B.

Neither did I until I acquired the KH F-35A a few weeks ago.

I set both the F-35A and F-22A side-by-side and was quite surprised indeed.

But it make perfect sense.

In order for the F-35B to be a successful super-sonic V/STOL, the a/c had to be light which means it was designed to also be small to accomplish that goal.

[spejic]

It also had to fit on the elevators of the amphibious assault ships.

[GreyGhost]

-Gregg

[Check Six]

It also had to fit on the elevators of the amphibious assault ships.

Ah yes; Very good point.