F-35 news roundup

[GreyGhost]

Anyone know if there's a 1:32 scale kit of this sucker out there? Is there one in the future?

Last I heard, Lindberg was working on one ...

Gregg

[phantom]

Frog as well.

[Trigger]

Last I heard, Lindberg was working on one ...

Gregg

Isn't that a kit of the X-35 though?

[GreyGhost]

Isn't that a kit of the X-35 though?

Yeah, I'm not sure, it looked sort of like a hybrid between the X-35B and F-35B, having elements of both ...

Gregg

[pbcheez]

One of the comments to the article was interesting. Despite all the money spent on competing engines, 100% of the current F-16 fleet has GE motors, while 100% of the F-15 fleet has Pratts. This is despite the availability of competing engines for these aircraft. It makes no sense to have a fleet of aircraft with different engines.

There are lots of F-16's that use pratts. F-100 same as F-15.

[11bee]

There are lots of F-16's that use pratts. F-100 same as F-15.

One of the comments to the aforementioned article stated that the entire US fleet of combat coded F-16 was standardized on GE motors.

I thought I also read somewhere that Pratt powered F-16's were on the fast track to be phased out. Really makes no sense to have an aircraft in your fleet with two separate infrastructures for spare parts, training, etc...

John

[GreyGhost]

Wonder why they just transferred the T-Birds into Block 52s then ...

Gregg

[11bee]

ummm... maybe because those block 52 are no longer needed for the front line fleet?

Again, in case you did not read my last post fully, I referenced a comment that was added to a previously linked article, which stated that the entire USAF COMBAT CODED F-16 fleet was using GE motors. If you feel it is incorrect, give some examples of front line, USAF combat squadrons that are flying F-16's with P&W engines. I would hardly consider the T-birds a combat unit.

I'm not by any means an expert on this and freely admit that I could be wrong.

[GreyGhost]

So they're not to worried about getting them out of service to quickly then with quite a few Aggressors still flying F100 powered Vipers then too ? Yes, I know they are not Combat Coded but they are STILL in use by the USAF ...

Gregg

[R Tate]

It better, if the RAF and the RN are buying any. It had also be capable of producing a decent poutine for us Canucks, and Vegemite Toast for the Aussies.

Alvis 3.1

Mmmmmmmmm... Jet poutine.

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

Ok, so the F-35 serves a purpose to fill many roles and Canada is set to buy 65 (not enough it should be at least 80 as that is the number of upgraded CF-18M's we fly) but once enemy fighters break through our ability to defend via BVR, how good of a dog fighter will F-35 look to be? I read it has rather high wing loading and for it's size is a bit of a fatty, which hurts agility, is that true? In a dog fight what do some of you who may have followed F-35 closely have to say about it? Will it be as capable as any current generation fighter and any possible enemy fighter made in either China or Russia?

Hoping some good bits of info can be shed here.

The Lockheed-Martin PDF public files brochure is obviously glowing on F-35 just as any sales brochure would be and I have no doubt that F-35 will be a good BVR fighter and strike platform but we know enough enemy aircraft in a big enough attack will get through, the dog fight is not going away no matter what any egg head says. Will the F-35 be able to hold its own in this arena or do we still not know?

Thanks in advance.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Les / Creative Edge Photo

[MarkW]

The F-35 has "F-18 like" aero performance. Coupled with the advanced self defense suite, it should do the job in the furball.

It's interestin you assume there should be a one to one replacement for the F-18s.

[GreyGhost]

Strength in Numbers ...

Gregg

Edited July 18, 2010 by GreyGhost

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

I suggest 80 F-35 for the 80 CF-18M as IMO we don't have enough CF-18M. Sure some say we only have a relative handful of fighter pilots but that is a logistics, money and pay/perk issue that can be addressed in time.

65 F-35 of which who knows how many will be in depot for routine on non-routine maintenance and whether they will be hanger queens or not is too few to be a real credible force structure in any NATO/NORAD/UN event.

If one wants to guarantee us not being able to support say future NATO/NORAD/UN air priorities then just have too few fighters to commit. The Prime Minister of the day can then stand up and say "We just do not have enough air assets to send to a NATO/NORAD/UN involvement." So we in essence will have 65 F-35s which will essentially just fly around in Canada, intercepting the occasional airliner or small plane which is lost or has a faulty transponder as well as send one or two to air shows (which I love so don't take away my air shows ) and yet we will send maybe ground forces to some action/conflict but not commit any air combat assets thinking "Oh well the Americans will just do that." If that is all we plan on doing with F-35 then why bother?

We should invest in any future fighter with enough numbers to be able to at a short notice to commit them to our own air defence or to detach some to any action/conflict our government of the day may choose to deploy the CF to in theatre air defence, tactical strike and CAS. Why has Canada not sent any CF-18's to Afghanistan. Our pilots and ground crews are trained to do such. Why not? Because it's too easy to not send them as the US provides most of the combat air assets, but yet we want to control ground forces without being there to commit combat air assets too. Partly I believe is we have too precious few usable and upgraded CF-18M's and do not want to invest in the money to support a detachment to the theatre. Well ask yourself with a $16B deal for 65 F-35 we will be even less prone to do so. If all they will be doing is escorting an occasional wayward airliner, small plane or go up once is while to deflect, escort and take pictures of Russian Bears, then we do not need the F-35 at all, to make my point our retired CF-101 Voodoos would have done that fine even today.

If we are investing in future combat fighters and we have no intention BTW regardless of which party is in power as neither has shown much stomach, well since the mid 90's anyways when yes we did commit CF-18's to Kosovo to be ready for an air combat asset engagement of supporting our roles in any current or future NATO/NORAD/UN engagement well then we are pissing $16B down a hole.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Les / Creative Edge Photo

[Av8fan]

Mmmmmmmmm... Jet poutine.

I walked into a local burger joint on Friday and they had Poutine with Bacon and Fried onions!

My circulatory system slowed down just reading the menu.

Honestly I do not believe that even 80 is enough. Yes, I know we need to support them, however I dont feel that 65 takes into account losses during training and the inevitable bird down the intake mishaps.

We also need attack copters. We have new Chinooks, but, IIRC the Lynx is not ideal for this role? I stand to be corrected on that.

[11bee]

I walked into a local burger joint on Friday and they had Poutine with Bacon and Fried onions!

My circulatory system slowed down just reading the menu.

Just to take this thread further OT, what would "Poutine" be?

[GreyGhost]

Just to take this thread further OT, what would "Poutine" be?

>>> Poutine <<<

I love gravy on fries but not sure about the cheese curd ... And Chili Cheese Fries rock ...

Gregg

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

Just an analogy over required numbers...

Your mechanic comes to you and tells you that you need 4 new tires for you car. Most normal thinking persons would then pony up the cash to buy 4 appropriate tires for their car. Do you all know what the Canadian government (BTW EITHER PARTY as history shows) would likely do? Buy 3 tires only thinking that is the minimum that they can get away with politically, but then typically just squandering money as needed.

This is the typical way Canadian governments of either governing party has done for decades now with our military.

[MarkW]

Poutine=nature's most perfect food.

The above analogy assumes all tires are basically similar in function, so of course you'd buy 4 if you needed 4.

But what if your new vehicle only required 3 tires, while also exceeding the performance in every way of your old vehicle?

Yes, quantity has a quality all its own, but what is going on here is a fundamental paradigm shift not only in capability but utilization. These jets will be used like old jets, but also in ways we haven't begun to discuss yet.

And, frankly, when would Canada go to war without its fiesty southern neighbor? I can think of 2 scenarios:

1. My paranoid delusions ARE true, and the horde of conquest pours over the border in a massive invasion of the US (don't even think about it, Frosty-- I'm on to you!)

2. Quebec finally launches a bloody war of independence against the oppressive Anglophile tyranny. Armed with F-35s loaded with poutine bombs (internal carriage only), the day of reckoning comes covered with gravy and cheese curds.

I suspect both scenarios are equally likely.

[Av8fan]

Well, of course the Poutine has to be internal carriage.

After all it has to be kept at the right Temp. Ever seen congealed Poutine? You don't want to!

Also I hear that the "other guys" are likely to develop scent seeker heads.

As for what to do with the F-35, well, if we sending folks overseas on the land, I'd like to see Canadian Jets there as well. If nothing but for the needed experience of deploying, dealing with the mixed forces etc.

And see my previous post re FOD. I know that modern engines are much tougher, but, eventually something that the engine wont digest all that well will end up in there and hopefully the Pilot makes it, but we are still down 1 airplane.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Av8fan

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

It is about our ability to provide air asssets in theatre where we supply land and sea forces. I doubt regardless of Liberal or Conservative government that any CF-35 will ever drop a bomb in combat or shoot an enemy air asset in combat. We are typically Canadian, buying just enough aircraft to cover a political requirement. The most our combat pilots will likely ever do in our CF-35's is train. Yes, in a perfect world that is and should be our goal regardless of what progressive nation we live in but we are sending ground forces into conflicts and we refuse to oblige our allies any air assets in air combat.

Now what if say President Obama picked up the phone and asked if Canada would send even a 10-12 ship detachment of CF-18's to provide CAP and CAS for not only our own ground troops but our allied ground forces in and around Southern Afghanistan? Not to replace completely any allies including US but to take on a bit of the load. We all know what PM Harper or if Ignatieff were PM would say. " Sorry Mr. President we just are not able to provide air combat assets nor the support of such in theatre." President Obama would then say "Thanks anyways." and call up the Dutch, Brits, French, Germans or other NATO allies to see if they could give added support to which some of them already do. So in essence we bought previously others and are buying $16B now in F-35 to likely never use in combat and yes maybe global peace will break out but I doub't it and I'm certain over the next 30 years Canada will commit ground troops to some conflict or greater war.

Why bother buying such front line aircraft if all they will ever do is fly in air shows and escort the occasional wayward airliner or other civil plane?

Again and please hear me out, I hope we never have to use these jets for combat but if/when we commit land and sea forces to a combat theatre why then do we not oblige with fighters? Why? Because we have too few to risk being shot down and do not want to invest in the effort or money to do so. It's traditionally more and more the Canadian way regardless of which major party holds the PM's office.

After all we are peace keepers not warriors our public say right?

Edited July 19, 2010 by Les / Creative Edge Photo

[11bee]

Interesting video on the BBC website, showing a reporter landing the B model on an aircraft carrier. I found the cockpit to be pretty interesting, especially the IR display that allows the pilot to see directly below (although I thought this was supposed to be displayed directly on the pilot's helmet).

Check it out...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10652019

One of the other videos on this site had a demo of the JSF's IR targeting system. It was showing close up video that allowed the targeting individual windows of a a hotel in Vegas. Pretty neat, especially since the aircraft was 49 miles away at the time.

Edited July 19, 2010 by 11bee

[GreyGhost]

>>> New Nozzle for F-35B Coming <<<

Interesting because it was denied beforehand that the F-35B would cause deck overheating ...

Gregg

[frankycee]

Edited July 19, 2010 by frankycee

[MarkW]

>>> New Nozzle for F-35B Coming <<<

Interesting because it was denied beforehand that the F-35B would cause deck overheating ...

Gregg

It never did and still doesn't damage decks. The nozzle in question is not the main engine nozzle, but the IPP, or Integrated Power Pack. The IPP serves a multitude of functions, including acting as an APU and integrated support equipment (power, hydro, cooling) for MX actions. The IPP itself is a fairly compact turbomachine, and exhausts jet exhaust. The concern was not really about carrier decks or deck edge equipment, but more about asphalt surfaces.

That particular article is absolutely terrible at communicating anything coherent on the subject. Bottom line, the much smaller, "hair blower" IPP exhaust is being adjusted a little further back to allow for more cooling to protect surfaces. Deck heating in itself was the least of the concerns.