Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
Sign in to follow this  
Dan 88

F-35C first flight

Recommended Posts

Can't wait to see these with VFA-101 markings!

LINK

4678788768_9903d92d42_b.jpg

Edited by Super Hornet 88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone make paint of that particular shade of green?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, watching it in flight reminds me of a bumble bee, not exactly the most elegant flyer out there :stupid:

Well, compared to a Raptor anyway :deadhorse1:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to say, watching it in flight reminds me of a bumble bee, not exactly the most elegant flyer out there :whistle:

Well, compared to a Raptor anyway :thumbsup:

Neither was the F-4 (especially the short-nosed naval variants) but they did quite well for themselves. I really hope that this program succeeds, I feel that this plane (and the F-22) are going to be in a class by themselves.

Regards,

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do like the look of the larger wing on it. That makes it look closer to a single engine Raptor.

If the Raptor carried a couple thousand more lbs of fuel...ka-chow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The F-35C, yes. The F-35A only carries a few lbs more, the F-35B carries less.

Do you think they made it fat because the designers like Rubenesque aircraft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The F-35C, yes. The F-35A only carries a few lbs more, the F-35B carries less.

Do you think they made it fat because the designers like Rubenesque aircraft?

Interesting. I have seen several numbers for the Raptor's internal fuel capacity ranging from 18,000 to 20,500 pounds. The number for the Navy's F-35C is 19,000 pounds of internal fuel. I think the number for the Lightning is correct since it is coming directly from Lockheed Martin, but the Raptor numbers are puzzling because those numbers comes from the US Air Force. For the Raptor , which one to believe? I do think that if it cannot carry more internal fuel than the smaller JSF, then that is pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't wait to see these with VFA-101 markings!

You know what would be neat? If LockMart were to paint each of the F-35C development aircraft in the markings of a different disestablished USN fighter squadron. VF-1, VF-74, VF-33, etc. Like how that last VS/Viking squadron did with its S-3s.

Could do the same thing with the F-35B and disestablished Marine squadrons. Would be neat to see a Lightning II with the VMFA-333 shamrocks on its tail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know what would be neat? If LockMart were to paint each of the F-35C development aircraft in the markings of a different disestablished USN fighter squadron. VF-1, VF-74, VF-33, etc. Like how that last VS/Viking squadron did with its S-3s.

Could do the same thing with the F-35B and disestablished Marine squadrons. Would be neat to see a Lightning II with the VMFA-333 shamrocks on its tail.

The Grim Reapers did that also back in the 90s during the Great VF Purge ...

>>> Clicky <<<

I believe that's also how VF-101 started using the Sundowners' sharkmouth ...

Gregg

Edited by GreyGhost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that'd be killer to see it with the Shamrocks on the tail! I like the idea garthk! I always loved the "Shamrocks" and especially the "Screwbirds"

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Dear Royal Navy, get theee some catapults on the new carriers, and procure this variant, you know it's the only real answer"

The C is the one that looks least gawky and awkward to my eyes . . . although why they aren't incorporating the A's internal gun is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beautiful picture!

although why they aren't incorporating the A's internal gun is beyond me.

No kidding. I thought we already learned this lesson once.

SLICK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...because it will carry a stealthy gun pod when needed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...because it will carry a stealthy gun pod when needed?

Gun pods are great when you want to hose down a jungle because you can't see what you are shooting at anyway and spraying lots of bullets wildly is the best way to hit someone or at least make them duck for a while. In the Gulf War, gun pods attached to F-16's proved to be very inaccurate, which is why A-10s are still flying now. Strafing runs are still used now, but, given the rules of engagement and the closeness of the enemy to friendly troops, if the fire is not accurate it isn't useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what your point is. Are you assuming the current F-35B/C gun pod, which is being integrally designed into weapon system is any less accurate than an internal gun? Based on your in depth knowledge of the system design? If you are simply assuming the F-35 gunpod can't possibly be better than legacy, then that is an interesting point of view.

Is it possible to enjoy the pretty pictures without turning every thread into an attack thread?

My goodness, you'd think the F-35 was being built by Kinetic the way every thread turns ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure what your point is. Are you assuming the current F-35B/C gun pod, which is being integrally designed into weapon system is any less accurate than an internal gun? Based on your in depth knowledge of the system design? If you are simply assuming the F-35 gunpod can't possibly be better than legacy, then that is an interesting point of view.

Is it possible to enjoy the pretty pictures without turning every thread into an attack thread?

My goodness, you'd think the F-35 was being built by Kinetic the way every thread turns ugly.

Don't you find it ironic that the F-35 will carry all sorts of weapons internally but the B/C models don't have an internal gun ? B) I'm just asking from an amusing point of view ...

Gregg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure what your point is. Are you assuming the current F-35B/C gun pod, which is being integrally designed into weapon system is any less accurate than an internal gun? Based on your in depth knowledge of the system design? If you are simply assuming the F-35 gunpod can't possibly be better than legacy, then that is an interesting point of view.

Yes I'm assuming, but there is a track record to look back on. The gun will have to prove itself in actual use before these doubts, which aren't just mine, can be lifted.

And I'm not a F-35 basher. I like it a lot. I believe it will eventually be successful. I've defended it in other threads. But that doesn't mean I won't question certain aspects about it. It just seems that this feature was an attempt to have the cake (aircraft weight requirements) and eat it too (have a gun).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^ Well Said, spejic ... <_<

Gregg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beautiful picture!

No kidding. I thought we already learned this lesson once.

SLICK

Apparently not! Unbelievable that it won't carry an internal gun!!! The stories of F-4 drivers missing many opportunities to gun down Migs in Vietnam come to mind...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...