Author Topic: F-35  (Read 16956 times)

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9398
Re: F-35
« Reply #75 on: May 09, 2014, 10:52:32 PM »
Actually, I am a pilot and have been for nearly 30 years.   I am an ATP/MEII with seven type ratings and almost 10,000 hours--about 7,500 in jets--including piston and jet fighters/attack/trainers, airliners, and intercontinental business jets.


If so, your words are not living up to your accomplishments.

And now that I think about it...you and your father never owned a B-17, did you...?

- oldman
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 10:54:10 PM by Oldman731 »

Offline Changeup

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5688
      • Das Muppets
Re: F-35
« Reply #76 on: May 09, 2014, 11:23:09 PM »
I do not get that personal.  Sorry.   :salute

Lol.  Understood.
"Such is the nature of war.  By protecting others, you save yourself."

"Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered.  Those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid.  Thus, the wise win before the fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Morihei Ueshiba

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: F-35
« Reply #77 on: May 09, 2014, 11:27:53 PM »

If so, your words are not living up to your accomplishments.

And now that I think about it...you and your father never owned a B-17, did you...?

- oldman

LOL!


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline artik

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1907
      • Blog
Re: F-35
« Reply #78 on: May 10, 2014, 06:42:03 AM »
It has more internal fuel than an F-15C. More internal fuel than an F-16 can carry total with drop tanks. With external drop tanks the F-35's range will only be rivaled by the F-22 and Su-27 family.

Ok... now that is facts manipulation... Like the total amount of internal fuel matters... What is important isn't the fuel amount but rather amount of internal fuel relatively to the fuel consumption. Basically given that for latest engines thrust specific fuel consumption is close lets see:


F-16:

Dry Thrust   17,155 lbf
Wet Thrust   28,600 lbf
Internal (D model)5,700 lb
CFT6,000 lb
drop-tanks 2x600,1x300 gal10,000 lb
Fuel internal+CFT11,700 lb
Fuel internal+CFT/Dry Thrust CFT0.68 (lb/lbf)
Fuel internal+CFT+DT22,700 lb
Fuel internal+CFT+DT/Dry Thrust CFT/DT1.32

F-35

Dry Thrust28,000 lbf
Wet Thrust43,000 lbf
Internal (A)18,250 lb
Internal Fuel/Dry Thrust0.65 (lb/lbf)


So in clean configuration  with CFT F-16D Block 52 takes relatively more fuel than F-35! With DT even more... and this is two seat version - single seat F-16 takes even more fuel.

If you tall something at least don't manipulate the facts.

Quote
Internally it can carry only four missiles true, but that is in a stealth role.

Not only that... it carries 4 BVR missiles only - F-35's weapons bay does not built to carry IR missiles that are launched from rails...

Artik, 101 "Red" Squadron, Israel

Offline artik

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1907
      • Blog
Re: F-35
« Reply #79 on: May 10, 2014, 06:52:15 AM »
Take a look on this one



And you compare this beast range with F-35  :rofl
Artik, 101 "Red" Squadron, Israel

Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: F-35
« Reply #80 on: May 10, 2014, 07:01:00 AM »
I do not get that personal.  Sorry.   :salute

I think your full of BS.
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: F-35
« Reply #81 on: May 10, 2014, 07:35:24 AM »
So in clean configuration  with CFT F-16D Block 52 takes relatively more fuel than F-35! With DT even more... and this is two seat version - single seat F-16 takes even more fuel.

I did not mention conformal fuel tanks! Very few F-16 operators have them!


Not only that... it carries 4 BVR missiles only - F-35's weapons bay does not built to carry IR missiles that are launched from rails...

I already posted two IR dogfight missiles that the F-35 can carry internally! The British ASRAAM and the European IRIS-T. Pay attention!


If you tall something at least don't manipulate the facts.

Take your own advice!
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: F-35
« Reply #82 on: May 10, 2014, 08:08:06 AM »
We live in a corporate world where corporations have learned the value of "pawning" public opinion. Thus corporations have entire subdivisions committed to doing so as well as owning many news outlets they lean on to alter and control the public mind set. We arent as "free" as we think we are and its far easier to do then you can imagine.

I mean look at Boeing now and there campaign to keep the F-18 Growler line up and running. Imagine the $$$ they are spending to demonize and belittle the F35 in order to win over the voters, and those we vote for, to buy more Growlers. To do so they are trying to convince us in future wars "stealth" will become irrelevant and successful attack profiles will return to standard "pre-stealth" configurations which needed a heavy EW component to achieve its objectives. Even tho there is no real data to support this it has many people listening. Maybe even some of the policy makers Boeing already doesnt "own" in some way. Again? Where is the data?

Quote
Fighting the Iraqis or North Koreans is a far cry from the Soviets or the Chinese.

They'll do to us what they did to the Germans.  Keep all the important stuff so deep within their territory you'll never get there.    And since JSF can't even do standoff munitions it will be worth even less.

Silly comments like this is why I believe your full of horse feathers and have never worn a uniform and have probably never even flown, except a window seat to Cancun Mexico. What kind of "stuff" would they hide deep in their territory that would have some kind of impact on a conflict? This isnt 1943 and we arent interested in area bombing their industrial areas. They will be hit with thousands of precision munitions on the opening days and if they have it they had better use it and use it quickly. Other-wise their Navy's will be in shambles, sea lanes in our control, air space dominated by our air forces, air defenses severely reduced, and their ability to maneuver troops and armor significantly impacted. Game over, we arent just going to war with F35's. So much for your "stuff in the rear" theory.

Also fighting the Russians and Chinese will not be all that much different from the Iraqi's. Some but not much. China has no experience with modern war, as in "None". The Russians have some good units but are over all second rate. Both vastly over rate their capabilities.
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline Changeup

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5688
      • Das Muppets
Re: F-35
« Reply #83 on: May 10, 2014, 08:33:43 AM »
We live in a corporate world where corporations have learned the value of "pawning" public opinion. Thus corporations have entire subdivisions committed to doing so as well as owning many news outlets they lean on to alter and control the public mind set. We arent as "free" as we think we are and its far easier to do then you can imagine.

I mean look at Boeing now and there campaign to keep the F-18 Growler line up and running. Imagine the $$$ they are spending to demonize and belittle the F35 in order to win over the voters, and those we vote for, to buy more Growlers. To do so they are trying to convince us in future wars "stealth" will become irrelevant and successful attack profiles will return to standard "pre-stealth" configurations which needed a heavy EW component to achieve its objectives. Even tho there is no real data to support this it has many people listening. Maybe even some of the policy makers Boeing already doesnt "own" in some way. Again? Where is the data?

Silly comments like this is why I believe your full of horse feathers and have never worn a uniform and have probably never even flown, except a window seat to Cancun Mexico. What kind of "stuff" would they hide deep in their territory that would have some kind of impact on a conflict? This isnt 1943 and we arent interested in area bombing their industrial areas. They will be hit with thousands of precision munitions on the opening days and if they have it they had better use it and use it quickly. Other-wise their Navy's will be in shambles, sea lanes in our control, air space dominated by our air forces, air defenses severely reduced, and their ability to maneuver troops and armor significantly impacted. Game over, we arent just going to war with F35's. So much for your "stuff in the rear" theory.

Also fighting the Russians and Chinese will not be all that much different from the Iraqi's. Some but not much. China has no experience with modern war, as in "None". The Russians have some good units but are over all second rate. Both vastly over rate their capabilities.

I believe he is referencing the different bureau development areas the chicomm and Russians have working much like the Skunkworks etc.  he's correct simply by playing the odds...we have developmental projects just like they do.  Next gen is gone.  People are working "future" gen now.
"Such is the nature of war.  By protecting others, you save yourself."

"Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered.  Those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid.  Thus, the wise win before the fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Morihei Ueshiba

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: F-35
« Reply #84 on: May 10, 2014, 08:36:38 AM »
I always thought "Growler" was a particularly poor choice as a name for a fighter jet, given what it means in English slang...
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: F-35
« Reply #85 on: May 10, 2014, 08:47:54 AM »
Yup, Rich, we live in a corporate world (not that that is necessarily a bad thing). What aircraft does Boeing make and support with spares and upgrades? F-15, F-18, AV-8, A-10. All these aircraft are being replaced by Lockheed Martin's F-22 and F-35. Boeing is watching its military aviation empire come to an end at the hands of the upstart Lockheed Martin, and is fighting with whatever means available to them to prevent it. Or at least delay it. If anyone want a good F-35 conspiracy theory that's the best one yet.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2014, 09:07:02 AM by GScholz »
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: F-35
« Reply #86 on: May 10, 2014, 08:50:13 AM »
F-35 has 4 pylons internally and 6 pylons externally if needed.  In a clean configuration its 4 hardpoints internally can hold 18,000lbs of ords, including any missiles Britain and Germany have as well as Israel.

While the F-22 is a little bigger, the F-35 is far cheaper to build given its loadout configuration. Also for Ferry purposes the F-22 and F-35 both can carry 600 gallon drop tanks if needed.
JG 52

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: F-35
« Reply #87 on: May 10, 2014, 08:53:02 AM »
Yup, Rich, we live in a corporate world (not that that is necessarily a bad thing). What aircraft does Boeing make and support with spares and upgrades? F-15, F-16, F-18, AV-8, A-10. All these aircraft are being replaced by Lockheed Martin's F-22 and F-35.

Problem, the F-22 is out of production. I think the Air force stopped building after the first 8 prototypes and 200 models were built, plus spare parts. Not saying they can't restart production, but it ended a few years ago I thought?

JG 52

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: F-35
« Reply #88 on: May 10, 2014, 08:56:34 AM »
It would need its external pylons to carry 18k ord. Internally it can carry 4,000 lbs of bombs + two A2A missiles. Still, that's not bad for a stealth configuration; it's the same as the F-117 + two missiles. The drop tanks is not just for ferry purposes, but can extend the F-35's range in situations where it needs to fly a while to reach the enemy, or loiter for extended periods of time. Once the enemy is located it's a matter of pushing a button and instant stealth with full internal fuel.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: F-35
« Reply #89 on: May 10, 2014, 08:59:16 AM »
Problem, the F-22 is out of production. I think the Air force stopped building after the first 8 prototypes and 200 models were built, plus spare parts. Not saying they can't restart production, but it ended a few years ago I thought?

I'm unsure of the status of the F-15 now that the F-22 is in service. Will the remaining F-15 units convert to F-35s at some point?
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."