Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

and a question on the F-35 in response to steve of a physical feature got deleted but its ok to talk about something similiar to the su-57 thread, why?
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
TomcatViP said:
I think you are confusing the fact that the bay are kept open after landing or lengthy ground roll prior to takeoff for that purpose. Heat management can require secondary systems to be shut off when fuel quantity is low (heat sink). But then, what you are suggesting is unheard.
Click to expand...
That may be it. I remember that there are certain conditions where the weapon bay doors are open to facilitate avionics cooling.
Click to expand...
I'm going off memory here and a post I made in 2016, but I believe the problem was some avionics system (implied to be a vehicle system, not a mission system) was moved into the weapon bays for greater ease of access for maintenance, etc. The problem however was that the weapon bays are a hot environment due to their proximity to the engine, and temperatures in the bay (when flying fast and low with a warm ambient air temp) were hotter than what at least one component within that avionics system was certified for.

The bay temps have been said to exceed 80C, so if the component was only certified to a standard testing temperature of like 85C it may have been getting exposed to conditions where it's lifespan is unknown. If my memory serves, there was talk about the program office having that component undergo further testing to see whether the certification could be extended (nullifying the risk), or whether it'd have to be replaced or have the restriction permanently imposed.

I don't think it was ever reported what finally happened, but I know DOT&E reports after 2015 never talked about the restriction again, so it might have turned out to be a non-issue, or perhaps they're still flying with the restriction today; I haven't heard any pilots or program officials mention the restriction since then either, but I also haven't seen any directly asked about it.
 
Dragon029 said:
I'm going off memory here and a post I made in 2016, but I believe the problem was some avionics system (implied to be a vehicle system, not a mission system) was moved into the weapon bays for greater ease of access for maintenance, etc. The problem however was that the weapon bays are a hot environment due to their proximity to the engine, and temperatures in the bay (when flying fast and low with a warm ambient air temp) were hotter than what at least one component within that avionics system was certified for.
Click to expand...

There are some similarities with early flight testing of the F-22 where they were paying close attention potential overheating of the avionics and thus had envelope restrictions. That’s understandable, given that the VMS is required for the aircraft to fly, and those restrictions were gradually lifted as temperature issues were resolved or were deemed safe.

tequilashooter said:
and a question on the F-35 in response to steve of a physical feature got deleted but its ok to talk about something similiar to the su-57 thread, why?
Click to expand...

Consider that it was laced with the absurd notion that the Slavic surnames of some high level individuals in the F-35 program indicate that the aircraft should somehow be owed to Russia’s genius. Wonder why it wasn’t taken seriously then. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
Consider that it was laced with the absurd notion that the Slavic surnames of some high level individuals in the F-35 program indicate that the aircraft should somehow be owed to Russia’s genius. Wonder why it wasn’t taken seriously then.
Click to expand...
pretty much an inside joke of users hating anything crediting Russia, I was also talking about the high RCS cylindrical shape on the right side of the F-35 they could have edited the answer instead of fully deleting it. Whats the service life of the F-35 anyways, just trying to understand its purpose a little more.
 
tequilashooter said:
Whats the service life of the F-35 anyways, just trying to understand its purpose a little more.
Click to expand...
It's current service life is 8000 flight hours, which under the USAF's estimated usage of 250 hours per year would give each jet a service life of 32 years. The last USAF F-35A is scheduled to be delivered in 2044 though that's always subject to change, which theoretically means (and this is what the services have programmed) that the jet would serve with the USAF until 2077 (33 years later because the last jet to roll out likely wouldn't fly 250 hours in its first year).

The F-35A durability test article survived 3 lifetimes of testing however so there was talk of possibly having the F-35A's rated service life increased by some amount (eg: maybe to 10,000FH or whatever). F-35s could also possibly get service life extensions in the future if deemed necessary, but only the future knows if that'll happen.
 
Grey Havoc said:
www.defensenews.com

The Pentagon is exploring its options for a more efficient and powerful F-35 engine

Upgrades and new engine tech are under development, but will the military have the money?
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...

Reading through this again, this statement shows the challenges that the current F135 has in meeting the thermal requirements.

The F135 is already being operated in excess of its specifications as new capabilities have been added to the F-35, Latka said.

That is only going to become more of a problem as the Pentagon upgrades the F-35 with Technology Refresh 3 — a new core processor, memory unit and panoramic cockpit display — and adds the Block 4 hardware and software capabilities, which will further tax the jet’s existing weight and cooling thresholds.
Click to expand...
 

F-35 War-Gaming – Fear Mongering? | Billie Flynn - My Blog

billieflynn.com billieflynn.com

Hawn-Briefing-Slide-jpeg.jpg
 
The F135 had huge amount of thrust and power... and yet they have managed to bust its limits.
It says something about the F-35 avionics and missions and capabilities...
 
tequilashooter said:
Forest Green said:
URL unfurl="true"]https://billieflynn.com/f-35-war-gaming-fear-mongering/[/URL]

Hawn-Briefing-Slide-jpeg.jpg
Click to expand...
I swear this is not a troll bait response. But isn't the f-16 like 1m2 and the f-35 lower than .0001m2? That entire graph should be blue, I guess the aircrafts I have in mind do have a chance after all since those are f-16A/C variant aircrafts. I am going to have a field day with this graph.
Click to expand...
Aggressor F-16 has IRST
01450AA7-798E-45FD-A85C-6C6674479C55.jpeg
B6544E98-AF99-4287-91B0-9EDAC706EBA8.jpeg
 
tequilashooter said:
I swear this is not a troll bait response. But isn't the f-16 like 1m2 and the f-35 lower than .0001m2? That entire graph should be blue, I guess the aircrafts I have in mind do have a chance after all since those are f-16A/C variant aircrafts. I am going to have a field day with this graph.
Click to expand...
Advance 4 generation fighters can also be F-15E and F-18E/F working together or F-15E and F-16C.
 
tequilashooter said:
I swear this is not a troll bait response. But isn't the f-16 like 1m2 and the f-35 lower than .0001m2? That entire graph should be blue, I guess the aircrafts I have in mind do have a chance after all since those are f-16A/C variant aircrafts. I am going to have a field day with this graph.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by entirely blue? 20:1 kill-loss ratio that F-35As running Block 3i software (2x AMRAAM only, no gun, 7G max loading, reduced mission systems functionality) got going up against F-16A/Cs, Draken International aircraft, and F-15Cs (the 125th FW had their jets augment Red Air at times) - remember too that the dedicated aggressors are designed to use range instrumentation systems to emulate the capabilities of MiG-29s, Flankers, etc (even using virtual radars, etc to emulate the mission systems of other jets).

That chart on the right is then running through 5 scenarios where a Blue Air comprising of 40 jets (100% 4.5th gen on the left, then 75%, 50%, 25% and then finally 100% F-35s on the right) goes up against 120 Red Air jets of equivalent 4.5th gen capability. Red losses are shown above the horizontal axis, Blue losses underneath. Colours designate what Blue Air jet made the kill or was killed.

So initially on the left 6x 4.5th gen Red Air fighters are killed and 20x Blue Air 4.5th gen fighters are killed. On the second-last from the right all 120 Red Air are killed, with something like 95-99% of kills made by F-35s and the remainder made by the Blue Air 4.5th gens. Meanwhile 19 Blue Air jets are killed, with about half being 4.5th gen and half being F-35s.

It's a very simplistic / simplified analysis that's just running those 2 kill ratios, the availability rate and force sizes (40 vs 120) through the Lanchester laws, but it delivers the intended message.
 
Ronny said:
Aggressor F-16 has IRST
Click to expand...
I mean I guess infrared is better than radars, i have no idea.

Dragon029 said:
What do you mean by entirely blue? 20:1 kill-loss ratio that F-35As running Block 3i software (2x AMRAAM only, no gun, 7G max loading, reduced mission systems functionality) got going up against F-16A/Cs, Draken International aircraft, and F-15Cs (the 125th FW had their jets augment Red Air at times) - remember too that the dedicated aggressors are designed to use range instrumentation systems to emulate the capabilities of MiG-29s, Flankers, etc (even using virtual radars, etc to emulate the mission systems of other jets).

That chart on the right is then running through 5 scenarios where a Blue Air comprising of 40 jets (100% 4.5th gen on the left, then 75%, 50%, 25% and then finally 100% F-35s on the right) goes up against 120 Red Air jets of equivalent 4.5th gen capability. Red losses are shown above the horizontal axis, Blue losses underneath. Colours designate what Blue Air jet made the kill or was killed.

So initially on the left 6x 4.5th gen Red Air fighters are killed and 20x Blue Air 4.5th gen fighters are killed. On the second-last from the right all 120 Red Air are killed, with something like 95-99% of kills made by F-35s and the remainder made by the Blue Air 4.5th gens. Meanwhile 19 Blue Air jets are killed, with about half being 4.5th gen and half being F-35s.

It's a very simplistic / simplified analysis that's just running those 2 kill ratios, the availability rate and force sizes (40 vs 120) through the Lanchester laws, but it delivers the intended message.
Click to expand...
Read his source, read the graph, may I kindly ask where you are getting that only 2 amraams were used? Since I am assuming that your looking at a different source than the one I am looking at from Forest Green unless my vision is that bad that I have to see an eye doctor or ask lasik for a refund? This article was published in October 2021, graph is showing January, February 2017 red flag exercies and I am assuming that block 3I isnt used by that date correct but full weapons? I just want to be sure were both on the same page here before I decide to pass judgement.
 
tequilashooter said:
This article was published in October 2021, graph is showing January, February 2017 red flag exercies and I am assuming that block 3I isnt used by that date correct but full weapons?
Click to expand...
It's indeed referencing the results of Red Flag 17-1 (which happened Jan / Feb 2017). Block 3F however wasn't delivered to the fleet until 12 months later in Feb 2018 (news outlets like Aviation Week reported on it in early March, but some like this story mention jets getting it in February).

As per the chart below the F-35As flying with Block 3i were only capable of 50 deg AOA, 7Gs and could only carry 2x AMRAAMs (vs 4x today and 6x in the near future with the Sidekick bay adapter), and 2x GBU-12/31/32s. The internal cannon on the A variant (and gun pod on the other variants) was also only cleared for use in Block 3F.

a5QL39F.jpg

Here's another chart which is a bit more convoluted but you can see the gun being mentioned as a Block 3F addition where there's there's a semi-circle with "INT" written under it (and on the left it says how that Block 3F loadout is just Block 2B/3F CTOL [F-35A] loadouts + Internal Gun - on the right it also has the tick indicating that that specific payload configuration applies to the F-35A variant only [because of the internal gun]):

cSUpjAS.png
 
Well seems they will camouflage even F-35s. A merciful change from the usual boring stealth "colors": grey and grey, with more grey, and some light grey on top of more grey.
theaviationist.com

These Are Some Of The Designs Submitted For The New Aggressors F-35 Color Scheme

Seven designs for Lightning stealth jets in Aggressor camouflage were submitted by artist Sean Hampton. As some of our readers will probably remember,
theaviationist.com theaviationist.com
 
GTX said:

Lockheed Re-Affirms Spanish F-35 Talks Despite Madrid Denial | Aviation Week Network

At the Dubai Airshow a Lockheed Martin executive says discussions continue with the Spanish government on orders.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Click to expand...

If Spain buys a handful of F-35B for their Juan Carlos big amphib' to me it is not a real threat to the future european combat aircraft.

Now if the Spanish Air Force buys F-35A in large numbers, there would be reason to be worried indeed... although the two aircraft may be complementary (stealth strike and air defence).
 
helmutkohl said:
www.thelocal.ch

Swiss parliament to probe decision to buy US fighter jets

Swiss MPs are set to look into the government's decision to buy US F-35 fighter jets on the back of
www.thelocal.ch www.thelocal.ch
Click to expand...
A little scrutiny and double-checking is no bad thing. They could just as easily arrive at the same decision as overturn it.

I've always found the idea of using F-35s for an air-policing role a little amusing.

Lufthansa 435 Heavy, Interceptor 1, I am on your left wing.
Interceptor 1, 435, really? I can't see you.....
 
kitnut617 said:
Why do the reporters keep saying it's a £100 million aircraft when it's around US$80 million
Click to expand...
To remind their readers that the loony politicians wasted all their money on one plane, and now its crashed, therefore it was rubbish, therefore politicians are rubbish, therefore the newspaper is very clever.
 
kitnut617 said:
Why do the reporters keep saying it's a £100 million aircraft when it's around US$80 million
Click to expand...
The F-35's price per aircraft depends on what one considers to be part of the JSF project. In my opinion, the US DoD has been extremely creative in the project's accounting.
 
I think I will be dead and gone before the final bill for the F-35 is made up. In the meantime, I fear the $Trillion number will have the order of magnitude right.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom