18 replies to this topic

[Code Monkey]

I was watching the military channel the other day and saw this, not sure how many of you have heard of it or if it's even new.

Click here for photo of Aircraft

The F-35B Lightning II, or so it's called, schedueled for release in 2011 as the next JSF for the USAF. It has all the abilities of the former F-35, but this time around it has more stealth cabalilites and is even capable of VTOL flight. If you know all there is to know about the F-35, and have read what I just told you, then you'll know practically all the information you need to know about the F-35B, that's out atleast. Figured some members here would be interested in seeing this, so that's why I posted it (again sorry if this had already been posted). That is all, feel free to discuss it.

Edited by Evilgmk, 17 June 2008 - 16:51.

[Waris]

Heard of it.

Looks ugly. =(

[Whitey]

Who HASN'T heard of the F-35?

It is indeed ugly, especially compared with the F-22, and especially especially compared with the YF-23.

-Boidy

[CommanderJB]

Actually the USAF is buying F-35As to replace their F-16s for interceptor duty. The Marine Corps is the primary customer for the F-35B, because they obviously need the VTOL. Note that the F-35B loses the internal gun and a considerable fraction of it's payload capacity in return for the privilege however, though it remains the only VTOL aircraft ever to be capable of attaining supersonic speeds, it's inaccurate to state that it will have exactly the same performance of the F-35A; stick a giant fan and engine bearing on the thing at it's got to pay for it with something. The F-35C is the export version for carrier use, folding wings, a bit lighter, also no internal gun, slightly smaller payload, that sort of thing. The F-35s are very well known in Australian military circles because we're buying a large number of F-35As as well to replace our F/A-18As and F-111s, and the Navy want F-35Bs too, though they probably won't get them. It was something of a shock because the previous government immediately bought the F-35 without initiating any sort of tender process; they announced they were looking for a new plane, then the Defence Minister had a meeting with Boeing, then all of a sudden we were investing hundreds of millions into the program without even looking at any other options. The new government's doing an air defence review which will consider the purchase, but we'll probably still end up with the F-35s because we've already invested quite heavily in them.
Edit - fixed spelling.

Edited by CommanderJB, 18 June 2008 - 06:46.

[Cuppa]

Waris, on 17 Jun 2008, 13:25, said:

Heard of it.

Looks ugly. =(

Huh, I really like how it looks.

But yeah this thing is going to be great. Biggest and most important fighter project in history.

[CommanderJB]

Indeed, it's definitely one of the best-selling models in recent history - the U.K., Turkey, Australia, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Israel, Norway, Denmark and possibly India are all procuring F-35s of all versions. Not quite I think the biggest ever fighter project though; that honour belongs to the Messerchmitt BF109, with over 20,000 built. The most-produced jet aircraft is the MiG-15, with over 15,000 produced, which sort of puts the <3500 current orders for the F-35 (all versions, including prospective options in fighter competitions) in the shade somewhat. Still, it certainly gets the award for 'most international'.
Edit - grammar. Yes, I'm a perfectionist.

Edited by CommanderJB, 18 June 2008 - 06:47.

[Foxhound]

CommanderJB, on 17 Jun 2008, 20:54, said:

lots of words

I thought the C had an internal gun? In either case, it's an mountable option on the versions that don't have it.

I'm not surprised that Australia jumped on the F-35, though. It's really the only true F/A-18 replacement there is right now. You could make a case for the Rafale or Gripen, but those are more generation 4.5 fighters than generation 5 fighters. (Plus, the Gripen doesn't have carrier capability.)

Edited by Foxhound, 18 June 2008 - 06:27.

[CommanderJB]

No, no internal gun for the F-35C on the standard layout. As you say, the B and C versions can be fitted with a belly-mounted gun pod, though. I quote from GlobalSecurity's page on the F-35C:

Quote

The aircraft carries an internal laser designator and provisions for an internal gun. Weapon loads, cockpit layout, countermeasures, radar and other features are common with the other variants.

The F-35C will make up for capabilities lost when the A-6 Intruder retired from Navy service in February 1997. The wings (with folding tips) of the F-35C will span nine feet more than the wings of the F-35A and F-35B models. Like the F-35B, it also will have a stealthy, missionized 25 mm belly gun. The combat radius on internal fuel will be greater than 700 NM- again, more than twice the range of the aircraft it is designed to replace.

As it says, it can actually be fitted with one but typically isn't to save weight. The main difference is that it has larger control surfaces and a larger wing area for more lift so it can take off from carriers easily.
Edit - fixed link.

Edited by CommanderJB, 18 June 2008 - 06:47.

[Soul]

Canada is going to buy some to replace the CF-18's .

Edited by Soul, 19 June 2008 - 20:03.

[The Wandering Jew]

The F-35 was not new-for-2008. Development started a few years ago.

When I brought this up to my uncle (he was a retired reserve fighter pilot of PAF F-5's).

All he said was:

(In a true old-fashioned soldiery bravado and braggadocio) "Who will ride that thing? Engineers? That d*mned thing was created by engineers for themselves. Do you expect engineers to fight on the front line? They don't speak English for Christ's sakes! Gimme a manly plane! A MiG, Sukhoi, or an F-15 will do where pilots are pilots and not remote controllers!"

So...the F-35 may be an engineering marvel, but we have to have a real war (I'm speaking of a massive, all-out war) in order to prove the talk.

But, I guess I'm taking back my last statement. War is hell.

P.S. And I am an engineer. Ouch! :wahhhhhaa:

Edited by The Wandering Jew, 19 June 2008 - 03:46.

[CommanderJB]

It is supposed to be heavily automated, especially when compared to the F-35B's predecessor, the AV-8B, which was very definitely a 'pilot's aircraft' requiring constant attention. This has been acknowledged by F-35 test pilots - but then they obviously aren't 'true pilots' from your uncle's point of view because they rather liked it.
Basically, pilots are getting less to do now but becoming more effective because of it. Of course, it probably won't be too long until we see the first true remote fighter (obviously they've deployed the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper combat drones for some time now, but they're not true fighters in any sense really) - I believe that Northrop Grumman and Boeing both stated that the F-22 (or was it the F-35? I'm not sure) may be the last new fighter with a pilot's seat that they'd be designing. I think it's a bit further off than that, but really, taking people out of harm's way can only be a good thing. If war ends up being fought with robots, then it'll still be bad, but at least we won't have to kill people to find out hw good tech actually is to discuss it on this forum...

[Code Monkey]

So people have heard of it, good. Also, why does everyone have to judge an aircraft by how it looks? It's meant to kill not win a fashion competition.

[Waris]

Because I can has something that kills AND looks good?

[CommanderJB]

Say the Su-35BM for example...

Edit, whoops, I don't think they're up to the Su-356 yet...

Edited by CommanderJB, 19 June 2008 - 04:08.

[Code Monkey]

While I too would approve of such, it's not essential to it's success. Though in all honesty I like the overall look.

[The Wandering Jew]

Evilgmk, on 19 Jun 2008, 12:00, said:

So people have heard of it, good. Also, why does everyone have to judge an aircraft by how it looks? It's meant to kill not win a fashion competition.

Perhaps the Guys at Boeing might not agree with you.

Remember this? :stickattack2:

Click here for Boeing's version of F-22..lol

[CommanderJB]

It basically looks like an F-35 with terrible glandular fever...
It's important to realise, though, that both the X-32 and X-35 met or exceeded specifications. They're both perfectly good fighters, the X-32 is just slightly worse. But yeah, on aesthetics alone, I'm really glad they chose the X-35 instead.

[Code Monkey]

I've never seen a more ugly aircraft in all my days. O_o

[Eddy01741]

As some other people have said, the F-35B isn't anything new, I believe that IIRC, the F-35B is the marine corps varient, as it has VTOL and the A and C varients do not. Each of the different varients will go to different branches IIRC.

This is basically the new-age F-16, a fighter that fills all the roles needed (interceptor, fighter-bomber, etc.), a cheaper alternative to the F-22 (F-35 is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15). However, the F-35 should still be better than most of the current fighters out there (well, if the F-16 is considered "average" and the F-35 tops the F-16 in almost every way, then it has to be pretty good). Better money spent by our taxes than the F-22 in my opinion.