F-35??

[jmcquate]

Just hoping for 191, "Satan's Kittens". Best FITRON name ever.

 

[wink]

Just hoping for 191, "Satan's Kittens". Best FITRON name ever.

Really? Puk'in Dogs, VF 143 gets my vote.

 

[jmcquate]

Really? Puk'in Dogs, VF 143 gets my vote.

Valid, but they never went away. They just added an "A".

 

[Flash]

There will most certainly not be a complete lift of the TFRs prior to December. Maybe some of the field length restrictions, or AOB limits for bouys, etc. OBIGGS? The auto pilot is already being pushed until late 2014 at the earliest.

Of course, becasue we can't have weak 3Ps using it as a crutch....... .......but seriously, is it any different than the 'standard' 737 autopilot? Why so long to get it done?

 

[Renegade One]

Why so long to get it done?

Because "it's all ball bearings nowdays…"

 

[statesman]

Of course, becasue we can't have weak 3Ps using it as a crutch....... .......but seriously, is it any different than the 'standard' 737 autopilot? Why so long to get it done?

Short story is that an unanticipated oscillation has been observed that may be linked to the modifications done to the airframe (we have an 800 body with 900 wings and a weapons bay)...
The concern is that if the oscillation turns out to be divergent it could cause big problems.

Test data won't be available for some time, because the test platform is scheduled for testing through 2014 so the easy way is to slap a TFR and say you can't use autopilot past flaps 15 or above 15000' and below 250kts

 

[Echo24]

Anyone else a little uneasy about all of the negative reports regarding the JSF? Sounds very risky in anything other than BVR engagements. Inferior performance in turning, acceleration, power. Sounds like beefed up 117 if you get into a merge. Also little loitering capability, low payload, and a one engine aircraft headed for the boat always gets the goosebumps going. I'm pretty sure the majority of aviators would rather drive a Ferrari than a stealth Prius, just saying .

 

[wink]

Valid, but they never went away. They just added an "A".

... Best FITRON name ever.

You never qualified your assertion with having to be decommed. Pukin Dogs! Do I get an AMEN!!?

 

[wink]

... and a one engine aircraft headed for the boat always gets the goosebumps going. I'm pretty sure the majority of aviators would rather drive a Ferrari than a stealth Prius, just saying .

These days engine technology yields time between failure better then back in the day when two engines MIGHT have been your preference. Awful lot of satisfied single engine drivers out there. You can't bitch about range and endurance and want another engine in the same breath. As to the Ferrari vs stealth Prius, guys more familiar than me can comment in detail. But it is safe to say that if the stealth Prius ensures you can slip passed the cops in excess of the posted speed limit while fleeing a bank robbery, then it would be preferred over the Ferrari as a get away car. To answer your question, the majority of aviators want an aircraft that will get the job done and return them safely.

 

[Echo24]

These days engine technology yields time between failure better then back in the day when two engines MIGHT have been your preference. Awful lot of satisfied single engine drivers out there. You can't bitch about range and endurance and want another engine in the same breath. As to the Ferrari vs stealth Prius, guys more failure than me can comment in detail. But it is safe to say that if the stealth Prius ensures you can slip passed the cops in excess of the posted speed limit while fleeing a bank robbery, then it would be preferred over the Ferrari as a get away car. To answer your question, the majority of aviators want an aircraft that will get the job done and return them safely.

Agree with the engine failure rates being much improved from the past. On the stealth side its been recorded that after a 15 degree offset from the nose, the stealth starts to decline in an exponential manner, as well as once in the merge or tail toward the enemy, that big booty single engine puts out a lot of heat for those IR guided Med rangers that the flankers carry to catch on too. Every plane is going to have its pluses and minuses, well just have to wait to see how the JSF does in advanced testing and eventually the real world. Could be a great bird. Only time will tell.

 

[busdriver]

I'm not a fighter guy, and I'm not going to delve into EM charts of current airframes for obvious reasons, but much ado has been made about the "reduced" sustained G of the F-35 but nothing has been said about the instantaneous capability which is far more important. Well, unless you plan on getting into a level two circle fight without all aspect HOBs IR missiles.

In short: it may be a giant piece of dung, but I don't think a reduction in .3 sustained G at some unspecified weight and altitude is the reason.

 

[MIDNJAC]

Anyone else a little uneasy about all of the negative reports regarding the JSF? Sounds very risky in anything other than BVR engagements. Inferior performance in turning, acceleration, power. Sounds like beefed up 117 if you get into a merge. Also little loitering capability, low payload, and a one engine aircraft headed for the boat always gets the goosebumps going. I'm pretty sure the majority of aviators would rather drive a Ferrari than a stealth Prius, just saying .

No I'm not because I haven't flown the thing and I don't believe the press or manufacturers. It looks like a lot more of a fighter than an F-117, and maybe just about as much of one as a hornet. There sure are a lot of people who are worried about the F-35 at the merge, who have never been to a merge themselves.....that's all I will say

 

[Flash]

Anyone else a little uneasy about all of the negative reports regarding the JSF? Sounds very risky in anything other than BVR engagements. Inferior performance in turning, acceleration, power. Sounds like beefed up 117 if you get into a merge. Also little loitering capability, low payload, and a one engine aircraft headed for the boat always gets the goosebumps going. I'm pretty sure the majority of aviators would rather drive a Ferrari than a stealth Prius, just saying .

There is a subset of aviation reporters/commenters/know-it-alls that have been very critical of F-35 for many years, while a lot of their criticism is valid there are some that have an axe to grind and if it ain't an F-22 it is shit in their minds. Current fighters to include the F-16 already push the limit of what a manned fighter can do in terms of pulling G's, much more and it won't couldn't be manned anymore. While the F-35 doesn't have thrust-vectoring engines or a few other things that make some of today's fighters 'super-manueverable' there is often a trade-off for that capability and F-35 designers chose not to make that trade-off.

As for 'little loitering capability' or 'low payload', not so much. The F-35A/C have greater range than most of the current fighters we have when comparing internal fuel only while the payload is almost equivalent when you include external stores. While critics rightfully point out that putting external stores on the F-35 greatly diminishes the low observability of the plane at least it has the option of carrying weapons internally while our current aircraft don't.

Agree with the engine failure rates being much improved from the past. On the stealth side its been recorded that after a 15 degree offset from the nose, the stealth starts to decline in an exponential manner, as well as once in the merge or tail toward the enemy, that big booty single engine puts out a lot of heat for those IR guided Med rangers that the flankers carry to catch on too. Every plane is going to have its pluses and minuses, well just have to wait to see how the JSF does in advanced testing and eventually the real world. Could be a great bird. Only time will tell.

Where do you get the assertion that there is an exponential drop-off in 'stealth' capability? Against what types of radars? What frequencies? And you would need to know what direction to fire those vaunted medium-range IR missiles in order to have them hit something.

 

[Beans]

Agree with the engine failure rates being much improved from the past. On the stealth side its been recorded that after a 15 degree offset from the nose, the stealth starts to decline in an exponential manner, as well as once in the merge or tail toward the enemy, that big booty single engine puts out a lot of heat for those IR guided Med rangers that the flankers carry to catch on too. Every plane is going to have its pluses and minuses, well just have to wait to see how the JSF does in advanced testing and eventually the real world. Could be a great bird. Only time will tell.

Getting pretty 'techy' - got any sources to back up these assertions? Also, highly recommend you don't launch into discussions like these in flight school.

 

[Renegade One]

On the stealth side its been recorded that after a 15 degree offset from the nose, the stealth starts to decline in an exponential manner, as well as once in the merge or tail toward the enemy, that big booty single engine puts out a lot of heat for those IR guided Med rangers that the flankers carry to catch on too.

I know you're not the source of the original reports, but let's be careful now...