F-35B/C Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)

[Flash]

That was the roundabout point of my question. Considering nearly every picture has tree branches creeping in, perhaps they weren't specifically aware of these. Of course was it their intention to have someone take pictures and "leak" them? That would certainly seem likely.

You would probably be correct in your assumption. There are pictures of the people taking pictures of the plane from the fence-line with military folks just feet away not bothering them at all.

A preliminary assessment of the J-XX [J-20] Stealth Fighter Prototype by the Air Power Australia, BTW the People who run this website are not to fond of the F-35 and the F-18E/F. They might be a little biased.

One of the worst websites out there, they are not much more than fanboys with better education and a little more knowledge than the average layman which unfortunately makes them sound like the experts they are not.

You don't have to look much further than this:

From the Australian article.......All this despite the fact that they don't know what kind of engines it has or will have, what kind of radar, or any other avionics, and it hasn't even flown yet. They pulled that article right out of their ass.

Not to mention the fact that the assessment does not account for training, ordnance carried, or the support given the aircraft, such as AEW, tankers, and the like......

The biggest thing that I noticed missing from their website is any mention of the most important part of the plane, the pilot, it's like the planes will fly themselves. Another thing I noticed is the assumption that everything will work as advertised, at least if it is Russian, Chinese or the F-22, to include radars, missiles and the planes themselves. But what else do you expect from an PhD in engineering who has no military experience (but has had an incentive ride in a Super Hornet!) and a Flight Test Engineer who has no operational experience?

 

[Clux4]

We should get a better understanding of where this F-35 program is headed in a few days.

 

[Flying Toaster]

Gates has put the F-35B on probation, whatever that is supposed to mean.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...lockheed-marine-corps-f-35-on-probation-.html

I did get a kick out of the comment from the LM chairman-

Correcting malfunctions often takes “longer than you think, given the less-significant nature of the parts involved,” Lockheed Chairman Robert Stevens said on a July 27 conference call with analysts. “In some cases, we’ve had to remove the engine to get access to the component.”

So having to "remove the engine" has resulted in months/years of delays? That really bodes well for MX once it's in service.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

So having to "remove the engine" has resulted in months/years of delays? That really bodes well for MX once it's in service.

First, that's not what he said. Second, you just took a tiny bit of information and tried to draw big conclusions from it, especially since the plane is still being developed. Third, look up how often harriers have to get engines pulled, and how long it takes to do it. Hopefully they don't have to take the wing off of the F-35 to do it.

 

[pourts]

First, that's not what he said. Second, you just took a tiny bit of information and tried to draw big conclusions from it, especially since the plane is still being developed. Third, look up how often harriers have to get engines pulled, and how long it takes to do it. Hopefully they don't have to take the wing off of the F-35 to do it.

I remember reading something ridiculous like 10 man hours to pull a Hornet engine and 200 man hours to pull a Harrier one. Not sure if those are exactly right, but the magnitude was at least 10x more.

Edit: 10 hours vs. 550. Source: "Marine TacAir and the STOVL Penalty: Myth or Menace?" by Major John O. Jordan, USMC

 

[Harrier Dude]

I remember reading something ridiculous like 10 man hours to pull a Hornet engine and 200 man hours to pull a Harrier one. Not sure if those are exactly right, but the magnitude was at least 10x more.

Edit: 10 hours vs. 550. Source: "Marine TacAir and the STOVL Penalty: Myth or Menace?" by Major John O. Jordan, USMC

True. However, 90% of that has to do with the wing removal and replacement and engine bay prep, to include the inevitable frame 12 cracks.

You will NOT have to remove the wing to change an F-35 engine. It'll be much more along the lines of a Hornet engine change.

 

[Calculon]

One thing I will say with some conviction is that killing the F-22 with the argument the JSF is going to replace/supplement it was stupid. Plain and simple. There was nothing but politics and an agenda involved in that decision.

This quote really stood out after the talk about the F-35B being put on probation. IIRC, back in 2001, the X-35 was chosen over the X-32 in part because the X-35 had a better lift fan system.

 

[Pariel]

This quote really stood out after the talk about the F-35B being put on probation. IIRC, back in 2001, the X-35 was chosen over the X-32 in part because the X-35 had a better lift fan system.

The question is whether the rising costs and elimination of STOVL will actually convince someone to bring the program back. I'm not sure anyone can accurately predict that at this point. Especially looking at a smaller defense budget as the commitment in Afghanistan draws back down.

 

[seth_h]

http://www.marines.mil/unit/aviation/Documents/FY11%20%20Marine%20Aviation%20Plan.pdf
seems the Marine Corps is already adjusting for this "probation." From what I have read (first 33 pages) they aren't planning on transition to the JSF until 2018. Also I've been doing soem reading lately and it seems bringing back the x-32 isn't an option because "the Marine Corps has no plan b for the F-35 as a replacement for f-18's and harriers."

 

[Alpha_Echo_606]

STOVL makes first verticle landing
PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Col. Fred Schenk pilots F-35B test aircraft BF-2 for its first vertical landing in short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) mode on January 6, 2011. The F-35B is undergoing testing and evaluation during the program’s system design and development phase at Naval Air Station Patuxent River. Photo courtesy Phaedra Loftis (Lockheed Martin).

Joint Strike Fighter makes vertical landing
PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Col. Fred Schenk pilots F-35B test aircraft BF-2 for its first vertical landing in short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) mode on January 6, 2011. The F-35B is undergoing testing and evaluation during the program’s system design and development phase at Naval Air Station Patuxent River. Photo courtesy Phaedra Loftis (Lockheed Martin).

 

[wlawr005]

expensive or not, it IS a pretty remarkable piece of engineering.

 

[seth_h]

As a civilian hoping to become a naval aviator (taking the ASTB at my Marine OSO office on Tuesday) I'm trying to understand where our government is coming from. Obviously this is an expensive program bu how could cancellation be considered when all three branches that will obtain this a/c have almost no back-up plan. The Navy does have the super hornet but the Marines and the Air Force have nothing. Also, while it may be expensive now won't it eventually fulfill all TACAIR roles? Replacing that many aircraft is gonna cost.

 

[Fog]

Well, the USAF could darken the skies with Israeli-cloned F-16Is and the Marines w/ F-18E/Fs. We haven't conducted a contested amphibious landing since Inchon, so I'm not personally convinced we need organic fixed-wing air cover for their MEF's. Speaking of air power generally, recent war games have shown that the US would lose a conventional air war w/ the PRC because we would run out of fighters & missiles long before they they run out of Mig 21s - even assuming we shoot-down all their current-generation fighter a/c. The conclusion is that silver bullets don't win protracted, coventional wars.

 

[eas7888]

Well, the USAF could darken the skies with Israeli-cloned F-16Is and the Marines w/ F-18E/Fs. We haven't conducted a contested amphibious landing since Inchon, so I'm not personally convinced we need organic fixed-wing air cover for their MEF's. Speaking of air power generally, recent war games have shown that the US would lose a conventional air war w/ the PRC because we would run out of fighters & missiles long before they they run out of Mig 21s - even assuming we shoot-down all their current-generation fighter a/c. The conclusion is that silver bullets don't win protracted, coventional wars.

The Soviets showed that technology doesn't trump numbers. Look at their fighters/bombers of World War II, as well as the T-34. On paper, both were inferior to German designs. They were, however, easier and cheaper to manufacture. This allowed for swarms in the skies and on the battle field that could consistently out number their opponents.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Well, the USAF could darken the skies with Israeli-cloned F-16Is and the Marines w/ F-18E/Fs. We haven't conducted a contested amphibious landing since Inchon, so I'm not personally convinced we need organic fixed-wing air cover for their MEF's. Speaking of air power generally, recent war games have shown that the US would lose a conventional air war w/ the PRC because we would run out of fighters & missiles long before they they run out of Mig 21s - even assuming we shoot-down all their current-generation fighter a/c. The conclusion is that silver bullets don't win protracted, coventional wars.

Just playing the numbers game is simplistic at best. The biggest factor in that scenario was the range our jets would have to travel compared to the Chinese. Having a shitload of F-16's isn't going to change that, especially as the Chinese continue to get better equipment. We will never win the numbers game in their backyard, so we had better at least have quality if not quantity.