Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Belesarius

Bash the F-35 thred.

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Belesarius said:

Nifty.  This is one of those reasons why I think the F-35 is such a paradigm shift.

 

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/10/05/marines-connect-f-35-jet-to-himars-rocket-shot-for-first-time/

IMO, this excerpt is even more interesting:

 

Quote

The Kilo battery Marines strapped the HIMARS down in the belly of an Air Force MC-130 on its way to Dugway Proving Grounds, Utah.

When the aircraft landed the Marines rolled the HIMARS out, fired a total of four shots at two targets and then returned to the aircraft and flew back to Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

Gives new meaning to "shoot and scoot".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better safe than sorry.

 



F-35 Fuel Tube Inspection and Flight Operations

The U.S. Services and international partners have temporarily suspended F-35 flight operations while the enterprise conducts a fleet-wide inspection of a fuel tube within the engine on all F-35 aircraft.  If suspect fuel tubes are installed, the part will be removed and replaced. If known good fuel tubes are already installed, then those aircraft will be returned to flight status.  Inspections are expected to be completed within the next 24 to 48 hours.

The action to perform the inspection is driven from initial data from the ongoing investigation of the F-35B that crashed in the vicinity of Beaufort, South Carolina on 28 September. The aircraft mishap board is continuing its work and the U.S. Marine Corps will provide additional information when it becomes available.

The primary goal following any mishap is the prevention of future incidents.  We will take every measure to ensure safe operations while we deliver, sustain and modernize the F-35 for the warfighter and our defense partners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2018 at 6:20 PM, Xlucine said:

 

The F-35 behind them has a paveway on one of the wing pylons

 

And a day later:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/first-bombs-dropped-by-f-35-jets-launched-from-hms-queen-elizabeth/

Quote

First bombs dropped by F-35 jets launched from HMS Queen Elizabeth

The first bombs have been dropped from F-35 jets conducting trials on board HMS Queen Elizabeth, say the Royal Navy, say the Royal Navy.

The Royal Navy say in a release, the inert GBU-12 Paveway II laser guided precision bombs were dropped off the east coast of the USA. Adding the 500lb bombs to the jets for take-off has enabled the trials teams to see how the jets behave when carrying various weights, gathering crucial test data.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy doody folks. I'm not an engineer, but I do do a lot of open source research and I stumbled across something that looks to circumstantially confirm a suspicion I've had for a while.

 

It all started with an image, Fig. 1. I came across it googling stuff about the AFTI/F-16. Squint reading lead me to believe it was describing how the F-35's flight control systems descend from AFTI/F-16's. But it was stuck behind a paywall. So I did some more digging...

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRETPFhRp7Bjo4E46waYmhpelwJhySx4dZUuYr2etpKLAdaUSjI

(Fig 1.) source https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2018-3368

 

Lockmart came to the rescue, hosting the document for free, for some reason. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/eo/documents/webt/F-35_Air_Vehicle_Technology_Overview.pdf

 

Here's the image in a size you can read: 

unknown.png

Now, why is this interesting. After a quick skim it occurred to me that the description was of all the infrastructure to take advantage of a DFCS, excepting the computer inputs. There was no substantial mention of AFTI/F-16's DFCS in the paper, which seemed a little weird because that's what it's known for.

 

So, this leads me to a circumstantial conclusion: The F-35 is quite possibly either already, or may potentially be capable of functioning with decoupled flight controls. What's that mean? I'll let NASA explain.

 

unknown.png

unknown.png

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19840012524.pdf

 

More reading on DFCS at http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a135870.pdf

 

EDIT: by chance stumbled across this on the NMUSAF's website

WMEeq3s.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LostCosmonaut said:

Yeah, I've figured that for at least a year, since I saw how much the latest tranche of the Typhoon cost. Holy shit, that thing is expensive for a 4th gen aircraft. $102 million US for a Eurofighter vs $80 million US for a F-35A at full rate production.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the Typhoon is a mess.

 

It's a good interceptor and that's about it.

If you want it to do anything else (latest tranches) the cost goes up a lot, because you need to add new capability on an aircraft that wasn't designed for it initially.

 

Same story as usual, too much country wanted to have a say on the capability the aircraft should have so obviously they didn't managed to settle for something that made sense.

Then they ordered much more than they really needed to make sure that they could manufacture a part of it in their country which mean that some unqualified company ended up producing some key components.

Finally they cut down their order driving the per unit price up.

 

I expect that the countries that bought it will try to get rid of it pretty soon (Austria almost did).

 

It's the same problem to an extent with the A-400M (though on this case I actually expect it to be working in the end, even if the cost will have increased quite a bit).

 

That's the reason why the SCAF program must stay firmly in Dassault's hand and with a minimum of country at the driving wheel, Airbus have accumulated a shitload blunder to various degree of gravity on various international program (NH-90, Tiger, Eurofighter, A-400M).

 

As for the Canadian bid, Dassault had often implied that if they feel that they are here only to force LM to drive it's price down without having a real chance to actually get the contract they would pull-out and stop wasting money, so it's really no surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Belesarius
      Possible image of the H-20 bomber. Screengrab.  This will be the thread for the H-20 as more information becomes available.
       
      Anyone want to take a shot at translating what's on screen for us?
       
      Edit: This is a photoshop, as confirmed later in the thread where it was posted.
      But I'll keep the thread going for later stuff, and H-20 discussion.
       
       
       
    • By Alzoc
      Topic to post photo and video of various AFV seen through a thermal camera.
      I know that we won't be able to make any comparisons on the thermal signature of various tank without knowing which camera took the image and that the same areas (tracks, engine, sometimes exhaust) will always be the ones to show up but anyway:
       
      Just to see them under a different light than usual (pardon the terrible pun^^)
       
      Leclerc during a deployment test of the GALIX smoke dispenser:
       
      The picture on the bottom right was made using the castor sight (AMX 10 RC, AMX 30 B2)
       
      Akatsiya :
       

       
      T-72:
       


       
      A T-62 I think between 2 APC:
       

       
      Stryker:
       

       
      Jackal:
       

       
      HMMWV:
       

       
      Cougar 4x4:
       

       
      LAV:
       

    • By Collimatrix
      I found this interesting picture of the Yakovlev MFI design:
       

       
      Obviously, it was never built.  The MiG submission was the 1.44 and the Sukhoi submission was the SU-47.
×