PDA

View Full Version : is this confirmed? F35 "LIGHTNING 2"



fordfan25
10-10-2006, 09:40 PM
is lightning 2 the offical name of the joint strike fighter http://beqiraj.com/wallpaper/f35/index.asp .

my fav fighter of ww2 shares the same name as my fav currint fighter.

video http://beqiraj.com/usa/movies/f35_joint_strike_fighter/index.asp

FritzGryphon
10-10-2006, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
That's silly, the A-10 was the Lightning II. And the F-35 doesn't ressemble a twin engine prop or a flying gun.

They've really got to have more imagination with these names. They'll be naming the next plane the Falcon 2, followed by the Hawk 76.

VW-IceFire
10-10-2006, 09:52 PM
That would be correct and confirmed. Its officially Lightning II. The official reason is that BAe and Lockheed both at one time built fighters with the name Lightning. The P-38 Lightning in US service and the English Electric (now BAe) Lightning interceptor.

I think at one time or another this was the name given to the F-22 but it got Raptor later on. Phoenix is another one I heard branded about for the F-35...but Lightning is nice as well.

I'm very curious to see the production prototype F-35 in the air. We've seen the X-35 in the air but the production model has some changes in its design which makes me very keen to see the whole plane and airborne.

VW-IceFire
10-10-2006, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
That's silly, the A-10 was the Lightning II. And the F-35 doesn't ressemble a twin engine prop or a flying gun.

They've really got to have more imagination with these names. They'll be naming the next plane the Falcon 2, followed by the Hawk 76.
Thunderbolt II? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

FritzGryphon
10-10-2006, 09:58 PM
Ok, fine. But lightning and thunderbolt is the same thing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Maybe they figure the names are accurate because they all hit the ground with a big boom!

fordfan25
10-10-2006, 10:24 PM
well at any rate it looks to be a great fighter bomber. i love what thay did with the turbine in the center of the plane to allow for vert/ short runway take off. thing i see holding it back is "from what iv read" it only has 4 hardpoints inbay. and haveing weapons out side is going to kill the stealth. any one know if this is going to be a super pricey plane to make "F22" or will we see large numbers. seeing as its replaceing so many planes harrier,f16,a10, moddles of the hornet,A-6 i think i read or a20 something like that,ect. i read also it has a very smart disign as far as upgrade abilty goes. such as better radar,engiens ect. and it just looks Soooooooo hot. a quote from the dukes of hazerd "bow: im going to have sex with it" "Luke: you mean your going to have sex IN it" "Bow: No im im going to **** it " LOL

BiscuitKnight
10-10-2006, 10:55 PM
The F-35 has copped a lot of flak for being an economic choice, because it's not a dedicated fighter or fighter bomber, thereby decreasing its effectiveness as either. Also, it's replacing a lot of planes, so people are asking if it's capable of doing so. To clarify:

The F-35A is the projected USAF variant, this will replace the F-16 and A-10 Warthog. I've heard, but no confirmation, that it has the same or better manoeuverability as the F-16, and it has better ergonomics, better RADAR (although a jet-fanatic friend of mine believes that by having a RADAR not optimised for AA it'll be less effective, anyone confirm that?), better engine. As a replacement for the A-10, it really isn't. The A-10 is designed to smash armoured units, nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately for it, Helicopter Gunships and Gunships like the Spectre AC-130 are just as effective, and have less risk of being shot down. So rather than replacing the A-10 literally, they're just converting A-10 equipped units to F-35As.

The F-35B is the projected USMC variant with the geared fan for Vertical or Short Take Off and Landing, this will replace the AV-8 in USMC and RN service. It has shorter range and some different systems to the A model. Also, the USN is rumoured to be interested in cancelling the F-35C and buying F-35Bs, and the USAF is rumoured to be considering ordering F-35Bs for usage on badly prepared forward areas for CAS, but no confirmation.

The F-35C is the projected USN model, with increased wing size for great low-speed lift, and naval operations gear on it. Apparently it has no reduction in performance but I don't see how that's possible. This will replace the F/A-18 that replaced the A-6 and F-14.

The JSF has been criticised for several things, the largest within the USA would be that it's basically a cheap F-22, with lots of lost performance. The UK is furious because they paid over a billion to be ground floor partners and the USA is withholding information (at last check - any updates?), meanwhile other countries are apparently having second thoughts because of the price tag (apparently it's still very costly) and I've heard, without confirmation, that Congress may actually block the sale of the JSF to other countries. If so, there will be a lot of angry people and big markets for Dassault and Eurofighter.

fordfan25
10-10-2006, 11:37 PM
see as far as being a economic. i think right now thats just what is needed. something that can do many things and do them cheaply. F-22 is great to have but we need something that can be produced in large numbers. the fight is not with the USSR anymore. its with smaller threats. the tealth aspect IMHO is needed now. the A-10 is a GREAT plane and tough as nails ect but all it takes is a arab "i dont know what the PC term is sorry no offence intended what so ever" on a cammel with a shoulder mounted heat seeker to put the a10 and piolet in danger. being haredr to detect is IMHO vital. and like i say its not so much threats from super powers we have to worry about its smaller less equiped groups. people point to china as a posable threat but in truth if war between the USA and her allies happend it would most likely be nucks right?

F-22s are great for the start of the war. to give the biggst push for air domanince but the F35 is whats needed for the long haul imo. pluse this lady

http://images.google.com/images?q=comanche+helicopter&h...X&oi=images&ct=title (http://images.google.com/images?q=comanche+helicopter&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=X&oi=images&ct=title)

but of course that was caned so the higher ups could build new summer homes lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
10-10-2006, 11:43 PM
I thought the 'Joint' bit in 'Joint Strike Fighter' meant that it was a US-UK developed plane.

Anyone know what the reasons are for the US changing the goal posts?

Are they maybe worried the technology will get into other Europeans hands?

fordfan25
10-10-2006, 11:54 PM
yea id like to see a link to a credable source as far as that goes. i cant see the US going into something like that and then backing out in that way. rumors are one thing but i want to see reliable sources with proof something like that is being done.

NAFP_supah
10-11-2006, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
see as far as being a economic. i think right now thats just what is needed. something that can do many things and do them cheaply. F-22 is great to have but we need something that can be produced in large numbers. the fight is not with the USSR anymore. its with smaller threats. the tealth aspect IMHO is needed now. the A-10 is a GREAT plane and tough as nails ect but all it takes is a arab "i dont know what the PC term is sorry no offence intended what so ever" on a cammel with a shoulder mounted heat seeker to put the a10 and piolet in danger. being haredr to detect is IMHO vital. and like i say its not so much threats from super powers we have to worry about its smaller less equiped groups. people point to china as a posable threat but in truth if war between the USA and her allies happend it would most likely be nucks right?

F-22s are great for the start of the war. to give the biggst push for air domanince but the F35 is whats needed for the long haul imo. pluse this lady

http://images.google.com/images?q=comanche+helicopter&h...X&oi=images&ct=title (http://images.google.com/images?q=comanche+helicopter&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=X&oi=images&ct=title)

but of course that was caned so the higher ups could build new summer homes lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stealth will not protect against IR weapons. Infact a JSF is in much bigger danger from Igla's then a A-10 becuase the A-10 has very high bi pass non afterburning engines and two of them to boot. Also it looks like the A-10 is much more survivable then the JSF. If the USAF is serious in using the JSF in the role of the A-10 then they are going to see a lot of them going down. It's strengths are in other area's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FritzGryphon
10-11-2006, 12:20 AM
Infact a JSF is in much bigger danger from Igla's then a A-10

The A-10 is low and slow, with a heavy reliance on close range missiles and the gun. It operates in the league of shoulder launched missiles, rifles and rocks.

F-35 looks to be a high and fast bomb truck. Much safer.

Esel1964
10-11-2006, 12:20 AM
The A-10 "ain't going nowhere..." (http://www.fayettevillenc.com/article?id=237827),it's expected to be rock-solid out to 2028(after updates),it's the new B-52.(I don't mean it can do a B-52's job,I only mean it's an ever-adaptable platform,like the BUFF).
They've both been declared "outdated" many times,yet they just keep adapting and serving.

fordfan25
10-11-2006, 12:20 AM
i think thay need to bring back the corsair. mass produced and flown by people who dont need a degree in computer programing to fly effectivly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. can you see the look on a group of talaban solders as thay look up at the roaring sound of 30 f4u-4s comeing in on them .50s blazing, tiny tims fireing ,bombs droping. you know what thayd say " That was the BEST plane of ww2" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

fordfan25
10-11-2006, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Esel1964:
The A-10 "ain't going nowhere..." (http://www.fayettevillenc.com/article?id=237827),it's expected to be rock-solid out to 2028(after updates),it's the new B-52.
They've both been declared "outdated" many times,yet they just keep adapting and serving. thats awsome.

BiscuitKnight
10-11-2006, 12:50 AM
"The upgrade program is small change compared with the billions being spent to develop the supersonic F-22A Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that will eventually replace the A-10 and F-16."

Esel, by 2026 there will be only a handful of A-10Cs in service, and unlikely frontline.

What makes the A-10, B-52, Pucara and A1 Skyraider obsolete is precisely what made them successful:

The B-52 is worthless for its original role, you'd have to be mental to fly one of them over a hostile country with a nuke in the back, because something like the MiG-29 or J-10 can just easily cruise up to your altitude and speed and shoot you down without breaking a sweat.

To do the B-52's job you need either a low-level penetrator like the B-1B 'Bone' or the B-2 Spirit.

So why is the B-52 in service? Because its huge size and low speed, high altitude design means it can sit up and several thousand feet, out of range of any hand-held or light SAMs, and leisurely drop Mk81s on everything in sight. And it can sit up there for hours doing it. To blow Al Qaeda off the mountain tops, you don't need a B-1B doing Mach 1.21 at 50 feet, running the risk of getting its *** shot off. You put a B-52 way up there instead, and it's much better at that.

Or the A1 Skyraider: its slow speed, long endurance and massive payload (for its size) made it great for escorting Jolly Greens or hitting VC positions where an F-4 would have trouble getting so low or loitering so long because of its speed.

Or the Pucara. What a piece of ****. Useless. Or was it? Great for long endurance missions carrying a lot of ordnance from ill prepared runways and dropping bombs on dissidents.

And lastly, the A-10. What makes it obsolete, low speed, inability to engage or evade aerial targets, long time over the battlefield, short range weapons, is precisely what makes it suited to tank busting and now for use against insurgents and suchlike. The low speed means it can fly at slow speed over a target and spray it with 30mm rounds for a very long time, or get very close before dropping weapons on its targets for precision. Plus the long amount of time over the battlefield.

In a war against a modern enemy, the A-10 is asking for pain. But against insurgents it's pretty good: even the arrangement of the twin tail and low speed engines makes it a poor IR target. All the same, an F-35 will be able to run rings around it and sit at safer altitudes, be more effective against modern enemies and do more sorties than the A-10.

Badsight-
10-11-2006, 01:50 AM
more effective at surviving

but to match the A-10 at kill effectivness you need to get in low , slow & close like the A-10 does

i understand about the Warthog's lack of evasion ability , but the reliance on tech & the doing away of the more manuel weapons is stoopid

BiscuitKnight
10-11-2006, 02:11 AM
Helo gunships and fixed wing gunships can do the Warthog's accurate work with higher survivability, which is why I never liked it.

Esel1964
10-11-2006, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by BiscuitKnight:
"The upgrade program is small change compared with the billions being spent to develop the supersonic F-22A Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that will eventually replace the A-10 and F-16."

Esel, by 2026 there will be only a handful of A-10Cs in service, and unlikely frontline.

What makes the A-10, B-52, Pucara and A1 Skyraider obsolete is precisely what made them successful:

The B-52 is worthless for its original role, you'd have to be mental to fly one of them over a hostile country with a nuke in the back, because something like the MiG-29 or J-10 can just easily cruise up to your altitude and speed and shoot you down without breaking a sweat.

To do the B-52's job you need either a low-level penetrator like the B-1B 'Bone' or the B-2 Spirit.

So why is the B-52 in service? Because its huge size and low speed, high altitude design means it can sit up and several thousand feet, out of range of any hand-held or light SAMs, and leisurely drop Mk81s on everything in sight. And it can sit up there for hours doing it. To blow Al Qaeda off the mountain tops, you don't need a B-1B doing Mach 1.21 at 50 feet, running the risk of getting its *** shot off. You put a B-52 way up there instead, and it's much better at that.

Or the A1 Skyraider: its slow speed, long endurance and massive payload (for its size) made it great for escorting Jolly Greens or hitting VC positions where an F-4 would have trouble getting so low or loitering so long because of its speed.

Or the Pucara. What a piece of ****. Useless. Or was it? Great for long endurance missions carrying a lot of ordnance from ill prepared runways and dropping bombs on dissidents.

And lastly, the A-10. What makes it obsolete, low speed, inability to engage or evade aerial targets, long time over the battlefield, short range weapons, is precisely what makes it suited to tank busting and now for use against insurgents and suchlike. The low speed means it can fly at slow speed over a target and spray it with 30mm rounds for a very long time, or get very close before dropping weapons on its targets for precision. Plus the long amount of time over the battlefield.

In a war against a modern enemy, the A-10 is asking for pain. But against insurgents it's pretty good: even the arrangement of the twin tail and low speed engines makes it a poor IR target. All the same, an F-35 will be able to run rings around it and sit at safer altitudes, be more effective against modern enemies and do more sorties than the A-10.

Even if the BUFF is used as a standoff missle-launch platform,it can get anywhere in the world faster than a ship or sub,and show me a "pretty-boy" plane(which is all you seem to acknowledge) that can match the payload,and value for $ expended.

And as far as the A-10 'asking for pain',if used against a 'modern opponent'-what the he** do you think it was designed for?
When it was designed,it was with the Soviets in mind,were they not "modern"?

The purpose of 'Wild Weasels' and other electronic measures is to clear the way for the "low and slow".

"Helo gunships"-compare the maintenance requirements between helo vs. fixed wing;not to mention the fact that you contradicted yourself-I thought you were worried about being too 'low and slow';if so,why bring up helo gunships as an example?

Yeah,the AC-130 Spectre is impressive,but NOT a replacement for the Warthog,Hellfires being just one example.

RCAF_Irish_403
10-11-2006, 03:38 AM
the attack profile of the B52 during a nuclear strike would be fast and low. They are equiped with SRAMs (Short Range Attack Missles)...essentially small tactical nukes used as standoff weapons to hit air defense sites allowing deep penetration strikes by B1B's, B2's and more B52s. The big question regarding strategy would be whether or not this happened before or after the ICBMs were launched

OD_79
10-11-2006, 04:01 AM
The reason it was called the Joint Strike Fighter was because it was a joint project with the UK. So it should be no surprise that the information is kept from us...again. It was the same with atomic weapons at the end of WW2, we gave you a lot of information, it was written and signed that information would be shared at the end of the war (by Roosevelt) Truman comes in and refuses. Britain has to go it alone and develop it's own nuclear weapons at huge expense. There are other examples.

If it's true I am very disapointed.

OD.

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2006, 04:05 AM
(although a jet-fanatic friend of mine believes that by having a RADAR not optimised for AA it'll be less effective, anyone confirm that?)

You can tell your friend he's a moron because the F-16 and F-18 both have AA/AG Radars, and neither suffers from it.


This will replace the F/A-18 that replaced the A-6 and F-14.

Part of this is false. The F-35C will replace Hornets up to the D model, while Hornet E and F models will continue to serve alongside the F-35C Wimpling II, until they become obsolete to the point that the navy replaces them with the F-39 Tomcat 3000.

Ok, so part of my own statement is false. Guess which? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

stathem
10-11-2006, 04:08 AM
I would imagine that the A-10's job will be done effectively by up-gunned UAVs before much longer, if not already.

berg417448
10-11-2006, 09:17 AM
A laser weapon is in the works for this aircraft:

"Lockheed Martin is tailoring a laser DEW for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that could be ready as early as 2010 for demonstration and the start of a full-scale development program.
Specifically the TRW or Raytheon 100kw solid state laser that is now under development. Placement of this laser system would be in the empty area on the CTOL & CV F-35 versions where the lift fan would be on the STOVL version.
The area that the lift fan occupies will not only provide more than adequate room for the solid state laser, but it also can make use of the lift fan's drive shaft, (good for 27,000 horsepower), which is more than adequate to power a 100kw solid state laser.
The laser weapon's function will initially be defensive, destroying any incoming surface to air or air to air munitions as much as 2-3 kilometers before reaching the DEW armed F-35."

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread35304/pg1

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/vi...story/3,656,164,1664 (http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/164/documentid/1664/history/3,656,164,1664)

Chuck_Older
10-11-2006, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
That's silly, the A-10 was the Lightning II. And the F-35 doesn't ressemble a twin engine prop or a flying gun.

They've really got to have more imagination with these names. They'll be naming the next plane the Falcon 2, followed by the Hawk 76.

My memory says the Fairchild aircraft in question was the Thunderbolt II http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I also think that at one time the F-16 was the Mustang II

Curtiss recycled the name Hawk for years before WWII http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Hawk II, Hawk III...The P-40 was a Hawk 81, and the re-engined model starting with the "E" designation in the USAAC/USAAF was the Hawk 87, so they are only about 60 years late on using the Hawk 76 designation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BillyTheKid_22
10-11-2006, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
is lightning 2 the offical name of the joint strike fighter http://beqiraj.com/wallpaper/f35/index.asp .

my fav fighter of ww2 shares the same name as my fav currint fighter.

video http://beqiraj.com/usa/movies/f35_joint_strike_fighter/index.asp

Howdy! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif lol!!

horseback
10-11-2006, 10:54 AM
I have noted a few complaints about the US not cooperating with international partners on this project, so I feel that a few things need to be pointed out.

First of all, from most Americans' point of view, the "Joint" in Joint Strike Fighter is generally thought of as referring to joint use by the US Air Force, US Marines and US Navy, not as a joint project with foreign countries, however friendly they may be (today). How the word may be defined for domestic consumption elsewhere, I don't know, but here, "joint use" is usually the term for interservice compatibility rather than some kind of international sharing.

Secondly, in my 20+ years' experience as a defense worker, cooperation with foreign companies is invariably a huge headache on a number of levels from security to language to sheer bloody-mindedness ("but we do it this way, we don't care what the contract says we agreed to do"), most often far outweighing their technical contributions. If the key technologies and design are from the US, and the aircraft is intended, like the F-16, for license construction, our laws require certain guarantees and restrictions, which the original contracts should have recognized. What is common practice in Europe is sometimes illegal here, and the 'international' organizations with foreign government sponsorships don't always seem to be able to respect that.

But that is the usual practice in these cases, and my experience is that foreign companies (and domestic so-called 'partners') often assume that they can get these things changed after the fact if they gum up the works enough. On top of this, my company has had huge problems with 'allies' stealing or attempting to steal not just classified technologies but business secrets while working in the shotgun marriages forced on us by the government. This is a common problem in the industry, but especially for US companies that don't have the government supports and partial ownership (and therefore protection) that foreign competitors often enjoy.

Those are the realities that government officials and your local news organizations usually neglect to tell you about.

All of these things add up to aggravation for everyone involved, not to mention great wastes of taxpayer monies (yours and mine).

Now, someone mentioned that the words Lightning and Thunderbolt mean the same thing. In some languages, that may be true. In English, while the technical meaning is similar, the emphasis in 'Lightning' is on the speed of the aircraft, as in "lightning fast." With Thunderbolt, the emphasis is on the power aspect, as in "struck by a thunderbolt." I'm sure that other languages have similar shadings of meaning for different words that can be translated as the same thing in another language.

I hope that makes it clearer for some of our friends here.

cheers

horseback

Viper2005_
10-11-2006, 11:06 AM
You'd all save a lot of time and argument by heading over to this website (http://www.jsf.mil/)...

BillyTheKid_22
10-11-2006, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
You'd all save a lot of time and argument by heading over to this website (http://www.jsf.mil/)...

Howdy!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I DID READ IT!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

fordfan25
10-11-2006, 12:01 PM
boy that X32 was one fugly bird. id swear the brits disgned it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

WOLFMondo
10-11-2006, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
First of all, from most Americans' point of view, the "Joint" in Joint Strike Fighter is generally thought of as referring to joint use by the US Air Force, US Marines and US Navy, not as a joint project with foreign countries, however friendly they may be (today).

Its a joint project between the USA and UK to replace the previous joint effort, the Harrier.


Originally posted by horseback:
the word may be defined for domestic consumption elsewhere, I don't know, but here, "joint use" is usually the term for interservice compatibility rather than some kind of international sharing.


Might want to tell that to BAe and the RAF. Doubt they will listen though. The Joint strike fighter is a joint effort between the US's largest offense contractor and the UK's largest offense contractor.



Originally posted by horseback:

Secondly, in my 20+ years' experience as a defense worker, cooperation with foreign companies is invariably a huge headache on a number of levels from security to language to sheer bloody-mindedness ("but we do it this way, we don't care what the contract says we agreed to do"), most often far outweighing their technical contributions.

Some of the contributions are coming from the British on this. Its not a US only project. Last time I looked we both speek English, although you guys tend to spell things oddly.


Originally posted by horseback:
This is a common problem in the industry, but especially for US companies that don't have the government supports and partial ownership (and therefore protection) that foreign competitors often enjoy.

The British firms involved have no such protection. They are public limited companies. Nationalised companies are somewhat of a rarity in the UK.


Originally posted by horseback:
On top of this, my company has had huge problems with 'allies' stealing or attempting to steal not just classified technologies but business secrets while working in the shotgun marriages forced on us by the government.

Next time the British come up with something like Radar, or the jet engine, or the Harrier, we'll keep it you ourselves and not bother sharing it with the US because were buddies.

VW-IceFire
10-11-2006, 06:09 PM
Apparently the huff around the not sharing of the software code and the proposed cancellation of the Rolls Royce high performance engine for the F-35 has been sorted or at least "is on again".

Many see the F-35 purely as a cheap F-22. That IS true...but most countries can't afford the F-22 although at least a few in Australia are lobbying that they by the F-22 instead of the F-35. I see the F-35 giving NATO countries a chance to have a semi-stealth (its not nearly as good as the F-22 although I understand its in some ways better than the F-117) aircraft. More importantly I think the F-35 in terms of electronics and the information datalink sharing brings countries with older equipment that buy the F-35 the chance to integrate with US F-22s and AWACs.

I see that as being the big benefit. Suddenly you have a whole wave of allied fighters and AWACs with the same information on their screens. Its more "video game" like and it makes tons of sense to us gamers (sometimes I am surprised that they don't have such things in the real world) but now they have it in the real world.

I'm curious to see how the F-35 pans out. I think its going to be bought by alot of countries regardless. The one thing I can't see it doing is replacing the A-10. You cannot replace the A-10 with a more conventional fighter jet (even if the F-35 is unconventional)...A-10 is dedicated CAS. If they want to replace the A-10 I think they need to build more A-10s or something new with the same design philsophy: Big gun, big armor, slow speed. The A-10 is supposed to be slow and ugly and it does a damn good job at that.

horseback
10-11-2006, 06:11 PM
Hmmm. The projected orders for the 'standard' (non-VTOL) JSF for the USAF and USN run about 2100 aircraft.

The VTOL aircraft, the engine for which will comprise the bulk of the British contribution, has a projected order of about 480 aircraft for the USMC alone. History tells us that the Marines will probably get shorted on the specialized version by at least a couple of squadrons' worth and will at best be allowed to make up the difference in the conventional takeoff and landing versions unless there's a hot war that requires the VTOL version's special abilities.

How many the MoD will order I don't know, but I suspect that the vast majority of the foreign orders or license built F-35s will be of the non-VTOL version using American designed engines.

From a technology standpoint, the VTOL engine will be the primary British contribution to the project, which they joined a couple of years after the project was started and the requests for proposals were issued by the US Defense Department in the early '90s.

Assuming the British versions are built in similar numbers to the USMC models, that's less than one third of the current projected orders, and considerably less if the major NATO powers plus Israel & Japan decide to buy or build their own F-35s to replace their F-15/16s...making Britain a junior partner and contributor to the project.

I am not and was not trying to be insulting, but US defense companies have to play by very different rules, not least because of the shenanigans by Lockheed while they were selling NATO the F-104 back in the sixties. Companies (and countries) wishing to participate in a US-led major defense project must get used to the idea of playing by those same rules, or come up with the extra cash to design and build their own weapons.

We'd have to play by your rules (plus our own laws) if it was your project that we joined after the fact.

Again, I'd suggest that we haven't changed the terms as much as some politicians and news organizations might have implied in an attempt to get more votes, viewers or subscriptions.

As for the scurrilous charge that we speak the same language, I reject it completely. I was born in England, I spent 5 of the first ten years of my life there, and I can say authoritively that we don't SPEAK the same language so much as we sort of WRITE the same language.

It takes the average Yank about two weeks of immersion before he can make out what the hell you Brits are saying, even if he's been watching a lot of PBS and BBC America on TV before coming to the UK.

cheers

horseback

VW-IceFire
10-11-2006, 08:08 PM
According to the F-35 project websites...Canada is more or less a junior partner. Our government isn't even sure if it wants to buy the thing...but our companies can build stuff for it. Britain is a joint partner or tier 1 alongside the US...so they pretty much do deserve to be in on it all the way. There are alot of British companies involved in the process as well...so everyone should be playing by everyones rules http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

fordfan25
10-11-2006, 08:21 PM
i have a hard time beleaving that these major companys and goverments didnt have a sit down at the start. the qustion to me is eather #1 the brits are now asking for stuff or stuff to happen that was not in the origanl contract/undrestanding or #2 the USA is tryn to get out of something that it agreed apone. eather one would not suprise me in the lest. and i dout anyone out side of said groups knows the full story know what i mean. as far as as members of this forum throwing stones....well i have seen tiome and again sence dealing with people over the net that storys get twisted and facts left out to suit the needs of the poster. not handing out acusations just sayn.

fordfan25
10-11-2006, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
According to the F-35 project websites...Canada is more or less a junior partner. Our government isn't even sure if it wants to buy the thing...but our companies can build stuff for it. Britain is a joint partner or tier 1 alongside the US...so they pretty much do deserve to be in on it all the way. There are alot of British companies involved in the process as well...so everyone should be playing by everyones rules http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Canada kinows it wants it. there tryn to play hard to get in hopes of getting the CD player and ash tray for free. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

fordfan25
10-11-2006, 08:26 PM
Next time the British come up with something like Radar, or the jet engine, or the Harrier, we'll keep it you ourselves and not bother sharing it with the US because were buddies. yea its not like brit's ever got anything from the usa. i mean we even threw a tea party for you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Blottogg
10-11-2006, 08:55 PM
A couple of things about the F-35 I've picked up while reading Av Week:

- Yes the name is Lightning II. Given the plethora of trademark lawyers in the US, coming up with an original name for an aircraft these days is too expensive (ask Oleg and Northrop Grumman.) "Mustang II"... better talk to Ford first. Hence the line of Roman numeral suffixed aircraft names (Globemaster III, Thunderbolt II, Lightning II... Raptor being the only exception in the US recently... I guess Speilberg didn't TM it for Jurassic Park.)

- The UK wants the source code for the electronics in order to be self-sufficient for maintenance and upgrades. The US is reluctant to provide this, even though the UK is the only Tier I partner in the program. Reasons vary from "security" to "protecting US businesses", depending on who you ask. Having attended meetings with my UK intel counterparts, only to be ordered to sit smugly at the table and disclose nothing about certain programs, I can attest to the frustration this situation causes. I liked working with the Brits, and trusted the guys working at my level. Unfortunately they weren't the only Brits who would see the info. Leaks happen in the US too, but the only control we had over any UK leaks was before we gave them the intel. It still sucks to treat an ally like that though.

- The F-35 is scheduled to replace the A-10, though not in the same exact mission profile. The anti-armor mission will be conducted with new weapons, not a gun. The one that has me wondering is SAR CAP (Search And Rescue Combat Air Patrol.) The A-10 is fundamentally better suited to escorting CSAR helicopters (or even tilt-rotors) than the F-35, though changing tactics and tanker usage will allow the F-35 to work the mission.

- The alternative engine program was cut in an effort to "save money", though that decision was apparently made unilaterally by civilian decision-makers in the Pentagon (a disturbing trend recently.) The bean-counters looked at it and determined that with close-down costs (and the loss of competitive pricing), it wouldn't actually save much money. I don't know how much of the desision was a game of "budgetary chicken" and how much of it was politics. Not notifying the concerned companies beforehand (GE and RR) was at the very least poor form, and at worst illegal. If it was budgetary chicken, it worked. Congress restored at least some funding for the program. Since it's based on GE's F-120 engine, I'm glad. I liked that motor more than the F-119 that is the basis for the F-135 in the Lightning II.

- The F-35 will have an integrated avionics suite similar to the F-22. This will include a multi-function AESA radar (APG-81), IR missile warning system, integrated FLIR/laser designator (and perhaps marked target seeker... I don't remember), and LINK-16 compatible data-link. There was talk of using the JHMCS (helmet mounted sight) exclusively, without a separate fixed HUD, though I don't know if that's the final configuration.

- The STOVL version of the F-135 powerplant makes later integration of a Directed Energy Weapon (High Power Microwave and/or laser) easier to accomplish. The space occupied by the lift fan in the F-35B is normally occupied by a fuel tank in the A and C variants, so DEW equipped versions would have reduced range.

Overall I'm more interested in the F-35 than the F-22. It's LO treatment is very good (without getting classified, not as good as F-22 but much better than F/A-18E/F or Eurofighter Typhoon... another recycled name BTW. I guess TM lawyers exist in the UK too... or do you call them barristers over there?) It is limited in how much it can carry in the weapons bay, but like the F-22 that capability is for day-one "kick down the door" capability. Both have increased capacity using external hardpoints once the SAM's are down, or over places like Afganistan. And because it will cost a lot less than the F-22 (though it'll still go for much more than the target price of $35 million) we'll be able to get more than a token number of them.

The UK is also doing it's own foot-dragging. The next generation of carrier is going to take either fixed wing or STOVL aircraft, but as far as I know, that decision hasn't been made yet. They'll need to know that at the shipyard at some point. The French are also collaborating with the UK on the carrier design. The last thinking I read about had the French building a CTOL version (with the Rafale coming on-line, it makes sense) while the UK would build a STOVL ship. Gen Jumper's idea of buying STOVL variants for the USAF died a silent death IIRC, another victim of budget realities and decades of operating from fixed bases without a threat to the runways.

Edit: radar designation