Your new fighter...F-35

fastpat · 01-10-2007, 09:25 AM

Yeah, here it comes. Three versions, F-35A for the Air Force, F-35B V/STOL for the Marines and Britain, and F-35C for Naval carrier ops.

F-35C

This may be the F-35A model

F-35B/STOVL

Pratt and Whitney F-135 testing (there's an optional GE/Rolls Royce F-136 engine)

Glass Cockpit

Shades of Apache IHADS, I wonder what this is like in a high G turn

URY914 · URY914's Garage

Cool. I just emailed the Pentagon to see if I could buy one too.
How much?

kach22i · kach22i's Garage

The History Channel/Discovery Channel had on last night the decommissioning process for the F-14 Tomcat, sad to see them go.

Let's hope the F-35 can serve 30 years.

I guess the F-18 Super Hornet is the direct replacement for the F-14.

Moneyguy1 · 01-10-2007, 09:51 AM

They are all beginning to look alike. I am sure the differences are incremental and subtle.

Ahhhh..What do I know? All REAL aircraft have propellors!!!

gaijindabe · 01-10-2007, 09:52 AM

Looks expensive.

fastpat · 10:01 AM

The F-35 is a direct replacement for the Air Force F-16 and Marine AV-8B Harrier; don't know that it has a direct replacement link for the Navy, it's the first single seat, single engine fixed-wing aircraft they've had since the A-7 I think. Edit: It's replacing the F-18 for the Navy.

Purchase contract to Lockheed Martin, $275 billion (yes, with a "B") for a total planned buy for all services of about 2500 aircraft. As usual, there's politics.
http://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2006/09/f-35-buy-cut.html

BRPORSCHE · 01-10-2007, 10:13 AM

It's tiny. I want to see a side by side comparison to the F-18 or F-14. Both seem bigger then that '35.

Also isnt this fighter equipped with variable vane technology? Making for super tight turning radii?

URY914 · URY914's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by URY914
Cool. I just emailed the Pentagon to see if I could buy one too.
How much?

Believe it or not I got a reply from the Penagon. I asked if I could get one painted red (my favorite color). They said, no.
Oh well...

BlueSkyJaunte · 01-10-2007, 10:23 AM

To much gimmicky BS....I'll take an F-86 anyday...

Jeff Higgins · 01-10-2007, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
They are all beginning to look alike. I am sure the differences are incremental and subtle.

Ahhhh..What do I know? All REAL aircraft have propellors!!!

And round engines, and two wings.

fastpat · 01-10-2007, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
They are all beginning to look alike. I am sure the differences are incremental and subtle.

Ahhhh..What do I know? All REAL aircraft have propellors!!!

I'm reading an article on how the M/IC is justifying the sale and purchase of this aircraft.

Seems that Lockheed, which now owns F-16 maker General Dynamics, built and sold over 4000 units of this spiffy little fighter, and is still building them for foreign purchase today. That means lots of countries, Venezuela comes to mind, that the US government wants to wale upon have a pretty formidable weapon with which to say no, and say it with meaning. Keep in mind that no one buys aircraft these days from Russia, and the Russians no longer give them away as far as I know. What the US industry does is get government subsidies, hidden in various ways, to compete with the French (Rafale) and Swedes (JAS 39 Gripen) internationally. In short, we Americans pay other countries to buy aircraft. Now then, since these countries have acquired high performance defensive capability, mostly from us, we then need to buy more performance so that we can continue to beat the crap out of them at a moments notice, or at least threaten to do that.

Yes, the M/IC builds a weapon, then designs a weapon to beat that weapon and sells that one too.

Good work when you can get it, and the M/IC gets it constantly.

onewhippedpuppy · 01-10-2007, 10:43 AM

F16s have been sold to foreign nations. I highly doubt that any F22s have. If so, produce some sort of credible source, not an article from "antiwar.com" written by Cindy Sheehan.

onewhippedpuppy · 01-10-2007, 10:46 AM

Another note your cut and paste job lacked, most of the high tech military hardware sold to foreign nations is "dumbed down". So instead of a full F16, they get F16 lite. These aircraft are due to be replaced anyway, many of the designs date back 30 years. This next generation has more capability, more commonality for lower operating costs, and is superior to anyone else's.

carnutzzz · 01-10-2007, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BRPORSCHE
It's tiny. I want to see a side by side comparison to the F-18 or F-14. Both seem bigger then that '35.

Also isnt this fighter equipped with variable vane technology? Making for super tight turning radii?

I think it's actually quite larger. If it's what I saw flying overhead not too long ago- it's a bigger fighter for sure.

Aren't armaments stored inside the plane, thus requiring a larger body?

fastpat · 01-10-2007, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BRPORSCHE
It's tiny. I want to see a side by side comparison to the F-18 or F-14. Both seem bigger then that '35.

Also isnt this fighter equipped with variable vane technology? Making for super tight turning radii?

The F-35 is only slightly larger than the F-16.

That's the two-seat F-16B in the photo.

BlueSkyJaunte · 01-10-2007, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onewhippedpuppy
most of the high tech military hardware sold to foreign nations is "dumbed down". So instead of a full F16, they get F16 lite. These aircraft are due to be replaced anyway, many of the designs date back 30 years.

No kidding....If everyone noticed how often F-16's were dropping out of the sky around here, nobody would buy any of them.

onewhippedpuppy · 01-10-2007, 11:24 AM

I was watching a show on fighter jets, they claimed that one F-22 can take out 5 to 6 F-15s, often times before it is even detected. I don't know how the F-35 matches up, but that's pretty impressive.

fastpat · 01-10-2007, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onewhippedpuppy
F16s have been sold to foreign nations. I highly doubt that any F22s have. If so, produce some sort of credible source, not an article from "antiwar.com" written by Cindy Sheehan.

First, the article, far from pasted in my story, wasn't written by Cindy Sheehan, but was written by two interested investigational reporters. If you don't like that, too bad. In the future, do your own homework.
Air Force Plans to Sell F-22As to Allies

House Votes to Let Allies Buy Top U.S. Fighter

mikester · 01-10-2007, 11:26 AM

mmmmmm fighter jets...

Civilized aircraft have pistons and no "nose gear" with few exceptions.

The F-86 would be one.

mikester · 01-10-2007, 11:30 AM

Dad an I were in a conversation a few months about about the differences between American fighters and Russian fighters. The russians have almost always developed theirs with the turn and burn mentality where as we have always had the "better" idea of shooting them down before we are even detected. While I do hold that as an ideal situation I wondered to him (retired airforce air crew) how an F22 or an F35 would stack up turning and burning against one of the newer russian made aircraft or even against an american made F-14/15/16 which we have sold to many folks around the world.

He was quite certain that it would never matter and that just reminded me of how Air Force folks thought in Vietnam.