-Eddie- wrote:The F-35B doesn't have reheat, just 'military power' which is full throttle. It's still supposed to have a lot of power available though.
It does not have afterburner in Mode 4 (STOVL flight). It can't be engaged when in mode 4, not even by mistake as it is locked by software.
It does definitely have it for use in combat once in the air, though.
Regarding Jet Blast Deflector, it is not thought necessary. On the US flat decks, the F-35B takes off initially with thrust only slightly angled downwards, and only in the second half of the take off run does the nozzle swivel to point down more completely. Yet, no JBD is needed. Unsurprisingly, it has been deleted without remorse from QE as well.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
The wonders of a FBW aircraft, now standard bcz the sensor input to whatever action is needed is a thousand (?) times faster than with man-in-the loop.
- the latter is needed for the system to be overridden, when the need is obvious (and there is time).
I was in Linkoping when the first totally FBW fighter came down... and it was the only prototype built! How many years did that set the Gripen prgrm back by???
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Well depends how you look at it. Its like saying the F16 cant land vertically. These are two totally different aircraft . Would a fully laden F16 with drop tanks, bombs and missiles fitted still be as maneuverable as a F35 with internal weapons only. Its like comparing apples and oranges . I would imagine that the f35 with its 360 degree situational awareness would detect and shoot down an aggressor long before the aggressor even detects it. Another question to ask is when was the last time two aircraft had a dogfight in recent memory.
part of the F35's role could well be getting up close and personal like the sea harriers did in the Falklands (remember that wasn't predicted) so if its basic aerodynamics are that poor it doesn't matter how stealthy or how short a distance it can land in it and the pilot in it are screwed.
So much shit is written, by people "in the know" who aren't really, about this project that it is laughable. The only people aware of what is really going on is those involved in it.
My pal flies F-16 in the Az National Guard. Took his squadron out to Hawaii last year for their annual detachment and played with F-22's all week. He got a kill against one of them so I guess we should throw away all our F-22's.
Trouble was, it was the only F-22 kill of the week vs hundreds of F-16 kills and it was WVR. But they all had fun and came back better for the exercise.
I see Marine F-35B's fairly regularly flying out of D-M. Visiting from Yuma. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few "off the record" encounters between them and the local F-16's.
I don't think it's expected that that F35 can dog fight, small power and control surfaces its never gonna be great.
However it probably doesn't have to be, stealthy, mega sensors and sophisticated weapons, I don't think it need to be. Plus as some one pointed out do we need dog fights? If so the typhoon is arguably superior here. I think it's worth nothing no matter how great your kinematic performance it won't be a good as a missile
HMMMM seam to remember the RAF assuring the government the Navy didn't need phantoms as they could provide air defence to the fleet anywhere in the world.....However their map moved Australia 800 miles for where it is and in 1982 the closeest Phantoms and other RAF air defence assets to the TEZ where on Ascension Island till June.
marktigger wrote:HMMMM seam to remember the RAF assuring the government the Navy didn't need phantoms as they could provide air defence to the fleet anywhere in the world.....However their map moved Australia 800 miles for where it is and in 1982 the closeest Phantoms and other RAF air defence assets to the TEZ where on Ascension Island till June.
How is this bullshit relevant to the present day? Let go dude, you're hanging on too tight.
marktigger wrote:HMMMM seam to remember the RAF assuring the government the Navy didn't need phantoms as they could provide air defence to the fleet anywhere in the world.....However their map moved Australia 800 miles for where it is and in 1982 the closeest Phantoms and other RAF air defence assets to the TEZ where on Ascension Island till June.
How is this bullshit relevant to the present day? Let go dude, you're hanging on too tight.
crikey that sounds like a line out of top gun, you should be a movie producer and make a defence themed movie like Wag the Dog and use past and present politicians as actors
only having a bit of fun I think I stayed down the pub too long after work
The thing is mate, some people can't let go of the past; and as they aren't involved, don't realise this project is completely different from anything that has happened before.
It gets really tiresome for those trying to deliver the goods to keep seeing these tired old cliches being trotted out.
If the 35 in question wasn't set up for a dogfight simulation, why was it sent out to take part in one? To see what happens?
Because there are more complicated things in aircraft testing to check than just "Let's see who wins!" It was more about testing some components and operating at expected capabilities in various ways.
Reading the leaked report, it was specifically a trial flight to test operational-representative manoeuvers in high Angle of Attack. The F-35 remains controllable at quite damn high AoA (-10° to +50°, when the Typhoon has a max AoA of 25° and the Rafale 29°) and they tried to see if this can be exploited in close combat. The answer is unfortunately no, in most cases, as the energy that is lost in the move is hard to gain back afterwards. It can do the nose-pointing trick sort of like the F/A-18 Super Hornet, but that's about it.
Its better AoA range is between 20 and 30°, but here the report says that the flight control computer kept clamping down on the aircraft, engaging anti-spin logic way too early, and thus preventing the aircraft from behaving like the pilot expected and wanted. The test pilot moved the stick, but the computer overruled the commands. The way i read it and the final recommendations on the last page, there are significant changes to make to the control laws, to relax them and let the pilot (and the aircraft) free to manoeuver much more aggresively before the computer clamps in. Which is what David Nelson, the test pilot who probably wrote the leaked report, said to AviationWeek back in April.
It is helpful to remember that the final control laws haven't been programmed in yet. The F-35's flight envelope will only be opened up fully with the Block 3F software: the current 2B, for example, limits the F-35B to 5.5 G (instead of 7.5 final for 3F), 40.000 feet instead of 50.000 and 550 knots airspeed (Mach 1.2 instead of 1.6).
The widely reported "dogfight" wasn't a dogfight. None of the two aircraft carried any pod to simulate weapons, and the F-35's HMD had a fixed reticle, not even a dynamic one. The F-35 was tasked with doing a set of moves at high AoA, while the F-16 pilot was free to react as he pleased.
I think it has been once more blown kind of out of proportions. While the F-35 will never be a super-manouverable fighter, when the flight control software will have been cleaned, the results of an encounter like this will be better. Besides, outside of tests you won't be forced to go into high AoA if it does not pay off. I'm surprised the JPO hasn't explained this themselves. Their reaction has only fueled even more hate...
Anyway, in the meanwhile, AF-2 is working up to gun trials. See the GAU-22 firing for the first time while installed:
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Nice find Gabriele....
The GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the 25mm GAU-12/U Equalizer rotary cannon found on the Marine Corps’ AV-8B Harrier II jump set, is designed to be internally mounted on the Air Force’s F-35A version of the aircraft and hold 182 rounds. It’s slated to be externally mounted on the Marine Corps’ F-35B jump-jet variant and the Navy’s F-35C aircraft carrier version and hold 220 rounds.
So one quick squeeze of the trigger and all the ammo is spent and it will be a few years until this capability is in operation as the software has to be written.
bobp wrote:Nice find Gabriele....
The GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the 25mm GAU-12/U Equalizer rotary cannon found on the Marine Corps’ AV-8B Harrier II jump set, is designed to be internally mounted on the Air Force’s F-35A version of the aircraft and hold 182 rounds. It’s slated to be externally mounted on the Marine Corps’ F-35B jump-jet variant and the Navy’s F-35C aircraft carrier version and hold 220 rounds.
So one quick squeeze of the trigger and all the ammo is spent and it will be a few years until this capability is in operation as the software has to be written.
The gun is operational with Block 3F, beginning in 2017. As for the bursts, it can be programmed to be whatever you want. The burst in the video is a 10 rounds burst. The requirement calls for a minimum of 3 strafing bursts, which works out at some 60 rounds per burst. Or you can have more, shorter bursts.
It is also not bad to remember that 180 rounds is what the Tornado GR4 has for its gun; 30 rounds more than the Typhoon has; and 55 rounds more than Rafale has. Different calibres and multi-barrel versus single barrel, but still. Really not sure why people get that shocked regarding the gun's ammo reserve. Scary stories regarding the F-35 have made people paranoid.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Gabriele wrote:I'm surprised the JPO hasn't explained this themselves. Their reaction has only fueled even more hate...
Im not, it always seems the stance of large companies is to just deny things rather than explain them properly and show its acceptable after all. Perhaps the 'mass market' isn't able to digest something so well constructed.
Another thing the 'mass market' and desperate journalists seem to forget is that its a test aircraft, things are suppose to go wrong here so they can be fixed and improved in the future.
Didn't the typhoon get a load of stick during its development? I don't think many would question its value now. I feel the F35 will be much the same.
So in reality the f35b cannon is well armed. I wasn't shocked by the amount of ammunition just surprised that so few would be needed for a CAS role. However thinking about it just one round on target will make a big mess. Thanks for the comparison figures.
