![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Copied from Lockheed site...s'more cheerleadin', interesting tho' sojourner "The maturity of this highly integrated aircraft for its second flight is dazzling - when it's time to fly it is always ready and takes minimal time to get out of the chocks," said Jon Beesley, F-35 Chief Test Pilot. "The flight underscores that the Lightning II flies just as our engineers predicted. This was the first time that we have retracted the landing gear and the aircraft handling qualities were outstanding. I continue to be impressed by this marvelous airplane's performance and handling characteristics." Approximately 10 minutes into the flight, Beesley retracted the landing gear and climbed from 15,000 to 20,000 feet to evaluate handling qualities and engine operation in the cruise mode at Mach 0.6 (~ 450 m.p.h.) and Mach 0.7 (~ 530 m.p.h.). The handling tests included rolls, turns, angle-of-attack changes and engine throttle changes. The flight lasted 62 minutes and was executed exactly as planned. It followed the aircraft's successful first flight on Dec. 15, when the F-35 demonstrated unprecedented engine performance and handling qualities. The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5TH Generation stealth fighter designed to replace a wide range of existing aircraft, including AV-8B Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and United Kingdom Harrier GR.7s and Sea Harriers. Lockheed Martin is developing the Lightning II with its principal industrial partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Two separate, interchangeable F-35 engines are under development: the Pratt & Whitney F135 and the GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team F136. "With this successful flight and its broad array of test points, F-35 flight test has really begun," said Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager. "The ease of starting and flying this aircraft is a reflection of the quality of the team who designed and built it." The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5TH Generation stealth fighter designed to replace a wide range of existing aircraft, including AV-8B Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and United Kingdom Harrier GR.7s and Sea Harriers. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in :
Copied from Lockheed site...s'more cheerleadin', interesting tho' sojourner The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5TH Generation stealth fighter designed to replace a wide range of existing aircraft, including AV-8B Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and United Kingdom Harrier GR.7s and Sea Harriers. Which raises the question, who is it supposed to be used against? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
... wrote in : Copied from Lockheed site...s'more cheerleadin', interesting tho' sojourner The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5TH Generation stealth fighter designed to replace a wide range of existing aircraft, including AV-8B Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and United Kingdom Harrier GR.7s and Sea Harriers. Which raises the question, who is it supposed to be used against? Anyone who is currently faced with AV-8B Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and United Kingdom Harrier GR.7s and Sea Harriers. Personally, I wouldn't replace the A-10 with the F-35 - it's the wrong aircraft all the way - too fast; too 'fragile'; payload's too small etc. Only aircraft to replace the A-10 would be a two-seat A-10. -- Alan Erskine |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I think that they are planning on using the new small diameter bombs for
ground support. Certainly no plane can carry that massive GAU8 rotary cannon. But with the radar and computers of the JSF it can easily ID several targets and program a single SDB against each. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"miket6065" wrote in message
. net... I think that they are planning on using the new small diameter bombs for ground support. Certainly no plane can carry that massive GAU8 rotary cannon. But with the radar and computers of the JSF it can easily ID several targets and program a single SDB against each. Not at the speed it will be travelling at. It will cover the battlefield in half the time of the A-10; that's a major problem. And don't forget battle damage; no aircraft flying can absorb the amount of damage an A-10 can survive. -- Alan Erskine |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Alan Erskine wrote:
... And don't forget battle damage; no aircraft flying can absorb the amount of damage an A-10 can survive. ... Something that can be said about Su-25. Except that in case of Su-25 there's more combat-based evidence that supports that statement. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Alan Erskine wrote:
... And don't forget battle damage; no aircraft flying can absorb the amount of damage an A-10 can survive. ... Something that can be said about Su-25. Except that in case of Su-25 there's more combat-based evidence that supports that statement. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Alan Erskine
writes "miket6065" wrote in message .net... I think that they are planning on using the new small diameter bombs for ground support. Certainly no plane can carry that massive GAU8 rotary cannon. But with the radar and computers of the JSF it can easily ID several targets and program a single SDB against each. Not at the speed it will be travelling at. It will cover the battlefield in half the time of the A-10; that's a major problem. The A10 was designed to deal with battles that were going to occur within close range of the bases it would be deployed in. So it's lack of speed comes out as a net advantage as long as it's armour holds out. Nowadays it isn't so simple (unless you are the aggressor), the battle field might be far from your main bases which means that the ability to transition to the combat area quickly could outweigh the advantages of being slow enough to aim at the targets manually. And don't forget battle damage; no aircraft flying can absorb the amount of damage an A-10 can survive. I don't doubt it (1) but out of interest. How many battles have A10's been in? How many A10's have been sold outside the US? (1) Actually those big fan engines have always worried me, I have always thought that stuff designed/targeted to explode just above and in front of the A10 so that the engines run through all the debris/shrapnel would be extremely effective, as a bonus for such targeting the top of an A10 is (AIUI) barely any tougher than any other combat plane. -- How does a rocket/jet engine work? "It's not that hard. Stuff goes in, stuff happens, stuff goes out faster than it came in." - Ian Stirling aRJay |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Alan Erskine
writes "miket6065" wrote in message .net... I think that they are planning on using the new small diameter bombs for ground support. Certainly no plane can carry that massive GAU8 rotary cannon. But with the radar and computers of the JSF it can easily ID several targets and program a single SDB against each. Not at the speed it will be travelling at. It will cover the battlefield in half the time of the A-10; that's a major problem. The A10 was designed to deal with battles that were going to occur within close range of the bases it would be deployed in. So it's lack of speed comes out as a net advantage as long as it's armour holds out. Nowadays it isn't so simple (unless you are the aggressor), the battle field might be far from your main bases which means that the ability to transition to the combat area quickly could outweigh the advantages of being slow enough to aim at the targets manually. And don't forget battle damage; no aircraft flying can absorb the amount of damage an A-10 can survive. I don't doubt it (1) but out of interest. How many battles have A10's been in? How many A10's have been sold outside the US? (1) Actually those big fan engines have always worried me, I have always thought that stuff designed/targeted to explode just above and in front of the A10 so that the engines run through all the debris/shrapnel would be extremely effective, as a bonus for such targeting the top of an A10 is (AIUI) barely any tougher than any other combat plane. -- How does a rocket/jet engine work? "It's not that hard. Stuff goes in, stuff happens, stuff goes out faster than it came in." - Ian Stirling aRJay |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"miket6065" wrote in message
. net... I think that they are planning on using the new small diameter bombs for ground support. Certainly no plane can carry that massive GAU8 rotary cannon. But with the radar and computers of the JSF it can easily ID several targets and program a single SDB against each. Not at the speed it will be travelling at. It will cover the battlefield in half the time of the A-10; that's a major problem. And don't forget battle damage; no aircraft flying can absorb the amount of damage an A-10 can survive. -- Alan Erskine |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter | No Name | Aviation Photos | 0 | January 9th 07 11:11 PM |
CRS VIEWS THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER | Mike | Naval Aviation | 13 | June 10th 06 12:37 AM |
Joint Strike Fighter under attack on Capitol Hill | Henry J Cobb | Military Aviation | 2 | March 27th 04 08:07 PM |
Joint Strike Fighter focus sparks concern | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | March 19th 04 09:19 PM |