F-35 Lightning II (aka JSF)

[elmayerle]

Storm Shadow could never have been carried internally, it's too big even for the CTOL and CV weapons bays

Hi Evan

Yeah we knew that, it more a case of the weight concerns and the proposal for a CAS role which might have led to the Storm shadow not being qualified  or too heavy for the aircraft to carry on strike missions and safely return to the carrier (We don't want to see these babies being dumped prior to landing when not ired in anger !!!)

Sounds like they have sorted out the problems of weight due to redesign and increased performance.

Cheers

Geoff B B)

Oh, the wieght concerns have been sorted out (and will continue to be, what I'm designing right now is common to all three variants and weight is a major driver - enough to force structures to change their ground rules for the design when the original ones forced an unacceptable weight penalty - the change isn't hazardous at all, just makes them do more work ).

[Joe C-P]

Actually, I think the small marking work in favor of the what-if factor. Someone looks at it, says "Cool plane, nice model, good work. Hey, what the...?" as they move in close to see the markings.

Retro markings have been mentioned more than once for a future group build.

So, why is it you plane builders make all your panels lines look like they've been caulked with tar?      

[Jeffry Fontaine]

I'm curious for obvious reasons, how does the canopy open?  The reason I ask is that prototype and production aircraft will definitely differ in this area for some valid reasons.

Evan;

I don't recall seeing any option for the canopy in the open position, just closed and ready for flight.  Next time I get down to my plastic palace of polystyrene pain (storage locker 10' X 24') I will have to take another look at the kit and determine what it does have for the cockpit/canopy.  I would hope that the wing pylons, when fitted will resemble the standard issue currently found on the F-16 for the USAF version.  Evan, can you confirm or deny this?  Would there be any real difference between the Navy pylons and the USAF pylons?  Will this thing have a centerline pylon or perhaps three belly pylons like the Tornado?  Since there appears to be plenty of space available on the underside if this thing, I would hope there would be accomodations for external carriage of ordnance or fuel in one or more fuselage mounted pylons as well as the pylons fitted to the wings.

Is there a possibility that the F-35 will be able to accomodate wingtip mounted launch rails for either the AIM-9 Sidewinder or the AIM-120 AMRAAM?  As far as the pylons go, I am going to use F-16 type pylons on the USAF version and F-18 type pylons for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Royal Navy versions. 

Has anyone considered how to outfit these models?  All of the current kits appear to be quite bare in regards to the usual extras such as pylons and fuel tanks and the internal weapons bay is quite small and obscured by the doors.  Why not try to create a visual difference between the different branches of service that will be using this aircraft, the use of different styles or designs of pylons should be considered.  For instance, the USAF versions should use pylons that are found on the F-16 while the Navy and Marine Corps aircraft should be fitted with the pylons that are used on the F-18.  This being a quick fix and solution to the bare wings and a way to make them different enough from each other. 

The use of wingtip mounted missile launchers is still attractive regardless of the need to keep the tips clear of things for the VTOL features.  I like the look of missile launcers mounted on the wingtips.  Nothing large, just a Sidewinder, leave the AMRAAMs for the weapons bay or the underwing pylons. 

External fuel tanks would also be specific for each type with the land based aircraft featuring the F-16 or F-15 type fuel tanks and the carrier based aircraft featuring the F-18 style fuel tanks.  No specific reason, just another subtle way of keeping them different enough to appreciate.

Other WHIF ideas that come to mind:

Adapt the wings from an F-18 wings for a Navy and Marine Corps version that would have folding wings and wingtip mounted missile rails and a built in gun instead of an add-on pod. 

Adapt the wings from the F-16 wings to create a CTOL version for the Air Force version with wingtip missile rails.

Some major surgery would be involved with this last idea and that would be to use a cockpit and canopy from a donor two seat F-15B, F-14, F-18, or F-16 cockpit to create a two seat strike aircraft or trainer.

[elmayerle]

The rails won't be on the wingtips per se - they're under the wing a bit inboard from the tips.- basically on structure that's common to all wings (same wing station, from the fuselage, on all aircraft, just not as close to the wingtips on the Navy versions with bigger wings and slightly greater span.  I'll see what unclassifed data I can get for you.

I'll have to check on that gun, I know it's just on the USAF version for now.  Let me get back to you on that.  Vstol version has a podded gun as an option, as does the carrier version.

[Geoff_B]

I suppose the problem with the JSF is that many people jumped on the bandwagon without reading the small print. Not only are the first examples not going to be ready till 2012 (ish) but these initial aircraft are likely to go to the original customers first (US/UK) the export versions are not likely till 2015 i would guess. However alot of users have earmarked them for replacement for aircraft scheduled to retire by 2010 (Nato F-16's for example). MLU's can  upgrade capabilities but the airframes will be getting tired by then unless they get deep rebuilds to zero the airframe (eg our hugely expensive Nimrod MR-4A)

As for the EF-35B, i imagine you will see a SEAD aircraft carrying weapons suchg as the ALARM , HARM and its replacements, but for the trus preowler type role the F-18G would be the more likely replacement  possibly complemented later by a version of the Hawkeye/Grayhound/Viking Tanker replacement.

Speaking of delays parliment in the UK has finally admitted what has long been known that the F-35B won't be ready for 2012 when the new carrier should be ready (also never going to meet that deadline either !!!). No real purpose to the announcement just party politics in the run up to the election as MP's look for any gaffs to attack the government.

G B)  

[elmayerle]

Okay, guys, bear with me while I go through the necessary legal formulae that I'm required to use.

THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE NON-TECHNICAL DATA ACCORDING TO ITAR AND IS RELEASEABLE TO FOREIGN NATIONALS:

This is the information used on our current display models.

F-35A:

[elmayerle]

F-35B:

[elmayerle]

And F-35C:

[TsrJoe]

soooo neat ... many thanks Evan  (i guess the overall configuration of the 'production' examples are mainstream now at least in external form) no excuses for not modelling them now...!

happy JSF'ing, cheerrs, joe  

ps. you guys got a name for the bird as yet? iv heard theres been some suggestions but nothing definate has filtered through!  B)  

[Gary]

Hmm, what do I need to add to make this right?

[Madoc]

Folks,

I just caught wind of this over on the Starship Modeller board.  One of the folks over there posted a link to this Aerospace Daily story about the future of the Conventional Take Off & Landing version of the USAF F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.  The USAF, as the story goes, would direct the money "saved" by killing the CTOL version to buy more of the Navy's STOL version.  How this'd affect the international customers of the CTOL remains to be seen.

Evan, you got your ears on?  What do you think about this?

Madoc

[elmayerle]

Evan, you got your ears on?  What do you think about this?

They'd be bloody asinine to do it, even for politicians.  'Sides, I don't think there's any way they could get it through Congress, esp. since the USAF would fight it every way they could.

In addition, it'd screw over most of their foreign sales potential and I can't see them desiring to muck that up.  Too, it'd result in the USAF buying a more expensive plane than they desire with features they don't want and without some they do.  I can't see that as really saving any money.

[Gary]

Canada either gets the Rafale/Super Hornet/Typhoon/Gripen!

B)

We'll be lucky if we can get a fat kid on a pedal powered hang glider dropping sticks and rocks. Keeerist, don't get me started.

In the words of Rick Mercier, we tell ourselves we're the best country in the world and ask out trrops to go into harms way with jeeps that don't run, transports that if they were cars, would require special licenses for being antiques, subs that spontaniously combust, helecoptors that include a special self detatching tail  rotors ... the list goes on and on. We as a people should stand up and demand that the government whip out the gold card and give these dedicated represenatives of said "best country in the world" the equipment they so desperiately need, not another 1/2 dozen executive jets for the House of Commons crew.  

Note: it took 11 months to decide and find the funding for excutive jets for the Commons crew, yet 14 years after a white paper review determined the Iltus jeep wasn't safe or roadworthy for the forces, they are still the primary light utility vehicle for our combat troops abroad.

[elmayerle]

Some of the discussions I've seen of this on other boards have pointed out that this "news story" might be a deliberate release on the part of Lockheed in an attempt - now get this! - to protect their F-22 sales!

They figure that if they make sure word gets out as to how the Navy is making a move on the JSF then that'll cloud that program and make the F-22 look all the better.

The speculation is that this "news release" is nothing more than some gamesmanship going on inside the Beltway and that there's no more substance to it.

We'll see.

Personally, I can't see the logic in canceling out the "basic" version of this bird as that's the cash cow for the whole program.  Kill that off and you'll diminish your foreign sales and increase your unit cost for the remaining variants.  Not a wise move even for arms procurement folks noted for making unwise moves in the past.

I think I can firmly put this one to rest.  Everything I've read and seen, corporate and otherwise, says that the USAF already wants rather more of the F/A-22 than they've been able to talk the DOD into so far.  It's meating and beating a lot of the performance predictions and, so some initial articles in AvWeek and elsewhere indicate, it's rather nasty to encounter in a dogfight.

[Madoc]

Folks,

It seems to me that today's Air Force (US Air Force that is) is much like Rome's Navy was.  Rome had a Navy you ask? (and I know some of you just did!)  Yes, Rome did have a Navy.  They had a damn good one.  In fact, they had the best Navy the world had ever seen.  At the time.  And in the Mediterranean.

The Roman Navy was so damn good, it was so damn efficient, and it was so damn lethal that in a few years it had eliminated any and all of its challengers.  In short order, there was no longer any threat to merchant shipping in the Med.

And in short order, no one saw any further need for spending all that money on a military force which obviously had no further foe to fight.

And also in short order, as these things go, the Roman Navy got cut back and cut back and cut back and soon was but a shadow of its former self.

Thus, came the time that a real and dangerous ocean going threat arose, there was no longer a Roman Navy worthy of the name to deal with it.

Same same with the US Air Force.  Those F-22's are the absolute best air to air weapons ever devised.  They can fly rings around the F-15 Eagle, which had itself been the best air to air weapon ever devised - until the F-22's showed up.

Currently, there is no significant air to air threat from any other nation in the world.  All that our F-15's did during Desert Storm was burn JP-4 and log a bunch of airframe hours.  They didn't even get to shoot at any Iraqi air force jets trying to fly off to Iran because this time 'round the Iraqis didn't have any more jets left to fly.

For the foreseeable future, this sort of pattern will repeat itself.  Syria and Iran may well have some excellent air defenses - or at least numerous ones - but they've nothing they can put up into the air that our F-15's can't handle.  Same deal with North Korea.  Russia?  You're kidding me, right?  China?  Nope.  Not either of those countries.

At least not today, that is.  Nor, realistically, for a few years.  After that however?

China is emerging as the next big threat.  And it will be a technologically advanced threat (whether from what they develop themselves, buy from the Russians or steal from everyone else) and it will be backed by a massive economy.  It'll also have the force of millions upon millions of underemployed 20somethings who have little else to do with themselves but listen to government propaganda and see how "the West is denying China its rightful place in the world."  If you think that premise doesn't make sense then just look at where Japan was back in the early 1930's.  The similarities are far too striking.

If things do go south with China then we'll need the absolute best we can possibly have.  In ten or fifteen years the F-15's will be nearing the half century mark of service.  Even if they've been upgraded and zero-timed again and again they'll be at an increasing disadvantage when put up against newly built fighters that incorporate stealth and the latest in air to air weaponry from the outset.

That's why we need to procure at least some F-22's _now_ and to keep those production lines up and running.  Even at a slow procurement rate, that does serve to keep current the "knowledge base" which makes such weaponry producible and keeps the skilled workers on those production lines and not getting laid off to go make aluminum ash trays and the like.

So, all kidding aside, it makes sense for us to procure something like the F-22 and to do so now.

Madoc