KrisYYZ From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1575 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3172 times:
I read an article on Flight international regarding the first engine installation on the F-35. The article states that the first engine is a "conventional take-off and landing variant". The F-35 was design to be a vertical take-off and Landing aircraft much like the Harrier, I take it that function will be implemented later. But overall the F-35 looks like it will be an awesome fighter, like a Harrier and F-18 combined.
I also recall reading that the Canadian Air force helped fund the project due the possibility that F-35 will be a replacement for the CF-18 Hornets. Has anyone herd this as well?
F14D4ever From United States of America, joined May 2005, 319 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3156 times:
Quoting KrisYYZ (Thread starter): I read an article on Flight international regarding the first engine installation on the F-35.
Thanks for the link.
Quoting KrisYYZ (Thread starter): The article states that the first engine is a "conventional take-off and landing variant".
No, that's not what the article states. After reading it again you'll see that the airframe in the photos is the conventional take-off and landing variant. The engine simply provides thrust.
With additional lift fan and roll posts you get a vertical landing variant of the airplane.
Quoting KrisYYZ (Thread starter): The F-35 was design [sic] to be a vertical take-off and Landing aircraft
While the F-35 is capable of vertical takeoffs, we are not likely to see any, as they are extremely wasteful of fuel. The F-35 is intended and designed for conventional and/or short (including catapult) takeoff and vertical landings (CSTOVL).
DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11433 posts, RR: 81 Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3111 times:
The Canadians seem to be counting on the F-35 to replace the F-18s in due course.
There will be multiple variants of the F-35 which will be offered to the different services. It appears that the USAF is interested in procuring the STOVL version now, as opposed to earlier when they strictly wanted the conventional version.
Ulfinator From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 311 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3108 times:
Quoting DL021 (Reply 2): The Canadians seem to be counting on the F-35 to replace the F-18s in due course.
Not sure when Canadian F-35s would come online but Boeing just won the final phase of a contract to upgrade the avionics to extend the life of the CF-18s through 2017.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16247 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3095 times:
Quoting DL021 (Reply 2): It appears that the USAF is interested in procuring the STOVL version now
The Air Force wants to order some of the STOVL F-35s to replace A-10s in their close air support role, that makes alot of sense as they could operate the STOVL F-35s much closer to Ground Units in the Field. They could also be creative as to where they could operate from, If I remember correctly during the First Gulf War in 1991 the Marines were operating Harriers from a Mall parking lot in Saudi Arabia.
MissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 21 hours ago) and read 3021 times:
My understanding is the CF-18AM & CF-18BM are intended to serve until the 2020's. Whether they will be replaced at that time or modified again is another matter. By that time they'll probably be flying 12 & storing the rest at Mountain View
It would be nice to see a STOVL aircraft in the inventory to give our troops some indigenous air support overseas. I'm not so sure it should be our only airplane though, I think I'm in favour of something else for air defense.
Longbow From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 23 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 7 hours ago) and read 2946 times:
Personally, I think the F-35 is a waste of money. That money could used much more effectively in the procurement of more F/A-18s, long range bombers, and tankers. With the F/A-22 coming online, and the still dominant F-15s, we certainly don't need more air superiority fighters.
I believe one of two things will happen: there will be huge cuts to the JSF program, or the program will get cancelled all together. Opportunities for foreign sales might be the thing keep it alive though.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 5 hours ago) and read 2899 times:
Quoting DL021 (Reply 2): There will be multiple variants of the F-35 which will be offered to the different services. It appears that the USAF is interested in procuring the STOVL version now, as opposed to earlier when they strictly wanted the conventional version.
F-35A (CTOL): USAF, RAF, RCAF, most other foreign air forces
F-35B (STOVL): USMC, RN, USAF (possibly), most other foreign navies
F-35C (catapulted CTOL): USN
Quoting Longbow (Reply 8): Do we really need a STOVL plane?
You'd better not ask that around a jarhead pilot. He'll deck you.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Longbow From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 23 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 4 hours ago) and read 2885 times:
Roger that. I guess I'm really questioning the 'V' part of the STOVL. When are vertical landings really necessary? I know that AV-8Bs fly tons of sorties, but I'm not sure when the vertical landings are needed. Someone help me out.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 3 hours ago) and read 2856 times:
Quoting Longbow (Reply 8): Personally, I think the F-35 is a waste of money. That money could used much more effectively in the procurement of more F/A-18s, long range bombers, and tankers. With the F/A-22 coming online, and the still dominant F-15s, we certainly don't need more air superiority fighters.
Don't you think the Navy would want something state of the art and stealthy?
Quoting N328KF (Reply 9): F-35B (STOVL): USMC, RN, USAF (possibly), most other foreign navies
There aren't many navies with carriers. But the STOVL version is likely a candidate for Harrier operators. It's also being considered by militaries of other nations.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12701 posts, RR: 80 Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 2 hours ago) and read 2847 times:
The RAF will not be buying F-35A.
Just a joint buy with the RN of the F-35B, indeed RAF F-35 will routinely deploy from the future HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince Of Wales, the planned CVF carriers.
In 1982, No.1 Sqn RAF, then flying Harrier GR.3's, quickly deployed on HMS Hermes for the Falklands war, after being ordered, rapid training on carrier ops, including the use of the 'Ski Jump', mods to the aircraft to carrier work, like drainage points, waterproofing, avionic additions, then flew to Ascension, then to loaded about a requisitioned merchant ship, deploying in the ground attack role for the landings.
Before then, some of No.1 Sqn's pilots had never even seen a carrier.
F-35C could potentially be ordered later by the RAF, to partially replace Tornado GR.4's, F-35C has the most range, has an in flight refueling system compatible with the RAF.
Longbow From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 23 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 2 hours ago) and read 2834 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 12): Don't you think the Navy would want something state of the art and stealthy?
I think upgrades to the F/A-18 could suffice for the Navy, and they would still be state-of-the-art. The money could just be used elsewhere. The F-35 is not stealth airplane like the F/A-22; the Raptor will be used for the deep strike missions. The F-35 will have incremental improvements over the -18, but that's just because it's a newer design. Also, from what I've heard, much of the stealth advantages of the F-35 come from it's internally stored weapons, but the Navy still plans to have some external stores, which negates those advantages.
Garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 1 hour ago) and read 2831 times:
Quoting Longbow (Reply 13): F/A-22; the Raptor will be used for the deep strike missions.
Deep strike? With what? That token pair of 1,000 pound JDAMs? The USAF deep strike mission will continue to be a function of the F-15E even after the F-22 appears in greater numbers.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
Longbow From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 23 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months ago) and read 2815 times:
Quoting Garnetpalmetto (Reply 14): Deep strike? With what? That token pair of 1,000 pound JDAMs? The USAF deep strike mission will continue to be a function of the F-15E even after the F-22 appears in greater numbers.
I don't think a deep strike mission for a F-22 entails dropping a whole bunch of bombs and blowing everything up. It is a strategic strike aimed a specific target or two, so yes, I think the F-22 could be effective in this role with only 2 JDAMs.
B1 and B2's bring that heavy deep strike capability; not an F-15E.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2771 times:
Quoting Longbow (Reply 8): Personally, I think the F-35 is a waste of money. That money could used much more effectively in the procurement of more F/A-18s, long range bombers, and tankers. With the F/A-22 coming online, and the still dominant F-15s, we certainly don't need more air superiority fighters.
An engineer from St. Louis who thinks the F-35 is a waste of money and the DOD should buy more F-18's. Things that make you go HHHHMMMM.
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2716 times:
Quoting Longbow (Reply 10): Roger that. I guess I'm really questioning the 'V' part of the STOVL. When are vertical landings really necessary? I know that AV-8Bs fly tons of sorties, but I'm not sure when the vertical landings are needed. Someone help me out.
A plane that can do extremly short takeoffs - especially with the assistance of a "ski jump" - can do vertical landings without much addit ional difficulty. The vertical landing capability is more of a bonus than an objective.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2705 times:
Quoting Longbow (Reply 8): I believe one of two things will happen: there will be huge cuts to the JSF program, or the program will get cancelled all together. Opportunities for foreign sales might be the thing keep it alive though.
I doubt either of those will happen. More likely, the program will be stretched out. F-35 is designed as a replacement for F-16, early F-18s, and AV-8Bs and so is really not an air superiority fighter, but a multirole fighter. F-35, with its huge potential export orders also has a lot more support on Capitol Hill than new tankers, C-17 successors, or long range bombers can ever dream of. And, the USAF is still going to need a replacement for its huge number of F-16s eventually, canning F-35 now and starting again 10 years from now with another typical 10-15 year procurement project would just be insanely wasteful.
Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3081 posts, RR: 12 Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2652 times:
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 16): An engineer from St. Louis who thinks the F-35 is a waste of money and the DOD should buy more F-18's. Things that make you go HHHHMMMM.
And Lockheed wins another contract, which is now behind schedule and over budget. Funny thing is that the one from St. Louis was a truely common platform utilizing the same airframe, and the same powerplant. Something the Lockheed design does not do. Oh well, I guess our 30 year old design will be the big guy for another few years while lockheed tries to figure out the F-22, which first flew over 15 years ago. Things that make you go HMMMMM.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2489 times:
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 11): There aren't many navies with carriers. But the STOVL version is likely a candidate for Harrier operators. It's also being considered by militaries of other nations.
Spain, Italy, Thailand, and India all operate Harriers.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2481 times:
Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 19): Funny thing is that the one from St. Louis was a truely common platform utilizing the same airframe, and the same powerplant.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1575 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 319 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12701 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
