|
StandardVC10 posted:I'm not an acronym Nazi and I kinda get the gist from context, but what's the meaning of SWAT? Some kind of mid-program redesign? "STOVL weight attack team," a crash weightloss program for the F-35B (and the other versions too, for the reasons iyaayas explained).
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
I didn't realize a lot of that stuff translated into the other models. Jesus Christ, it's like they're trying to cripple it. VVV I realize that, I'm just surprised they went and hosed with the ones that didn't need the B's weight savings and CoG poo poo. Godholio fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Dec 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I didn't realize a lot of that stuff translated into the other models. Jesus Christ, it's like they're trying to cripple it. Trying to cram the A, B, and C models' missions into one program is like trying to build a flying car that can also transforms into a submarine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I didn't realize a lot of that stuff translated into the other models. Jesus Christ, it's like they're trying to cripple it. I think JSF manufacturing is split amongst (literally) all 50 states (possibly excepting AK). Each state has some firm somewhere that is building some subcomponent of the JSF, or building some testing system/test hardness to support some subcomponent. Nothing like pleasing a gently caress ton of Congressmen to make sure your gravy train remains operational. I doubt any of them realize how much has been nerfed since the initial design.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 03:22
|
|
|
Refueling a plane in Africa... http://izismile.com/2012/08/07/how_they_refuel_planes_in_some_parts_of.html Edit: Page might not be work safe for ads. Preoptopus fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Dec 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Trying to cram the A, B, and C models' missions into one program is like trying to build a flying car that can also transforms into a submarine. This is an idea that I will soon be pitching before the Department of Defense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 04:29
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Question for folks in the know: has the design around VTOL for the F-35B compromised the rest of the airframe for the variants that aren't going to include it? The airplane already had a lot of design goals- how far is the non-VTOL version from what they'd be if that hadn't been considered? Well, for one thing, it is a single engine, which the Navy really doesn't like. Second, it is stumpy, which is needful for the STOVL, but a drawback for everybody else, in terms of performance and stowage. If you wanted to know what an F-35 would look like without the compromises forced by the B version, look at the F-22. That is what it would look like...for the Air Force. For the Navy, it might look like the F-22B, bigger delta-er wing, but still long and skinny. Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Dec 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:"STOVL weight attack team," a crash weightloss program for the F-35B (and the other versions too, for the reasons iyaayas explained). Air and Space did a pretty good article on it a few years back. The bits about the program in general are a bit dated since it was published in 2006 and a lot has changed since then, but some of it is still pretty prescient (I especially love the bit about the former Navy pilot who's worried that the weight loss efforts are going to possibly negatively impact the -C due to a loss in structural strength.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 06:02
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I'm not an acronym Nazi and I kinda get the gist from context, but what's the meaning of SWAT? Some kind of mid-program redesign? Short Take-Off Vertical Landing Weight Attack Team.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 09:44
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Air and Space did a pretty good article on it a few years back. The bits about the program in general are a bit dated since it was published in 2006 and a lot has changed since then, but some of it is still pretty prescient (I especially love the bit about the former Navy pilot who's worried that the weight loss efforts are going to possibly negatively impact the -C due to a loss in structural strength.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 09:44
|
|
|
Has the F-35B's added weight and power compared to the AV-8B led to issues with the surfaces it does or can land on? While talking with some Harrier pilots, somehow the subject of vertical landings on surfaces other than ships or tarmacs came up and one described landing on dirt or even asphalt as "digging your own grave" with the engine and hoping you could crawl back out of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 15:12
|
|
|
I doubt we'll see these things operate in such conditions for at least 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Has the F-35B's added weight and power compared to the AV-8B led to issues with the surfaces it does or can land on? While talking with some Harrier pilots, somehow the subject of vertical landings on surfaces other than ships or tarmacs came up and one described landing on dirt or even asphalt as "digging your own grave" with the engine and hoping you could crawl back out of it. Well, they've found that the exhaust from the V-22's engines can damage the deck when it operates off of 'phibs. The localized heating is so intense that the deck plates physically warp and I think it can melt the antiskid coating right off, so the whole deck needs more and more frequent maintenance. The problem was forecast to be even more severe with the F-35 V/STOL since you've got that one powerful engine exhaust pointed directly down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Has the F-35B's added weight and power compared to the AV-8B led to issues with the surfaces it does or can land on? While talking with some Harrier pilots, somehow the subject of vertical landings on surfaces other than ships or tarmacs came up and one described landing on dirt or even asphalt as "digging your own grave" with the engine and hoping you could crawl back out of it. They don't care much for landing without gear, either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I doubt we'll see these things operate in such conditions for at least 20 years. This reminded me of an interesting bit of Aeronautical Insanity that is probably common knowledge, but which I recently learned and which I thought was pretty cool. I'd heard for many years that the MiG-29 (and most other Soviet aircraft) was designed with "screens" over the intakes to prevent FOD from debris ingestion when operating from lovely airfields. Makes sense to me. I never really understood what those "screens" were, though until I saw this photo  Yeah, those aren't "screens", like a window screen or the anti-radar mesh over the F-117's intakes or whatever. Those are goddamn doors. Turns out they just swing shut and close off the main intakes entirely during takeoff, feeding the engines from those funny louvered grilles on the plane's dorsal side  and then swing them open again once the plane is clear of the ground. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:This reminded me of an interesting bit of Aeronautical Insanity that is probably common knowledge, but which I recently learned and which I thought was pretty cool. Severe performance penalty though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
There is no way you would ever live down being "The guy who FOD'd a Pegasus with a Slumberland"
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:Severe performance penalty though. Is this another one of those Soviet-era "Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING must be able to operate from some gravel strip in bumfuck Siberia" things? Edit: I should read more carefully, because not reading makes me look like a doofus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
That was only done on the early lot -As. The Soviets (unlike the Marines) figured out that they operated from unprepared fields about never, and the design added more problems than it solved. It is an easy way to tell the ancient as gently caress -A from the later models though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
Also the one in the picture looks like its left wing had some weld work done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 01:26
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Also the one in the picture looks like its left wing had some weld work done. This reminds me that one E-3 Sentry has 10 feet of wing from a different 707 from some aerial refueling mishap way back when.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
They weren't ARing, they were taking pictures of each other and the wings collided, taking out two of the 135's engines and ripping off the E-3's wingtip. I was stuck in Vegas for a while after one E-3 decided to eat several inches of its own wing skin. I'm not exactly sure what happened, but we had to have a bunch of sheetmetal fabbed to fly home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
Godholio posted:They weren't ARing, they were taking pictures of each other and the wings collided, taking out two of the 135's engines and ripping off the E-3's wingtip. Not at the time they weren't but yea I know it was during some photo op.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
Geizkragen posted:That was only done on the early lot -As. The Soviets (unlike the Marines) figured out that they operated from unprepared fields about never, and the design added more problems than it solved. It is an easy way to tell the ancient as gently caress -A from the later models though. There are more modern designs that also have them. Godholio posted:They weren't ARing, they were taking pictures of each other and the wings collided, taking out two of the 135's engines and ripping off the E-3's wingtip. Holy poo poo!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 04:35
|
|
|
To clarify, those engines were FODed out, they weren't cut off the wings or anything. It was interesting a couple of weeks ago seeing the old-timers on facebook try to pinpoint the date that happened by comparing notes on who was doing what job (sitting the ops desk, etc) that day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 06:28
|
|
|
Enjoying the f-35b chat (again) guys. By the way, something some of you may be aware of, though I certainly wasn't, according to this week's flight international, the usmc actually has more combat aircraft than the raf (or the rn for that matter, since they don't have any combat aircraft). By some margin too - 313 to 177.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 11:21
|
|
|
routlej1 posted:Enjoying the f-35b chat (again) guys. It always surprises me to see just how large Americas military expenditure is. From an Australian point of view with only 5 or 6% of your population our expenditure comes nowhere close.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
Aargh posted:It always surprises me to see just how large Americas military expenditure is. From an Australian point of view with only 5 or 6% of your population our expenditure comes nowhere close. According to Wikipedia Australia is 14th in the world in military spending, and it's 1.9% of the country's GDP (to the 4.7% spent by the United States.) The spending is about $893 per capita, to the United States' $2,141.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 03:33
|
|
|
It's always crazy to me whenever I remember that Australia has less than 25 million people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
It's always crazy to me when people talk about populations in the millions, and then I remember some places have an extra comma.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 07:53
|
|
|
The reality is that the F-35 is the best manned fighter you will ever be able to buy as a non producing country. Because it's the last, best manned fighter you will be able to buy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 08:26
|
|
|
I was up late and I saw something on the military channel about the F-5. I'm not an expert on aircraft or procurement, but it seemed like a pretty cool idea - build a cheap, easy to fix lightweight fighter. Is there a reason that something similar can't be done in this day and age? It absolutely baffles me that we're investing hundreds of millions of dollars per unit into the F-22 and F-35 when accidents have and will take their tolls and cost a loving fortune. Now, granted, we're at the end of the era of piloted military aircraft, but doesn't it make a lot more sense to spread that cost over a larger fleet of cheaper aircraft, so that the losses to attrition aren't as costly?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 09:43
|
|
|
AlmightyPants posted:I was up late and I saw something on the military channel about the F-5. I'm not an expert on aircraft or procurement, but it seemed like a pretty cool idea - build a cheap, easy to fix lightweight fighter. Is there a reason that something similar can't be done in this day and age? It absolutely baffles me that we're investing hundreds of millions of dollars per unit into the F-22 and F-35 when accidents have and will take their tolls and cost a loving fortune. Now, granted, we're at the end of the era of piloted military aircraft, but doesn't it make a lot more sense to spread that cost over a larger fleet of cheaper aircraft, so that the losses to attrition aren't as costly? This post made me remember the F-20. As far as I understand it was a great aircraft killed by poo poo politics and possibly bribery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 10:16
|
|
|
They did make a cheap multi-purpose export fighter along the lines of the F-5 - it's called the F-35. That's just how hosed the program is at this point. F-5:F-4 as F-16:F-15 as F-35:F-22 (approximately) The story I read for dumping the F-20 was that the F-16 had engine commonality with the F-15. That and GE/GD had already started training units in its use/maintenance (somehow). So it wasn't entirely corruption. I could be making that up though. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Dec 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 11:28
|
|
|
front wing flexing posted:It's always crazy to me whenever I remember that Australia has less than 25 million people. We haven't hit 25 yet. As of right now it's (estimated to be) 22,847,432. Australia is wanting to buy more Super Hornets too now with the delay of the F35. Possibly another 24, maybe 36. quote:Super Hornets considered amid fears about JSF Given we have 24 new super hornets now, and our JSF order is 70-100, if we do end up doubling our number thats half the order of the F35 filled with hornets. drunkill fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Dec 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 11:34
|
|
|
The budget of the F-35 program is actually about the same size as the budget for Australia  http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/the-f-35-a-weapon-that-costs-more-than-australia/72454/
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 12:37
|
|
|
Edit: I really hosed this up.
Godholio fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Dec 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
Cygni posted:The reality is that the F-35 is the best manned fighter you will ever be able to buy as a non producing country. Because it's the last, best manned fighter you will be able to buy. I find this doubtful, for technical, political, and disciplinary reasons (unless you're focusing on exportability; I'm focusing on the last manned fighter part). I feel like he's cyber raping GIP. Previa_fun posted:This post made me remember the F-20. As far as I understand it was a great aircraft killed by poo poo politics and possibly bribery. It wasn't that great, really. It's got a cult following because of the lightweight fighter community, but it was competition against the superior F-16. The F-20 was the culmination of the F-5 platform...it was maxed out on what they could do. They couldn't give it a better engine, radar, or payload. On the other hand, there was the F-16...in performance very similar, but with much more available internal space (this is good for upgrades), a better radar (the APG-67 was mediocre in air-to-air modes, even for the time). Dwindling sales opportunities (after the F-16 was sold to Pakistan I think, and China was making a big deal out of potential sales to Taiwan), and Congressional lobbying for long-term F-16 production in Texas were just the final nails.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 15:15
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I find this doubtful, for technical, political, and disciplinary reasons (unless you're focusing on exportability; I'm focusing on the last manned fighter part). Yeah man, but it looked cool 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
front wing flexing posted:Yeah man, but it looked cool The only fighter metric that matters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 15:55
|
|
