JSF F35C News = AYFKM?

I thought the whole point (at least of the B model) was that it didn't need the trap/cat. Isn't that why it did its ship suitability tests on the USS Wasp?

 
Skylane81E said:
So daytime only?
Click to expand...

No wonder people are freaking about about the dreaded Cessna 150. We are an actual threat to national security because we can fly at night and they can't.

Hmmm... Maybe this is our chance to pull up to a pentagon demo flight in a 150 to compete against them. I'd be happy to sell them 150's all day long for 20 million dollars a pop. They may laugh at first however a 150 is day and night IFR capable even when lightning is in the area... And I bet anyone with a solo endorsement could land one on a carrier too. :lol:

what is this WWII?!
Click to expand...

More like WWI.


This is hilarious.
 
Apparently people actually didn't learn from the F-111 and F-14.
 
AdamZ said:
Why do they need a hook if there is a VSTOL model?
Click to expand...

What if you're 2000 miles from land and the hydraulics go out on that upper cover that lets the air in? Yea, there may be a second hydraulic system however it is essentially a single point failure swim in the ocean cover.

But hey, it'll be daytime in good weather so they helicopter can come fish you out. :lol:
 
So I see the line in the article that, if I'm reading it correctly, states that the F-35 can only be flown during daytime. I just.....what? Seriously? What are they missing, a spare set of fuses?

A quick google search didn't help me out - anyone have more information on this?
 
I see that the F35 has been assembled in a manner analogous to Microsoft Vista. Sigh.
 
Ah, maybe the helmet mounted night vision system isn't working properly yet. I found a few references to that, and that might be all that was meant.
 
airframe buffet in the heart of the combat envelope. Also, all F-35 variants suffer from paper-thin weight margins, unsafe fuel dumping, flight restrictions on diving, speed and proximity to lightning hazards to name a few. And, it can only be flown during the daytime.
Click to expand...

Airframe buffet in the heart of the combat envelope! What!!
 
dell30rb said:
Airframe buffet in the heart of the combat envelope! What!!
Click to expand...

Maybe it has something to do with the elevator and nozzle going full down just as it clears the deck in the carrier video. That just can't be flying properly to start with when it looks like it's flying at high angles of attack about as well as a 4x8 sheet of plywood on a windy day. It's just not right.
 
fgcason said:
Maybe it has something to do with the elevator and nozzle going full down just as it clears the deck in the carrier video. That just can't be flying properly to start with when it looks like it's flying at high angles of attack about as well as a 4x8 sheet of plywood on a windy day. It's just not right.
Click to expand...
Again thats the USMC STOVL version as opposed to the conventional ship born fighter the Navy will be fielding.
 
as a bit of additional information.
F-16s, F-15s and a number of other 'land only' Air Force jets have tail hooks.

F-22 and F-35 both suffer from the same thing. cramming too much new tech into a plane without it being tested.
 
Looks like the Program Managers just spent years and millions to convince the Brass to convert combat operations to drones.
 
chucky said:
So I see the line in the article that, if I'm reading it correctly, states that the F-35 can only be flown during daytime. I just.....what? Seriously? What are they missing, a spare set of fuses?

A quick google search didn't help me out - anyone have more information on this?
Click to expand...

Like most reporting on technical subjects, would it surprise you if the reporter missed a few facts or some context? I suspect they only do initial flight testing (including carrier trials) during the daylight. You get better pictures of the hook skip that way.

As for weight issues, every (tm) project in the last 40 years has had weight issues. And cost issues. I think it is par for the course given the military purchasing process. 1) Set unrealistic goals. 2) Act surprised when those goals jack up the cost to ridiculous levels. 3) Complain that the compromises necessary to meet the goals stated in (1) undermine the system's effectiveness. 4) Despite the fact that the military knew all of these things on day one, act surprised when the word gets out.
 
I think you guys are going half-cocked off an article at F-16.net, of all places.
 
kyleb said:
Like most reporting on technical subjects, would it surprise you if the reporter missed a few facts or some context? I suspect they only do initial flight testing (including carrier trials) during the daylight. You get better pictures of the hook skip that way.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I figured such an extraordinary claim was wrong - I wanted to know what they actually meant. The night vision problems might be it.
 
flyersfan31 said:
How about AW&ST then?
Click to expand...

fuel dump system on the JSF doesn't get fuel clear of the aircraft surfaces... Two unsuccessful modifications have been tried on the F-35B.
Click to expand...

:skeptical:
Seriously? SERIOUSLY? :confused:

Either that article is written by your typical news fruitcake or I must be really really stupid. What's the problem here? You don't need a steenking engineering degree or a committee to figure that solution out. Any 6 year old farm kid can tell you that the plane won't catch fire if you don't spray it down with fuel and set a match to it. Just install a big straw that pops out the back of the airplane into empty unheated air and dump the fuel through that instead of down the side of the plane into the hot exhaust.
 
flyersfan31 said:
How about AW&ST then? They're pretty respectable in the aviation journalism field.....

http://tinyurl.com/6uwj3bb
Click to expand...

It's the infamous Sweetman article you're linking. Sweetman almost made a career from attacking F-35, he was at it for years. Editors had to tolerate him all this time, but he cooked it by admitting beforehand that he had a major axe to grind and is not going to publish objective reports on F-35.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/05/aviation-week-suspends-bill-sw.html

I suppose Jim Campbell has a lot of interesting stuff to tell us about Cirrus too.
 
flyersfan31 said:
How about AW&ST then? They're pretty respectable in the aviation journalism
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is online, I guess they have different standards for what they put out in their printed version because Sweetman article never made it to the paper issue. And there is plenty on F-35 there, fairly balanced I might say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top