So roughly when can we expect a delivery to take place?RAAF's first aircraft are scheduled to come from the LRIP 6 production run.
Initial contract activity began in January 2010 and the contract notice for long lead items for LRIP 6 was posted on 15 September 2010, so RAAF's first F-35 jets will commence production pretty soon...
F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
- Status
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I think we'll get our first airframes in 2014/2015, but the initial airframes will be remaining in the Statws, as did the Super Hornets to begin with, to help our training buildup
I think the first airframes in Australia will arrive in 2017, with IOC to follow in 2018...
Not agreeing or disagreeing with what is said in the following link (link is to part 1 of 3) but posting for anyone interested. None the less interesting comments coming from someone who was a big part of the F16 & A10.
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI[/nomedia]
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI[/nomedia]
Spey is not credible, he thinks the USAF should revert to radarless interceptors and missileres, he only cares about his precious light weight mafia and WW2 or Korea style air combat. He has no clue about what LO brings to the table and no one who follows aviation news really pays serious attention to him or Wheeler any more, he is just about as bad as the Air Power Australia folks.
Do a search other users have posted and taken apart his idiotic claims.
Thanks for the info, I only had time for a little research on him, hence my comment about not agreeing or disagreeing with what was said, but will certainly look him up a bit more. Seems to be a strange position he is taking though when you consider the F16 & A10 are a fairly recent aircraft so to speak.
Although one thing he did say regarding the size of the aircraft, weight, fuel and load etc compared relative to the wing area and the ability for overall lift generated by the wings and therefore turning and manouvering ability does seem to make some sort of sense, but I am no means an aero engineer so I dont fully understand the actual physics associated with this
If anyone could clarify this for me or point me to a reputable source to read about this subject would be appreciated.Could the shape of the fuselage also create lift ? Looking at the shape of the JSF it does look like the areas running alongside the fuselage could have this ability and possibly ad additional lift ? I know a similar thing was done on the Tomcat's
But I suppose its all about selling your side of the story and how you put that forward to the press and public to try and get as much negative press as possible and trying to sway public opinion without the public actually understanding what it is all about but making them think they do
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
You've hit the nail on the head. It's known as bodylift and while a wing is more efficient at generating lift than the fuselage, it still needs to be factored into the equation...Thanks for the info, I only had time for a little research on him, hence my comment about not agreeing or disagreeing with what was said, but will certainly look him up a bit more. Seems to be a strange position he is taking though when you consider the F16 & A10 are a fairly recent aircraft so to speak.
Although one thing he did say regarding the size of the aircraft, weight, fuel and load etc compared relative to the wing area and the ability for overall lift generated by the wings and therefore turning and manouvering ability does seem to make some sort of sense, but I am no means an aero engineer so I dont fully understand the actual physics associated with this
Could the shape of the fuselage also create lift ? Looking at the shape of the JSF it does look like the areas running alongside the fuselage could have this ability and possibly ad additional lift ? I know a similar thing was done on the Tomcat's
But I suppose its all about selling your side of the story and how you put that forward to the press and public to try and get as much negative press as possible and trying to sway public opinion without the public actually understanding what it is all about but making them think they do
Besides, wing loading is a VERY simplistic measure of whether or not a fighter is maneuverable. Some of the most agile fighters in history actually had a very high wing loading, beyond that of the F-35 and they didn't have the benefit of advanced fly by wire control systems nor advanced flight control software, to achieve THEIR agility...
Thus simple example shows why attempting to 'infer' how maneuverable an aircraft is by looking at it's design features and open sourced stats is so fraught with danger and therefore unreliable.
L-M etc wouldn't spend billions on aircraft design, wind tunnel testing, flight testing etc if a simple appraisal of the sort conducted by APA, Spey etc was sufficient....
JSF High Poker
A cautious perspective of the US-Israeli F-35 agreement,
Some quotes:
The US (which in this context includes the government as well as the military and industry) has always been adamant that foreign JSF customer can integrate whatever equipment can be physically integrated, however, subject to US approval and provided that:
a) The customer(s) requiring the integration of a certain item will carry all relevant costs,
b) The integration will be performed in the US by Lockheed Martin, and
c) All aircraft manufactured after that will have the integration as a built-in feature, even if they are intended for customers that are not interested in the item. That is, the F-35s to be delivered to Italy or the US will have the capability to use the ASRAAM air-to-air missile (this being paid for by the UK) even though they rather use the IRIS-T and AIM-9X, respectively. This is intended to avoid the proliferation of a number of national variants, incompatible with each other.
....
The terms of the deal seem to be as follows:
a) The aircraft of the current order will be delivered to the “US standard,” with only a minimum of very minor modifications. It is not immediately clear whether “US standard” here means “the very same aircraft as the USAF” or rather refers to the widely suspected export standard with degraded stealth features.
b) The IDF, however, has a stated requirement for up to a further 75 JSFs in three batches (25 + 25 +25 aircraft). A possibility has been left open for the “last” Israeli F-35s (whatever “last” means) to be designed and delivered in an Israeli-optimised version, featuring Israeli-made sub-systems. But it would appear that even these aircraft would be built and completely outfitted by LM. So, no Israeli workload and no transfer of source codes.
So, where does this leave us, or more precisely the US and Israel?
A cautious perspective of the US-Israeli F-35 agreement,
Some quotes:
The US (which in this context includes the government as well as the military and industry) has always been adamant that foreign JSF customer can integrate whatever equipment can be physically integrated, however, subject to US approval and provided that:
a) The customer(s) requiring the integration of a certain item will carry all relevant costs,
b) The integration will be performed in the US by Lockheed Martin, and
c) All aircraft manufactured after that will have the integration as a built-in feature, even if they are intended for customers that are not interested in the item. That is, the F-35s to be delivered to Italy or the US will have the capability to use the ASRAAM air-to-air missile (this being paid for by the UK) even though they rather use the IRIS-T and AIM-9X, respectively. This is intended to avoid the proliferation of a number of national variants, incompatible with each other.
....
The terms of the deal seem to be as follows:
a) The aircraft of the current order will be delivered to the “US standard,” with only a minimum of very minor modifications. It is not immediately clear whether “US standard” here means “the very same aircraft as the USAF” or rather refers to the widely suspected export standard with degraded stealth features.
b) The IDF, however, has a stated requirement for up to a further 75 JSFs in three batches (25 + 25 +25 aircraft). A possibility has been left open for the “last” Israeli F-35s (whatever “last” means) to be designed and delivered in an Israeli-optimised version, featuring Israeli-made sub-systems. But it would appear that even these aircraft would be built and completely outfitted by LM. So, no Israeli workload and no transfer of source codes.
So, where does this leave us, or more precisely the US and Israel?
Last edited by a moderator:
Wasn't high wing loading one of the criticism's of the Tyhoon ? it seems to flip around nicely, I also understand the benefits of fly by wire, I think I read somewhere that the typhoon should not even be able to fly and a pilot with traditional controls would not be able to control the aircraft, hence fly by wife.
I read up some more on this guy and he seems like one of the type of people who believe the Apollo missions were faked
:JoeMcFriday
New Member
" I think I read somewhere that the typhoon should not even be able to fly and a pilot with traditional controls would not be able to control the aircraft, hence fly by wife."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the F16 start this FBW magic. Without it's computers it has all the flight qualities of a brick, so I've read somewhere.
Cheers,
Mac
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the F16 start this FBW magic. Without it's computers it has all the flight qualities of a brick, so I've read somewhere.
Cheers,
Mac
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
F-16 wasn't the first. Concorde pre-dated it with an analog FBW. NASA modified a F-8C with a digital FBW in 72. FBW has undergone quite a bit of evolution. Am guessing here but the first a/c with an FBW probably was the Avro 707C (1953). Non-experimental should be CF-105 Arrow in 57.
I fail to see where I said the Typhoon was the first FBW ? It was just an example of a project with the usual critics
JoeMcFriday
New Member
I never said you said that the Typhoon was the first FBW fighter.
Cheers,
Mac
Cheers,
Mac
fretburner
Banned Member
UK to swap F-35Bs with F-35Cs
Cameron also slammed the previous Labour government’s selection of the F-35B, and says the UK intends to switch its selection to the JSF’s “more capable, less expensive and longer-range” carrier variant (F-35C pictured below). The decision will also require one of the Royal Navy’s two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers to be equipped with catapult launch equipment...
I guess this leaves the US Marines as the sole F-35B operator?
Imagine if the Marines switched to the A or C variant as well... that would be a LOT of wasted money!
Cameron also slammed the previous Labour government’s selection of the F-35B, and says the UK intends to switch its selection to the JSF’s “more capable, less expensive and longer-range” carrier variant (F-35C pictured below). The decision will also require one of the Royal Navy’s two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers to be equipped with catapult launch equipment...
I guess this leaves the US Marines as the sole F-35B operator?
Imagine if the Marines switched to the A or C variant as well... that would be a LOT of wasted money!
The Marines aren’t going to do away with the F-35B. Unlike the RN the USN plans on keeping its fleet of LHDs/LHAs. Also Spain and Italy are both most likely customers for the F-35B. They have actually built ships capable of operating it.
As to the F-35C being more “capable” than the F-35B that really is a stretch. The F-35B sacrifices bomb bay volume and gross range in order to carry the hovering equipment but overall capability is not significantly affected. The F-35C does not offer any kind of real advantage in range because of the fuel reserves needed to safely trap a wire on a carrier. Bring back of stores limitations also means the F-35C will not be carrying more weapons weight unless you are willing to drop it or dump it.
The sole advantage of the F-35C over the F-35B is it allows for joint carrier oprations with France and the USN. Also it provides a reason for not having a carrier fleet for 10 years!
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Disgraceful! Man it’s going to be a tough year for the poms, first a dreaded one carrier fleet and then they lose the ashes!
No wonder they're a little touchy.
P.S. F-35B/C may be a much of a muchness in terms of capability (although you lose the basing flexibility of STOVL) but at least they may actually get some decent AEW though with a CATOBAR CVF.
Don't hold your breath... There is not a word amongst all those about the reshaped carrier capability that mentions AEW and certainly not the hundreds of millions of pounds needed to acquire Hawkeye for the RN.
“Interopability with US and French Carriers” means any AEW&C capability will be provided by the US and France via cross decking. Since it is very likely that the RN and France will by 2020 be sharing carrier duties one year on one year off between Prince of Wales and Charles de Gaulle the air wing is likely to include French Hawkeyes.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Jeebus, how did things get so bad? I wasn’t aware that Franco-English foreign policy was so closely aligned that they could politically sustain a joint carrier fleet, I seem to remember a few little bush wars lately where the UK deployed significant forces and France didn't *cough* GW2 *cough*. What happens then, the UK deploys half a carrier? Poor show.
Still even if they are French or USN Hawkeyes at least they have some sort of fixed wing AEW, even if it is someone else’s capability.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
No, Typhoon has a very low wing loading, it's one of the things the Bill Sweetmans and the Pierre Sprey's of the world point to when arguing that the F-35 is a failure in aircraft design.Wasn't high wing loading one of the criticism's of the Tyhoon ? it seems to flip around nicely, I also understand the benefits of fly by wire, I think I read somewhere that the typhoon should not even be able to fly and a pilot with traditional controls would not be able to control the aircraft, hence fly by wife.
I read up some more on this guy and he seems like one of the type of people who believe the Apollo missions were faked
Of course they overlook that it is only one metric and there are so many variables in aircraft design that it is pointless cherry picking one piece of data and forming an opinion on it, but they aren't interested in being fair and reasonable, so they don't really care that it is simple to pick their arguments apart...
I do recall some time ago reading about the possibility of having AEW for the F35's in the guise of wing mounted pods, sort of like external fuel tanks ? Not sure how that would work tough ? I can't remember the reference, I will try and find it again and post link if I can find it again
Ok must have misunderstood what I was reading
was maybe confusing that with what they were saying about it being unstable and not being able to fly without the FBW ?- Status