some F35 info

[GrauGeist]

The Navy (and Marines) operated the Kfir for almost 4 years and returned the aircraft...that's as far as that went.

So technically speaking, they weren't accepted into service.

And I am not sure who the "military bigwig" was that made that statement. I do know that it was said that a Northrup engineer was once asked where he thought the best location was for canard placement, and his reply was "on the other guy's aircraft".

 

[pbehn]

The statement which spawned this discussion was "I read somewhere that a military bigwig would never accept a canard a/c." By leasing the Khafir from this Israelis and given to squadrons, it has therefore been accepted into service. There was no statement about it being an American acft.

Oh please. The US took 25 F 21s specifically to train US Navy pilots in US planes against possible enemies. That is no more saying the US adopted a canard winged AC than saying the US operates Hawker Hunters as a present day front line aircraft.

I suppose the time the statement I read was made was before computerised fly by wire came about. I was only curious as to why the Typhoon Raphael and Grippen had canards but US planes arnt. I accept the B1B and the F21 are technically US canard but that want the point I was making.

 

[pbehn]

And I am not sure who the "military bigwig" was that made that statement. I do know that it was said that a Northrup engineer was once asked where he thought the best location was for canard placement, and his reply was "on the other guy's aircraft".

It was the thinking behind that statement I was trying to find out about.

 

[GrauGeist]

I'm sure Joe or one of the other guys are far more qualified to answer that than I am, but the ideaology behind the canard, was to offset the lack of a tailplane structure typically found with a deltawing design. The U.S. has traditionally used designs that have tailplanes and only on occasion are canards considered in a design only to augment flight handling under certain circumstances for certain types instead of being part of the main design.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm sure Joe or one of the other guys are far more qualified to answer that than I am, but the ideaology behind the canard, was to offset the lack of a tailplane structure typically found with a deltawing design. The U.S. has traditionally used designs that have tailplanes and only on occasion are canards considered in a design only to augment flight handling under certain circumstances for certain types instead of being part of the main design.

I think you nailed it. In the case of the B-1B, the canards also relieved buffeting.

 

[ScreamingLighting]

The Navy (and Marines) operated the Kfir for almost 4 years and returned the aircraft...that's as far as that went.

So technically speaking, they weren't accepted into service.

And I am not sure who the "military bigwig" was that made that statement. I do know that it was said that a Northrup engineer was once asked where he thought the best location was for canard placement, and his reply was "on the other guy's aircraft".

And the FAA leased their Corsairs from the States, they fought, and were destroyed off Australia because the U.K. lacked the means necessary to pay for them. If leasing doesn't count as entering service, then technically those Corsairs were never accepted into service. But as pbehn put it, it's beyond the point.

 

[GrauGeist]

Well ok, just for you, we'll say that the F-21 was the only modern American fighter with canards.

(Never mind that their number was only 25 and not leased but on loan from the Israeli government for evaluation purposes only)

 

[Lucky13]

That is literal: it is not a U.S. design, the Israelis drew the basis of the Kfir from the Mirage 5, powered by a license-built J79...

I've always thought that the Kfir was a copy of the Mirage III....

 

[Glider]

Taking a bit of a chance here, but if the X test aircraft are considered to be part of the USAF, then I give you the X29 which I always thought was a rather good looking aircraft.

 

[gjs238]

Would F/A-35 be a more appropriate designation?
Why was it not?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Would F/A-35 be a more appropriate designation?
Why was it not?

You're going to have to ask someone deep inside the Pentagon that questions - probably something to do with weapons appropriations and language.

 

[ScreamingLighting]

Would F/A-35 be a more appropriate designation?
Why was it not?

The F-18 would get really pissed, get hammered, and badmouth its (ex)girlfriend and lose the majority of its money, property, and self-esteem.
The F-35 did it out of mercy.

 

[Lucky13]

maybe cause some split personality issues?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

maybe cause some split personality issues?

It's called "schizo."

In the mean time...

Biden pledges delivery of F-35 stealth jets to Israel | TheHill

 

[razor1uk]

I do hope the 35 project goes the way like the F105 did, protracted birth into becoming a completely awe-some system. ..except even with underwing pylons, the 35 can never carry that bombload..
Oh no, I can understand the reasons to tie a rock around your feet for 'exercise purposes', but come on the Israeli's are going for it too ..definatly some crazies there then.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I do hope the 35 project goes the way like the F105 did, protracted birth into becoming a completely awe-some system. ..except even with underwing pylons, the 35 can never carry that bombload..
Oh no, I can understand the reasons to tie a rock around your feet for 'exercise purposes', but come on the Israeli's are going for it too ..definatly some crazies there then.

The F-35 when configured with underwing stores can carry 18,000 pounds of bombs, the F-105 can carry 12,000 pounds but was able to carry 8,000 pounds internally where the F-35 can carry between 2-3000 pounds depending who you talk to. The F-105 was tested with up to 15,000 pounds of ordanance but normally operated in Vietnam with 5000 pounds of bombs plus any missiles. IIRC when the F-105 was fitted with the centerline bomb rack it was not able to cruise and had to contunually use AB to stay airborne.

Although it seems the -105 had a spectacular career, I am told it was a maintenance nightmare. When I first got my A&P license I went to school with Vietnam Vets who worked -105s. They did noy have alot of good things to say about the old bird.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Bling ... and how to wear it ..

 

[Lucky13]

Saw that on MSN when logging today, what was it £70.000.000 a pop?
Anyway, AMRAAM if I remember correctly was Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile, I guess that the ASRAAM is the short range version...
But, what h*ll is JSOW, JASSM, JDAM etc.?

....and that's one odd looking wing tank!!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Saw that on MSN when logging today, what was it £70.000.000 a pop?

"The most recently contracted unit costs for Low Rate Initial Production lot 7 (not including the engine) are:


•F-35A: $98 million
•F-35B: $104 million
•F-35C: $116 million


An F-35A purchased in 2018 and delivered in 2020 will be $85 million, which is the equivalent of $75 million in today's dollars.

The U.S. Government and F-35 industrial team continue to collaborate to further reduce F-35 costs for future production lots. Since the F-35 program Technical Baseline Review in 2011, the team has studied and successfully implemented numerous affordability measures to drive costs out of the program."

https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost

Although this information is coming from LMCO I believe it to be pretty accurate as the Pentagon and the press would have a field day with any mis-representation of F-35 costs.

 

[beaupower32]

View attachment 291164View attachment 291165View attachment 291166View attachment 291167View attachment 291168View attachment 291169View attachment 291170View attachment 291171View attachment 291172View attachment 291173View attachment 291174

My plane AF-03 dropping flares. These were just public released yesterday. Enjoy.