MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK receives first of next generation of stealth aircraft, STOVL F-35 Lightning II
The first of the UK's next generation of stealth combat aircraft, Lightning II, was handed over to the Ministry of Defence at a ceremony in Fort Worth, Texas. Defence Secretary Philip Hammond formally accepted the first of the jets which are short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and are manufactured by Lockheed Martin. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesI think a few of these would compliment the Typhoons at Mount Pleasant Also.
Jul 21st, 2012 - 07:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do any other Males on this sight get a little too exited when you see one of these? Down Boy! Lol
Jul 21st, 2012 - 09:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yum Yum, World class planes for our upcoming world class carriers, good morning Argtards.
Jul 21st, 2012 - 09:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0l think, with our oil revenues, we could buy a few of these.
Jul 21st, 2012 - 09:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Philanthrophy at its best & most useful.
@2 ... not the malvanista ladyboys..... I'm sure that what passed as a poor excuse for a willy will have gone into full retreat.....
Jul 21st, 2012 - 10:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Looks great doesn't it, they should paint it in nice hi vis royal navy decals, though I expect we will share them with the raf. Maximum deployment reckon would be two squadrons, more than enough to bash the rgs up.
Jul 21st, 2012 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am still not convinced of the selection of this aircraft (F-35B) rather than the F-35C for the RN and the F-35A for the RAF. I am still waiting for a convincing explanation from the Secretary of State for Defence. I have a right to know as he's spending my money and putting my compatriots in harm's way.
Jul 21st, 2012 - 11:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0@7
Jul 21st, 2012 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The choice came down to 2 alternatives, either 1 CVF as CATOBAR or 2 CVF as STOVL.
Personally, i'd have gone for the STOVL option as it pretty much guarantees PoW into service, something the CATOBAR route could not due to the quoted costs for EMALS etc for both of the ships and STOVL would also give us 24/7 carrier availability rather than 70% of the time like the French with Charles De Gaulle. Although that being said if they do cut PoW - again, now highly unlikely - then it would be bizarre.
Apparently, the RAF were fairly keen on the F-35B for some reason, but I too agree that hopefully, they may flex the order and get a split of F-35B for the FAA and F-35A for the RAF. Any sort of decision on that will arrive after the 2015 SDSR.
As to the “putting my compariots in harms way”, that's utter rubbish. The F35-B is just as safe as either of the other 2 variants and if anything, the principle complaint between B/C was the cost and difference of the capability, nothing about pilot survivability because they're equivalent and there was little to no point trying to argue about a difference in the aircraft which was non-existant.
Was it not the balls up about caterpult 'selection' or not on the carriers that precipitated this dithering?
Jul 21st, 2012 - 01:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As I understand it, retrofitting of a catapult system was prohibitable expensive (what a shock - I don't think) and it was necessary to revert to the STOL version.
It lacks the ability, which the Harrier had, of lifting the nose up while travelling at a reasonable speed horizontally forward . This was the only way the Harrier could deal with the Mirage 3s & 5s fast jets during the Falklands (there are STILL no Malvinas) war. The Harrier pilot waited until a Mirage was coming in and jinked up the nose whist firing the cannon. And very effective it was. Try doing that with the big canopy open!
I thought the Americans were supportive of the Argentines, what are they doing selling stealth fighters to their former masters and not supplying them to their brothers in south America? I guess if Argentina asks Obama he will tell the Brits to just give them back!!
Jul 21st, 2012 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@8 Why would I get into an argument? BUT the F-35B holds 6,250 pounds less fuel than the C. It also has a 146 nmi LOWER combat radius. And the F-35c costs $0.9m less per aircraft. Consider the landing mode. The F-35C would operate on a straight-in approach, land, hook, release hook, clear the landing area taxi and park mode. The F-35B has to use an off-set approach, hover but match carrier speed, move sideways, repeat hover, land, taxi and park. The latter landing method makes the aircraft, at a particular point, a “sitting duck”. Now compare the aircraft when progressing an attack mission or CAP. The F-35B does not have the endurance of the F-35C. Can you understand that a military pilot goes “in harm's way”? It's his/her job! But range, endurance, weapons load are important features of “survivability”. There is also the consideration of the carrier itself. It may seem small, but with the F-35B the carrier has to be 50 nmi (minimum) closer to the target. And thus 50 nmi closer to opposing aircraft. Do you understand this? Apparently the additional cost of fitting “cats and traps” was on the order of £2billion. The carriers are expected to have a service life of around 50 years. That makes the cost £40 million a year. How much is a pilot's life worth? If you have a usable aircraft as opposed to a destroyed aircraft, how much is that worth? Can you think outside the “limited” box you seem to be using?
Jul 21st, 2012 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@9 As I understood it, the carriers were designed to be modifiable. What happened? The QE class carriers are supposed to be the biggest and best ever built for the RN. Or would that be the biggest and best except........? For God's sake, these are the carriers that we may have to use to destroy a gangster cesspit. Can we not give our people the best? The best. Not the best we think we can afford. After giving aid to half the world!
11 Conqueror
Jul 21st, 2012 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I totally agree.
@11
Jul 21st, 2012 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Conqueror your are quite right especially regarding endurance. But at least the B variant will still be vastly superior to nearly all other fighters out their.
10
Jul 21st, 2012 - 05:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How the Pentagon, US military views the UK is I would imagine different to that of Obama. .
14 mclayoscar
Jul 21st, 2012 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thankfully, the elections are this year and Obarmy is likely to be out.
Eye said it once, eye say it again,
Jul 21st, 2012 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It should be British,
We seem to have lost the ability to build our own planes,
What next,
Ships eye suppose,
Beautiful Made in USA toys.
Jul 21st, 2012 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Thankfully, the elections are this year and Obarmy is likely to be out.”
As if Mittens Romney is any different, you idiot.
Pretty expensive toys.
Jul 21st, 2012 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lets hope they don’t break just as easy .?
.
@18
Jul 21st, 2012 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually Mr Briton we have not lost the ability to build planes as the prime contractor and country of origin of Lockheed Martin its only natural that the first prototypes and first hand builds are from the US, the vast majority of Britain's order will be built in the UK as planned, the site were they will be built just had a major overhaul. The first 5 or so planes will be US made and the rest will be built here. Fido does not know what he's on about. Remember this project is not American it is international every country has had an input in terms of design, development and finance.
”BAE Systems provides aft fuselage and empennages, horizontal and vertical tails, crew life support and escape systems, Electronic warfare systems, fuel system, and Flight Control Software (FCS1), BAE will also handle assembly for all UK aircraft.” We even designed that cool looking helmet as well!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
19 Conor
Jul 21st, 2012 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you for the info,
Interesting reading, and very expensive,
Lets hope it all pays of .
.
@19 Conor,
Jul 22nd, 2012 - 05:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Actually Fido Dido doesn't know very much about anything.
He's a dumb malvinista Dutchy.
l think that his cloggs are too tight & they've constricted his brain.
11 Conqueror
Jul 22nd, 2012 - 10:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Very well put. As for your “I am still waiting for a convincing explanation from the Secretary of State for Defence”. Dare I say that we shall both be waiting a very, very long time for that.
But if you want an answer ( of sorts ) then please use the following link.
I think that this is going to be about as much of a sensible answer as we can get out of him.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/CdsExplainsReasonsForChangesToJointStrikeFighterCapability.htm
As for your “As I understood it, the carriers were designed to be modifiable. What happened?”
I suspect that, if we still had a Labour government, they would be. As we now have Came-moron in charge, and the knowledge that EVERY government department HAD to make a 25% saving, I am guessing, but you and I probably both know where some of that “saving” came from.
@ Zhivago
Jul 22nd, 2012 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Their are selling F35B to Brits because is a good business and they know that 4 from 10 will end in the water when try to get back over the carrier specially under bad weather condition.
Just business a usual...
@23 - Really, something tells me the US Navy would not be using them if they can not land on carriers in bad weather. Oh wait they are VTOL so they can hover above the flight deck and land that way, just like the harriers.
Jul 22nd, 2012 - 02:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not only that, atleast parts won't be dropping off like they do or argentine planes. So yeah your right, it will be just business as usual as the falklands remain british and argentina continues to look on in jealous envy.
23 Dany Burger
Jul 22nd, 2012 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If it was just good business they would be arming the Palestinians, they have the money!
@22 I've read Sir David Richards' explanation. Very succinct and plausible. If you believe what is written. It has definitely given me more “ammo” to use. Let me pose some simple questions for your consideration. Sir David rightly points to our need to deploy our military air power as soon as possible. If we could not deploy the F-35C from a British carrier until 2023, why were we told that the carriers could be modified DURING the build? But I have this thought. The US Marine Corps is to be equipped with the F-35B, a decision that actually makes sense given the USMC requirements. So why not, bit by bit, build the parts for the QE class to give them the basic requirement, the angled deck. I seem to recall that we already had an option to buy and install the American EMALS electromagnetic catapults. But then persuade the Americans to give us the AV-8B Harrier II that the USMC will be giving up. They probably have around 300. So deploy the Queen Elizabeth with AV-8Bs. We already have the pilots. Once the sponsons have been built, bring the QE in for modification and transfer the AV-8Bs to the Prince of Wales as it deploys. Once the QE has been modified, transfer the Harriers back and bring the PoW in for modification. Buy the F-35C and gradually replace the Harriers with the new aircraft. One can reasonably expect that Lockheed Martin's prime objective will be to re-equip the USMC. The USMC are expecting to re-equip with the F-35B during 2014/15, before the QE class carriers are expected to be ready. How would we suffer from having Harriers? We are used to them. AND we beat the shite out of the argies with them. NO air to air combat losses in '82! Could that be an “intelligent” option?
Jul 22nd, 2012 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@23 Why don't you look up some figures? Number of argturd aircraft lost to Harriers. Number of Harriers lost to enemy action. Number of Harriers lost to accident. Just to help you, WE only sent 30. Didn't you argturds lose over 100 aircraft?
@10
Jul 22nd, 2012 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm sure they would sell them to you, you just have to ask. I understand they cost over 100 million dollars each. Can any of you 'South American brotherhood' afford even one?
Any why would Britain have to 'give them back'? business is business and they'll have been paid for (though I do accept that the idea of actually buying goods with your own money might be a difficult concept for you to understand).
@20-27
Jul 22nd, 2012 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why does everyone on here act as if this is an American fighter? It isn't. The design of this Aircraft has come from all of the partners involved, British, Norwegian, Canadian, Australian, American, Turkish et etc etc. Lockheed, Northrop, BAE, Rolls Royce and many other defence giants from across the globe have designed and developed this aircraft, Lockheed may have laid the foundation but in reality so much of this aircraft is from other companies, British Canadian, Turkish and many others. How can we British be “sold” an aircraft that we have developed from the start? Lockheed may be the prime contractor but without the international support design and funding this project probably never would have started. The best term to describe this aircraft would be to call it “the West's Fighter” or “Nato fighter” due to the countries involved being Nato nations or allies of said nations.
Read for further understanding:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procurement
28 Conor
Jul 22nd, 2012 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Probably because it is advertised and seen as an American plane, probably why a lot of brits think that way,
Imaging the next advert of news item you see on TV, and it says,
Here is the latest American and British designed plane,
Worth a note,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Anyway mr conor,
Please see if you can lightly help the following,
Thanks,
Briton.
//////////////////////////
Some silly questions,
1, how will this new, f35b get back to the UK, will it be flown and refuelled on the way ??
2, why cant the new British carriers, be moved up in pace, 24-7. To get it in service earlier
3, if it is considered there will be a gap of a couple of years,
Between the ships, and the planes to go on it,
And considering the USN , will already have quite a few by then, already on there ships,
The UK will benefit from interoperability with the US Marine Corps which operates STOVL aircraft similar to the Lightning II.
Why then, cannot they lend or borrow some of their planes to us, until ours arrives.
thanks
.
28 Conor (#) Thanks for this info; it's only logical that these aircraft would be multi-national given the costs of development.
Jul 22nd, 2012 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are any of you posters on the Lightening II pilots? or in the industry?
If I am correct, [probably not]
Jul 22nd, 2012 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But when all this settles down,
These 35A /35B /35C /
Will replace most fighters un the USA,
Thunderbolts, F14 /15 /16 /18-Posably.
And the RAF ,and Royal Navy .
Will have the 35B / 35? , And the EUROFIGHTERS.
Our government will make the final purchase of planes, in 2015,
So how many planes we brits will end up with is anybodies guess,
But I cant see us having less than 300, surely,
…………………..
Am I correct, does anyone know the answer.
.
@ 29/31 Mr Briton
Jul 22nd, 2012 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your questions are actually quite interesting.
1. I doubt they would fly it home as its one of the few B variants around and the RAF/FAA will want to test it thoroughly. I expect that it will be partially disassembled and flown back via a C-17, but I wouldn't know it will be extremely hush hush so they could fly it back, but I doubt anyone on the outside will ever know.
2. Well construction is actually well on schedule, one of the few things that seems to be on time in British military circles, however if the pace was really increased to war time speeds then BAE would wan't additional funding however more importantly these two carriers are such huge job guaranteer's that the yards don't to move to swiftly as they will want to sustain the construction until the new Type 26 Frigates are ready to begin assembly otherwise they might have a construction gap of 2-3 years. And in shipyard terms that's enough to lay off a lot of people.
3. Well the Gap has now thankfully been reduced so that there may be only be a few months or 1 year between carrier commissioning and actual take offs. Your idea could work if the gap was larger but it isn't so its uneconomical but even if the Gap was larger do your really think the MOD and government would bother? Plus the Americans wont want to limit the number of USMC B's that they fly.
As for your question in comment @31: The number of Strike aircraft is still question marked. The F-35's and ground attack Typhoons' were intended to replace all 150 Tornados and 70+ Harriers with 136 F-35's and 70 or so Typhoons. 160 Typhoons as both Fighters and ground attack aircraft, are on order as planned however given the switch to the C variant of the 35 it was decided that a smaller number of F-35's would be procured but now that we are back to the B I believe that approximately 80-120+ could be procured or more Typhoons to compensate a Naval only F-35 force but we will have to wait until 2015. Does that answer your question?
32 Conor
Jul 22nd, 2012 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you for that information, very interesting,
I often wondered if people forgot the government’s promise of increasing the military budget by another 1% by 2015,
This would then go from 2%= 3%
Thus more cash for more things,
But alas we both know what governments are like,
Again thank you for answering my questions.
Thanks .
.
@33
Jul 22nd, 2012 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well defence spending has increased however a good bit of it goes to the MOD so they can employ a hundred people to decide wether British Army Socks should be grey or light grey. Exaggeration I know but you get my point. Another problem the Armed forces and the country face is our role in the world. With the lose of the empire we have struggled to find a new purpose in the world. Hence the question mark over defence spending and also the question mark of maintaining the country itself as a union of four nations, 3 dependencies and 14 territories. There are independence movements in Jersey for gods sake!
But as for the answers to your question's, your welcome.
thanks ,
Jul 22nd, 2012 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0we still need a global interest as we are a maritime nation, and depend on the sea,
i was reading my interest earlier,
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/
we are still very much needed,
as for the four nations,
and we all have opinions,
i think this should have been settle 1,000 years ago
Edward missed his chance
Henry failed to enforce it,
William was more interested in keeping his own crown, and sanity,
I just feel, if we do not shred this identity problem, 3 or more will have bg problems,
Far to long to go into,
but the four nations should let it go, and be wise,
W--wales
I- ireland
S- scotland
E- England,
and become one nation forever, full stop,
After all, to be fair, we are British, we are all born within the British isles,, and nothing would change, except for a few fools like [salmon]
Who want to be different,
1, British pound
2, British crown
3, British government
4, British flag
5, British passport
6, British citizen
7, British army
8, British, royal navy
9, British royal air force
10, British embassy’s .
What would really change if any, to give up [wise]
And be British, the silly foreigners are confused already
MY LAST THOUGHT
Mr salmon does not want to be ruled by a democratic freely elected English , government 600 miles away.
Yet is willing to hand Scotland over to, a Unelected unknown president 1,000 miles away,
And he calls it, independence,
Two last facts,
The UK has not had a purly English Government
But the UK has had
A purely, Scottish governments,[this is the inner government]
So, a Scottish, government has ruled England,
But an English, government, has never ruled Scotland.
So mr salmon is truly wrong, and conning the rest .
Long live great Britain,
Just my opinion, and probably some brits wont like .
But hey, its only a blog, and we are friends .
so dont all scream at me , all at once,
nighty night.
.
@35
Jul 22nd, 2012 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree totally but with any luck those opinion poles on independence will copy onto the final independence question. And to watch the smug grin get wiped away from Salmond and his cronies face's will make me smile till the day I die.
#31
Jul 23rd, 2012 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0FYI US Navy is most likely dropping the F35. The flaws in problems in most all of the systems are too costly to overcome. The F35 is a military Edsel for the USA
@Teaboy2
Jul 23rd, 2012 - 04:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Oh wait they are VTOL so they can hover above the flight deck and land that way, just like the harriers”
Why you guys always have to provide me good material to show you how fool you are?????
The harriers were far superior VTOL due to weight/ratio power than the F35B the power delivered by the lift-fan is not enough to perform the task to lift the plane under certain condition.
Air mass becomes more/less dense depending on weather/temperature condition so a plane taking off at certain low temperature would not be able to land over the carrier if weather goes hot after perform the mission (will crash the plane on deck).
Do you understand now why I said that in the first place?
Thats nice, Dany.
Jul 23rd, 2012 - 08:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Which part lady?
Jul 23rd, 2012 - 08:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0One thing about how they're going to get the plane back to the UK:
Jul 23rd, 2012 - 10:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0You can cross the Atlantic in hops of less than 1000km if you go about it the right way (I'm following an attempted autogyro circumnavigation here: http://www.gyroxgoesglobal.com/, and his range (with auxiliary fuel tanks) is about 800 miles).
His plan for the Atlantic is USA -> Canada -> Greenland -> Iceland -> Faroe Islands -> Hebrides Islands -> Scotland -> Northern Ireland.
Unfortunately he's having problems with the Russians, getting clearances for the Bering Straits, having made it all the way from Northern Ireland to Japan.
36 Conor
Jul 23rd, 2012 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0thank you for that, and all your information,
thank you.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
danny boy,
we thinks you admire the brits more than you are letting on,
your letting your soft spots run away.
41 Rufus (#) Thanks for those links, an interesting aircraft though flying through rain must be a hassle. Great for STOL though, and I wonder what 4 cyl engine it is using.
Jul 23rd, 2012 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@38
Jul 23rd, 2012 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually Mr Danny I think you need to read this to understand that this new Rolls Royce lift system is fundamentally different to what you are thinking of. The Lift system doesn't use a single Turboprop fan system to keep it airbourne as it uses the actual power of the engines jet blast as well.
Read this for further understanding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_LiftSystem
Nice to see you praising the Harrier by the way because your usual comments are anti-Aritish to the core.
@38 Sorry danny but as conor above is correct, then your understanding of the F35B is fatally flawed, but then jealousy always results in facts being twisted and in poor logic. I say poor logic because its simply illogical to assume the harrier VTOL technology (almost 60 years since first envisage and 55 years when first used on the Hawker P.1127) is superior to that of modern high tech engine techinology used in the F35B.
Jul 23rd, 2012 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 045 Teaboy2
Jul 23rd, 2012 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hi, Teaboy2, glad to see you back.
There is a flaw with the new F35B system which the Harriers did not have.
The F35B cannot lift the nose while it is in horizontal flight with the canopy open.
Why is this important? Remember the 1982 war and all we had against the Argie Mirage 3s & 5s fast jets was the Harrier? The experts said it was completely out matched but the pilots proved them wrong. They flew horizontally at the oncoming fast jets and, more or less at the last second, lifted the nose up with the cannons firing and the jets ran into the track of the cannon shells. A hell of a lot of enemy pilots died with a surprised look on their faces.
If the F35B tried that the canopy would be ripped off the mounts. But the F35B is a fast jet in it's own right so hopefully, it may not matter.
@46
Jul 23rd, 2012 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But thats the whole point Mr ChrisR, the Harrier did that because it was a subsonic aircraft up against Mirage's that could push Mach 2, the Harrier pilots had to get resourceful with an aircraft that was barely capable of 600 Mph. Not only can the F-35B push Mach 1.6 but it has fantastic manoeuvrable capabilities and stealth features second only to the F-22, not to mention that its payload is almost double of what a Sea/Gr7/9 Harrier could carry. So all in all the Harrier was fantastic and it will be greatly missed but the F-35B is simply superior and when up against modern fighters its stealth technology and superior combat systems will mach up for the Mach 0.4 speed difference compared to Sukhois, Mirage's, Mig's etc
Conor is utterly correct in his statements in this regard.
Jul 23rd, 2012 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ChrisR: If a f35 pilot tried lifting his nose in the type of way the harriers did back in 82 while doing Mach 1.6, all we'd have is a lot of RAF brains scattered across the south Atlantic.
@47 & 48
Jul 23rd, 2012 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0please re-read my final sentence:
“But the F35B is a fast jet in it's own right so hopefully, it may not matter.”
But thank you both for your comments and I do hope Conor is correct about the 0.4 mach difference.
@49
Jul 23rd, 2012 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I believe I'am, besides speed doesn't mean anything if you're in a Mig doing Mach 2 and your looking for a F-35 whose stealth abilities have made him almost invisible on your Radar does it matter? You will be more concerned about him coming up behind you.
50 Conor
Jul 23rd, 2012 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0is it not true, that the f22 raptor,
has seriouse flaws,
and the pilots have been very worried abt them.
@51
Jul 23rd, 2012 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think so, I couldn't tell you though heres the Wiki page, it might mention something, check out the 'operational problems' section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Operational_problems
I believe most of the problems have been all the new tech most of which is so revolutionary to the point were it seems to complex!
F-22Raptor
Jul 23rd, 2012 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22.htm
Thanks
Ive just been reading about them,
And the R/N
Thanks again .
.
@43 Tim
Jul 24th, 2012 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0It uses a Rotax 914 - a 1.2l turbo with air cooled cylinders and water cooled cylinder heads. Apparently it's big (so to speak) in small aircraft, especially kit planes and autogyros.
Incidentally, it's the same engine that is used on the MQ-1 Predator drones.
#46
Jul 24th, 2012 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0I must be missing something here about the F-35 flying with its canopy open. Why would it do this ?
Where did this piece of information come from ?
I have watched just about every jet fighter/bomber in the RAF, Fleet Air Arm, USAF , NATO and some Russian aircraft and I have never seen any taking off or landing with the cockpit canopy open - even in level flight.
I have seen a few with the canopy ejected for emergency landings.
55 Clyde15
Jul 24th, 2012 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fan which is a critical part of the VTOL system requires the canopy to be open to operate - only the F35B though.
@Teaboy2
Jul 24th, 2012 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to be this kind of amateurs on IT that things that all new and with more GB, Size, etc is better.
Well some times is not like that and what I said is that the Harriers had better weight/ratio power and have been well tested so still old is a reliable plane.
And if your life in a battlefield depends on your weapons what would you prefer to have an old one that you know exactly how will works or a brand new with a lot of features that you have to test in the real world?
Of course I could be wrong about the F35B because there is only theoretic info about what can do, but you will find how much of that is true after testing in a real war.
And for what I have been reading there are some problems with electronic stuff on those planes.
I’m in the IT business and trust me I wouldn’t like that my life depends on the lasted software, chip, sensor, etc. At least 1 or 2 years tested in production. Chips, sensors, flats screen, cpu, etc they tend to fail most often than people realise and for the most stupid things.
Btw...
Harrier max speed 1,182 km/h
F35B max speed 1,930 km/h
Mirage III max speed 2.350 km/h
I guess you will miss the canopy stuff trick
@57
Jul 24th, 2012 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Berger you should read my comments (@47) to understand what we are on about. And to understand that as reliable as the Harrier was it is now outmatched as a third generation aircraft.
The British way: buy over-engineered aircraft that have proven unreliable thus far, cut drug medications to the elderly and police salaries.
Jul 24th, 2012 - 03:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As Nouriel Roubini said just the other day, Europe including the UK are completely delusional with their continued cost cutting on the population, without tackling the government machinery of regulations itself. And the USA (and partly the UK), spending lavishly on their militaries with money from China.
2013 will be a perfect storm for these countries. The best part is they already have 5-6 of recession since 2007! And yet another crisis in 2013, when they already had 2008! That is the worst economic performance in world history. Even Argentina keeps its crisis to once every 10-15 years.
#57
Jul 24th, 2012 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I take it then that you will not fly in any modern airline that uses fly-by-wire flight systems ? Your life does depend on the software.
All modern designed fighters are aerodynamically unstable. It's their computers that keep them in the air. No pilot could control them without this aid. The F-16 has been using fly by wire for 40 years.
As far as I know, all aircraft computer systems have at least 2 back -ups.
In its early days, the Harriers had a high attrition rate until all its problems were ironed out. Only the most skillful pilots were assigned to fly them. As a front line fighter it has had its day. The only dedicated fighter version was the Sea Harrier - the others were attack aircraft.
The F-35 is still in development and 10/15 years on it will be a different aircraft. This is the case of all modern fighter aircraft.
The F-15 was christened the “hangar queen” at first because it was so unreliable, but the bugs were ironed out and it became a great aircraft
The F-111 was on the point of cancellation because of insurmountable problems but these were overcome and it had a long service.
Maybe we “armchair pundits” should just trust the aircraft manufacturers and the armed services who are going to use the aircraft.
It's reasonable to assume they know what they are doing much better than us.
we dont see what a STOVL F-35 Lightning II
Jul 24th, 2012 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0has to do, with a perfect storm,
unless your standing under a tree,????
@31 No, there is no answer yet. But work on this basis. Two squadrons for the QE. Two squadrons for the PoW. Assuming that both will be in use at the same time. Two back-up squadrons. Total aircraft = 72. Might go as far as 80 or even 100. But that's all there will be. Plus 180 Typhoons.
Jul 24th, 2012 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@38 No. Because you're an idiot. Actually, a sub-normal challenged idiot.
@41 For gawd's sake. They take the wings off and shove it all in a container.
@57 You're “in IT”, eh? Playstation or XBox? Or are you still using Atari?
@59 Actually, he didn't say that. Try reading the words instead of the wishes!
@62
Jul 24th, 2012 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Does it matter what he said exactly? You know that for all intents and purposeds he said “you in Europe, might as well make it quick and painless... prefferably now”.
Too bad, I guess “Argieland” will outlast your lot after all.
Ah good old fortune telling once more. Nothing like random end-of-the-world predictions eh TTT?
Jul 24th, 2012 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has historically one of the least successful economies in the world and nobody has missed more opportunities than Argentina. You've got a country with amazing natural resources and yet it has failed completely and now is minow in the worlds economies when it should be a powerhouse.
Poor, poor Argentina with its failed economic model it keeps repeating.
Argentina can't even last 10 years so how it will outlast possibly the most stable and reliable economy in the world is nothing but pure fantasy.
”That is the worst economic performance in world history.
Jul 24th, 2012 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Coming from a person who lives in the nation who's GDP fell by a fourth in THREE years.
Argentina easily beats any other country in the world when it comes to economic performance.
We've had loads of recessions and such, we've still been in the top ten richest nations for the last 300 or so years.
@65
Jul 24th, 2012 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Top 10 richest? Were do you get that figure from Mr Zethee?
Argentine's GDP= $435.2 Billion in 2011- ranked 27 in the world
Argentine's GDP per capita= $10,640 in 2011- ranked 62 in the world
Not exactly the top 10 is it sir?
UK transfers first F-35B to Florida
Jul 24th, 2012 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-uk-transfers-first-f-35b-to-florida-base-374654/
now we know where it going .
UK to trial rotary-wing UAS for Royal navy applications
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-uk-transfers-first-f-35b-to-florida-base-374654/
just out of interest.
Lockheed F-35 JSF Cutaway
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-uk-transfers-first-f-35b-to-florida-base-374654/
.
54 Rufus (#) That engine manufacturer has been around for some time for very small light aircraft and I understand very reliable. I certainly wouldn't be happy crossing long stretches of water with one engine; I once took a PA23 from BUE up to Seguin in Texas to be re-engined with bigger engines and to put Horner wing tips on for greater stability at low speed as I used to fly as a bush pilot and needed good performance at take-off (hang on the props) and very slow approach coming into short fields; what I came back with was fantastic for the work I was using it for, but crossing the Caribbean both ways I wasn't happy even with two engines and those Hammerheads below.
Jul 24th, 2012 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@64
Jul 25th, 2012 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Guess, what, I don't give a f- if you think we are a minnow, if we are a minnow, or if we are not. This obsession with statuts as a country is something disgustingly british, european, and american. Why you have so much blood as societies, and millions of dead just to show off a “ranking” (of land, gdp, etc).
Sad, sad.
Zethee , you've been listening to too much propaganda. Argentina's economy is imploding so fast that it no longer qualifies for G-20 membership and has been overtaking by countries like Spain, Switzerland, Singapore, Norway and Malaysia ... yes, even Spain's rapidly bonking economy is in a better state than Argentinas.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 08:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now bring on your half-baked arguments for why G-20 membership is of no possible importance .. .. but do try to do it without contradicting the La Plata whore, who disagrees with you and is working desperately to preserve Argentina's G-20 membership and prevent it being inherited by a country that actually does qualify for membership.
l think that Zethee meant to say that “Britain easily beats any other country in the world when it comes to economic performance”
Jul 25th, 2012 - 09:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0From past posts l understood Zethee to be British.
Unless of course, someone else is now using his screen identity.
71 lsolde
Jul 25th, 2012 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have asked 'Zethee' where he was born and where he lives now and he / she will not say.
He / she does have a problem getting the words in the correct order which has recently made me think he / she may have / be from a Spanish family.
Back to the F-35. In a recent article in Flight global, Lt. Col. “Chip” Berke describes his experience of flying the F-22 and bringing this knowledge to the USMC''s F-35B training program.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Basically he is saying, forget what you learned before about tactics, you are in a different ball game. Pilots will have to think in an entirely different way.
Whereas older (F-16/18/15 ) supplied the pilot with information that he had to interpret , the F-35 supplies the pilot with an easy to understand picture of the exact tactical position all around the aircraft.
This is a quantum leap from 4th generation aircraft.
Lt.Col. Berke also says that this is not an easy transition for pilots to make.
73 Clyde15
Jul 25th, 2012 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0An American friend of mine who has also retired to Uruguay used to fly the F16 (6 years) and we were discussing the F35.
He said “of course the guys who have the chance to make the transition are going to LOVE all the new target awareness electronics they will have, I wish we had been able to use something like that”. My friend does not know the meaning of 'not an easy transition' or 'difficult' or 'can't do'.
The list of aircraft pictures he flew during his career (all pilots have a photo done of themselves with the plane the first time they get in a new cockpit) is extensive and started with the C172 (if he could not fly that in a week he was out of the programme) up to the F16 which was his last plane. He has even flown the A10 Tankbuster.
So, as always, I think any pilot 'upgrading' will make the best of a great plane.
whenever I look at these jets, I feel a strong urge to go 'aawww yeeaaah'. These craft will be a massive capability upgrade from the Harriers, a proud jet to be sure but well past its time. The Royal Navy will truly be a force to be feared with these jets flying from the second largest carriers in existence.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For fans of the Harrier, Google Garvie island. This is a live bombing range at Cape Wrath in NW Scotland. Among other pictures, there is a BBC video of Harriers dropping 1,000lb bombs. You would not like to be under that lot. The Vulcans used this island as practice for the Black Buck raid.
Jul 25th, 2012 - 10:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have been visiting this place for 47 years watching the action from various different aircraft, warships firing on the mainland and aircraft strafing the gunnery range with live 30mm cannon fire. It's better than a fireworks display. I even saw it being torpedoed by HMS Warspite or so I was told by the naval gunnery officer who was staying in the same
hotel.
In more recent times I managed to get video shots myself during an Ocean Safari exercise when the USS Eisenhower was on a work up cruise.
The RAF and Luftwaffe Tornados plastered the island, the USN F-14's managed to miss it by a couple of hundred yards on the first go. The next lot managed to hit it as did the USMC F-18's.
My last visit was an eye opener. A couple of Harrier GR7 came low over my head while I was on the range control area at the headland. To my disappointment they flew over the range and then disappeared. I then started to watch a large pod of dolphins out at sea. About 10 minutes later I felt a thud come up from the ground and 15 secs. later a god almighty bang followed by another. The top of the island had irrupted in flame and smoke. I could hear the Harriers faintly but searching the area could not find them. Then looking up through binoculars, I located them about 20,000' high. They had let go with GPS guided bombs.
It scared the life out of me when I thought what could have happened if the guidance system had failed !
@ChrisR
Jul 26th, 2012 - 05:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Zethee is an English man and may be he is from London for the way he writes.
What he wrote was a “sarcasm” and he meant to say a complete different thing to what you have understood.
“He / she does have a problem getting the words in the correct order which has recently made me think he / she may have / be from a Spanish family.”
Again with the English stuff, most English people from London don’t write or speak English as you may think they do.
‘ave u ever bin in cockney land mate?
They don’t have the underground instead they have the “tube”, they don’t use British Pounds instead they uses “Quids”, they don’t use hammers instead they use “ammars” , They have not idea where Leicester Square is but they know “Leaster Squaa”, they don’t have postcodes instead they have poscouds, I never was instead I wos.
'a 're ya mate
dis gramma tingz ‘ave a loof bova.
So ya don’t stael may ‘ammar mate, coz I leive in Leaster Squaa close the tube and aIa ‘ave spent a lotof monee onit.
Do ya ‘ave a glass of wa er?
course ya aint gettin one word ofit. Me wrong?
BTW di aIa tell ya er a holy friar?
Not yet?
@77DanyBerger,
Jul 26th, 2012 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Quite well done, Dany.
You should be on the stage.
@76Clyde15,
What about a squadron of Fairey Swordfish. Great old plane.
Maybe slow but could out-manoeuvre any jet!
(so l've been informed by Mr 15, who thinks he knows everything!).
#78
Jul 26th, 2012 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0I had a colleague who flew the Swordfish in WW2. He said that, into a gale, it could hover and even fly backwards
@77
Jul 26th, 2012 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Very amusing, I did smile at that. Why can't you usually be this balanced ?
@79 Clyde15,
Jul 26th, 2012 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That could come in handy in a sticky situation!
My Grandad was ground crew in the RAF.
He was an engine & airframe fitter.
He started out in a Blenheim Squadron, then went onto Hurricanes & Spitfires in the Middle East.
81 lsolde (#) My Czech partner was a rigger in the RAF; he was small so he would be sent down the fuselage to make repairs. He was an excellent carpenter in his after war years.
Jul 26th, 2012 - 11:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@77 Like!
Jul 28th, 2012 - 03:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0@82Tim,
Jul 28th, 2012 - 08:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0We owe the Poles & Czechs a lot.
l sometimes feel guilty about how we abandoned Czechoslovakia in 1938 & of course l wasn't even born then.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!