i have been hearing about this plane for years (aerospace engineering department) now and finally it looks like it is coming to life.

i actually like all these delays because i want to fly this son of a gun and am still in college, but from what i was told by professors and such it will be for our grandchildren just as we have the F18 and F22 now.





http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-03/f-35-completes-first-success-fully-vertical-landing

quote:

---

After cost overruns, a series of delays, and almost a decade of hype, the F-35 Lighting finally performed a vertical landing for the first time. Yesterday at 1 P.M., after descending from a 150-foot-high hover, the test plane touched down on the tarmac at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station. This is a significant step forward for the F-35, as its vertical takeoff and landing capability are crucial to the fighter's role as a replacement for the aging Harrier jet.
The test began with a short runway takeoff at 93 miles per hour, after which the pilot swung around, positioned the plane over the runway, and lowered it down. The test pilot, a former Royal Air Force aviator with experience piloting VSTOL planes, said he found landing the F-35 vertically far easier than landing older planes, like the Harrier, the same way.
This test moves the F-35 program significantly closer to deployment. In fact, the Marine Corps hopes to start training its first round of F-35 pilots this fall. However, with February's announcement that the entire program has been delayed a year, and cost overruns threatening automatic program restructuring under the Nunn-McCurdy Amendment, I wouldn't bet on the Marines keeping to that schedule, even in light of this recent successful test.

---

Except for the ability to hover, to the best of my knowledge, the capabilities of the F-35 are far inferior to those of the F-22. The reason they're streamlining the F-35 more so than the F-22 is because its far cheaper (even despite the cost overruns).

Of course, that's just the opinion of a self-educated non-aerospace non- engineer... Non.

Sorry for my ignorance on the subject, but is the F22 or F35 the one with "Supercruise" or whatever they are calling + Speed of sound speeds without use of afterburners.

The f-22 has supercruise. The F-35 has a single turbine and as far as I can recall does not have thrust vectoring.

quote:

---

Except for the ability to hover, to the best of my knowledge, the capabilities of the F-35 are far inferior to those of the F-22. The reason they're streamlining the F-35 more so than the F-22 is because its far cheaper (even despite the cost overruns).

---

While the F-35 draws a lot from the F-22, they have two completely different roles. The F-22 is an air superiority aircraft while the F-35 is a fighter.

The F-22 is set to replace the F-15, while the F-35 will replace the F-16...

the original prototype is called the X-35 and with its conception they will also came in different variations for the different branches of the military.

The F-35 Lighting is for the Marines replacing the harrier thus with hovering capability




from the rest of the article stated that F-35 hovered at some altitude (to mimic a harrier)

in the Navy however they will be using a different variation of the JSF with twin engines thus keeping with the tradition of twin engines on carriers but will not have vertical capabilities.


the best component however from what i know is the intelligence. the cockpit of the F-35 will have a fully digital and interactive cockpit as compared to analog in older ones and will have digital readouts right in the visor. i however do not know about cockpit features of the F-22.

quote:

---

The F-35 Lighting is for the Marines replacing the harrier thus with hovering capability

---

FWIW, it's the Lightning II…

quote:

---

the best component however from what i know is the intelligence. the cockpit of the F-35 will have a fully digital and interactive cockpit as compared to analog in older ones and will have digital readouts right in the visor. i however do not know about cockpit features of the F-22.

---

Both the F-22 and F-15 are fly by wire with glass cockpits...

Of course, so's the F-16...

.

quote:

---

Both the F-22 and F-15 are fly by wire with glass cockpits...

Of course, so's the F-16...

---

fly by wire is not what i am talking about

this is what i am talking about

quote:

---

The F-35 features a full-panel-width "panoramic cockpit display" (PCD) glass cockpit, with dimensions of 20 by 8 inches (50 by 20 centimeters).[40]

A cockpit speech-recognition system (Direct Voice Input) is planned to improve the pilot's ability to operate the aircraft over the current-generation interface. The F-35 will be the first US operational fixed-wing aircraft to use this system, although similar systems have been used in AV-8B and trialled in previous US jets, particularly the F-16 VISTA. In development the system has been integrated by Adacel Systems Inc with the speech recognition module supplied by SRI International.[42] The pilot flies the aircraft by means of a right-hand side stick and left-hand throttle.
A helmet-mounted display system (HMDS) will be fitted to all models of the F-35. A helmet-mounted cueing system is already in service with the F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s.[43] While some fighters have offered HMDS along with a head up display (HUD), this will be the first time in several decades that a front-line tactical jet fighter has been designed to not carry a HUD.

---

this is why the 35 will be superior to all other fighters is because of the pilot to plane interface that will be done by voice and visual helmet controls.






not to mention

quote:

---

The F-35 will be the first jet fighter that has sensor fusion that combines both radio frequency and IR tracking for continuous target detection and identification in all directions which is shared via MADL to other platforms without compromising their low observability.


Unlike older generations of aircraft, such as the F-22, all software for the F-35 is written in C++ for faster code development.

---

and for all you super cruise junkies out there the reason the plane does not have it is because simply it does not need it. the JSF 35 will see you far before you see it thus providing search and destroy before you could ever catch up or out run.

to sum it all up....

quote:

---

Concerns about the F-35's performance have resulted partially from reports of RAND simulations where numerous Russian Sukhoi fighters defeat a handful of F-35s by denying tanker refuelling.[79] As a result of these issues, then Australian defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon requested a formal briefing from the Australian Department of Defence on the computer simulation. This briefing stated that the reports of the simulation were inaccurate and that it did not compare the F-35's performance against that of other aircraft.[80]
RAND has applied the same tanker-denial scenario against the F-22 Raptor and seems to favor a new medium-bomber design.[81]
The criticism of the F-35 has been dismissed by the Pentagon and manufacturer.[79][82] The USAF has conducted an analysis of the F-35's air-to-air performance against all 4th generation fighter aircraft currently available, and has found the F-35 to be at least four times more effective. Major General Charles R. Davis, USAF, the F-35 program executive officer, has stated that the "F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois". The Russian, Indian, Chinese, and other air forces operate Sukhoi Su-27/30 fighters.

---

one smart plane

-----------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

in the Navy however they will be using a different variation of the JSF with twin engines thus keeping with the tradition of twin engines on carriers but will not have vertical capabilities.

---

Unless you have a link, all F-35's will have a single engine.

Convering the airframe from a single to dual propolusion system would be pretty much impossible and you'd essentially be reinventing the wheel.

The Navy version (the F-35C) will have a more robust landing gear/structure, a tail hook and larger wing and flap surfaces, but no VSTOL capabilities.
F-35C


[This message has been edited by agracer (edited 3/20/2010 9:16p).]

agracer you are correct. I had a debate a while back in which a classmate covinced me that all carrier planes had twin motors for contingency in the event of ones failure. I have never really looked into the navys version ( I plan on joining the airforce if not the marines ) of the plane but now realize that the plane has the most powerful single engine fighter design and would not need two.

I recant.

Right, single engine on all. If you added a second engine, you'd need 2 independant but cross feedable fuel systems, 2 oil systems, and a whole slew of procedures for single engine ops. Doesn't make sense.

Scot, if you have questions about Air Force pilot training, feel free to email me(dewinslow AT gmail). I'm training at Colubmus AFB right now - graduate in September.

Also realize that the Air Force isn't supposed to field an F-35 squadron until like 2018 or something. The marines are getting them first. And the AF pilots they'll take for 35's will be F-16 or F-15E guys, MAYBE A-10 guys, but not straight out of UPT. A few weeks ago they changed it so the T-38 guys can't get F-22s straight out of UPT any more - just 15C and maybe E models - not sure. Either way, realize getting an F-35 immediately will be pretty freaking impossible.

[This message has been edited by FlyMeToTheMoon (edited 3/21/2010 10:18a).]

quote:

---

I had a debate a while back in which a classmate covinced me that all carrier planes had twin motors for contingency in the event of ones failure.

---

I believe your classmate is correct, at least in regards to the current carrier fleet. The F-35 might be the first single engine carrier fighter.

the A-4 was carrier based with a single jet engine, though not a "fighter"

quote:

---

I had a debate a while back in which a classmate covinced me that all carrier planes had twin motors for contingency in the event of ones failure.

---

I think that's true for all Navy and Marine helicopters. (They added a second engine to the Marine SuperCobras)

The F-35 will also likely be the last manned fighter we produce.

quote:

---

Unlike older generations of aircraft, such as the F-22, all software for the F-35 is written in C++ for faster code development.

---

Thank GOD they dropped Ada (and Jovial before that)…

Okay, I know nothing about any of this stuff, but please continue talking about it. Great thread.

quote:

---

I think that's true for all Navy and Marine helicopters. (They added a second engine to the Marine SuperCobras)

---

That was more for added performance than a 2 engine requirement...

And actually ALL the SuperCobras have twin engines...

It was the AH-1 variants before that that didn't...(through the AH-1F)...

Don't turn this forum into baseops. I can't stand that place.

Single engine carrier planes that I can think of (attack or figher):

A-1 Skyraider


A-4 Skyhawk


A-7 Corsair II


F-8 Crusader




[This message has been edited by EMY92 (edited 3/22/2010 7:33p).]

quote:

---

Unlike older generations of aircraft, such as the F-22, all software for the F-35 is written in C++ for faster code development.

---

Ok, I'll confess to not being a computer whiz, but shouldn't this be just a little alarming? It seems like everyone and their mother can program in C++. I'm assuming (more like hoping) the engineers thought of a way to make sure there's no way someone could hack into this with a rogue radio signal, but I've been disappointed before.

quote:

---

Unlike older generations of aircraft, such as the F-22, all software for the F-35 is written in C++ for faster code development.

---

Faster code...development???

Somewhere in the future there is a Class A mishap investigation with a finding that the smoking hole in the ground was the result of pointer to address space that somebody forgot to de-reference.

http://www.nsbasic.com/ce/info/interview.shtml

quote:

---

Stroustrup: Well, it's been long enough, now, and I believe most people have figured out for themselves that C++ is a waste of time but, I must say, it's taken them a lot longer than I thought it would..

Interviewer: So how exactly did you do it?

Stroustrup: It was only supposed to be a joke, I never thought people would take the book seriously. Anyone with half a brain can see that obkect-oriented programming is counter-intuitive, illogical and inefficient..

Interviewer: What?

Stroustrup: And as for 're-useable code' - when did you ever hear of a company re-using its code?

Interviewer: Well, never, actually, but....

Stroustrup: There you are then. Mind you, a few tried, in the early days. There was this Oregon company - Mentor Graphics, I think they were called - really caught a cold trying to rewrite everything in C++ in about '90 or '91. I felt sorry for them really, but I thought people would learn from their mistakes..

Interviewer: Obviously, they didn't?

Stroustrup: Not in the slightest. Trouble is, most companies hush-up all their major blunders, and explaining a $30 million loss to the shareholders would have been difficult.. Give them their due, though, they made it work in the end..

Interviewer: They did? Well, there you are then, it proves O-O works..

Stroustrup: Well, almost. The executable was so huge, it took five minutes to load, on an HP workstation, with 128MB of RAM. Then it ran like treacle. Actually, I thought this would be a major stumbling-block, and I'd get found out within a week, but nobody cared. Sun and HP were only too glad to sell enormously powerful boxes, with huge resources just to run trivial programs. You know, when we had our first C++ compiler, at AT&T, I compiled 'Hello World', and couldn't believe the size of the executable. 2.1MB...

---

http://www.snopes.com/computer/program/stroustrup.asp

quote:

---

. I'm assuming (more like hoping) the engineers thought of a way to make sure there's no way someone could hack into this with a rogue radio signal, but I've been disappointed before

---

that's not usually how programming works. You have the source code which you compile into an executable, which actually runs on your hardware. It's not like you can just hop onto a program while it's running and change the code. And I doubt there's any sort of wireless reprogramming capability, you likely have to plug directly into the fighter, in some place that's under lock and key and can't be opened without filing ten pounds of paperwork.

quote:

---

Ok, I'll confess to not being a computer whiz, but shouldn't this be just a little alarming? It seems like everyone and their mother can program in C++. I'm assuming (more like hoping) the engineers thought of a way to make sure there's no way someone could hack into this with a rogue radio signal, but I've been disappointed before.

---

Don't worry…it all goes through F a gan (<-remove the spaces) Inspections at LM Aero…or it did 10 years ago...


[This message has been edited by Ag with kids (edited 3/23/2010 12:17a).]

quote:

---

Faster code...development???

Somewhere in the future there is a Class A mishap investigation with a finding that the smoking hole in the ground was the result of pointer to address space that somebody forgot to de-reference.

---

As I pointed out, the choices before were Ada and then Jovial before that…

Those were charlie foxtrots all by themselves...

As a side note, one of the engineers I work with is a former F-22 Test Pilot...

It will be perfect when someone decides to remake Top Gun...


Maverick: Tower, this is Ghost Rider requesting a hoverby.