The F-35 Thread

Check some of the plan F-35 training

Training plan Video

First Quarter update video

What about the Ground Attack [fGR] version thats being done?????

The Typhoon fleet is constantly developed overall.

New capabilities are backwards integrated over time.

Don't know how the RAF handles things but Luftwaffe Tranche 1 EFs do the default AG loading ( LGBs ) just like Tranche 2.

More weapons are integrated on the fly so to speak.

As for the F-35 comparison I can't see a single thing the F-35 can do in terms of ordnance that the Tiffy can't.

The SA will probably be superior in the F-35 especialy in CAS situations but then the EF can carry more payload ( especialy a more complete weapon package in swingrole loadouts ).

Apples and oranges because of different layouts but the Typhoon beeing developed foremost as an interceptor is 1990s info.

Cougar throttle in those pics but stick is something else...

Terrain detail is poor but reminds me of Jane's IAF (1998), perhaps they should ask ED for some terrain...

Stick handle is provided (most probably) by Bugeye Technologies http://bugeyetech.com/

More weapons are integrated on the fly so to speak.

Right ...

As for the F-35 comparison I can't see a single thing the F-35 can do in terms of ordnance that the Tiffy can't.

Long range stealthy SDB delivery on multiple targets, just as an example.

The SA will probably be superior in the F-35 especialy in CAS situations but then the EF can carry more payload ( especialy a more complete weapon package in swingrole loadouts ).

 

Apples and oranges because of different layouts but the Typhoon beeing developed foremost as an interceptor is 1990s info.

Yes, it is apples and oranges because the Typhoon still is primarily an interceptor.

The F-35 was designed and built for A2G and CAS from the get-go. It can do both jobs stealthily if required, or with a larger payload on external stations when necessary. It can automatically spot AAA and have weapons on it in short order even against a passive system.

On nominally loaded flights (2 bombs, 2 AAMs) it's no different than an equivalently loaded F-16, but with better fuel efficiency, longer loiter time, better speed and acceleration because it doesn't have all sorts of stuff hanging off of it. It does better than the Typhoon in this case as well.

It's already got integrated datalinks both for stealth DL and connections to FAC/AFAC, as well as other fun things .

In short, it can do a whole lot more in many more different ways than the TYphoon in the A2G role right now. ;)

Stick handle is provided (most probably) by Bugeye Technologies http://bugeyetech.com/

Not bad, I wonder if they ship to Europe :smilewink:

I would rather have a Tiffy supply me CAS, then the 35, in Afgan..

two bombs is not CAS, its strike. unless it has those rocket pods on the wings.

I would rather have a Tiffy supply me CAS, then the 35, in Afgan..

 

two bombs is not CAS, its strike. unless it has those rocket pods on the wings.

What sized bombs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-16_June_2008.jpg

Two mavericks, two small LGBs, 2 AMRAAMS. Four vehicles plinked or plenty of people blown up...and two slammers for the odd helicopter. You could swap out those for 2 large bombs if you wanted to and be at a similar weight. I'm assuming that the F-35 has MERs internally.

You would rather a tiffy to an F-35? The F-35 is less likely to kill you by accident and it can end up being better loaded out than a typhoon for CAS.

The F-35 can mount ordnance externally if necessary, and I'm fairly certain it can carry multiple SDBs internally.

But if you REALLY want CLOSE air support, your best bet is a heli.

Right ...

 

 

 

 

Long range stealthy SDB delivery on multiple targets, just as an example.

 

 

 

Yes, it is apples and oranges because the Typhoon still is primarily an interceptor.

 

The F-35 was designed and built for A2G and CAS from the get-go. It can do both jobs stealthily if required, or with a larger payload on external stations when necessary. It can automatically spot AAA and have weapons on it in short order even against a passive system.

 

On nominally loaded flights (2 bombs, 2 AAMs) it's no different than an equivalently loaded F-16, but with better fuel efficiency, longer loiter time, better speed and acceleration because it doesn't have all sorts of stuff hanging off of it. It does better than the Typhoon in this case as well.

 

It's already got integrated datalinks both for stealth DL and connections to FAC/AFAC, as well as other fun things .

 

In short, it can do a whole lot more in many more different ways than the TYphoon in the A2G role right now. ;)

Could you elaborate on your objection towards the metaphor "on the fly"?

I take just a slight communicational irritation.

I'm sorry but repeating the same half knowledge of it beeing primarily an interceptor will not make it more factual.

The aircraft is fielded as a multyrole combat aircraft by it's users, with all the implications that result.

Besides that the term "interceptor" is wrong to begin with in this case.

In the air to air regime it's design has always been that of an air superiority fighter.

As for the remark on stealth and range, that is precisely why I used the expression "in terms of ordnance".

To expand that part of the discussion you might want to notice that the Typhoon can carry a "slightly" bigger package then the F-16 which you compare to the F-35.

You can easily asses the exact configurations possible by first hand official sources. They are all easy to come by.

To say the EF carries a more powerfull swingrole package then the F-16 is a blatant understatement.

As for performance under load it is simply wrong to state that the F-35 outranges the F-16 and EF at better speed and acceleration.

The later outperformes the Viper by a large margin in that regard.

As for SA and the obvious advantages of the Lighting II: It mainly is about the integration of the senor suite - not the individual sensor performance.

To paraphrase again : Your description of the Typhoon as an interceptor is out of timeline about 15-20 years.

I would rather have a Tiffy supply me CAS, then the 35, in Afgan..

 

two bombs is not CAS, its strike. unless it has those rocket pods on the wings.

I'm not expert, but I doubt they would only carry 2 bombs for CAS, maybe some thing like this:

I also do not see the need to be very stealthy during a CAS, why not carry ordnance outside the weapons bays?

^^^ F-22 carry much more than F-35.

Something for the geeks among you:

Coding standard for JSF software design, co-authored by the creator of C++ himself:

http://www.research.att.com/~bs/JSF-AV-rules.pdf

:book:

You would rather a tiffy to an F-35? The F-35 is less likely to kill you by accident and it can end up being better loaded out than a typhoon for CAS.

 

The F-35 can mount ordnance externally if necessary, and I'm fairly certain it can carry multiple SDBs internally.

 

But if you REALLY want CLOSE air support, your best bet is a heli.

so your saying its the machine not the pilot that is less likely to do a Blue on Blue...

and yes you're right a heli is best siuted for the job.

EDIT.. thats the 22 not the 35

I know if F-22 Guys, but the can carry the SDB, same way, 4 per bay

so your saying its the machine not the pilot that is less likely to do a Blue on Blue...

 

and yes you're right a heli is best siuted for the job.

 

EDIT.. thats the 22 not the 35

The way I see it, the F-35 is better equipped for the A2G role. And because of that, it will give the pilot better SA and hence, less blue-on-blue....

^^^ F-22 carry much more than F-35.

Every photo I seen The F-35 can carry two 2000lbs class bomb and two AIM-120 internally, the only difference the F-22 can also carry AIM-9 and 6 AIM-120. I think the main bays are the same size.

F-22

F-35

Pretty close if you ask me.

This is correct. The F-35 is likely to be better equipped to communicate with troops on the ground, literally showing them where it'll lay weapons down.

It can also react to emerging threats more quickly, and locate the target sooner as well. With the correct equipment for the ground troops, the pilot may well set the 'labels' setting to on as well, because he'll see all friendly (and dected enemy) units right as they appear in his or her view. No mucking around with the targeting pod or anything like that (speaking of which, after having seen such a 'label' he/she can look at it and slave the targeting sensor onto it).

The way I see it, the F-35 is better equipped for the A2G role. And because of that, it will give the pilot better SA and hence, less blue-on-blue....

Every photo I seen The F-35 can carry two 2000lbs class bomb and two AIM-120 internally, the only difference the F-22 can also carry AIM-9 and 6 AIM-120. I think the main bays are the same size.

It`s the side bays of F-22 that are making the difference in weapon quantity. Not sure about what variety of weapons can be carried on these bay doors (F-35) though. The place is so small that unlike the F-22s the amraams are hanging on the bay doors. :huh:

Noted, but you wrote the F-22 can carry, an I quote:

much more than F-35

I do not work on the F-35, I do not even like the way it look, just merely saying they internal bay load out capability are comparable and I believe the F-35 could/can carry 4 SDB per bay, like the F-22.

P.S.

I think they can only carry AIM-9M on F-22 cheek bays, I should say, I have only seen AIM-9M/CAP-9.

It's a packing issue, however some sources claim 8SDB + 2 AAM for the F-35.

This is similar to the F-22's payload. And yes, you are correct, the F-22 fights with AIM-9Ms ... and this is exactly what it was using to kick JHMCS equipped F-16 turkey feathers with. Scary, no?

I think F-22 can carry 8 SDBs + 2 Aim-120s + 2 Aim-9 in side bays. At least the pictures i`ve seen of the LAU-142/A amraam vertical eject launcher suggest so. Compared to F-35`s 4 SDBs + 2 Aim-120s it`s a lot more ;) I don`t see how F-35 can carry 8 SDBs and 2 AAMs in smaller bays with fewer hardpoints - let`s face it F-22 has 8 internal hardpoints, F-35 has 4.

SDB racks host 4 bombs. And those racks are designed to be of the same size as an Mk84/GBU31. So if the F-35 can stack up 2 internal GBU31s, then it can carry 8xSDBs internally. Plus the 2 Slammers ofc.

SDB racks host 4 bombs. And those racks are designed to be of the same size as an Mk84/GBU31. So if the F-35 can stack up 2 internal GBU31s, then it can carry 8xSDBs internally. Plus the 2 Slammers ofc.

"Because of the size of the small-diameter bomb, the F-22 can carry more munitions at a time," Mr. Chung said. "Now, we are looking at carrying eight SDBs compared to just two JDAMs. This will allow the aircraft to strike up to eight targets at a time."

Edit: Comments on F-22`s first supersonic SDB drop on July 11 2008.

However the BRU-61/A bomb rack allows 4 SDBs to be carried. It`s designed for external and internal employment. It`s pretty wide though and i`m not sure if F-35 can keep his 2 AAMs when having 2 BRU-61/A (8 SDBs) mounted. :huh: But if it can than that would mean 8 SDBs + 2 Amraams.

For the F-22 on the other hand i find it totally useless because the aircraft can`t take 4 bomb racks, at least i haven`t seen any plausible info about such possibility. And 1 of these BRU-61/A will take the place of two hardpoints in one of its main bays (the F-22`s hardpoints are pretty tightly deployed) which means that with or without BRU-61/A F-22 can carry 8 SDBs + 2 Amraams in its main bays or if you remove the amraams 8 + 4 SDBs.