4 ms·

- The targeting helmet has been operational for a couple of years now and has gone through 3 revisions. The 3rd revision eliminated issues of jutter, etc and is

- The targeting helmet has been operational for a couple of years now and has gone through 3 revisions. The 3rd revision eliminated issues of jutter, etc and is now more or less ready for combat. - Onboard lightning strike protection was present, but it didn't have an inert-gas generator (it was removed earlier for weight) which fills the fuel tanks with an inert gas as they're drained. It's not necessary, but it was desired - ground-based lightning tests had it go through 800+ strikes without incident, so all-weather flying is set to be permitted in the next couple of months. - The jet can take hot fuel and has been able to do so for the past 8 years, with it's primary testing bases being in Texas and Arizona. The fine-print of it's limitations was that its radar, etc wouldn't be operate at full power <2 minutes after take-off if it had hot fuel and had been sitting with its engine idling for 30 minutes. - It's exhaust doesn't melt the deck, but it causes heat stresses in the long term. The Navy already has a new deck coating ready (called Thermion) which eliminates the issue and doesn't need to be replaced anywhere near as often. - The turning & acceleration performance is only poor when compared to air dominance fighters like the Eurofighter Typhoon or Su-35, or legacy fighters like the F-16 when they're stripped of external weapons, fuel tanks, pods, etc that are otherwise required for combat. - It's loiter time has never been disclosed yet, but on internal fuel only the F-35 outranges every other western fighter using internal fuel and is competitive in range against them when they're loaded with external fuel tanks. - The video uplink function is scheduled for Block 4 of the F-35's software; the reason for its delay being that ROVER was only recently overhauled to ROVER IV and because it's extremely unlikely the F-35's going to be performing CAS prior to 2020 while there are still (relatively-disposable) F-16s, A-10s, etc flying. - It's original 'budget' / targeted price was $50 million. While the jet's far more expensive than that, so is every other modern fighter. Even a modern Block 60 F-16V goes for more than $70 million flyaway, while more relevant fighters like the Typhoon, Rafale, etc are over $100 million. As of LRIP 8 / F135 Lot 8, an F-35A with engine is approximately $108 million, with the total cost decreasing approximately 3.5% each year through to 2018 when full-rate production begins and the price drops to ~$85 million, being cheaper than pretty much all of the competition. - The only nation that's backed out is Canada, and even then it's almost certain they'll end up going with the F-35 anyway based on what the RCAF has been asking for. >Yes, but the F-18 is a much, much simpler concept. Carrier-based strike aircraft. Then look at the F-35: stealthy land-based, carrier-based, and stovl aircraft that will perform strike, cas, and interceptor roles. Other than the STOVL and stealth, that's exactly what the F/A-18 is, and even then the E/F/G models have tried to utilise stealth to a degree in their forward hemispheres.

GVIrish 12y ago
Thanks for the informative post! > The targeting helmet has been operational for a couple of years now and has gone through 3 revisions. The 3rd revision eliminated issues of jutter, etc and is now more or less ready for combat. With the updates to reduce the visual issues, has the updated helmet now been put through it's paces by test pilots? > The turning & acceleration performance is only poor when compared to air dominance fighters like the Eurofighter Typhoon or Su-35, or legacy fighters like the F-16 when they're stripped of external weapons, fuel tanks, pods, etc that are otherwise required for combat. So the F-35 performance envelope is comparable to those Gen 4/4.5 fighters when both aircraft are flying clean? > - It's original 'budget' / targeted price was $50 million. While the jet's far more expensive than that, so is every other modern fighter. Even a modern Block 60 F-16V goes for more than $70 million flyaway, while more relevant fighters like the Typhoon, Rafale, etc are over $100 million. As of LRIP 8 / F135 Lot 8, an F-35A with engine is approximately $108 million, with the total cost decreasing approximately 3.5% each year through to 2018 when full-rate production begins and the price drops to ~$85 million, being cheaper than pretty much all of the competition. Forgive me for saying so but how is a significantly more complex aircraft like the F-35 going to cost signficantly less than current Gen 4 aircraft> All of the flyaway costs I've seen for F-35's have been well over $150 million/unit, even without R&D costs factored in. Admittedly unit cost is a number that is juggled and obfuscated endlessly when talking about defense aircraft but it doesn't seem believable that on an apples to apples comparison the F-35 will cost less than planes like the Typhoon. > The only nation that's backed out is Canada, and even then it's almost certain they'll end up going with the F-35 anyway based on what the RCAF has been asking for. The saving grace for the F-35 is that US has many political and economic tools it can use to convince partner nations to continue with the program. But it's still looking like many partner nations will reduce the number they had planned to buy. > Other than the STOVL and stealth, that's exactly what the F/A-18 is, and even then the E/F/G models have tried to utilise stealth to a degree in their forward hemispheres. Yeah looking back on that sentence, "strike" pretty much means interdiction/air support. Still, I think if the JSF program chosen either STOVL or stealth and not both we'd be looking at a very different story right now. And of the two stealth is WAY more valuable than STOVL.
- Dragon029 12y ago

GVIrish 12y ago

Thanks for the informative post! > The targeting helmet has been operational for a couple of years now and has gone through 3 revisions. The 3rd revision eliminated issues of jutter, etc and is now more or less ready for combat. With the updates to reduce the visual issues, has the updated helmet now been put through it's paces by test pilots? > The turning & acceleration performance is only poor when compared to air dominance fighters like the Eurofighter Typhoon or Su-35, or legacy fighters like the F-16 when they're stripped of external weapons, fuel tanks, pods, etc that are otherwise required for combat. So the F-35 performance envelope is comparable to those Gen 4/4.5 fighters when both aircraft are flying clean? > - It's original 'budget' / targeted price was $50 million. While the jet's far more expensive than that, so is every other modern fighter. Even a modern Block 60 F-16V goes for more than $70 million flyaway, while more relevant fighters like the Typhoon, Rafale, etc are over $100 million. As of LRIP 8 / F135 Lot 8, an F-35A with engine is approximately $108 million, with the total cost decreasing approximately 3.5% each year through to 2018 when full-rate production begins and the price drops to ~$85 million, being cheaper than pretty much all of the competition. Forgive me for saying so but how is a significantly more complex aircraft like the F-35 going to cost signficantly less than current Gen 4 aircraft> All of the flyaway costs I've seen for F-35's have been well over $150 million/unit, even without R&D costs factored in. Admittedly unit cost is a number that is juggled and obfuscated endlessly when talking about defense aircraft but it doesn't seem believable that on an apples to apples comparison the F-35 will cost less than planes like the Typhoon. > The only nation that's backed out is Canada, and even then it's almost certain they'll end up going with the F-35 anyway based on what the RCAF has been asking for. The saving grace for the F-35 is that US has many political and economic tools it can use to convince partner nations to continue with the program. But it's still looking like many partner nations will reduce the number they had planned to buy. > Other than the STOVL and stealth, that's exactly what the F/A-18 is, and even then the E/F/G models have tried to utilise stealth to a degree in their forward hemispheres. Yeah looking back on that sentence, "strike" pretty much means interdiction/air support. Still, I think if the JSF program chosen either STOVL or stealth and not both we'd be looking at a very different story right now. And of the two stealth is WAY more valuable than STOVL.

Dragon029 12y ago