The F-35 a flop?

[goldenfooler]

Thank you for the correction... Highschool physics for the fail... I always thought glide path meant that. The plane would still theoretically use less fuel since the wings are still taking care of some lift to keep it from descending too quickly, right?

I think they have to have enough power to lock(might be the wrong word) onto the cable as well. Of course still need enough power if they miss to take off again.

[NateTheBrewer]

Whether they are gliding or not... I would guess there is a fuel difference. I am not sure the government really cares about fuel usage though in retrospect, since the M1 gets .6 miles per gallon... Its probably the combination of a bunch of things that make them not use VTOL for the navy version.

[Nauticas]

I designed Navy ships for awhile back in the early 2000's and we use to get some snippets of info about JSF because they wanted us to consider the requirements for the JSF for the LHD (think small air craft carrier for the marines) we were designing.

When we were designing the ship back then the JSF was sort of considered a big joke because there were so many issues they had to overcome to make it work. There are several small items, that are really big design issues between a plane that takes off/lands on land than one that lands on a carrier. I think most people would be surprised how different than can be.

Anyway, might point is that the JSF is a good idea, but from an engineering stand point it is not really practical with today's plane designs. I think they need a total new plane design if they want to make a fixed wing fighter that can support the 3 branches of the military. I know, I know, you are saying that the JSF is a new plane design. Honestly, look at it, it isn't, it the hull design looks just like every other jet fighter.

[Rand{CLR}]

Last time I looked into the design differences, it seemed the key for the VTOL version was they decided to pursue an utterly unique engine design. Instead of louvers that control verticality a'la the Harrier, they incorporated massive fans in the middle of the aircraft, essentially smushing two different types of engines together.

Look at the troubles with the Osprey to see what can happen when you are working with something quite unique.

They still haven't solved the technical problems, and the GAO and other budget accountability folks are getting impatient. This is why the VTOL version is on a timeframe. If they don't solve the issues in full by the deadline, it's cancelled.

The airforce variant seems to be the only one doing well, and we're going to have to eat a lot of unanticipated costs if a) the others are cancelled, and b) the partner nations start to cancel their orders in light of our decision to keep the software systems in our full control.

-Rand

[Apache Warrior]

I designed Navy ships for awhile back in the early 2000's and we use to get some snippets of info about JSF because they wanted us to consider the requirements for the JSF for the LHD (think small air craft carrier for the marines) we were designing.

When we were designing the ship back then the JSF was sort of considered a big joke because there were so many issues they had to overcome to make it work. There are several small items, that are really big design issues between a plane that takes off/lands on land than one that lands on a carrier. I think most people would be surprised how different than can be.

Anyway, might point is that the JSF is a good idea, but from an engineering stand point it is not really practical with today's plane designs. I think they need a total new plane design if they want to make a fixed wing fighter that can support the 3 branches of the military. I know, I know, you are saying that the JSF is a new plane design. Honestly, look at it, it isn't, it the hull design looks just like every other jet fighter.

I thought they would have learned from their mistakes with the F4 Phantom.
Apache

[MR_MADHATTER]

Alright now....rumor control is in effect. The vast majority of the orders for the F-35 are for the F-35A model which has very few problems. The F-35 B is STOVL not VTOL. Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing. It was never designed to take off vertically with a full load. It should not have any problem operating from an amphibious carrier. I posted videos of it doing so. As for the F-35C, I haven't heard anything yet but I'm sure they will work out a fix for it. Maybe they need stronger or more springs on the carrier deck. Have patience. Every new aircraft design has it's own set of bugs to work out. Chill.

[MR_MADHATTER]

Shoulda beta tested one - duh!

They did . The X35 AB & C models.

[Apache Warrior]

Carrier Aircraft have to be built to take more shock from short landings and from the arresting gear. When you watch carrier landings notice the angle that they hit the deck from. They hit at a much steeper angle than aircraft landing on a normal runway. Navy and Marine aircraft hit the deck hard.
Apache