Comments on: STOVL JSF Jumps Closer to Flight Test http://defensetech.org/2008/05/28/stovl-jsf-jumps-closer-to-flight-test/ The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:29:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: NTGhttp://defensetech.org/2008/05/28/stovl-jsf-jumps-closer-to-flight-test/#comment-209055 NTG Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:21:39 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2869#comment-209055 "This is an aircraft I do not want because of cost." "I don't want Navy or Air Force junk" Now you know how the rest of us feel about the Osprey. “This is an aircraft I do not want because of cost.“
“I don’t want Navy or Air Force junk”

Now you know how the rest of us feel about the Osprey.

]]> By: randymar75http://defensetech.org/2008/05/28/stovl-jsf-jumps-closer-to-flight-test/#comment-180458 randymar75 Sun, 01 Jun 2008 11:57:08 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2869#comment-180458 randymar75 i dont understand why you're calling USAF and USN planes "junk" when in the same comment said you like the US AIR FORCE A-10. idk i'm just a lil baffled and offended that you'd call USN and AF planes junk... Posted by: jf at May 31, 2008 11:04 PM This is easy to answer. First the Air Farce didn't want the A-10. They were ordered to receive it. It wasn't the pretty airframe the USAF was used too. Second when they wanted to retire it back in 90, The Marines asked the SecNav if we could take them over. That is when the Air Farce said "No, No we'll keep them." Guess they finally felt needed! This is one of the most successful CAS aircraft in history and at every turn the Air Farce wants to get rid of it. Just because they want their new toys. Maybe that's why Marines have had the second motto of "We have done so much, with so little, for so long. We are now qualified to do everything, with nothing." The USAF should be "we spend all this money and the Navy still has more planes." As far as the Navy goes, well that is my interservice rivalry. Yes Marines are department of the Navy, the Men's Department. randymar75 i dont understand why you’re calling USAF and USN planes “junk” when in the same comment said you like the US AIR FORCE A-10. idk i’m just a lil baffled and offended that you’d call USN and AF planes junk…
Posted by: jf at May 31, 2008 11:04 PM
This is easy to answer. First the Air Farce didn’t want the A-10. They were ordered to receive it. It wasn’t the pretty airframe the USAF was used too. Second when they wanted to retire it back in 90, The Marines asked the SecNav if we could take them over. That is when the Air Farce said “No, No we’ll keep them.” Guess they finally felt needed! This is one of the most successful CAS aircraft in history and at every turn the Air Farce wants to get rid of it. Just because they want their new toys. Maybe that’s why Marines have had the second motto of “We have done so much, with so little, for so long. We are now qualified to do everything, with nothing.” The USAF should be “we spend all this money and the Navy still has more planes.” As far as the Navy goes, well that is my interservice rivalry. Yes Marines are department of the Navy, the Men’s Department.

]]> By: jfhttp://defensetech.org/2008/05/28/stovl-jsf-jumps-closer-to-flight-test/#comment-40221 jf Sun, 01 Jun 2008 04:04:11 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2869#comment-40221 randymar75 i dont understand why you're calling USAF and USN planes "junk" when in the same comment said you like the US AIR FORCE A-10. idk i'm just a lil baffled and offended that you'd call USN and AF planes junk... randymar75 i dont understand why you’re calling USAF and USN planes “junk” when in the same comment said you like the US AIR FORCE A-10. idk i’m just a lil baffled and offended that you’d call USN and AF planes junk…

]]> By: Ejectionseatfixehttp://defensetech.org/2008/05/28/stovl-jsf-jumps-closer-to-flight-test/#comment-180457 Ejectionseatfixe Sun, 01 Jun 2008 01:34:48 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2869#comment-180457 I believe all of this has already been thought through way before it took its first flight. Unlike the Harrier, the F35 has had newer technology on its side from the beginning of assembly since now, lightweight airframe technology came about, and theres considerable thrust to weight advantage wayyyy over the AV8B. Of course, there will be quite a bit more fuel consumption while in vertical flight, but nowhere near what it was when the AV8B was engineered. I think the Marines will be very pleased with what they are getting. Oh, and the Marines have been flying Navy hand-me downs since the 60's, so you might not want, youve got it already...lol I believe all of this has already been thought through way before it took its first flight. Unlike the Harrier, the F35 has had newer technology on its side from the beginning of assembly since now, lightweight airframe technology came about, and theres considerable thrust to weight advantage wayyyy over the AV8B. Of course, there will be quite a bit more fuel consumption while in vertical flight, but nowhere near what it was when the AV8B was engineered. I think the Marines will be very pleased with what they are getting.
Oh, and the Marines have been flying Navy hand-me downs since the 60’s, so you might not want, youve got it already…lol

]]> By: Bobhttp://defensetech.org/2008/05/28/stovl-jsf-jumps-closer-to-flight-test/#comment-180456 Bob Sat, 31 May 2008 21:47:25 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2869#comment-180456 Re: VSTOL aircraft, the Russians had one in the 1970's/80's NATO name Forger. Not a great plane.I also love the A-10, but it has a 30mm, not 20mm cannon. Re: VSTOL aircraft, the Russians had one in the 1970’s/80’s NATO name Forger. Not a great plane.I also love the A-10, but it has a 30mm, not 20mm cannon.

]]> By: ADyerhttp://defensetech.org/2008/05/28/stovl-jsf-jumps-closer-to-flight-test/#comment-180455 ADyer Sat, 31 May 2008 19:21:54 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2869#comment-180455 "The thrust vectoring design of the Harrier is lighter and (in my personal opinion) better. Yes I have heard about the center of the Harrier body being an IR missile magnet, but it is an amazing design. I wish the F-35 could have used that principle, along with improved IR countermeasures. I just hope that technology can overcome the weight penalties of the lift fan assembly. It's like carrying around a Cessna Caravan engine (dead weight) right behind the pilot that you only use to hover. For the Marine that has to fly it, thats fuel left on the ground (one of the most useless things in aviation)." While the lift fan in the forward fuselage is dead weight and wasted space in forward flight, that is a trade off that must be made to achieve STOVL capability. It is a trade off also made by the harrier. The special vectoring nozzles and the associated equipment weigh a great deal more than a conventional jet pipe does, and the whole setup, Pegasus engine, nozzles, and reaction control pipes to the wingtips, uses far more space and weight than a conventional engine does. Furthermore, the JSF concept is not so different from the harrier. The forward nozzles on the harrier draw air from behind the enlarged low pressure compressor, well before the combustion stage. The F-35B just has that "part" of the engine as a separate lift device. In both cases you have unburned air being accelerated downward by a fan powered by the aircraft's power plant. Barring some massive leap forward in technology (think repulsor lifts from Star Wars) STOVL aircraft will always have to trade something in for the ability to take off and land vertically. In the case of the F-35B this is fuel capacity, giving it shorter legs than the A and C models. This disadvantage is mitigated or negated by the fact that the lack of a requirement for a long landing strip allows the F-35B to be based at locations close to the battle that no other jet can manage, be it forward operating bases or ships too small to handle standard carrier aircraft. “The thrust vectoring design of the Harrier is lighter and (in my personal opinion) better. Yes I have heard about the center of the Harrier body being an IR missile magnet, but it is an amazing design. I wish the F-35 could have used that principle, along with improved IR countermeasures.
I just hope that technology can overcome the weight penalties of the lift fan assembly. It’s like carrying around a Cessna Caravan engine (dead weight) right behind the pilot that you only use to hover. For the Marine that has to fly it, thats fuel left on the ground (one of the most useless things in aviation).“
While the lift fan in the forward fuselage is dead weight and wasted space in forward flight, that is a trade off that must be made to achieve STOVL capability. It is a trade off also made by the harrier. The special vectoring nozzles and the associated equipment weigh a great deal more than a conventional jet pipe does, and the whole setup, Pegasus engine, nozzles, and reaction control pipes to the wingtips, uses far more space and weight than a conventional engine does.
Furthermore, the JSF concept is not so different from the harrier. The forward nozzles on the harrier draw air from behind the enlarged low pressure compressor, well before the combustion stage. The F-35B just has that “part” of the engine as a separate lift device. In both cases you have unburned air being accelerated downward by a fan powered by the aircraft’s power plant.
Barring some massive leap forward in technology (think repulsor lifts from Star Wars) STOVL aircraft will always have to trade something in for the ability to take off and land vertically. In the case of the F-35B this is fuel capacity, giving it shorter legs than the A and C models. This disadvantage is mitigated or negated by the fact that the lack of a requirement for a long landing strip allows the F-35B to be based at locations close to the battle that no other jet can manage, be it forward operating bases or ships too small to handle standard carrier aircraft.

]]> By: Rhyno327/lrsdhttp://defensetech.org/2008/05/28/stovl-jsf-jumps-closer-to-flight-test/#comment-180454 Rhyno327/lrsd Sat, 31 May 2008 15:28:35 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2869#comment-180454 This is an aircraft the Marine Corps needs. Its avionics are superior to the Harrier, and it is more versatile. As for the A-10, there will always be a spot for it. Just hearing the growl of that 20mm cannon will uplift ur spirits, while the enemy runs like hell. Remember, the conflicts we are engaged in now will repeat it self, somewhere, someday. The ability to fly low and slow, and absorb punishment is its greatest asset. Using them at nite, with the upgrades its gotten, make it more deadly. This is an aircraft the Marine Corps needs. Its avionics are superior to the Harrier, and it is more versatile. As for the A-10, there will always be a spot for it. Just hearing the growl of that 20mm cannon will uplift ur spirits, while the enemy runs like hell. Remember, the conflicts we are engaged in now will repeat it self, somewhere, someday. The ability to fly low and slow, and absorb punishment is its greatest asset. Using them at nite, with the upgrades its gotten, make it more deadly.

]]> By: TCL_CAPhttp://defensetech.org/2008/05/28/stovl-jsf-jumps-closer-to-flight-test/#comment-180452 TCL_CAP Fri, 30 May 2008 13:18:36 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2869#comment-180452 Though the Yak jump jet actually saw service on the old "Kiev" and "Moskva" class ships, it seems that there has never been a really successful design (from east or west) which incorporated a seperate lift fan. The thrust vectoring design of the Harrier is lighter and (in my personal opinion) better. Yes I have heard about the center of the Harrier body being an IR missile magnet, but it is an amazing design. I wish the F-35 could have used that principle, along with improved IR countermeasures. I just hope that technology can overcome the weight penalties of the lift fan assembly. It's like carrying around a Cessna Caravan engine (dead weight) right behind the pilot that you only use to hover. For the Marine that has to fly it, thats fuel left on the ground (one of the most useless things in aviation). I'm an Air Force guy and I think this plane CAN work out great for AF and even for the Navy, with it's sea legs of course (e.g. HEAVY landing gear). But, I don't see the Marines loving it. They will make it work (they always do), but it will not be ideal. I have to agree with an earlier post that an A-10 derivative needs to come out, but I don't expect it. The CAS mission can now be flown by B-52's with JDAMS or even a UAV, so this entire discussion may be moot. With the impending political situation, the F-35 may never enter active service. Just my thoughts. Though the Yak jump jet actually saw service on the old “Kiev” and “Moskva” class ships, it seems that there has never been a really successful design (from east or west) which incorporated a seperate lift fan. The thrust vectoring design of the Harrier is lighter and (in my personal opinion) better. Yes I have heard about the center of the Harrier body being an IR missile magnet, but it is an amazing design. I wish the F-35 could have used that principle, along with improved IR countermeasures.
I just hope that technology can overcome the weight penalties of the lift fan assembly. It’s like carrying around a Cessna Caravan engine (dead weight) right behind the pilot that you only use to hover. For the Marine that has to fly it, thats fuel left on the ground (one of the most useless things in aviation).
I’m an Air Force guy and I think this plane CAN work out great for AF and even for the Navy, with it’s sea legs of course (e.g. HEAVY landing gear). But, I don’t see the Marines loving it. They will make it work (they always do), but it will not be ideal.
I have to agree with an earlier post that an A-10 derivative needs to come out, but I don’t expect it. The CAS mission can now be flown by B-52’s with JDAMS or even a UAV, so this entire discussion may be moot. With the impending political situation, the F-35 may never enter active service.
Just my thoughts.

]]> By: randymar75http://defensetech.org/2008/05/28/stovl-jsf-jumps-closer-to-flight-test/#comment-180451 randymar75 Fri, 30 May 2008 02:14:19 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2869#comment-180451 Yes, there has: Dassault Mirage III - France - Mach 1- 1960 EWR VJ 101C - Mach 1 - Germany/Based on F-104 starfighter- mid 1960's YAK-141 or (YAK-41)- Just at the fall of the USSR Posted by: Mike Schofield at May 29, 2008 07:14 AM What are you referring to? If it is the FACT that this is the first mach 1 VSTOL aircraft. Than you need to check facts. No aircraft has ever transitioned in flight from a vertical take off, to level flight, broken the sound barrier, and landed vertically. This was accomplished by the F-35 in Dec of 06. This is an aircraft I do not want because of cost, as a Marine all I want is something that will get down and dirty, like the A-10. Didn't McNamarra try this with the F-4? Although a good airframe in the end, I know a lot of aviators thought it was a turkey that flew like a brick. We have 3 services that fly, with different needs. This will never and can never be accomplished with one aircraft. besides I don't want Navy or Air Force junk. Semper Fi Yes, there has:
Dassault Mirage III — France — Mach 1– 1960
EWR VJ 101C — Mach 1 — Germany/Based on F-104 starfighter– mid 1960’s
YAK-141 or (YAK-41)- Just at the fall of the USSR
Posted by: Mike Schofield at May 29, 2008 07:14 AM
What are you referring to?
If it is the FACT that this is the first mach 1 VSTOL aircraft. Than you need to check facts. No aircraft has ever transitioned in flight from a vertical take off, to level flight, broken the sound barrier, and landed vertically. This was accomplished by the F-35 in Dec of 06.
This is an aircraft I do not want because of cost, as a Marine all I want is something that will get down and dirty, like the A-10.
Didn’t McNamarra try this with the F-4? Although a good airframe in the end, I know a lot of aviators thought it was a turkey that flew like a brick.
We have 3 services that fly, with different needs. This will never and can never be accomplished with one aircraft.
besides I don’t want Navy or Air Force junk.
Semper Fi

]]> By: DONALD HEINKE, Sr.http://defensetech.org/2008/05/28/stovl-jsf-jumps-closer-to-flight-test/#comment-180450 DONALD HEINKE, Sr. Thu, 29 May 2008 23:54:32 +0000 http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2869#comment-180450 SEEMS LIKE THE U.S. IS ALMOST ALWAYS BEHIND IN THE SPECIALTY AIRCRAFT. GOOD IDEA ON GIVING THE THRUST VECTORING IN OTHER MODELS. THE AV-8B'S MAY BE OLD, BUT THE'RE STILL GETTING THE JOB DONE. THE'RE LIKE THE CH-46'S, THEY NEED A LITTLE TLC, BUT WHEN THE'RE NEEDED, THEY DO A HELL OF A JOB. THE AIR FORCE NEEDS NEW A-10'S, NOT CONFIGURED F-35A'S. THE KISS PRINCIPLE WORKS EVERY TIME. SEMPER FI SEEMS LIKE THE U.S. IS ALMOST ALWAYS BEHIND IN THE SPECIALTY AIRCRAFT. GOOD IDEA ON GIVING THE THRUST VECTORING IN OTHER MODELS.
THE AV-8B’S MAY BE OLD, BUT THE’RE STILL GETTING THE JOB DONE. THE’RE LIKE THE CH-46’S, THEY NEED A LITTLE TLC, BUT WHEN THE’RE NEEDED, THEY DO A HELL OF A JOB. THE AIR FORCE NEEDS NEW A-10’S, NOT CONFIGURED F-35A’S. THE KISS PRINCIPLE WORKS EVERY TIME.
SEMPER FI

]]>