backtop

Print 24 comment(s) - last by lagomorpha.. on Feb 22 at 6:27 AM
A full loadout was not used for this test mission

Lockheed Martin has announced today that the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A Lightning II has conducted its first external weapons test mission.
 
On missions where stealth isn't such a high priority, F-35 is able to carry external weapons loads like fourth-generation fighters of today. The first external weapons test was conducted at Edwards Air Force Base in California, and is a further expansion of the flight test envelope for the aircraft. The test had the F-35 carrying two air-to-air AIM-9X missiles on outboard wing stations.
 
The aircraft also carried a pair of 2,000 pound guided bombs internally.
 
Those internal bombs were the GBU-31 model and the test flight included a pair of AIM-120 missiles loaded inside the dual internal weapon bays. The aircraft did not launch any weapons during the mission.

 
This also wasn't a full load out for the F-35A; fully loaded the fighter is designed to carry up to 18,000 pounds of ordnance. The F-35A can support a maximum of 10 weapons stations; three are located under each wing and each of two internal bays has two weapons stations.
 
Last week, it was announced that Italy would be reducing its order of F-35 aircraft by 41 units at the same time it was revealed that the U.S. is banking on international orders to keep costs down.

In addition, Vice Adm. David Venlet had previously called for slowdown in the production of the F-35, but an acceleration in the flight testing schedule.

Source: Lockheed Martin


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
It is somewhat interesting that...
By Amiga500 on 2/21/2012 10:31:56 AM , Rating: 2
The outer pylons have a slight splay angle to them, while the middle and inner have different angles of incidence with respect to the wing chordline.

Obviously, there are some tuning tasks that are underway to ensure good weapons separation.

I'd like to think Lockheed can avoid the horrible band-aid pylon fix Boeing had to impose on the "Super" Hornet. But, given the way the F-35 has been going so far, I'll not bet the house on it!! :-)




RE: It is somewhat interesting that...
By Jeffk464 on 2/21/2012 10:44:17 AM , Rating: 4
Not to state the obvious but if you stick weapons under the wing it will stand out on radar like a 737. With weapons under the wing you might as well send in an f16 to do the same mission at a fraction of the cost.


By lagomorpha on 2/21/2012 11:24:41 AM , Rating: 3
Until Congress approves the billions needed for a "stealth missile program". *looks at federal taxes from paycheck and weeps*


RE: It is somewhat interesting that...
By nafhan on 2/21/2012 11:27:48 AM , Rating: 2
It wouldn't be at a fraction of the cost, because than you'd be supporting two aircraft to do two missions instead of one aircraft (this is basically the point of a multi-mission aircraft). Now, if it only ever flew on missions where stealth was unimportant, then you'd have a point.


RE: It is somewhat interesting that...
By lagomorpha on 2/21/2012 12:27:33 PM , Rating: 1
Except that the maintenance and repair cost of the F35 is much higher.

F16 flight cost per hour: $5,000
F35 flight cost per hour: $23,500

Sure the F35's flight cost will come down some, but it's always going to be a more complicated machine than the F16. The military should have just gone with the even cheaper F20 in the 80s and had a light fighter that would be cheap and good enough for decades to come with electronics upgrades.


RE: It is somewhat interesting that...
By Samus on 2/21/2012 12:39:15 PM , Rating: 3
I still think its funny, and depressing, the UAE has a F16 variant with a more sophisticated engine than the F35...


By lagomorpha on 2/22/2012 6:27:56 AM , Rating: 2
"UAE has a F16 variant with a more sophisticated engine than the F35..."

It's kind of sad how massive the defense budgets are for the UAE and Saudi Arabia. And they will mostly rely on the US for combat because their own people are too stupid or cowardly to actually win any battles. Plenty of Saudi F15 pilots were given the job so they could show off and can barely land the things without American babysitters.

http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars


RE: It is somewhat interesting that...
By Jeffk464 on 2/21/2012 1:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
Or at least keep the f16's going for longer.


RE: It is somewhat interesting that...
By Jeffk464 on 2/21/2012 1:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
I still think they should just have made more f22's for air superiority and kept the bomb trucks "cheap"


RE: It is somewhat interesting that...
By Ringold on 2/21/2012 4:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
Or saw the writing on the wall, abandoned both the F35 and 22, and been the first nation in the world to go all-in on UAVs.


By Totally on 2/21/2012 4:28:54 PM , Rating: 2
Only in a perfect would, that would be a Iran debacle x10 waiting to happen.


RE: It is somewhat interesting that...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/21/2012 1:57:01 PM , Rating: 2
I would like to think with American lives on the line, the decision of which plane to send comes down to more than just maintenance costs. Or money in general.

I wasn't a fan of the F-35, but look, we're stuck with it now. If a mission comes up, and it's the best plane for the job, than by god send the thing and let costs be damned.


RE: It is somewhat interesting that...
By Jeffk464 on 2/21/2012 11:58:27 PM , Rating: 2
Nope it all comes down to money. Its very expensive to train a pilot so the military doesn't like to loose them. But take a grunt and the military isn't nearly as concerned.


By Jedi2155 on 2/22/2012 1:46:38 AM , Rating: 2
Grunts are still expensive at around 250-$400k each.


By nafhan on 2/21/2012 2:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure those numbers don't tell the whole story. There are other costs involved with keeping an extra aircraft around. If nothing else, there WILL be times where there's simply not enough room to have 2X the number of planes actually needed. Plus, pilots generally don't jump back and forth between aircraft. So, you'd need two sets of pilots on site as well. Finally, in the cases where it does make sense to actively use both aircraft. They will . The fact that the F35 can and will be used for both types of missions doesn't mean that the F16 is going to disappear right away. From what I've seen the F16 is planned to be around 'til 2025 (for the US). Up until then, both aircraft very likely will be used side by side. They just don't have to be.


RE: It is somewhat interesting that...
By Totally on 2/21/2012 4:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
RTFA, (2nd paragraph, 1 sentence)


By Totally on 2/21/2012 4:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
reply was directed @Jeffk464


waste of money
By corduroygt on 2/21/2012 2:37:07 PM , Rating: 3
It would have been way cheaper to develop mounts for F-22's to be used in missions that don't require stealth than to develop an entire aircraft (3 actually) for the same mission that doesn't cost any less even in flyaway costs...

The F-22 airframe can do pretty much every assault job better than any other plane in the world, except for some scenarios that play to the A-10's unique abilities. F-22's including navalized versions and modernized A-10's would be a better and cheaper force, and we could also export the F-22's without stealth coating, downgraded radar/electronics and second tier engines...

This whole F-35 program is a joke and a huge waste of money.




RE: waste of money
By DEVGRU on 2/21/2012 4:08:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The F-22 airframe can do pretty much every assault job better than any other plane in the world, except for some scenarios that play to the A-10's unique abilities. F-22's including navalized versions and modernized A-10's would be a better and cheaper force, and we could also export the F-22's without stealth coating, downgraded radar/electronics and second tier engines... This whole F-35 program is a joke and a huge waste of money


Says someone who doesn't have a clue except what they read about in Aviation Week. You know, because you're smarter than anyone in the military or civilian aviation circles. Go back to playing Falcon 5.0 and let the grown ups have a conversation, mkay?

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


RE: waste of money
By MGSsancho on 2/21/2012 7:41:07 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting that you did not counter anything in OP's Comment aside from attacking the OP vs. the message. If we will play the name calling game then let me say to you, You do not know anything about the military Industrial Complex. These machines are not necessarily built because of a need as much as a need for tens of thousands of jobs and to line the pockets of Lockheed and Martin. Notice I did not cite a single source =)


RE: waste of money
By Jeffk464 on 2/22/2012 12:04:10 AM , Rating: 2
Now this is the truth


RE: waste of money
By NAVAIR on 2/21/2012 11:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
Its probably not possible to "Navalize" the F22 as you put it, there is a little more to it than larger struts and main mounts. They would have to massively beef up the structure and add a lot of new avionics, then the performance would be in the bucket even if it was possible.

Pure fighters are always superior in the fighting role over multirole aircraft; the A-6 was a better bomber than the Hornet ever was/is, 3 times the ordnance capacity and twice the legs. Multirole aircraft give performance up for mission flexibility. You just cannot slap some bombs on the bird (F22) and go flying. The F/A18 was originally designed to be a light fighter, basically a multi-engined F16 for the Navy. During the development, when they added the attack role, it crippled the aircraft with 8,000 more pounds; severally reducing the internal fuel capacity. The Hornet burns 1K of gas getting off the cat and needs to be immediately tanked before it flies off for the mission. The Navy has not been too keen on single engine aircraft and I am surprised they bought off on the JSF. A major advantage of the JSF (F35) is the commonality of parts between the 3 different airframes and the logistical cost reduction on Organizational to Depot vice Organizational to Intermediate to Depot on repairable components (Huge cost savings compared to conventional military aircraft maintenance.) Only 20% of the cost of an aircraft program is the actual aircraft, parts/training/publications/logistical support is the other 80%; we pimp our jets to other countries to offset these costs.

There is just a little more than adding some spray paint to reduce the radar signature of an aircraft.


RE: waste of money
By corduroygt on 2/22/2012 12:44:49 AM , Rating: 2
The F-15 and the strike eagle variant worked out just fine, I'm sure a similar thing could be done for the F22.

AFAIK, LO technology is pretty much materials (including cockpit and engine exhaust) and airframe design...but that's as much as a regular citizen would know...In any case, I think it'd be very possible to have a less stealthy F-22 export version.


RE: waste of money
By Amiga500 on 2/22/2012 5:57:38 AM , Rating: 2
The NATF was evaluated - but it was a very different beast from the F-22 we see today.

I suppose, the easiest way of describing it would be a cross between an F-14 and an F-22.

It was abandoned early on due to cost and weight issues.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki