Posted on 09/21/2006 9:28:10 PM PDT by nametrader
Mighty F-35 Lightning 2 Engine Roars To Life by Staff Writers Fort Worth TX (SPX) Sep 21, 2006 The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II completed its first series of engine runs on Monday afternoon, culminating in a full-afterburner test that unleashed 40,000 pounds of thrust - the most ever from a jet-fighter engine. The testing began on Friday, Sept. 15, when Chief Pilot Jon Beesley moved a cockpit switch to the "run" position and brought the Pratt and Whitney [NYSE: UTX] F135 engine to life.
(Excerpt) Read more at spacewar.com ...
That kept the sheet-metal guys busy for a while I'd say...
Thanks, that's very interesting. I was not aware such a system existed but it makes good sense.
Years ago I was quite a fan of the air war in WWII. I read most anything I could get my hands on, different theaters and fighters and bombers.
I recall how difficult it was for the pilot or pilots to keep those planes flying when they had been heavily damaged. Some of the stories were reflective of the exceptional valor of the men flying those planes.
Great Scott!!! That's not a jet engine, that's a ROCKET.
If you can't hit the enemy with a missile, turn that engine on him and just kick him out of the sky.
Shalom.
Not if the other guy fires a bank-to-turn ramjet missile at you.
Shalom.
Ok, I may be the only one, but I liked the Boeing JSF prototype. It's front intake remided me of the F-8 Crusader. A fave of mine.
Well the project was a research project they were working on funded by the military... this was about 2-3 years ago... I doubt its been put into production yet.. I haven't had any contact with the company in a long while.... but it was one of the things they were working on for the military.
Really. I wonder what this plane’s hang time will be.
There is nothing even on the drawing board to my knowledge to replace the warthog.... Its a slow, low flying tank designed to take out armor and surface targets directly...
It can take a pounding an return home in one piece.
I have not heard of anything of any plans to replace or scrap the warthog.
A fighter/ fighter-bomber cannot replace the warthog... it can carry some precision munitions and take out a tank or bunker here or there, but a few of them can't fly over the horizon, take at a batallian and provide close air support.
Its a completely different mission, and one that the modern fighter, which is designed to suprise the enemy in the air, and take them out before they even know you are there or can see you. 1 shot 1 kill preferably from 20 miles away.
The warthog is designed to just be an in your face bruiser.. and its damned good at it.
I'll make it simple...take a Bradley fighting vehicle body, the hog's current BFG, strap some stout wings on it, hang a pair of these beastly engines off the back, and voila!
Well, yes, but it is the job of a fighter pilot to not be hit and then fire back (or if in a war zone, fire first).
If only the US had contracted the Merlin engine earlier. Imagine what the P-38 could have been like with Merlin engines instead of the troubled Allison.
Speed is an asset when the enemy uses primarily hit and run tactics. Since it is impossible to have air support in the vicinity of all our ground patrols in a country the size of Iraq, you need an aircraft that can respond quickly to a close air support request. That is one reason why A-10's haven't been operating in Iraq for the last couple years.
"For the non-conventional combat we are facing in the war on terror it is also nice to have a jet where the pilot can go slow enough to spot his own targets and destroy them on his own without FAC assistance."
That is not allowed, and for good reason. Because of the nature of the combat we are facing in the war on terror, pilots cannot expend ordinance without either working directly with a FAC or gaining clearance through Army or Marine ground commanders. It doesn't matter what aircraft is involved. Furthermore, with the new targeting systems now used on almost every aircraft including the A-10, it is often easier to spot targets from medium altitude with sensors than from low altitude (or any altitude) with your eyeballs. That is why all aircraft now carry those sensors.
"Throw in the fact that the A-10 can survive ground fire much better than other tactical fighters and you have your answer."
That is true, but as with the M-1 tank, the key to its success is to hit the enemy before the enemy can hit it. The M-1's leading advantage against most other MBT's is its ability to fire accurately from long ranges, before the enemy can even fire a shot. There is no need to drive it into the middle of an engagement, slow it down and have it absorb multiple rounds if it can destroy the enemy just as effectively at range. The same is true with fighter aircraft. Our most effective (ie. accurate and destructive) weapons are most effectively delivered from medium altitude. That is, in fact, where even the A-10 delivers them from. If you force that same pilot in that same aircraft down to low altitude, he becomes far less accurate and has a much more difficult time engaging enemy targets. You increase the chances of him killing friendlies, and decrease the chances of him killling the enemy. He becomes a less effective close air support asset.
"It seems logical that an A-10's slow speed allows the nose of the aircraft to spend more time on target than a supersonic aircraft."
Whether the aircraft is an A-10 or F-18, weapons delivery passes are planned for about a 3 to 5 second run on the final attack heading. Anything longer than that, and you increase the likelihood of being shot down significantly. For the same reason, our soldiers don't leave cover and stand exposed for long periods of time while they engage targets.
"I am also not a fan of using a $10 million plane with a $100 thousand bomb to destroy a toyota pickup truck with 3 men in the back when a million dollar aircraft with $300 worth of depleted uranium slugs would do the trick."
You are underestimating the value of aircraft (including the A-10) and overestimating the value of the weapons. Laser guided bomb units are a lot cheaper than $100 thousand. They are also a lot more likely to get a "kill" on a moving pick-up truck than a 30mm cannon. And that is the bottom line. It is not the operator's job to balance the budget. Destroy the target quickly and you decrease the chances that target will take a priceless American life.
So right. The Hog is one of a kind forever.
It will never replace the Warthog. It's not ugly enough.
I did see it. It was a great show.
In some respects you have that with the AH-64 and AH-1. The magic of today's ordinance means you don't need a heavy hauler like an A-1 to carry a lot of weapons into a battlefield. In its day, the A-1 needed to carry a lot of 500lb bombs because a majority of them would never actually hit their target. But you load 16 hellfire's (each carrying just an 18lb warhead) on an AH-64 and you've got just about 16 guaranteed kills on almost anything that moves. Top that with the AH-64's 30mm chain gun, and you are talking a serious CAS platform. The problem is, the Army prefers to consider them "deep strike" platforms, and doesn't employ them as effectively in the CAS role as they could. The Marine Corps, on the other hand, does an excellent job of integrating their AH-1's directly into their scheme of warfare, and get very effective CAS support from them.
I guess my point is...we don't need to develop a new "slow, ugly and cheap" COIN aircraft. We already have them. In theater. It is just a matter of using them that way.
It'll replace the Warthog like the B-1 and B-2 replaced the B-52.
Ha!
Check this out: http://www.f22-raptor.com/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.