It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Jeffrey
Very nice Natalie. Very well put together and great sources of info. I'd figure that the navy version would of been smaller in width then the others because of deck space on u.s carriers.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
the navy version is actually wider because they need bigger wings to land on carriers...
plus i thought the navy scraped their F-22 ideas?
Originally posted by ghost
My only gripe is that I still think it should have been a twin engine aircraft like the F/A-18. I personally don't believe that a single engine aircraft has enough of a safety magin for combat.
Tim
[Edited on 1-3-2004 by ghost]
Originally posted by American Mad Man
anyone have any clue how many of these bad boys we are gunna get?
Originally posted by Laxpla
So, any word on the 100 kw laser? I read all of the articles and it sounds interesting. Right now, Iam so proud to be a Americian
Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
how will atmospheric conditions affect the laser? i'm sure they will be incorporating something to help keep the beam narrow due to distortions... but would this be any harder due to the smaller confines of the f-35?
Originally posted by intelgurl
Well, it IS a laser - so it is still susceptible degradation of beam intensity due to dust and vapor...
Originally posted by intelgurl
Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
Great thread intelgurl We needed a good thread about the F-35. There's a lot of speculation going around about it.
The australians aren't very happy about the progress of the F-35 project. I believe I read something about it here on ATS, somewhere on ATS, can't seem to find the thread anymore...
It was that news article posted on ATSNN about the Aussies and their apparent disatisfaction that motivated me to do this F-35 post.
I actually included some of what is on this post in the ATSNN one, here's the link:
TERRORISM: Joint Strike Fighter - Not what Australia Wanted
F-35 & AIM-9's
One interesting point that came up in that discussion was why does the F-22 have it's AIM-9 in an internal bay and the F-35 only have it available for external mounting. (internal mounting is more stealthy).
My answer was at the time an educated guess and has since been confirmed by someone I know who is affiliated with the AIM-9X program.
The answer is that the AIM-9 requires a forward looking bay from which to "sniff out" targets. (In-fuselage bays in the belly of the plane will not work for the AIM-9).
The F-22 has 2 side bays specifically for 2 AIM-9 missiles in each bay. The F-35 does not have these side bays due to the need to stay within the required cost parameters.
It also bears mentioning that the F-35 can still internally mount other air-to-air munitions such as the AIM-120, so it is not unprotected in that regard.
[Edited on 28-2-2004 by intelgurl]
Originally posted by Lampyridae
Maybe an external, stealthy IR pod could "sniff" for the AIM-9?
Originally posted by American Mad Man
as for this laser - is it defensive only, or could it be used in an offensive role?
also, what kind of fire rate/limit would it have? would it be powered by the aircrafts engine?
Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
how will atmospheric conditions affect the laser? i'm sure they will be incorporating something to help keep the beam narrow due to distortions... but would this be any harder due to the smaller confines of the f-35?
Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Originally posted by ghost
My only gripe is that I still think it should have been a twin engine aircraft like the F/A-18. I personally don't believe that a single engine aircraft has enough of a safety magin for combat.
Tim
[Edited on 1-3-2004 by ghost]
the single engine will reduce heat signature, as someone already said. also, it makes it easier to design it as a stealth aircraft. plus i believe that a single engine helps manueverability.