Simviation Forum - Lightnings.

Reply #15 - Feb 5^th, 2007 at 10:45pm

Papa9571 Offline
Colonel
Gotta get there on Time
Toledo, Ohio

Gender:
Posts: 701

The F-35B variant was in danger of missing performance requirements because it weighed too much — reportedly, by one metric ton (2,200 pounds) or 8%. In response, Lockheed Martin added engine thrust and shed more than a ton by thinning the aircraft's skin; shrinking the weapons bay and vertical tails; rerouting some thrust from the roll-post outlets to the main nozzle; and redesigning the wing-mate joint, portions of the electrical system, and the portion of the aircraft immediately behind the cockpit.

Compliments of Wikipedia

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Feb 6^th, 2007 at 4:17am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Papa9571 wrote on Feb 5^th, 2007 at 10:45pm:

The F-35B variant was in danger of missing performance requirements because it weighed too much — reportedly, by one metric ton (2,200 pounds) or 8%.

I'd never realised it was that overweight! 8%, blimey! I was expecting 2-3%...

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Feb 6^th, 2007 at 8:44am

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

Papa9571 wrote on Feb 5^th, 2007 at 10:45pm:

shrinking the weapons bay

Brilliant. Huh

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Feb 6^th, 2007 at 8:48am

Chris_F Offline
Colonel
Insert message here

Posts: 1364

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Feb 6^th, 2007 at 8:44am:

Papa9571 wrote on Feb 5^th, 2007 at 10:45pm:

shrinking the weapons bay

Brilliant. Huh

A shrunk weapons bay does not necessarily mean a payload reduction. I don't know the story (I suspect you have more info than I about this smaller weapons bay) but I don't recall hearing a re-commit on the quantity of stores the bay can hold. So if it's smaller and still holds the same stores does that matter?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Feb 6^th, 2007 at 2:36pm

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

Does the JSF have provision for external weapons stores?

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Feb 6^th, 2007 at 3:52pm

Chris_F Offline
Colonel
Insert message here

Posts: 1364

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Feb 6^th, 2007 at 2:36pm:

Does the JSF have provision for external weapons stores?

It does. Obviously this would impact radar cross section. I believe the F-22 also has external stores provisions, but I'm not sure of that. It does make the JSF a better "swiss army knife" kind of plane since it'll be able to load up on a wider array of stores on the external pylons. For example I could forsee external drop tanks used to get to a conflict area, dropped to reduce RCS for entry in to hostile territory. I could also forsee the plane being used in low RF threat environments (for example, Iraq or Afghanastan today) with external stores.

If you believe the buzz around this forum all that stealth stuff is useless technology anyways so why not just always use the external pylons? Makes sense I guess, IF this community is correct and stealth is just another way of sucking tax payers' money out of their pockets.

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: