New Royal Australian Air Force F-35As leave the factory bound for Luke AFB

[Hans Tucker (Hans)]

For the ex-RAAFies on IIS and those that enjoy military aircraft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMZ...ature=youtu.be

Please no arm chair opinions on the F-35 project...just enjoy the video.

[Dennis]

Nice - the 2nd aircraft exited the hanger without a ground Marshall, unless he/she was the person filming the departure!

I wonder if these will replace the F/A-18's flyover at Riverfire in Brisbane?

Cheers

Dennis

[JA]

Very Nice thx for sharing...

After all that spending they couldn't afford the burn

Best
JA

EDIT: I remember being captivated by what was apparently a mocked up video with VTOL or ShortTakeoff VL a few years ago. I will link it out of interest if I find it... Actually I think it is/was the F-35B Lightning II

[Oddity (Andrew)]

That's some finely made machinery!

Thanks for sharing

[clive milne]

Just a pity that it is obsolete already..

And dare I say it, completely unnecessary.

Turnbul's NBN of the skies!

[Exfso (Peter)]

Oh yeah and single engine, what happens if this one flames out for any reason..

[Shano592 (Shane)]

They certainly are a beautiful piece of kit. I have always liked the lines on the F-35. I still like the F-111 more, though. That swing-wing design as a kid was science fiction, come to life!

Obsolete or not is debatable. They are replacing 30-45-year old fighters, and even with their faults are still so much more capable. Expensive, yes... but I'm sure we will get value out of them. And, if they gave me a choice, I would rather they parked this at my house over FTTN!

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by Exfso

Oh yeah and single engine, what happens if this one flames out for any reason..

Flame out = punch out. Just like with the F-16

Time will tell with the F-35.

[AndyG (Andy)]

I think it's sad how some misjudge the F-35 based on standards/reasonings that apply to previous generations of multirole fighter.

Certain features of the F-35 demonstrate new methods of bringing the pointy end of the stick to the target, whilst minimising exposure to harm themselves. Frontal low observibility aside (obvious selling point), features like the remote assignment of ship based munitions can be a game changer. look into previous tests with F-35 / SM-6 integration.

Looking into the Specs of the P&W F135 engine, singularly pushing over twice the max thrust of the GE F414's (found in the F/A-18E), there's improved maintenance access, tooling and diagnostics.

Another point on costs, is that F-35 tooling/production is being built up, whilst others are either uncompetitively small runs, or previously large, but winding down. Soon enough the comparative cost curves will meet, in the F-35's favour.

I've read rumours of Canada considering our old F/A-18As for $1 a piece for parts, as with so many hours, that's all they're worth...

Clive, as for the notion of the F-35 being unnecessary...

Sorry Hans for the Armchair Generalissimo-ism.
TL;DR - I'm overjoyed they're finally closer to being delivered.

On another note, has anyone heard an F-22 in real life? We had a few in Townsville last year - they make the most eerie howling noise, that could be heard from across town.

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

Most modern fighters ( even the F111C ) have weapons systems that could deliver in ( stand off mode ) .... fire off an Exocet from 240klms away from the target and then go off in another direction while the the missile would continue on to the ' enemy target ' ...,hence the term ' Stand Off Mode '

You don't even have to ' visually ' see the target ... the Weapon System and Radar knows it there....

The FA18 weapons delivery system ( computer controlled ) would ' prioritize ' which enemy is the greatest threat .... fire of the missile and then look and assign the ' best ' weapon to use ... depending on the distance of the next ' threatening ' target. ..... like you wouldn't ' waste ' an Exocet on a close target ... more likely a 'SideWinder ' or use of the cannon.

I was never in favour of a 'single ' engine Fighter ... as some have said... flame out and if your too low ... you can kiss it all goodby.... let alone having engine damage at altitude ... punch out time as Lewis so aptly described it.

But ...we don't make the decisions on what to buy .... at least the FA18 was a good purchase eg: 2 engines ... at least you have a chance of getting home.

I'm sure the F35 is a very capable aircraft, both within its ' flight envelope ' and Weapons System ... but all you've got is a ' promise and a prayer ' if engine problems arise.....there's no way out ... but ' down '.......only MHO

Flash ( ex RAAF )

[SkyWatch (Dean)]

Irrespective of the pros and cons of the aircraft, I'm simply feeling old!

My last job in the RAAF was as a project liaison officer for the civil engineering works needed for the new (not yet delivered!) FA-18's for Tindal and Williamstown. The (Mirage!) squadrons were still up at Butterworth.

I seem to remember that the Mirage "weapons systems" relied pretty much simply on the pilot being able to see what he was shooting at, or who was shooting at him.

In terms of single engines, some of my pilot colleagues talked about putting a Mirage into a nose dive after a flame out to try to crank things up again (didn't always work!)...

- Dean

[el_draco (Rom)]

Yeah, well I am married... No weapon or defence system can possibly compensate ....

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Yeah, well I am married... No weapon or defence system can possibly compensate ....

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Yeah, well I am married... No weapon or defence system can possibly compensate ....

A famous song comes to mind Rom...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODV6mxVVRZk

[Peter Ward]

While en-route LAX-SYD I happened upon a radio Australia broadcast on the F-35 project. One of the best bits of investigative journalism I've ever heard.
It should have been on 4 corners...not some HF broadcast to the middle of the Pacific.

A major problem with the program is not the airframe, or the fact it will likely cost 5% of Australian GDP, but perversely the helmet's (full of VR and targeting electronics) weight.

If a pilot ejects and that person weighs less than 70Kg, spinal injury is almost a certainty! ( due the initial acceleration/g's from the seat wanting to snap their necks.) The bigger the pilot, the less severe the injury...but simply put...injuries were expected regardless.

[JA]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

If a pilot ejects and that person weighs less than 70Kg, spinal injury is almost a certainty! ( due the initial acceleration/g's from the seat wanting to snap their necks.) The bigger the pilot, the less severe the injury...but simply put...injuries were expected regardless.

That's interesting P. Sounds like they should use less and/or staged explosives in the ejection mechanism and/or that it should be a function of pilot weight possibly determined by load cell in the seat or setting before flight. It's just an extension of what is done in motor vehicles with air bags firing or not depending on seat occupancy. Or add weight (unlikey in an aircraft setting) or have a few extra parmas every week in the mess.

And 5% of GDP to boot

Best
JA

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by LewisM

A famous song comes to mind Rom...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODV6mxVVRZk

Nice tune, which I happen to know very well. In all honesty, my wife is a total
doll and I couldn't handle a day without her...






... yes, she's standing behind me..., and the bowie is just tickling C4...

[beren]

Nice looking birds for sure even better in flight {Star Wars canyon}

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9HqVXGRJL0&t=54s

good general intro on the stealth tech

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ruz6MoHKZn0