Norway orders first F-35

Norway has officially orderd its first 2 F-35’s
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/15/us-norway-f-idUSBRE85E0IL20120615

Well Well, seems the sky is not falling after all

Problem is JORN is Australlia efffort alone. and the rest of products are far more complex than making simple a radar. radar is stationary product that dont need aerodynamic and stress testing.

There is nothing unique about JORN. THe only thing unique about its slow development and changing the contractors.

Your a troll, let me know what country you come from so we can all collectively take the **** out of you ? Bet you don’t have the set to say so though ? I dont exactly hear you preaching your countrys prowess from the rooftop, so I am guessing not much hey

Ah but with the JSF that is the crux of the problem, we had all the LM BS saying how it would all be different with the F-35, they wouldn’t make those mistakes, what minor defects not picked up by the Computers would be quickly rectified in the first few LRIP so they didn’t need to go to a prototype YF-35 after the X-35 demonstrator and could gear up for producation ASAP.

Engineering issues were expected by the pundits and engineers who questioned LM’s policy, and would you believe it they have been proven right in most cases.

It will probably turn out to be an OK aircraft and a regular workhorse of many armed forces, but LM’s short cuts will have cost the program and customers much more than was ever saved in the first place

Show me the history of any other program that has not ?

As for the Engineering part, you have just proven my point ! Give me an engineering problem and 15 engineers and I will give you 15 different solutions to the issue. So no matter what the company does, and the JSF is not the only one to have critisism of engineering decisions, there will be engineers and a whole raft of people who will say “why the hell did they do that” So once again this is not a JSF Specific issue.

I will also point out again, I am not denying they have issues, I just have an issue that people try to portray anything they can use in a negative vein about the JSF, and make it sound like it has only ever happened to that aircraft

well… just like the landing hook problems, development schedule precision, budget envelope compliancy… if it wasn’t for those pesky armchair engineers guessing, the F-35s would’ve been breezing out of assembly lines by now… :rolleyes:

Don’t deny those problems, never have 🙂 What I am pointing out is that people try to make issues out of things that apply to most aircraft and try to make them JSF specific.

Give me an engineering problem and 15 engineer’s and I will show you 15 different solutions to the same problem, these issues are inherent in any program

Re: Austere landings – 2 free internetz awarded to anyone producing a pic of an F-35B doing an ashore VL on anything other than concrete protected by AM-2.

Nice loaded question there LO, you know it has not happened and more than ever likely will not happen, the point is it can if needed. Although I would not doubt that some time in the future the Marines will practice it

I’ve got to wonder *why* exactly the F-35 on the heavy side of things compared to earlier specifications? If I recall, earlier figures listed a target maximum empty weight of 26,500 lbs for the F-35A and 30,000 lbs for the F-35B and F-35C.

In terms of dimensions the F-35 is smaller than the F-105, F-106, and other large single engine fighters, yet even the F-35A is a good deal heavier.

Indeed there are many more avionics in the F-35 than these ’60s era aircraft, but surely the use of a high percentage of composite materials makes up for that.

I trust that Lockheed will correct the problems encountered thus far in development, and from a materials perspective I don’t see why costs can’t be made comparable to the Super Hornet or other 4.5 generation aircraft. But if anything about the F-35 has me nervous it’s the sheer weight. With the powerful F135 engine and advancements in aircraft design, I fully believe the F-35 can meet performance specifications and compare well to the F-16 and F/A-18. But what about future growth? Won’t we want this aircraft carrying internal ECM systems at a later date for example?

Weight margins have not been a problem for some time now, although you may be told otherwise by some. It is a very simplistic way to make comparisons and has no bearing on the ability of the JSF. Future growth ? only time will tell that, but the JSF is not the only aircraft in history to have thin margins for weight, and they all seemed to have a good life 🙂

The government has just confirmed they will move forward with the purchase of the F35B instead of the F35C, though no word on whether they will continue the CATOBAR conversion 😡

Refernce ? Link ? Official source ?

In other news, Spudman, who tells us he can’t find any documents to support the flimsy body-lift case, asserted body lift as the vital missing element in F-35 performance over at the kiddy playspace on March 27.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-18921-sid-3eb3330dc8a84b6074819689d006eb6d.html

Hmmmm, where does he say that ?

“The wing-loading calculations for the F-35 do not include the large amount of body lift that its design has.”