Come on people. This is the 21st century. Modern fighters can literally fly themselves (without command from the pilot they will maintain course, altitude & speed) & with today’s MMI the pilots ‘work load’ is much reduced. Plus it is not like a modern fighter is going to be flying all by itself over unknown hostile territory without CONSTANT contact of some kind with friendly forces.

– I have been consistent with my criticism of the F-35C – it is not the right aircraft for the fleet: it lacks the range to allow carriers to stand off defended shores; it lacks two engines that provide a crucial safety margin in the overwater ops and tactical survivability; there is no provision for a second crewmember – vital for FAC(A), precision strike of non-stationary targets, situational awareness, control of off-board sensors and UCAS-N’s, etc; and it costs twice as much an a F/A-18E/F and brings little new in terms of capability save stealthiness. And it is projected to cost significantly more to operate vs. the F/A-18 series. The Navy needed a “high-end” replacement for the A-6 (long range strike) and the F-14 (long range air superiority) and the A/F-X design promised to be the solution, but the Clinton Administration forced the Navy to drop the A/F-X and join a program to develop a “low-end” aircraft to replace the F/A-18A/C and F-16A/C’s.

The F-35C has more range than the F/A-18A-D it is replacing. Even the A-6E / F/A-18E/F it is NOT replacing need external tanks to obtain the reach the F-35C has on internal fuel! The F/A-18E/F is what became of the cancelled A-X / A/F-X. The JSF is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT program to replace the F/A-18A-D, NOT the A-6 / A-12 / A-X / A/F-X / F/A-18E/F line. THAT is what the NGAD (formerlly known as F/A-XX) is for.

The F-35C brings a whole new generation of capabilties over the F/A-18E/F (which it is not replacing anyway). Stealth is just ONE of them.

– I am saying that the TF-30 was the only choice available in that thrust class because Congress decided not to fund the TF-100 derivative. That decision (not to have an alternate / replacement engine resulted in the loss of 40 aircraft – nearly 1 bn dollars, and many lives. It took 17 years bns more dollars to get a satisfactory powerplant in the F-14.

Exactly. So drop the BS of P&W sucks based on a 1960s engine that was not even designed for the F-14.

And the intended engine for the F-14 was the F401 (a cousin to the F100) there is/was no such thing as a TF-100.

Do we want to put ourselves in a similar situation with the F-35 – having only one engine option in the needed thrust class? You either pay now or pay later – and later costs more in money and potentially lives.

We aren’t putting ourselves in that situation with the F-35. The F135 was designed for the F-35 & is meeting or exceeding performance & reliability objectives.

Do all Pratt engines blow? No, but the TF-30 sure did in F-14’s. Do I have reason to be concerned about the F135? Yes, considering it already had 2bn dollars with of overruns – even with the engine being based on and sharing sections of proven designs (F119/F100.)

Again, the TF-30 was a 1960’s engine that was not even designed for the performance requirements of the F-14! No you do not have reason to be concerned about the F135. It is meeting or exceeding performance & reliability objectives.

– The DoD has the money to fund the F136 if Congress appropriates it or directs the DoD to reprogram funds from other areas.

I never stated otherwise but the DOD/USAF/USMC/USN have determined that the F136 is not needed & that the funds required to develope it would be better spent elsewhere.

– P&W was awarded the engine contract without competition – pretty much a fact. I’ll take the Undersecretary’s word for it.

So was GE. The F135 & F136 are two separate contracts.

Clearly ~2/3 of the engine is in direct line with the intake mouth (~1/3 above).
http://www.paralay.com/su50/0FAW2418.JPG (2000×1333 image)
But wait…now ~1/3 of the engine is ‘magically’ below the intake mouth. 😉
http://www.paralay.com/su50/0FAW2419.JPG (863×574 image)

Notice that the bottom of the ‘nacelle’ (intake & engine) is in fact straight.
http://www.paralay.com/su50/IMG_6475.JPG (861×574 image)
The ‘dip’ appearant from some angles/perspectives is an illusion caused by transition from round engine to parallelogram intake.

***

I haven’t seen a single image that shows a direct line-of-sight from the intake mouth to the engine face. Except the one taken at night which is rumored to be fake.

Yes you have. They have been posted here. And no I am not talking about the one which you & others want so despirately to be fake (yes there is a photoshoped version with the image cleared up – but there is also the original which has also been posted). And by the way the more images come out the more they confirm that said image is likley to be accurate (even if photoshoped to make it more clear).

***

If if you look at this pic and project an estimated engine diamater exactly at the trailing line of the yellow-painted surface sitting on top, you will get the engine not only higher than the intake but also further inwards. This is exactly how YF-23 had them in relative position to the intake..

No. As can clearly be seen from multiple other images the inner & lower edges of the engine housing are directly in line with the inner & lower edges intake mouth. But the engine housing is more or less circular (cross-section) while the intake mouth is shorter (vertically) & wider (horizontally) parallelogram. The YF-23 OTOH, >75% of the engine is above the upper edge of the intake mouth & ~50% of the engine is inside the inner edge of the intake mouth.

***

My favourite ‘in-line’ pic :rolleyes:

Could you be any more pathetic? The camera angle in that image is so far off that you can not possible determine any alignment at all.

Pfcem, why don’t you make another attempt at setting up an ‘Anti PAK-FA thread’? instead of trashing this one……and take exec with you.

I have never created a ‘Anti PAK-FA thread’.

I am not trashing, I am bringing a dose of reality & intellectual honesty to it.

The ‘oval’ shape in the port intake is unmistakeable:

Exactly like the image some are wishing so hard to be fake…

***

On this pic, try to follow a straith line from the nozzle all the way forward to the intakes..
Even a monkey can see this airduct twist in both vertical and horisontal direction.

The camera angle make that impossible. Images from almost directly below & almost direclty to the side (90 deg) show VERY clearly that the inner & lower edges of the engine housing are directly in line with the inner & lower edges intake mouth.

Hell it looks like the nozzle straight line allmost hit the cockpit, if we draw a straight line aft and forward!

Which proves my point exactly. You can clearly see from other images that is no where near the case.

On top of that the intake goes down a bit from the start + the MLG eats off a chunk inside it.
I’ll go with worst case 1/4 Compressor shows..

Again, other images show VERY clearly that the inner & lower edges of the engine housing are directly in line with the inner & lower edges intake mouth & with the intake mouth being somewhat wider than the engine, the MGL bulge does not block much if any of the engine from view. At least 1/2 (perhaps as much as 2/3) of the compressor show (except for the likelyhood of a radar blocker).

And if we leave out the nozzles, how long is that 117C engines again?;)
Remember to two yellow service hathces on top where the forward comp fan are placed.

Not very long, making the VERY slight toe even less significant. 🙂 In fact the toe is the engine nozzles toed out rather than the engine faces toed in.

***

Yip, the cant is barely noticeable…….banana anyone?

An illusion creaded by the broken lines from the landing gear. You CAN however quite clearly see that the inner & lower edges of the engine housing are directly in line with the inner & lower edges intake mouth – nothing at all like the YF-23 with its engines being inside (50%) & above (~75%) than the intakes.

***

That as I see the endless discussion about the “S-duct”:

1 Engines are slightly inwards placed.
2 Intakes are slightly outward placed.
3 The engine axis is higher and inner than the intake axis. How mach? Around half a fan-diameter.
4 There are pockets blended into the intake ducts to place wheels.

1. No, the front of the engines are directly in line with the inside (& bottom) of the intakes with the nozzles toed out.

2. No, the intake mouths are a bit wider than the engine housings but the inside (& bottom) of the engine housings are directly in line with the intake mouths.

3. No, the inside & bottom edges of the engine housings are directly in line with the intake mouths. The intake mouth, however, is a shorter (vertically) & wider (horizontally) parallelogram vs the circular engine housing.

4. True but with the intakes being a bit wider than the engines said buldges do not block much (if any) of the engine face.

In the end, around 1/3 of the fan face should be visible, but… so what? It’s clear that Sukhoi dropped the S-duct idea already used in the Berkut to go for another solution. Likely T-50 will use an arrangement of RAM pallets distributed along the inlet.

No, AT LEAST 1/2 & possibly as much as 2/3 of the fan face.

Just an opinion.

But the images seen thus far show a quite different reality.

Post it please, I must have missed it 1000 times over.

It has already been posted, possibly even in THIS episode, if not then in episode 12.

You must be having trouble sleeping ever since Jan 29, 2010 huh kid?

Actually due to allergies I have tended to not sleep well since the mid/late 1970s. But no there was nothing special about Jan 29, 2010 to make it any worse.

It’s pretty obvious that there’s plenty of [B]horizontal and vertical “movement” in the intake. That’s how it works around the weapons bay – is this SO hard to comprehend?That takes care of part of it – and the rest can be taken care of by a blocker and RAM to ensure that no radar signals ever leave the intake from the engine.

No, it is more than pretty obvious that there is very little horizontal & zero vertical “movement”[/B] in the intake.

And yes, you can fit the Al-41 into the PAK-FA – it’s a big ass machine!

Who ever said you couldn’t? But you can’t without a direct line-of-sight from the intake ‘mouth’ to the engine ‘face’.

***

Look at how high those T-50 engines rise!

Again, the nose is pointed down in that image. If the nose was pointed up you would be fooled into thinking that the engine were somehow magically below the intakes.

***

Look at how high those T-50 engines rise!

The engines as shown in the picture above and in side view are CLEARLY higher then the intakes. Worst case is 1/2 the compressor face would be visible, best case 1/3 is visible.

Again, the nose is pointed down in that image. If the nose was pointed up you would be fooled into thinking that the engine were somehow magically below the intakes.

Worst case >3/4 of the compressor face is visible, best case >1/2 of the compressor face is visible.

Dont forget to that (yes here we go again) that the undercarriage main wheel retracts vertically into the side of the intake but a large amount. This means the intake must go around the wheel well…..

The oval shape of the intake which can be seen in one picture indicates a very thick wall, unlike the flanker which are “thin” and straight.

But the engines are ‘toed-in’. :rolleyes:

But seriously, notice how the intake mouths are wider than the engines with the inside edge of the entire ‘nacelle’ (intake mouth, duct, engine – exhaust ‘toes out’ very slightly) being more ot less straight in line?

Im not saying that 100% of the compressor is visible, A conservative estimate would be around 30 to 40% is actually visible, but we dont know if there is a blocker or not.

I am not saying that 100% of the compressor is visible, never have, but very clearly well over 50% & possibly even more than 75% is.

***

…oh, btw pfcem, you’d better hope that the 117 has a much larger fan diameter than the 117S pic you posted- cause going by the front & back end size difference on the 117S- nothing of the c-face would be visible.

Quite the opposite. I chose that image to show how the fan diameter is smaller than the diameter of the housing/nacelle the engine must fit into. So all this crap about the engines being ‘toed-in’ &/or higher than the intakes is BS because the fance face can not be at the inside &/or upper edge of the housing/nacelle.

Here is another view…

***

The intake-engine arrangement is very much in the vein of the YF-23. Note a very similar intake mouth ‘droop’, and also the smooth contours of that sizeable ‘shoulder’ behind that LEVCON (the YF-23 doesn’t have that ‘shoulder’ hence the vertical path appears more aggresive).

No the T-50/PAK FA intake-engine arrangement is very much in the vein of the Flanker (aside frome the changes I have already noted). The YF-23 OTOH, >75% of the engine is above the upper edge of the intake mouth & ~50% of the engine is inside the inner edge of the intake mouth.

Those recent hi-res pics have indeed proved a revelation ;), a huge thankyou to Shadowname, QuadroFX and Paralay- Спасибо большoe!! 🙂

Indeed, they show even more clearly that there is a direct line-of-sight from the intake ‘mouth’ to the engine ‘face’ with well over 50% & possible even more than 75% of the engine ‘face’ being visible fron straight on.

***

Much more important about this image is how far off are the axes of the intake and the engine.

Quite the opposite. Most every image released to date clearly shows a direct line-of-sight from the intake ‘mouth’ to the engine ‘face’ with well over 50% & possible even more than 75% of the engine ‘face’ being visible fron straight on.

Don’t even think about it that you post whatever BS on the forum and I will kill my time trying to prove you wrong. I don’t give damn about what figures you post unless YOU can prove them.

This is the official NAVY website with the numbers, I don’t need anything else for the moment, I won’t accept whatever figures someone writes and certainly not you.
https://acquisition.navy.mil/rda/home/programs/air/f_35_jsf

And has already been demonstrated through official program documents, much of the ‘data’ on that site is incorrect.

Looks like you have successfully tricked the bean counters and end up with a heavy and expensive aircraft at the same time. Well done..

No, looks like the bean counters forced the aircraft to be heavier than it could/should have been – resulting in 2+ years of delay & $6+ billion in additional cost (& that is just the time/cost attributed dircetly to SWAT – it can be argued that much of the current delays/cost overruns are related).

Yes, LM definitely know that, only you got no idea…

Yes I do. Not a detailed idea but a general one.

***

The Navy would not commit to how many B vs. C’s will be purchased – something that I find interesting. Hopefully very few C’s.

The USN us trying to get the USMC to get F-35Cs since it is common for USMC squadrons to operate from USN carriers & said squadrons operating the F-35C would make things significantly easier & less costly for the USN.

The Navy also says it favors killing the F136 engine. The F135 is 2b over budget, and has pretty much maxed out in thrust. There is hope that the F136 will offer additional thrust over the F135 – something that the Charlie needs – since it is 15% heavier than the A model.

Yes the USN favors killing the F136 becasue it is not needed. The F-35 is NOT maxed out in thrust & even in at its current thrust levels provides enough for the F-35C to meet or exceed its flight performance goals/requirements. The F-35C is 3332 lbs (12.5%) heavier than the F-35A but also has a 160 sq ft (34.8%) greater wing area.

All of this theater is in response to the growing rumors in Washington that the Navy is ready to bail on the program. The timing today’s press conference is key: after all the bad news last week and earlier, including votes by some european allies to pull of the program – plus the budget vote on the floor this week, somebody persuaded the Navy to stand up. But nothing really new about what was said – basically the Navy’s official spokesman is towing the official DoD line.

It is a debunking of the false rumers that the Navy is ready to bail on the program. No partner nation has pulled out of the program – A lower house of the Dutch parliament narrowly voted to cancel the purchase of ONE F-35 Initial Operational Test & Evaluation (IOT&E) aircraft – it is STILL the official position of the Dutch governement & its military to purchase said aircraft (ordered last year) as well as a 2nd IOT&E aircraft and purchase a total of 85 F-35As for the Royal Netherlands Air Force.

***

The Navy doesn’t have to “go soft” on the F-35C. The realities of budgets will do that for them. “I am all for the F-35C”….. (what isn’t said is that… “well what ever steak we can afford on a hamburger budget will do.”)

You clearry do not realize just how comparatively little (in terms of the USN procurement budget, the total defense budget &/or the total US governement budget) the DON’s 680 F-35s actually cost.

That was after Congress did an intervention. The Navy didn’t do much of this I am afraid. Reason? Career protection of not wanting to get fired by the Sith Lord Gates.

The USN would prefer not to waste what money it is given on legacy platforms.

[B]”Game changer”. Thanks for the Lockheed Martin talking points sir.

US DOD/USAF/USN/USMC/F-35 JPO ‘talking points’…

5th generation?

The truth hurts.

Which a Super Hornet is good enough until the Navy ever comes up with a real carrier aircraft. It is about the safest to fly in a carrier environ. And… well there is that thing about putting one engine back to idle or shutting it down….including the ability to do a one-engine trap. When we start dumping Joint Strike Failures into the water….Well lets be serious… if it ever gets that far.

The F-35C is a real carrier aircraft. Single engined aircraft have operated just fine from carrier ever since the inception of the aircraft carrier. And modern turbofans are so reliable that twin engined airliners have have all but pushed four engined airliners out of the market except for a small niche filled by the 747 & A380.

But he can predict that the F-35C will work. What a guy.

That isn’t a very difficult prediction, especially when you have access to the facts that the public does not…

But it really doesn’t qualify as 5gen as it just has some export friendly stealth and the rest of the stuff can be put in a 4th gen. Fraud by trick or device.

You wishing it didn’t does not change the fact that it does.

When you compare all the features of the F-35 and Super, the Super beats its because of any number of reasons that the F-35 has not proven including having no trap, or cat shot and no go-to-war systems to compare and no known price.

Actually, when you compare all the features of the F-35 & the F/A-18E/F you can quite clearly see why the USN wants the F-35 so much.

Keep dreaming. That is the job of the F-22 and it was always meant to be that way.

YOu are thw one dreaming, that is & always has been the job of the F-35.

More marketing hype including the fact that the diet-coke of jammers, the Growler/Grizzly has mostly yesterdays jamming gear. Good if you want to refight ALLIED FORCE over 10 years ago. Knock off the network crap too. Anything can be networked these days.

More you not having a clue what you are talking about.

Looks like you are out of luck with your roadmap buddy if you think the current plan is anything more than a plan to field the Brewster Buffalo as a prime weapon system. Obsolete by the time it reaches the fleet (if ever). If the glove don’t fit, you gotta acquit.

LOL… It will take everyone else decade to even catch up to the F-35 (which by then will have been upgraded to even greater capabilty).

:::yawn::: The age of where the Littoral Combat Ship is deemed worthy. A corvette with the price tag of a destroyer. No different in the quality of thinking here. Raise your hand if you know what the Navy originally figured the LCS would cost. Would you buy a used car from this guy?

$220 million, but yes the navy screwed up big time on the LCS.

Well, it may not matter much because this guy will be retired and on to another job if and when that happens, and the gullible taxpayer will be left holding the bag. Global force for good indeed.

Thanks for so clearly demonstrating that you have no clue.

***

The DoD wants to kill it not because it’s a bad engine, or a bad idea to have an alternative – it needs to save money on the JSF, and this is the easiest place to start.

Exactly, alternative engines are great when you have lots of money to throw around but when the money gets tight it is a waste of limited funds. The F-35 does not need an alternate engine anymore than any other fighter does.

The point is this: you have the F-35C which is at least 15% heavier than the F-35A – already a heavy single engine fighter. You power both versions with an engine that produces the same amount of thrust. But you have an alternative engine that promises more thrust for your (the Navy’s) heavier aircraft – why cancel that option? Why would you want another F-105? Or another Brewster Buffalo (aptly named.)

The T/W ratio & wing loading of the F-35A are better than the F-16C!

The F-35C is 3332 lbs (12.5%) heavier than the F-35A but also has a 160 sq ft (34.8%) greater wing area.

The F136 does not promis more thrust than the F135. GE & RR claim it has more growth potential though. The weight of the F-35C is similar F-18E/F & a single F135 provides similar thust as two F414.

I find it interesting that F-35 supporters would want to deny an option that has the promise to make the aircraft a better performer. Pratt had a sweetheart deal with this program, and they have returned the favor with a 2b overage. Pratt also has a history of delivering engines that the customers were dying (sometimes literally) to get rid of: the TF30 comes to mind. The services recognize that engine competition is good: hence the development of the GE F110 alternative fighter engine to supplement the P&W F100. Incidentally, the F110 powers over 3/4 of the F-16 fleet, and replaced the TF30 in the F-14 series.

I find it interresting that only the F-16 & F-35 ‘need’ an alternate engine. The F16 does not promise to make the aircraft a better performer – it does promise further delays & cost increases as well has much complicated logistics & maintenance.

The TF30 was only meant as a temporary stop-gap engine for the F-14 while the definitive engine was developed. Unfortunately said definitive engine was cancelled. How about you show some intellectual honesty & note the time difference between the TF50 & the F110-400. 🙂

The reason why most of the US F-16 fleet is powered by the F110 is because the ‘competition’ demanded equal numbers of both engines in service and with early block F-16s & F-15s all being F110 powered meant that most/all later block F16s HAD to be F110 powered to even it out.

I take your point about the current development status of the F136 – there are 7 F136’s in development, but that phase is nearly complete. It would be prudent to complete testing and see where the engine stands vis a vis the F135.

No, it would be prudent not to waste any more money on an unnecessary alternate engine until you have the ‘extra’ money to pay for it.

But there is also an defense industrial base issue at play. If the DoD kills the F136, the decision will make it difficult for GE to remain in the fighter engine business. This is why Pratt is lobbying so hard to kill it, and this week, GE will pull out all the stops (and call in favors) to save it.

Yes it would be nice if the DOD had enough money to be able to continue to support two fighter engine companies. 🙁

***

Which leads to the conclusion that the Rafale would be a bargain if development costs could be spread over 2400 airframes.

No, developement costs & procurement costs & operational costs are all separate costs. But the average unit procurement cost of 2400 Rafale (assuming a higher procurement rate) would be lower than the current procurement cost…

***

29300/34800= .841, which is ~16% (Empty weights:LM 2010)

29996 – 266644 = 3332 / 266664 = 0.125 (OEW LM 2007 – the year after SWAT was concluded)

We don’t know the final thrust specs yet on either engine (nor do we know the final weights either,) but this is where GE needs to compete to win, and would be a coup de grace for Pratt if the F135 could definitively show more power now.

Yes we do.

http://img169.imageshack.us/f/img169/9343/f135sheet2vs2.gif

And the F135-PW-600 has already demonstrated 41,100 lbs of vertical thrust (exceeding its official rating & the program requirement). 🙂

Pertaining to a “sweetheart deal” – what else could you call an non-competetive award? And point of fact: the F135 program is at least 2b over budget.

There was a ‘competition’. P&W won with a lower cost, lower risk engine that was years ahead of GE in development. Get over it.

***

– Weight numbers: Your numbers were part of a powerpoint presentation given at a UAVs & Range Operations Symposium in October, 2007, briefing about JSF Range and Airspace Requirements. It is not a JSF program office document, and the numbers are over 2.5 years old. Lockheed Martin’s 2010 numbers are more recent and from the manufacturer – thus more accurate until a newer credible source contraindicates / updates them.

An official program overview briefing by the Program Executive Officer (Brigadier General Charles R. Davis) of the F-35 Lightning II Program Office. It IS an official program document prepared BY the program FOR an official program overview briefing.

ONE MORE TIME

2002
F-35A: 26,500 lbs
F-35B: 29,735 lbs
F-35C: 30,049 lbs
2003
F-35A: 27,100 lbs
F-35B: 30,500 lbs
F-35C: 30,700 lbs
2004 (at which point they were deemed overweight)
F-35A: 29,036 lbs
F-35B: 32,161 lbs
F-35C: 32,072 lbs

SWAT (2004-2006)

2007
F-35A: 26,664 lbs
F-35B: 29,695 lbs
F-35C: 29,996 lbs

“The F-136 is 40k lb class”

– And likely higher if GE wants to compete.

40,000 lbs class period. You are fooling yourself if you think GE is getting significantly more thrust than P&W within the airflow constraints of the F-35.

– I am discussing the TF-30 because it was an inferior powerplant manufactured the the same company who makes the F135.

And what even remotely comparable engine did GE (or anybody else) have in 1970? The simple truth is the TF30 wasn’t designed to meet the F-14 performace goals, it was simply a temporary stop-gap engine so as to be able to get the F-14 into service.

Pratt has been having problems with the F135 as well – enough to cost 2b in overruns thus far. Competition has a funny way of improving products, and operating without the real threat leads to an inferior product. And choice would be a selling point to our partners.

GE is having even more problems with the F136.

“If you want to discuss more recent P&W products, then the F-100 series(especially) the -220/229 models have been more reliable than the GE F-110.”

– Curious. Source please.

http://www.afsc.af.mil/organizations/aviation/enginestatistics/index.asp

Nobody in Sukhoi knows what the RCS of the T-50 is.

It could be several years of flight testing before they have an accurate idea. At the moment they have nothing but computer modelling projections and estimates to offer as an RCS figure.

So the people at Sukhoi have no clue what they are doing. 😮

I’m curious to know how many flight hours and years passed before anyone in the USAF and Lockheed Martin had any idea of the RCS of the YF-22 or its successers?:confused:

They knew even before they started building it. Aircraft are designed & built to specifications (as well as built & flown virtually long before the 1st part of the 1st airframe is ordered much less actually built) – they do not just build something that they think looks good & hope somehow magically performs to the desired specifications.

By the way RCS is not verified through flight testing…

Anyway in my very un-educated opinion ( compared to other folks here who are actually involved in the aviation field), i too fail to see how the F-35 LO shaping is better than T-50’s, i meen look how many bumps the F-35 has on it , bumps in the intake , bumps for cannon and heat exchanger , bumps under the fuselge and wing roots , bumps for the tail-hook( on F-35A/B i’m not talking about C!), the shape of the fins , the amount of angle alignment on the front part …they apply REDUCTION measures for these bumps , they use serrated panels on the airframe& engine petals and so forth…and they use that “magical” composite skin impregnated RAM…but will this be enough?

Educated eyes see it differently than you. 🙂

You are comparing a prototype airframe to a prodction airframe, you can bet that the production T-50/PAK FA will see some noticeable changes from the prototype (just as there were from YF-22 to F-22A & X-35 to F-35) – some of which are likey to improve stealth, some that are likley not to.

‘Bumps’ in and of themselve are not as big a deal as you seem to think – but they have to be purposefully shaped & structured (just like everything else)…

These figures are utter BS and you know that exactly as much as everyone else on this forum. Unless you can prove them.

Quite the opposite. At F-35A: 29,036 lbs – F-35B: 32,161 lbs – F-35C: 32,072 lbs they were ‘overweight’ and low and behold in 2007 the POST WEIGHT REDUCTION weight are revealed. Again, the progression of weight increase & the weight decrease from SWAT hase been given many times. But no you want everyone to believe that they came out of SWAT heavier than they were when they went in. How about YOU try & prove how it is different…

Le us see your sources for that.

LM

***

One (or more) articles on Ares, quoting LM. Nothing fabricated…

Still waiting…

Ok stupidity aside pfcem, 2.5k lbs isn’t minor difference and if it was so easy to ditch that weight, how come it was there in the first place?

Becasue the bean counters demanded that the F-35 be designed/built at low cost (even at the expense of weight) thus lower cost but higher weight design/materia were used.

Anyway, the point being is, if AA-1 and AF-1 have weight difference as much as some seems to think, it’s damage model can’t be the same. Period.

NOBODY is saying EXACTLY the same but rather not as different as you are making it out to be. LM knows full well EXACTLY what is the same & what is different between the PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION AA-1 & later POST WEIGHT REDIUCTION F-35s.