Skip to comments.New Pictures Of The F-35 With Its Weapons Bay Doors Wide Open (Very Impressive Pictures)
Posted on 03/17/2012 7:18:22 PM PDT by lbryce
click here to read article
“Open the pod bay door, Hal.”
Something’s missing...the other engine. It needs another engine.
You mean, like the F-22?
If it`s got mini-bomb bays, it`s mini-bomber.
Thank you for pointing that out. I was about to say something less nice :-)
It’s got 2 intakes and 1 exhaust ... does that mean it has 1.5 engines? ;-)
Dummy smart bombs? I'll put that in my oxymoron file with Congresstional ethics.
Hmmmm ..?? Plan A hasn’t been working very good .. looks like we’ll have to go to Plan B after all.
Darn .. should’uve learned to shoot.
Unless you're a B-52 pilot. Then you think it needs another seven engines.
you’re right, those are some impressive pictures.
Pratt &Whitney F135. Plenty of engine.
...but I will tell you what is impressive to me:
...The Collings Foundation has brought a B-17 a B-24 and a P-51 to Dallas to show and to sell rides for fund raising. I live in the traffic pattern of Love Field and the B-17 and B-24 have been flying low over my house. It almost brings tears to my eyes to see and hear these old planes still flying.
They radiate competence...you see them and just know that they are the finest craftsmanship in the world. The sound that their engines make is a low grumble....and you just know that the German people who were not involved with the NAZI's hated to hear these sounds rumbling in the distance, but were absolutely moving their way....
...they will be flying all day tomorrow, and I will be watching every one...
To this day I believe that the B-17 is the most beautiful airplane ever built.
The third one is also different from the first two; presumably a C model, judging from the ventral bulge, which I presume conceals the tailhook.
You have a point. But if you’re willing to consider civil aircraft, I’d put the Lockheed Connie beside it.
Twice as many latches, twice as many hinges, twice as many doors etc. as would be practical... more to go wrong and more to maintain.
And half as many engines as it should have.
thats the mumbai door.
All fine airframes, for sure. I’m a big fan of the B-25 ever since I read about them (as a kid) being flown off aircraft carriers. I know that also has to do with the men flying them at the time but day-em... that’s one helluva feat.
It had actual footage of Doolittle's B-25s taking off from "Shangri-La"...
Its pretty, but somehow not as fearsome looking as an F4F Phantom with fully exposed armament on its belly and wings. But then again, the old school way of dropping bombs is long gone. You dont need to carry 18,000 pounds of weapons when you can now decimate the target with just a couple of precise hits.
Beautiful pics, thanks.
F-22 is the baddest-ass fighter jet to ever exist, and copycat Sukhoi can go screw itself (and pray it never has to actually face an F-22).
My 91 yr old dad was in a 7th Army AAA battery during WWII from North Africa on through Germany’s surrender. He’s mentioned that as they were fighting their way across France they would often see the entire sky filled with what looked like thousands of bombers, headed to their targets in Germany. A sight like that will never be seen again.
And you’re right, the sound of those WWII engines is something special. There’s a few vintage planes flying out of an airport near me in SoCal and I love to hear them pass overhead.
At two hundred million per copy it should crap little gold bricks when the doors are opened. What a waste.
Not sure about sixty seconds but here’s one about thirty seconds ;-)
Exactly and only $207m each for the ones bought in 2012.
Wouldn't it be better to destroy all of a target rather than just 10%?
A sight like that will never be seen again.
Mainly because this country would not stand for the 80,000 dead airmen today.
The Chinese PLA and the Russian engineeers just love this sort of photographic info -
While these are beautiful and “impressive” pictures, the sad truth is that the F-35 is going to go down in history as one of the worst, over-hyped military aircraft boondoggles ever.
It will be another F-111 type failure, in that the politically-motivated insistence on demanding that one aircraft perform too many different roles, for too many different service constituencies will result in it not performing any of them to the highest levels necessary to maintain our superiority.
In combat, one size does not fit all, and it never will.
To be clear, fly-away cost for the jet alone is about 150Mil (http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110211-038.pdf, pg 57 of 560). If you add all weapons systems and infrastructure to go along with it, then it runs about 192M.
If they kept to the original number they envisioned, the cost-per-unit would be a heck of a lot lower. . .I’m not a fan of the F-35, as I think the F-22 is by far the best. The F-22 internal weapons load equals that of the F-35. . .in order for the F-35 to carry more than the F-22 it must carry external ordinance, something that the F-22 can’t do. And if the F-35 does carry external weapons, this would remove any LO capability of the jet. LM over-sold the concept. Should have stayed with the full run of F-22 and re-vamped F-15E. F-22 to kick in the door and the F-15E’s to take iron downtown.
Can you tell me where you got that number?
According to USAF docs, the cost is about 150M per jet (for USAF versions). For the entire support systems that go along with it, and weapons, the total cost per unit is about 192M (http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110211-038.pdf, pg 57 of 560).
I am not that familiar with USMC/Navy budget docs, so a link would be good.
You said: “They radiate competence...you see them and just know that they are the finest craftsmanship in the world.”
Damn straight. Those were the days when “close enough for government work” was standard of pride.
Bombing for effect rather than bombing just because you want to?
You want to take out a weapon system or person the most efficient way possible because that means less resources needed by you to achieve significant results. For example, why expend dozens of sorties and hundreds of weapons to take down a division of tanks when you can simply drop a couple of bridges and isolate then from the battlefield? Or, drop one bomb in one precise location and you take out a power station rather than totally destroy it by dropping hundreds of weapons.
Safer to fly fewer sorties, achieve greater battlefield/tactical and strategic effect, and frankly, less costly.
Identifying Centers of Gravity or “decisive points” are key to decimating an enemies ability to wage war.
These nodes are hard to identify, even more so during insurgency operations, but nonetheless, are the best way to win. From strategic air campaigns to silent special ops troops with a Kbar, it all depends on what you identify and target, not level of destruction.
I seem to live under the flight path between a Marine Air station and a base out in the desert. All sorts of aircraft fly overhead and I love being able to hear them!
"That's the sound of freedom, baby!"
I'd rather not leave an enemy with 90% of their ability to wage war.
Since they nixed the alternate engine supplier, you can bet that over the next 10-15 years the engine prices will go up and power improvements will be small.
Oh come on, our dummy bombs are smart because they KNOW they are dummy bombs.
How many dummy bombs do you know that know that they are dummy bombs???
The last time AJ Foyt put his Indy car into the hay bales, someone asked, "Brake fade?"
AJ replied, "Naw -- brain fade..."
I was four when the raid occurred -- so, I plead 70 years of brain fade! '-)
BTW, It just hit me that we are exactly one month shy of the 70th anniversary of the Doolittle Raid!
FY 2012 Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon System:
Page: I-7 ($6,644M for 32 aircraft = $207.6M
The military is under the control of Obama. Think about that when you look at these pictures.
The military is under the control of Obama - as is the F-35... and ‘the press’ ...