HOME | DD
sovetskitch — Flight - JSF
Published: 2004-09-30 04:58:24 +0000 UTC; Views: 914; Favourites: 5; Downloads: 50
Redirect to original
Description
Ok, I'm going to be a little more vocal on the matter from now on; ATTENTION DEVIANT ART ADMINISTRATORS: THIS DEVIATION IS A PHOTO MANIPULATION, AND I TAKE ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIT FOR THE PHOTOS OR PICTURES INCLUDED WITHIN.I hope that's clear enough.
Anyway, this is a little manip I did a while back for a friendly contest. Basically, the idea was that you create a digital art piece using pictures from the internet or your own hand, regarding a specific word. The word for this particular contest was "flight," and I narrowed down my subject matter to aircraft, or more specifically, the Joint Strike Fighter. Enjoy.
Related content
Comments: 12
I really do like the unified color scheme on this. The overlays at the bottom seem a bit crowded, but otherwise, a yummy tribute to a neat craft.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Dude i'm not sure your up to speed that is an f-22 Raptor steath fighter, the development was discontinued about a years or two ago (to expencive)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yeah, the JSF is meant to fill the void left with the design of the F22 - that is - a small, cost-effective multirole stealth aircraft. Although F22's are great, probably the best comparison you can draw is between our current F-16/F-15C/D/E fleet. Having worked on both MDS's over the years, the costs associated with operating the C,D, and especially E models is far beyond that of F-16 CJ's and the like. You can draw similar conclusions about the Naval fleet as well... although, the twin-engine design of the F-18 will be missed my the pilots for sure: no one like hydrazine...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
KIller I like the layout and the aircraft rocks. Great job
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Very nice work +fav
Even though you didn't do all the original images you did manipulate this well. Tho I hate the look of the JSF 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks!
Heh, yeah I like the F-22 as well, but I'm fond of the JSF because of the STOVL (short take-off vertical landing) system implemented into one of the variants.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yer, that is nifty to have. But its not like it hasn't already existed in the past and it is part of the JSF's major package of weaknesses. It's unsafe to make a plane with that capability with 2 engines and therefore the JSF is short range, low speed and less fuel effecient when compared to other planes that it will replace (Fa-18, F-14)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, unlike the Harrier (the only other widely used aircraft with STOVL capabilities), the JSF is supersonic, and because of the engine design, it has overcome the problem of the air intake sucking up its own exhaust and causing the plane to fall out of the sky (many people have died from this in Harriers). And keep in mind that there are three variations of the JSF; the X-35A, B, and C. One type is for the Navy/Marines, one for the Army, and another for the Air Force. The variations for the Navy and Air Force do not have STOVL capabilities, and are far superior to the F/A-18 or F-14. I suggest doing more research in regards to the JSF; it's quite an amazing aircraft.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are incorrect in your assertion that the JSF is far superior to the F/A-18 or F-14 overall. It is surely superior in a number of factors however it is inferior in a number of factors also. The plan to build a one engine, one seat fighter to replace all naval and marine aircraft of similar classes has met with a lot of opposition.
It is only natural for carrier groups to prefer to be at very long range from a coast they are bombarding ... hence a preference for bigger planes, like the F-14. A curious fact; when off the coast of a nation the US is bombing, the F-14 can deliver more bombs per day then the B-52, B-1, B-2 or F-117. This is because it can run so many more missions per day and it can even defend itself.
Meanwhile ... The JSF will be hard pressed to repeat the above. It is a true multi role aircraft, there is not doubt to that, however its strengths in many area's have been sacrificed for that. For example it is not as fast as an F-14 and therefore will never be able to escape serious competition like a Su-27 or Mig-29. It doesn't have much range (travel distance) and therefore the carrier group need to operate closer to shore. It doesn't have much engine thrust so it cannot perform certain maneouvre's the F/A-22, F/A-18, F-15 and F-14 are capable of. And it also lacks the many benefits of a 2 seat plane.
Currently, the F-15E is considered to be the most advanced fighter aircraft in service in the west. One of the major contributors to this particular plane been chosen is the fact it is 2 seated.
BTW ... I have done months of reading on the JSF. I study international studies, and my country, Australia, is buying the JSF from the USA.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
From what I remember, the JSF is going to replace the F-16 and the AV-8B Harrier (with a possibility of replacing some F/A-18's). I don't recall anything about disposing of the F-15, as I agree that it has fast capabilities in terms of weapons load and distance. The JSF is not meant to take over all major types of aircraft as you seem to think, but rather complement the current arsenal and upgrade the technology (the AV-8B and the F-16 are rather dated by today's standards).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm referring to naval aviation. Its supposed to compliment the F/A-18's on carriers decks and replace the F-14 and AV-8B since Rummsfield scrapped F-14 tooling.
I was comparing it to the F-15 because the F-15E is a good example of why a 2 seat plane works well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0