F-35B Sea trials

[Boz330]

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Ki86x1WKPmE


Bob

[MakeMineA10mm]

Very nice - Passing that link on to a former USMC Aviation buddy.

[GabbyM]

We have a lot of eggs in one basket with the F-35.
One of the first things Obama did was to cancel production of the F-22.
Back a couple months ago news released there are issues with the 35 that will cost billions to remedy.

[Reload3006]

I am sure a lot of my opinion is sour grapes but I think there was too much political influence in the selection of the F35 for Lockheed. I think the SVTOL version using a fan is stupid. That is the best thing I can think of to say. It doesn't take much of a mechanic to figure out that all the drive train to run a fan is going to be a maintenance nightmare.

[bowfin]

There has been an ongoing debate between the Navy and Marines on whether they should spend their money on the F-35B, which is a short takeoff and vertical landing variant, or the F-35C, which is a carrier version that doesn't have the STVL capabilities. Both sides know that someone's piece of the pie is going to be cut down considerably, and it could possibly be both.

The U.S. Navy has been starved for new aircraft of any kind, partly because they have had so many cancelled. The F-14D, A-6F, A-12 Avenger all went by the wayside for one reason or another, and no suitable backup for the multitask S-3 Viking airframe was ever envisioned.

The S-3 airframe was used for fixed wing anti-submarine warfare, aerial refuelling, maritime patrol, and a host of other jobs requiring on board space and ability to stay airborne for more than a few hours.

The F-18 Hornets and F-18E Super Hornets are slower and have less range than the Tomcat, have shorter range missiles, and have no dedicated carrier refueling aircraft to mitigate that shorter range.

So the U.S. Navy definitely needs some new aircraft, but how many and what kind is at the mercy of the budget crunch.

[wallenba]

Videos like this reinforce my pride in America and what we can do. I see a lot more small carriers in our Navies future. Excellant photography.

[MakeMineA10mm]

There has been an ongoing debate between the Navy and Marines on whether they should spend their money on the F-35B, which is a short takeoff and vertical landing variant, or the F-35C, which is a carrier version that doesn't have the STVL capabilities. Both sides know that someone's piece of the pie is going to be cut down considerably, and it could possibly be both.

The U.S. Navy has been starved for new aircraft of any kind, partly because they have had so many cancelled. The F-14D, A-6F, A-12 Avenger all went by the wayside for one reason or another, and no suitable backup for the multitask S-3 Viking airframe was ever envisioned.

The S-3 airframe was used for fixed wing anti-submarine warfare, aerial refuelling, maritime patrol, and a host of other jobs requiring on board space and ability to stay airborne for more than a few hours.

The F-18 Hornets and F-18E Super Hornets are slower and have less range than the Tomcat, have shorter range missiles, and have no dedicated carrier refueling aircraft to mitigate that shorter range.

So the U.S. Navy definitely needs some new aircraft, but how many and what kind is at the mercy of the budget crunch.

Videos like this reinforce my pride in America and what we can do. I see a lot more small carriers in our Navies future. Excellant photography.

Yep, combine these two posts, and it's kind-of predictable isn't it?

[lbaize3]

Go NAVY!

Dang, but videos like that bring a tear to an old sailor's eyes.

[Boz330]

I posted this because I thought it was impressive not to start a political debate.

But when you look at how long an aircraft design might stay in the inventory once the bugs are worked out the money spread out over the years isn't all that bad. The B-52 has been in service for 60 years now. Getting to this point and scrapping the design really gets expensive. Most companies can't afford to eat the development cost it takes to bring one of these modern marvels to fruition.

Bob

[Three-Fifty-Seven]

I don't know much about planes . . . but that must be some really strong hinges on that flap behind the cockpit!

[bowfin]

Vertical landing on a naval ship most of the times isn't really vertical. The ship is almost always moving forward, so the plane must match the ship's speed to give the appearance of dropping straight down.

That being said, that sure was a nice touchdown and a nice looking airplane, and what is even more impressive is that every amphibious ship can now embark some of the most lethal aircraft in the world, and not just the Nimitz size carriers.

[Norbrat]

Reminds me of the British Hawker Harrier

[Roundnoser]

THIS is the kind of thing I don't mind paying my taxes for!!!

[MtGun44]

Looks great. I hope it is more effective than the Harrier.

Bill

[Norbrat]

Looks great. I hope it is more effective than the Harrier.

Bill

One would hope with a further 50 years of aviation engineering!

[Bret4207]

Looks great. I hope it is more effective than the Harrier.

Bill

What the Harrier was meant for and what it got used for seem to be 2 different things.

[MakeMineA10mm]

What the Harrier was meant for and what it got used for seem to be 2 different things.

Great point Bret. The Harrier was a bomb truck with pre-computer targeting system, but it stayed in the inventory so long that demands kept being made that it "do-this and do-that." in it's original role, and using conventional take-off and landing (to compare apples to apples), it is right up there with other attack planes, such as the A-7 and A-10. The A-10 has done OK due to its effectiveness and ability to be upgraded, and the Harrier's effectiveness has been fine as well, which is why the Marines have kept it so long and even ordered a "B model". I'm not really sure why Bill is saying they weren't effective? They did have a bad number of crashes of the A-model when the Marines first made them operational in the early- to mid-70s. The Harrier is one of the best light attack planes going...

I think the problem is Obama is anti-military AND he is pushing things so he can claim a "Peace dividend" and reduce the military even more, including cancelling programs (like the F-22). The Navy will get fewer F-35s, because Obummer is going to reduce the number of carriers. They could also reduce the number by keeping the Super Hornets in inventory longer. The Marines will also likely get fewer than they want, because their aviation budget is out of line for the size of their force. This is the second very expensive program they've simultaneously been involved in over the last 20 years. (V-22 being the other.). I'm guessing with the cancellation of the F-22, the Air Force will be the winner, as they need to replace the F-16 in huge numbers, and these JSFs will also replace some F-15 positions apparently.

China's saber-rattling and the position the next President takes on defense will determine a lot. (Sorry to the OP about included political comments but procurement and a program's life is closely related to politics...)

[BulletFactory]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=27qdB1D0s9M

[MakeMineA10mm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=27qdB1D0s9M

Meh... It's a commercial for Sukhoi - Of course they're going to say they can beat the F-22 and F-35! The linked video has 3 minutes of "reports" about the F-35 being "beaten" by the Sukhoi, and then there's 7 minutes of patriotic music with video of Sukhoi's flying around. (Nice plane BTW...)

Here's a little counter-point / dose of truth about the war games and study by RAND:

Recent claims that Russian fighters defeated F-35s in a Hawaii-based simulated combatexercise are untrue, according to Maj. Gen. Davis.

"The reports are completely false and misleading and have absolutely no basis in fact," Maj.Gen. Davis said. "The August 2008 Pacific Vision Wargame that has been referenced recently in the media did not even address air-to-air combat effectiveness. The F-35 is required to be able to effectively defeat current and projected air-to-air threats. All available information, at the highest classification, indicates that F-35 is effectively meeting these aggressive operational challenges. "The Pacific Vision Wargame was a table-top exercise designed to assess basing and force-structure vulnerabilities, and did not include air-to-air combat exercises or any comparisons of different aircraft platforms.

Other erroneous allegations about the program were recently made in a letter distributed and written by industry-watchers Winston Wheeler and Pierre Sprey. "It's not clear why they attacked the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president of F-35 program integration. "It is clear they don't understand the underlying requirements of the F-35 program, the capabilities needed to meet those requirements or the real programmatic performance of the JSF team."

• The F-35 is a racehorse, not a "dog," as Wheeler/Sprey suggest. In stealth combatconfiguration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4thgeneration aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented "see/shoot first" and combat radius advantages.
  
• The high thrust-to-weight ratios of the lightweight fighter program Wheeler/Spreyrecall from 30 years ago did not take into consideration combat-range fuel, sensors orarmament, which dramatically alter wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratios andmaneuverability. We do consider all of this in today's fighters.
  
• The F-35 has the most powerful engine ever installed in a fighter, with thrustequivalent to both engines today in Eurofighter or F/A-18 aircraft. The conventionalversion of the F-35 has 9g capability and matches the turn rates of the F-16 andF/A-18. More importantly, in a combat load, with all fuel, targeting sensor pods andweapons carried internally, the F-35's aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacyaircraft equipped with a similar capability.
  
• When the threat situation diminishes so that it is safe for legacy aircraft to participatein the fight, the F-35 can also carry ordnance on six external wing stations in additionto its four internal stations.
  
• External weapon clearance is part of the current F-35 test program.
  
• The government has already proven that no other aircraft can survive against the 5thgeneration stealth that only the F-22 and the F-35 possess; it is impossible to addthis stealth to fourth-generation fighters.
  
• The F-35's data collection, integration and information sharing capabilities willtransform the battlespace of the future and will redefine the close air support mission.The F-35 is specifically designed to take advantage of lessons learned from the F-117stealth aircraft. Unlike the F-117, the ability to share tactically important informationis built into the F-35, along with stealth.
  
• F-35 is developing, testing, and fielding mature software years ahead of legacyprograms, further reducing development risk. The F-35's advanced software, alreadyflying on two test aircraft with remarkable stability, is demonstrating the advantagesof developing highly-common, tri-variant aircraft. The software developed span the entire aircraft and support systems including the aircraft itself, logistics systems, flightand maintenance trainers, maintenance information system and flight-testinstrumentation.
  
• Rather than relying exclusively on flight testing, the F-35 is retiring development riskthrough the most comprehensive laboratories, sensor test beds, and integratedfull-fusion flying test bed ever created for an aircraft program. Representing only25% of our verification plans, still the F-35's flight test program is comparable inhours to the combined flight test programs of the three primary U.S. aircraft it willreplace.
  
• The F-35 is one aircraft program designed to replace many different types of aircraftaround the world - F-16, F/A-18, F-117, A-10, AV-8B, Sea Harrier, GR.7, F-111 andTornado - flown by 14 air forces.
  
• In addition to 19 developmental test aircraft, the F-35 is producing 20 fullyinstrumented, production-configured operational test aircraft. No program in history has employed this many test vehicles.

As far as the Sukhoi T-50, it looks like a very limited program. 250 for Russia and 200 for India: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi/HAL_FGFA

As far as the F-22 being "bad" or vulnerable, here's a great example of the political distortions of the truth (kind-of a nice way of saying propoganda...):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrwwtq8gnww

No "bias" there, now, eh?? Can't even begin to want to tear apart her "report" point by point. It so wrong there's outright lies in it, let alone the distortions and misrepresentations...

[JeffinNZ]

Looks great. I hope it is more effective than the Harrier.

Bill

Proved its worth in the Falklands. Maggy Thatcher would have been in a grim situation without the Harrier. The Spitfire of the 1970/80's.