Jet Aircraft Video (not WWII) Recent F-35B Sea Trials

[Daubie]

The statement below is not mine, but I agree.


"This video is fresh (for the  public).  It was made just six weeks ago in the

Atlantic, just off Newport News (Hampton Roads), Virginia .

These  are the latest sea trials of the F-35B on the USS Wasp. They were

very  successful, with 74 VL's and STO's in a three week period. The media

and the  program critics had predicted that we would burn holes in the deck

and wash  sailors overboard. Neither of which happened. You will notice a

sailor  standing on the bow of the ship as the jet rotates. That was an

intentional  part of the sea trials.

Try viewing Full Screen - impressive.

No  catapult......    No hook ............      It's a new world out there.

It really is.

The shape and scope of  warfare - worldwide - just changed.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE&feature=colike
 
Think - this new, monster killer  aircraft can land in a tennis court and

take off from it.

All the  "Special Ops" that always had to be executed from helicopters?  Look

at  this.  Warfare has just changed (again).   Thank God, that we, America ,

are the ones changing it  and keeping us safe"


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


How would you like to be the test pilot flying this very expensive aircraft in deep water and lose it to an accident?

I think that raised hood device behind the cockpit is for air intake for the downward thrusting engines, not a speed brake. 

You can see the downward airflow over the water, after the jet leaves the boat.

I was in New Orleans on liberty when an English Harrier jump jet ship with the forward, up swooping, takeoff deck, aircraft carrier was also in port, before the Falklands War, about 1979 or so.  I got to tour their ship.  So the idea is not new, just the technology.

[SmokinLoon]

So were the Harriers THAT far gone in ability that we needed to get rid of them and fund this thing?

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

From what i understand a fully loaded harrier can only take off with assistence from a jump ram.

Nor can a fully loaded harrier hover in flight.



Only lightly loaded/armed harrier could take off from a stand still, and even then the time of hover was limited to around 30 seconds before the coolant ran out and things started to get real..real hot.


The harrier is also not stealth and its navigation/tracking systems are all beans vs. the JSF.



so..yeah.

"Edit:Also keep in mind the age of most air frame's in service right now, most are already some 20-30 years old. They need to rest, or alot of pilots world wide will die to catastrophic failures. Everyone knows this, hence why so many nations are backing this program up."

[Mace2004]

Some comments (reality check)

Profile for this is going to be the same as the Harrier, STOVL (Short Takoff/Vertical Landing), i.e., it will not take off vertically fully loaded although, just like the Harrier it can takeoff vertically with a light load of fuel/weapons.

This does not take the place of helicopters for SOF, that's what they want the V22 for.

The "guy" at the end of the deck is there for the "test" only in that he is part of the normal flight deck compliment.  His job is to look down the foul line to make sure no person or thing crosses over into takeoff area of the deck, that's why he's giving a "thumbs up."  You make it sound like he was "placed" at the end of the deck to prove a sailor won't get knocked off the flight deck. I guarantee you that that is not the way you test for this danger.  

Further, as a reality check, sailors get knocked down fairly frequently due to jet blasts, even from conventional aircraft.  More rare is getting blown over the side but it does happen and it is not unique to STOVL.  None of this is of course "new" but the "media" picks up on statements they don't (or won't) understand and repeats them ad nauseum like idiot parrots.  This is how concerns about ablation of the flight deck ("burning holes") or blowing people off the deck get misrepresented as mistakes and the result of stupidity.  Sure, those are concerns that need to be tested but this isn't information from "critics," it's just common sense.  The F14A+, B, and D all created concern about Jet Blast Deflector ablation because of the increased power (and heat) of the GE F110 afterburner.  This is one of a couple of reasons why the F14 with the GE engines didn't launch in AB but it wasn't a mistake and the F14 didn't need AB to launch with the new engines anyway.  The press doesn't understand that sort of thing and loves to trump up controversy especially if they can make a defense contractor or the military look stupid.  In the 1980's there was one of those 60 Minutes episodes where they tried to prove how stupid the military was.  In that episode, a "critic" claimed that the AIM-7 Sparrow wasn't a good missile because it flew too fast to hit its target and the morons at 60 Minutes actually broadcast that as factual information just because it made us (and Raytheon) look bad.

[mthrockmor]

I'm not a fan of the F-35 but this seems a media hit job that is rather inaccurate and/or intentional.

Boo

[W7LPNRICK]

So were the Harriers THAT far gone in ability that we needed to get rid of them and fund this thing?

Although very impressive in "Combat" take-off mode, the Harrier's severely short battle radius 190 miles, when I was in Korea, & only slightly improved by take-off ramps, make it very limited in effectiveness in forward bases or even in carrier use. No one wants anything within 190 miles before you can engage it. IMO 

[lmxar]

Anybody know how it performs compared to Chinese/Russian fighters?  Haven't really kept up with the program, but it looks intriguing. 

[Bodhi]

My understanding on the death of the harrier was owing to the very short life spans (comparably to other military aircraft) of the airframes.  Simply put, these aircraft timed out quickly and were to a point, somewhat disposable.  The F-18's airframe is similar in that it has life span limitations as well.  Part of the growth of the early Hornet program introduced the straps on the vertical fins to help mitigate cracking of the vertical fins. 

Anywho, that F-35 looks very impressive.  Hope that it can perform as advertised in combat and can be fielded for a reasonable price.

[beau32]

I am very lucky in having to work on the F-35 out here at Edwards. It is only on the F-35A (we are getting carrier and the STOVL varient later this year). This program has made huge leaps and bounds, and is progressing on track. The STOVL is a very impressive machine, and will out perform the harrier in every way. Just give it time and this program will be very impressive once it matures more.

[W7LPNRICK]

PS Jump jets may have a severely limited battle radius and unable to Combat Take -Off vertically when fully loaded, but it is absolutely impressive to see one taking off in that manner, & they do "Jump" just like a grasshopper, straight up, much faster than you would have imagined when seen for the first time. I was at Osan AB Korea in '78/79 and saw it first hand. If it was impressive then......?   

[Stoney]

The biggest problem with the F-35 is that its basically going to replace all Naval fixed wing tactical aircraft, and it only has one engine.

Guess what the two leading class-A mishap aircraft are in the U.S. military?  And what common characteristic do they share?  I'll tell you that the Marine Corps needs a replacement for the Harrier--the capability to have fixed-wing on an amphibious assault ship is huge for Marine expeditionary forces--I've seen the difference first hand.  I just don't know that we can afford this thing, but it looks like we're going to try...

[Saxman]

I think the bigger problem with the F-35 is that they're trying to get it to suit the purposes of too many branches. The military has been trying for DECADES to develop aircraft that meet the needs of all three aerial services, and after almost 100 years of effort there's only been ONE OTHER EXAMPLE (F-4) which really has. The needs of the Air Force, Navy and Marines are really just too different for one airframe to adequately fill.

[Krusty]

Sax... As compared to what? Why can't 1 plane (technically 3 different variants of one plane) serve multiple arms of the armed forces IF each arm is getting a superb plane?

For the Navy: It blows away the Super Hornet. Well and truly there is nothing the Super Hornet has over this plane. You can't launch a Hornet without 3 gas bags on it, and it has to have tankers refilling it during sorties. It also can't go supersonic.

For the Marines: It's leaps and bounds ahead of the Harriers in payload, range, and total capability. Harrier range was something on the order of 200 miles, right? They also replace their aging Hornet fleet. See "Navy" comment.

For the Air Force: F-16s can't cut it. To get ANYWHERE they have to carry 3 fuel tanks and refuel 4 times each way. F-15s and F-16s are falling apart due to age and fatigue, and are limited in as much as how useful they are attacking defended positions. F-22s will still rule the skies as air superiority fighters as far as their lifespan permits, but we really need an overall plane. Something that can do first strike, something that can perform CAP, or fighter sweeps, all just by changing the weapons loadouts. It also has more stealth than any other fighter save the F-22, giving it a massive edge in air to air combat. It also favors comparably to the F/A-18 in terms of manuverability so it's no slouch in a close-in fight either. The Air Force needs this just as badly as the Navy and Marines need theirs.


So what if it happens to have commonality? You can't have this kind of advanced weapons platform on a small scale. If ONLY the Air Force or ONLY the Navy were getting a 5th Gen sealth fighter/attacker like this, it would bankrupt them and the project would fail. Instead, all 3 branches benefit.


I know it hasn't always worked out in the past, but despite the 99% politically motivated bad press (mostly be people who don't know what they're talking about) this program is a must, and it's progressing quickly right now. It worked for the F-4. It didn't work for the F-111. I can't think of too many others where we've tried that since the jet age emerged. There really aren't all that many that I can think of.

Looking at it objectively, it is a step ahead of what it is replacing in most ways. It's also a much needed replacement. Win-win! Now if the politicians and political lobbyists would just leave it alone so we could get it done...

[Ardy123]

For the Navy: It blows away the Super Hornet.... It also can't go supersonic.

Super Hornet can go supersonic, I believe its top speed is 1,190 mph.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f18ef/

[Krusty]

LOL!!!

That's rich... It can break Mach1 from what I've read if it has nothing on it, no missiles, no weapons, no fuel tank, no underwing pylons (they add massive drag, being toed outwards), but it requires 4-stage afterburner to do so and that gives it a flight time of somewhere like 5 minutes before it has to land.


Whereas the F-35 can fly its entire mission carrying guns and bombs to target and back while supercruising past Mach1 and not in afterburner mode.