F35B Ship Testing

Keith

Moderator
For all plane buffs. I don't know how old this is, but I am informed it was made about 6 weeks ago, so it's anyone's guess, but I think it's pretty cool anyway which is why I posted.

Amazing to think that 30 years ago this month, the Hawker Siddeley Harrier had it's very first taste of real combat, and apart from the US Marines version, the F35B is pretty much the first alternative STOVL plane designed and manufactured since then.

There seems to be a lot of controversy surrounding this plane which has attracted a lot of criticism, but I would have to say the STOVL concept immediately proved it's worth first run out 30 years ago against hostile modern (and superior powered) jets and I have no reason to think that this fighter won't be a similar valuable asset in future 'conventional' warfare.

One question. The testing appears to support a flat deck takeoff, but as it is running without stores, will the F35B eventually be able to do this fully loaded, or will it need a ski ramp?

F-35B
 

Jim Rosenthal

Supporter
My goddaughter's boyfriend is finishing Marine flight school and is likely to wind up in these (although his first choice was an F18, I think) If it were me, I'd rather have this, I think. STOVL is for "short take-off, vertical landing"? It must have serious shock absorbers in the wheel struts...
 
Andrew, no idea on the invisible solider; could easily be an issue with the video or some type of other problem.

That said the video about the JSF going against the Russian Mig is interesting. It would not surprise me if that was the case, often times when a project requires compromise such as the name "Joint" suggests, the outcome is not as favorable as a purpose built and budget-less limited competitor.

That said, I think it would be interesting to see how the total force compares. With the recent influx of drones, there is great potential that a secret fighter exists which does not require a pilot. This is purely a guess.

War is changing and therefore so are the tools. I think there is a relevant fear that the F35 could be a relic before it is really introduced.

That said, it is a cool looking plane.

Kevin
 

Randy V

Moderator-Admin
Staff member
Admin
Lifetime Supporter
Seems to me that close range combat has pretty much been over since just after Korea.
From what I'm told by the various pilots I know in the military, air to air combat is almost all done at long range and with missles rather than bullets..

Also, in Red Flag, are they using Russian Craft? I think probably not.

How much seat time do the pilots have in their respective aircraft?

Still the Russian aircraft are very capable adversaries..
 
I have heard over the past years (mostly from Defpro - a defense oriented email briefing) that the JSF is no better than an F15/16/18, and it costs a whole lot more.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Seems to me that close range combat has pretty much been over since just after Korea.
From what I'm told by the various pilots I know in the military, air to air combat is almost all done at long range and with missles rather than bullets..

Also, in Red Flag, are they using Russian Craft? I think probably not.

How much seat time do the pilots have in their respective aircraft?

Still the Russian aircraft are very capable adversaries..
actually, no.

One of the complaints during the Vietnam War about the Phantom II was no cannon, and it was huge and not a good dogfighter. A small group of Air Force officers got together and tried to figure out why air to air kill ratios in the early years of the war had declined. The reason? USAF jets were big, heavy, tried to do too much on one airframe and pilots had lost their dogfighting skills.

The remedy? THe TOp Gun schools and the F-15 and more importantly the F-16, a small, nimble, lightweight dogfighter.

In visual range dog fights have made up a large portion of the kills in Vietnam, in the Arab-Israeli Wars, in the Falklands and in the two Gulf Wars.

The JSF is clearly far stealthier than the 15/16/18 and probably more manuevarable with vectored thrust. But some of it smacks of trying to do too much on one air frame, like with the F-111.
 

Randy V

Moderator-Admin
Staff member
Admin
Lifetime Supporter
Jeff .... I think you're right... It would seem that we (USA) are stuck on the notion of having Fighter-Bombers that really do neither job particularly well.. The F111 was a sight to behold when flying low and slow... Wallowing all over the sky and not really able to get out of its own way...

Now the A10! what an ugly duckling, but ferrocious as hell...
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
The A-10 shows the advantage of a specialized aircraft for the role. When proposed, many thought a slow, subsonic, straight wing attack aircraft would be useless on the modern battlefield.

It's probably one of the most successful and long serving Air Forces designs ever.

We hit a sweet spot in the 70s/80s/90s with jet development. Instead of "do it all" planes like the F-105 or the F-111 or even the F-4, the F-14/15/16/18 and the A-10 really filled their niches well. F-15C for air superiority, with the E being the fast strike aircraft. F-16 being a lower cost dogfighter. The 18 being fast shipboard attack and later air superiority as well, adn the 14 shipborne air superiority.

I think the success of the 18 may have led our designers back to thinking one air frame can do it all and I still don't think that is the case.
 

Keith

Moderator
Aren't compromise military items the result of fudging the budgets?

Also, I've heard there is intense competition between US Navy (presumably Marine Corps) and Army in the terms of funding and aircraft types more than could usually be expected in any nation's military structure.

If ME 262 had have been used for what it was designed for and supplied in sufficient quantities, then outcomes could have been quite different.

Just one persons take on what the aircraft should be used for possibly changed the course of WWII.

Scary really...

At least there was never a dispute over the use and procurement of Yew in making English bows :)
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
The "one airframe to rule them all" was and usually is an attempt to save money, yes. It has never seemed to work although we keep trying.

There is intense competition between the Navy (not the Marines, who are part of the Navy and get their leftover stuff -- I'm not kidding) and the Air Force. It's gone back to the 50s/60s when the Navy wanted aircraft carriers with nuclear bombers and the Air Force strategic bombers, and then the 60s/70s when the Navy wanted SLBMs and the Air Force ICBMs.

The F-111 for example was originally designed as a fighter for both the Navy and the Air Force, and a tactical bomber. It got so big and heavy doing all of that that it couldn't operate on carriers. So the Navy got the F-14. And the USAF had to design adn build the F-15 and 16 since the F-111 failed as a fighter.

The JSF's three models (or four?) are designed to cover all of the modern jet fighter roles: air superiority, strike and V/STOL. We will see if it is successful. The US cut back on F-22 purchases in order to continue to fund the JSF. Depending on the type of conflicts we see in the future that may be smart (if they are low intensity land wars like Iraq/Afghanistan) or a mistake (if they involve major operations requiring air superiority like Korean, the Arab Israeli Wars or even Vietnam).
 
Top