Aviation Week reports:
As senior Pentagon editor, there are perks to being a scribe. May 26, I had the opportunity to witness aviation history with a small group of reporters invited to the USS Wasp amphibious ship to witness a few hours of the first-ever F-35B Operational Test (OT-1) trials off the coast of North Carolina. I'm posting some of the many videos I collected to give our readers a sense of what we saw on the boat.
During OT-1, actual Marines -- not test overseers -- are operating the six F-35Bs that embarked May 18 for the tests; this includes pilots and maintainers. During DT (developmental testing), we got to see firsthand the first vertical landing and short takeoff at sea, but in OT-1, the Marines are demonstrating a cadence to operations to gain confidence the single-engine, stealthy fighters can assimilate into an air wing onboard the amphibious ship, which will include other platforms: the MV-22, CH-53E/K, AH-W/Z and unmanned air systems among them. This is all leading up to the operational debut of the F-35B, slated in July.
The article contains an 8 minute video of the F-35B with an accompanying written overview of what is occurring at various points during the video.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JeanCroix on Wednesday June 03 2015, @11:25PM
I spent about nine years of my career working on the engine design for this baby (both CTOL and STOVL), so it's nice to see it finally operational. I know there's a lot of negativity surrounding the F-35 amongst this crowd, but honestly, peacetime aircraft programs traditionally run over time and over budget. And no, the conflicts we've engaged in during the past fourteen years weren't high-level enough to count as non-peacetime for a fifth-gen F/A plane such as this. Remember, it's not meant solely as a fighter for air superiority - that's the F-22's job. And besides, modern air warfare doctrine isn't about the one-on-one dogfight mindset of 30 years ago. It's about an integrated fleet, each aircraft with a designated role acting together.
But hey, I've only been in this industry for 18 years. I'm sure all you non-cleared armchair software jockeys know way better than I do...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday June 03 2015, @11:45PM
The problem with this aircraft is trying to be all things to every branch of the service, and apparently every country even vaguely interested.
It is bound to do all of those thing less well than a specialized craft for each task. It was conceived to have a common parts and maintenance and training chain, to reduce costs, but clearly that ship has sailed. There will never be savings.
Meanwhile huge swats of the world as well as the US are flying 40 year old designed F16, probably the most single purpose plane ever developed. Three or 4 major airframe development programs have come and gone to the bone yard in the meantime.
That will never happen with the 35, as cool looking as it is, the price per copy is now so high that they will never be able to be cost effective.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JeanCroix on Wednesday June 03 2015, @11:54PM
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday June 04 2015, @12:08AM
You really don't want to be sending F-16s up against modern enemy fighter or even ground-to-air technology...
There is one guy who will argue that point with you:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-usafs-deadliest-f-16-viper-pilot-on-women-combat-1603954525 [jalopnik.com]
21 hard kills on surface-to-air missile sites...
In actual operations no MiGs would fight us....
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JeanCroix on Thursday June 04 2015, @12:13AM
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday June 04 2015, @12:30AM
Clearly they didn't face Russia's top pilots, but some of the planes they faced were much newer than his.
The 16 was a fighter, and (like the some of the 15s) was converted to the air-to-ground role, and excelled at it.
Note his only complaint about the 35 is the cost, he likes the plane.
Anyway, I bring this up, because the 16 was never intended to fly from carriers, and never did (not discounting the possibility of a stunt somewhere along the line). It was never designed as a bomber but ended up flying a huge percentage of the air to ground in Iraq.
Sure it changed over its life time, but the unit costs are still amazingly cheap. Same for F14 tomcats and F15s. The changed over time
but kept unit costs low by not trying to fill every imaginable role right out of the gate.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Thursday June 04 2015, @01:12AM
The decision to procure a multi-role aircraft was not mine, obviously, but one derived from the military and congress, in due respect. The companies I was and am employed by were/are contracted to fulfill that requirement, to the best of our ability and for the lowest cost. Personally, I may not professionally agree with such broad requirements, but no amount of feedback or pushback from me or my peers will be enough to sway what the military thinks it needs. So we strive to provide the best we can.
In terms of modern air warfare doctrine, its unfair to consider any one aircraft a "direct successor" to the F-16, F-15, or even A-10. Roles are constantly changing - some expanding, others diminishing. Some roles are creating themselves where none existed before - Predators and Avengers, for instance.
As a final note here, don't forget that unless you have a clearance and are in the industry, you really only have a partial view of the iceberg that is modern air warfare. No offense intended, but your opinions can only be based on what's publicly acknowledged, and not the full range of knowledge and technology we're working with. Watch the History channel in 20 years and it might tell you then what we were developing now.
(Score: 2, Touché) by FunkyLich on Thursday June 04 2015, @03:35PM
Does the same principle of "your opinions can only be based on what's publicly acknowledged, and not the full range of knowledge and technology we're working with" hold true if we replace the variable "F-35B" with "Su-35S" or "PAK FA T-50" ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2015, @04:43AM
Superiority and dominance are two different words because they mean two different things...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2015, @01:32AM
You suck and your baby is a boondoggle.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gravis on Thursday June 04 2015, @07:27AM
there's a lot of negativity surrounding the F-35 amongst this crowd, but honestly, peacetime aircraft programs traditionally run over time and over budget
i don't have a problem with it taking so long, i have a problem with it costing so much. at $12.5 Billion per year and lifecycle cost of $1.1 Trillion, it's the highest cost program there is! in the mean time our economy is faltering and we can't stop funding the program because the contract has a poison pill in it that means we still end up paying but get nothing in return! nobody has a problem upgrading technology in a fleet and VTOL is cool and all but it isn't needed for the missions. the problem is that this VTOL feature caused it to go waaaaaay over time and budget.
you on the other hand are helping prop up the military industrial complex which is more like a cancer on our country (that's eating up half of the budget) than anything else. take your thirty pieces of silver and go away.
(Score: 2) by ragequit on Thursday June 04 2015, @02:59PM
Oh Noes... 12 billion spent on a thing. Out of which comes some interesting tech, interesting design, interesting production. money contributed to the local economy. Maybe even a workable airframe when all is said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_budget [wikipedia.org]
2014 Budget authority is $613Bn in 2014. This is government we're talking about. if it wasn't spent on the F-35, it would have been spent on something else you also wouldn't approve of but still defense related.
Bitching at those who earn a living with a highly specialized and technical skill and not those who pass the budgets, is, at best disingenuous. Go plant a tree or something, let this man do his job.
besides, 30 pieces of silver isn't worth all that much unless they are rather big pieces.
The above views are fabricated for your reading pleasure.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday June 04 2015, @11:55PM
Oh Noes... 12 billion spent on a thing
defense spending is something like $600 Billion per year. we could straight up give every homeless person a house for that much!
if it wasn't spent on the F-35, it would have been spent on something else you also wouldn't approve of but still defense related.
enough of the newspeak, it has jack shit to do with defense, this is war spending.
Bitching at those who earn a living with a highly specialized and technical skill and not those who pass the budgets, is, at best disingenuous
you know, china used the same excuse for flooding sub-Saharan Africa with cheap guns. somebody is going to make a buck selling them guns, so why not them, right? this is the "hate the game, not the playa!" excuse. the thing is that if there are no players, there is no game.
Go plant a tree or something
fine but you have to eat a bullet first. :)
let this man do his job.
it didn't have to be his job but he chose it do it anyway.
you can be part of the problem or be part of the solution but like him, you have chosen the former.