Video of F-35B Lightening II deck operations on USS Wasp

[IND151]

Here a video of the recent sea trials of the F-35B (the STO/VL variant, the most troublesome of the three variants, with the greatest design challenges) carried out early this month on the USS Wasp, off Newport, Virginia.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2013/04/video-of-f-35b-lightening-ii-deck.html

 

[IND151]

@Dillinger @arp2041 @Ayush @ZYXW @Jade @janon @Ajaxpaul @godofwar
@Guynextdoor2 @KRAIT @sandy_3126 @Joe Shearer @jbgt90 @Bang Galore

@Chinese-Dragon @neehar @JohnSeb @Samantak @kurup @Syama Ayas @RISING SUN

 

[RISING SUN]

This plane is not that weak as opponents of this plane are portraying it to be. Finishing 3 variants of same plane is not an easy job. I believe They are designing different variants for different purpose apart from what we have seen in news. In offensive mode Air force version will be used primarily bombing runs, carrier version will be used for area denial patrols & bombing, & marine version will be used for ground attack support. There are other purpose as well but those will not be the offensive use. If US & allies are able to overcome all the problem being faced by this jet, I have no doubt that this will replace the F 16 as said earlier but it will replace them with more cumulative power just like we are replacing our older frigates with newer generation frigates(strength increase in all sectors).

 

[T90TankGuy]

The fact is that while this plane will be a great weapon platform when its matured , its still has to get there. too many people who invested in this fighter have backed out , with Australia going as far as preferring to add more F18 rather than wait for this fighter. its a matter to wait and watch i guess.
as far as the IN is concerned they may be looking at it , but i doubt they will let on .the IN is the closest amongst the three services to the US .

 

[janon]

Broadsword: Video of F-35B Lightening II deck operations on USS Wasp

Now I am convinced that Mr Shukla is on the payroll of Lockheed-Martin. There is no other explanation why an informed person (he was a colonel, lets not forget) would put out such a laughably facile hack job. It is an aggressive advertisement, pretending to be a journalistic "article". Marketing and PR people will peddle any lie to sell their wares.

He starts off by calling the Rafale an "outdated dinosaur". While anybody who knows anything about military aviation knows that on the contrary, it is one of the most modern combat jets, with the most advanced technologies on the planet, be it the airframe or avionics or weapons. I dare him to name three or four aircrafts that are currently in service anywhere that is more modern in any respect than Rafale. If he can't do that, he should be asked to justify the phrase he used. The only outdated dinosaur in the room is Mr Shukla's brain.

Every following sentence is either a lie, or a damned lie. The last para is a masterpiece of strawman tactics. He pretends to preempt critics by addressing their points, but brings up points that no critic of F-35 has ever made:

Doomsayers had predicted that vertical landing would burn holes in the deck and that the downwash would sweep sailors overboard. Well, bad news doomsayers, take a look at how close the sailors are standing to the landing aircraft.

He pretends that this is the reason for criticising vertical landing aircrafts, and then attacks it. Create a strawman and attack it. Has anybody really argued against the F-35 for that reason? How does he think harriers land on the Viraat? Are there any large, gaping holes in the deck of the Viraat?

I'm sorry, but this piece of writing (not sure what to call it; calling it an article would be too generous) does not really even deserve a response. Instead of putting this article in the air warfare section, it should be moved to the jokes thread, or some thread where we can lament and bemoan the accelerated decay of the brain cells of a former tank commander.

 

[dbc]

I'm looking forward to the next F-35 engine, soon the F-35 will have an engine with compression ratio of twice the current engine, 25 % lower fuel consumption and increased thrust. By 2020, a fully armed and loaded F-35 should be able to vertical take-off from anywhere.

 

[janon]

I'm looking forward to the next F-35 engine, soon the F-35 will have an engine with compression ratio of twice the current engine, 25 % lower fuel consumption and increased thrust. By 2020, a fully armed and loaded F-35 should be able to vertical take-off from anywhere.

But it should still be at a disadvantage compared to an F-35 that takes off conventionally with that engine, right? I mean, for the same engine performance, a conventional take off would always give more load or range, wouldn't it?

I'm not really sure of the wisdom of having an all 5th gen fleet. Most of the conflicts in which USAF is expected to participate, would not need expensive assets like F-35s to do the bulk of the work. For instance, dropping munitions on insurgents like the Taliban or Iraqi militias - why would you want to do that with an F-35? Wouldn't a good old F-16 bring a lot more value for money? If you take any recent war the USA has engaged in, how much of it was done in an environment where air combat or SAM threats existed?

And that is likely to be the case in most of USA's conflicts in future too. The USN's subs would send a barrage of Tomahawks at the enemy's air defence systems (like Libya), or the stealth aircrafts will do that in thee first few days. After that, shouldn't it be cheaper, non stealth aircrafts that do thee bulk of the remaining work?

 

[dbc]

But it should still be at a disadvantage compared to an F-35 that takes off conventionally with that engine, right? I mean, for the same engine performance, a conventional take off would always give more load or range, wouldn't it?

I'm not really sure of the wisdom of having an all 5th gen fleet. Most of the conflicts in which USAF is expected to participate, would not need expensive assets like F-35s to do the bulk of the work. For instance, dropping munitions on insurgents like the Taliban or Iraqi militias - why would you want to do that with an F-35? Wouldn't a good old F-16 bring a lot more value for money? If you take any recent war the USA has engaged in, how much of it was done in an environment where air combat or SAM threats existed?

And that is likely to be the case in most of USA's conflicts in future too. The USN's subs would send a barrage of Tomahawks at the enemy's air defence systems (like Libya), or the stealth aircrafts will do that in thee first few days. After that, shouldn't it be cheaper, non stealth aircrafts that do thee bulk of the remaining work?

You underestimate the military value of being able to take off fully armed and loaded from anywhere. Anywhere includes, the back of a truck, cargo ship, the roof of a building. You also underestimate the military benefits of landing anywhere to re-arm and refuel. With the acquisition of the F-35 the US is preparing for wars of the future. In the future, we expect our enemies to have better surveillance to watch our airfields and carrier deployment. We expect the enemy to have the capability to deny us the use of AWACS and mid-air refueling.

 

[janon]

You underestimate the military value of being able to take off fully armed and loaded from anywhere. Anywhere includes, the back of a truck, cargo ship, the roof of a building. You also underestimate the military benefits of landing anywhere to re-arm and refuel. With the acquisition of the F-35 the US is preparing for wars of the future. In the future, we expect our enemies to have better surveillance to watch our airfields and carrier deployment. We expect the enemy to have the capability to deny us the use of AWACS and mid-air refueling.

Ah yes, I was only thinking about the cost/benefit of doing so from aircraft carriers. Other scenarios did not occur to me.

Could you comment on why the US is going for an all F-22/F-35 fleet, and abandoning non stealth jets altogether?

 

[dbc]

Ah yes, I was only thinking about the cost/benefit of doing so from aircraft carriers. Other scenarios did not occur to me.

Could you comment on why the US is going for an all F-22/F-35 fleet, and abandoning non stealth jets altogether?

The answer is simple - cost, keeping an out of production fighter in service and operational becomes more expensive with each passing year. Also, the more types you have in service the less efficient you are.. Think about, training, logistics and knowledge required to support legacy programs. Many don't realize that a single F-35 has more computing power than the PAF's entire fleet of F-16's. There is no way we can get that kind of performance form legacy fighters, there is just no room for it.

Also, the F-35 is not a good fit for India. Just in case anyone thinks I support the authors point of view.

 

[gambit]

He pretends that this is the reason for criticising vertical landing aircrafts, and then attacks it. Create a strawman and attack it. Has anybody really argued against the F-35 for that reason? How does he think harriers land on the Viraat? Are there any large, gaping holes in the deck of the Viraat?

Yes...

Sky Talk: Wanted: Way to cool off carrier decks

...of the F-35B short-takeoff-vertical landing variant, the Navy is hoping somebody out there can find a solution that will keep these planes from wrecking its flight decks.

It was a short lived criticism. But the significance is how quickly did that criticism came up and propagate. We can say thanks to the Internet for that, but we can also question the critics' motives if any of them have done adequate research.

The -35's engine exhaust is indeed higher than what the Harrier produce. But what the critics missed is duration of the intensity that is directed onto the deck -- short. We are talking about over 300 meters length of high grade steel, plenty for conducting/dissipating heat, and not all aircrafts on deck are running anyway.

Bottom line is that the -35's critics are searching and straining at anything to make effective their criticisms.

 

[ZYXW]

@Dillinger @arp2041 @Ayush @ZYXW @Jade @janon @Ajaxpaul @godofwar
@Guynextdoor2 @KRAIT @sandy_3126 @Joe Shearer @jbgt90 @Bang Galore

@Chinese-Dragon @neehar @JohnSeb @Samantak @kurup @Syama Ayas @RISING SUN

I am confused....so is india buying this or going to make it?

 

[tvsram1992]

An excellent fighter . Wish to see combo of F35 and PAKFA in Indian Armed Forces .

 

[Luffy 500]

A fail dead project counting its last breath. Rather the JSF programme partners should force US to shelve plans of an all in one fighter i.e F35 and concentrate on converting it to a 4.5 gen simple air superiority fighter.

 

[SpArK]

I guess a better engine and lower production costs will make it a potent fighter for the future.

Since its US , i know they will do it.