New Jet, F35B

Discussion in 'The Club House' started by Daoust_Nat, Jan 11, 2012.

  1. Daoust_Nat

    Daoust_Nat Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,416
    51
    48
    Just got this from someone. Have not spent any time looking for bona fides. Good video.

    This video link 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.
    No catapult... No hook.... It’s a new world out there!
    The shape and scope of warfare – worldwide – just changed.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Ki86x1WKPmE&feature=colike
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2012
  2. firedawg60

    firedawg60 New Member

    365
    0
    0
    That's pretty cool. When I was in AZ last spring I got to watch a BUNCH or harriers. Those are cool.
     

  3. Vincine

    Vincine New Member

    3,495
    0
    0
    Very nice video.

    I understand the issue with the Harriers is range. They are thirsty when utilizing their vertical abilities, and VERY thirsty when heavy with ordinance. Maybe not so much a problem in forward bases, maybe without runways, providing real close ground support (what I believe they were intended for), but big disadvantage when flying off a carrier that’s on station safely way the hell out at sea.

    At least that’s what I read someplace.

    No doubt the F35 is more efficient fuel wise than the Harrier, but still, all things being equal . .
     
  4. BigByrd47119

    BigByrd47119 New Member

    3,426
    0
    0
    F-35B isn't per-say a new fighter. Its simply a variation of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The JSF series was designed to be a cost savings application as it would use one basic fighter design to service all branches of the military.

    From Wikipedia:
    Emphasis added by myself.

    These will be increasingly important as Congress scrapped the F-22's...

    The remarkable vote to kill the F-22 and what it means for America's military future. - Slate Magazine

    As a side note, how dare McCain quote Eisenhower's concern over the military-industrial complex! Of course he does, then a few years later he turns around and co-sponsors the NDAA...but that's a discussion for another time...
     
  5. Bigdog57

    Bigdog57 New Member

    413
    0
    0
    We will miss those extra F-22 Raptors when the Chinese get bolder and start attacking our interests and allies.
    The F-35 is a boondoggle waiting to fail. Another Senate-approved committee-designed compromise to make one basic airframe do many very disimlar tasks and missions for three very different services with very different requirements..... in a 'light fighter' no less! Doesn't have the air combat acumen of the F-22, doesn't carry the air-to-mud ordnance load of the F/A-18 Hornet, and will again end up 'too expensive' to risk in actual combat, requiring us to maintain the older aircraft it is to 'replace'.
    Been there, done that, too many times. Our fighting forces deserve better.
    This aircraft was originally intended to augment the F-22, the way the F-16 Fighting Falcon augmented the F-15 Eagle. Different aircraft for different missions.
    Drop a few of these failed Social Programs, drop the horrendous abomination of obamacare looming in our very near future - we could have doubled our fleet of F-22 Raptors. Close military bases in foreign lands that hate us, ditto! :mad:
     
  6. MrWray

    MrWray New Member

    6,424
    0
    0
    I was under the impression that the F-22 Raptor was the best fighter jet made right now?
     
  7. BigByrd47119

    BigByrd47119 New Member

    3,426
    0
    0
    It is (was).

    They just decided that we cannot afford to drop that much money on a plane that can fall/fail/be shot down. They tell us that there is no serious need for them moving forward.

    I disagree and highlight the fact that the F-4 was originally manufactured with no cannon/machine gun because the desk jockeys at the Pentagon were convinced that conventional dog fighting (using cannons/guns) was dead after Korea due to the advent of missiles such as the sidewinder.

    This, of course, was a huge mistake due to a number of mechanical issues experienced with the missiles and also because of the missiles natural shortcomings. So, how did they fix it? They manufactured "gun pods" that attached under the body of the fighter.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQvObtxH2EY]F-4 PHANTOM II M61 VULCAN 20mm GATLING GUN CANNOM VIETNAM WAR - YouTube[/ame]