If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTKR)   Marines, Navy test the vertical-landing F-35B aboard the USS Wasp   (wtkr.com) divider line 30
    More: Spiffy, USS Wasp, F-35C, wasps, navies, Navy testing, Patuxent River  
•       •       •

4790 clicks; posted to Video » on 20 Aug 2013 at 9:28 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



30 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-20 08:01:49 AM
cdn.motinetwork.net
 
2013-08-20 08:11:24 AM
Can anyone explain to me why the Navy even wants this capability?  I mean, yes that is indeed pretty slick, but of what use it it?
 
2013-08-20 09:27:28 AM

nekom: Can anyone explain to me why the Navy even wants this capability?  I mean, yes that is indeed pretty slick, but of what use it it?


It's a replacement for the Marine's Harrier.  Of course it's a lot more expensive than the Harrier, and carries 1/3 less fuel than the F-35A, and can only pull 7 Gs in a turn, and can't land vertically with ordinance on board.  But at least it's someone to share the costs with.
 
2013-08-20 09:31:22 AM
www.carlspackler.com
 
2013-08-20 09:37:55 AM

nekom: Can anyone explain to me why the Navy even wants this capability?  I mean, yes that is indeed pretty slick, but of what use it it?


It's a supersonic stealth aircraft capable of carrying a modern weapons load with highly advanced avionics and can hover on station for at least 10 minutes (probably more...that's just what it did last November) and can take off an land in a tiny area.  This aircraft is incredible.  I think there are a couple of sites out there going into a little detail about the potential missions and there are a lot being dreamed up.  But it is going to replace a bunch of other aging jets and I think it's a little cheaper if I remember correctly.
 
2013-08-20 09:41:24 AM

nekom: Can anyone explain to me why the Navy even wants this capability?  I mean, yes that is indeed pretty slick, but of what use it it?


Why do they build tanks and shiat that they know they'll never use? The military is a bottomless money pit. They don't care what they spend it on.
 
2013-08-20 09:44:32 AM

Marcus Aurelius: nekom: Can anyone explain to me why the Navy even wants this capability?  I mean, yes that is indeed pretty slick, but of what use it it?

It's a replacement for the Marine's Harrier.  Of course it's a lot more expensive than the Harrier, and carries 1/3 less fuel than the F-35A, and can only pull 7 Gs in a turn, and can't land vertically with ordinance on board.  But at least it's someone to share the costs with.


The Navy never really wanted it, the Marines did because they got obsessed with having close in air support from their amphibious assault ships when Navy carriers aren't hanging around.

The argument has been made that having the S/VOTL capability has more or less ruined the aircraft's other functionality. Worth a read if you have... 26 minutes?
 
2013-08-20 09:54:29 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum: The Navy never really wanted it, the Marines did because they got obsessed with having close in air support from their amphibious assault ships when Navy carriers aren't hanging around.


Yeah, they still aren't happy about that whole disappearing act at Guadalcanal.
 
2013-08-20 10:32:55 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum: The argument has been made that having the S/VOTL capability has more or less ruined the aircraft's other functionality. Worth a read if you have... 26 minutes?


fascinating read.

i particularly liked this bit:

To add insult to strategic injury, one of the most modern Chinese prototype warplanes might actually be an illicit near-copy of the F-35 - albeit a more intelligent copy that wisely omits the most compromising aspects of the U.S. plane. It's possible that in some future war, America's JSFs could be shot down by faster, deadlier, Chinese-made JSF clones.
 
2013-08-20 10:57:46 AM

UberDave: But it is going to replace a bunch of other aging jets and I think it's a little cheaper if I remember correctly


If by "cheaper" you mean "three to five times more expensive than the planes they're replacing", then you are correct.
 
2013-08-20 11:51:44 AM
In its first operational mission, the F-35B killed all the fun of landing on an aircraft carrier.
 
2013-08-20 12:04:25 PM
Just curious, but why didn't the USN adopt the Harrier way back when? I know the marines used it, I'm just curious why the rest of your forces didn't?
 
2013-08-20 02:02:11 PM

indarwinsshadow: Just curious, but why didn't the USN adopt the Harrier way back when? I know the marines used it, I'm just curious why the rest of your forces didn't?


The Harrier has serious limitations in terms of weapons load, range, speed and electronics. Earlier versions didn't even have radar. Not something you'd want to put up against a Tomcat with Phoenix missiles.
 
2013-08-20 02:49:40 PM

nekom: Can anyone explain to me why the Navy even wants this capability?  I mean, yes that is indeed pretty slick, but of what use it it?


Operationally, it opens up several classes of ships to operate fixed wing assets.
 
2013-08-20 03:30:07 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: Operationally, it opens up several classes of ships to operate fixed wing assets.


Not to mention dodgy areas with no landing strips. I doubt these will be forwardly deployed anytime soon however.
 
2013-08-20 03:45:25 PM

UberDave: ... can hover on station for at least 10 minutes ... can take off an land in a tiny area ... is going to replace a bunch of other aging jets...


None of which it can do with stores on board, just like the Harrier.  And max operational hover time is significantly less than ten minutes, closer to two-three, with a max altitude of @ 10,000 feet, well within range of many common AA systems.  The ten-minute record was set in a controlled environment.

And "replace"?  I don't see it.
 
2013-08-20 04:18:01 PM
On the plus side, it will probably be the last manned fighter we'll build.
 
2013-08-20 04:21:22 PM

indarwinsshadow: Just curious, but why didn't the USN adopt the Harrier way back when? I know the marines used it, I'm just curious why the rest of your forces didn't?


it was incredibly difficult and dangerous to fly.
 
2013-08-20 04:33:39 PM

Thunderboy: .  And max operational hover time is significantly less than ten minutes, closer to two-three, with a max altitude of @ 10,000 feet, well within range of many common AA systems.  The ten-minute record was set in a controlled environment.



Hover time is for getting on and off the deck and party tricks.  No one is going to be hovering a F-35 while waiting for targets so max hover time and max hover altitude are pretty much meaningless.  Loiter time, however, is important.  The USMC is using it to replace legacy Hornets, which it has a comparable combat radius to, so it's really not an issue that the F-35 has short legs.

That said, it's still a crappy over price hunk of garbage.
 
2013-08-20 05:57:14 PM

Click Click D'oh: Hover time is for getting on and off the deck and party tricks.


Yes, my comment was in response to "can hover on station for at least 10 minutes".

The entire program is a gleaming example of when bad ideas refuse to die.
 
2013-08-20 06:14:02 PM
Thunderboy:bYes, my comment was in response to "can hover on station for at least 10 minutes".

Ah sorry, missed the original stupid.
 
2013-08-20 08:18:02 PM

Thunderboy: Click Click D'oh: Hover time is for getting on and off the deck and party tricks.

Yes, my comment was in response to "can hover on station for at least 10 minutes".

The entire program is a gleaming example of when bad ideas refuse to die.


Hovering huh?
upload.wikimedia.org
/AF vet
 
2013-08-20 08:59:24 PM
So, local government cutbacks are approaching the point where they can't afford to fill potholes in the roads or provide emergency police response, state investment in higher education has been cut by 50% or more in many places, Federal sequestration is going to cut 600,000 research jobs over the next three years, but HEY WE HAVE A FARKING HOVERJET
 
2013-08-21 12:51:14 AM
A Jet and a Helicopter all in one! And cheap too only 160 Mil per plane and cheap and easy to maintain too only 9 mil per year to fly and maintain! Good thing we're buying 2,547 of them!
 
2013-08-21 01:43:51 AM

snowjack: So, local government cutbacks are approaching the point where they can't afford to fill potholes in the roads or provide emergency police response, state investment in higher education has been cut by 50% or more in many places, Federal sequestration is going to cut 600,000 research jobs over the next three years, but HEY WE HAVE A FARKING HOVERJET


Smooth roads, safe bridges, clean water, educated young people and a bunch of eggheads ain't gonna help you kill gooks, spooks, and suicide bombers, son.
 
2013-08-21 04:18:02 AM
I've been seeing a bit of F-35 complaints on the interwebs, how it's practically outperformed in nearly every measure by Russian T-50 and Chinese J-20 fighters, and how we should all be mad at our government for such a flop.  But most times those articles fail to mention the F-22 was intended as the premier fighter, and that the F-35 was intended to be multi-role and full of performance compromises.  I guess the F-35 is the focus, of what seems to me to be lazy, sensationalist journalism, since it's still in production and still working through the problems of its various configurations.

No, I don't work for a Lockheed contractor, subcontractor, or even in a state in which components are built AFAIK.  No, I am not a military hardware expert;  Maybe I have too much reliance on Wikipedia.  But it does make sense to me to have both the F-22 and F-35 (and variants).  While the cost seems excessive over estimates, maybe I should be smoking something to believe that the politicians were somehow partially right in that there's money to be saved by replacing an aging and varied air fleet (average 25+ years) with a common platform and shared components.  But save the A-10, for some reason I like that plane.

/tldr; F-22 and F-35 good, old planes bad, except A-10
 
2013-08-21 04:43:47 AM

muck1969: I've been seeing a bit of F-35 complaints on the interwebs, how it's practically outperformed in nearly every measure by Russian T-50 and Chinese J-20 fighters, and how we should all be mad at our government for such a flop.  But most times those articles fail to mention the F-22 was intended as the premier fighter, and that the F-35 was intended to be multi-role and full of performance compromises.  I guess the F-35 is the focus, of what seems to me to be lazy, sensationalist journalism, since it's still in production and still working through the problems of its various configurations.

No, I don't work for a Lockheed contractor, subcontractor, or even in a state in which components are built AFAIK.  No, I am not a military hardware expert;  Maybe I have too much reliance on Wikipedia.  But it does make sense to me to have both the F-22 and F-35 (and variants).  While the cost seems excessive over estimates, maybe I should be smoking something to believe that the politicians were somehow partially right in that there's money to be saved by replacing an aging and varied air fleet (average 25+ years) with a common platform and shared components.  But save the A-10, for some reason I like that plane.

/tldr; F-22 and F-35 good, old planes bad, except A-10




Don't forget the B-52s.
 
2013-08-21 11:39:23 AM
Or the Ramones.
 
2013-08-21 03:11:35 PM

studebaker hoch: Or the Ramones.


Or the Alamo...damn Japanese bombing the Alamo
 
2013-08-21 05:23:52 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Of course it's a lot more expensive than the Harrier, and carries 1/3 less fuel than the F-35A, and can only pull 7 Gs in a turn, and can't land vertically with ordinance on board.  But at least it's someone to share the costs with.


Sure it can. Once.
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report