($243 million dollar) F-35B STOVL fighter goes supersonic

[unhappycamper]

F-35B STOVL fighter goes supersonic
By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Jun 14, 2010 16:44:02 EDT

The short-takeoff and vertical-landing version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter flew past the sound barrier June 10, becoming the first U.S. STOVL aircraft to exceed that milestone.

Marine Corps pilot Lt. Col. Matt Kelly flew the F-35B test aircraft, known as BF-2, to a speed of Mach 1.07, or 727 miles per hour. The test run took place at an altitude of 30,000 feet over an off-shore supersonic test track near Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.

The achievement came on the aircraft’s 30th test flight. Aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin reported that Kelly accomplished 21 unique test points during the flight, including validation of roll, pitch, yaw and propulsion performance. Further testing, according to Lockheed, will gradually expand the flight envelope out to the aircraft’s top speed of Mach 1.6 — a speed the aircraft is designed to reach while carrying a full internal weapons load of more than 3,000 pounds.

Customers for the F-35B include the Marine Corps and the British Royal Navy. The aircraft is to be the first JSF version to become operational, and is scheduled to enter service with the Marines in late 2012.

Two F-35A conventional takeoff-and-landing test aircraft produced for the Air Force also have broken the sound barrier.


:woohoo:

[old mark]

1. 2 good things about it - it is supposed to be a verygood aircraft and

several foreign governments seem interested in buying some, which may help with the cost a little...
All the versions share some common parts, no?


mark

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

2. uhh... mediocre at best and the foreign customers are in revolt

otherwise, sure.

If the JSF were being built in China dozens of people would have been executed by now, the sooner this flying abortion is canceled the better for everyone.

[wmbrew0206]

3. Not sure where you are getting your info, the plane is great, the program administration is

the issue.

Every pilot I've talked to who has worked on the project or flown the bird, will tell you it is the best aircraft they have ever flown. This is the bird that allowed President Obama ordered fewer F-22 Raptors. There are over 10 partner nations on this aircraft which will help reduce future costs of parts and upgrades.

There is no doubt that the administration of this program has been terrible. There have been multiple cost over runs and other issues. However, that doesn't change the fact this is an amazing aircraft.

[old mark]

4. That is the opinion I get, too - the Euros tend to make multipurpose

aircraft - like the current British fighter/attack/bomber- the Eurofighter Typhoon - Link:

http://www.eurofighter.com/

and keep them in service for many years with upgrades and re-designs to the basic models.
If they like this plane - and they do-it must be well made and have potential for long and multi role service...
I'm thinking B-52 here...


mark

[Statistical]

10. Some of the longest lifespan aircraft have been US multi-role fighters.

The F35 will be no different.

People look at something like F-16 and forget it was first produced 34 years ago. It has been in use for decades by over 25 nations who have ordered a total of 4,400 airframes and hundreds of billions in replacement parts.

Same thing with the F-18 (1978, 22 nations, 1480 airframes). Naval aircraft tends to see less oveseas support mainly because very few nations can afford/need Naval launch capabilities.

[krispos42]

15. And don't forget the F-4 Phantom II

They made well over 5,000 of those, and they did everything! Long-range interception, fleet defense, close-combat fighter, close-air ground support, attack runs with dumb and smart bombs, flak supression, and Wild Weasel anti-radar missions.


Whoever decided that a fighter plane should only have one pilot and one engine was an idiot. That may have been valid in World War Two, but with jet engines and electronic warfare you can have two of each and only be better for it.

[MajorChode]

5. The plane is lousy if there is no need for it

The B2 might be a "great" plane from a technological standpoint, but it was designed to penetrate USSR radar defenses far enough to launch cruise missiles at Russian interior cities. So from a practical and economic standpoint, it is an utter failure.

US military spending is completely out of control. Instead of looking at what we really need and can get by with and designing a plane with that in mind, the US looks at what is possible.

The F-35 program will be more expensive than what we spend on post secondary education for the entire nation. There's something wrong with that. Someone has the guns vs butter model all fucked up.

[wmbrew0206]

6. The F-35 (FB-2) is not designed to penetrate USSR radar defenses

This is the replacement for the AV-8B Harrier. It is meant to be able to take off of LHD's and support Marine Corps ground troops with CAS and provide air protection to Helo's and different bombing packages. From this standpoint alone it is a huge improvement over the Harrier (aka the Carolina lawn dart).

Also, you do realize that the Russian's technology on radar is the standard for non-NATO countries, right?

[MajorChode]

7. Please take the time to read what I wrote

By B2, I meant these:


To put things in terms that might be simpler to understand I'll use an analogy. If I have a 30 year old Yugo, one might be able to make the argument that I need a replacement. However, if the Yugo was capable of completing my mission and I replace it with a Bugatti Veyron while my family goes without proper food and clothing, someone might question the wisdom of my decision.

[wmbrew0206]

8. Why bring an old airframe into this conversation?

The B-2 was design and produced during the later stages of the cold war. It is a 20 year old aircraft.

The newer JSF FB-2 is design to do all the things I listed above. It is a very relevant aircraft for the next 30 years. Also, the AF, Navy, and Marine Corps will all go to this platform savings billions in part costs and upgrades that having up to 10 different platforms would cost.

I agree with you about defense spending. It has to come down, but I hate it when the DoD takes the steps necessary to develop savings over the long haul and people bitch about the up front capital costs. Going to one common platform is what the military should have done a long time ago. Since they did not, doing it for the first with a 5th generation fighter was going to cause some problems. Adding in partner nations makes it even more complicated. However building a 5th gen fighter would still be cheaper in the long run than maintaining and upgrading 10 different platforms.

[MajorChode]

14. My wife likes to use that logic also

She will find an incredible 10% off sale at the shoe store and then brag about all the money she is "saving" me.

The F-16 costs about $25 million each to produce in today's dollars. The F-35 will cost about $90 million each to produce which doesn't include R&D which is substantial. The $90 million figure is simply LM's estimate and given military contractors' overrun cost track record, there's not much reason to believe the $90 million figure won't go through the roof. So perhaps you think the taxpayer is getting a great deal here. I tend not to agree. Even if the argument can be made that we actually need an entirely new fighter (and I'm not so convinced), you still have the problem that when you actually give the military these kinds of capabilities, you will eventually get a presidunce that wants to find a use for it. I prefer the approach France and Germany have, which is the much greater emphasis on butter and much less on guns.

[wmbrew0206]

16. Then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. It's my opinion we need this bird.

I can respect your opinion to want to keep what we have and continue to up grade them.

I think we can agree that at some point, there is a point where the development and acquisition costs of the JSF will be the same as keeping the current fleet and upgrading each platform individually. I believe that it will happen a lot sooner than you do.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

17. We need the JSF as the program was conceived, we DON'T need what Lock-Mart has delivered

Starting all the way back with the F-4 the military has struggled with the increasing cost of each generation of fighter aircraft, as a result with each passing generation fewer and fewer aircraft are spread thinner and thinner. The entire intent of the JSF program was through ruthless cost controls and enormous economies of scale the "death spiral" as it was called could be tamed and the current generation of aircraft could be replaced on a 1:1 basis across NATO and our other allies. The greatest concern on the part of the Pentagon was that without an answer the combat airforces of NATO and others such as Australia would simply cease to exist.

Neither the ruthless cost controls or economies of scale have been realized.

In the case of Canada to JSF will take their airforce down to a total of SIXTY FIVE combat aircraft in the mid-80's the Canadians had nearly five hundred. The same will go for any European countries that actually go ahead and buy this thing.

Maybe things would have been different if Boeing won the competition, they probably wouldn't have delivered the thing until 2045 but the costs probably wouldn't have spiralled out of control either.

The Lockheed F-35, or at the very least the conventional variants needs to be canceled immediately having failed at its ONLY objective. I will find Jesus if the fly-away cost on this thing when all is said and done is under $120,000,000 a plane.

[old mark]

11. Also, there is no more USSR left to penetrate.......nt

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

9. How about a poor bastard working on it and a navy test pilot?

One of my friends has been working on the JSF program form the beginning with BAe and another is a Navy test pilot, both of whom couldn't have a lower opinion of the F-35 if they tried. The VTOL variant might be massively more capable than the Harrier but the conventional F-35 is virtually useless.

Like the F-22 this monstrosity will never be built in large enough numbers to strategically matter having priced itself out of its mission. This thing was supposed to come in under $40,000,000 a plane - it was the entire purpose of the program. Instead we have the F-22's Mini Me.

[wmbrew0206]

12. All I can tell you is that the contracters and pilots I know who are working on this aircraft

really love it and agree it is a huge step forward over our current capabilities.

This bird is designed to be a CAS platform and provide some air to air protection to assualt support aircraft. Navy pilots might not like it because it is not as much of an air to air platform as the F-18, but the Navy doesn't due CAS all that well.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

13. and I am sure it will get a standing ovation at fleet week too

The purpose of the JSF program was to replace a wide variety of NATO aircraft with a single platform in conventional, carrier and VTOL configurations. Above all else it was to be economical enough to be built in the thousands for NATO airforces of all sizes and budgets. To this end the program is a total failure at $112 million (and climbing) per conventional aircraft.

The JSF as it has evolved is only indispensable to the Marines and Royal Navy who require it to replace the Harrier and they alone and the 400 odd aircraft between them isn't enough to save the program from cancelation as costs continue to spiral out of control.

We and our allies are fighting wars against guys in caves, not the Soviet Union and China. We and our allies wouldn't be much worse off with A-4's.

[Tesha]

18. How much would it cost (in today's dollars) to build more A10 "Warthogs"? (NT)

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

20. What an insensitive question!

How can you ask such a thing without thinking of Lockheed Martin's shareholder value? Dividends don't pay for themselves mister and neither do $15 million dollar airplanes!

[Mopar151]

23. An excellent question

Our military "turf wars" over competing missions and weapons systems killed the Warthog - which is a shame.

[lies and propaganda]

19. My dads is working on this!!!!

When he just explained the in's and out's of this to me, I died!

I doubt we will see the progress in our lifetime, but just imagine!

he said it traveled 15,000 miles per second for 3 seconds!!!!!!!!!!!

[Regret My New Name]

21. I think you're thinking about the wrong thing...

Do you mean the X-51 scramjet thing?

[Fumesucker]

22. Umm.. 15,000 miles per second is nearly 10% of light speed..

Or in this case, ludicrous speed..