f-35

Watching the vectored thrust whip down right at the deck edge and the elevator reverse from the normal "up elevator" position to full down during those takeoffs is just eerie. Cool too.
 
I always thought the Harrier looked like it shouldn't fly. Cool as it is, this thing REALLY looks like a major malfunction waiting to happen.

With all of its Transformer-like hatches, flight controls, and thrust vectoring, I wonder how much payload is left on this vertical jump-jet version of the F-35?
 
That will make for some impressive demos at airshows, and cool Youtube videos. I'm not sure what else it gains us, if anything.
 
Jay Honeck said:
I always thought the Harrier looked like it shouldn't fly. Cool as it is, this thing REALLY looks like a major malfunction waiting to happen.

With all of its Transformer-like hatches, flight controls, and thrust vectoring, I wonder how much payload is left on this vertical jump-jet version of the F-35?
Click to expand...
I'm more concerned with what it's battlefield range really is.

If you can get a disaassembled one into a C17, it would be significant in a non-nuclear 3rd wold conflict. But if you can't.....not so sure what it means.
 
SteveR said:
That will make for some impressive demos at airshows, and cool Youtube videos. I'm not sure what else it gains us, if anything.
Click to expand...

Stealth off of a small boat.

All of the F-35 models share the same characteristics. The F-35 will be very good at "kicking the door in" in the first days of battle, but after that, its lack of range and payload will be very limiting. Also, it has lower aerodynamic performance than the F-16 and F-18 it is supposed to replace. The fighter guys can't be happy about that.
 
To be stealthy, it can carry 2 JDAMs and two self defense missiles, or four missiles in the AA role. Anything more has to be racked on the wings, meaning no stealth. The airplane is built entirely around stealth, and is very limited in capability as a result, IMO. Especially considering the huge stealth advantage of the USA is untested in combat against any first-rate military force.
 
A guy who finagled a ride in a Harrier said the pilot briefed him on the eject scenario. The pilot told him that if he heard "eject" on his headset he should do so immediately, and not assume the pilot would be in the plane to repeat the command.

Jay Honeck said:
I always thought the Harrier looked like it shouldn't fly. Cool as it is, this thing REALLY looks like a major malfunction waiting to happen.

With all of its Transformer-like hatches, flight controls, and thrust vectoring, I wonder how much payload is left on this vertical jump-jet version of the F-35?
Click to expand...
 
I knew a USMC Harrier pilot who told me there are two kinds, those who have ejected and those who will.

A friend of mine who was the original F-18 test pilot and later Director of DoD Operational Test and Evaluation once told me the AV-8 had never taken off vertically and dropped anything on the bad guys. I suspect that is still true.

The F-35 is a STOVL aircraft which means it was not designed to take off vertically and do anything useful. For combat it will use a short ground (or ship deck) run to get airborne.

I call it MacNamara's revenge since his plan to make both the USAF and USN use the F-111 failed. The Aardvark turned out to be a fine aircraft for the USAF, even if it did have side by side seating demanded by the USN. ;)

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
A friend of mine who was the original F-18 test pilot and later Director of DoD Operational Test and Evaluation once told me the AV-8 had never taken off vertically and dropped anything on the bad guys. I suspect that is still true.
Click to expand...

IIRC, Vertical takeoffs weren't the SOP for bombing missions. A vertical takeoff minimizes the payload capacity. A running takeoff lets them carry more; this is why the Harrier carriers had "Ski Jumps".

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
IIRC, Vertical takeoffs weren't the SOP for bombing missions. A vertical takeoff minimizes the payload capacity. A running takeoff lets them carry more; this is why the Harrier carriers had "Ski Jumps".

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
I recall seeing photos of Brit Harriers doing vertical takeoffs in the Falklands. Don't recall if they had a payload or not, but I suspect not.

I have observed a ton of USMC AV-8 ops and have never seen them do a Vertical T/O.
 
About a year ago I was working for the US Air Force as a civilian employee and I got a mass email from AF asking if anyone was interested in becoming a F35 pilot. You had to go through a board of directors to get nominated, etc. I recall they even had an application for civilian pilots who were interested in becoming instructors. I can't remember how many hours you needed, but I do know you had to have experience flying fighters like the F16 and F15.

What a cool gig!
 
redshift said:
About a year ago I was working for the US Air Force as a civilian employee and I got a mass email from AF asking if anyone was interested in becoming a F35 pilot. You had to go through a board of directors to get nominated, etc. I recall they even had an application for civilian pilots who were interested in becoming instructors. I can't remember how many hours you needed, but I do know you had to have experience flying fighters like the F16 and F15.

What a cool gig!
Click to expand...

Until very recently, that job has basically been a non-flying tour. I expect they will probably start getting more jets and actually flying sometime soon, but it's been kind of a joke thus far "cool, have fun flying the JSF"......of all the people I've known to go to the JSF, I know 0 who have actually flown one, to include people who are already done with their entire tours there.

It will probably be very cool in the next 2-3 years though :)

My guess is that the civilian applicant part is for sim instructors. When I went through the Hornet FRS, there were a bunch of civilian sim instructors, mainly retired F-4/A-7/F-18 folks. They taught early fams, some bombing stuff, and pretty much turned the air-to-air stuff over to the regular IP's who were current in tactics and training specific stan. Really good gig, I know they get paid very well for their services (in addition to said mil retirement), and are an invaluable source of experience for the new guys coming in.
 
That's probably what it was. Still, to be a sim pilot with today's sim technology---oooh yea! Play "games" at work all day?? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top