http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Ki86x1WKPmE

awesome video!

At least my tax dollars bought something cool....allegedly.

It's "cool," I guess.

 

But, it's got A LOT of moving parts and many ways to fail.

 

I wouldn't want to put my nation's security in the hands of that failure-prone thing, but that's what we're doing. yay

 

My prayers are with the pilots and their families.

way to much maintence and down time, can buy multiple f-18s for price of one of these

Very nice, would like to hear how the pilots like it compared to the Harrier. Don't know anything about this new one, but just looking at the way it fly's, it sure looks a lot more stable than the Harrier.

Is it stealth? Cool.

very cool.. makes my 1911 feel inferior.

very cool

Is it capable for full vertical take off? Or just landing? I take it it can hover?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ but cool

Is it capable for full vertical take off? Or just landing? I take it it can hover?

 

STOVL, only, no vertical takeoffs.

pretty cool! can't wait for when they start transforming!

pretty cool! can't wait for when they start transforming!

Excellent, I approve this response.

 

I'm kind of surprised this thing is still in the mix, considering every other DOD investment has been chopped or frozen.

Certainly baller status level stuff. Unfortunately it isn't feasible, and the costs outweigh the benefit. Like many programs and aircraft like this, I wouldn't expect there to be many of these things, and they will have minimal operation use, if any.

Chinese copy in 3...2....1...

 

All kidding aside. I'm thrilled with the technological advancements we have made with the F-35 and F-22 programs. I'm not so thrilled over the cost over-runs, political manipulation, and mismanagement of these programs. I'm betting 1/3rd or more of the R&D costs were wasted on BS.

 

Complexity is inevitably going to go up, but just like their predecessors before them, the crews, tools, and techniques will adapt. I'm boggled over the 150-200M pricetag these things have attached to them. I think that will drop to around 90M once they start mass production, but still ... that's a bunch of coin.

when i was in the navy i was on the uss austin lpd-4 small helo deck well kinda medium anyways we had a harrier land on it one day talk about blow your socks off bad a**!

Wicked awesome!

 

Just out of curiosity...if damaged or a malfunction occurs and they do not have the ability to vertical land, are they equipped with a hook for "traditional" landings? I assume "yes," but I know nothing.

I wouldn't swear to it, but I'm pretty sure that like the Harrier, it can take-off vertically. They ususally take-off with a short roll when heavy with fuel and ordinance.

 

I had seen a video a while back of it taking off vertically.

There's 3 models - the conventional takeoff/landing, the short takeoff/vertical landing version, and the carrier variant. It's not vertical takeoff, it's vertical landing.

From Wikip, but correct:

 

STOVL is an acronym for short take off and vertical landing.

This is the ability of some aircraft to take off from a short runway or take off vertically if it does not have a very heavy payload and land vertically (i.e. with no runway). The formal NATO definition (since 1991) is: A Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing aircraft (aéronef à décollage court et atterrissage vertical) is a fixed-wing aircraft capable of clearing a 15 m (50 ft) obstacle within 450 m (1,500 ft) of commencing take-off run, and capable of landing vertically.^[1]

On aircraft carriers, non-catapult assisted fixed wing short-takeoffs are accomplished with the use of thrust vectoring, that may also be used in conjunction with a runway "ski-jump". STOVL use tends to allow aircraft to carry a larger payload as compared to during VTOL use, while still only requiring a short runway. The most famous examples are the Hawker Siddeley Harrier and the Sea Harrier. Although technically VTOL aircraft, they are operationally STOVL aircraft due to the extra weight carried at take off for fuel and armaments. The same is true of the F-35B Lightning II, which demonstrated VTOL capability in test flights but is operationally STOVL.

There is a older documentary on Nova, "Battle of the X-Planes" where they show the proto-types for this new multi-role aircraft.

 

(As best as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong.) The armed forces wanted one aircraft design that could be used by every branch of the military. The Air Force wanted a stealthy multi-role fighter like the F-22, the Navy wanted an aircraft with the ability to take-off and land on an aircraft carrier like the F-18, the Marines wanted one with Vertical Takeoff and Landing capabilities like the Harrier. Therefore a single aircraft design had to be able to be configured in each of those three versions. This idea was supposed to save money, but there have been huge cost overruns... (why am I not surprised).

 

As of Feb. 2012 the Air Force was upgrading 350 F-16's because F-35 production has been delayed by a host of technical problems. It will be an awesome plane if they can ever work the bugs out.

 

-This program hasn't been put on the chopping block because we put all of our eggs in one basket. We have no other program or option to replace our aging tactical aircraft. It used to be that each branch of the military would give out separate contracts and get aircraft designed specifically for their needs. But, someone had the bright idea to issue one big contract that was to cover a design for everyone. It hasn't worked out so good.

Awesome video I'm sure my dad would have loved to see, as he did his take offs and landings more conventionally on the Wasp. Now I know why I couldn't do vertical take offs in Xbox360 over-G...stupid F35b can't do that

When I worked for Lockheed Martin, I inquired about getting a discount on purchasing an F-35. Nobody ever got back to me.

When I worked for Lockheed Martin, I inquired about getting a discount on purchasing an F-35. Nobody ever got back to me.

 

Lol. The sad thing is me and most people I know couldn't even afford the fuel if they gave one to us for free... not even thinking about maintenance.

way to much maintence and down time, can buy multiple f-18s for price of one of these

True, but the whole point of the f-35 was to make a more affordable f-22. Also like noted above, we are getting 3 different planes, basically for the investment price of 1. Figure if they were to make 3 different planes what the investment cost would be + the over run cost of 3 different planes, because nothing we do is ever on budget. In this case, they made one overall design, and tweaked it 3 different ways.

 

Now, the harrier design will always be "finicky". if i remember correctly i saw a program all about the vertical take off and landing war between the competing countries, and many test pilots died. The biggest factor was stability, it barely had to do with mech. failure, but rather how hard it was to fly the damn things. And just like the the stealth bombers we deploy, the do not fly very well if at all with out pilot assisted programs and the use of gyroscopes.

 

The fact is, people complained about the v-22 just like the f-35, and how it was a mistake waiting to happen, and it has a pretty good track record since deployment.