Cool vid of F-35 carrier testing.

[93STLTH]

I didn't realize they were that far along in the VSTOL version of the F-35. Cool stuff!!

[TT4ME]

Awesome!!

[nodoze]

if it can land vertically why can it not take off vertically? i see the take off speeds are much slower than other jets allowing for less runway needed . Maybe its and obvious answer but regardless idk

[aaronatstate]

if it can land vertically why can it not take off vertically? i see the take off speeds are much slower than other jets allowing for less runway needed . Maybe its and obvious answer but regardless idk

It can take off vertically if it has too. But my guess is it can take off at a higher weight if it doesn't take off vertically.

There are 3 versions of the F35, the A, B, and C. The A is a conventional take off and landing jet for the Air Force. The B is a VSTOL to replace the Harrier Jump Jet for the Marines. The C is for the Navy and is designed for carrier operations.

[AgentOblivious]

This far along? The X-35 demonstrated STOVL back in 2001. I don't think it can do a vertical takeoff...and wasn't meant to in any reasonable combat situation, hence Short Takeoff...its impressive, even if its a mix of american and soviet tech from 30 years ago, and some trick code on the onboard computers.

[aaronatstate]

This far along? The X-35 demonstrated STOVL back in 2001. I don't think it can do a vertical takeoff...and wasn't meant to in any reasonable combat situation, hence Short Takeoff...its impressive, even if its a mix of american and soviet tech from 30 years ago, and some trick code on the onboard computers.

It can take off vertically, if it has the ability to land vertically. If just can't take off vertically if it is loaded to heavily.

[IPD]

it's STOVL. that's Short Take Off, Vertical Land. it was never designed to take off vertically--and even if it does, it's usefulness would be severely hampered (i.e. no bombs, no gas). besides, it doesn't NEED to take off vertically. it just needs a compressed space within which to launch.

[whitedragon]

This far along? The X-35 demonstrated STOVL back in 2001.

The F-35 has been plagued with delay after delay for sure, but they keep throwing money at it.

[Mikes2nd]

for a low low price of 300 million a piece! Wowser! Seriously can we have ferrari build these? It would be ALOT cheaper

And its junk

The Helmet mounted display system does not work properly.
The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard.
The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service.
The F-35C's arresting hook does not work.
There are classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth.[101]
The wing buffet is worse than previously reported.
The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan.
The flight test program has yet to explore the most challenging areas.
The software development is behind schedule.
The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, too nose-heavy for VTOL operations.
There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft.
The automated logistics system does not work properly.
And the lightning protection on the F-35 Lightning II is uncertified, with areas of concern.

Those houses in Virginia cost alot... this is the "most expensive military project in history"...

Cost estimates have risen to $382 billion for 2,443 aircraft, at an average of $156 million each. The rising program cost estimates have cast doubt on the actual number to be produced for the U.S. In January 2011, the F-35B variant was placed on "probation" for two years because of development problems. In February 2011, the Pentagon put a price of $207.6 million for each of the 32 aircraft to be acquired in FY2012, rising to $304.15 million ($9,732.8/32) if its share of RDT&E spending is included.[15][16]

where is Ron Paul when you need him?

[IPD]

for a low low price of 135 million a piece! Wowser!

And its junk




Those houses in Virginia cost alot... this is the "most expensive military project in history"...



where is Ron Paul when you need him?

speculatoin, bs, etc. every time you hear of a "price figure", no one ever actually specifies what it specifically entails. sure they break it down on a "per unit" basis...but what exactly does that entail? raw manufacturing cost? annual operating costs? airframe projected lifetime service costs? (i don't remember the exact terminology, but you get the gist).

and yet...even IF there was grounds to balk at the costs of this program, what...pray tell...is our alternative? more 4th gen fighters that are already out of production and handily demonstrated to be woefully incapable for future combat? keep our current crop of fighters that have long since exceeded their design service life....in combat? repel the enemy with sticks and bottle rockets?