The one thing more impressive than the F-35B in the air (when it’s working) is the F-35 hovering in the sky and plopping down onto the ground. Watch it for the first time, ever.
Sure, the Harrier jet’s been making vertical manoeuvres for decades, but not with this kind of grace — and not with this kind of fighting capability. One good question, which DefenseTech raises — will carriers like the USS Wasp (no, not from Caddyshack) be able to take the heat? The jet exhaust from the F-35 is immense, and having it all focused on one small part of the deck might cause serious, and unforeseen problems decades down. Basically, this thing might start scorching holes in aircraft carriers. The Wasp’s already installed a heat shield, but nobody knows if that’ll be enough.
Warning: turn the volume down (or off) on this one, unless you like generic crap heavy metal. Some have speculated this is masking ear-blowing noise during landings.
EckyThump
Thursday, October 6, 2011 at 10:08 AM“will carriers be able to take the heat?”
Considering the megabucks spent building the bloody things, you would of thought they would have considered that before hand? Anyway I’m sure a composite of concrete and whatever will solve the problem! As for saying that the Harrier is lacking in grace! I have to disagree,.. and at least they don’t burn holes in the deck! #]
RB
Thursday, October 6, 2011 at 11:05 AMCurrent day carriers are built with cold-war era plane operations in mind, traditional takeoffs and arrested landings. The F-35 is a totally different concept and will require a bit of retrofitting.
Altho, this VTOL capability may reduce the traditional aircraft carrier design, moving away from the giant, slow, floating loot pinata’s they are now, to a distributed capability flotilla of smaller and faster vessels, each with a handful of F-35s to use as required…
Interesting times for naval warfare ahead :)
EckyThump
Thursday, October 6, 2011 at 11:31 AM“Current day carriers are built with cold-war era plane operations in mind”
Yeah I realise that! But they took on the contract for these things ages ago, so they have no excuse for not having sorted the deck before now! I also agree that ACC’s are a giant target and a waste of money. They should be moving towards the British style a long time ago. Australia has already ordered at least one, and will hopefully order more! My son is an Electronics Tech on the HMAS Sydney, and he is hoping to get a play with one soon! #]
Gary Lockhart
Friday, October 7, 2011 at 11:44 PM“The F-35 is a totally different concept and will require a bit of retrofitting.”
Actually it won’t. The F-35C will be launched and recovered in the same manner as “cold war era” tactical aircraft are. The F-35B will be launched and recovered from amphibious assault ships – LHAs/LHDs – in the same manner as the AV-8B already is.
“Altho, this VTOL(sic) capability”
STOVL
“moving away from the giant, slow, floating loot pinata’s they are now,”
So slow moving that one’s accompanying battle group has difficulty keeping up with when the screws are making max revs.
TSH
Thursday, October 6, 2011 at 11:06 AMI’d say an F-22 is more impressive in the air… and AFAIK can shoot down an F-35 in practically any kind of engagement.
Ollie
Thursday, October 6, 2011 at 3:37 PM…except that would be blue on blue?
The F-22 isn’t design for STOL either, or there would be no need for the F35, or this video of it’s carrier capability. Not much good in an F22 if you’re over the middle of the ocean and don’t have enough fuel to make it to the other side =P
Steve
Friday, October 7, 2011 at 8:21 PM1) The F-35 is a decade newer, using technologies from the F-22 and is cheaper due to economies of scale and multinational investment. It will become even more affordable once production kicks in.
2) The F-35 is a multirole fighter, it’s not built for air superiority like the F-22, but is also no slouch in dogfighting.
3) The modern US Air Force hasn’t engaged in a dogfight since the first Gulf War and even this was against the hopelessly out-matched Iraqis.
4) There is greater importance in payload, cost, efficiency, inter-operability and versatility in modern air forces. The F-22 costs $150 million a unit, and built to fight an enemy that does not exist, or would be completely destroyed by the USAF’s current fleet.
Gary Lockhart
Friday, October 7, 2011 at 11:47 PM“I’d say an F-22 is more impressive in the air… and AFAIK can shoot down an F-35 in practically any kind of engagement.”
F-22s are not and will not be navalised; can’t operate from a CVN or LHA/LHD, and are not invincible. Apparently you are not well versed in the differences in the senor suite between the Lightning II and the Raptor.
RobbyM
Thursday, October 6, 2011 at 2:22 PMIs it just me or does the cover just behind the the cockpit (that you see sticking up for take off and landing) look about as aerodynamic as a 35 storey building.
I’d also be curious to see how the F-35 handles a take off (in rough seas) with a full mission load.
Steve
Friday, October 7, 2011 at 8:16 PMIt folds down during flight. It only opens to allow air out of the central turbine during take off and landing. It’s like saying landing gears aren’t aerodynamic.
DarthDVD
Thursday, October 6, 2011 at 9:53 PMwe really need the vstol F-35 for our Canbarra Class “helicopter landing docks” ships..
They left the ski-ramp on there for a reason you know.
Steve
Friday, October 7, 2011 at 8:24 PMThe ski ramps are part of the original Spanish design, who do intend to operate fixed-wing aircraft from their ships, unlike us. The RAN doesn’t have the money for this, it’s immensely expensive to operate a naval aviation school and fighter fleet, and there’s no real need for it now.
Steve
Friday, October 7, 2011 at 8:15 PMI can’t help but think that thrust nozel looks like a prolapsed rectum.
DarthDVD
Friday, October 7, 2011 at 10:57 PM/\ EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
point steve.. it would have also cost more to redesign the ship without the ramp..
But if the Aus.gov did deside to do fixed wing naval aviation it wouldnt take to much (other than cost) to get it up and running… and the LHD’s could be used by the USA or the UK or Spain, in joint operations. as for take off during storms or bad sea states the ship has stablisers like hms invincible (engineering connections with the short bloke from topgear) so the deck doesnt pitch around to much.
DarthDVD
Friday, October 7, 2011 at 11:01 PMoops the HMS Illustrious not HMS Invincible.