Quicksand Fans

F-35 Developmental Testing At Sea

F-35 First Arrested Landing USS Nimitz (CVN-68)

Not looking too bad, the C-model actually doing what it's supposed to. Starting easy from sound of things, working up to harder only makes sense. Plenty of power, 28,000lb Dry, 43,000 in full grunt burner. Not too shabby for a single-engine beast.

Could've build so many F22 Raptors with the money wasted on this bucket......

It's not so much a bucket, as the colossal amount of the money spent by , God help us, Marine Aviation and their monomaniacal demands that the B-model do what the Harrier does. To the extent they bust their training budget for other minor stuff, like training fucking grunts, on the altar of the beast They should have simply kept using legacy Hornets and the Harrier, until a clean sheet of paper worked.

C-model has its own issues, but they likely be operational ones. Any bets until the first time one needs to be in a situation needing a gun, and it's screwed because it aint got one?? First Navy fighter since the F-4 without a gun. History don't repeat, but it sure fucking ryhmes....

Photoshop/CGI. Everybody knows the F-35 is too heavy to fly due to the addition of "two-pound ideas."

Interesting to be able to watch the control system making dozens of minor corrections as the plane approaches the deck, all faster than a human could ever react. Would love to hear from the pilot(s) about how landing this critter on a flattop compares to a Hornet or a Tomcat. ( )

Actually, if you watch Hornets coming aboard, they look very much the same.

What was interesting was how steady the engine note was, as well as the on-speed light on the nosegear. Now, how much of that was from various factors, the autothrottle system, and the test pilots who were driving is anyones guess. But when you compare passes with F-14s and A-6s, and F-18s, it is pretty remarkable.

Official Navy Release here

As to a gun, I guess some genius is going to have to put a copy of a MG-42 chambered for .50 BMG (12.7 x 99mm NATO) inside some sort of spiral magazine so you can store as much ammo as possible inside a minimum diameter package. Then wrap the package in RAM and put it in a pod that attaches to one or more of the F-35's eleven hardpoints. Hook it up to the targeting system so that the pilot doesn't have to pull a trigger- the targeting system guides the pilot where to point the airplane, and when the firing solution works the gun(s) fire automatically. Could add a bunch of them for the ground support role- the Marines would love that for their D models.

Actually Nacht, in the no-bullshit heading, is the overlooked detail they seriously, REALLY, are planning on pulse-laser cannon emitters for the -35s Now, WHEN is the thing, but, still, that would be 5 kinds of awesome.

As to the MG-42, the US Army NEVER got their copy (M-60) RIGHT 20 years later. And that the -42/MG-3 is still in service is various armies on this planet, speaks volumes.

Laser cannons? Cool! Technically possible, but how freakin' much power is that going to draw from the engine?

kham wrote:Actually Nacht, in the no-bullshit heading, is the overlooked detail they seriously, REALLY, are planning on pulse-laser cannon emitters for the -35s Now, WHEN is the thing, but, still, that would be 5 kinds of awesome.

As to the MG-42, the US Army NEVER got their copy (M-60) RIGHT 20 years later. And that the -42/MG-3 is still in service is various armies on this planet, speaks volumes.

Evolving technology, but like anything new, more refined as time goes on. Plus, it doesn't need to be kt-yield weaponry, when the target is aircraft. AA missile warhead yield would all you need to kill. The current airborne laser could have been used as an effective terror weapon against scumbags by nailing them with an invisible beam that would make the fucker explode without the slightest warning. I still think it should be employed --- on a largescale basis....

Where do I sign up to pilot an aircraft with a Lockheed fusion powerplant, exo-atmospheric capability, and laser cannons?

Seriously, we have the technology right now to repower large aircraft (B-52, AN-225, C-17, etc.) with nuclear power plants. Yeah, the plants would be fairly heavy- say 175,000 pounds. But that's way less than a full fuel load- the Buff has more fuel capacity (323,000 + pounds) than it has load capacity at takeoff- it literally can't get off the ground with full tanks, and that's with zero payload. So substitute that weight with a bottomless fuel tank weighing 175k, that's a definite win. Same with a lot of the heavy-lift cargo aircraft- range is inversely proportional to load (of course.)

kham wrote:Evolving technology, but like anything new, more refined as time goes on. Plus, it doesn't need to be kt-yield weaponry, when the target is aircraft. AA missile warhead yield would all you need to kill. The current airborne laser could have been used as an effective terror weapon against scumbags by nailing them with an invisible beam that would make the fucker explode without the slightest warning. I still think it should be employed --- on a largescale basis....