First UK F-35 takes first flight

[gtirob01]

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/p ... light.html

[C]

Shames it's the wrong one. Now we're going to be stuck with a less capable aeroplane (except for airshows), and massively less capable carriers.

What a crazily wrong decision was made when we entered the JSF project and ordered the carriers. Versatility: ~=0

[Raoul98]

Ant the Dutch have orderd them too. How stupid can we be. Take a Rafale or a Eurofighter or somthing else.

[wifesaysno]

waoh what is with all the hate for the F-35?!

It IS a heck of an aircraft! Keep in mind it has the most capable avionics and sensor suite of any aircraft out there now and keep in mind it is low observable but with an ability to carry a HUGE amount of ordnance externally! Maneuverability wise it is like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet with an alpha limit over 30degrees. Point is, it is maneuverable, it is powerful, it has range, it is stealthy, it is an extremely flexible aircraft. Also keep in mind it is designed to be in service for ~40 years and still be effective.....also keep in mind the Tornado was greated with a lot of disgust, the Rafale was born out of a betrayal with the Eurofighter project and the Eurofighter had a very very painful gestation...

To sum up, militaries do not skimp on fighters! They decide what they need and pick a fighter that meets their needs. There are some people with many more strips on their shoulders than us and with decades more experience in combat aircraft that decide what fighter their respective service branch needs.

As far as the Royal Navy goes, that is confusing. But that stems from the RN trying to develop 'big boy' carriers.

[ftldave]

waoh what is with all the hate for the F-35?!

Don't believe everything corporate 'spokespersons' tell you. It's been a controversial airframe for years and years. Here's some of the major points of contention, from a back issue of the American Center for Defense Information briefs:

[C]

waoh what is with all the hate for the F-35?!...

...As far as the Royal Navy goes, that is confusing. But that stems from the RN trying to develop 'big boy' carriers.

No hate for the F35. It'll be a good aircraft, it's just the UK order for the F35B results from people wanting a direct Harrier replacement. The F35C, with the size of carrier being built, would have been far more versatile and better for the RAF and RN's needs.

We order the F35B, correctly changed to F35C, but have now been forced into a u-turn for the F35B.

As for the RN and "big boy" carriers, seeing as it was a Royal Navy officer who invented the angled deck, therefore revolutionizing the carrier, and allowing the supercarriers we know today, they know a bit about big carriers. We had quite a few before we went all compact with the "through deck cruisers"!

[wifesaysno]

1) The F-14 had a high wing loading pilots have said they could handle F-16s and F-15s which have lower wing loadings
2) Radar Cross Section and materials is only half the stealth battle. As I have said, the F-35 has the most powerful avionics package in the world, that is not disputed by any of the other powers...hence why the avionics upgrades in other fighters are trying to mirror the F-35's package.
3) Maybe the DoD wont test RCS of external stores because they already know it is not the greatest??? Point being it is known. HOWEVER, its RCS is still much lower than Rafales or Typhoons with external stores. Stealth is all about low-observable, in other words delaying being spotted. Which the F-35's systems will do very well.
4) The campaign profile for using the F-35 dictates using its low RCS and internal stores to attack air defense assets. Once those are down, then they will carry their full warload and go hunting for GROUND targets...GROUND...GROUND. Simple fact is un stealthy aircraft are easy meat against modern air defense systems like those of the Russian Fed and their clients (China, India). Point being, all 4th gen and 4.5 gen fighters WILL be slaughtered in a fullscale war scenario not by air to air, but by SAMs. F-35 is an attempt to rectify that dilemma.
5) Dont even try talking about the F-105. Remember that all combat aircraft have weak points. The F-105 and F-4 were forced to fight in a way they were NEVER intended to fight...along those lines, keep in mind that Europe leads the way in making fighters without guns again even after the debacle of gun-less F-4s in Vietnam. Most Rafales and Typhoons keep the gun purely for ballast, the feed mechanisms taken out. In some cases the gun is designed out in particular with 2 seaters.
6) The F-35 is a MULTI-ROLE aircraft!!! It was never intended to equal the F-22 or Flankers in dogfighting!! It is a weapons truck designed to carry air to air when needed but primarily hit ground targets. It can hit ground targets just like anyother striker out there now. If the F-35 is to fast for CAS, then so is the F-15E and F-16--oh wait, those have been used for CAS for 2 decades!!
7) Back to stealth. It really should be called low-observable which means exactly that. Yes no stealth aircraft is invisible to radar, it just delays detection albeit until it is way to late for the target. Again, this in the F-35 has much more to do with GROUND based air defense assets which are being called 'hyper lethal'. There is virtually no chance of a fighter that is not low-observable to survive in a high lethality air defense environment....enter the F-35. The F-35 ideally should serve WITH aircraft like the Typhoon and Rafale in Europe, not replace. Again, the F-35 is NOT a replacement for those dedicated air to air fighters, it is a multi-role aircraft designed to fill in other roles like strikers, CAS, SEAD, Recon, and do the mundane air to air missions if need-be

I think the Europeans should remember how the Tornado came about....it faced a high level of contempt yet it has proven to be one of the most effective low-level strike aircraft in history AND in the updated F.3 version, one of the most lethal long-range interceptors in history.

The aircraft the F-35 aims to replace are OLD F-16s, OLD F/A-18s, OLD Harriers, OLD F-15s, and any-other 4th gen fighter. The latest incarnations of F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s, and so on are extremely capable but still very observable and thus highly vulnerable against modern air-defense systems (SAMs). The current structure in the US calls for F-22s being the premier AA fighter, F-35s and B-2s with UAVs kicking down the door, then F-15Cs, F-16Cs, F/A-18C,D,E,&F's blasting in through the gap in the air defense system.

I should also note that the integrated and stealthy combination during combat exercises has proven to slaughter real Flankers left and right. Look up Red Flag and SU-30MKI.

Look guys, all I am saying is people would not be considering the F-35 if it was the turkey opponents like to say it is. You have to remember that there are things you may not know, so for now, just acknowledged the hard work put into designing and developing the F-35 by the engineers, test pilots, and manufacturing folks. The F-35 is a heck of a fighter, just not in the typical "Higher further faster" way that is no dead...I say dead because most fighters today are capable of much more, but the pilot is not  physically.

Keep in mind there is NO fighter in history that entered wide-scale international service that was bad. In the roles people bought them to fill, they were the best option based on their criteria...F-4 anyone?? F-105?? (the f-105 being designed for LOW level high speed nuking...not high level slow iron bombing which is what it was forced to do in Vietnam).

[wifesaysno]

waoh what is with all the hate for the F-35?!...

...As far as the Royal Navy goes, that is confusing. But that stems from the RN trying to develop 'big boy' carriers.

No hate for the F35. It'll be a good aircraft, it's just the UK order for the F35B results from people wanting a direct Harrier replacement. The F35C, with the size of carrier being built, would have been far more versatile and better for the RAF and RN's needs.

We order the F35B, correctly changed to F35C, but have now been forced into a u-turn for the F35B.

As for the RN and "big boy" carriers, seeing as it was a Royal Navy officer who invented the angled deck, therefore revolutionizing the carrier, and allowing the supercarriers we know today, they know a bit about big carriers. We had quite a few before we went all compact with the "through deck cruisers"!

Oh I remember! I have to admit I lept for joy when I heard the Royal Navy was looking into getting a true full-size carrier again (maybe more)...that is I was happy until I the Harrier got retired and the through-deck cruisers (baby carriers) were said to be in the process of retirement. Then they switched to the C model rather than the B, which pissed me off to be honest. Only because I hate the idea of a few huge carriers, I really wish the USN would take another look at swapping out a few big-boy carriers for like a dozen smaller ones with F-35Bs are upgraded Harrier. That said, the Harrier still has a niche in the fighter community that nothing else can CURRENTLY fill.

[C]

That said, the Harrier still has a niche in the fighter community that nothing else can CURRENTLY fill.

It does, hence why the USMC is the perfect operator for it. Seeing as the USMC is about the size of the entire UK armed forces, it's a niche we can't really justify filling!

[Raoul98]

You're all completely right. The f35 isn't a bad aircraft and i love the sight of it. I am only mad at my own air force because they only want to buy from lockheed martin, it was a bit sneeky. They said that they would compare some fighters but meanwhile they were making a deal with lockheed martin. But nevertheless the F35 is a great plane

[andy190]

waoh what is with all the hate for the F-35?!...

...As far as the Royal Navy goes, that is confusing. But that stems from the RN trying to develop 'big boy' carriers.

No hate for the F35. It'll be a good aircraft, it's just the UK order for the F35B results from people wanting a direct Harrier replacement. The F35C, with the size of carrier being built, would have been far more versatile and better for the RAF and RN's needs.

We order the F35B, correctly changed to F35C, but have now been forced into a u-turn for the F35B.

As for the RN and "big boy" carriers, seeing as it was a Royal Navy officer who invented the angled deck, therefore revolutionizing the carrier, and allowing the supercarriers we know today, they know a bit about big carriers. We had quite a few before we went all compact with the "through deck cruisers"!

Don't forget that the Brits also invented the Steam Catapult. Still in service today. Great for hurling  America's lumps of steel I mean Planes into the air.

I really wish the USN would take another look at swapping out a few big-boy carriers for like a dozen smaller ones with F-35Bs are upgraded Harrier.

Studies have shown that a 10% reduction in displacement means a 50% reduction in capability.