| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| F-35 Vertical Takeoff |
| 2005-10-17 |
| Check out the video at the link - pretty cool! |
| Posted by:Spot |
| #10 Gus! We're AF! BTW see you soon, just got launched again. Space Services is a bargain. |
| Posted by: Gordo 2005-10-17 18:45 |
| #9 Have you told the Navy? |
| Posted by: Gruff Gus 2005-10-17 18:41 |
| #8 Word has it this is the last manned fighter we ever build. |
| Posted by: Gleash Ulomosh3198 2005-10-17 17:04 |
| #7 That video was so short. The thing lifts only a few feet off the ground before the end. It reminded me of David Blaine levitating more than a vertical take off. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2005-10-17 15:15 |
| #6 Edward- Frankly, in the opinion of this retired wing-wiper, what the USAF needs to buy is the VTOL -35B. Unfortunately, that would require the USAF to acknowledge that VTOL is not a tool of Satan that leads to the Dark Side - something not likely to happen even in this enlightened age. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2005-10-17 14:27 |
| #5 The -35 program is going along pretty well, tho the ship is still having weight problems. On the other hand, the QDR may be getting ready to suggest a massive cut in tactical air - perhaps as much as 30%. And since the USAF buy is now down to only about 1800 aircraft, this could be a serious blow against the program. The USMC still intends a full buy, and the RN/RAF buy is a go, but the USN buy could be toast. Stay tuned.... From what I know, only the F-35B (USMC/RN) had weight problems, 8% too much. The problem is that the solution was to halve the air-to-ground payload to two 1,000-ton stores, preventing internal carriage of the Mk84, and to thin the skin. :( Oh, and the F-35C might be cut, but perhaps the USAF should procure it instead? Considering that the F-35C might be more urgently to replace the Navy's strike fighters than the F-35A to replace the Air Force's air-to-air... |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2005-10-17 12:52 |
| #4 Check this for starters. Somehow, I doubt we'll see a lot about actual development aircraft until after first use. But the challenges will be substantial and countering it could be relatively easy. Perhaps there is a dual development strategy. One hi-tech model for use against China/Russia/France and one lo-tech for use against al-Qaeda/Mexico/Smugglers. |
| Posted by: Snavick Hupang6774 2005-10-17 12:21 |
| #3 Mysteriously, I haven't heard word one about a high performance aircraft that is remote guidanced. Such aircraft are an entirely different paradigm than are manned aircraft. Removing pilots changes everything. Optimally, I can imagine such aircraft as being fully modular, size dependent only on engine, fuel capacity and weapons systems. Even the shape of the aircraft would be radically different, just in eliminating waste space. Survivability and related costs could be much lower, even to the point of having an inexpensive version that is near-expendable. Everything changes. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-10-17 12:06 |
| #2 I believe the Wright Brothers also had weight problems with the Flyer I. |
| Posted by: Glenn Curtiss 2005-10-17 11:31 |
| #1 A good news - bad news situation: The -35 program is going along pretty well, tho the ship is still having weight problems. On the other hand, the QDR may be getting ready to suggest a massive cut in tactical air - perhaps as much as 30%. And since the USAF buy is now down to only about 1800 aircraft, this could be a serious blow against the program. The USMC still intends a full buy, and the RN/RAF buy is a go, but the USN buy could be toast. Stay tuned.... Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2005-10-17 10:36 |