F-35B test aircraft BF-02 accomplishes its first vertical landing

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS3ngl1GcaI[/ame]

Better late than never! The landing looked a bit rough though. Hopefully they're getting the bugs worked out since the STOVL one is in so much danger of being canceleld.

 

Critical components of the aircraft related to vertical landing need to be completely redesigned. This not only is going to add to the cost of the aircraft, but more importantly, it's probably going to add to the weight. It's not looking good for the -B.

 

What was the large open hatch just aft of the canopy?

Was it an alternate intake for vertical operations to avoid FOD?

Or am I missing something?

 

Brian- The F-35B has a shaft driven fan, unlike the Harrier, and the large flap is the intake for the fan. The nozzle swivels, too, and you can see the doors for that close as he completed the landing and prepared to taxi.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

So, is that a better system or is it as heavy and expensive as it sounds?

 

The first time I saw all those moving parts my thoughts were, "THAT'S going to be a maintenance nightmare."

On the latest video (OP) I noticed that the upper lift fan door has been modified/updated.

F-35B - Taking STOVL to a New Level - Lockheed Martin Video
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

LockMart has has issues with the doors on the lift fan on the F-35B

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/10/01/348074/f-35-grounded-to-fix-new-software-problem.html

More information on the issues with the F-35B

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/01/12/351768/new-design-changes-raises-pressure-on-future-of-f-35b.html

 

Brian- The lift fan actually provides more lift than thrust alone would. Sort of like a helicopter or hovercraft, neither of which has a 1:1 T/W ratio. It is big and complicated, but once the bugs are fixed, it should offer better performance than a pure thrust and bleed system and allow vertical landings at weights above pure thrust level (T/W less than 1).

The F-35's competitor, the F-32 by Boeing, used a system more similar to the Harrier. Lower risk, but lower performance, too.

The lift fan is a a brand new technology, and here is hoping the bugs are fixed before Gates' 2 year limit expires. It offers much superior performance if they will stick with it long enough to make it work. Always tough being first.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

One other advantage of the lift fan is cooler deck temperatures below the aircraft in hover. Since the lift fan air is not heated, it mixes with the hot exhaust and results in a lower overall temperature, which is not as hard on the deck as the exhaust under a Harrier (or an F-32).

 

hehe..you sure about that?

http://www.somdnews.com/stories/12042009/entemil172242_32185.shtml

 

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/13/lockheed-redesigns-f-35b-bulkhead/

 

Alex- They never even considered doing that with the Harrier. Too hot.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Just one simple question - is there really any valid military reason for a VTOL fighter in the U.S. forces?

I guess the Harrier was useful for the British with their mini aircraft carriers - but what exactly would the U.S. be planning to do with this on a fighter plane?

 

James- Same thing the USMC did with the Harrier. Land and service it very close to the FLOT so time of flight to support troops in contact is minimal. The lift fan makes it even more useful than the Harrier because it can take off at lower T/W ratios carrying more ordnance or fuel.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Well, OK - but it sure seems like an expensive way to do ground support (when they have plenty of helicopters already and have air superiority in any conceivable war of the next two decades) -

 

Helicopters are slower, more vulnerable, and have less range. Although, it certainly is valid to ask if the benefit of the Marines having the F-35B is worth the cost.

 

Plus... the Boeing F-32 is so butt ugly it does not deserve to fly.

 

How about we give the Marines the old A10's and tell them they just need to find a good freeway to use.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Some of it is also inter-service rivalries.

The Corps, would like to have it's own pet airplane.





Why did the USMC not buy the AH-64 Apache ?
Why does the Army and USMC, have small arms with subtle differences ?
Why did the Air Force, not buy the F-14A, for CONUS Air Defense units ?
Why did the Navy, not buy the Vought proposal for the F-16 ?

 

The A10 best ground support aircraft ever, could take a pounding and deliever a hell of a punch. The Government should bring that back on line.

 

James- Helicopters are mincemeat in an environment with late model SAMs. The F-35B can survive in that kind of an environment.

Brian- The A-10 is a flying radar reflector.

Ralf- The F-15 is a better all around interceptor and fighter than the F-14 and the two were contemporaries. Which one is still flying and being updated?

The Apache was considered too expensive by the USMC at the time it was considered. You can buy about four or five souped up Cobras for the price of an Apache.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

We've got all the mini carriers. Gotta feed the monkey. Need something to put on them.

 

Terry,

The F-14A, could have been used in the old ADC mission, of continental air defense, with the AIM-54A PHX missile, which the F-15A does not have.

I did not know the A-64A/D, is four to five times the price, of the AH-1T/W.

 

Yeah, against some Bronze Age goat herders. It will be dead meat on a modern battlefield. New sophisticated munitions make it obsolete.

Let's bring back the P47, I heard it was gread in ground pounding.

People just have difficulty vizualising future warfare. It will all be sensors, computer viruses and ultra long range smart munitions.

It's like all the sci-fi cartoons that have HUGE lumbering robots using giant 20th century assault rifles, instead of nano-bots, reality shifters, mind control etc.

 

That's not true at all. Plenty of people were saying the same thing long before the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and we will be in conflicts long after those wars where aircraft like the Apache and Warthog have an important role. Obviously they aren't much good against modern air defenses, but the idea is that we destroy those at the onset of the war so our cheaper, more vulnerable planes can operate relatively freely. Not to mention, the conflicts we are most likely to be in in the future (North Korea, Iran, etc) are countries not with advanced air defenses, but with tons of low cost garbage like fast moving boats, cheap tanks, artillery and troops that require heavily armed aircraft to destroy in large quantities, not aircraft that are fast, stealthy, and in limited numbers with limited weapon carrying ability.