Thanks, the Pontiac Aztec of aircraft...

Boeing X-32.

Good friend of mine was one of the government test pilots on the X-32...and my wife was working the entire JSF project.

Nickname of the aircraft was, "Monica".

THAT is funny!

I still can't get over all the moving parts/surfaces on the F-35, though. I'd hate to have had anything to do with the software in that beast.

This type of plane, and the thinking behind it , brings up some questions. Maybe some of the aviation experts can fill me in:

1) What sort of ground support is needed to "self start" if deployed to a forward fire fight base? If it requires anything more than what can be dropped by parachute or helicopter, then its pretty limited, right?

2) Can it take off and land from dirty sites? As one mentioned earlier, Soviet era fighter jets could use dusty dirty runways w/o the time consuming FOD walks. If a forward base is in the dirt, and this aircraft needs a clean environment, then what is the use for it?

3) This version costs a tremendous amount of money right? What is the equivalent in other aircraft manned and unmanned , in capabilities and costs?

4) What is the operational range with this VSTOL version, loaded for war? comparisons to other aircraft?

I am wowed by the technology, but wonder how effective bang for the buck we are getting

BAE Systems to provide new helmet display for F-35 pilots
"By gathering input from cameras scattered about the fighter plane, the HMDS effectively makes the aircraft invisible-at least, from the pilot's point of view. "

They should have just build new Tomcats, at least that way the Top Gun Sequel would have had the star actor of the original movie in it.

Good perspective Paul, thanks. So the real question is, how far away are they from having a true carrier battle group?

For regional ops, probably soon...it is the Blue Water stuff that is a hump.

I was sent to Taiwan in the early 1990's to teach their pilots how to land H-60's on the back of the frigates they had built.

The ships and helos were identical to ours. We would meet the ship pier side in the morning and be back by nightfall, tied-up, brow down. They were not interested, at that time, in landing on the ship at night.

Can't say I really blame them. It's dark at night:cool:

How would you like to land on a 9m deck?

http://www.tetrawest.com/images/241_heliport.JPG

http://www.tetrawest.com/images/249_101_0548.JPG

http://www.tetrawest.com/images/241_Viga-V.JPG

We are supplying the materials for these guys! This is a small helideck. The regular ones we sell are 19 & 17m square.

I had a very interesting conversation with my former Hornet driver boss (I know, I know) about stacking aircraft for landing on a carrier, and doing it at night under radio silence. Good stuff, glad you crazy SOBs are on our side.:cool:

It is yet to be determined exactly how good an aircraft it is, me thinks.
From what I hear the F-22 pilots refer to combat with a "normal" aircraft as "killing baby seals".

If it all works out, the F-35 will be used by several allies....the Japanese just signed up for some......the US wouldn't sell them the F-22. The Brits & Aussies will use them & maybe the French......helps pay the development freight. The plane can be used on a short decked carrier....considerably cheaper than the current cost of a bigun'. Yup, they're pricey......Lockheed strikes again......but at least they're not ugly.

F35 is missing its stealth beach....

worked CV-61 Catcc 1981...wespac. :cool:
hey not so fast Joe where my chocolate and nylons...;)

other good Navy aviation books?
Tomcat/carrier aviation book: by a PCA instructor/retired Navy pilot/Capt.
Roger Ball
Anyone else met Hawk? :cool:
Hawk and Tall Mike..mov - YouTube
all I know about carriers from China. ;)
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1325015945.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1325015983.jpg

The Air Force choosing the F-35 over the F-22 I think was a choice of practicality.
Like the P-38 and the P-47 workhorses, it can also fufill the role of ground attack missions as well. A single Me-262 didn't have a chance against a swarm of competent fighters.

The Russians have their own pure-air-superiority version of the F-22, the Su PAK-FA:
Assessing the Sukhoi PAK-FA / Sukhoi/KnAAPO T-50/I-21/Article 701 PAK-FA Пер�пективный �виационный Комплек� Фронтовой �виации
“Fights between the F-22A and the PAK-FA will be close, high, fast and lethal. The F-22A may get ‘first look’ with the APG-77, the Advanced Infra Red Search and Track (AIRST) sensor having been deleted to save money, but the PAK-FA may get ‘first look’ using its advanced infrared sensor. Then, the engagement becomes a supersonic equivalent of the Battle of Britain or air combat over North Korea. The outcome will be difficult to predict as it will depend a lot on the combat skills of the pilots and the capabilities of the missiles for end-game kills. There is no guarantee that the F-22 will prevail every time.”

The actual flight performace of the F-35 appear to be dissapointing. I suspect electronics, ground-to-air, andor satelite countermeasures are meant to fill the gaps:
“The sustained turning performance of the F-35A Lightning II was recently disclosed as 4.95 G at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft. A 1969 F-4E Phantom II could sustain 5.5 Gs at 0.8 Mach with 40 percent internal fuel at 20,000 feet. The F-35 is also much slower than the 1960s F-4E or F-105D. So the F-35A’s aerodynamic performance is ‘retrograde’ when compared with 1960s legacy fighters. The consequence of such inferior JSF performance is that its DAS might detect an incoming missile, but the aircraft lacks the turn-rate to out-fly it. As the F-35 also lacks the performance to engage or escape, repeated ‘freebie’ shots from the PAK-FA could inflict high losses. Expect the exchange rate to be of the order of 4:1 in favour of the PAK-FA, possibly much higher

Did not see anyone address some of your questions.

1. No, most of these aircraft usually need a start cart of one sort or another. Either a "huffer" (blower cart) or a external power cart. Yes these can be air dropped or delivered by helo to a forward operation base.

2. Depends on the aircraft. A F-15 for instance needed runway while an A-7 or Harrier could take off on improved surfaces. The Swede and Swiss air forces often use a long strech of road to get their fighters in the air but normally no one else.

3. Mega bux, your tax $$ at work!

4. No idea but almost any military A/C these days can be refuelled in the air, so range is only a matter of where is the next tanker.

As for your last comment, ask me after we have been attacked again, or when the idiot Iranians threaten to choke off 20% of the worlds supply of oil. A carrier task force works wonders at times!

Joe A

Unlike the Soviet designs, very few US aircraft are designed to operate in austere environments. I doubt the F-35 is one of them.

Sure......and for proof of the ineptitude of US military designs just look at what happened in the Mid East. Russian weapons were kick ass.:rolleyes:
WWII produced more examples.

Pretty sure you will find both the 22 and 35 very capable in their respective roles.

You guys forget this is a plane nobody wanted. The navy wanted two engines, the air force wanted speed maneuverability and the marines wanted vertical take off. It does all these compromised tasks in a common base to save money aka Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

It was a cost savings measure back with Clinton.