F-35B hovers for first time

[unhappycamper]

The F-35B hovers over a landing field at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.


F-35B hovers for first time
By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Mar 17, 2010 21:28:49 EDT

Hanging about 150 feet in the air, the F-35B short-takeoff, vertical-landing (STOVL) stealth fighter hovered at zero airspeed for the first time Wednesday.

“The aircraft hovered for about 96 seconds,” said Chris Geisel, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin. “It then went up and down and turned right and left to check maneuverability before coming in for a slow 70 knot landing.”

Graham Tomlinson, F-35 lead STOVL pilot, slowed the aircraft in flight from 200 knots, first to 60 knots, then to zero.

The tests are being conducted at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. The hover flight took place on the second of four flights, or sorties, on Wednesday, each flight demonstrating different aspects of the jet’s maneuverability, vertical thrust, stability and control. The fourth sortie featured a short takeoff in STOVL mode, Geisel said, where the aircraft took off at 100 knots while using less than 1,000 feet of runway.

Next up in the test program, Geisel said, is a vertical landing.


Rest of article about this $239 million dollar wonder at: http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/03/defense_F35B_hovers_031710/

[NYC_SKP]

1. Only $239M per copy? How many millions has it taken to get to this point?

[FarCenter]

2. Interesting take on the F35B from The Register

Supersonic stealth jumpjet achieves its first mid-air hover

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/18/f35b_hover_flight/
<SNIP>
Though the F-35 had been planned to be bought in thousands by the US forces alone, suggesting good economies of scale and affordable prices for export customers down the road, critics of the programme are now alleging that costs are so far out of control that the well-known military procurement "death spiral" process has set in: higher price, less planes bought, unit cost driven up even higher, even less planes bought and so on.

However it's important to note that if the F-35 is successful it has the potential to destroy large amounts of the present global military aerospace industry. If it does get made in large enough numbers to be offered cheaply in time, it will be more sophisticated and yet cheaper than any other combat jet on the market, in all likelihood putting several of its competitors out of business in decades to come. This is probably a major reason why so many aerospace people are desperate for it to fail.

But there are others who feel that the Western fighter jet industry is overlarge, bloated, has no real threat to confront any more and is consuming funds which might be better spent on simpler things such as infantrymen or helicopters. They might be hoping that the F-35 can resolve its problems.

<SNIP>

No F-35Bs needn't mean no carriers, however. It would be possible to alter the ships' design to include catapults. This would be easiest using electric mass-driver ones of the sort now under development for the next US Navy supercarrier - alternatively ordinary steam cats could be used. The latter option would mean installing auxiliary steam boilers alongside the ship's gas-turbine engines, or changing them to nuclear propulsion. Nuclear would cost a bit more, but would offer extra benefits: the ships wouldn't need to be refuelled, and the absence of exhaust funnels and intake trunks for gas plant would significantly enlarge the hangars and flight decks.

With catapult carriers, the UK could buy much cheaper F-18 tailhook jets - or perhaps F-35Cs later on, if Stealth were truly deemed necessary. It would also be possible to buy Hawkeye tailhook radar planes as used by the US and France, rather than having to develop a custom chopper or tiltrotor radarcraft, which would cost more and not be as good.

[unhappycamper]

3. That next US Navy supercarrier?

It's the first of the Ford class and is expected to cost $11.5 billion dollars. Sans people, airplanes and the electric mass-driver catapult.

[FarCenter]

5. It's about the Royal Navy "ski jump" type of carrier

They are too short for normal catapault and arresting gear types of operations. So the Royal Navy needs a Harrier replacement for these carriers.

But The Register also says that by converting from gas turbine to nuclear and installing electric catapaults they could use F-18 or F-35Cs without the vertical take off and landing capability.

A critical issue will be the ability to land with full armaments, so that F35Bs coming back from patrols won't have to jettison their missles and ammunition before landing.

[HopeHoops]

4. Pretty cool!