backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 98 comment(s) - last by jamdunc.. on Dec 30 at 10:16 PM

F-35 Lightning II in comparison to the F-16 Fighting Falcon and F-22 Raptor  (Source: Aerospaceweb.org)
Lockheed's F-35 Lightning II takes off the for first time since May

Last week, DailyTech reported that Lockheed's F-35 Lightning II had been grounded due to problems with its electrical system and concerns over the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine. After officials called off a planned flight on December 4, the F-35 Lightning II (AA-1) took to the air on December 7 at 1:30 PM CST.

The AA-1, flown by chief test pilot Jon Beesley, took off under full military-power and the engine was tested at various power levels during flight. Flight characteristics of the AA-1 were also tested at altitudes of 6,000, 17,500 and 20,000 -- a fuel-dump was also performed at 250 knots.

The 19th flight of the AA-1 lasted for just 45 minutes and concluded at 2:15 PM CST. The AA-1's return to air will mark the beginning of a new round of vigorous tests for the F-35 Lightning II program.

"For the F-35, those tests include refueling from an airborne tanker in the short term and supersonic flights next year," said Lockheed Martin executive vice president Dan Crowley. "At the same time, we are putting the finishing touches on our first short takeoff/vertical landing F-35 aircraft, which will roll out of the factory this month and initiate flight testing in the spring. By the end of 2008, we expect to have at least three F-35s in the air and numerous aircraft on the assembly line."

"The Lightning II embodies a long list of advancements that will make it better, smarter and more reliable than anything that's come before it, and those technologies are extraordinarily mature in this first-ever F-35," remarked Beesley. "When you project ahead to the F-35s that will be entering the fleet in 2010, you see fighters that benefit from the testing we're doing now -- fighters that will set new standards for combat-readiness right out of the box."

Also tested on Friday were the F-35's mission systems using the Cooperative Avionics Test Bed (CATBird). CATBird uses a 737 airliner as a platform to test the F-35's mission systems before they are fully implemented into the F-35 airframe.

"Our goal is to get the system perfected on the CATBird so that it works exactly as advertised when we put it in the Lightning II fighter," said Doug Pearson, Lockheed Martin vice president of the F-35 Integrated Test Force.

F-35's with the mission systems in place will take to the air in 2009 and the plane is expected to enter actual military service the following year to replace the AV-8B, A-10, F-16 and F/A-18 Hornet.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
A10
By SavagePotato on 12/9/2007 6:31:08 PM , Rating: 2
Replace the A10, I imagine the A10 pilots might be disapointed in that.

Personaly being wrapped in a titanium bathtub in a plane that can fly with a wing blown off would be my #1 choice for where to be if I were a pilot.




RE: A10
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/9/2007 6:38:13 PM , Rating: 5
It's a pipe dream. The A-10 has no realistic replacement coming down the pipe right now. The A-10's long loiter time, large armament... that bastardly awesome Avenger cannon, and it's ability to take a beating and continue. It's quite literally a flying tank. F-35 can't do close fire missions the way an A-10 can.

A-10 is here to stay for a while, until they decide to build a newer variant of it, maybe with newer engines, newer composite materials, etc....


RE: A10
By steven975 on 12/10/2007 1:47:32 PM , Rating: 2
actally the F-35 can potentially replace the A-10.

The lift fan on the F-35B (the VTOL Marine variant) is absent on the F-35A/C. This area can be used for something else. What? An energy weapon that's what.

A precision energy weapon means that the plane can fly faster, which is MUCH SAFER than going slow, titanium bathtub or not. Also, ammo is limited only by fuel.


RE: A10
By Chernobyl68 on 12/10/2007 2:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
A directed energy weapon isn't going to take out a tank. A 35mm cannon can quite easily though.
I think the JSF is going to be a great aircraft, hoever I think its its going to be a jack of all trades and master of none.
There's a lot to be said for the warthog - it simply is the infantryman's best air support aircraft. Its got a fantastic bomb load, is more durable than any other aircraft around, and has so much built in redundancy its crazy.how many planes are designed with the ability to land on its belly in mind?


RE: A10
By timmiser on 12/10/2007 11:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
The Avenger is 30mm.


RE: A10
By ImSpartacus on 12/9/2007 7:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
The A10 is sweet. My personal favorite combat plane. I hope it doesn't get replaced.


RE: A10
By Martin Blank on 12/9/2007 8:12:43 PM , Rating: 2
You don't have to worry for another 20 years or so. Current plans are to hold onto the A-10 until about 2027.


RE: A10
By captain fufu on 12/22/2007 3:20:25 AM , Rating: 2
With exponentially rising cost for newer more advanced aircraft and weapons, I doubt there will be a like-for-like replacement for the A-10. The military has too many high-dollar things going on...


RE: A10
By FITCamaro on 12/9/2007 11:48:58 PM , Rating: 2
It ain't broke and it gets the job done, so they ain't gonna fix it.


RE: A10
By NullSubroutine on 12/10/2007 12:51:30 AM , Rating: 2
They just need to take the time to make an updated A10 giving that perfect balance in between attack helicopters and fighter jets.


RE: A10
By CascadingDarkness on 12/12/2007 3:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it was already.

Which is why it's impossible to replace with anything that has same capabilities.


RE: A10
By klstay on 12/10/2007 9:45:32 AM , Rating: 2
No one in their right mind seriously considers this a replacement for the A-10 which itself is really "just" a GAU 8 with wings. Fortunately those in a position to make the decision have done so and extended the lifespane at least another 20 years. This plane should no longer realistically be listed among those scheduled for replacement by the F35; not that it ever should have been to begin with.


RE: A10
By jamdunc on 12/30/2007 10:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
Keep the A10 but replace the Pilots. I'm sick of losing friends to those imbeciles that can't tell a friend from a foe. It's not hard, they send out a friendly signal and have a different colour and shape of vehicle to the enemy.

But yet they still keep getting hit. Great aircraft, shame about the pilots,


Manned fighters will soon be obsolete
By mkorn on 12/9/2007 9:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
I think spending 40 billion on a new manned fighter program is 20th century thinking. The future is UCAV's like the predator. And here is why I think so. No fighter pilot to get killed or captured causing a political crisis. With missile technology what it is today fighters are glorified missile platforms. They don't need the maneuverability that thrust vectoring brings. You could put an advanced targeting computer and missile on a predator and be as effective as the raptor for much less money.

It is hard for many people to say goodbye to manned fighters
not because they are more effective but because that is the
way it has always been. A similar situation happened in world war 2 regarding the aircraft carrier. Most navy commanders thought naval supremacy would be decided by battleships. One man Billy Mitchell new that the aircraft carrier was the future. Where is the Billy Mitchell of today.




RE: Manned fighters will soon be obsolete
By bunnyfubbles on 12/9/2007 10:44:33 PM , Rating: 2
Right, and the F-22 and F-35 both started from programs that started in the 20th century. Our military is well aware of the wall that has been met with manned aircraft, and they've even admitted that the F-22/F-35 are most likely to be the last manned fighter jets for the U.S.


RE: Manned fighters will soon be obsolete
By RubberJohnny on 12/9/2007 11:28:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...the F-22/F-35 are most likely to be the last manned fighter jets for the U.S.

IMHO the F-35 will be the first unmanned fighter jet too, possible retro fitted to the aircraft or with another top secret variant in development already.
I saw a documentary here in aus that was quizzing the govt on why we were buying the inferior F-35 instead of lobbying for the F-22 (considering we are miles from anywhere and the extra range would have come in handy) and our (former) minister for defence said that there was one big reason that swayed us but it was still classified information that he could not discuss. I'm taking a wild guess here but what else could it be?


By UNCjigga on 12/10/2007 12:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
Well the F-22 was never cleared for sale/export. Even if it were, I doubt it would make sense for Australia to invest in it from a cost perspective.


By FastLaneTX on 12/16/2007 2:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
The F-35 costs a lot less than the F-22. They also perform different missions; the F-22 is designed to kill anything that flies, whereas the F-35 is designed for attacking ground targets -- after the F-22s have cleared the skies for them and a forward air base is ready.

It's perfectly logical to expect an unmanned version of the F-35 or even F-22 as a testbed, but there's a lot of things you'd do different if you were designing for unmanned operation from the start. There's a lot of weight, space, and aerodynamics that could be improved if you didn't have to accomodate a pilot.

Also, while UCAVs are obviously the future, they're nowhere near ready for real-world combat today. The F-15, F-16, and F-18 are all showing their age and we need something to bridge the gap.


By captain fufu on 12/22/2007 3:24:13 AM , Rating: 2
That makes a lot of sense. I've figured the technology is here, as proven by the Predator. Why not take the next step and produce an unmanned combat aircraft?


RE: Manned fighters will soon be obsolete
By Lastfreethinker on 12/9/2007 11:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
Manned fighters will never be obsolete. A manned fighter has no lag between input and action a UCAV does. Also if a UCAV was to get autonomous capabilities it would only be able to do that it was programmed to do. The device would be predictable and easy out thought. UCAVs have a great strategic and tactical advantage what I would imagine you will see down the pipe is manned fighters accompanied by UCAVs either as sacrificial lambs if the need arises or/and to augment the capabilities of the squadron to a better degree.


By geddarkstorm on 12/10/2007 2:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
Ooo, like those little helper bots in Grandius :D