DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » JSF Watch » And Here’s Some BF-1 Video

And Here’s Some BF-1 Video


(Gouge: The Dew Line)
– Christian

Share |

May 28th, 2008 | JSF Watch | 287015 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2008/05/28/and-heres-some-bf-1-video/And+Here%27s+Some+BF-1+Video2008-05-28+12%3A46%3A54Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « STOVL JSF Jumps Closer to Flight Test | New Allies from Old Enemies » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. 7Genius says:
    May 28, 2008 at 10:47 am

    looks like all there is left to do is secure the financing from China to pay for the thing.

    Reply
  2. slntax says:
    May 28, 2008 at 12:14 pm

    or wait till we sell give it to the israelis so they can sell it to the chinese maybe call it the j-35.

    Reply
  3. Camp says:
    May 28, 2008 at 3:13 pm

    To what, I believe, slntax is alluding to…
    “How China Got The F-16 Secrets“
    http://​www​.strategypage​.com/​h​t​m​w​/​h​t​i​n​t​e​l​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​2​0​0​8​0​5​2​8​.​a​spx

    Reply
  4. Roy Smith says:
    May 28, 2008 at 3:58 pm

    China could just as easily have gotten F-16 secrets from their strategic ally Pakistan.I’m not saying this to defend Israel,but Pakistan & China have worked closely together on military projects.Now Israel did supposedly give China plans for the Lavi which helped to build the new Chengdu J-10 aircraft.
    No matter how “close” we are to Israel,we are still just another “Goyim” nation among many,& it is still in Israel’s best interests to have Goyim fighting against Goyim(& before anybody brands me as being “Anti-Semitic,“you need to prove that the people I’m criticizing are really “Jews.” The Sephardic are really Jewish,but I greatly have my doubts about the Khazar Ashkenazis & I’m not alone).

    Reply
  5. Cindy Fishbaugh says:
    May 28, 2008 at 8:13 pm

    I DON’T CARE WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE TO SAY I SAY IT’S GREAT TO HAVE THIS IN THE GOOD OLD US OF A…

    Reply
  6. Brad says:
    May 28, 2008 at 8:25 pm

    Yep. Cindy’s right. Maybe we should just stop making stuff, to keep it out of China’s hands and the grassy knoll conspiracist’s CIA-enhanced dental fillings.

    Reply
  7. maxtrue says:
    May 28, 2008 at 8:52 pm

    Smith, what a crock. So I guess Hitler didn’t kill millions of Jews. They were just the phony ones. Any more brilliant ideas? No, you are not alone. That is the scary part. Maybe Jews should have keep all their knowledge from the US and sold it to other nations. Germany would have loved the bomb. And we took their scientists. We leak like a door screen and that is hardly a Jewish conspiracy.

    Reply
  8. power2 says:
    May 28, 2008 at 10:16 pm

    Some questions I have that I’m sure can be answered here to some degree as I realize everyone has a different opinion. And I apologize in advance if these questions are quite naive.
    From what I’ve read, the F-35 will not have thrust vectoring for maneuvering and yet it is already a heavy aircraft so it seems this ability might come in handy. Any thoughts on this?
    Is the F-22, with only two-axis thrust vectoring, at a disadvantage to fighters with a three-axis ability?

    Reply
  9. power2 says:
    May 28, 2008 at 10:25 pm

    Also, the Air Force seems to putting a lot of emphasis on the stealth capabilities of the F-22 and F-35. But aren’t the stealth capabilities of these planes are in a sense fixed while enemy radar and air defenses can improve? Does the AF even account for this or do they really expect others not to come up with a solution to combat this? It seems to me that relying on the stealth aspect is way too risky with China, Iran and others rapidly modernizing their air defenses.

    Reply
  10. faceless_statistic says:
    May 29, 2008 at 6:02 pm

    Bashing Israel will sound shallow and stupid until we (USA) stop pressuring them (Israel) to put up with rocketfire we wouldn’t tolerate.
    As for China getting F16 secrets, they’ve got many avenues of gathering info:
    1: Pakistan, India, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and about 15 other countries that bought F-16’s from us.
    2: Chinese spies in USA, Russian spies in USA, free-lance spies that sell to whoever (Jonathan Pollard), Chinese spies (and spies from various countries) in whatever country bought F-16’s
    How fast will China get the F-35 secrets? Just elect another , and he’ll sell them.

    Reply
  11. coolhand77 says:
    May 30, 2008 at 6:41 am

    Okay TB, gotta correct you. Yes the US fields one of the more popular VSTOL aircraft, the AV-8 Harrier series. You are wrong though that we are the only ones. First of all, the AV-8 was developed by the UK initially, and they still use it. Second, the one we use is actually the later, uprated model with greater lift, carrying capacity, etc. Third, there is a Yak-36, fielded by Russia as their answer to the western Harrier. The F-35 will be the first SUPERSONIC VSTOL aircraft to reach a military inventory, but the US was in no way the first or only VSTOL operating country in the world.
    Also, its not a mater of physics that limits us to 2D thrust vectoring at the moment…I think at this point its a matter of cost/mechanical simplicity as well as possibly physiology. 3D thrust vectoring (as seen on some russian aircraft) has been developed and tested over here, but not deployed. Yes, it allows you to pull some amazing manuvers (manuvers that could similarly be done with 2D thrust vectoring on two engines, and proper employment of conventional manuvering surfaces) however if you push too much, you might “outfly” your pilot. The pilot himself is the limiting factor of how fast you can turn, or how tight. Many of the amazing manuvers seen at airshows, done with 3D vectoring are done at no where near actual combat speeds. Sure they look cool, but will your pilot pass out if he tries them in a “knife fight”? 2D allows you to stay in the accelleration plain that modern G-suits can help compensate the best for, in other words up and down…you need a hard “vectored” turn? Just roll so that “up” to you is the direction you want to go. Mechanically 3D vectoring is complicated. The old “three panel” system that was used on the X-31 is nice and simple compared to the “All moving nozzel/turkey feathers” that the russian vecoring system uses. By comparison the F-22 vectoring is just a couple of heat resistant plates and the servos/hydrolics to move them. Much fewer moving parts to break/get battle damage/fail at the wrong time.
    The F-35, mechanically, in my opinion, should at least have 2D thrust vectoring paddles like the F-22, however, due to the cost and already complex nature of the fighter, I doubt it will ever have more than VSTOL vectoring capability.

    Reply
  12. TB says:
    May 30, 2008 at 5:18 pm

    Coolhand,
    Yes I know about the history of the harrier. I was referring to the thrust vectoring of the F-22 that makes it more manueverable, not the SVTOL of the Harrier and F-35 (or at least that’s what I thought Power2 was asking about). The rotating SVTOL thrust of the Harrier is 1970s tech, and the F-22’s thrust vectoring is within the last decade.
    Looking at the video again, I just realized how much the F-35 engine can rotate. Does it do that in flight like the F-22 or is just for takeoff/landing?

    Reply
  13. Rhyno327/lrsd says:
    August 10, 2008 at 10:15 am

    I have to question past sales of US warplanes to questionable regimes, such as the one in Pakistan, who are laughing all the way to the bank with the $10 BILLION we gave them to fight the T-ban/AQ. Now its Block 50 F-16’s. When will our leaders stop giving away the store? Sure, the P-stani’s would sell thier mothers out for a couple hundred million, and thats where the Chinese get our “secrets”…as for the F-35, I would advise giving ANY to Turkey, or any other moslem country, including the Saudi’s, who are the bank that funds islamic fundamentalism. Some of these countries we sold advanced warplanes to, we could be at war with in the next few years. i.e PAKISTAN

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
    • And, the Vertical Landing
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
    • JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry
    • New F-35B Hover Video
    • China’s Shipbuilding in a Regional Context
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    Recent Comments
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      The real issue is not what type of plane but trying...
      Bill
    • Paris Hilton: Patriot
      Omg! You can find her pictures and video here...
      WebWarez
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      Marine Air Light? Wait…don't they...
      LtCol Ben
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Except its really not that stealthy… The...
      chaos0xomega
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Is an F-22 capable of landing even on a big deck carrier,...
      joe
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
      From a national security perspective we should do all we can to keep...
      mike
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
      Please define what is "best". Boeings plane is cheaper and...
      Curt
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      F4 was origionally a Navy Fighter, so coming up with a...
      Curt
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      The US Navy was right to bypass congress and develop the...
      Tony C
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      The fly-away cost of a F-22 is between 130 and...
      The Norwegian
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage