by John Reed on April 11, 2012
Happy humpday. Make the last few hours of the workday go by faster by watching this brand new video showing a low-level high speed pass by an carrier variant F-35C Joint Strike Fighter. It’s the first time I’ve seen a video of the jet making an always thrilling fast flyby.
Enjoy.
April 11th, 2012 | Air, F-35 Watch, Fast Movers, JSF Watch, Navy, Planes, Copters, Blimps | 1691250 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fdefensetech.org%2F2012%2F04%2F11%2Fmidweek-video-f-35c-hits-the-gas%2FMidweek+Video%3A+F-35C+Hits+the+Gas2012-04-11+19%3A53%3A51John+Reedhttp%3A%2F%2Fdefensetech.org%2F%3Fp%3D16912
Previous post: Get Ready for a New Air Force One
Next post: Osprey Down
Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.
{ 50 comments… read them below or add one }
Man, I see them flying all the time at work, but I missed this one.
I rather have F22, it is much better Fighter Plane.
According to American Air force officials "The F-22 is better than any other aircraft in the world at air-to-ground except for the F-35, and the F-35 is better than any other aircraft in the world at air-to-air except for the F-22".
Which is exactly what I would say if I was trying to justify it's existence.
If you don't mind it's never fought anybody & and Oxygen system still sucks…
Oxygen system …..no longer problem.
Improving the pilot's emergency response is not the same thing as fixing the problem (yet to be determined)….I, as a defense auditor, would hardly consider this "no longer a problem". However, would happily defer to the staffers for the SASC and HASC for their opinions.
I am a huge fan of the F-22, but I find it doubtful that the F-22 would have greater air-to-ground capability than, say, the F-15E Strike Eagle. Granted, the Raptor is stealthy, but it would still be only a few Small Diameter Bombs wouldn't it?
IMO if US Air force or any other air force (S Korea for example) from one of the allies has to make sure fighter-bombers need to maintain stealth feature (no external loads) after having been in a war for more than 1 or 2 weeks, than we are in big trouble. It would mean one of these
-We are fighting China/Russia. Not good
-We are not able to knock down air defense of the enemy (N Korea) as fast as promised. Not good.
Hence the bomb carrying dump truck called F-15 still has a very valid role imo.
Would have been awesome to see it stand on its tail right at the camera and light the afterburners and disappear in the clouds.
Awesome to watch i guess, but sure as hell wouldn't want to be the pilot doing that kind of crazy stunt…
although the engine is capable of doing it, the risk associated with the move is… exceptional to say the least.
I wouldn't want to film with afterburner in my face either.
test pilots at Lockheed (Ft Worth NAS/JRB) would do this in F16s. great show. balsy as hell.
Nope can carry jdams and lgb
The C variant almost resembles a YF-23 with that big wide wingspan. At least from the underside
The wingspans aren't that similar…
Why the stupid (predictable) music? Good looking plane though.
Dumb question time: Do any of the F-35(X) have a cannon like the F-22?
There is always allot of talk about air to air capability…how survivable are they in an old school, close in dog fight? I realize allot of technology allows for over the horizon kills…but what happens when fighter pilots come face to face with an enemy…do they fly around until someone runs out of gas?
They can carry a gun pod externally as far as I know.
Darrel the Airforce version of the F-35 has a internal gun. The marine and Naval versions dont. However the naval version can be fitted with it but it greatly reduces its range.
Thanks, I'll have to pay attention to that.
RE: "…. greatly reduces its range."
Please specify 'greatly' and source of same?
yes the stupid music detracted from a crappy to begin with cell phone video/ audio
why do the wings on the C model look longer than the A model
Because C is two letters higher in the alphabet. :)
Because they are. You need that extra lift to take off from a short carrier deck.
Its actually because carrier planes need to have folding wings and this makes them longer.The catapult is what helps it take off not wider wings!
Sorry, but that's incorrect — you could design a fold into a two-inch wing if you need to. Large wings provide greater lift which allow two things: shorter takeoff distance and slower landing speeds for shorter stops.
What Ben said. Bigger wings, more lift at take off, and more lift for slower approach speeds on the smaller carrier deck.
Sorry, I just said the same thing you did. I didn't see your comment until after.
are their any plans for the Blue angels to switch to the C-model JSF or will they stay with the F-18 they have now for the forcible future.
It's bad enough that we're forced to pay as much as we are for them, it'd be even worse to see an entire squadron solely devoted to flying air shows. I don't want my 2.3 million dollar aircraft doing anything less than evading radar and destroying our enemies!
They can upgrade to Super Hornets.
230 Mil! Not even close! Haha
"$230 MIl!" – Not any closer!
Hey, guys, I'm back! Remember a while ago when I said I would write down everything I argued with you guys on the F-35 into a single paper? Well I made good on my promise and here is a link to it: Why the USN and USMC Shouldn't Buy the F-35.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88946660/Why-the-USN-an…
Ohhh, I missed you, Black Owl!
However, I'm on JSF Team.
Black Owl, I read your paper. I know that carbon fiber bicycles are manufactured and stress tested, and many of the parts/frames show cracks and are rejected during the manufacturing (QA) process. Now that is just a bicycle.
I think what you see with the F-35 isn't just new technology but a new development process, it's the latest cool management crap, chaos theory, iterative development, six-sigma, whatever… you build the thing and test it, build, test, build, test, improve, test. Personally, I'm not a big fan, I think it makes more sense to place all bets on genius individual engineers with vision and planning skills, but the MBA's they hate those guys. ;)
You raise some interesting points, but I think you've fallen into some hyper-critical trap. You're advocating 30 year old technology? You know I like the F-16, I think the incremental cost is like $20 or $30 million for that, if I were in the market for a personal commuter fighter jet I'd go with the F-16, clearly that is my best option. But I think with modern fighter jets it becomes more of a strategic buy than anything else, so many things to consider, deterrence, assurance, foreign policy and diplomacy, jobs, hell even economic subsidies is a big one, you think Boeing builds the 787 because it was easy?
Black Owl, your paper seem to mainly focus on the cost of dollars of the F-35, you stated that when it first got introduced it was promised to be $50mil now its over $150mil, (not acceptable in your sense). However, do you know that the value of the dollar today is never the same as the value of the dollar in 2001? Remember every year our government print some extra amount of money to spend, and this cause inflation(meaning price of goods increase, dollar value decrease). Also, remember in 2008-2010, when the financial crises was at its deepest stage, the government printed excessive amount of money compared to any other year, Bush offered the $800+ billion bail out, Obama offered another one of the similar value. So total within like 3 years our government printed about $2trillion, not including some more throughout the 2001-2012 period, this is one of the biggest factors that cause the fighter jet price to increase beside cost of production really did increase. If you dont believe me, check the F-15 and F-16, they're over $100mil each too, when they were first introduced it was never ever that high, but now it is. Why? its an old technology why does its price increase, check inflation.
Also if you don't believe me on the inflation side, check the history of the US, Canada, Australia dollars. Back then the US dollar is only behind The British Pound and Euro. The USD was always above the Canada and Australia dollar, now our dollar is lower than CAD and AUD. Its not that their economy is doing better or growing bigger, its just that we printed too much money and are causing a lot of inflation for our own currency.
Also Jeff M. is right, more advanced technology will obviously cost more money, we just can't calculate every by price, if its too expensive then we can't do. Imagine if one day your son or daughter or grandchilren happened to an engineer at Lockheed or one of these tech companies, do you want them to make 6 digits figure, or do you want them to make minimum wage for the tons of effort that they spent in school.
Anyone else think that engine sounded ridiculous? I'm at the Chicago airshow every year on a rooftop right off the lake, and the 15s, 22s, etc, never hit a high pitch like that, really awesome. It is because the speed of the pass or just audio distortion?
Wow, it flies!!!
In spite of all the critics… it looks pretty good.
WEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
"Faster that a speeding deficit"
Very nice…!
Now let's build 3000.
Amazing that´s engine really sounds like rock & roll ;).
What an improvement in modern aviation !
i will tell you why the yf35 has a floatability close to nill that's because they did not build it with two engines and that his avionics is badly drawn vincent poulaert engineer
a little note for my sentence please
I always thought it was a post control system designed to prevent posts over N posts/time.