Home » Air » Video: F-35C’s First Formation Flight

Video: F-35C’s First Formation Flight

by John Reed on April 26, 2012

Here’s som mid-week video of the very first formation flight involving the F-35C carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter.

It shows a pair of F-35Cs, dubbed CF-1 and CF-2, taking off, flying and landing together last week at NAS Patuxent River in Maryland.  Click through the jump for the video.

Share |

{ 55 comments… read them below or add one }

tfkiti April 26, 2012 at 12:57 pm

it looks kind of fat

Reply

Tim April 26, 2012 at 1:35 pm

With at least 4 "babies" -quadruplets- in its belly, one can only be surprised that it is not fatter.

Reply

passingby April 27, 2012 at 6:19 am

quote: "it looks kind of fat"

not kind of fat, simply fat, … and slow, and ugly, with a long list of health problems. Sound familiar? LOL

Reply

Pat April 26, 2012 at 12:58 pm

Honestly that looks much cooler than any other jets formation.

Reply

DGR April 26, 2012 at 2:29 pm

Looks almost as good as a pair of F-4s!

Reply

McPosterdoor April 26, 2012 at 3:09 pm

it looks kind of phat

Reply

Black Owl April 26, 2012 at 3:39 pm

The U.S. Navy should't buy the F-35C when they could get 3.5 Super Hornets for the same price: http://www.scribd.com/doc/88946660/Why-the-USN-an

Reply

Mastro April 26, 2012 at 4:02 pm

I used to dismiss this line of thought- but with every number of F18's it goes up- it is tempting-

Reply

Citizen of the world April 26, 2012 at 4:34 pm

Cool. How many Gulfstream G100s could we get?

Reply

4FingerOfBourbon April 26, 2012 at 8:50 pm

How many B-2's? Apples to Carrots even….F18 is good but if it were a car it would have a "classic" license plate…Especially when the rest of the world is trying to forge ahead with aerospace technology…

Reply

ColonelBlair April 26, 2012 at 4:37 pm

can you please stop repping your paper. I'm getting sick of it. We all know your opinion. Thankfully you aren't in charge of procurement.

Reply

ColonelBlair April 26, 2012 at 5:18 pm

For sake of clarity, and not sounding like a jerk- I respectfully disagree with your analysis. While I think it is certainly a valid argument (and a well written paper), I think your missing the point of what we are paying for here. We have committed our resources to this project and in my opinion should see it through. Of course time tested designs are inherently better and evolutionary development is safer and cheaper than designing a brand new aircraft. The F-35 has been designed to defeat both current and future weapon systems. While the F-18 is certainly capable of performing well in today's combat environment, it seems that the F-35 is better suited for continuing to provide dominance into the future. Upgrading the F-15 seems like a better idea than buying a bunch of F-22s, but (arguably) the F-22 would still dominate even upgraded F-15s in combat. This is a brand new system and we are trying to mass produce the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world. Its going to be expensive, especially initially, but don't you think in due time the costs will drop significantly?

Reply

passingby April 27, 2012 at 6:30 am

are / were you a combat jet pilot???? (what models have you flown, and for how long?)

Reply

DGR April 27, 2012 at 9:08 am

So now you have to be a pilot to talk about this issue?

How long have you worked with NASA? You seem to talk a lot about the faked moon landings………

ColonelBlair may be a pilot, or he may not be. But all that information is out there if you care to read about it. You dont have to actually work in a field to be able to talk about it. Heck I know a lot about sports cars even though I dont make/design/sell or even drive one.

ColonelBlair April 27, 2012 at 10:27 am

No, civilian working in the defense industry. Colonel Blair is a nineties computer game character (Wing Commander). I wont reiterate points made by DGR and Cool Hand below. The beauty of the message board is that we are all potentially experts based upon how persuasive an argument we can make. Black Owl pops up everywhere there is talk of the F-35. I think the first one built ran over his dog while taxiing.

4FingerOfBourbon April 26, 2012 at 8:47 pm

Spam. Starting to think your work for Boeing…

Reply

tiger April 28, 2012 at 7:06 am

Owl your getting as bad as those Ron Paul types. Get it a rest.

Reply

passingby May 1, 2012 at 3:47 am

Ron Paul might not be perfect, but in terms of conscience, integrity, and wisdom in sound governance, he's light years ahead of brainless lying puppets Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and Michele Bachmann.

Reply

Kool Guy April 29, 2012 at 7:10 am

"The U.S. Navy should't buy the F-35C when they could get 3.5 Super Hornets for the same price" hahah then why not get the original jets from WWII era, it will be 50 planes for the price of 1. more cost effective isnt it? jk guys

Reply

DanS April 26, 2012 at 6:14 pm

Nice pics and video, but can it trap on a consistent basis yet?

Reply

Ben F April 27, 2012 at 1:35 am

I am still waiting on the the location of the tail hook and seeing the F-35 withstand some carrier landings by using the tailhook. I won’t be impressed until I see some carrier landings and its able to withstand those.

Reply

STemplar April 27, 2012 at 2:41 am

They're circling looking for a carrier they can actually land on since we don't own one that they can.

Reply

cool_hand77 April 27, 2012 at 9:29 am

too heavy for a Nimitz class?

Reply

STemplar April 27, 2012 at 10:02 am

No, the carrier hook didn't work. The fact the C model can't land on a carrier presently just rolls off the the fan base.

Reply

HeavyArrow April 27, 2012 at 7:59 am

You know, the more articles I see posted about the F-35, the more hateful comments I see about the airplane about how it looks 'ugly' or 'fat'. The A-10 is ugly, but people like it. The A-6 was ugly, but it was effective and people liked it.
The military doesn't care if you like the way it looks, as long as it gets the job done and can serve for 20-30 years.
Just my two cents.
Probably get downvoted for this.

Reply

cool_hand77 April 27, 2012 at 9:29 am

Some people called the F4 ugly… yet its the only one that served in all 3 services and despite its issues in the beginning, became a top notch aircraft.

Reply

Guest A April 29, 2012 at 12:52 am

It was a JSF before the term was popular.

Reply

tiger April 28, 2012 at 7:14 am

I love the A-6. Never should have ditched it. F*** the hornet.

Reply

passingby April 29, 2012 at 1:29 am

quote: "The A-10 is ugly, but people like it."

You mean pilots and ground troops like it. They should. The A-10 works. It's well-conceived, competently designed, and very effective in real battles. Pilots felt safe flying the A-10 in close air support runs. And the plane didn't cost a fortune.

Reply

Rohan April 27, 2012 at 10:09 am

Fighters are ruling up de sky !!!!!

Reply

Old Navy April 27, 2012 at 10:19 am

Well two down and how many to go and how long to get them and how much will be the cost over runs?

Reply

Jay April 27, 2012 at 11:50 am

Whoopee. Not the future of air power. Creates jobs, and thats about it.

Reply

passingby April 28, 2012 at 8:22 am

first and foremost is putting money in the pockets of LMT, suppliers, and their shareholders.

Reply

jamFRIDGE April 28, 2012 at 4:46 pm

For someone who I’d “passing by,” you sure are spending a lot of time whining about things. “JFK was a conspiracy, so was WTC” Go on and stop trolling

Reply

jamFRIDGE April 28, 2012 at 5:04 pm

Is whining*

Reply

Guest A April 29, 2012 at 12:55 am

Because creating jobs in the US is a bad thing in this economy?

Reply

passingby April 29, 2012 at 3:28 am

it's a matter of cost vs benefit analysis.

the benefit of keeping those jobs doesn't come close to making up for the medium term to long term ills caused by the outlandishly wasteful and economically unproductive military spending.

Reply

Rob April 28, 2012 at 12:38 am
blight_ April 28, 2012 at 5:19 pm

A little concerned about sending next-gen aircraft to Taiwan. But I guess there's always a gamble in arming people next door to your hotspots, like Iran and Iraq.

Reply

Richard May 1, 2012 at 9:38 pm

Our aircraft are not designed to look pretty .

Reply

cool_hand77 April 27, 2012 at 9:26 am

I've never been in the military, yet I know a hell of a lot more about firearms than most of the grunts I have associated with, including my combat veteren roomie. Because I didn't serve, does that mean I can't opine on military small arms?
I hate it when people pull that crap too DGR. Not everybody with a valid knowledge base is a "been there, done that" guy…some of us just know how to read and study the available data.

Reply

passingby April 28, 2012 at 3:07 am

I never said that one had to be a pilot to talk about his issue. But depending on the nature of the issue, actual experience may help a lot. I Your reading comprehension skill is almost non-existent.

As for manned moon landing, the expertise to refute NASA's claims based on its videos and photographs can be easily found outside of NASA. In some cases, common sense will suffice. (I know you don't understand why; but that's your problem). For contradictions based on NASA's claim about rocket fuel used on return modules, knowledge about the exhaust fumes will suffice. (So on, so forth)

But the issue at hand is whether the F-35 is as good as claimed, compared to other fighter jets in US inventory. Here, first hand experience as a competent pilot that has flown the teen series and the new F-35 is important in making credible evaluations and comparisons.

As for the claim that the F-35 is designed to defeat future enemy jets, no pilot experience is needed to comment on it – it's utter BS, because you don't know exactly what your enemy will be flying in the future.

Seems that you have a big mouth but a small brain, with little real knowledge and common sense. Agreed? LOL

Reply

passingby April 28, 2012 at 3:18 am

the real strength of an air force lies mostly in the number of its pilots and the proficiency of those pilots, followed by the number and quality of its aircraft.

pilots first, planes second.

the cost of a fighter jet and the cost of the maintenance have a direct impact on the number of planes an air force can afford to field, the number of pilots on its payroll, and above all, the number of hours they get to fly in those jets.

Reply

tiger April 28, 2012 at 7:11 am

Jesus Christ….. Your a conspiracy loon. Next you will be crying about grassy knolls, Area 51 & WTC 7.

Reply

Kool Guy April 29, 2012 at 7:17 am

No your just stupid and think what you think is right and everyone else is wrong. We the public pretty much know what our enemy will fly in the future, obviously the government and defense contractors would know. IE, 2 biggest competitors, China and Russia. Russia will be flying their PAKFA while China will be flying their J-20. Passingby, i hope that you will also pass by the newspaper and read a little more about world news.

Reply

tiger April 28, 2012 at 7:17 am

Compared to the Boeing design prototype, this is a Playmate of the month.

Reply

passingby April 28, 2012 at 8:37 am

the bullet that blew JFK's brains out came from an overflow drain on the right hand side a short distance in the front. This is hard science. The BS Warren Commission report is the conspiracy theory, no facts, no evidence.

WTC 7, 1, 2 were all controlled demolitions. Again, hard evidence and first hand witness reports.

You really need to learn how to evaluation events based on hard evidence, NOT mainstream media BS. Don't be throwing around the term "conspiracy theory" whenever you hear something that deviates from the official story.

It's YOUR job to keep a close eye on YOUR government and the media. It's YOUR duty to YOURSELF and YOUR family. (The US government has been the biggest liar in the world for decades, for Christ's sake.)

Blind faith in the government is dangerous.

What's the deal about Area 51?? I know the Soviets had pictures of a site used for staging the so-called manned lunar landings. LOL

Reply

passingby April 28, 2012 at 8:38 am

edit: …. learn how to evaluate events based on hard evidence …

Reply

tiger April 28, 2012 at 1:43 pm

I knew it. I should have seen that reply comming. Sigh……

Reply

PMI April 28, 2012 at 12:44 pm

Yes, yes you really should.

Unfortunately while it is a fantastic benefit to having access to great amounts of information through the internet it doesn't provide individuals with the necessary filters to be able to properly process valid data from nonsense.

That is why we have people believing ridiculous notions about various historical events.

passingby I'm truly sorry for whatever difficulties in life have made you unable to objectively parse data.

Reply

passingby April 28, 2012 at 3:07 pm

quote: "while it is a fantastic benefit to having access to great amounts of information through the internet it doesn't provide individuals with the necessary filters to be able to properly process valid data from nonsense."

LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now THAT'S absolute nonsense.

Please show us how YOU objectively "parse data"!! First, establish the truthfulness of the government's story as reflected in the 9-11 Commission Report. Then refute the evidence presented in the videos supporting the controlled demolition of WTC and the deceitfulness of and the cover-up attempts by the government.

Come on. Do it.

Reply

passingby April 28, 2012 at 3:19 pm

You're more than welcome to prove the single-gunman and magic bullet theory in the Warren Commission Report.

YOU can't!

For anyone with good common sense and a solid understanding of high school level physics, a careful look at the video footage of the shot to Kennedy's head is all it takes debunk the government BS that there was no shot from the front.

If you simply accept whatever the government says or the mainstream media (including the PBS!!) reports, just say so.

Reply

PMI April 30, 2012 at 2:30 pm

It's already been done time after time. You just choose to ignore the much larger body of evidence that refutes what you want to believe to be true.

The same holds for the JFK assassination and the Apollo mission.

The conspiracy theories have been debunked over and over. The problem is that no amount of evidence will ever be enough to convince the nuts, because they aren't looking for objective truth.

Reply

passingby May 1, 2012 at 3:36 am

LOL. You stalled. I asked you to show us HOW you "objectively parse data". You may either demonstrate here or provide a link to one you have done previously.

As for 9-11 evidence, I feel safe to say that (1) you NEVER read the 9-11 Commission Report, (2) you NEVER bothered to read or watch the irrefutable evidence exposing the flagrant government cover-up, and (3) you don't have the slightest clue about the dirty records of the US government.

Prove me wrong. Show us how you parse the clip below debunking the official story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh7pOrRr_3o&fe

Reply

passingby May 1, 2012 at 3:54 am

Newspaper for military intelligence?? LOL!!!!!!!!!!! You brainless school dropout.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: