Home » Air » Pic of the Day: F-35 in Burner

Pic of the Day: F-35 in Burner

by John Reed on May 1, 2012

Here’s your photo of the day, an awesome shot of the F-35 Join Strike Fighter in afterburner.

Enjoy.

H/t SNAFU.

Share |

{ 67 comments… read them below or add one }

yay May 1, 2012 at 11:19 am

first post!

Reply

Prodozul May 1, 2012 at 11:20 am

Oooooh! Very nice!

Reply

Benjamin May 1, 2012 at 11:22 am

Any idea what version?

Reply

pcleech May 1, 2012 at 12:42 pm

The link below for the original pic has a caption stating F-35B.

Reply

Anonymous May 1, 2012 at 3:32 pm

The expensive version!

Reply

Josh May 1, 2012 at 6:43 pm

Aren't they all expensive? ; )

Reply

Bau5ler May 1, 2012 at 11:27 am

Daaaanger Zooooone!

Reply

dimeck May 1, 2012 at 11:34 am

I believe it's the A version, it has the USAF roundel.

Reply

Pat May 1, 2012 at 11:38 am

May look fast but maybe not maneuverable.. But whatever its still cool!

Reply

Jeff May 1, 2012 at 2:25 pm

Maneuverability depends on the variant… F35A is rated for the same level of maneuverability as the F-16… test pilots have said in some ways it more maneuverable than the F-16 and in other ways more comparable to the F/A-18. Yes, F35B and F35C are rated lower, but out perform both the AV-8B and A-10.

Reply

SMSgt Mac May 1, 2012 at 8:59 pm

As Jeff notes, the A model is a 9g airframe. Since it carries its stores internally, in an LO configuration it should carry it's speed in a turn longer than the F-16. JOn Beesley went so far as to say the A model is comparable to a clean F-16 Blk50. So You have to be careful how you define 'maneuverability'. Comparing the F-35C to the F-18C/D/E/F we find identical 7.5g ratings, but the F-35C should have a quicker initial turn rate than the 'A' because of the bigger wing, but I would expect that same wing to burn off speed with higher drag. The Marines traded G-rating for other things, among them the ability to go supersonic, and again, in a clean configuration externally, it should hold the Gs it can pull at higher speeds for longer than the Harrier just about everywhere in the flight envelope.

Reply

PolicyWonk May 2, 2012 at 10:27 am

if its maneuverable enough to kill the pilot without the avionics to limit the planes performance to prevent such a thing – then its maneuverable enough.

Reply

A. Nonymous May 1, 2012 at 11:39 am

Link to original (hi-res) picture:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/71170

Reply

Pat May 1, 2012 at 2:39 pm

Oh that high res pic totally changed my mind about maneuverability! lol

Reply

Richard May 1, 2012 at 12:32 pm

"F-35B Transonic Shock

Flight test of the F-35B with visible transonic flow, April 19, 2012 at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md."

Reply

Mike May 22, 2012 at 10:01 am

Not transonic shock. TS would accumulate on the front of the aircraft.

Reply

Rohan May 1, 2012 at 12:38 pm

BURNING LEGENDS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply

SamiAM May 1, 2012 at 12:41 pm

I am going to say again since you troll this plane. It does things that other planes today cant do! Besides your constantly talking about cost. Cost will go down in time. God willing if I get to fly in the USMC I would want to fly this airplane in the event that a real war breaks out

Reply

Black Owl May 1, 2012 at 3:41 pm

Well, I'm in the Navy and I too am working towards being a pilot and, God willing, if I get to fly I would pick the Super Hornet Block II rather than the F-35C. The Super Hornet is dependable, reliable, heavily armed, flexible, and it has two engines. The only thing the F-35s do that other aircraft can't is be stealthy. In order to achieve that it sacrifices heavily in all other areas of performance, especially maintainability. The advanced sensor suite of the F-35 can also easily be added to the Super Hornet. Stealth is an advantage, but it is not an absolute necessity and we can still defeat our enemies without it by utilizing good tactics and advanced ordinance. Integrating stealth into our forces is important, but not at the cost of other things, especially flexibility and aircraft numbers. We don't need the F-35 when our current jets are good enough and will continue to be for many years. The EA-18G Growler and Super Hornet Block III with some advanced weapons can easily handle all our current and future threats and last us until a 6th gen fighter is made.

Reply

Dfens May 1, 2012 at 5:24 pm

That's a hell of a choice. The sucker fly or the F-35. I hope you're good at tanking.

Reply

SamiAM May 1, 2012 at 7:37 pm

You cant just tack on the improvements that the F-35 has onto the F-18. Right we are going to wait for a 6th gen now, what so you can then say no no no we dont need a 6th gen we can just bring back F-4 and mustangs and slingshots to take out whatever advanced fighter come our way

Reply

SMSgt Mac May 1, 2012 at 8:39 pm

IN the interest of understanding, might one ask what is your grade and what exactly it is that you 'do' in the Navy?

Reply

Black Owl May 1, 2012 at 11:44 pm

I'm a 2nd class midshipman at the Naval Academy in Annapolis. For the most part I take classes that are taught in a regular college (physics, chemistry,…) only ours are faster paced and more in depth. Along with those classes I take a lot of military classes about weapon systems, navigation, history, and several other things. I'm also taking Russian. My service assignment night is in November and that's when I'll find out if I'm going to be a pilot or not after I graduate.

Reply

MikeJones May 2, 2012 at 12:24 am

Take Chinese instead

Bob Hamilton May 2, 2012 at 12:51 am

Back when I was a plebe…. ;)

SMSgt Mac May 2, 2012 at 8:29 am

I am familiar with NA life, What is your squadron?

SamiAM May 1, 2012 at 11:37 pm

Also i know it is not on the same level but look how much money was invested into the Manhattan Project

Reply

Black Owl May 2, 2012 at 12:14 am

Totally not comparable here…

Reply

Sgt_Buffy May 1, 2012 at 2:17 pm

Mmmmmm. Pretty picture plane, yes? Transonic flow makes for a great effect, almost sci-fi, which fits perfectly with the F-35's image. These 5th Gens look awesome.

Reply

Nick Dwyer May 1, 2012 at 2:33 pm

Flew in a 16 in'05 the pilot said he wanted the F-35 more than the 22 as his dream ride. I think they should make a dmodel a twin engine/seat version and throw a gau-8 avenger in that sucker…make that a howitzer and call it a day. Hey for a trillion dollars We can build anything!

Reply

DGR May 1, 2012 at 4:15 pm

The next step to creating a Super Lightening should be easy. I would expect to see a strike version within 10-20 years after the regular models are operational. Kinda like how they stretched the Eagle and Hornets.

Reply

Pat May 1, 2012 at 2:38 pm

STFU

Reply

Lance May 1, 2012 at 2:59 pm

Pitty the plane is only a Mach 1 fighter. Wish they make them faster.

Reply

XYZ May 2, 2012 at 9:03 pm

Speed actually isn't too important for fighters. Most engagements still happen in the transonic regime.

Reply

halfbirdman May 8, 2012 at 12:25 am

The Single Engine F-35 Lightning Is Not Worth The Price.

Reply

Jayson May 1, 2012 at 3:24 pm

I haven't seen a pic with the extra attachment on the nose before. That just for the flight testing or is it there for the 'retail' version too?

Reply

tiger May 1, 2012 at 8:52 pm

test probes

Reply

SMSgt Mac May 1, 2012 at 9:26 pm

Evidently the filters don't like the word that rhymes with 'toad' but begins with the letter between 'o' and 'r'. Short version: It is an Alpha-Beta- "rhymes with toad"

Reply

SMSgt Mac May 1, 2012 at 11:26 pm

sheesh. I must be tired. Scratch 'toad' insert 'robe'.

Reply

Mike May 2, 2012 at 8:48 am

Its for telemetry to the ground station.

Reply

tee May 1, 2012 at 4:39 pm

New Article in "Foreign Policy Magazine " just released "The Jet That Ate the Pentagon "
It pretty well sums up this monstrosity of a Failed & Flawed Program.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/26/

Reply

Sgt_Buffy May 3, 2012 at 7:58 am

Really? I read: The Bad Press that ate the Jet…
Jus sayin'

Reply

Jayson May 1, 2012 at 5:03 pm

The best afterburner pics I always saw are the Blackbirds on takeoff in darkness. Seeing the exhaust diamonds were sweet and an unexplained phenomena. Also it's rare to find such pics as well. This one in the midst of transonic is top 3 on my list while that other one of the F18 is #2.

Good shot all the same.

Reply

Skyepapa May 1, 2012 at 6:48 pm

Exhaust diamonds are also called shock diamonds and are fairly well understood. Basic science here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_diamond

Reply

Sgt_Buffy May 3, 2012 at 8:00 am

That picture with the shock diamonds is the last bit of proof I need to claim that the Blackbird is not military but a space-plane out of Stargate SG1. They look so different than anything else we have.
What a beautiful bird.

Reply

Mike May 22, 2012 at 10:03 am

Have you ever seen an F-8 Crusader in AB at dusk? More impressive.

Reply

adam May 1, 2012 at 8:56 pm

mmmmm I get a feeling after all the hoo haa about costs, capabilities service dates etc that this may well be a good thing. Because its so new and there are not many everybody is thinking bad things, remember this is not like building the family car so as soon as they start coming off the assembly line in some sort of numbers people will back off. It would help if Brits worked out what hey wanted the "b" or "c" but thats a whole differant arguement

Reply

sandy May 1, 2012 at 9:49 pm

bizarre mods on this sight …very inconsitent. i quess they delete the posts that offer a different view than their own opinions,

Reply

Vaporhead May 2, 2012 at 8:28 am

Will all due respect, the proper term for this would be "in full augmentor," not "afterburner."

Reply

blight_ May 2, 2012 at 9:43 am

http://www.geaviation.com/education/vocabulary.ht

Afterburner
The afterburner is an assembly aft of the turbine section that supplies atomized fuel into the exhaust airflow to increase exhaust temperature and pressure. Afterburners use large quantities of fuel, and thus are used for short periods of time only. Afterburners are used on turbojet engines to increase thrust for short periods of time during takeoff, climb and supersonic flight. Very few commercial aircraft use afterburners. Afterburners are usually on military aircraft only.

Augmentor
Augmentors are afterburners on low-bypass turbofan engines. Core airflow and bypass (fan) airflow are mixed aft of the turbines, in the exhaust. Fuel nozzles supply atomized fuel into the airflow and an igniter ignites the fuel/air mixture. Augmentors are used on low-bypass turbofan engines to increase thrust for short periods during takeoff, climb, and combat flight.

Augmentor Exhaust Nozzles
Augmentor exhaust nozzles make up the aft end of augmented low-bypass turbofan engines. It has a flame holder, fuel nozzles, an igniter, and a variable exhaust nozzle. The fuel nozzles supply atomized fuel into the exhaust airflow and the igniter makes the fuel/air mixture burn. Augmentor exhaust nozzles are used on low-bypass turbofan engines to increase thrust.

Ooh. Learned something.

Reply

Vaporhead May 2, 2012 at 10:38 am

It's a common misconception. Older fighter aircraft have "afterburners," but most engines developed in the past 30-35 years are low-bypass motors, so it would be called "augmentor."

Reply

Mastro May 2, 2012 at 11:38 am

"Augmentor" just sounds wimpy.

No one's naming their movie/rock album/sports car "Augmentor"

Oh- since the F35 can't supercruise- we might be seeing a lot of the "Augmentor"

Reply

tiger May 2, 2012 at 4:39 pm

But are you Smarter than a 5th grader?

Reply

blight_ May 2, 2012 at 7:00 pm

More like,

"Do you remember useless irrelevant trivia from 5th grade that you forgot because you had more important things to remember"?

Reply

Antonius Bauwens May 2, 2012 at 10:37 am

Money can do anything I just love to see that f35 fly by its awsome! The Dutch f-35 is test flying also.We must stay on top in every bit of tech in every service..

Reply

Kyle PG14 May 2, 2012 at 1:25 pm

I hope this jets are worth the 1.51 trillion dollars the program i costin us, but they sure do look badass!

Reply

Rukovishnikoff May 2, 2012 at 2:46 pm

Get some…

Reply

tee May 2, 2012 at 9:22 pm

Looks like Canada is going to have a complete restart and a competition for it's new Fighter Aircraft , not automatically sign on to the F-35 JSF . With a lot of support for both the Super Hornet and the Gripen NG. Here is a link to yesterdays main headlines,
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/201

Reply

FtD May 5, 2012 at 10:15 am

looks like the paint vaporizing off the bodywork

Reply

halfbirdman May 8, 2012 at 12:31 am

The Single Engine F-35 Lightning,Is Not Worth The Price.

Reply

TURKEY May 9, 2012 at 7:53 am

Turkey will buy 100 F-35A :))

Reply

johnysmith May 31, 2012 at 11:03 pm

do you know guys that Japan has chosen the US-made F-35 stealth jet as its next-generation mainstay fighter in a multi-billion dollar deal? http://airsoc.com/articles/view/id/4ee7094ac6f8fa

Reply

Black Owl May 2, 2012 at 12:42 am

I'm more worried about the Russians. They have more tanks and more combat aircraft of better quality. They have a lot more training, experience, and the worse their economic situation gets the more desperate they are becoming and more likely to do something rash. The Russians scare me a lot more than the supposedly feared "China Expansion" scare that's been going around. The Chinese military is still very poor in quality and will continue to be a long time. The only real advantages they have are a good economy and large numbers, but they really don't have the capability to draft all of their men into their military and they have a large host of other economic and social problems that the media in the west tends to not focus on. The Russians are more heavily armed, more innovative, more clever, and overall better than the Chinese as far as being a formidable opponent goes. It is worth noting that China also has a lot of internal enemies from the cruelty of its own system. They spend more money on internal security than they do on national defense, which shows that they fear what's inside their own country more than what is abroad.

Reply

SamIAm May 2, 2012 at 3:47 am

Im sorry, but it is very comparabl. You assume you know the ability of the F-35. Now are there problems in cost, offcourse. But the money being spent on these planes is going to advancements that you simply di not understand. Your paper you wrote factors in a lot of errors or plain misinformation. In your coments regarding China as to being a small threat due to them being underequiped is rather dumb. Im assuming your Naval Accademy history classes are not as rigurous as you say. Pllease look at our own military before WWI and WWII. A lot can happen in a time of war. I appologize for missspellings and bad grammer my phone is not allowing me to correct my post.-

Reply

Mastro May 2, 2012 at 10:08 am

Russia and the the US have no reason to clash. Russia won't try to retake the Baltic states and if they want Georgia- they can have them.

China- well – we have the Norks, Taiwan, and the South China Sea to worry about/fight over.

Your analysis needs some work- I heard Annapolis was lowering their standards.

Reply

William Charles Brooks May 2, 2012 at 9:05 pm

Whoever told you that Naval Acad is "…lowering their standards." is real light-headed! It's one of the toughest schools in the world! Ask any graduate.

Reply

Black Owl May 4, 2012 at 2:22 am

I think USAFA is the one with squadrons. We have companies.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: