F-35B (Joint Strike Fighter) STOVL transforming video and info

I posted this on another thread, but it's pretty damn cool to watch, so reposting here for any to enjoy...

This is the carrier variant of the JSF, and really shows some major advances in VTOL technology.



Skip to about 30 seconds in to get to the takeoff.

This one also, has a lot of info

HOLY CRAP!

That almost doesn't look real. That looks like a J.J. Abrams or Michael Bay movie scene!

It reminds me of a real-life Transformer.

I must own one for my daily commute!

reply to post by MystikMushroom


I know right? You half expect it to turn into a giant robot....

They have a documentary on CD showing the development competition between Lockheed and Boeing for the Joint Strike Fighter military contract. It was very interesting. They wanted this new fighter to adapt to all the military branches. Lockheed won the contract, but Boeing's design was radical and looked nothing like a jet fighter. If I recall, their fighter failed the hovering landing and take off test. I give Boeing credit for taking a risk and thinking outside the box.

reply to post by Gazrok


That looks a bit fake.



This one looks somewhat realistic. Might be the real thing.

reply to post by WeRpeons


Lockheed's X-35B took off in less than 500', went supersonic, and landed vertically, Boeing's entry couldn't.

I don't know, the Boeing X-32 kind of looked like a pregnant JSF to me, but then, I'm a Lockheed brat, so kind of biased.

I did go to a local air display where 2 harrier Jump jets "stopped off" from Romania, still in camouflage colours. They came in parallel (literally 20 m apart) stopped in mid air and then bowed their noses to the crowd before landing vertically in unison. Absolutely awesome - but the kids were unimpressed, what with the CGI.

reply to post by grey580


I'm not sure on the particular video, but having seen it in person, it is an accurate depiction. Hard to tell from the resolution.

Thanks for the additional vid.

reply to post by Gazrok


I remember when those two were going head to head for the contract. I also remember how when Lockheed won, Boeing said we have a bigger project going on, drones.

I am less in love with the performance, range, weight, and maneuverability than I probably should be. But to be honest I have not delved into the F-35 world other than the occasional article.

The mechanical monkey motion and weight to get vertical t/o and landing capabilities looks very apt to fail or need excessive maintenance to me.

With a full mission load the whole vertical t/o is no doubt out the door. So min fuel get airborne meet a tanker refuel and proceed to target....We do that anyway so what's to complain about?

Every time I see this aircraft it looks pregnant and to darn expensive for what we are getting to my old eyes..They could have done a complete AIRFRAME and avionics upgrade for the Harrier and maybe gotten just as much bang for the buck...

The Harrier killed several pilots when first in service and if this video is any indication the F-35 will be no different.


S&F regardless and thanks for posting.

Originally posted by templar knight
I did go to a local air display where 2 harrier Jump jets "stopped off" from Romania, still in camouflage colours. They came in parallel (literally 20 m apart) stopped in mid air and then bowed their noses to the crowd before landing vertically in unison. Absolutely awesome - but the kids were unimpressed, what with the CGI.

I'm not a kid and not impressed either. If you've ever seen a massive black triangle as I have move--not fly--in slow-motion, silently and low you wouldn't be impressed with this made for export buggy either. And I don't think we need to discuss whether the triangles are genuine, ET UFOs or our stuff, do we?

If someone saw this airplane from the OP do a vertical takeoff/landing at night...it might look like a UFO from a distance. Perhaps this is what people reported seeing taking off and landing vertically at Area-51??

reply to post by templar knight


The problem with the Harrier was, and is the extremely limited hover time. We asked them once why they didn't just hover in when they came into Hickam (half jokingly), and the answer was that to hover they had to have 60 gallons of distilled water on the aircraft.

Originally posted by Gazrok
I don't know, the Boeing X-32 kind of looked like a pregnant JSF to me, but then, I'm a Lockheed brat, so kind of biased.

No, no you aren't. That's still one of the ugliest designs I've seen to date, and I've seen some damn ugly ones.

reply to post by 727Sky


One of my big problems is the whole lift fan system. It's a really complicated system with multiple failure points.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Not to mention F.O.D. on unimproved landing T/O areas
The weight of the whole lift fan assembly with plumbing has got to suck. They were doing the lift fan stuff back in the 60s and 70s without much luck as far as durability and weight. That was one of the big selling points of the Harrier with it's directed jet nozzles and supposedly (compared to?) simpler design.

Anyway I wish those who fly this bird all the luck in the world and hope it finally proves to be worth it's weight in gold!!

reply to post by MystikMushroom

HOLY CRAP!

That almost doesn't look real.

Well, the first video is computer graphics.

Second one is real footage mixed with CG though...

reply to post by 727Sky


Any VTOL has FOD issues due to the exhaust pushing down and blowing rocks and other debris. The thrust from the engine is so high that you can see it blowing water off the surface of the ocean as it takes off from the Wasp in one of the videos. There's no way this aircraft will be able to use an unimproved surface.

reply to post by Gazrok


Indeed. Its a great rip off of the Yak-141

Reminds me of back in '85 during Operation Team Spirit in Korea my unit was moving through a small valley in heavy brush and all of a sudden we were assaulted by a tremendous noise and 2 Harriers came up right over us

Scared the crap out of me

Cool videos everyone