F 35B 1st Landing on USS WASP

[CWOJackson]

They'll be making landings/takeoffs over the next two weeks.

There is a video of the first takeoff and other landings/takeoffs at this link: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7867619

 

[deathfromafar]

Points taken, just not necessarily agreed with. I'll stand by my TFX/JSF comparison; the multi-service element was the problem with TFX, trying to marry the navy & air force requirements into a (nearly) common airframe made the F-111 problems inevitable - thankfully, as you said, it ventually matured into a very fine strike aircraft. JSF has some of the same issues (multiplied, due to international involvement) and, yes, it will undoubtedly mature into a very capable aircraft.

Picking up your comment "ultimately the capability, reliability/safety improvements over the Harrier are like night and day". I mentioned the P1154 earlier; the best thing about that project (another one where inter-service rivalry was an issue) was that when it was ended Hawker were given the go ahead to develop the 'basic' Kestrel design into the Harrier; the relative simplicity of the Harrier (apart from the engine/flight mode obviously) was what made it a success, I doubt the USMC would have been interested in P1154, but P1127 was perfect for them. Over time Harrier grew in capability, with laser designation added, the advent of the Sea Harrier, the AV-8B; but that underlying simplicity remained, which is what made it so flexible.

And I never said that one size couldn't fit all, what I'm saying is that if that size is dictated by a committee then you have problems; TFX, JSF, Tornado, Typhoon, all utlimately successful but all a sight more complex than they probably needed to be, due to the compromises involved. The Phantom was designed initially for a clearly defined role, carrier based interception; but because McDD's design was so good & so well engineered it proved adaptable to many other roles; the F-16, the F-17/18, the Harrier all great aircraft, fulfilling many roles, but working from a good basic design. Probably the classic example is the Hawker Hunter, designed as a basic day interceptor and still providing useful service in many roles over 60 years after the 1st flight of the prototype - good, basic engineering will always win out.

I hope the F-35B does prove to be a success; the V-22 faced cancellation so many times, but has now really started to prove itself.

Good points.

I'd like to add that in general, the F-35A and C models are well suited in straight forward for their intended multirole uses with possible flexibility to expand into other roles and weapon platforms. It's been said from the beginning that the STOVL version was what would stretch the JSF project to the limit thus adding higher costs and risk. I won't dispute that at all. The first versions of the B had a more complex system of shutter doors for the lift fan system that IMO were more than at average risk for failures and extensive maintenance to preserve stealth aspects of the airframe. The refined versions of those systems seem to be on the right track now as well as refinement of other core segments of the entire Engine/STOVL components and subsets.

Yes the F-35B is more complex and costly than the Harrier but the performance and payload are far higher. The FBW stabilization and excess thrust give the F-35B far greater "cushion" of safety and ease of handling over the Harrier. Having grown up not far from MCAS Cherry Point, I can remember the rash of AV-8A accidents and the Marine pilots calling them the "Carolina Lawn Dart" or Widowmaker. It was a tricky aircraft to master and all the test pilots who flew the A version including former WW2 German Ace Gerhard Barkhorn were adamant that the Harrier should only be manned by experienced pilots ranking Captain to Major(who would have a considerable number of jet hours by that time in their careers). The AV-8B while an improvement over the A, it has had it's share of accidents as well. One retired USMC Harrier pilot(former A-4 pilot) who lives near me remarked that either version of the Harrier had certain advantages over other tactical jets but it's limitations and learning curve were it's Achilles heel.

While I suspect the F-35B will better the Harrier in many aspects, I won't step out on a limb to say it's going to be flawless. I expect to see it hit a few snags during the length of it's career. Hopefully those snags won't sour it's potential and reputation as it wrings out.

 

[hairyspin]

They'll be making landings/takeoffs over the next two weeks.

There is a video of the first takeoff and other landings/takeoffs at this link: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7867619

Fascinating to watch the jet pipe 'waggling' back and forward on leaving the deck. Having seen a pre-production nozzle on display some years ago, that vid speaks volumes for the engineering of the thrust vectoring system.

 

[AndyG43]

It was a tricky aircraft to master and all the test pilots who flew the A version including former WW2 German Ace Gerhard Barkhorn were adamant that the Harrier should only be manned by experienced pilots ranking Captain to Major(who would have a considerable number of jet hours by that time in their careers). The AV-8B while an improvement over the A, it has had it's share of accidents as well. One retired USMC Harrier pilot(former A-4 pilot) who lives near me remarked that either version of the Harrier had certain advantages over other tactical jets but it's limitations and learning curve were it's Achilles heel.

Totally! My ex-father in law was a crew chief on 1 Squadron when they got their first Harriers (long way from his first role, prewar, gunner in the back of a Hawker Hind bomber), back then they could barely struggle from one side of RAF Wittering to the other. It was assumed that a lot of the Hunter pilots would just transition to Harrier, but some just weren't up to it.