# F-35 Lightning II completes first flight



## v2 (Dec 17, 2006)

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II lifted into the skies today (december 15 ) for the first time, completing a successful inaugural flight and initiating the most comprehensive flight test program in military aviation history.
"The Lightning II performed beautifully," said F-35 Chief Pilot Jon Beesley following the flight. "What a great start for the flight-test program, and a testimony to the people who have worked so hard to make this happen." The most powerful engine ever placed in a fighter aircraft – the Pratt Whitney F135 turbofan, with 40,000 pounds of thrust – effortlessly pushed the F-35 skyward.
The flight of the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35 variant began at 12:44 p.m. CST at Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, Texas, when the jet lifted off and began a climb-out to 15,000 feet. Beesley then performed a series of maneuvers to test aircraft handling and the operation of the engine and subsystems. He returned for a landing at 1:19 p.m CST. Two F*16s and an F/A-18 served as chase aircraft. 
Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and general manager of the F-35 program, said the aircraft has continued to meet or exceed expectations during its assembly and pre-flight checkouts. It has now embarked on a 12,000-hour flight-test program designed to validate tens of thousands of hours of testing already completed in F-35 laboratories. "The F-35 will enter service as the most exhaustively tested, most thoroughly proven fighter system in history," Crowley said. "And thanks to its all-digital design, an exceptionally talented international engineering team and the world’s best assemblers and mechanics, the F-35 has completely rewritten the book on fighter assembly precision and quality."


----------



## mkloby (Dec 17, 2006)

she is pretty - and will be able to carry a nice payload too.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 17, 2006)

Yeah she is a looker (and is a performer from the sounds of things).


----------



## mkloby (Dec 17, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> Yeah she is a looker (and is a performer from the sounds of things).



Oh - she will most definitely be able to kick serious *ss.


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 17, 2006)

So the type hadn't really completed the first operational flight before the cockpit jammed... Disregard made a mistake it was the F-22 that had the cockpit jam. Hope though this aircraft doesn't have a similar problem...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 17, 2006)

If the only snafu the F-22 has to worry about was the cockpit incident - well god help it's adversaries. 

Both F-22 and F-35 will be awesome combat aircraft


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2006)

one cannot help but think that with all the hype about the F-35 perhaps the americans have shot themselves in the foot with the F-22, with everything being said about the abilities of the F-35 is the F-22 really needed? yes she is a better dogfighter of which there is little doubt but is she gooe enough to justify maintaining a fleet of both?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 18, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> one cannot help but think that with all the hype about the F-35 perhaps the americans have shot themselves in the foot with the F-22, with everything being said about the abilities of the F-35 is the F-22 really needed? yes she is a better dogfighter of which there is little doubt but is she gooe enough to justify maintaining a fleet of both?


Very perceptive my young friend! I know people who worked both programs and there was some concern about the F-35 performing "too well."

Those running the F-35 are under continual pressure to keep the program on schedule and on budget - something that did not happen on the F-22, at least not in the early days of production (1996). I think eventually many in Congress will ask "Do we really need both aircraft." The USAF is selling its soul to get both of these aircraft on line and many careers are at stake.

BTW the first F-35 flight test did go well despite the flight sortie being cut short. My rumor source tells me the problem was in some of the test equipment, not the aircraft...


----------



## mkloby (Dec 18, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Very perceptive my young friend! I know people who worked both programs and there was some concern about the F-35 performing "too well."
> 
> Those running the F-35 are under continual pressure to keep the program on schedule and on budget - something that did not happen on the F-22, at least not in the early days of production (1996). I think eventually many in Congress will ask "Do we really need both aircraft." The USAF is selling its soul to get both of these aircraft on line and many careers are at stake.
> 
> BTW the first F-35 flight test did go well despite the flight sortie being cut short. My rumor source tells me the problem was in some of the test equipment, not the aircraft...



I read in an air force publication - i'm trapped in another air force squadron! - that the F-35 program is the most expensive aircraft development project ever. US funding is estimated at 200 billion total. USAF also is not pursuing acquisition of any of the F-35B? models and will only get their conventional model.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 18, 2006)

Thus the need to placate the UK. We need them for the STOVL.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 18, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> Thus the need to placate the UK. We need them for the STOVL.



While the US could no doubt have developed the STOVL w/o British help, I also believe that the joint effort has produced a more capable aircraft... sorta the whole two heads thing. The Rolls fan shafted to the F136 GE seems to be a formidable powerplant. Seems more capable than the Boeing X-32 submission to the JSF table, seeming more reminiscent of the outdated harrier's propulsion system.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 18, 2006)

Great F-35 site!

JSF.mil > Gallery


----------



## R-2800 (Dec 19, 2006)

well at least it flys.


----------



## Glider (Dec 19, 2006)

I understand that the test flight was shortened due to the undercarridge not being able to retract. It could easily have been a faulty guage or reading but understandably they were not going to take chances on the first flight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2006)

Glider said:


> I understand that the test flight was shortened due to the undercarridge not being able to retract. It could easily have been a faulty guage or reading but understandably they were not going to take chances on the first flight.


My "rumor sources" don't want to say much, but you're on the right track...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2006)

track-undercarriage, very subtle FB


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> track-undercarriage, very subtle FB


----------



## evangilder (Dec 28, 2006)

Don't they normally do the first couple of flights with the gear down normally? I remember seeing something about that once, they do it just in case.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Don't they normally do the first couple of flights with the gear down normally? I remember seeing something about that once, they do it just in case.


Actually the first flight of the X-35 they sucked the gear up and I think went mach 1.1!!!


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2006)

Hmm. Gutsy test pilot! Has the gear down test flight changed? I seem to remember seeing lots of stuffyears ago doing first flights with the gear down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2006)

My rumor contact at Lockheed told me they intended to suck the gear in on the F-35 first flight but becuase of a problem not relating to the aircraft, they decided not to.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Whatever the case, they'll have the thing straightened out in short order. Awesome aircraft.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 29, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Whatever the case, they'll have the thing straightened out in short order. Awesome aircraft.



Agreed NS, hopefully any minor things will be sorted quickly.


----------



## Glider (Dec 29, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> My rumor contact at Lockheed told me they intended to suck the gear in on the F-35 first flight but becuase of a problem not relating to the aircraft, they decided not to.



Seconded, My understanding is that it was to do with an air data recorder specially fitted for the test flight that went wrong. Nothing to do with the standard aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2006)

Glider said:


> Seconded, My understanding is that it was to do with an air data recorder specially fitted for the test flight that went wrong. Nothing to do with the standard aircraft.



You're on the money...


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2006)

Good to know that's all it was.


----------



## Glider (Jan 9, 2007)

No doubt everyone will be glad to know that the second flight went exactly as planned with no problems at all.

Also in joint service exercises in Alaska last summer, F22's have scored 144 kills against no losses including a gun kill against an F16, which wasn't planned but the pilot had run out of missiles and decided to have some fun.

Sounds as if the US are getting the right planes for the job.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2007)

it'll be interesting to see the F-22 against the F-35, have the Americans just wasted money on the F-22 perhaps?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it'll be interesting to see the F-22 against the F-35, have the Americans just wasted money on the F-22 perhaps?


That may come up!


----------



## mkloby (Jan 9, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That may come up!



No doubt... but the Air Force's cup runneth over with funding!


----------



## Glider (Jan 9, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it'll be interesting to see the F-22 against the F-35, have the Americans just wasted money on the F-22 perhaps?



Dare I say, or just buy Typhoons instead.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 9, 2007)

And settle for second best? Blasphemy. 

Estimated costs for each with comparison to F-16

$30M F-16
$50M F-35
$58M Typhoon


----------



## Glider (Jan 10, 2007)

Only $8m more per plane, bargin. How much do we reckon for the F22.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 10, 2007)

F-22 estimated 85 million per A/C, but the final cost is very dependent on the production run.


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 10, 2007)

Now all we need is an adversary worthy of the F-22 or F-35. 

I’m sure it’s too technologically sensitive to export for the next decade but I'd like to see China's reaction if Taiwan were allowed to purchased a handful.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2007)

The only think the Typhoon really lacks in is the stealth capability.

Typhoon is a great aircraft but the F-22 is still going to be the best in the air.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 10, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The only think the Typhoon really lacks in is the stealth capability.
> 
> Typhoon is a great aircraft but the F-22 is still going to be the best in the air.



Whilst I agree, I still think it would be interesting to see how the two were matched in a (albeit fake) combat scenario.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2007)

I think that would be interesting. The F-22 would come out on top because of its greater maneuverability due to the thrust vectoring.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 10, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think that would be interesting. The F-22 would come out on top because of its greater maneuverability due to the thrust vectoring.



Yep, I think that would be the case as well although it would be a good fight.


----------



## Glider (Jan 10, 2007)

Their is little doubt that its F22 before the Typhoon but when you consider how few F22's are likely to be built, the F35 vs Typhoon is likely to be the important matchup.
In a BVR scenario the F22 will I believe be unmatched for quite a time, the question is though, how often do the rules of engagement allow BVR. I do not know but I would be suprised if this was common.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 10, 2007)

You guys are focusing ENTIRELY to much upon the physical capabilities. The F-22's lethality is less connected to its flight performance and MUCH more connected to its stealth, weapon systems, guidance capability, detection capability and comm ability to share nav position state, intention, ability, targets and surveillance. This similar capability is inherent in the F-35. And for $8m for F-35, you bet I'd want it. With F-22 you got the best of both worlds.

I don't knock the Typhoon, but it is not the generation of either US aircraft. But I hope later Tranches (II and III) bring it up to speed.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 10, 2007)

Glider said:


> Their is little doubt that its F22 before the Typhoon but when you consider how few F22's are likely to be built, the F35 vs Typhoon is likely to be the important matchup.
> In a BVR scenario the F22 will I believe be unmatched for quite a time, the question is though, how often do the rules of engagement allow BVR. I do not know but I would be suprised if this was common.



I believe the USAF will still be acquiring upwards of 200+ F-22s.


----------



## Glider (Jan 11, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> You guys are focusing ENTIRELY to much upon the physical capabilities. The F-22's lethality is less connected to its flight performance and MUCH more connected to its stealth, weapon systems, guidance capability, detection capability and comm ability to share nav position state, intention, ability, targets and surveillance. This similar capability is inherent in the F-35. And for $8m for F-35, you bet I'd want it. With F-22 you got the best of both worlds.
> 
> I don't knock the Typhoon, but it is not the generation of either US aircraft. But I hope later Tranches (II and III) bring it up to speed.



Not quite and that is why I brought up the issue of BVR rules in the terms of engagement. Where BVR is allowed then the F22 is head and shoulders above the rest. 
Earlier in the thread I mentioned that in excercises the F22 had scored 144 kills to zero, but its worth mentioning that 140 of those were in a BVR situation.

The Typhoon also has the weapon systems, guidance capability, detection capability and comm ability to share nav position state, intention, ability, targets and surveillance which will even things up to some degree. Indeed the Grippen has impressive abilities in this area so it isn't a new technology for Europe.

Time will tell as to how well the Typhoon and F35 square off against each other, because right now we don't know.

Personally I hope that the Typhoon is an advance over the F35 as the UK are buying both. If the Typhoon isn't an improvement then we have wasted a shedload of money on infrastructure costs alone to cater for both types of aircraft.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 11, 2007)

Interesting to read about those Alaska exercises that you are quoting the 144 kills from. Further reading indicates that the F-22s were assuming a top cover role that allowed them to guide and direct firing of F-15s, F-16s and F-18s against opposing forces. F-22 capabilities would allow information exchange to ensure that lock-ons were not overlapping to maximize ordinance on aircraft that could not even see the threat. The AESA radar, F-22 stealth, and performance is supposedly allowing a 150mi greater engagement range over F-15s and simulated opposition. The supercruise and high altitude performance allowed F-22s to freely roam at 65,000ft at mach 1.6 for BVR and to engage other targets at will by nosing over, accelerating and making use of IR missiles. Two kills were acquire in this manner and a third with guns. While the thrust to weight ratio is only about 1 versus 1.2 for F-15, Eagle drivers were complimenting the F-22 for its thrust vectoring ability and acceleration in full-burner. They further noted that F-22 maneuvering and performance is such that existing counter maneuvers need to be rethought to account for the F-22 unique performance. The conclusion being that while the F-22 was not developed with close in dogfighting capabilities as its primary strength, it is still quite a formidable foe...if you survive the BVR. As I recall. There was only 16 F-22s used in the whole exercise of which only 8 were engaged at any one time. 

One of the most telling comments of those who witnessed the engagements was the "eery silence" of the F-22 attacks and coordation with other air assets. All this coordination and target parameter exchange occurring using machine-to-machine data link.

144 kills. I'd say that's not too bad.


----------



## Glider (Jan 11, 2007)

Thaks for the additional info its a lot more detailed than I had. There is no doubt that with the F22 and the F35, the USA have worthy replacements for the F15/F16 combination, that has served it so well over the last 25-30 years.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2007)

I dont think the US has that much of an adversary with the F-22 and F-35.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 12, 2007)

it's an interesting point in the BVR discussion, only in a massive WWIII situation would such attacks be allowed, the politics these days would prevent BVR shooting through fear of what the press will say if it goes wrong, they have the power to topple governments............


----------



## mkloby (Jan 12, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it's an interesting point in the BVR discussion, only in a massive WWIII situation would such attacks be allowed, the politics these days would prevent BVR shooting through fear of what the press will say if it goes wrong, they have the power to topple governments............



I don't understand why you think that. If any nation sends up A/C against US air assets, I see zero hesitation in taking them out before they can engage. You don't even need high speed F-35s or 22's to do that. Even Hornets can link up w/ E-2s or AWACS and "see" targets way beyond the capabilities of their own radar systems.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 12, 2007)

Both are true, but somewhat different issues.

If you think WWII then "blips" on radar don't offer any clue as to identification of said aircraft. Today radar is MUCH more sophisticated and offers MUCH higher resolution than that. Further electromagnetic emmissions are used to help classify targets. So intelligence gathering is magnitudes different that what you might imagine from a WWII battlespace.

Finally, the analogy to AWACS is spot on. But F-22s can accomplish much of this capability further into the battlespace and without risking an AWACS assets. Certainly AWACS has more computing power, but cannot project itself into the melee.

Battlespace management and networking information is key to future air combat.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 13, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Battlespace management and networking information is key to future air combat.



Exactly - Linking is still highly classified.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 13, 2007)

Yep.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2007)

come on matt, being an Electrical Engineer decoding the links should be a walk in the park 

btw, how is that trying to crack the DVD algorithms project going? 

solved world hunger yet?


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 13, 2007)

Only British algorithms.

Are you mocking me, Lanc?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2007)

you're being very secretive that's all, it's almost as if you're somehow involved in these very secretive data links


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 13, 2007)




----------



## Matt308 (Jan 13, 2007)

Its all published info Lanc.


----------



## Glider (Jan 23, 2010)

I understand that Isreal are having problems with the F35. Nothing to do with the aircraft but to do with the control the US are insisting they have on any changes to the aircraft. This is the same argument that the UK had with the USA before they signed the final contracts.

The US will not realease the code that would enable the countries who buy the F35 to integrate any changes to the aircraft. Any none US equipment has to be given to the US who will then do the integration work. The UK got an exception to this in view of the roll that it had in the development and the money put forward to the develoment.

Isreal want to install their own ECM equipment into the F35 but the US will not realease the code. Israels position is simple, its ECM equipment has to be effective against US and USSR radar equipment and will not give it to the US as its secrets will be compromised. The US will not give the code for the same reason as their secrets are likely to leak. 
An interesting situation as some Arab states are starting to purchase equipment that is at least as good as the F15 putting their air superiority at risk.

How this will be resolved I don't know. Israel needs better aircraft and the only real alternative is the Typhoon but I cannot see the USA letting that happen with all the support they give Israel in so many different ways. Best guess, is that Israel hand over a simplified ECM package that they can upgrade in Israel once its back home.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 25, 2010)

Isreal is buying the F-35. I think the issue is moot at this point.

Good find, Glider. This thread made me reminisce about times long ago. You resurrected an old one.


----------



## Glider (Jan 26, 2010)

Right now both sides are sticking their toes in but they need something so its something to watch


----------

