F-35A gets the darn "check engine light"

[spuwho]

A F-35A fresh off the assembly line at the Lockheed-Martin plant in Forth Worth made a unscheduled landing in Lubbock International Airport.


Per Aviation Week:

A U.S. Air Force F-35A made an unplanned landing roughly 300 mi. from the Lockheed Martin final assembly facility in Fort Worth after the pilot received an “inflight caution warning,” according to company spokesman Michael Rein.

The pilot landed the aircraft safely at Lubbock International Airport after a 12:40 p.m. local time takeoff from the Fort Worth facility.

The aircraft was being flown to Nellis AFB, Nev., Rein says, as a routine delivery. The aircraft is tail number AF-23, according to program sources.

Rein says a Lockheed Martin team is on site at Lubbock airport to support the aircraft. Officials will identify the cause of the warning, repair the aircraft and ready it for flight, Rein says.

[BridgeTroll]

Beautiful aircraft! 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Beautiful aircraft! 

I'm just waiting on them to be able to do this:

[Jason]

"Beautiful" isn't the word for it BT...   that thing is Damn Sexy!      I just pray we never have to use it for what it was built for.

[Dog Walker]

"Beautiful" isn't the word for it BT...   that thing is Damn Sexy!      I just pray we never have to use it for what it was built for.

Especially since it is not capable of doing what it was built for.  Time to get the pilots out.

[I-10east]

Maybe that sequester was actually a blessing in disguise. I'm all of the military and everything, just not the 'W-esque' unnecessary military spending that so many on the right are notorious for.

[BridgeTroll]

"Beautiful" isn't the word for it BT...   that thing is Damn Sexy!      I just pray we never have to use it for what it was built for.

Especially since it is not capable of doing what it was built for.  Time to get the pilots out.

OK... I'll let the Airforce/Navy/Pentagon figure that out...

[Doctor_K]

Beautiful aircraft! 

Not bad.  But it lacks the sex appeal of the F-14, IMO.  The Tomcat had its own mythos.  The F-35A/B/C and the F-22 can't match it.

My supporting argument?

Try putting an F-35 into the Top Gun dogfight scenes with "Danger Zone" blaring in the background.

Ain't happenin'.

[Jason]

^ Hmmm Yeah I guess I can agree with that.  Add to that, the F-35 couldn't take down John McClane driving a semi rig.  But, can anything take down John McClane?

[BridgeTroll]

Beautiful aircraft! 

Not bad.  But it lacks the sex appeal of the F-14, IMO.  The Tomcat had its own mythos.  The F-35A/B/C and the F-22 can't match it.

My supporting argument?

Try putting an F-35 into the Top Gun dogfight scenes with "Danger Zone" blaring in the background.

Ain't happenin'.

Perhaps... The Tomcat was a single purpose fighter... Protect the Carrier!  F-35 is a multi purpose aircraft...

[Ocklawaha]

Beautiful aircraft! 

I'm just waiting on them to be able to do this:

Funny but if you think of the standard Army entrenching tool, could it be that it is the basis for the transformers

[Adam W]

Beautiful aircraft! 

Not bad.  But it lacks the sex appeal of the F-14, IMO.  The Tomcat had its own mythos.  The F-35A/B/C and the F-22 can't match it.

My supporting argument?

Try putting an F-35 into the Top Gun dogfight scenes with "Danger Zone" blaring in the background.

Ain't happenin'.

I agree. The F-35 and F-22 have a kind of pudgy, squat look about them. I guess it might have to do with stealth technology or something. Or maybe not.

I think the Eurofighter Typhoon (as an example of a newer fighter) looks a lot nicer. And some of the newer Russian fighters are pretty cool looking, too.

But I'd imagine the F-22 is probably more advanced.

[Dog Walker]

Trying to make one aircraft fulfill all of the aircraft roles, interceptor, ground attack, carrier capable, ship destroyer, etc. is a fools game pushed on the Pentagon by the aircraft manufacturers to make money.  Specifically designed aircraft for each role, as was done in the past, makes for more capability and less expense.

Can you imagine trying to make a P-51 able to land on an aircraft carrier?

There are too many contradictory roles for aircraft to try to make one frame fit all situations.

[spuwho]

Speaking of  "Top Gun"

- Tom Cruise was to co-produce and star in the sequel
- Unfortunately the director of the first one and scheduled to direct the sequel, Tony Scott, committed suicide by jumping off the Long Beach Harbor Bridge, 2 days after scouting filming locations with Tom. (They had just returned from Fallon NAS Nevada)
- The known plot line was a story about the use of drones and humans in modern combat
- The producers had secured access to a F-35 Lightning II from Lockheed Martin for use in the movie

With Tony's unfortunate death, the status of the production is up in the air.

So those of you who grew up watching Grumman F-14 Tomcats dogfighting on the big screen, might have had your kids watching 'Maverick' duke it out in a F-35.

We still crack jokes about Maverick in a sequel standing in front of Gooses' grave mumbling "talk me Goose..talk to me"

[spuwho]

Trying to make one aircraft fulfill all of the aircraft roles, interceptor, ground attack, carrier capable, ship destroyer, etc. is a fools game pushed on the Pentagon by the aircraft manufacturers to make money.  Specifically designed aircraft for each role, as was done in the past, makes for more capability and less expense.

Can you imagine trying to make a P-51 able to land on an aircraft carrier?

There are too many contradictory roles for aircraft to try to make one frame fit all situations.

I agree, purpose built military aircraft are much more useful. Ask the Germans circa 1943 about multi-role aircraft.

Mustangs using a carrier? Yes, here is a pix of one on the deck of the USS Shangri La


Unfortunately the F8F Bearcat it was competing against beat it easily.