Metro Jacksonville

A F-35A fresh off the assembly line at the Lockheed-Martin plant in Forth Worth made a unscheduled landing in Lubbock International Airport.
(http://www.aviationweek.com/media/images/fullsize/Defense/Fighters/F-35AfromAbove-LockheedMartin.jpg)

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.

Beautiful aircraft!  8)

Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 15, 2013, 07:09:57 AM
Beautiful aircraft!  8)

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

(http://images.wikia.com/transformers/images/f/f0/Movie_Voyager_Starscream_toy.jpg)

"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.

Quote from: Jason on March 18, 2013, 08:49:48 AM
"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.

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.

Quote from: Dog Walker on March 18, 2013, 12:14:02 PM

Quote from: Jason on March 18, 2013, 08:49:48 AM
"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...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 15, 2013, 07:09:57 AM
Beautiful aircraft!  8)

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'. :)

^ 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?

:)

Quote from: Doctor_K on March 18, 2013, 01:10:00 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 15, 2013, 07:09:57 AM
Beautiful aircraft!  8)

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...

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 15, 2013, 10:23:43 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 15, 2013, 07:09:57 AM
Beautiful aircraft!  8)

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

Quote from: Doctor_K on March 18, 2013, 01:10:00 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 15, 2013, 07:09:57 AM
Beautiful aircraft!  8)

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.

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.

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"

Quote from: Dog Walker on March 18, 2013, 05:48:51 PM
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
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/tn/023868.gif)

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

Quote from: Dog Walker on March 18, 2013, 05:48:51 PM
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 would think that a P-51 would have ZERO issues landing on a carrier.  EC-2s do it all the time:

Note:  after I noticed that the video says P-3.... NOT a P-3.  The Orions are what fly out of NAS and they are not set-up for carrier landings.  IIRC, they tried some testing, but the tail-hook assemblies kept failing.  Then they succeeded, in tests, by reversing the engines, but there was an instance when a P-3 went to make an emergency landing, had one engine out, and the resulting reverse thrust caused the entire plane to yaw into the tower.  I'm going to check the details, but that's what I remember hearing.

http://www.youtube.com/v/7w0xHxig_oM

As someone with over 5000 hours of P-3 flight time... I can assure you... NO P-3 has nor will land on an aircraft carrier.

This is a video of an E-2 hawkeye

Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 21, 2013, 12:08:01 PM
As someone with over 5000 hours of P-3 flight time... I can assure you... NO P-3 has nor will land on an aircraft carrier.

Did a quick google search and found what was probably my info source on that one.  And yes, I believe you to be correct.

http://www.airwarriors.com/community/index.php?threads/p-3s-on-a-carrier.8615/

QuoteThis is a video of an E-2 hawkeye

I caught that before I posted.   ;)

Quote from: Dog Walker on March 18, 2013, 12:14:02 PM

Quote from: Jason on March 18, 2013, 08:49:48 AM
"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.

Apparently a few other countries do not share your disdain... 8)

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_04_04_2013_p06-01-565328.xml&guid=2013-04-04

QuoteSingapore is poised to place an order for Lockheed Martin F-35s, with various reports suggesting that the most likely version is the F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing (stovl) variant being developed for the U.S. Marine Corps.

The country’s defense minister, Ng Eng Hen, has told Singapore’s parliament that the ministry of defense has almost completed its evaluation of the F-35 as a replacement for Singapore’s aging Northrop F-5s. He also says the country’s Lockheed Martin F-16s will eventually need replacing and the aircraft are already midway through their life.

According to the Aviation Week Intelligence Network database, Singapore has 38 Northrop F-5s/Ts and 60 F-16C/Ds. It also bought 24 Boeing F-15SGs a few years ago.

Singapore, which is a strong U.S. ally, already has official observer status to the F-35 program. It signed up as an observer in early 2003, along with Israel, which has since ordered F-35s. Various news reports, citing unnamed sources, say Singapore plans to place an order for the B model as early as this month.

The old Mustang (P-51) is still one of the greatest airplanes of all time, this short flick puts one through her paces. Interestingly, the North American P-51 Mustang was used by the USAF during the Korean War, mainly in the close air support role with the P-47 not being deployed to Korea. Since the Mustang was more vulnerable to being shot down, (and many were lost due to anti-aircraft fire), some former P-47 pilots suggested the more durable Thunderbolt should have been sent to Korea; however the P-51D was available in greater numbers in the USAF.



The Thunderbolt was said to be the most destructive aircraft in the European Theater of WWII, it could out dive anything and had the power to perform at high altitudes where enemy planes were weak. Several squadrons of these were in the Jacksonville area, Green Cove Springs had, I believe a photo squadron, NAS Jax had one or more, and don't forget on Flemming Island the Navy OLF base was known as 'Thunderbolt.'



My father's personal favorite (and mine by default) is the Chance Vought F4U Corsair, (which stared in the rather ridiculous TV version of the famous  'Black Sheep Squadron.'  I always thought Robert Conrad wished he could have been there when the real 'Pappy Boyington' was in action. Dad was on the light cruiser Pasadena a class of ships that often provided AA support for the carriers. According to him of all of the planes they witnessed returning missing large pieces, the Corsair seemed the most survivable. The name of the film also tells the story of what the Imperial Japanese Forces thought of the strange inverted wing plane - 'whistling death,' is the name they gave the Corsair.


They don't sound much more cool then this ORIGINAL Type-0 A6M5 (Zero or Zeke) The Japanese Aircraft ID's were similar to ours. Type 0 Carrier Fighter (Rei shiki Kanjō sentōki, 零式艦上戦闘機), taken from the last digit of the Imperial year 2600 (1940), when it entered service. In Japan, it was unofficially referred to as both Rei-sen and Zero-sen; Japanese pilots most commonly called it Zero-sen, which translates (zero cents).

In the official designation "A6M" the "A" signified a carrier-based fighter, "6" meant it was sixth such model built for the Imperial Navy, and "M" indicated the manufacturer, Mitsubishi. The number following was a reference to a variant. A letter following indicated a second contractor supplied components and followed the same ABC list of suppliers, 'M' for Mitsubishi, etc.