Joint Strike Fighter JSF first Vertical TakeOff

[CurtisBilly]

Check it out. I'm a college student, but working at the company that makes the engine on this plane.

videos

 

[arod]

I saw this on news last night... one sweet airplane

 

[XMan]

Aren't they cutting JSF funding? Or was that the F-22?

 

[pulpp]

sweet i wish i could work on something like that

 

[Antoneo]

<< Aren't they cutting JSF funding? Or was that the F-22? >>


I believe it was the F-22 program...

 

[AndrewR]

Ok, if you work for the engine company, WHY IN THE WORLD DID THEY ONLY PUT ONE ENGINE ON THE PLANE??? Idiocy.

 

[CurtisBilly]

This is the replacement for the f-16. It is the low cost plane for our arsenal, hence the one engine (which there is NOTHING wrong with). The F-22 uses pretty much the same engine but two of them....the f-22 is a beast....as with all government funding, there are cutbacks....but both programs are definitely alive and kicking.

 

[SuperGroove]

Well ya'll better be buy shares of Lockheed now...you KNOW they're going to win the $350+ Billion dollar contract.


Very impressive.

 

[CurtisBilly]

Oh Boeing is right there too...check out there webpage.

 

[JohnnyKnoxville]

Cool have to check out the video.I've worked on the C-17 electrical systems and no crashes to date

 

[SSP]

Cool. Can it take off while its in the air like that?

 

[zippy]

Yeah, saw that on CNN today- very sweet indeed!

 

[CurtisBilly]

SSP the idea of a 2-dimensional thrust vectoring nozzle is quite intriguing. The possibilites are quite scary to think of. Basically we are used to seeing planes follow a path pointed to by the tip of the nose. We've seen the Harrier before, so this vertical takeoff is not completely new. A 2-d thrust vectoring nozzle as seen in the JSF is as far as I know brand new. The F-22 uses a 1-d (up and down) vectoring nozzle...which is interesting by itself.

 

[AndrewR]

Nothing wrong with one engine on an aircraft specifically designed to be a strike aircraft, i.e. go into hostile territory as in go against enemy fire?? Let me explain. Two engines means that you can lose one and still fly! One engine means that there's one engine and then SPLAT.

A prime consideration for any piece of military hardware is the concept of redundancy. When you KNOW the weapons system is going to be hit (and let's face it, what's more likely to be hit by enemy fire than an attack aircraft?), you design it with taking damage in mind. The A-10 Thunderbolt II, for instance, is WELL designed to be able to withstand some serious punishment and yet bring itself and its pilot back to base. Why Pentagon planners have been trying for years to get that plane out of the inventory is beyond my comprehension. Update the avionics and perhaps some airframe design, but that's the best low level close-support aircraft in the world. Sure -- let's rely completely on missiles! Didn't they learn any damn lessons in Vietnam??

Sure, the JSF is more geared to stand-off attack (see above), and frankly that's a big mistake from my perspective. Design an aircraft with the handling characteristics of the JSF yet the survivability of the A-10, and you have a fantastic design. As it is, I think they are trying to put too many missions into one airframe. When you do that, you have to compromise and that means dead pilots.

I really hope I'm wrong though.

 

[Dually]

Vertical take off is dumb. It is okay for use in small battles or engagements but not an airwar with a real enemry. The British learned the hard way in the FalklinIslans war, they won but suffered a lot of loses with the Harrier.

 

[Cooltech2k]

hmmmm If I Remember correctly we had sompthing called a pegasus in ww2 that did vertical take off... Seemed like it would be more reliable than that thing...

&amp; I Think that 2 engines on that would suck... that much more that can go wrong..

 

[Antisocial Virge]

I see it can hover but do any of the videos show it going into flight from the hover? And I agree, I think vertical takeoff is kinda a waste. Buy a few Harriers if you need them but don't waste billions into something of very very limited use. Harriers rarely even use it for takeoff.

 

[AndrewR]

VTOL is not dumb by any means. It's not actually the VTOL capability that is the best part (though the idea of remote deployment of planes to avoid destruction on the ground is appealing), but the engine vectoring gives the plane increased mobility in-flight because it is able to direct the thrust of its engine(s) to provide control rather than simply using control surfaces such as flaps and rudders. IF you can create an aircraft which has similar high speed performance of a conventional aircraft combined with the increased manueverability of a thrust vectoring aircraft AND add VTOL, you have a terrific design.

The Harrier's shortcomings were not specifically VTOL.

 

[SuperTool]

I believe that the VTOL design for that plane was borrowed from a Russian airplane. Anyone have info on that?