Watch: New F-35B Fighter Jet Hover Aboard A Ship

gCaptain ^ | May 30, 2015

[artichokegrower]

Fine and dandy now go smoke some ISIS butt with the darn thing

[artichokegrower]

Link to video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrcMJj2TSPQ

[Menehune56]

We watched one doing a vertical landing yesterday at Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth. An Impessive feat!

[Mariner]

USN would have been better off with a $60 mil improved Harrier.

That way they could buy 3 or 400 of them.

[Repeal The 17th]

Another good one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-_p3blli2k

[Mariner]

An effective strike and CAP weapon, and no catapult.

With this system in operation, you can add another 10-12 small carriers to the US fleet.

[RedMDer]

Keep Free Republic Alive with YOUR Donations!

Make a difference.

PLEASE Contribute Today!

Let's Git-R-Done! Monday is June!

[Jim from C-Town]

I think newer versions of fighters are great, but is it more cost effective to buy 100 F-35B fighter jets at $135 million each or buy 200 f-18 jets at $70 million each or even 465 F-16 fighter jets at $29 million each?

Is quality that much more important than quantity? Particularly when I am not sure if more than 10 F-16 or even 1 F-18 has been lost to hostile action.

[PAR35]

Ping, if you still lurk.

[PAR35]

buy 200 f-18 jets at $70 million each or even 465 F-16 fighter jets at $29 million each

I wouldn't want to be around if the 16s or 18s decided to conduct operations from a Wasp class ship.

[TangibleDisgust]

USN would have been better off with a $60 mil improved Harrier.

That way they could buy 3 or 400 of them.

you're not wrong.

[Don Corleone]

Of course when the going gets rough and they need close air (as they do now) they will have to call in the old tried and true A-10s since the expensive payoffs to the manufacturers can’t begin to do the job.

[Jim from C-Town]

I am just asking about cost effectiveness. If we desire more small air craft carriers, why such an incredibly expensive entirely new jet? What is wrong with stocking a small carrier with a proven aircraft that is less expensive. We already use Harrier jets that have operational capabilities that include hover and vertical take off and landing and they are orders of magnitude less expensive.

They also have computer systems and manufacturing that is already been debugged and proved in real World combat operations.

I am not being combative, I am being practical. At some point different and more expensive is not better. We also have an $18 trillion debt and a $200 trillion unfunded liability and a military budget under constraints.

It is difficult to take out 1 f-16, f-18, or Harrier. It is even more so to take out hundreds or even thousands, all of which can be procured at significantly lower cost than the f-35 program.

[Jim from C-Town]

I think that is part of my point. We are constantly increasing our variety of aircraft and stating they are vastly improved, yet our present aircraft has shown to not only be reliable and battlefield commanding it is also significantly less expensive.

[glorgau]

$135 / ea. Wouldn’t it be more effective to just launch 135 cruise missiles at a target?

[Yo-Yo]

or even 465 F-16 fighter jets at $29 million each?

F-16s do not cost $29 million today. The total cost of the latest block 61 F-16s are north of $200 million each.

[Falcon4.0]

What a "PIG"!
CAT, or TRAP.
And get OFF!, the DECK!

[diogenes ghost]

"An effective strike and CAP weapon..."

Nope....far from it.

You really need to learn more about this turd.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

That’s scheduled in 2035. Can’t rush things.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Weird watching the take off at the end of the vid with the huge intake air door open behind the cockpit. It looks,like somebody driving a convertible on the freeway with the top stuck halfway down. That’s got to be an incredibly strong structure to take that wind load.