via Reuters.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The first of two Lockheed Martin Corp F-35C fighter jets landed successfully on the USS Nimitz off the coast of San Diego on Monday, marking the new warplane's first landing on an aircraft carrier using its tailhook system, the Pentagon said.The F-35C landing on a carrier is a landmark event? Sorry. Not even close. I'm not even an aviation guy and I know better.
Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the Pentagon's F-35 joint program office, said the landing was part of a two-week sea-based test that runs through Nov. 17.
It marks another milestone for the Pentagon's biggest weapons project, a $399 billion program designed to replace over a dozen different types of warplanes being used by the U.S. military and its allies.
After years of delays and cost overruns, the F-35 program has generally met its schedule and cost targets since a major restructuring in 2010, although a temporary fleetwide grounding ordered after an engine failure in June has set back testing by 45 to 50 days.
The sea-based testing of the plane will give officials key data about the ship's performance on a carrier, and allow any adjustments needed to keep the program on track for initial use by the fleet in 2018.
Navy test pilot Commander Tony Wilson, who landed the CF-03 aircraft on the Nimitz flight deck just after noon, called it a "landmark event."
Its not about landing. A combat UAV did that earlier this year and did it in a precision approach. Back in the 60's a C-130 did it. I'm not sure but I think they even played with U-2's on deck.
No. The real issue will be on the dull and boring work that takes place below deck.
No one is talking about maintaining stealth at sea anymore. That's dropped off everyone's view screens but that's gonna be the deal breaker. That along with the price that they're moving heaven and earth to lower. That along with a maintenance bill that looks to swallow the Marine Corps and Navy alive.
Congrats on the landing, but don't be fooled.
This turkey is not yet finished screwing with the Naval Services. The spiral is here, they're fighting to prevent it but I just don't see a way out for them. Oh and remember. You heard it here first.
Sidenote: The Naval Services in general and the US Navy in particular are facing a huge problem. Unlike the USAF, their airplanes are useless unless they have ships to operate from. Additionally the US Navy sees future air combat in a fundamentally different way than the USAF does. This is built in friction. The USMC no longer has the main booster in chief in the Commandant's chair and adult leadership will see cuts made. The only piece left to fall in place for that eventuality is Republican control of the Senate.
Wait a minute... wasn't the carrier landing a "make or break moment" just a few days ago, prior to it actually succeeding? Back when you were trying to shoehorn in comparisons to the plane's scheduled flight to Europe, asserting that it might not be able to handle the strain (after all, it's not like the F-35's conducted hundreds of terrestrial landings already), and trying to drum up an ominous mood by claiming it would be a major moment for the "future defense of the fleet"?
ReplyDeletehttp://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2014/11/f-35-news-can-plane-take-carrier.html
That's funny. I guess now that the landing has been a success, you've just decided to brush it off, forget you ever said that, and move on to a new "issue" to make pseudo-dramatic comments on. Unless, of course, you can squeeze some negative news coverage out of it at some point, in which case the carrier landing will become a "make or break moment" again.
Hold on everyone! The goalposts are shifting again!
BTW, since you've been so quick to make completely unsubstantiated assertions about the structural integrity of the aircraft and act like some kind of authority on aircraft design, I'm sure you've got a great deal of experience in the field of aerospace engineering, right? Where exactly did you get your Aerospace Engineering degree from, again?
you need to take a reading comprehension course. i said that it was an ARTIFICIAL make or break moment.
DeleteUh-huh. So you didn't *really* think the carrier landing was a big deal -- which is exactly why you devoted an entire blog post to it, took care to explicitly highlight statements about how difficult a carrier landing is, and made pseudo-ominous statements about how it "would be funny" if it wasn't a major event for "the future defense of the fleet."
DeleteBut hey, with all those unsubstantiated statements you've been making about the aircraft, I'm sure you're some kind of aerospace genius -- a modern day Jack Northrop! After all, only someone with experience would feel confident enough to make such statements. I'm sure the prestigious institution from which you've earned your Aerospace Engineering degree is proud to count you as one of its most distinguished alumni, and that the countless development programs you've been a part of owe their success to your learned influence. Truly, you are an expert in aerospace topics, and so are fully qualified to rant about imagined issues on the most prestigious of technical publication mediums -- the online blog.
so you went back, re-read the post, found out that i was right and now you shift the conversation by making silly attacks hoping you can get me riled up and involved in a profanity filled tirade to justify your original idiocy?
Deletei don't think so.
you were wrong.
but i'll tell you what. head over to F-16.net and you all have a good time talking smack...but remember this terrible little truth. landing on a carrier isn't even half of what it will take for the F-35 to be found suitable for carrier operations. this was an artificial make or break moment and anyone that has even been paying A LITTLE attention to aviation matters would know that.
Nope. I read your response, laughed at it as it was a half-assed attempt to pretend you weren't just making semi-ambiguous statements about the event being major in the hopes that it would fail and you'd be able to rant about it, and then pointed out that you don't have any experience in the field of Aerospace Engineering (or ANY field of engineering, for that matter), and are thus completely unqualified to make unsubstantiated statements about the F-35 (or any aerospace program, for that matter), much less the wild statements you have been making.
DeleteAnd yeah, I guess I'll head over to F-16.net. BTW, you still haven't gone Bane on Sferrin, and XanderCrews has yet to be accosted by those Aussie biker gang guys you threatened him with a while ago. Thought you might want to get on to that -- if you don't do anything, they might just think you're some Internet tough guy who was just talking out of his ass when he made those threats. And on that note...
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2014/04/he-man-diet-essential-p28-bread.html
With all that protein bread you've been eating, you should have no trouble turning your blowhard Internet rants into real-world action!
you lie.
Deleteif not then you wouldn't have made the first comment you did. total failure on your part. feel free to put up as many of my articles as possible. it definitely doesn't hurt my feelings and might drive traffic my way. so thanks for that.
Got it. And since this is obviously YOUR HOUSE!!!1!11!1!!!!, I thought you might want to have a new image to use as your avatar -- one that expresses your true tough guy nature:
Deletehttp://motivateurself.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/internet-tough-guys.gif
Oh, and Sol -- that e-mail exchange and blog post I was referring to are both on the web for all of the three billion people with an Internet connection to laugh at. You can deny your teenage girl drama rants all you want -- they're still out there. And no, you can't just delete them, although I suppose you'll try to delete this comment to preserve whatever shred of dignity you still cling to. I'm actually surprised you haven't tried to ban my IP yet, although I guess I could attribute that to your inability to figure out the intricacies of Blogger's UI.
DT-I will be the first of three at-sea test phases for the US Navy's F-35C variant. The F-35C is specifically designed for aircraft carrier operations and, compared with the Air Force and Marine variants, features larger wings, folding wingtips, upgraded landing gear and greater fuel capacity. See whats the next plan
ReplyDelete