The face of USMC amphibious warfare has just changed

[Gear Jammer]

This video is fresh (for the public). It was made just six weeks ago in the Atlantic, just off Newport News (Hampton Roads), Virginia . These are the latest sea trials of the F-35B on the USS Wasp. They were very successful, with 74 VL's and STO's in a three week period. The media and the program critics had predicted that we would burn holes in the deck and wash sailors overboard. Neither of which happened. You will notice a sailor standing on the bow of the ship as the jet rotates. That was an intentional part of the sea trials.The USS Wasp is an amphibious assault ship designed to embark a Marine Expeditionary Unit. It is capable of simultaneously supporting rotary and fixed wing STOVL aircraft and amphibious landing craft operations. For this test deployment the USS Wasp was outfitted with special instrumentation to support and measure the unique operating environment as the F-35B conducted short takeoffs and vertical landings.No catapult......No hook .......The shape and scope of warfare – worldwide – just changed . . .                                                 

F-35B Ship Suitability Testing	powered by Aeva

[The Anvil]

The shape and scope of warfare – worldwide – just changed . . .                         

That plane is still an overpriced piece of hardware limited by it's excessive complexity and compromised payload and range due to the STOVL capability. No thanks. They'd have been better off with more E,F and G model hornets.

I don't recall anyone (not anyone who knows better anyway) saying we'd blow holes in the deck or blow sailors off the boats. The traditional method of landing on carriers worked just fine, tailhook and all.

[x]

The shape and scope of warfare – worldwide – just changed . . .                         

That plane is still an overpriced piece of hardware limited by it's excessive complexity and compromised payload and range due to the STOVL capability. No thanks. They'd have been better off with more E,F and G model hornets.

I don't recall anyone (not anyone who knows better anyway) saying we'd blow holes in the deck or blow sailors off the boats. The traditional method of landing on carriers worked just fine, tailhook and all.

+1 - Need to look in behind this story to see who is trying to promote what is essentially a failed program.

[Skinhead]

I noticed no armament present in the video, I wonder how the trials would be impacted with a full load.

[slider]

I still like whirly copters more,

[The Anvil]

I noticed no armament present in the video, I wonder how the trials would be impacted with a full load.

In theory it won't have a load when landing vertically, but as soon as you put external fuel and stores on there the aircraft's biggest asset (stealth) is severely compromised. Just for some historical perspective, the F14 was a BEAST and it has yet to be truly replaced (by another aircraft anyway) in the fleet interdiction role. It was not retired because of it's age or lack of capability. Upgrades kept the F14 current in terms of warfighting ability (in fact they were conducting bombing runs with them, a role the F14 was never designed for). It was retired because of it's insane maintenance requirements and expense of keeping the flying. Now they're going to field a jet that is ultimately even MORE complex with compromised warfighting ability. Does that make sense to anyone?

But this is what happens when politicians get involved in weapons procurement and force requirements down the throat of the military. They're forcing a "do-it-all" plane on them to save costs and it's going to end up embodying all of the bad qualities of compromise and may very well end up costing more in the long lens of history than a purpose-built jet.

BTW, the Brits are NOT HAPPY about the delays and cost overruns and are openly expressing regret with the decision to replace their Harriers with these poop-cans.



Oh, and just so that it's not all bad news, the conventional (hook equipped) F35 is a very capable plane. It's only real drawback is it's single engine (which is a bigger deal in Naval aviation).

[BigAl]

To obtain peace prepare for WAR>

Pretty Sorry world we live in.

But I'll stick around anyway.

But will be packing heat from now on.

Helluva Plane thanks for Posting.

[BF]

The 35 is still on our test schedule to see what kind of damage we can do to it. 

[musclehead]

I bow to Anvil on this one, I know next to nothing about jets and in particular fighter jets.

as I recall though the Abrams tank came under a lot of criticism early on same calls of too expensive and the air filters would clog every mile or so. I'm no expert on tanks either but it seems to be doing the heavy lifting required.

[Fudd]

I understand that Lockheed may have gone under, had this ride not gone into production.