Navy F-35C Formation Flight CoolPix Triple Play (Plus Video)
Monday, April 30, 2012 at 08:14AM 
(click pic for hi-res) Navy F-35C aircraft #'s CF-1 and CF-2 in formation flight
The first formation flying done by two of the Navy versions of the the Lightning II (F-35C) was completed recently as these sweet hi-res pix show. Plus, don't miss the video at the bottom of the post for the official Lockheed Martin footage of the event. I don't know about you, but I think those lightning bolts on the fins is one of the coolest graphic treatments on a fighter in a long time... it just looks hot!
And while there are loads of people out there beatin' up on the F-35, I'm still thinking it's all gonna work out fine. The world is very different than when an aircraft like the F-14 was developed. Everybody is an expert these days with an opinion that they think is worth listening to, and an internet connection to allow them to spout off. Did you know that the massively successful F-14 program actually lost the prototype aircraft on the second flight? Now there's a setback to come back from... and that's exactly what the people at Grumman did.
Today we know about program details than we honestly have no right to know about, and often we know them immediately, or nearly so. The truth is if you want a jet fighter that can fill three very different roles with one basic airframe platform, and you want it to have a stealth design, AND you want one of them to have VTOL capability... there's really only two words that can describe this: expensive and difficult. In my little tiny opinion, the F-35 program is doing just fine.
(click pic for hi-res) Navy F-35C variants in formation flight with the gear down
And then there's all this trash talk about how the F-35C can't even land on a carrier. I'm getting really tired of all the haters out there flapping their lips in effort to put this program down. Sure, there are currently some design issues related to the tail hook design as originally configured, but it's related to the added challenge of having a tail hook that gets stored internally. This significantly affects where on the aircraft the hook is positioned, and the original design isn't working well. But a re-design is in process and a solution will be found. End of story. And actual sea trials using the a tail hook to land on a carrier aren't even schedule til the summer of 2013, so there's nothing to worry about. All the haters out there should really go try making something work instead of using a computer to beat up on the people who actually are making things work.
(click pic for hi-res) CF-1 and CF-2 C model F-35's looking really good in formation flight
Lastly, I'll add that the F-35's appear to be extremely stable in flight. I've noticed this in every video I've watched of them. They're rock solid and just look great. I think it's an excellent airplane and I believe it'll be looked at as a great success once we have the luxury of looking back at its time in service to the United States military... and it's gonna look great in Blue Angels paint too!
(all pix and video from Lockheed Martin)
Reader Comments (2)
Although, I am not an aviation expert, I am very optimistic about the f-35C. A lot of people give it a bad rap but I think it has great potential.. I did hear about problems with the tail-hook; namely that the short distance between the extended tail-hook and the main-mounts - not enough distance for the wire to bounce back up after the main-mounts role over. The hook then misses the wire or bounces over the wire.
I do hope that they can get all the kinks worked out of the F-35 program, because at some point we're going to need a next gen replacement for the F-16s and F/A-18s, and it's too late to start all over again now. Not to mention that the Harriers needed replacement years ago.
Unfortunately, I still think this all things for all services approach was the wrong way to go about it. Apparently no one learned their lesson from the F-111, or if they did, it was quietly forgotten in a pile of "But we're so much smarter now." and "We'll do it right this time."
I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but history seems to suggest that I'm not.