The McGraw-Hill Companies
Aviation Week
MEMBER CENTER
LOG IN | REGISTER | SUBSCRIBE
Blogs Forums Photos Videos My Aviationweek

Blog Search

Search all Aviation Week.com blog content

Bookmark and Share
Blog Image
A Defense Technology Blog
JSF Vertical Landing Could Be A Way Off

Although it's an achievement to get the first short take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) JSF, F-35 BF-1, in the air on the schedule agreed in August 2006, it will be late in the year before it even starts to do anything that the first airplane, AA-1, hasn't done.

blog post photo

Program officals speaking after BF-1's first flight today said that while the jet may perform some "up and away conversions" later this year, the build-down to jet-borne flight won't start until the first quarter of 2009. That will be followed by 20 sorties at Fort Worth in which the jet progressively slows down, leading to a slow landing. BF-1 will then be ferried to the Navy's flight-test center at Patuxent River for the final tests leading to a vertical landing.

The timescale for that process is not certain, but there's certain to be an interval between each of the build-down flights, followed by some time to wrap up BF-1 flight operations at Fort Worth and stand up the test team at Pax. With the best will in the world, a vertical landing doesn't look likely until well into the second quarter.

Oddly, that's not what Lockheed Martin CEO Bob Stevens told an analyst conference on May 29. Asked about STOVL flight tests of the JSF, Stevens said: "Watch this space. We are committed to flying the STOVL mission by the end of this year and we will be scored as to whether we do or don't do it." 

I'm just happy that I'm not the guy who briefed the CEO for that meeting.

Tags: ar99jsfstovl
Email this post
User Image
sferrin wrote:
So are they going to Pax because they can't do a vertical landing at Ft Worth? Hopefully it's not another X-32 fiasco.
6/11/2008 3:47 PM CDT
User Image
viperfan wrote:
20 sorties after Q1 before first slow landing... How much time will those 20 sorties require ? 6 months?
6/11/2008 5:56 PM CDT
User Image
Bill Sweetman wrote:
Apparently the decision to use Pax reflects the idea that Fort Worth is for checking systems out, but Pax is where the customer wants to perform key tests. It's not an X-32 situation insofar as Fort Worth is not as high as EAFB.
6/11/2008 6:43 PM CDT
User Image
Obamanite wrote:
Hmm... Headline is "JSF Vertical Landing Could Be a Way Off" and not, say, "F-35 BF-01 Flies"... Based on your "reporting" thus far on the JSF program, I could have sworn you are its number one fan. So much for an "unbiased" journalist. If the F-35 were a Democrat, Sweetman would be FOX News...
6/11/2008 10:09 PM CDT
User Image
viperfan wrote:
Obamanite, oh no. A person that's not a robotic slave to LM's marketing department. Obviously a communist!
6/12/2008 12:10 AM CDT
User Image
ELP wrote:
Yeah... just think... maybe the billions for LRIP STOVL F-35s will be released by the U.S. government for doing one conventional take-off and landing.
6/12/2008 3:32 AM CDT
User Image
Bill Sweetman wrote:
Obamanite: It's welcome to get stimulating comments from someone who's not afraid to sign his own name to controversial views!
6/12/2008 10:34 AM CDT
User Image
Bill Sweetman wrote:
As for the headline, it's about news. As noted, BF-1 is doing what AA-1 did 18 months ago. The first STOVL operation by a production-design JSF is something else. To reiterate: Nobody's anti-JSF. But it has to outperform the last half-dozen major aircraft acquisitions, or it will be a wide-ranging disaster.
6/12/2008 10:43 AM CDT
User Image
Obamanite wrote:
I could have sworn the X-35 proved the basic validity of the aircraft's STOVL design years ago...
6/12/2008 3:35 PM CDT
User Image
ELP wrote:
In a very small way, yes. However add the weight of real mission systems and appliances and you have a different level of proof.
6/12/2008 6:17 PM CDT
1 2 >> Last
Defense Industry News
Recent Photos
Industry Insight: Defense & Technology Insight by
Raytheon
Selected Videos