Its here.

Couple more

One more

Its about time !!!!!

Sorry, I'm not a fan. The Navy specifically spec'd out a twin seat twin engine aircraft and the procurement folks didn't listen. It's way behind schedule, way over budget and no where near as stealthy as the builder claims it is.

I'm just not sold on it.

I must say that is the ugliest airplane I have ever seen. Did a color blind person or pimp pick the paint scheme? According to the stats, that jet can in no way compete with an F-18 for bombload and range. If all a plane is good for is air-to-air or can carry only a couple of bombs, then it doesn't fit with the Navy's traditional carrier mission of blowing the crap out of things in support of ground forces or, if need be, other ships. The F-18 Super Hornet easily fills the three rolls of carrier aircraft: air-to-air, ground support, and fleet defense. Robert McNamara insisted the Air Force and Navy have the same tactical jets. They both had the A-4, F-4, Corsair II and Vigilanty. The Vigilanty took up a lot of needed room on a carrier and was intended to just drop nukes, and the F-4 sucked fuel like Monica Lewinsky at an Oval Office lunchen. Pun intended, one size does not fit all. You know how the Colt 1911 and Browning .50 are still going strong after all these years? If it aint' broke, don't fix it.

BTW, I love Phantoms. They kicked ass and fit the 'sexy' bill along with the P-51, B-17 and F-86. Man, I'd love to fly an F-86!

We should have some at eglin soon.

Pete,it's not painted yet.That is an unpainted factory model.I'm sure it will get some whacky color soon.Test birds always do.

I just don't see the point of having a plane that is lacking what current planes are capable of. If the Navy goes to something that can't meet the rolls of carrier operations, then it shouldn't be considered. If the F-35 is just a lobbist's project for Lockheed, it should be killed. Brute force is what's needed and the F-35 has no brute about it. The Marines, on the other hand, could use the VTOL version for their missions if outside stores could be afixed, but I doubt that is going to happen because there is no room on those skinny wings. And besides, Marine aviators get right down in the shit and don't need stealth. They invented close air support in the 1920s and haven't changed their attitude since.

Sort of look at it this way. An army travels on its stomach. Our troops eat from plastic bags that need special warming plates slipped inside or, microwave ovens, and some require precious canteen water. They also have plastic untensils that are about only good for eating oatmeal. Russians have steel untensils (reusable) and canned goods that can be heated on an open flame and require no additional water. We have M-16s that are prone to failure because of dust, dirt, mud, sand, and ice. Russians have AKs (speaks for itself). In this respect, which army is better suited for their mission?...which is combat sustainability. I don't want our Navy and troops to be caught short because of a fancy toy. We didn't keep the lessons learned from fighting the Japanese when we got to Vietnam and we seem to be going down that road again with useless gadgets not suitable for the missions at hand.

As an aside note: My dad said that in Korea our guys stopped calling on the Air Force for close support because they would come in hot and too high up flying jets with tiny bombloads, sometimes hitting our people on the front lines. They instead called for the Marines who would come in flying Corsairs right on the deck and smack only the communists. They burned those Reds to oblivion. The right tool for the right job.

Pistol Pete wrote:



There are always a lot of nay sayers when the military brASS go to buy new weapons platforms. The F-35 is an Air Force aircraft (Yucchh) and the Navy version is the 3rd Version produced. Is this an example where the U.S. Navy is being straddled with a usless over priced aircraft? I would tell Lockheed Martin I'll take the 5 I contracted for a couple years ago. and unless my own carrier ssuitability tests prove the aircraft is a go and out perform what I have Now, then I may consider Buying more F-35's if not, then I'll go Boeing and look to buy new upgraded versions of the F/A-18C aircraft for close in air support.