Aviapedia

Lockheed BAE F-35 Lightning II made its first flight

By osuorsa | December 20, 2006 on 9:50 pm | In # Avia news |

BAE Systems employees celebrated the first flight of the first BAE built F-35 Lightning II. The first flight was a success. Lightning II’s Conventional Take Off and Landing variant took to the skies from Lockheed’s Texas Forth Worth air field on Friday 15 December. The first flight consisted of flight handling testing, systems and engine testings and lasted around an hour. This was a great hallmark in aviation history on both sides of the Atlantic. It culminated the great technology relationship between the USA and the United Kingdom.

The BAE system’s F-35 Lightning II program director Tom Fillingham told “The BAE Systems teams both here in the UK and in the US have made a significant contribution in getting the first F-35 to successful first flight. It’s a proud day for everyone involved in the programme.”

The Lockheed F-35 Lightning II is a stealth fighter intended to replace a range of existing aircrafts like AV-8B Harrier IIs, A-10 Warthogs, F-16 Falcons, F/A-18 ‘legacy’ Hornets and the United Kingdom’s GR7 Harriers and Sea Harriers. The F-35 is to be the most powerful and advanced single-engine fighter ever produced and it has a great multinational program roots from which to grow its future potential.

12 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Yay for us!

Comment by Steve — December 21, 2006 #
Some competiton so Su-47 Berkut…

Comment by Jack-Pilot — December 21, 2006 #
I’m all for this next gen’ design replacing the aging (but still fabulous F-16 and F-18), but I will always question the decision which seems to rear its ugly head with every administration, to replace the venerable A-10. The Warthog is the most reliable and tested air-to-ground weapons platform in existence, one designed specifically for that role. To try and reinvent the wheel with a “one platform does everything” mentality will, I think, not work out as well as certain people may think. The f-35 Lightning II may certainly prove to be an outstanding air-to-air fighter, and may definitely prove superior to the AV-8B Harrier, but it is undeniably much more expensive than the A-10, and does not have the low-level, low-speed loitering capabilities (nor the all-important armor) of the A-10 to support ground troops. I know the F/A-22 Raptor can—if it absolutely has to—make use of external hard points, but I have not seen anything regarding such an ability of the F-35. I’m sure it’s got to have external hard points for STORS, but I haven’t see anything on this. How about you folks?

Comment by MrSatyre — December 22, 2006 #
You know , i’m suprised about the technology of that plane… Yes is one of the most technologically advanced planes in the world.But you forgot something, this plane was born to kill people , and that is disgasting.And don’t tell me now that you don’t care about that.Russian and US planes are the best but Russians and Americans are the best killers as well.
They both follow a rule.Kill as many people as you can.So this plane makes this much easier.And i see so many people trying to find out which plane kills more people.They just don’t know the meaning of life…

Comment by Evgenios — December 26, 2006 #
What the hell is going on here?
Despite the fact that i hate US planes (and love russian…)i should tell the truth…
You think that USAF doesn’t know what she want?
Ofcourse F-35 is much more expensive (and technologically advanced) than A-10.
At the same time ,in real life, A-10 hasn’t got an enemy.Cause there is no oppenent for US.
Do not tell me now that Russia can Defend a US attack
.Even China or India can not.So where is the reason for replacing A-10?
The reason is that F-35 is a technological presentation and ofcourse it has much more advantages than A-10.
But the best reason for replacing A-10 and all other aircraft is that can do everything:
CAS
Antiship
Anti-radar
STOL
Ground Attack
Stealth
…
That F-16 and A-10 couldn’t do
Moreover F-35 has a single engine= less mentainance and since is more advanced=more flight
hours and less money for service
Its better to have 500 F-35 than 900 F-16 and 700 A-10
Thats exacly the target of USAF :
To make a plane that can do everything
As for the F-35 VS Yak-141 battle , i have to say
that F-35 really took the main idea from Yak-141
but everything else is completely different

Comment by Evgenios — December 28, 2006 #
I bet that in the future USAF(except bombers cargo etc…) will be consisted of two planes:
F-22
F-35

Comment by Evgenios — December 28, 2006 #
F-35 is in a trouble if its engine will shut down… It has only one!

Comment by Jack-Pilot — December 28, 2006 #
Us Brits are going to be wasting more fuel trying to
land aircraft on carriers which are too small.
Come the next long legged mission and we will be
putting the Vulcans and Victors back into service.
We should just buy Su33s and a decent carrier.

Comment by Chris — December 31, 2006 #
F 35 is the copy of YAK 141 russian aircraft, is may be the last aircraft combat with pilotbut is not too agil that any russian aircraft combat
that is realy

Comment by ugo — March 18, 2007 #
“Do not tell me now that Russia can Defend a US attack
.Even China or India can not.”

Then how come ur still fighting Iraq and its less technologically advanced than China OR India?

Comment by B20 — July 31, 2007 #
Guys, with all the political discussions, please, follow to the ‘Idle talks‘ forum section. Thank you.

Comment by Pavel — August 2, 2007 #
The F-35 is not a good air combat fighter… I read that it is not even considered for that mission. An typhoon with full load is still more agile than this bird clean… The F-35 is not a good substitute for the aging F-16s and F-18s, I think. Its too costly and it doesnt have the versatility the other two have. As for the substituition of the A-10… Came on! The Hog has never seen a good adversary in its function, and lets not talk about substitutes, because they do not exist. A single AA shell can easly kill a F-35, as happens with every fighter. The Hog will not be phased out so early… And if it is, the US will have an hard time to protect their infantry… Choppers are too vulnerable in susteined combat.

Comment by S7alker — December 9, 2007 #