F-35B makes first flight at Eglin

F-35B makes first flight at Eglin

By Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012 5:13 pm
Posted in Air

Crawl, walk, fly — that’s the game plan for the Marines’ F-35B Lightning IIs training down at Eglin AFB, Fla.

The jet made its first flight as a Marine Corps training asset on Tuesday, Lockheed Martin announced, and unlike the first flight of the Air Force’s A-model, this hop apparently went smoothly. Even though the Marines plan to fly their EA-6B Prowlers, F/A-18 Hornets and A/V-8B Harriers until their wings fall off, the B remains the future of Marine Corps aviation, so the crews down in Florida took their time getting ready for Tuesday’s flight.

Here was the official word from Eglin, per Lockheed:


Maintainers have been preparing for today’s launch with engine runs and taxi operations for approximately eight months since F-35 aircraft began arriving here last summer. Utilizing virtual trainers, developing pilot curriculum and hosting small group tryouts has been the focus for personnel readying themselves for flight operations to come.

“It’s amazing to believe 100 years ago Marine Corps aviation started and here today we launched a fifth generation aircraft,” said Marine Sergeant Eric Spence, VMFAT-501 plane captain for the first F-35B sortie. “It’s history in the making. Every time one of those engines fires up I get pumped up and today it was a little extra.” The power plant mechanic said he prepared for the last six months by being involved in any F-35 maintenance training he could at the 33rd FW.

Tuesday’s B did not attempt the central feat for which it was designed and for which DoD has put up with so much cost and developmental heartache: Take off in the length of an amphibious ship’s flight deck and then come back to land vertically. Lockheed, the Marines and Naval Air Systems Command are confident the Bs and their crews are able to do that, but for now they are sticking with slow-and-steady-wins-the-race:

The goal for Marines was to start local area operations and conventional flights, beginning the process of gradually expanding the envelope to short takeoffs and vertical landings (STOVL) and more complex aerial training.

As we heard from Lockheed almost a year ago, it considers the B’s ability to choose its takeoffs and landings as one of its selling points: Not necessarily having to engage all that airframe origami behind the pilot every time you take off and land saves wear, tear and fuel. (Theoretically.) We’re a long way from seeing how these options actually affect the lives of the aircraft, but at any rate, they’re there.

Join the Conversation

@E_L_P May 22nd, 2012 at 5:32 pm

An orientation flight by a test pilot (not a student pilot) is now reason for an orgasmic press release.

This is how low things have sunk in the program’s over-optimism-generation-process. Of interest:

One of the KPPs of the F-35 program is that mission capability rates have to be in the high 90pc group. Another KPP is that sortie rate KPPS are 3–4 per-day depending on variant.

Should be an interesting exercise in the coming years for tail number watchers.

Pat May 22nd, 2012 at 9:48 pm

That’s just great.…..

Lance May 22nd, 2012 at 11:46 pm

Overall no matter how many times the B flies I doubt it be problem free soon The political establishment is after it now. So may be a long time before we see any Bs in service. I still think just having Cs is a far better solution.

Overall current US warplanes will fly decades more because of politics with the whole JSF program unfortunately.

Weaponhead May 23rd, 2012 at 12:37 am

It was interesting that CSAF recently said that the F-35B couldn’t generate the sortie rate needed to replace the A-10. The A-10 flies CAS. The B is supposed to fly CAS. Essentially the CSAF said that the B is not suited for its intended job.

With $40M just for the propulsion system F-35B is going to be incredibly expensive to buy and maintain. With 2 bombs per sortie it is going to take tons of sorties to do any good. With its short legs it may be irrelevant in the pacific scenarios.

How can you tell things are completely out of whack, when the “affordable” airplane replacing the “unaffordable” aircraft actually costs more and when you pay $200M for a stealth CAS aircraft.

Adm. Mullen (ret.) says that the biggest threat to our country is the debt situation, that makes the cost is no object F-35 a threat to our country.

majr0d May 23rd, 2012 at 2:53 am

Really? Where did he say that?

Instead of worrying about the Marines the CSAF might need to be more concerned about the F-35A flying enough sorties to replace the A10s. The recent mothballing of 30% of the A10s might help his numbers.

BTW, the A10s published 250 mile combat radius armed for CAS doesn’t make it sound too good for the pacific either. Let’s not even compare speed.

STemplar May 23rd, 2012 at 2:54 am

That’s two bombs per stealth sortie, in fairness to the aircraft it can carry lots of slung munitions. However that raises my principal complaint with the B period, which is why does the USMC need a stealth aircraft at all? They aren’t going to do SEADs. They are going to do CAS and their threat is small arms/AAA, guns, and manpads. Stealth means zilch to 99% of what they need to do with their aircraft.

William C. May 23rd, 2012 at 3:14 am

The USAF has different requirements from the USMC, and the A-10 was designed with a much different role in mind, including different operating conditions. The F-35B is a replacement for the AV-8 Harrier, an aircraft which the USAF never operated. Meanwhile the USMC has never operated the A-10.

The reason the propulsion system for the F-35B costs so much is because much of it is still being hand-built and many design changes had to be incorporated as a result of testing. It is more a work in progress than the setup on the F-35A and F-35C. Yet it won’t be that way forever. As it is necessarily more complicated than the configuration of the CTOL/CV design, it will still cost more, but not the figures you see as of today.

Two JDAMs per aircraft? Yes, or six GBU-39 SBDs or eight GBU-53 SBD IIs. But in a scenario where AV-8s or A-10s can provide air support without much risk from enemy aircraft or SAMs, the F-35B could also fly with external stores, carrying more than the AV-8B which it will replace.

Another threat to our country is to be left with outdated aircraft in a decades time with nothing to replace them with.

William C. May 23rd, 2012 at 3:16 am

I’m guessing their only chance of getting a new STOVL aircraft at all was through the ASTOVL/CALF program which morphed into JSF.

ltfunk May 23rd, 2012 at 3:31 am

8 months of taxiing no wonder Marine Sergeant Eric Spence wet his pants when the thing actually flew.

Marine aviation is just an embarrasment.

ltfunk May 23rd, 2012 at 3:37 am

failure there is always a good excuse for it.

Nick May 23rd, 2012 at 3:39 am

I think the idea is that marines have historically not been in a position to do SEAD missions, but with the B, they now can. Having more options isn’t a bad thing per se. The cost/benefit of those options is the issue.

Guest A May 23rd, 2012 at 7:22 am

STFU troll…

Vaporhead May 23rd, 2012 at 8:30 am

You don’t like his comment, so that makes him a troll? You are a thin skinned wimp.

Eagle Keeper May 23rd, 2012 at 9:50 am

Single engine F-35B replacing dual engine A-10 ? Come on ! Has anyone seen an A-10 all shot up ? They return to be repaired. What kind of GUN does the F-35B have ? BTW folks, Marines are spelled with a capital M. F-15 Eagle Keeper

Guest A May 23rd, 2012 at 10:03 am

Calling all of Marine Corps Aviation an embarassment because of this dicked up program makes him a troll. Calling someone a wimp online makes you look real tough too.

Benjamin May 23rd, 2012 at 12:01 pm

At one point of time the Air Force wanted to replace the A-10 with the F-16. I am glad they realized this was a mistake. The A-10 can do things an F-16 cannot do. The F-35B bridges much of the gap between the A-10 and F-16 because of its ability to operate closer to the front but even with this ability it cannot replace the A-10. If I was the Air Force I would still buy the F-35B but to complement and not replace the A-10. The F-35B gives you a quick reaction capability while the A-10 gives you the ability to operate in a slugfest.
I hope we eventually do see a replacement for the A-10 but it should not be the F-35

Erich May 23rd, 2012 at 1:19 pm

Not sure what happened but I would like to see the F-35 at an air show. The last air show I was at an F-22 was the feature aircraft and half way through her performance something happened to it and cut it short. But it was wild to see a P-51 Mustang take off and chase after it to follow it in safely.

Matt May 23rd, 2012 at 1:29 pm

Didn’t the B models already land and take-off from the USS Wasp? This article is totally misinformed.

William C. May 23rd, 2012 at 1:49 pm

I’m afraid we can’t use slave labor to build the things Mr. All Knowing ltfunk.

Jim May 23rd, 2012 at 3:36 pm

Interesting how these test planes magically appear for public viewing and comments in the press/TV; just when the Air Force, or the Army, or the Navy, and now the Marines; have issues arise with the current FA-18’s, F-15s and F-16; oh and lest we forget, the most excellent and best of ALL ground attack Aircraft, the A-10. Pretty much, it just seems like business and politics as usual rearing its ugly head.

Guest A May 23rd, 2012 at 3:51 pm

Where have you been?

Dibble May 23rd, 2012 at 4:15 pm

Why replace good, effective tools with dicked up wizbang that has demonstrated neither wiz nor bang?

tom May 23rd, 2012 at 7:10 pm

superior aircraft designers and developers…truly craftsmen at their trade.…so rats ass and p ss off you short term want it now badmouthers. JAFO

TMB May 23rd, 2012 at 7:16 pm

The article is about the F-35B’s first flight at the school house. This airframe is part of the training set. The one that did the landing and takeoff on the Wasp was for testing.

Black Owl May 23rd, 2012 at 7:52 pm

I’m taking bets on what year the Marines will come to the conclusion that they’ll won’t get the F-35B because it isn’t practical. My year is 2016 and I’m betting $20, meaning if the F-35B is still alive in 2016 I am going to give $20 to Lockheed Martin at the end of the year so they can develop if faster. If I lose, then I’m going to take that $20 and buy my wife something nice with it, assuming I’m married by then. Anyone else want to join in on this?

Goat Herder May 23rd, 2012 at 8:45 pm

My suggestion…budget more than 20 bones to buy “something nice” for the future wife…trust me.

Goat Herder May 23rd, 2012 at 8:50 pm

Yeah, but ya know…that would cost one heckuva lot of money…money we don’t have right now.

majr0d May 24th, 2012 at 1:11 am

Not to mention the Air Force loathes CAS specific aircraft.

Goat Herder May 24th, 2012 at 7:25 am

Doesn’t matter if they love it or hate it…my point was no money means “no money”. The A-10 may be replaced someday, but it is still perfectly capable of doing CAS in a semi-permissive environment and it is still on the books. No need to fix what ain’t broke.

majr0d May 24th, 2012 at 11:32 am

Understand your point about money. No problem. I was just building on it with the observation that the Air Force loathes CAS specific aircraft. The A10 is the world’s premier CAS aircraft. We’ll just see never see anything like it again even when we have the money.

DensityDuck May 24th, 2012 at 12:16 pm

It is, when you consider how many people have said that the B would never ever ever fly anywhere ever at all.

And it’s amusing to watch them walk back their criticisms. First it was too expensive and would never be built. Then it was too expensive and would never fly. Then it was too expensive and would never fly twice. Then it was too expensive and the B model would never fly. Too expensive and never fly outside the test range. And so on.

There are so many people who are stuck in the 1970s.

DensityDuck May 24th, 2012 at 12:18 pm

“Has anyone seen an A-10 all shot up ?”

Yeah! Wouldn’t it be better if that just didn’t happen?

Goat Herder May 24th, 2012 at 12:26 pm

The A-10 should be around until the late 2020s. It will be interesting to see what type of requirements emerge between now and then.

majr0d May 24th, 2012 at 1:59 pm

LOL, yeah, let’s see if the Air Force creates a requirements document for a CAS aircraft. Chances are that will be right after the flying pig requirements doc.

What will be interesting would be if the Army again attempts to create another requirements document for an intratheatre lift or CAS fixed wing aircraft.

Joe Schmoe May 24th, 2012 at 2:54 pm

I’m in for a reduced order, e.g., F-22, Global Hawk, B-2… Anyone noticing a pattern here?

awaw May 24th, 2012 at 3:37 pm

As usual…another brain-washed jar head thinking he/she is tough. Marine Corps aviation is a joke, Guest! The entire fleet of MC aviation has done nothing except burn through money just to prove that Naval and Air Force aircrew can do the job 10 times better. What EXACTLY has MC aviation done in the last 30 years that makes them any sort of asset? V-22 program, waste of money, update of the H-46, H-53 big waste of money, F/A-18, Marines can’t qualify on carriers enough??? Should I continue? Thought not!

Anthony Hughes Wood May 24th, 2012 at 8:38 pm

Since this is an aircraft that I invented, and because I invested in Lockheed-Martin [Quit Heavilly]; I Feel that I should be receiving A Pension.
Anthony Hughes Wood

krypton June 17th, 2012 at 6:59 pm

You know very well that we should take the A10 away from the AF and give its pilots, ground crews, and planes to another service– maybe one that invented close air support and needs the best? Maybe one who is the “committed bacon” in the CAS mission? Of course, we’d also have to give the entire Air Force CAS budget to the ground grunts. In any case, at these prices, who is gonna commit a 200M bird to a mission with an anticipated 50% return rate? Insofar as that goes, the Brits did a fine job with Harriers in the Fauklands, with a fantastic uptime rate. Maybe reliability is worth more than supercruise. But gee, it’s not like we’re at war or anything, is it?

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.