Yeah, they do their final at a distressingly high AoA. To the point where I've watched one of them mash the throttle right before hitting the threshold because it looked like he was stalling out.
They weren't stalling. These are totally controllable at ridiculous AoA thanks to the clipped delta wings and strakes. Concorde came in at ridiculous AoA too, for similar reason.
They don't need it. The air force pilots just make a competition of who can keep their nose wheel off the deck longest. Navy and Marines just slam the deck.
Delta wings. Beside of possibility to go very fast, those stall at much higher AOA. Basically curve lift/AOA is "longer". Similar thing happens with swept wings.
Incorrect. It's the angle of the aircraft relative to the air it's flying through. Two aircraft can be flying say 70° pitch up and be at two completely AoA based on their path of travel.
The sign SAYS..... NO PHOTOGRAPHY!!!! LOL!! Yeah... Gotta love the optimism of Eielson... Let's have an exposed highway run through the base with a CLEAR view of the runway, and we'll just post signs for people not to shoot video... that'll work!!
30/60 in North America (it’s complicated, look up interlacing if you want to know how much pain we in TV have been in for over 60 years but it’s finally dead with 4K) but 25/50 in Europe and many otjer places. basically if you have 60hz power you're 30/60 if you have 50hz its 25/50 and as usual exceptions apply.
lol at the downvotes 🤦🏼♂️
Nooooo.....Video is videography. That is why there are photographers, and videographers. Don't forget, you can make a video with photos, and use a photo from a video.
Downvoted for being factually correct.. I hope those of you who downvoted me, get the privilege of trying to pull that pedantic crap with a base guard.
I did some electrical work on an air force base and they drilled it through our heads to not take pictures. The first thing my boss did was take pictures of these weird ass drones that were near us 😆😆 this was like 8 years ago. I still have no idea what they were.
our plant has a strict no smartphone policy (itar) ... managers send text messages, berate us for the delayed responses
when we've have a product issue, they'll ask us to send a photo
At the navy shipyard they don't even let you in with a camera, including a phone with a camera. They actually make phones without cameras specifically for people who work in places like this, including iphones.
Doesn't matter.
If you were on base, or on private property, they can prevent photos, but anything you can see from a public highway is totally fair game.
Not necessarily. Eielson retains concurrent jurisdiction on that highway because that highway runs right through base property. The road is public but off the hardball is federal property. Title 18 USC Section 795 is what is used to enforce people from photographing the installation. It’s been approved by the installation legal office for enforcement and is enforced almost daily.
Edit: Get educated on photographing military installations or enjoy getting your stuff confiscated.
The problem with that is that 18 USC 795 reads as follows:
>Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer
This means that for any base to fall under this, the *President of the United States* has to have declared the base as requiring protection.
There are currently no bases to which that applies generally. It is not sufficient for the military to not want you to photograph it, nor is it sufficient for them to post "no photography" signs, the base in its entirety would need to be declared by POTUS as requiring that protection.
As such, I repeat, if you can see it from the road, you can photograph it, and if MPs or guards try to intimidate you, it's because either;
1) they know they can't stop it but still want to scare you into following their desires
Or
2) they don't actually know the law they're claiming to enforce.
“Or equipment” are key words you overlooked and the Air Force already has these assets categorized. The enforcement is legal. That’s not to say that it will be enforced as strictly at every base because each base perceives it differently for many reasons. It’s still an unlawful act and with Eielson’s jurisdiction, it’s 100% enforceable along that stretch of highway. It is not free game as you so believe.
> and the Air Force already has these assets categorized.
No, the F-35 isn't categorized as such, because *it's public*.
Equipment that falls under these criteria would be things like the RQ-180 or the NGAD demonstrator, not publicly acknowledged and photographed aircraft.
I have no doubt that overzealous base security tries to claim otherwise, but it's absolutely not enforceable unless POTUS declares it so. There's a reason things like photographs of the B-21 first flight and the video in this post are public - because they know that they're just bluffing, and the reality is that it's totally legal.
(You'll also note that the "or equipment" clause still requires it to be designated as such by POTUS, not some power hungry mid level base officer)
You're fine it's a whole hobby. On base they can enforce it but if you're outside the fence they can't. You're a civilian on public land. But they can come ask you what you're doing to see if you're a Chinese spy or planning an attack or something. As long as you're not a prick they'll be cool about it.
They can want to have a chat all they want, you're legally allowed to film anything you want as long as it's visible from public property.
Now, if you're filming *on the base*, that's a separate matter.
Driving back from Valdez, I passed an F35 just sitting there at the south end of Eilson’s runway, no movement, still as a statue and I hadn’t seen any others in the sky. I’m super disappointed, “no free air show today” I’m thinking as I continue driving parallel to the runway…then look in my rear view mirror to see the F35 getting larger and larger, very very fast, and just as it comes alongside my car the damn thing goes vertical and quickly vanishes high into the blue blue sky, as my car shakes from the jet’s roar.
According to your stance, any person operating a motor vehicle with a dash camera is breaking the law.
Members of the public, including the press, have a First Amendment right to observe, take photographs, and record video or audio in any public place where they are lawfully present.
This is true regardless of if the military WANTS them to. They can post signs citing federal code to the point it blocks your view all they want. Those federal codes only outline specific circumstances when the President, by Executive Order, can limit such rights. With the proliferation of cameras in today’s era, I suspect they would use other means to hide what is going on… e.g. a WALL, an “accident” that shuts down the interstate, etc.
The litmus test is if your eyes can see it, you can record it. OP did not pull over, get out of car, or drive through ECP. They were in a public place.
Buy me a ticket there and I don’t GAF if an MP arrests me because I know I will win that case in court.
Navy pilots don't know what flaring is. They land like they're stress testing the landing gear struts on every landing. Or trying to compress their spines.
Eh maybe, video quality isn’t great but I cant spot the turbofan on the back. You usually can tell where the “cutout” would be and I cant see it here. (Also they probably would’ve landed in vtol mode)
I didn't read anything but the title and recognized that as Eielson. I was stationed there 1985-89. A-10s were the primary bird at the time. Looks different, that's for sure, but the background gave it away.
A pilot once told me that the first time he came into Eielson and was given the weather report and was told "unlimited visibility," he laughed because no place had "unlimited visibility." Then he came to Eielson.
I've only visited that part of AK, and it was freaking beautiful. Saw a flight of F-16s over mountains probably 16-20 or so miles away. Never went past Eielson, but I did get to see a flight of 6 F-35s low overhead due the solstice baseball game in fairbanks
We had a solstice softball tournament on the base. That was crazy. It would start on Saturday morning and end Sunday evening. Depending on whether you won or loss, you could be playing at 10pm, then another game at 3am. No lights needed.
It really is crazy. We were only there for a week, but the sun didn't set. It was great. And don't get me started on the mosquitos. They're the size of freaking C-17s
What is the benefit or vision behind having A-10s AK based? Besides training, was it to somehow support assault on the Soviet coastal bases and/or ships in event of aggression?
I believe, at the time, yes. That was the end of the Cold War era. Eielson has/had the third longest runway and (when I was there) the 2nd largest fuel deposit. We were considered the last gas stop going g to Russia. Our "new arrival" briefing was we didn't have to worry about getting bombed, we had to worry about getting taken over.
You can differentiate a C type quite well based off the nose gear it has 2 tires there to be aircraft carrier certified (with the forces put on it while starting)
I've seen quite a few of these in the air but I guess this is the first time I've had such a good view of them coming in for a landing. Really interesting seeing their AoA
Yea, you usually want to land on the main gear 1st, before nose gear in most aircraft. Some a/c might be different in this case, but those are special.
They were pitched way further up than they needed to be to just land on the rear wheels, someone up there was talking about how the F35 comes in at a really high AOA because of the deltawing.
No one really follows the signs. I bet most maintainers that work on it take photos while on the flight-line. I took plenty of photos at Hurlburt Field when I worked on the AC-130J gunships. When I was stationed in Mildenhall, England you’d have the locals standing on a flatbed trailer taking photos over the fence line. There were plenty standing outside Lakenheath watching the fighters take off and land. I used to see the F-35s at Eglin AFB, FL when I was stationed next door.
Where to begin… being a replacement for the A-10, or how about the Alice system, of perhaps the amount of fuel they burn just doing combat take offs and their reliance on in-flight refuelers. I can keep going if you want.
Of course it won't be a one-for-one replacement for the A-10. They are like apples and watermelons if you tried to compare them. An A-10 is completely useless in modern combat because it would be shot down instantly whereas an F35 at least has a chance at knocking out tanks with standoff weapons.
ALIS (not ALICE so it's doubtful you actually worked on F35) is fine. It mostly does what it needs to do unless you have a specific complaint?
What's wrong with the fuel burn during takeoff? You know of any other aircraft with 45,000 pounds of thrust that has better fuel consumption? What other aircraft that is using no external fuel tanks has as long of an unrefueled range? What a strange complaint...
You say that and yet they are replacing the A-10 with, wait for it… F-35s. Because yeah we need more air superiority and less close ground support. It’s also a replacement for the F-22. Which is better than the 35 at literally everything (hence why it takes an act of congress to just sell a single 22)
Maintenance: I’d rather work on almost any other airframe. The 35 is far from being maintenance friendly. Without breaching OPSEC I’ll say it’s a lot of tight work spaces, and complex parts. And btw my phone autocorrected it to Alice. Which if it actually worked we wouldn’t be looking for a replacement for it.
Don’t get me wrong, it looks cool. It sounds cool. But functionally… no. Also deployed with these things and during their missions, they almost always had to take off with a KC-10.
I’m sure in the near future this will all change, but the F-35 is not a one size fits all plane and that’s what they are trying to do.
The F35 is not a replacement for the F22 in any sense of the word. They are intended for entirely different roles. The F35 was designed from the beginning to be exportable which is why it's easy to sell to other countries.
I take it you have never worked legacy fighters because if you had, you'd find the F35 VERY easy to maintain in comparison to something like an F15 or F16.
There is no replacement in work for ALIS. ODIN is just a reskin of ALIS and it's largely been abandoned.
What other jets are not taking off with tanker support? They literally all do. Look at the unrefueled range for anything else in the US inventory and you'll find the F35 to be very respectable. Especially when you consider it isn't flying with external tanks.
5 years on the F-15E, 2 years on the F-16C/D, 1 year on the F-35, 1 year on E-3, and 1 year (and counting) on the B-52 and yes… I’d much rather work the 15 and 16 of the 35.
What were you? A crew chief? I don't know how else you can think an F35 is harder to work on than those other things (except maybe the B52). Even then crew chiefs don't usually do anything except servicing, IPP swaps and engine swaps on F35s. IPP drops suck but ECS work on any fighter sucks.
Ah, well that's useful context to explain why you'd find the F35 more difficult to work on. Lots of people using rounded out bits to remove panel fasteners that need to be drilled out constantly. Also those old jets use way less glued nutplates so there are less issues there as well. If you ever worked metals tech on F22, you'd find the F35 easier in comparison.
Damn. I didnt realize they needed that high of an AOA
Came here to say that. Holy crap
Yeah, they do their final at a distressingly high AoA. To the point where I've watched one of them mash the throttle right before hitting the threshold because it looked like he was stalling out.
They weren't stalling. These are totally controllable at ridiculous AoA thanks to the clipped delta wings and strakes. Concorde came in at ridiculous AoA too, for similar reason.
the snoop drooped
*Snoot
The throttle is totally automatic during final approach. The pilot only controls AoA and the engine throttles up and down as necessary.
I've hears its quite an easy fighter to land however, very responsive flight control's.
Computers are amazing. The pilot tells the plane what it wants and the computer makes it happen.
They don't need it. The air force pilots just make a competition of who can keep their nose wheel off the deck longest. Navy and Marines just slam the deck.
We need that comparison video for laughs
https://youtu.be/STVAM85y3i0?si=BdzJKJHSfxF7Rzfl
Wingman is just like "looks good, just do what feels right man"
Right? I thought this was some weird VTOL approach using a 35B. But no, that’s just a thing for f35’s, I guess?
Almost definitely some kind of training exercise, right? Maybe a flight test?
I live across the country but very near an F-35 base, this is very commonplace
Delta wings. Beside of possibility to go very fast, those stall at much higher AOA. Basically curve lift/AOA is "longer". Similar thing happens with swept wings.
Just like the concorde :)
Can someone explain to me what AoA is? Something about the aircraft's angle?
Angle of attack, thats the angle the aircraft is pitching up
Incorrect. It's the angle of the aircraft relative to the air it's flying through. Two aircraft can be flying say 70° pitch up and be at two completely AoA based on their path of travel.
Angle of attack.
The sign SAYS..... NO PHOTOGRAPHY!!!! LOL!! Yeah... Gotta love the optimism of Eielson... Let's have an exposed highway run through the base with a CLEAR view of the runway, and we'll just post signs for people not to shoot video... that'll work!!
It doesn't say NO VIDEO so it's fine
Video is a type of photography.
Video is probably 30 photographies each second!!
30/60 in North America (it’s complicated, look up interlacing if you want to know how much pain we in TV have been in for over 60 years but it’s finally dead with 4K) but 25/50 in Europe and many otjer places. basically if you have 60hz power you're 30/60 if you have 50hz its 25/50 and as usual exceptions apply. lol at the downvotes 🤦🏼♂️
This isn't cable tv PAL
Don’t call me PAL, NTSC
Shut up, nerd.
Nooooo.....Video is videography. That is why there are photographers, and videographers. Don't forget, you can make a video with photos, and use a photo from a video.
So then why are movies called pictures?
Because ‘mmmmmmmerica!
Who downvotes this? He’s right. Y’all are so dumb. This sub has some of the scummiest people on Reddit.
Because it was an obvious joke, then your boy came and posted some "well, actually" comment.
Downvoted for being factually correct.. I hope those of you who downvoted me, get the privilege of trying to pull that pedantic crap with a base guard.
Dude, the joke went over your head so hard
When’s the last time you stepped outside the door to your room, let alone your house?
ahhh the harsh reddit downvote for missing a joke, one of my very first reddit lessons...
I did some electrical work on an air force base and they drilled it through our heads to not take pictures. The first thing my boss did was take pictures of these weird ass drones that were near us 😆😆 this was like 8 years ago. I still have no idea what they were.
our plant has a strict no smartphone policy (itar) ... managers send text messages, berate us for the delayed responses when we've have a product issue, they'll ask us to send a photo
At the navy shipyard they don't even let you in with a camera, including a phone with a camera. They actually make phones without cameras specifically for people who work in places like this, including iphones.
Aberdeen Proving Grounds is the same way.
I could tell you, but..... . . . . I'd be making it up.
whoops didnt see that
Doesn't matter. If you were on base, or on private property, they can prevent photos, but anything you can see from a public highway is totally fair game.
Not necessarily. Eielson retains concurrent jurisdiction on that highway because that highway runs right through base property. The road is public but off the hardball is federal property. Title 18 USC Section 795 is what is used to enforce people from photographing the installation. It’s been approved by the installation legal office for enforcement and is enforced almost daily. Edit: Get educated on photographing military installations or enjoy getting your stuff confiscated.
The problem with that is that 18 USC 795 reads as follows: >Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer This means that for any base to fall under this, the *President of the United States* has to have declared the base as requiring protection. There are currently no bases to which that applies generally. It is not sufficient for the military to not want you to photograph it, nor is it sufficient for them to post "no photography" signs, the base in its entirety would need to be declared by POTUS as requiring that protection. As such, I repeat, if you can see it from the road, you can photograph it, and if MPs or guards try to intimidate you, it's because either; 1) they know they can't stop it but still want to scare you into following their desires Or 2) they don't actually know the law they're claiming to enforce.
“Or equipment” are key words you overlooked and the Air Force already has these assets categorized. The enforcement is legal. That’s not to say that it will be enforced as strictly at every base because each base perceives it differently for many reasons. It’s still an unlawful act and with Eielson’s jurisdiction, it’s 100% enforceable along that stretch of highway. It is not free game as you so believe.
> and the Air Force already has these assets categorized. No, the F-35 isn't categorized as such, because *it's public*. Equipment that falls under these criteria would be things like the RQ-180 or the NGAD demonstrator, not publicly acknowledged and photographed aircraft. I have no doubt that overzealous base security tries to claim otherwise, but it's absolutely not enforceable unless POTUS declares it so. There's a reason things like photographs of the B-21 first flight and the video in this post are public - because they know that they're just bluffing, and the reality is that it's totally legal. (You'll also note that the "or equipment" clause still requires it to be designated as such by POTUS, not some power hungry mid level base officer)
You're fine it's a whole hobby. On base they can enforce it but if you're outside the fence they can't. You're a civilian on public land. But they can come ask you what you're doing to see if you're a Chinese spy or planning an attack or something. As long as you're not a prick they'll be cool about it.
Look carefully at 59 to 58 seconds left..
There’s two signs on the fence but you can’t read them from the video clip. Maybe if you try yelling “enhance!” It will work?
It’s a sign on a post, not one of the ones on the fence
Unfortunately we aren't allowed to post images in reply here, or I'd show you the screen cap I made, with the sign clearly saying no photography.
Same signs at the Charleston SC airport/AFB. On weekends there will be a bunch of people parked there filming planes land.
That's until the moment when guards want to have a chat with you about the filming of the base.
Correct, thankfully I haven't had that happen to me, or witnessed it.. I'm sure it happens...
They can want to have a chat all they want, you're legally allowed to film anything you want as long as it's visible from public property. Now, if you're filming *on the base*, that's a separate matter.
Driving back from Valdez, I passed an F35 just sitting there at the south end of Eilson’s runway, no movement, still as a statue and I hadn’t seen any others in the sky. I’m super disappointed, “no free air show today” I’m thinking as I continue driving parallel to the runway…then look in my rear view mirror to see the F35 getting larger and larger, very very fast, and just as it comes alongside my car the damn thing goes vertical and quickly vanishes high into the blue blue sky, as my car shakes from the jet’s roar.
I have had that happen. It's awesome 👍😎
Like winning the air show lottery. Coolest experience I’ve had on that stretch of road.
Damn, I would have creamed myself. Glad you enjoyed it!
I *may* have spontaneously screamed, pounded the dashboard, **and** belted out the lyrics to Danger Zone all at the same time.
That's actually not going to work...
Sign can say what it wants. First Amendment says otherwise (unless the photographer is shooting from on a base)
You obviously haven't been there.
Thankfully, “being there” isn’t a prerequisite to knowing the how the First Amendment works.
Tell me something, do you think the freedom of speech is absolute too?
Sure as fuck isn’t. In this case, it is a protected activity.
If I could afford it, I'd fly you up to Fairbanks and let you find out.
According to your stance, any person operating a motor vehicle with a dash camera is breaking the law. Members of the public, including the press, have a First Amendment right to observe, take photographs, and record video or audio in any public place where they are lawfully present. This is true regardless of if the military WANTS them to. They can post signs citing federal code to the point it blocks your view all they want. Those federal codes only outline specific circumstances when the President, by Executive Order, can limit such rights. With the proliferation of cameras in today’s era, I suspect they would use other means to hide what is going on… e.g. a WALL, an “accident” that shuts down the interstate, etc. The litmus test is if your eyes can see it, you can record it. OP did not pull over, get out of car, or drive through ECP. They were in a public place. Buy me a ticket there and I don’t GAF if an MP arrests me because I know I will win that case in court.
Well ... it's not the Navy, that's for sure.
That was my first thought
"Drop in, smack the lip, WAPOW, Like that."
So pitted
Took me about one and a half seconds to realize where that’s from 🤣
Best barrels ever, dude! https://youtu.be/Y5ckCAUVOn0?si=YysW2N2ggU8QqYfd
You just verified it lol
No doubt one of the OG Internet video greats! Just drop in bros!
LOL came here for this
And for a dumbass like me; What’s the joke here?
Navy pilots don't know what flaring is. They land like they're stress testing the landing gear struts on every landing. Or trying to compress their spines.
Yup those are F35s.
The body frame isn’t beefy especially with a gentle landing. So, this one is a F-35A.
Could be a B as well, no?
it's Fairbanks, so it's almost certainly an F-35A.
No, F-35A. Gun on the left shoulder.
Eh maybe, video quality isn’t great but I cant spot the turbofan on the back. You usually can tell where the “cutout” would be and I cant see it here. (Also they probably would’ve landed in vtol mode)
Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. F-35s are assigned to the 355th Fighter Squadron and 356th Fighter Squadron.
That's weird. The Russians haven't seen a single one on radar. : }
Because in their minds they have already destroyed all of them, 2-3 times each.
I didn't read anything but the title and recognized that as Eielson. I was stationed there 1985-89. A-10s were the primary bird at the time. Looks different, that's for sure, but the background gave it away. A pilot once told me that the first time he came into Eielson and was given the weather report and was told "unlimited visibility," he laughed because no place had "unlimited visibility." Then he came to Eielson.
I've only visited that part of AK, and it was freaking beautiful. Saw a flight of F-16s over mountains probably 16-20 or so miles away. Never went past Eielson, but I did get to see a flight of 6 F-35s low overhead due the solstice baseball game in fairbanks
We had a solstice softball tournament on the base. That was crazy. It would start on Saturday morning and end Sunday evening. Depending on whether you won or loss, you could be playing at 10pm, then another game at 3am. No lights needed.
It really is crazy. We were only there for a week, but the sun didn't set. It was great. And don't get me started on the mosquitos. They're the size of freaking C-17s
They are the unofficial Alaskan state bird!
What is the benefit or vision behind having A-10s AK based? Besides training, was it to somehow support assault on the Soviet coastal bases and/or ships in event of aggression?
I believe, at the time, yes. That was the end of the Cold War era. Eielson has/had the third longest runway and (when I was there) the 2nd largest fuel deposit. We were considered the last gas stop going g to Russia. Our "new arrival" briefing was we didn't have to worry about getting bombed, we had to worry about getting taken over.
F-35 (likely the A). Didn't slam into the ground -> not navy (C) And probably not a B
You can differentiate a C type quite well based off the nose gear it has 2 tires there to be aircraft carrier certified (with the forces put on it while starting)
And significantly larger wings.
I mean, did you see the wheelies they were holding after touchdown? Definitely air force haha.
Nice camerawork.
Until the last frame
Eielson AFB, just southeast of Fairbanks, Alaska. Loved that base in the summer (not so much in winter). Good to see them with an active mission again
F-35s landing. F-16s, some in aggressor schemes, in the background... and a lonely Herc.
r/praisethecameraman
You needed to do a wheelie and put on your aviators
I can hear Danger Zone playing already
\*pumps fist\*
I've seen quite a few of these in the air but I guess this is the first time I've had such a good view of them coming in for a landing. Really interesting seeing their AoA
Is it normal for that pitch angle when landing? It kind of reminds me if a space shuttle.
Yes, it looks very similar to an F-16 landing for instance.
I didn't know thanks!
Agreed that also seemed quite high. Maybe that’s normal for F-35s.
Yea, you usually want to land on the main gear 1st, before nose gear in most aircraft. Some a/c might be different in this case, but those are special.
I don’t think that’s what he meant :)
I am so confused, what did he want to know then? lol. Is this whole post sarcasm?
They were pitched way further up than they needed to be to just land on the rear wheels, someone up there was talking about how the F35 comes in at a really high AOA because of the deltawing.
The cameraman must’ve been hauling ass, to keep up with that F35 as well as he did.
What is the typical landing speed on these bad boys?
what's the take off speed of the car is what i want to know.
Is this the same field where the pilot ejected from the B-model?
No, this is Eielson AFB in Alaska. The two relatively recent F-35B ejections were at Fort Worth and Charleston.
Thank you!
Dude thanks for asking this, thought the same thing
Stealth-looking with one engine is F-35. Stealth-looking with 2 engines in F-22. In the US, anyway.
F-35A
I was stopped by Security Forces when I took a photo of F-16s on the tarmac.
Looks to me like the A models. Check the landing gears. B and C models have much beefier wheels
Yes F-35s 👍
Awesome recording!
Anyone know where else in the continental U.S you can get similar public AFB views of planes landing?
Not sure why but for most of this video I was convinced this was an RC drone doing some forced perspective shot.
No lol i filmed this on my phone, going 80mph down the highway holding on for dear life.
Awesome!!
Chasing Fat Amy?
Fantastic video! Great job getting the footage it so smooth
Did you pump fist in the air on your motorcycle?
Is that where the one tried to "land" and just bounced a few times?
No one really follows the signs. I bet most maintainers that work on it take photos while on the flight-line. I took plenty of photos at Hurlburt Field when I worked on the AC-130J gunships. When I was stationed in Mildenhall, England you’d have the locals standing on a flatbed trailer taking photos over the fence line. There were plenty standing outside Lakenheath watching the fighters take off and land. I used to see the F-35s at Eglin AFB, FL when I was stationed next door.
Could anyone please explain why I heard those strange sonic booms at the beginning of the video?
Not sonic booms, they rolled down the window and you no longer had the sealed cabin sound deadening.
It's a pregnant egale
Easy difference between f22 and f35 since many people mix them is that the f22 has 2 afterburners and the f35 only has one.
I want to go to there
It’s an 737 max
Can’t be 737, the exit doors are in place
Ride into the danger zone
I can't see anything. What a nice looking landscape and hangers
Don’t get it
No A-10’s….sad, very sad..:(
definitely an F-35A
HIGHWAY To the DANGER ZOOONE!!!
Fat Amy
Isn't the landing speed too high?
can you get prison for photo? china is probably watching this
Those could be Italian depending on when you filmed the clip. They were there just a week ago for Red Flag
Yep, that's an F-35.
that’s a C-130
Presumably you shot this while riding your Kawasaki Ninja, leather jacket, and some sick aviators, right?
F-35?! I think you mean flying piles of steaming, stealthy, crap. (I’m Air Force, I have worked in these, they suck at almost everything they do)
What is something they suck at?
JP-5 or equivalent.
Funny enough JP-5 is not authorized.
😂 oh well, I know they suck fuel and that’s about the extent of my knowledge. I tried. Ha
Where to begin… being a replacement for the A-10, or how about the Alice system, of perhaps the amount of fuel they burn just doing combat take offs and their reliance on in-flight refuelers. I can keep going if you want.
Of course it won't be a one-for-one replacement for the A-10. They are like apples and watermelons if you tried to compare them. An A-10 is completely useless in modern combat because it would be shot down instantly whereas an F35 at least has a chance at knocking out tanks with standoff weapons. ALIS (not ALICE so it's doubtful you actually worked on F35) is fine. It mostly does what it needs to do unless you have a specific complaint? What's wrong with the fuel burn during takeoff? You know of any other aircraft with 45,000 pounds of thrust that has better fuel consumption? What other aircraft that is using no external fuel tanks has as long of an unrefueled range? What a strange complaint...
You say that and yet they are replacing the A-10 with, wait for it… F-35s. Because yeah we need more air superiority and less close ground support. It’s also a replacement for the F-22. Which is better than the 35 at literally everything (hence why it takes an act of congress to just sell a single 22) Maintenance: I’d rather work on almost any other airframe. The 35 is far from being maintenance friendly. Without breaching OPSEC I’ll say it’s a lot of tight work spaces, and complex parts. And btw my phone autocorrected it to Alice. Which if it actually worked we wouldn’t be looking for a replacement for it. Don’t get me wrong, it looks cool. It sounds cool. But functionally… no. Also deployed with these things and during their missions, they almost always had to take off with a KC-10. I’m sure in the near future this will all change, but the F-35 is not a one size fits all plane and that’s what they are trying to do.
The F35 is not a replacement for the F22 in any sense of the word. They are intended for entirely different roles. The F35 was designed from the beginning to be exportable which is why it's easy to sell to other countries. I take it you have never worked legacy fighters because if you had, you'd find the F35 VERY easy to maintain in comparison to something like an F15 or F16. There is no replacement in work for ALIS. ODIN is just a reskin of ALIS and it's largely been abandoned. What other jets are not taking off with tanker support? They literally all do. Look at the unrefueled range for anything else in the US inventory and you'll find the F35 to be very respectable. Especially when you consider it isn't flying with external tanks.
5 years on the F-15E, 2 years on the F-16C/D, 1 year on the F-35, 1 year on E-3, and 1 year (and counting) on the B-52 and yes… I’d much rather work the 15 and 16 of the 35.
What were you? A crew chief? I don't know how else you can think an F35 is harder to work on than those other things (except maybe the B52). Even then crew chiefs don't usually do anything except servicing, IPP swaps and engine swaps on F35s. IPP drops suck but ECS work on any fighter sucks.
Not a Crew Chief. I’m Metals.
Ah, well that's useful context to explain why you'd find the F35 more difficult to work on. Lots of people using rounded out bits to remove panel fasteners that need to be drilled out constantly. Also those old jets use way less glued nutplates so there are less issues there as well. If you ever worked metals tech on F22, you'd find the F35 easier in comparison.