BF-1 Flight 42 on 18 March 2010. First VL. Graham Tomlinson is the pilot.

Watch the F-35B, the Marines’ fighter of choice, execute a very cool maneuver in this video, taking off straight up into the sky.

While very cool, this is not something the Joint Strike Fighter is actually expected to do very often. For one thing, it requires enormous amounts of fuel. Instead, the B model is principally designed to do very short take offs, for example from the truncated deck of an amphibious warfare ship. (The inevitable military acronym for this kind of aircraft is is STOVL, “short take-off/vertical landing”). There isn’t often a good tactical reason for the plane to head straight up, using much of its almost 42,000 pounds of thrust from the Rolls Royce lift fan and Pratt & Whitney‘s main F-135 engine.

“While not a combat capability, VTOs [that’s Vertical Take Offs for those who don’t live, eat, and breathe this stuff] are required for repositioning of the STOVL in environments where a jet could not perform a short takeoff. In these cases, the jet, with a limited amount of fuel, would execute a VTO to travel a short distance,” lead contractor Lockheed Martin noted in its statement about the flight.

You can be sure, however, that the Marines will note this as yet another good argument for the F-35B as they look across the Pacific at small states like Singapore and the scattered islands of Japan and neighbors such as the Philippines.


  • TerryTee

    And I Quote from Defense-Areospace ( The hi-tech jets that will be flown from the Royal Navy’s two new
    aircraft carriers cannot land on the ships in “hot, humid and low
    pressure weather conditions”, a report warns today.)
    So if it can’t land in Hot Humid weather, just what good are they for the Marines in the Pacific ???

    • Rrddbb

      Corporate America’s military industrial machine must be fed as it has for 70 years after WWll.

      • SMSgt Mac

        The fear was of a cliché “Military-Industrial Complex”. It never really materialized as feared, but the cliché lives on forever. On the other hand, about 1964 we saw the beginnings of the Social Spending-Entitlement Complex that has completely surpassed anything Eisenhower ever feared in a defense burden and is rapidly dragging the US into a fiscal hole.

        • Rrddbb

          I agree. Social spending has far out done military spending much to the detriment of America.
          However, how many enemies has the 1.5 billion dollar B2 bomber been used against besides the 40 hour round trip bombimg runs between MO and Iraq?
          Money well spent?? NO This is ONE example of fraud weapon systems being sold to the USA taxpayers out of many.
          And, as far as the welfare leeches, MAKE them clean streets for the benefits if they want to eat.

          • Ctrot

            What has been the deterrent effect of the US possessing the “1.5 billion dollar B-2”?

            I don’t know, neither do you. But it isn’t negligible.

            Instead of complaining that it hasn’t been used a lot, be thankful.

          • Sam Crow

            Could not disagree more. Since you never served, and I know this b/c you DO NOT UNDERSTAND WAR/DETERRENTS, etc., I can tell you that these jets are needed, as is the B2.

            My suggestion, is sit down and really think about what you are saying. Think about it for a few hours, look at the big picture, add in all factors, and i could not imagine that you would still think we do not need these planes

          • JimmyJames

            Or you could just STFU.

          • aeth

            I served…almost my entire adult life. And the numbers of F22/B2 protect far less than the credit they have been given. In fact, this spending results in cuts to personnel and other readiness of real much more highly operational assets. All in support of these defense cartels – micro economies dependent on foreign military sales. Viscous circle.

          • Gunny

            I know, A COOK.

          • aeth

            Great. Now that you’ve demonstrated your complete lack of respect for our armed forces, what else would you like to “defend”…LOL

          • ken

            As a defense contractor I can say first hand that this jet is not needed. The F-15 and F-18 work perfectly and is still being manufactured by Boeing St. Louis. I guess we need a $100 million aircfact to shoot at some guy laying in a hole somewhere in Afghanstan.

          • Deanowins

            You need to check your facts, the last F15C (Air Superiority Version), for he US, rolled off the assembly line in the late 1990’s. The last F15E (Ground Attack Version) Came off the assembly line in 2001. There are NO new aircraft planned or being built. The F18 has always been a mediocre at best.

            My Point is this, we need to do one of two things, find the money somewhere or stop stretching ourselves so thin. Personally, I think we should bring our forces home, and let the rest of the world duke it out. As long as hey leave us alone. But, if they decide to mess with us… Well, we need to stop pussy footing around and get the job done. If we go to fight, we fight to win or don’t fight at all.

          • Gunny

            Hey Ken – The F-15 and F-18 does not have the Mission Capabilities that is needed by the F35B. I do not know what kind of a defense contractor you are or who you work for but the F35B must be you competator. Unless you know Marine tactics and capabilities maybe you should just be quit.

          • Gunny

            Sam, they are Dems -I’m sure. Most dems are agaist self defense. They are more about robbing the rich to give to the poor through their social programs. As Obama put it – Spread the wealth.

          • aeth

            Robbing from the poor and giving to the rich is what huge defense contracts are all about. They are nothing about real effectiveness of warfighting…they are the defense economy…mostly made by foreign military sales…regardless of anyone’s political positions (ad hominem noise).

          • Gerry1211

            Care to show us all WHERE exactly we have fought a war for OUR self defense? Take your time.

          • aeth

            Military spending IS social spending and much of it has little to do with US security (foreign military sales).

          • Gunny

            What logic are you using? Be quit before you make a fool of yourself.

          • aeth

            “Logic”? LOL. Try using the accepted definition of the word in the context it was used. Government control of manufacturing and the means of production. “Fool” might be a reflection of your own ideology. Check yourself.

          • Gunny

            I think if you check your facts you will find that the B2 program was dropped because of cost over runs. There fore the only B2’s that are flying are the ones that first came off the assembly line. Now when the B2 came out, we needed something to replace our againg bomber fleet. By going to the B2, we were able to close some overseas operations because they were no longer needed for refueling and maintenace – money was saved. We also need to make sure we were able to transport and drop Nukes against the Russians when the B2 was first developed and deployed. Therefore, you objection is mute.

          • aeth

            The original scope of mission for the B2 was actually to search out anti-aircraft radar in a post nuclear conflict…as stated by the original mission statement.

        • severed2009

          If everybody could afford medical care/insurance and saved enough to live on in old age, we would not be in a hole. The problem is that many do not earn enough to do this. The answer is that they all have to work hard and get jobs that pay better. When Mickey D goes bankrupt because it cannot get anyone to cook burgers for what it can afford to pay, we will know the problem is being solved. Until then people who get to old or sick to work should just go off and die, along with any kids they cannot afford to raise.

          • robintx

            Or they will find immigrant labor (legal or not) that will work for such low pay.

          • Richard Comments

            How about the radical idea that people live within their means??? Instead of having a 5 bedroom house when a two or three bedroom will do, or having an older car instead of the latest and greatest, or brown bagging their lunch instead of eating out each day, or……

          • aeth

            Loosening credit (endeavor for which the banks have been pressuring and lobbying Congress successfully since the 70s.) is like throwing money into the street…then it’s like telling people not to pick it up…when it comes to questioning why they take out these loans.

          • severed2009

            Like paying down your debts. living within your means lowers your consumption, and costs other people their jobs when a lot of people do it either by choice or by necessity. The economy shrinks. From an economic standpoint, it does not matter what happens to the people. In Mexico, they sneak into the US. In Guatemala they sneak into Mexico; they used to be exterminated if they were extra and made trouble. We can go work for the sheiks of Arabie. A good portion of the Philippines does.

        • aeth

          MIC exists almost exactly as Eisenhower envisioned it would. Programs exist to support another American economy – one that relies on defense sales to foreign nations. M1Tank to Saudi, Egypt (for example). F-15s to Saudi, etc… The amount of money earned by USG from US foreign sales is immense and not so sensitive to fluctuations in the private sector as non-defense related industries. MIC is alive and well and our economy relies heavily on arming the world, both friends and foes. Easy to validate. Just check the numbers.

    • SMSgt Mac

      Your first mistake was getting your aero news from the ‘Euro-Shill’. You should have pulled that news thread a little further back to where you would have found the primary source, and information that is kinda’ important along with it.

      Information like:
      1) The UK’s desire to have the F-35B bring back weight under conditions beyond the F-35B’s spec for vertical landing. Conditions beyond what an AV-8B can land vertically on fumes and no payload. (BTW: The ‘Bringback’ payload specs are about lowering the operating costs, not mission capability.)
      2) The UK is developing the Short Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) technique to allow the B to land at much higher weights than is possible using the standard, vertical landing.

      Expect the US Marines to adopt/adapt a version thereof once people start figuring out how to exploit the jet’s capabilities.

      • aeth

        Lockheed has developed the CTOL, VTOL, and SRVL almost simultaneously. The UK is one of Lockheed’s customers.

    • Sam Crow

      Cant use the STOVL….it can land like the rest of the jets….use your brain

  • Charles Lilly

    More War Toys despite sequestration. Why must we buy something so new and expensive just because we can. Quote me a price on just one, that includes tooling and Engineering. Is it prestige or real combat readiness? You take away educational benefits from Warriors coming home (who earned it), how did your manufacturer earn the bid on this thing?

    • Ctrot

      If you were really worried about Warriors you’d want them to have the best equipment rather than air-frames older than many of the pilots and inferior to foreign designs.

    • Charles Lilly

      Now that we are comparing apples and oranges, a new tactical fighter that is replacing the now obsolete F22, F117,F15,F16 and I have seen many of their carcuses at aircraft boneyards and museums, it was just mentioned that it is a fuel hog when operating in VTOL, Some aircraft have stayed in the limelight and is 40 years old and older, ex. C130, C141, C5A. The Congress and Senate want these War Machines built in their States $$$. It is still hard to argue the fact that Marines require fire support from an F35, equivalent to an already stocked war chest of F18’s, AV8B’s, Stealth’s, would you believe me if I said B52’s? The next War, however justified, is not going to be about who has the prettiest fighter, it’s going to be who will destroy whose military satellites (EMP) and what possible defense will another Nation have against 12 or 13 Aircraft Carrier Groups, Boomers, Aegis Cruisers. Fighting door to door, Warriors dying day by day is something that an F35 can’t do or even a cruise missile. Why can’t we be happy with the Super Arsenal that we have? We have over 35,000 Nuclear Warheads. What’s the excuse for the next war, tell me again? They are already here.

      • Steve

        Just for the record, the F35 isn’t going to replace the f22. They are going to be compimentary like the f15 and f16s were for each other

      • Sam Crow

        lets see…..F22 is old…… B52’s are still ok to have…….and the F18 should not be life-cycled….

        WOWZERRRRSSSS! Could you imagine a b52 flying over a first world power? It would not last 3 seconds. F18 has been around for 40 years, they need to be life-cycled with stealth jets….lastly, the F22 is the best machine man has ever built..EVER BUILT…yes you read that correctly. And just to clear it up, the F22 is not old, it is the pinnacle of our fleet. It is the best thing we have, besides a nuke. The stuff an F22 can do is astonishing, well, lets just say people have no clue…nor should they

        you can’t fight/deter a first world country with the old stuff. It like saying lets fight the next war with revolvers and muskets, not AR’s and Barrett .50 cals

        • JimmyJames

          I’m all for fighting with drones. 0 American body count.

          • aeth

            As long as those drones are prohibited from putting Americans in their sites….at home.

      • jimmyJames

        Keep it short. I stopped reading after “Now”.

    • Rudy

      Hey dipshit, the money on tooling and engineering has already been spent. That was done well prior to sequestration. It’s in the production phase. What sense would it make to discontinue the project now? I’m guessing you voted for Obama again in the last election.

    • JimmyJames

      Im pretty sure this was not built in the last month. Just sayin.

  • ted miller

    To answer Charles Lilly. Because we must stay ahead of our adversaries and provide weapons that will save lives for OUR country. And God bless our warriors but we would need less body bags and field hospitals if we can use our technology instead of men.
    This aircraft saves lives. A small price to pay i say. And i might add it also provides jobs in America. KEEP THEM COMING AMERICA.

    • Sam Crow

      could not agree more. Build them, and keep building them. Build more F22’s also

    • van.landeghem eddy

      nice comment
      eddy belgium

    • aeth

      More money spent on less operationally used materiel = huge price to pay and under-resourcing personnel and ground units. Money is finite.

    • ken

      A complete wast of money but then again who cares about our debt. The F-18 and F-15 work perfectly fine. Get rid of the F-35’s now at over 100 million a piece we cannot aford it, but then again no one cares about us
      being bankrupt.

      • Joe Schmo

        Are you prepared to learn chinese?

        • ken

          Get real, my defense buiness has benefited real nice over the last 10 years at the expense of our debt. We have thousands of nueclear warheads but are unwilling to use them. I would of dropped a warhead after 9/11 on Suadi Arabia. Guess what, that would of been cheaper and would saved thouands of lives. Do you believe Rummyfeld and other the players would of not wanted a war beneiftting buinesses like mine. I do not think so.

          • Deanowins

            Sir, if you own a ‘defense buiness’ I am the US President.

          • Josey Wales

            Bout fell out of my chair laughing so hard.

          • hackitoff

            give ’em a break, maybe his company makes a screw or two for the plane – but more likely he has a few loose screws

          • Myles P

            Barry! Izzat you?!

            He cuts grass aboard Marine bases.

          • Joe Schmo

            Fortunately cooler heads prevailed. It is for that very reason that we build F-35’s, s we can kick ass without nuking the world and we don’t have to learn chinese.

          • Rozzie Joe

            Maybe you could purchase “Spellcheck”with some of your huge “buiness” profits.

          • guest who

            would have, not would of – the only defense business you own is a sanitation contract at a government facility.

          • The Watcher

            Only problem there, is we now have an air base in Suadi Arabia

          • Loufca

            It’s pretty obvious by your inability to spell that you don’t run a company. Nice try at reverse psychology though. Try spell check next time, it will help you look less ignorant.

        • aeth

          psssst. We sell and manufacture for the Chinese……(don’t tell anyone).

          • Robert McGrath

            We do not manufacturer fighter jets for the Chinx, they steal the designs from us, and mostly Russia..They have ONE Aircraft carrier, and just now succesfully laned a plane on the thing, something we have been doing since 1942. Also, the ONE carrier, was purchased from Russia and in shambles when purchased..China is nothing..go visit the place,,,outside the modern cities, looks like the Ghetto’s of Nigeria..

          • aeth

            The point was that we sell our designs and rights wholesale to China on the private side (ie…COMAC) and otherwise sell to the “enemy”. Biggest Abrams Tank customer by the way are Egypt and Saudi Arabia, we recently upgraded Saudi with F15s to modernize their fleet, etc…etc. What China steals is American skilled labor, trade secrets, and manufacturing methods…because we enthusiastically let them. Never said China was a big deal, by the way. I’m not the one who suggested we’d all be speaking Chinese.

          • markd2222

            You obviously haven’t been to Hong Kong, Shanghai or Beijing lately. They also pretty much own Singapore. More Ferraris, Maseratis, Rolls Royces and Bentleys on the streets than anywhere I’ve been in the free world. And btw, hardly a sign of American cars… A few Buicks in China. That’s about it. The Japanese and Germans sell the majority of the cars there. Dunno about weaponry, but their military budget is huge and growing, especially their Navy. Won’t be long before they’ll be able to challenge any major war power. Then good-bye Taiwan.

          • Joe Schmo

            pssstt, your comment doesn’t make any sense.

          • aeth

            If it doesn’t make sense to you, my comment is not the problem. I work in a manufacturing environment (aerospace). I work defense as well as commercial. My customers include China, Saudi, Egypt (and other of America’s not so friendlies). That this doesn’t make sense to you does not expose a flaw in anything I’ve written. Reflect.

          • Joe Schmo

            Wrong, your comments are nonsense.

          • aeth

            Just the answer I expected. Drop head back into sand. Nothing to see here. Oh my son…..what you don’t know about things…

          • Joe Schmo

            Believe what you want, if it is the crutch you need,little boy, be thankful we have the f-35 so you don’t have to learn Chinese :-)

          • aeth

            Too cute. I worked on the PTMS of the F35 since 2006 and brought it into LRIP, where it mostly is now. It is an ok aircraft, but fell short of initial expectations. It certainly isn’t the vanguard of all fighters…LOL. I’m not implying anything at all about a Chinese takeover (ie..”learn Chinese”). Just that we rely on our enemies as customers of our defense materiel (ie…homegrown socialism to sell to socialists). Anyways…might be time to mature a bit.

          • Joe Schmo

            You may have a point about geopolitics, but it gets lost in the attempted insults, the cute ones! :-)

          • aeth

            Insults are abundant all around. I don’t initiate them.

      • ScottyB

        @Ken- The F-18’s have exceeded their expected carrier landings and are on borrowed time. There’s only so many times you can run a plane into a flight deck and expect it to take off again.

        • Lop_Eared_Galoot

          The Centerbarrel issue is a given for the F/A-18A/C, though one which has been fixed and could be fixed again, on a 5:1 cost traded equivalency for each F-35B.

          The F/A-18E/F do not have this problem and are in production at roughly 60 million each (less than half present F-35 costs, roughly 75% of F-35 costs after series manufacture begins). The Marines, if they equipped with this airframe, would be able to support USN battlegroup needs to expand their airwings in time of war.

          And thus the real determinator for whether the F-35B is a good idea is how much the loss of USMC presence as the Navy reserve air group, harms the ability of Marine task forces to project power.

          And the answer is: a lot.

          Because the Marine LHAs, which are smaller than CVNs and must compete their space with ground combat element storage and transport (i.e. troop decks and well decks and vehicle garages) do not deploy with large fixed wing air combat elements because their hangar decks are ALSO heavily competed, with big troop transport helos like the CH-46, CH-53 and MV-22.

          Rather, the Marines take to sea only small ‘detachments’ of 6-8 Harriers. Which is not enough to even provide a FORCAP fleet protection screen, let alone to carry the war over the beach.

          Did they ditch every helo they had and totally commit to being small carriers, the Marines could STILL only provide for about 25 aircraft. Half what the USN takes to sea on a dedicated basis.

          The F-35B is not much better than the Harrier in terms of combat radius because they had to remove roughly 5,000lbs of gas to make it VTOL capable and it’s stealth is also likely to be compromised because it’s principle CAS weapons (and rapid combat reload ‘turn’ requirements) will all demand external pylon carriage.

          Finally, the F-35B is not carrier compatible. It’s gear is too weak to constantly run over the cross deck pendant. It’s VL recovery mode over the side would put other aircraft in the deck park at risk to jetblast. And it’s STO mode take off doesn’t work on a carrier because the JBD or Jet Blast Deflector is positioned such that the jet cannot get a long enough run (sans skijump) to lift off from the waist cat position. While the foredeck is exclusive a parking ramp for other aircraft as well.

          The F-35B is not what ASTOVL (Advanced STOVL, the R&D precursor program which was ‘melded into’ JSF) was supposed to be about. It is vastly larger and heavier with internal carriage and range requirements that have completely bloated the system specs of what should have been a 20,000lb class empty weight airframe.

          Lightning-B is a kludge answer looking for a question that was never asked.

      • vanvorous

        The F-35 program is a Joint effort (hence the JSF name used in some circles) on the part of the US and 8 other countries and as such not entirely funded by the US.

        • aeth

          Lockheed, an American company, is managing, coordinating, and integrating all systems into this package. The “joint” part comes from the supply chain.

        • Scooter

          Joint funding in our government is like a
          joint funded picnic at my house. I get to pay 95% of the cost and 100% of the cleanup.
          I am legally responsibility for any damages or injuries that may occur before,
          during and after the party. The word Shared
          doesn’t means there talking about it being done equally!

        • hackitoff

          yes but it’s way over budget and some of the other 8 countries are thinking twice about it. also due to the huge cost overrun, the US is looking to buy fewer of them than originally planned

      • Jimo Smith

        How about we buy more planes and just stop sending money/tech to other countries. Esp those that hate us and burn our flag.

        • aeth

          Because a large part of our economy comes from selling defense equipment and our own intelligence to both friend and foe. Please….ask me for some examples.

        • pft829

          You hit it right on the nose I love the USA but the folks running it are idiots they be fired for lack of performance on any other job.

        • religiouspeoplearepsychos

          US sending techs abroad??


          keep living and wallowing in your lies.

          what a sad sad society.

      • WildBill

        You spend more damn money on welfare ~40% of the $3.5 Trillion US budget than the whole lousy 20% total for defense. Can you figure that out Kenny boy?

      • RF

        Bankrupt is always a possibility, however safety and freedom require cutting edge technology and staying ahead of EVERYONE else out there that want to see our demise. Get your priorities straight friend. I certainly agree we must spend carefully, but we have learned that freedom is expensive, and worth it. Let’s find other places to pull in our belt.

        • aeth

          Freedom has seemed to almost always been compromised from within nations in the past, rather than from outside. Yes, there were those conquering years and short bursts of conflict (burst = 10 years or less). But empires have almost always fallen from their own demise and given away their own freedoms consistency in the quest for more security. Careful what you wish for.

      • John Carter

        The only constitutional reason for taxes is defense.

        • aeth

          And yet the only way to maintain and educated public (adding any value to Democracy) and any semblance of infrastructure and commercial transportation support – is through taxes. But I guess you could argue that is all under the auspice of defense. So inevitably….all taxes are constitutional…as in some way they provide for the defense of this democracy.

          • Terry Brown

            We don’t have an ” educated public,” nor a ” democracy.”

          • aeth

            We did, before we determine America (otherwise known as “government” in today’s lingo) was bad and needed no money to run itself.

      • Joe

        When you say they cost over $100m each, do you realize that this is money that is pumped in OUR economy…there are countless Americans who depend on the military for their livelihood from the personnel in service to hose working for the weapons manufacturers, to those working for the manufacturers of the parts…to those who work for the manufacturer of the materials,,,to those who work in the high tech software companies…to those who work in transportation…etc…etc…etc…

        • Terry Brown

          Studies have shown that if a similar amount of money was invested in our infrastructure, it would create many more jobs Also it would benefit all Americans, not just the military corporations.

        • aaron

          Sounds like Zimbabwean economic policy to me.

          I can make $10000 a night stealing appliances out of peoples homes…doesn’t mean I’m providing anything, or that we could make a country of burglars sustainable.

      • skottidogg

        And another thing, what would the payload weigh

    • William Daviau

      Ever been to Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland…..those countries don’t waste money on such planes and don’t need any body bags at all.

      • Erekose69

        That’s because they mind their own business.

      • Loufca

        Been to all those countries. All very nice. Ever looked at their tax rates? Oh, a little bit of history, if it weren’t for the US & GB, during WW2, these countries would not be in the position they are in today.. Also, take a look at how their demographics are changing. To compare these 4 small countries (with a combined population smaller than California) to the US is ludicrous.

        • Gerry1211

          If it hadn’t been for U.S. Corporations and U.S Banking’s financing of Hitler and the UK and France declaring WAR on Germany, there would not have been a WW2. WW2 was a continuation of WW1 when the Versaille Treaty carved up Germany and deeded whole parts of Germany to other countries and their German population was confronted with not just a different language but a different culture. Poland did not exist until 1919. Gdansk was Danzig, a German port. Hitler did not want a war. It was negotiating with Poland to get part of Germany back, OR if that were not possible to at least have a free way to Danzig….Poland could keep the rest. Churchil got wind of this and told the Polish NOT to settle with Hitler and should Hitler invade them, THEY would declare war on German. So, as a survivor of Nazi occupation in The Netherlands and THREE bombings by the allies with a faulty atlas, I take exception to anyone claiming that the U.S. and GB did any saving in Europe. Churchill single handedly lost GB the empire. He was involved in every war. He was a disaster for England and the European continent. He was a bloviating *hole of the highest order.
          As to their tax code…..they are only relevant when one considers at the end of the day how much is left in the wallet.
          The Europeans have far more. But that is a different topic.
          The European Union is bigger than the U.S.

          • philjr59

            Have you ever read “Mein Kampf”? Hitler wrote it during the mid 1920’s. it spelled out his exact plan for “living space” for the German people. Before you make anymore stupid statements, read it and still say the war was anyones fault but his.

          • Gerry1211

            I have the book. Did YOU ever read the International Jew by Henry Ford, the most anti-Semitic American EVER? It was translated into German around 1921. Hitler was in jail at the time and read it. This gave rise to Mein Kampf in which whole passages were plagiarized by Hitler, word for word, comas and periods, from Henry Ford’s tome The International Jew. As a liberal it pains me to refer you to Pat Buchanan’s book “Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War” .He chronicles the whole reason WHY WW2 actually started at 1919 when the Versaille Treaty was signed carving up Germany. Hitler’s aim was to restore Germany. The Netherlands was not involved in WW1; they were neutral. The continued to be neutral but after the non-stop air raids by Britain over Germany, they invaded Holland on May 10th, 1940. As a person who has never experienced war on his own soil or has never been on the receiving end of fire bombs I suggests that you have absolutely NO clue except what you are told. I did not read Mein Kampf in English but in German. I suggest you do the same, before you have any more opinions. And while you are so eager to vilify Hitler, what about I.G Farben who worked together with the Rockefellers who provided chemicals the Nazis need for their V1 and V2 rockets. How about holding to account all American banks that funded Hitler. Union Bank on Broadway in New York was a money laundering enterprise of which Prescot Bush was the Vice President. It was eventually closed under the war act, but Americans continue to be up to their eyeballs involved profiting from slave labor in Auschwitz.. I suggest you check the Dulles brothers who helped shove all this aiding and abetting Hitler under the proverbial rug. A little knowledge is often a dangerous thing.

          • aeth

            Poland known as such and being its own territory has existed since 966. WWII may not have happened if the world didn’t jump in to stop Hitler. But Hitler would still have invaded and conquered lands extending far beyond the limits of any previous definition of Germany, as well as committed massive genocide. Thank the stars above that those countries allied to prevent the 3rd Reich from destroying modern civilization.

          • Gerry1211

            Based on what….American propaganda? Your own creative thinking?. I was the victim of a war that should never have happened. It was Churchill who never missed an opportunity to create war and France both of whom were suffering under lost colonialist power and the funding of Hitler by U.S. Corporations that allowed Hitler to build up a war machine.
            So forgive me when I don’t really want to hear people professing an opinion who have in all reality NO clue whatsoever. When the war was over I could not sleep for the quiet and the stillness. All I ever knew was nightly sirens, 300 to 400 bombers flying over every solitary night on their way to Germany, search lights scouring the sky, anti aircraft fire popping non stop….to have them return 1.5 hours later on their way back to Britain.
            Stars from above have prescious little to do with having saved Europe from Hitler. Hitler’s military was completely decimated by the Soviets in 1944. The Normandy invasion was solely to prevent the Soviets from overrunning the whole of Europe. My town was bombed during daytime in April of 1945. Those were Americans – they did not bomb at night time. They proudly took pictures of this “German town” they destroyed, which I now have in a book. They had a faulty atlas and bombed Holland. They also bombed the dikes, which is a war crime and caused people to drown.
            Poland was part of Russia, the Prussian empire as well as of old Austria. Germany itself had only existed since 1871. German speaking people YES, There were lots of German speaking Kingdoms…Kingdom of Bavaria, Prusia, Schlessweick-Holstein, Hanover…. 27 seperate entities before unifications. Unless you lived through the war and understand HOW it came to be don’t judge, you have no opinion based on any facts. NONE You are entitled to your beliefs not your own facts.

          • aeth

            What Hitler would have done is based on what he did do, what he wrote about in Mein Kampf, and the complete contradictions of history to your post here. Neither England nor the US were in any rush whatsoever to enter this war, and that was to the detriment of Europe, apparently. It wasn’t US corporations which funded Hitler, they were primarily international, with a big booster from the BIS. Read Charles Higham’s ‘Trading with the Enemy”, which is supported by real evidence in its prologue. I have an English background and know many who lived through the Battle of Britain over London. NONE – seem to hold your very disjointed view of Hitler, which runs counter to all the real and living evidence of which there is still an abundance. You’re going to have to wait a few more decades on this fairy tale, to ensure all the living evidence to the contrary has died off. We’ve been hearing from you BNPs for too long.

          • Gerry1211

            And what did HE write exactly? Care to share that with us.
            Churchill, was he your hero, like he seems to be in the U.S.? He never let a war go by without getting involved in it or promoting it. War is lucrative. He single handedly caused Britain to lose its empire. That takes real talent, wouldn’t you say? It takes TWO or more to make a war…..and Britain with its nightly bombing sorties flying over my home targeting cities and civilians….not to mention the bombing of Dresden committed War Crimes.
            Your indepence of mind becomes highly suspect when you visit, respond to, and defend the status quo on a site that Advertises NEWSMAX of all things. You’re a mouth piece for the Defense industry.

          • aeth

            Are you referring to “HE” as the author to whom I referred (ie, Trading with the Enemy)? Read the book. Allied and axis collusion in an effort to help Hitler win the war – from the corporate side. All very well documented. Read. Churchill’s not my hero, but he certainly didn’t cause Britain to lose its empire. That was declining since the beginning of the century. Any empire that appears to be able to be compromised by ANY single man, has not much left in it. In fact, the slow evolution from trading within your colonies to trading internationally and promoting the Free Market (invented by Adam Smith) is what enabled the slow hand over of the Empire to other powers (US mainly, due to the debt). I am neither defending Defense, nor sorry rag, Newsmax. It may take 2 to war, but when the other option is to be occupied, war is not only justified, but mandated by this world. Dresden may not have been the most noble act, but those of the Germans made Dresden seem like a love nudge.

    • A Brit

      If you was not at war with everyone, you would not need this old idea plane…The Jump Jet Harrier has been around for 40 years for the Royal Air Force…and who is the ‘Super Power’ ???

      • irrenmann

        But US Marines have made plenty of use of Harriers as well, and still do.

        Lightning II is a couple of generations beyond Harrier in important characteristics, notably stealth.

      • Gerry1211

        Right. I worked with Lucas’s liaison office in the U.S.

    • RK ROY

      Do US realy have anemy or adversaries, I don’t think so, these are the big machine to make money.

      • Gerry1211

        Yeay, here’s someone who knows??? Good on you!!

    • Rosalee Adams

      God bless our warriors

      (((((((((((((((((NODS)))))))))))))) we survive because they serve. Bless their hearts, their dedication……….proud to have served alongside them

      • Gerry1211

        How tribal of you…..This is what General Smedley Butler says of war:
        “War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”

        • Colin Clark

          The Bible also decries war. Virtually everyone decries war after they’ve been in one or once they get old enough. But wars are rarely fought because the populace wants to go to war. States wage war to protect themselves or to advance their interests.
          Colin Clark
          Breaking Defense

          • Gerry1211

            Wars are ALWAYS fought for the benefit of a few. It is a racket.
            Always was. Corporate America FUNDED Hitler, and as such created him. That was obviously NOT in the interest of Europe but WAS in the interest of Corporate America. Union Banking, Broadway, NYC was an American/German money laundering scheme of which Prescott Bush was the VP. While that was closed on 1942, in 1952 Prescot Bush did get Over 1 million USD out of his investment of $1.00. from that Bank. What about Rockefeller providing chemicals to ig Farben that were used for Nazi planes as well as the V1 and V2s that bombed London? What about Corporate America incl Rockefelle benefitting from slave labor in Auschwitz.? Wars have NEVER, been fought to protect our country. Why did FDR decide on crippling embargoes on Japan? Froze all Japanese bank accounts. Forced the Dutch to participate in embargoes from Indonesia, while he engaged in trade with China? . And while LONG before, having dicyphered Japanese code, KNEW they would would come to Pearl Harbor, placed the entire U.S. fleet at Peal Harbor while neglecting to notify its command there so they could have defended themselve against this planned attack. Does the McCullom memo ring a bell? The end justifies the means, is America’s moto, even the deaths of 2,600 innocent sailors on naval ship in Pearl Harbor. American military men have NEVER ‘served’ this country to keep it free. Remember the Main? It has become, contrary to the U.S. Constitution, the ‘private army of Corgorate America, against the interest of the population and more often than not its illegal intervention became a threat to our national security. WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam (remember the Gulf of Tonkin?) Panama, covert activities in Chile, the theft of Hawaii for the benefit of the United Fruit industry….Our history is full of horrific actions done in our name. As for the Bible…it is full of illegal, unethical and immoral stories and laws. So let’s not go there. You need to do some real research on America’s history. It’s not very pretty, but it will make you understand why we currently are where we are. You might want to start with “Lies my Teacher Told me” by James W. Loewen. Or “A People’s History of the United States: 1492 to present.
            The Bush Administration was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity in an International Court using the Nuremberg Laws WE ourselves created, ex post facto, based on which we hanged numerous Germans. Bush has now TWICE cancelled trips to Europe after calls were made for his arrests. Remember General Pinochet? Currently we drone innumerous different countries. The entry of the airspace of another sovereign country with a machine of war constitutes an Act of War according to international law. Bombing them then becomes a war crime according to international law. If we want to end terrorism, we ought to stop engaging in it. People respond to the things WE do the THEM. All of which beggars the question WHO benefits from all this droning? What industry??? You answer that question.

          • Colin Clark

            Rational discourse requires an open mind.

            Colin Clark
            Breaking Defense

          • Gerry1211

            Rational discourse requires TRUTH. You are simply a mouthpiece for the Defense Industry….and Carlyle.
            Youi speak about an open mind while you advertise NEWSMAX on your site? Seriously? You, Sir, are part of the programming of the myth that claims we must always build more and better war machines to defeat our enemies while in reality the ADDICTION to money lies at the root of that mythology. The mythology that we liberate countries from their oppressors as we bomb the bejeezus out of them. But its for their own good, we have the audacity to claim. We funded and created Hitler which was for the good of WHOM exactly? Certainly not me!! Only the defense industry which YOU represent. We have ousted more Demoratically elected heads of state in foreign countries to replace them with bloody dictators to do out bidding. So, you Sir must NEVER speak of having an open mind about WAR. You don’t have one. You defend the indefensable for a mere paycheck. Are you also benefitting from the Drone industry? Are you at all familiar with International Laws that states that any country that enters the sovereign airspace of another with a machine of war commits an Act of War. And when we bomb we commit a war crime. The BA has already been found guilty in an International Court using the Nuremburg Laws WE created ex post facto on the basis of which we hanged numerous Germans. Bush now has cancelled his 2nd trip to Europe after requests were made for his arrest. So the droning program exposes the Obama administration to similar charges, BUT the defense industry/carlyle seems to run the show and makes us essentially a rogue nation who for their addiction to more and more money wil threaten the national security of this country and its people. You want to stop terrorism? That’s easy!! We need to stop engaging in it!!! But that doesn’t fatten your paycheck does it?
            Now how about that open mind of yours…..let’s hear some…other than the standar line

    • Lop_Eared_Galoot

      Lockheed Martin is _not_ America. Just as single example, a couple thousand jobs for Ft. Worth does not equal the hundreds of thousands we have lost through the outsourcing of the auto manufacturing industry (paid for by U.S. tax donations to their rescue the rich program) to China which is, just coincidentally I’m sure, the largest growth automotive market on the planet.

      The F-35B has the weight of the F-35C on the wing of an F-35A and is short 5,000lbs of fuel to offset the thrust shortcomings of the STOVL hardware.

      This is bound to make it, all round, a _very_ poor fighter in terms of available Ps as maneuver energy.

      The F-35B will thus _not_ ‘save lives’ in any operation condition in which modern tactics and weapons are applied because the F-35B is in fact a step backwards in up and away as well as weapons system performance to the point where any Gen 4.5 airframe (Rafale, Eurofighter, JAS-39E, J-10) can easily take it using combinations of IRST and ramaam to drive inertial midcoursing missiles into seeker-acquisition range, irrespective of radar stealth.
      Indeed, in it’s principle CAS configuration, with external weapons pylons for forward firing ordnance like the Brimstone, JAGM and APKWS, the F-35B _will not be_ stealthy.
      At all.

      It will furthermore be available in such limited numbers that a simple bums-rush approach to sortie generation rates will allow any conceivable ‘Near Peer’ threat to overwhelm an LHA centered Amphibious Group.

      While the F-35B’s lack of compatibility with conventional carrier takeoff and landing modes will mean that if a USN CVSF accompaniment is required to penetrate the Marine force to a debarkation point, the Marines will not even be able to ‘help out’ by bringing their Cherry Point parked CONUS jets aboard the Navy CVN.

    • religiouspeoplearepsychos

      yeah. war in the name of GOD. yeah. thats what america do.

      lets pray to kill more people. lets preach to make more enemies. america is strong by the name of god, lets destroy all.

      and while all of you popes and refferend preach(briefing) for more war, let us atheist focus on saving lives by researching in bio medic advancements.

  • trinus 777

    Mr. Charles Lilly, I’m all for saving $’s. This Aircraft was built and with it’s post testing of this Aircraft included in at time of initial budget (years ago) prior to recent sequestration.

    Put the Kool aid down.
    Recently the (DOD) was told to cut 8-9 more F-35’s from being built lessoning the amount added to it’s fleet due to current sequestration.

    • Gunny

      Thanks to Obama and the Dems. Every time they get into office Our forces are cut and the security of our Nation is put at risk.

      • aeth

        Too funny to fantasize about this being a partisan issue. “Clinton’s downsizing” was Cheney’s plan…after all Defense Sec Cheney under Clinton proposed it and Clinton accepted it. I know I know…his fault for trusting…LOL

  • X Marine Sgt. Wan

    The Marines already had this for 20 years ago old story!

    • Bud Short

      The F-35 has only been around for 6 years. The Harrier that the F-35 is intended to replace has been around since 1969, 44 years.

      • BarkingFrog

        The point is, the head line says the F-35 executes the first vertical takeoff, when the Harrier did it (along with some other cool stuff, like flying backwards) over 40 years ago.

        • Jason Sawyers

          Note the Teaser says “Only seen in movies”. Hence it gives the impression that this is new technology.

    • bigJim

      Actually Harrier came from the Brits not the Marines.

      • Gunny

        Doesn’t make any difference where it came from. The Marines are the only US forces to fly the AV8B Harrier Jump Jet. It does have a great purpose and is well worth the cost.. Because of the age they need to be replaced. The F35B is an excellent choise.
        GySgt William L Sabin

    • Brian Robinson

      Sorry but this is way better then the Harrier! So no we don’t. The harrier is also reached it life span, as well as the F-18 and F-16. They are looking at this replacing 2 or 3 different A/C.

  • Rick Conrad

    I think the movie true lies with Arnold was 20 years ago great story

  • JTrip

    “First Vertical Takeoff”

    Umm…Harrier Jump Jet?

    • Steve

      I think that it means the first VTO of this jet

  • NPA

    The US has been stirring up non-nuclear enemies for years. Now they want bigger guns to play war with someone else. Soon, everyone will have nukes and the planet will turn to dust. It’s time to move – to a new planet.

  • tjoc32

    The Obama admin will put the stop to this. Every day we have 10,000 additional immigrants in our country. Those are additional mouths to feed. Our defense can wait?

  • Sonia Black

    Harrier Jump Jet anyone?

    • Rudy

      Read the article fucktard.

  • Quantummechanic720

    Couldn’t the Harrier Jet do this back in the day?

    • Rudy

      The P-51 can take off from a runway. Are we going to now compare it to the F-22, fucktard?

      • Quantummechanic720

        Get off my dick hoe!

  • ycplum

    Back in the 70’s and 80’s, the AIr Force used a hi-lo mix of aircrafts. You had a few expensive F-15 air superiority fighters and a bunch of cheaper F-16 workhorses. I think they need to continue the concept. We can’t afford to have all F-22’s and F-35’s and teh amount we can afford can’t be in enough places in the quantity we need. A few high end aircrafts can punch a hole in the enemy’s defenses and allow less capable, but cheaper, aircrafts finish the job.

    • Rudy

      Hey fucktard. Have you ever actually looked at the price difference between an F-15 and F-16?

      • ThatGuy

        Never been in the market TuckFard.

      • ycplum

        Ah … a man of eloquence.

        But in answer to your question, Yes. The F-16 is approximately 60% the cost of a F-15.

  • Jeff

    I dont understand how this is a new maneuver, I’ve seen this in the 90’s don’t know if the jet has the same name but i do know this is something that has been around since the 90’s. i love it by the way. it was the harrier jet.

    • Jeff

      from the 60’s my bad first time i seen it was in the 90’s

  • Michael Lawlor

    That is nothing new.

  • Brian Roberts
  • EricZellman

    Why is this “new”. Jump Jets have been arround for like 20 years?

    • Colin Clark

      Aw come on, folks. The F-35B is making its first vertical takeoff. I didn’t say this was the first vertical takeoff ever. Nothing in the story says that, though I suppose sticking a modifier in the headline would remove all possibility for confusion. So I will.

      • handsomish

        The problem isn’t your article, but the link from AOL which proclaims it does something that only UFO’s could do, and previously reserved for science fiction. But your statement of cool, for a 40 year old ability is a little bit of oversell. Come on now, are bell bottoms with patches, and needlepoint on your vest still cool?

        • Colin Clark

          The stability of the aircraft and the fine control of the takeoff make this cool in my book. When a Harrier lifts you can see the enormous amount of work the pilot is doing to get it up safely.
          Colin Clark
          Breaking Defense

          • les

            plain and simple, it is cool.

          • aeth

            Not just that, it’s got a revolutionary secondary power system – power turbine management system which operates apart from the main and provides all non-thrust producing power to the cockpit. It is revolutionary to say the least.

      • JimmyJames

        I liked the story thanks. Now our enemy will know whats coming for them.

        • aeth

          They know far more than this article’s author could possibly imagine to divulge. Welcome to the internet.

      • Chris

        From pathetic AOL headline –

        You’ve Only Seen This in the Movies

        You probably can’t tell from this photo, but this futuristic US fighter jet is capable of something that used to be reserved for science fiction.

        Mesmerizing trick that only ‘UFOs’ could do

    • Jim Levitt

      Closer to 40

    • bigbillofwyandotte

      The writer of this article probably ignored that fact so as to have a headline that would grab attention. Either that, or they are just plain ignorant. If that’s the case, immagine their surprise when they find out what a helicopter can do!

  • Guest

    There is NOTHING new about vertical take-offs and landings. They’ve been around a LONG time. The Harrier was the big one put into service and used by the Marines.
    Wake up and check your info before posting it.

    • Deanowins

      ‘Marine’s F-35B Executes –>Its<— First Vertical Takeoff; Straight Up Cool But…'

      See the word 'ITS'? Sheesh people…

  • herosbug1

    done before no big deal

    • jimmyJames

      I know right. Like the automobile. We should have been satified with 10 miles to the gallon and stop trying to improve them.

  • Chien DeBerger CT

    Would have loved to see the transition from VSTOL to conventional flight. Semper Fi! (USMC 1975-1979 – MOS 6635 – AV8A Electrician w/ VMA-542)

  • JED

    Gee I think every government needs some of these

    • aeth

      Lockheed is selling to a good number of them. And the US gets a take.

  • Al Stenzel

    Hawker Siddely and Rolls Royce already did this over 40 years ago with the Kestrel, then the AV-8A Harrier, then McDonnell Douglas and British Aerospace with the AV-8B Harrier II.

  • floridavet

    I believe the article was referencing the “F35B’s” first vertical takeoff…not the “first” vertical takeoff. But in any case, glad to see the Marines getting another tool in their arsenal, and they will “adapt” it to their needs, because that’s what they’re good at – “adapt, improvise, overcome.” Semper Fi, indeed.

  • cgold

    Harrier “Jump Jet” Hello !!!

  • steve

    The Brits had the Harrier nearly 50 years ago! Whats so friggin new about this, except the expense and lining someones pockets!

  • Jim Levitt

    Gee, this is news?
    I saw my first Harrier do this at an air show about 37 years ago!


    First Super Sonic VTO jet

    • pilot1215

      No, that would be the Russian Yak-141. First flown in 1987…

  • Joe Blow Researcher

    Mr. Lilly is right, save the ~$120M per plane (conservative current production rates + overhaul costs) and invest in the unemployed/underemployed of veterans. Besides the fact that superpower on superpower combat is highly unlikely, future wars will be via proxies (e.g. Syria – Russia/Iran/Syria vs US/Saudis/Qataris). Give the troops better aerial sensors/smart munitions/improved cruise missiles, and save? It’s possible.

  • OCS74

    Harrier in service since 1969… that’s 44 years my friends.

  • Lizbeth Klein

    Absolutely beautiful :)

  • John Glenn

    A waste of money. The USA is already broke, you folks do not get it. The nation keep printing money with nothing to back it up. There is incredible waste in the US military. This jet is another venture that will be a total waste of tax payer money. When the US economy collapses, which it will, remember my post you fools.

    • El Pescador

      The US may be broke… but it’s not because of the constitutionally required need to maintain the defense- and defense is the single, ONLY required by the constitution form of govt spending.

      It’s broke over the entitlement culture, SS, Medicare, Obamaphones, never ending unemployment payments and politicians like the current Pres biving away billions to his campaign contributors disguised as “green energy grants”.

      • aeth

        Logical flaw to use the “maintain defense” argument to support the highest defense budget in the history of the US (greater than peak of cold war). No one is calling defense in general into question. F22 is great. But only a limited number is effective…after that cost risk overruns benefits.

      • William Daviau

        Actually, if you take out the cost of the Nuclear program since 1945 the United States would have no deficit. Now we are closing schools to fund 120 million dollar aircraft.

    • JimmyJames

      Sounds like another terror suspect would like us to stop defending ourselves.

      • aeth

        Contrary. Terrorists would love for us to overspend on equipment that will not be used against them on our own soil.

    • Stormin Norman

      You said it. As an Air Force veteran, this is just more welfare for the Military-Industrial-Complex and its super rich CEOs. The F35 is a fighter jet and useless for ground support. Who are these jets supposed to be used against? Tell me that. The Taliban? Al-queda? What other enemies do we have? These weapon system are spread across all states so congressmen can brag about the jobs and money they brought home. Why not spend it on something real and of lasting value like our infrastructure? We spend more than the next 13 largest countries in the world and THEY ARE OUR FRIENDS or at least countries we need to continually negotiate with like Russia and China. What a bunch of ignorant idiots that are making their usual know-nothing right-wing posts.

  • Rotten Doodoo

    “You’ve Only Seen This in the Movies” No Fluffpost Flakes, maybe only you’ve seen Vertical Takeoffs in movies but there’s nothing new or particularly innovative about them. In fact this particular aircraft isn’t as efficient as the very much older British Harrier Jump Jet. A real journalist would have done a bit of research before writing this inane fluff piece, but then again this IS the Fluffypost.

    • JimmyJames

      Not to mentions ET’s have been doing it for much longer.

  • Stone Hendge

    USA! USA!

    • JimmyJames

      I salute you.

  • gccnc

    Our Harriers were doin that in ’76 (Cherry Point and Beaufort)
    without as much drama

    • JimmyJames

      Not our Harriers. We got them from the Brits.

      • gccnc

        Sure we did, but they were OURS!!!
        we bought them
        and THEN when they said it would take SEVEN years to redesign the wing for more lift and fuel, we had McDonnell Douglas build AV8B :-)

  • El Pescador

    Actually it’s “new” because it’s the only plane in history able to lift vertically, attain supersonic speed and then land vertically. Which it’s already done during testing.

    The Harrier is a fine old plane- but they’d be swatted from the sky by any first world military and are no longer good for anything but a support, ground attack role.

  • Roaming Roman

    I’m setting wondering how many men will be saved by this aircraft. It can’t pick up wounded men. This is exactly the kind of waste we need to stop. Yes it crates jobs, the kind of jobs that the Republican keep slaming the President about. How many jobs will it crate in other countries. I think I’m begiing to get the picture. This justity buy the weapon that shoot 100 run before they can see if they’ve even pointed in the right direction. I don’t think I’ll feel safer with these guys cowboys running around playing soldier. They would probley be shooting on anonther

  • les

    i want one.

    • JimmyJames

      Me too. I could park it in my drive.

  • That Texas Guy!

    Those Fliegen-Teufel-Hunde could turn a kite into a deadly weapon. Looks like its a winner!

    • ThatGuy

      Maybe could also be worthless. In the end if it is a winner great and if not thats ok too because the technology will be used for something great in the future. No matter what it will be a winner.

  • russell lee

    “God bless our country”? God’s way is the cross. What does that have to do with a killing machine?

    • MrSottobanco

      That defensive weapon will keep the way of the cross from turning into the way of the crescent.

  • Karin Bohoskey

    looks like Star Trek: I’ve decided to avoid all movies this summer: too much back for Obama: but I like the plane…

  • Sammy

    But, how does it perform in combat situations?

    • Colin Clark

      We’ll have to wait a bit to see. Air Force IOC hasn’t happened yet. They and marines will start figuring out best performance over next few years.
      Colin Clark
      Breaking Defense

  • PevanB

    My only worry is that O bummer will turn them towards those that disagree with him…



  • Frank Feitoza

    The British Harrier Did this in the 60’s.

  • Douglas Scott

    biuld up for the next war raygan would be proud



  • davey

    I saw this plane in action on a US carrier over 3 weks ago on the news or the History Channel.
    This is old, old news.

    • Colin Clark

      You saw the F-35B land on the USS Wasp and do a short takeoff– not a vertical takeoff.
      Colin Clark
      Breaking Defense

  • Irish68

    Runways, who needs runways? Next time use the fans on one of these babies to keep Obama dry during one of his outdoor babbles.

  • roger

    doesn’t seem very practical and costs a whole lot of money. i wonder if the generals had to pay for it out of their pockets would we still have them in our arsenal.
    i bet there are a lot of generals who padded their retirement funds with this one

  • mikeam91


  • Texas Rebel

    $160 million dollar flying dump truck. Get past all the propaganda and bling and it’s a complete waste of money now that Northrup Grumman has their drone fighter that lands on aircraft carriers too. Did they ever fix the asphyxiation problem with the F22 Raptor?? Last I heard they have to carry supplemental oxygen in the cockpit and perhaps a $5000 roll of super duper duct tape to seal the air leaks..

    • Josey Wales

      Ask Ken (see post below) he’s in the defense (buiness) business.

  • joe smoe

    who cares? only good that might come out of this is it might land on the clown in the White House.

    • Josey Wales

      Doubt we’ll be that lucky.

  • Benjamin Drake Sr.

    This is such old news. The Marine Corps has been flying Harriers since mid 1960’s. You would think this is the first jet that ever took off vertically. NOT even close. About 45 years late in reporting this story.

  • Racerx03

    To the naysayers, an education on modern combat aircraft:
    there are 2 types of warplanes in the sky today, Stealth and Targets,
    the F-35 is necessary if the F-22s aren’t being deployed because of the increasing threat of sophisticated IAD systems, like the one the Iranians are deploying. Try looking at the History Channel’s episode “Dogfights of the Future” maybe you’ll learn what we’re up against today.

  • David Sproul

    I don’t get the uniqueness of this. Harriers have been around for 20+ years yet we don’t seem to want to utilize those for the same purpose and they are military ready now. I do understand progress has it’s place but all I see here it repackaging at a higher price.

  • BudDavis

    It’s nice, in an expensive sorta way.

  • William Daviau

    Interesting fact. If the United States did not have a nuclear program since about 1945, we would not have any national debt…nada….none. If we did not have a nuclear program and spent about three times as much, (as opposed to 40% of total defense spending worldwide), as our closest competitor on the military, we would have a 25 trillion dollar “cushion.” It isn’tschool lunches that are bankrupting the nation.

  • Mehrlyn

    Fascinating!! I watched a Harrier Jump-jet do the exact same thing, and then bow to the crowd back in 1978. New stuff huh?

  • gregrho

    Didn’t the Brits do pretty much the same thing 40 years ago with the Harrier series, but God bless we Americans……we can do better no matter how much it costs.

  • rtkramer

    This isn’t new Hawker Harriers do this as well, seen it many times at air shows.

  • One Old Retired Guy

    Here’s a thought. Congress is trying to force the Army to purchase all these “new” tanks when the Army doesn’t want them. Why not retool the manufacturers and use the money to build more of the F-35B?

  • rtres

    i guess no one remembers the harrier jump jet

  • Al

    This is not new technology ! The British had the Sea Harrier since 1978. But i’m sure ours is better. 100 mill each , it better be better!

  • Scoots

    Yeah–Let’s just keep spending ourselves into oblivion taking care of the rest of the world and neglecting our own U.S. citizens–Defense, foreign aid!! Spend-spend spend!! Wake up people–It’s just a matter of time B4 the s*** hits the fan as we continue this path of destruction.

  • Robert Brooks

    Ooooo, cool maneuver. Been done. Harrier comes to mind. Real cutting edge.

  • oso

    this is not new technology. i saw a plane do the same thing years ago at an airshow. it bubbled the tarmac taking off and landing.

  • Bill

    Isn’t this the U.S. version of the British Harrier? Which by the way is over 40 years old.

  • prince bandar

    great craft but what value does it have in fighting terrorism? We are far ahead of any competitor when it comes to airpower. What is the point of this aircraft? Did we not promise 12 of these babies to Israel for free and were turned down?

  • disqus_piXHG9rIVK

    Not a new concept………remember the Harrier?

  • Andrew

    Amazing. Less need for landing strips! Can now land in harder to reach areas too! Replace all of the other [can someone give me a name for their landing gear] planes and use these planes.

  • disqus_piXHG9rIVK

    This aircraft wold have to be reconfigured for combat which would make it twice as large and alot slower which is a no no when it comes to air superiority.

  • Glenn

    This is not the first time this technology has been done,I watched the Harrier jump jet do this exact same manover about 28 years ago in Cherry Point NC. To say this has only been done only by UFO”s is silly, and if you don’t believe me check out the Harrier on YouTube and see for yourself.

  • disqus_piXHG9rIVK

    Nothing better than the Raptor right now……………

    • cherokee1934

      It is a good plane but it still has some serious problems.

  • DZbelge

    what all the buzz english air force was equipped with such airplanes years ago



    • cherokee1934

      You are correct…..obama must need some points now days……..


    Unless I am mistaken the Harrier jet was doing this back in the Farklands war in the eighties.

  • Conal

    Brits used a technique with the Harriers during dogfights against the Argentinian fighters during the Falkland’s War called VIFFing, I seem to remember. They would let the Argentinians get behind and then point there engine nozzles down a bit and shoot straight up letting the other fighter go right by and into their gun sights. So the VTOL element is very useful contrary to what the writer of the article says.

    • Colin Clark

      Vertical take off is vertical take off. It’s when you take off. The tactic you mention is something the F-35 can also do but the aircraft is designed so that the great majority of its kills are from standoff distances. As a former senior Air Force official told me at dinner the other night — “If the F-35 is using its cannon for air to air combat the plane is in trouble. The whole idea is to kill the enemy before he knows you’re there.” Colin Clark
      Breaking Defense

  • Jeremy

    Didn’t they develop an aircraft class called the Harrier in 1969 which already did VTOL? I’m confused as to how this is cool.

    • cherokee1934

      You are correct. I worked on some research of this nature in the early 1970’s so the thought has been around for a very long time. They are just getting better and better. There has been some video on the Web, of this plane doing this for a long time.

  • David Pawson

    Okay, so it’s a VTOL. Ho hum.

  • cherokee1934

    Obama and company must need some thing to take the heat off of him and Holder for something that they have done or are going to do.

  • chuck

    Big deal, the english navy has had a plane for twenty five years called the harrier that take offs and lands vertically from a aircraft carrier.

  • hackitoff

    at over $100 million a copy, one who hope it could do more than just fly

  • Get it right

    Facts: the jet is overpriced and not done yet. Joint: means countries are participating in the program and buying jets. The U.S. is buying all the spare parts. Global inventory. The contractor manpower rates are way over priced. If the contractor keeps the management of this program both the AirForce and Navy will be laying people off.because the contractor will take there jobs and charge us more. Have you ever tried to maintain a stealth coating at sea with salt and humidity? Just wait and that is just the start. What about the engine and power module that are to heavy to resupply at sea. Hoh did not know about that either. Welcome to JSF.

  • hackitoff

    what about the Harrier

  • Jamro

    VTOL’s are nothing new…. Harriers did it in the 1980’s

  • Chris

    Um…wasn’t the Hawker-Sidley “Jump Jet” doing this sort of maneuver 30 years ago? I must be missing something, here.

  • Mario Guajardo

    Yeah Harriers did that decades ago

  • Jacks

    Can it be shot at when it’s vertically taking off or landing? Seems like a real easy “Expensive” Target!

  • clutha1970

    What’s the big deal about this? The Hawker Harrier has been doing this very trick for over 40 years, and was proven in combat in the Falklands conflict

  • salowl

    frist for verticle take off? What about the harror jet?
    Did the same thing?
    This is so old tec, why dont the goverment show what it really has?
    Real Anti grav!

  • Brian

    Maximum cool. Reminds me of the Harrier in True Lies.

  • john

    i dont see what the big deal here is. helicopters do it at every takeoff

  • john martin lutz

    This is ‘all’ that you’re going to show us ……??????

  • Bob

    Hows this different from the Harrier jet?

  • Richard Arthur David Chartrand

    It’s business. Pure and simple and profit motivated. Design and build new, then sell it to the highest bidder = profit. Now go back to Congress and tell them we need better weapons because the “other side” had technology. Bingo. Game won. Another round of design, build then sell all over again and head back to Congress. Same story and it works every time. C’mon, do you really believe anyone has to steal anything anymore?

  • Joe Shmoe

    OH WOW a vertical take off. Cause we havent been able to do that since the 70’s with the AV-8B!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • lyssa romaine

    don’t know what the excitement is about-The Harrier aircraft was designed to do just that…years ago…This is just an adaptation…woohoo!



  • Dennis Landeiro

    reminds me of san andreas

  • Billy Neumann

    One thing I don’t get is how does it go from Vertical lift up to horizontal flight with out falling between the transition?

  • Erik

    We should have just refurbished the infamous F-14’s. Pilot interviews that said on the Military channel talking about them say the F-14 could still run circles around the F-22 and with updated technology I think it would have been a Tomcat that would be a thing to recon with? But with politics involved with the F-14 and to its demise leave it to politics to kill a jet with much potential to go on longer… After all our Military is always updating aircraft to last over the years of expectations. Look at the B-52! It’s lifespan for as long its been around with the longest serving Military aircraft on record with another 50 years of life left on that air frame, the longest serving in history since its debut since the 1950’s. Now with the current AV-8 Harrier jets added with new computer avionics to make it easier to fly and better engine It would be a better jet than this thing than this ugly thing, the Harrier looks far better

  • kelly vance

    Marines best friend is stil the Harrier

  • Craig

    The X-35 is a piece of garbage, in simulated dog fights they might as well be an Attack/Bomber basically nothing more than over priced missle/bomb aircraft. Defense Appropriatiions Committee decided they would save a few bucks and scrap the F-22 Raptor program. True our military does need advanced technology aircraft and ships to keep our troops out of harm’s way, but flying an expensive Spruce Goose around in enemy airspace will only get the pilots killed, wonder how many of our enemies are laughing at how they have true fighter jets capable of blowing the X-35s out of the sky.

  • mike

    Ted, we do not need a Navy, since the last sea battle was in 1944, 70 years. To comply with national defense objectives of the writers of the constitution, we need a national guard and an airforce. We do not need 900 foreign bases. Our 687B budget for “defense” is more than all the civilized world combined budgets. Bring our troops home and stop invading other countries

  • Lt Dan

    A smaller price to pay than these toys for boys, is to stop attacking and occupying everyone else’s countries! I was wounded in Viet Nam, not to defend my country but to enrich military contractors selling killing tools. Let’s stop the kiilling and maiming to further enrich the 2 % and take care of our own country

  • Will Ross

    Am I missing something but didnt the Harrier do the same thing? Whats the big deal?

  • kenny white

    LOL. The link from AOL to the article said, “You’ve Only Seen This in the Movies. You probably can’t tell from this photo, but this futuristic US fighter jet is capable of something that used to be reserved for science fiction.”

    I doubt it is a surprise to many readers here that the British Harrier jump jet has been doing it for decades. AOL needs to teach it headline/byline writers how to use Google. LOL

  • Joe

    Whats so great about that?…George Jettson did that 45 years ago

  • Pat Richards

    These aircraft are designed to replace the aging AV8B Harrier fleet, designed in the 60s, with an aircraft that is more modern and more capable. Other versions of this same airframe, minus the STOVL gear, will be used by the Navy and Air Force. While individual aircraft might seem pricey, the savings realized by not stocking parts for several different aircraft will be substantial. Here we have one plane that can potentially replace three others, all of which are getting long in the tooth and expensive to maintain, just as the F-18 replaced both the F-14 Tomcat and the A-6 Intruder by being capable of doing either (or both) aircraft’s mission types. This is money well spent.

    • X-Ray

      And its not outstanding in any of its multi-role tasks.

  • TheScot

    This is far from new technology! Does no one remember the Harrier Jump Jet from decades ago?

  • Tony D

    Well done ! You’ve caught up with what the Hawker Harrier (or McDonnell Douglas AV8A in its American incarnation) could do back in the late 1960s ! Congratulations ! Oh, and by the way, the UK has mothballed a whole load of Sea Harriers – you could buy those off us, do the same job and save a shed load of cash … 😉

    • Colin Clark

      The Marines already bought a lot of your Harriers for parts, which says a great deal about both your Harriers and ours. By the way, the F-35 is stealthy. The Harrier is about as bright a target as one can find. And the Harrier is ancient.
      Colin Clark
      Breaking Defense

  • Mike Paula Wachowiak

    So Harrier jump jets have been doing this for years….Probably cheaper even if we do puchase them from Great Britian

    • Shane Bean

      Saw one at an air show as a kid in the 80’s. Cool but LOUD!!! We would probably buy them end then give them to the Syrian rebels or something stupid like that.

  • JDennisT

    How long before we start selling these to Egypt?

  • Alex Yamach

    The Chinese will steal the design plans and be building them in couple years. The US is nothing more than an R & D facility for the Chinese.

  • panofom

    wrote about this on huff post under panofom-using elctromagnetic funnels -no time now but will post idea later

  • SSS

    We definitely need to stay ahead in order to preserve America. You can’t trust countries like Iran and North Korea who keep working on nuclear weapons especially ones that can reach our shores. Then we also have China to contend with. They’ve already built an aircraft carrier and continue to build up their navy. It seems like they have their eye on dominating the Pacific Ocean. In Europe we have Russia who we should looking for closer relations, developing more trade and working on treatys rather than fighting another Cold War. It is always better to stay ahead than try and play catch up. If we do the latter, it will turn out to be more costly as history has shown in the past.

    • Gerry1211

      You might turn off FAUX Noise and then perhaps you won’t be seeing potential enemies under every rock. When WE refer to countries as AXIS of EVIL why are we surprised that they start building arms with which to defend themselves against US. We have a history of putting people’s
      back against the wall. Not a smart thing to do. And when we terrorize the world with our drones, the most likely consequence is that sooner or later they come after US. Bullies tend to self destruct.

  • Jackhai

    The british built Harrier does the same thing, and we purchased some. So whats the deal with F22, except inflated cost.

  • america kicks it

    alright great looking plane no weapons but cool looking. but we should place orders for more raptors and build this old model that is a proven ground killer just the sight of it makes run faster than a camel, it has a great fitting nick neme the warthog. beat it up all you want but it still will bring the pilot home ….

  • Deven

    ok. Now let do this with cars…except a little more quitter

  • JP

    What is the difference between this and the AV-8B? We already have a vertical take-off jet.

    • Colin Clark

      The Harrier is 1980s technology with upgrades. The Brits sold their 74 Harriers newest ones were built in 1995) to our Marines along with spare parts for a paltry $50 million. Ours are a bit newer but aging fast. The F-35B is stealthy and boasts fly-by wire controls and brand new avionics, while the Harrier is a white hot target reliant on pretty old gear. The Marines plan to phase out Harriers completely by 2025.
      Colin Clark
      Breaking Defense

  • almasearch

    Not sure why this is such big news. Doesn’t the British Harrier jet do the same?

  • RickHarley

    Why is everyone acting like this is new technology to begin with? Harrier ring a bell? This has been possible for decades. We even have turbo prop planes in the military that do this as well. Osprey for example. Why are we wasting money on new planes and bragging about it’s “new” technology?

  • Gerry1211

    We have had VTO jets for YEARS. The AV-8 (Harrier jet) developed by Lucas Aerospace in Britain provided at one time 110 to the U,S Marines.
    The Joint Strike Fighter has been a disaster from the beginning. Eight countries have waisted Billions of dollars on this machine with basically nothing to show for that is in any way an improvement over the AV-8. Europeans show very little interest in funding it any further let alone buying them. Lucas became TRW Aeronautical in conjuction with Northrop Grumman.
    To ted miller I suggest turning of FAUX Noise and understand that IF we have adversaries WE created them with our illegal bombings and drones. They are a war crime. Any entry into a sovereign country’s airspace constitutes by International Law an Act of War, and subsequent bombing becomes a war crime, which has consequences; creates more terrorists against us. If we want to stop terrorism we need to stop terrorizing the world. But PEACE is not lucrative…war IS. The only people who benefit from these machines are the Defense Industry. I suggest you read “War is a Racket” by General Smedley Butler.

  • Rosalee Adams

    To be aboard that craft!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I have flown backseat fighters and the Skywarrior but this one fascinates me……………

  • richh19191

    Am I missing something, here? Harriars V/STOL have been doing this since 1969………funny thing is they are/were hailed as the perfect jet to land in a tight combat zone, why, who knows……oh possibly for service, what are the logistics for a hauling all the service accutraments into the jungle, fuel, parts etc, the fact is they and the F35b are engineering marvals but not very practical in combat situations…………….

  • Charles Lilly

    Calling me a DIPSHIT is a ETHICS VIOLATION on this site, you simply don’t understand. It will be a great day when the Marines can have a bake sale to buy one of these “few” aircraft. You’re are inaccurate about existing money and tooling. It’s none of your business who I voted for. I am deeply concerned about America overstocking hardware (like 35,000) thermonuclear weapons. I wish I could meet you face to face, that way you couldn’t take pot shots at me hiding on a site. The Aircraft Manufacturers just built the F22 retired the stealth F117’s, F15 Eagles, F16 Falcons but they kept 40 year old C130’s, C141’s, C5A Galaxies. The next WAR will not be about Antique Fighters, it will be new NAVY particle beam lasers hitting satellites, tracking Boomer Subs. Well let me close by saying, I was an Air Force Pilot in Vietnam 1969 to 1975

    I have seen Civilian maintenance and modifications teams working around the clock. Money? Would you give up your house or job so the NAVY / Marines can have another toy? What happened to the V22 Osprey? It killed a lot of Crewmen. There is NO excuse to spend another nickel, when we are still paying for VP BIDEN’s $half million stay for one night in a Fancy Hotel in Paris. So when the NAVY, Air Force, ARMY or Marines want something, just charge it. I can’t fathom $17.5 trillion, so NAFTA and GATT Treaties took a boatload of jobs away, the economy of America doesn’t need another experimental airplane right now, or for that matter any more Aircraft Carrier Groups.

  • JohnJubly

    Supersonic, low observable, and sporting unmatched sensors. Yeah the Harrier did this decades ago, but the difference here is skill level required from the pilot. Make a mistake in the Harrier and you’re dead, with the F-35 it’s practically a hands-off experience.

  • Lop_Eared_Galoot

    The sadness here is that fully half the F135s mass displacement is centered around the lobster tail nozzle at the far end of the afterburner extension. Since you cannot use A/B in any form of STOVL because of aeroacoustic and thermal issues, this means that you could reduce by 2/3rds or more the volumetric enclosure and structural support mass, simply by accepting that you didn’t need A/B for supersonics and returning to a simpler shutoff valve for the rear VL thrust post (like on the X-32).
    It wouldn’t do a thing to change the roughly 20,000lbst available from each lift post.
    But it would make the F-35 light enough that it might be useful from smaller decks as a pure VTOL airframe. Particularly if you further shortened the empennage by pushing the stabs up into canards or even leaving them off altogether.
    SDLF based VTOL is completely workable. It’s just the F-35B’s shared-configuration with the other JSF mission specs (700nm combat radius and LO driven internal weapons carriage) that has effectively ruined it as a next-step in VTOL evolutionary performance.
    Because it is the _VTOL_ which is the performance increment that would let you base the jet on smaller platforms including, if need be, LCS class. That is how you get enough jets into a Marine task group to both fly the fleet air defense mission as early attrition on AShM shooters. And provide steady beachhead CAS without interrupting the LHA’s helo deckcycle as STOM.

  • afimedia

    This technology is decades old. I was fortunate enough to be the Marine Combat Photographer assigned to cover the very first deployment of the Marine Corps’ AV-8A Harrier VSTOL aircraft during war games held at Camp LeJeune, NC, way back in 1971.

    • gordon_wagner

      Look further back to Ryan Aeronautical’s X-13 VertiJet.

  • afimedia

    Actually, the correct acronym is VSTOL – which stands for vertical short take-off and landing

  • religiouspeoplearepsychos