>First Transatlantic Flight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=198&v=nj0BO5jf0Ag
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/06/eye-candy-f-35b-flies-to-uk-for-riat-farnborough/
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-06-30/double-rainbow-greets-f35-jet-on-historic-first-landing-in-uk/
I'm gonna be writing an essay on whether the UK needs the f35. Any reading materials people recommend?
Three F-35As arrived last night too.
So there are currently 6 F-35s in the UK (3 USAF, 2 USMC, 1 RAF/RN)
>>30461413
Technically it's the B's first, not the F-35 in general.
Didn't Spain or Italy do the first F-35 Transatlantic?
>>30465917
No, I think Italy just assembled the first European F-35 from their European assembly plant
>>30465917
>>30465947
The F-35A built in Italy was the first to fly across the Atlantic to join the rest of the development fleet in the USA. It departed via Portugal.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/italy-claims-first-f-35-transatlantic-crossing-421670/
The second Transatlantic flight was last month by the RNLAF's F-35As. it was for the first international airshow display by an F-35, in the Netherlands
http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123473798
This week's flights to RAF Fairford are the first American F-35s to cross the Atlantic, the first crossing by an F-35B, an the first crossing by a British F-35.
>>30466840
Also, today the F-35Bs visited RAF Marham for the first time (will be the first operation F-35 station in the UK come 2018) and performed the F-35s first hover outside of the US (pic related).
They also did a flypast over the Queen Elizabeth class carriers, up in Rosyth where they're being built
>>30466940
In formation with a Tornado over RAF Marham
Tornado being the current airframe flown from the Marham. Which will be replaced by F-35
>>30463899
>needs
>>30466840
Wonder why they made such a big deal about a subsequent transatlantic flight.
>>30463899
The UK doesn't need a military. It has no natural resources to protect and no political will to colonize.
>>30461413
So does the F-35 even work? I've heard it fails to out preform the planes it's supposed to be replacing
>>30467732
You heard that from bullshit artists.
>>30467828
They say because it tries to do everything, it doesn't do anything particularly well and therefore lacks the needed maneuverability to gain air superiority
>>30467932
Except it does do pretty much everything better than its predecessors.
It hauls more payload greater distances than everything but the Strike Eagle.
It has Hornet-grade High-Alpha maneuverability and insane low-speed controllability.
It's got a better passive sensor suite than everything else in the air.
If you think Energy-Maneuverability matters in the era of the Sensor-Shooter, you're a fool.
>>30467958
It's probably just people pissed off that it cost so much to develop criticizing it then
>tfw seeing this beauty flying in a few days
>>30467560
>What is the north sea oil/gas field
>What are the Falkland islands
>>30468046
Yeah, but the dev costs were...less than the F-22, and it's shaping up to be the cheapest modern fighter in service, so that falls away on proper investigation as well.
>>30468135
Why lie?
The F35 program cost $1.6 trillion - an Iraq War worth of munitions
The F22 program cost $67 billion
The individual F35s cost less than the F22s if that's what you're talking about
>>30468265
That 50-year total program, acquisitions, and operations & Maintenance guesstimate sure is random. Some times it's $800b, sometimes up to $1.5t. First time I've seen that 1.6 number, Spreyfags really are reaching these days.
>$55.1B for RDT&E
>More than $4t to maintain current fleet out to 2065
