Posted on 04/02/2018 3:49:25 AM PDT by maddog55
Jim Roche, then-Secretary of the Air Force, made an announcement on October 26, 2001, that all aviation enthusiasts had been waiting for: a winner had been picked to design and build the Joint Strike Fighter. The American people were assured the new jet would enter service in 2008 and be a high-performance replacement for the military’s aging airframes while only costing between $40 million and $50 million.
The F-35 has now entered an unprecedented seventeenth year of continuing redesign, test deficiencies, fixes, schedule slippages, and cost overruns. And it’s still not at the finish line. Numerous missteps along the way—from the fact that the two competing contractors, Lockheed Martin and Boeing, submitted “flyoff” planes that were crude and undeveloped “technology demonstrators” rather than following the better practice of submitting fully functional prototypes, to concurrent acquisition malpractice that has prevented design flaws from being discovered until after production models were built—have led to where we are now. According to the latest annual report from the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E), 263 “high priority” performance and safety deficiencies remain unresolved and unaddressed, and the developmental tests—essentially, the laboratory tests—are far from complete. If they complete the tests, more deficiencies will surely be found that must be addressed before the plane can safely carry our Airmen and women into combat.
(Excerpt) Read more at pogo.org ...
Unfortunately the F22 cockpit designs were stolen from BAE by India some years ago..hence the f 35 ...
vertical take-off?
carrier landing?
“One Size Fits All” worked with the F-4 Phantom (Navy, Marines and Air Force) though. There were Photo Recon, ECM, fighter, interdiction and attack versions of the same airframe. Some of those aircraft are still being flown in foreign services. Same goes with A-4 Skyhawk.
It is heavier than the twin engined F-15C Eagle, in part because a single engine has weight increase by the cube of the diameter. 2 smaller engines is lighter and more powerful as a result. Irony that the Chinese copy has 2 engines. Also the Navy prefers 2 engines.
So heavier than F-15C, smaller wing and 25% less thrust. I am not sure how if flies at all. The lifting body effect would have been better with 2 engines and the aerodynamics too, allowing it to supercruise.
Imo they failed to apply some basic fundamentals thinking computers could somehow use electronic thelepathy to make it work. I sure hope so
Leatherman is pretty decent. I carry one almost all time.
Yes indeed, but you’re not going to use it to build a house.
Lol, are you the chief engineer?
Almost anything is better.
F-15 hasn’t ever had a combat loss, maybe just use that.
Well known for his pro-Boeing / anti-Lockheed writings.
The F-4 was not that great a one-size-fits-all. It was supposed to be a standoff interceptor and long-range bomber. It was incredibly complex, and damn big. And we tried to turn it into a dogfighter. It kinda sorta worked, but there were far better solutions out there. The main restriction is that there are only so many spaces on a carrier, so you kind of have to make do with what you have.
The AF can get away with multiple varieties of dedicated aircraft e.g. F-16 for dogfighting, f-15 for long range interceptor/air-superiority, A-10 for ground attack etc. I have to think that the Navy tries to minimize the number of different aircraft varieties they put on the carriers, if only so there are enough of any one type to be useful (they have to carry ASW and helos and other things in addition to combat aircraft).
Also, isn’t the F-22 a dedicated air-superiority/interceptor similar to the F-15? My recollection is that it was never intended for the multirole activities the F-35 was supposed to take on.
To #7; They always want to level the playing field.
“The point is that the guy on the ground needs somebody above him or he’s just so much meat waiting to be butchered.”
Agree. When I was in Nam (1965/1966) the A-1Skyraider was still the primary ground support aircraft along with Huey gunships. Btw, I recently read an article stating that a “Super A-10 is in the works for CGS instead of utilizing the F-35. Thinking that’s a good idea.
“The point is that the guy on the ground needs somebody above him or he’s just so much meat waiting to be butchered.”
Agree. When I was in Nam (1965/1966) the A-1Skyraider was still the primary ground support aircraft along with Huey gunships. Btw, I recently read an article stating that a “Super A-10 is in the works for CGS instead of utilizing the F-35. Thinking that’s a good idea.
Hmmmm... I just read an article about Israel deploying many F-35s and being very pleased with them.
Every way except cost, sensor technology, network integration, and bomb load.
>F-15 hasn’t ever had a combat loss, maybe just use that.
Not true - several Saudi and UAR have been lost to AA over Yemen.
The F-22 has four external pylons rated at 5000lbs each whereas the F-35's six pylons are rated at 2500lbs each.
People are mixing up “no air-to-air losses” with all combat losses. We have had at least one F-15E Strike Eagle shot down by ground fire.
Just some more sour grapes from the loser (Boeing). If you want confirmation, just look at Israel - they do not spend that much on a “failed” fighter.
And the F-111 turned out to be an excellent interdiction/strike and later ECM platform.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.