Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

F-35: Still No Finish Line in Sight
Pogo.Org ^ | March 19, 2018 | Dan Grazier

Posted on 04/02/2018 3:49:25 AM PDT by maddog55

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 next last
To: Lazamataz

Unfortunately the F22 cockpit designs were stolen from BAE by India some years ago..hence the f 35 ...


21 posted on 04/02/2018 4:41:31 AM PDT by Article10 (Roger That)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

vertical take-off?

carrier landing?


22 posted on 04/02/2018 4:45:08 AM PDT by Darteaus94025 (Can't have a Liberal without a Lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

“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.


23 posted on 04/02/2018 4:46:36 AM PDT by Garvin (Always remember folks, kill a commie for mommy ~ Semper Fi, Mac!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie

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


24 posted on 04/02/2018 4:52:23 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucifiedc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee

Leatherman is pretty decent. I carry one almost all time.


Yes indeed, but you’re not going to use it to build a house.


25 posted on 04/02/2018 4:54:48 AM PDT by Flick Lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cba123

Lol, are you the chief engineer?

Almost anything is better.

F-15 hasn’t ever had a combat loss, maybe just use that.


26 posted on 04/02/2018 5:01:55 AM PDT by Bulwyf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: maddog55

Well known for his pro-Boeing / anti-Lockheed writings.


27 posted on 04/02/2018 5:09:43 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Garvin; Lazamataz

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.


28 posted on 04/02/2018 5:16:01 AM PDT by Little Pig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sten

To #7; They always want to level the playing field.


29 posted on 04/02/2018 5:17:51 AM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah so shall it be again,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

“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.


30 posted on 04/02/2018 5:18:50 AM PDT by snoringbear (W,E.oGovernment is the Pimp,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

“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.


31 posted on 04/02/2018 5:20:27 AM PDT by snoringbear (W,E.oGovernment is the Pimp,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: maddog55

Hmmmm... I just read an article about Israel deploying many F-35s and being very pleased with them.


32 posted on 04/02/2018 5:32:06 AM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus III (Do, or do not, there is no try.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Every way except cost, sensor technology, network integration, and bomb load.


33 posted on 04/02/2018 5:32:59 AM PDT by USNBandit (Sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
The F-22 beats it in every way.

Well, except for that landing on a carrier thing.
34 posted on 04/02/2018 5:38:53 AM PDT by TexasGunLover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
The best modern craft was the F-22. They shoulld bring it back. NOW.

In the air, in an air to air role, yes. But try landing it on a carrier... (hint: it can't).
35 posted on 04/02/2018 5:41:28 AM PDT by TexasGunLover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bulwyf

>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.


36 posted on 04/02/2018 5:52:45 AM PDT by RitchieAprile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit
Every way except cost, sensor technology, network integration, and bomb load.

The F-22 has four external pylons rated at 5000lbs each whereas the F-35's six pylons are rated at 2500lbs each.

37 posted on 04/02/2018 5:57:22 AM PDT by OA5599
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

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.


38 posted on 04/02/2018 6:00:18 AM PDT by OA5599
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: maddog55

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.


39 posted on 04/02/2018 6:03:36 AM PDT by impactplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke

And the F-111 turned out to be an excellent interdiction/strike and later ECM platform.


40 posted on 04/02/2018 6:05:06 AM PDT by 2CAVTrooper (Democrats... BETRAYING America since 1828.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson