Interesting,,, 49,500 takeoff weight, with a 42,000 thrust engine is bad in an F-35,,,
The F-16 is known for maneuvering, but it’s max takeoff weight is 42,300 lb. Depending on the options (v6 vs v8?)it’s thrust is 23,770 lbf or 28,600 lbf. How is this a smaller thrust to weight ratio?
Also, a 4000 lb bomb is nothing to sneeze at. Also this “internationally recognized fighter designer” needs to be told about precision munitions. (google is strangely devoid of his skysweeping masterpieces)
The Vietnam-era A-4s, F-4s, A-6s, A-7s, etc,,all practically had sagging wings from their loads of bombs. AND we literally sent swarms of them against things like, A SINGLE BRIDGE,,,A POWER PLANT,, etc,,. Why? To drop 40, 50, or 100 bombs, or more, to do what a single JDAM bomb does today. This is a “fighter designer”?. Maybe he would like a fleet of B-24s, they carry LOTS more bombs.
And to assess it as more vulnerable and less maneuverable than an F-105? Insane. Back it up. Has this man ever heard of vectored thrust?
To say that the F-111 failed, so this will too? It doesnt logically follow. The failure there was trying to make that behemoth into a carrier bomber, and not just to accept it as a magnificent aircraft for the USAF.
I was especially tickled at the assertion of an “internationally recognized fighter designer”, that now that flight testing is beginning we will likely find all kinds of horrible serious problems. See, we invented these fun machines called computers. If the P-38 and P-47 were designed today, compressibility, the proper counter rotating prop set up, the need for dive recovery flaps, the proper setup to run a bubble canopy, etc,, allllll would have been seen and completely understood in virtual testing befor the first one was built.
The days of throwing a bubble canopy on a razorback Thunderbolt, then realizing you lost some lateral stability, so we better throw on a small tail fin extension,,etc,,, are pretty much over.
New fighter designs basically fly right from the beginning. If he’s waiting for major airframe concept teething problems, he’s going to be really dissapointed Sure, there are a lot of things to tweak, systems to better coordinate, and other minor things to fix, but they all pretty much understand it on its first takeoff. It’s already had *thousands* of flights in a simulator that probably cost more than the plane itself, we aren’t talking home computer fighter plane games. The only exceptions are completely new concepts like the V-22, but in truth, the machine still was basically correct, it was just that our wonderful and brave pilots initally tried to fly it like it was a Ch-53.
I hope the F-35 is a success. No, I’m honestly not certain it’s needed. A-10s and F-16s and F-22s seem able to take care of anything looming on the horizon. And I would listen to an argument that its not needed, that the finances in buying it are corrupted,,,etc. But PLEASE, dont pass off this sophomoric drivel as the analysis of a “internationally recognized fighter designer”. This guy isnt a Kelly Johnson. For all i know, a british fabian society meeting clapped for him for trying to stop land mines. I wasnt to know a bit more about his “international recognition”.
It’s a good plane, the only true question is if its needed. This designers skill set seems very dated to me.
