some F35 info

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Surely the term 'Mule' is dismissive ... as we have witnessed and discussed many times on this forum ... Uncle Sam likes to employ both belt and suspenders when it comes to picking AC ... it's part politics and part military indulgences, IMO.

"... would like to say something, but I can't...lol"
Why not? It's never stopped you before ....
 
Not dismissive at all...simply reflective of the intended role for such a platform. It's a flying bomb truck that can penetrate hostile airspace. Seems remarkably sensible to me, particularly if the UAV could be adapted for other roles.
 

There were and still are some problems. Out of respect for my then employer, I will go so far as to say some the approvals by JAPO for support equipment had to have been made by somebody on some really good psychotropic medicine.

But....the airplane does appear to be in the process of fulfilling its promise. And, that was not obvious even three years ago.
 
Last edited:
Lucky13 said:


USAF abandons 80% mission capability goal after three fighters miss target
Click to expand...

This is a numbers game which in the bigger picture is somewhat meaningless, especially when some of the numbers in the article show all 3 aircraft weren't that far off. The size of the operational fleet has to be considered as well. Have three or four jets break in a month with a small size fleet (F-22) and your MC rate could drop by 5 points depending the size of the fleet. MC rates also factor in normal actriction as well any maintenance deviations that cause a pilot to abort the mission. You also don't fly 100% of your fleet unless you're in a wartime situation so that adds to the numbers game. If anything the fact that the F-35 can maintain an MC rate over 70% is noteworthy. I also notice the article talks about the factory deficiencies which are apples and oranges with regards to MC rates.
 
Glider said:
I would argue that part of the success of the C130 Hercules was because it was a simple rugged design, relatively cheap, reliable and did what it said on the tin.
Click to expand...
And it was a product of an earlier and simpler time. It and its sister the Electra kind of dodged the gee-whiz technology rat race, although she and her sibling Orion had their share of mechanical issues, like shedding wings in flight and sucking up starlings.
 
Glider said:
I think that this applies to other aircraft, not just the Eastern Bloc.

I would argue that part of the success of the C130 Hercules was because it was a simple rugged design, relatively cheap, reliable and did what it said on the tin.
Click to expand...

Possibly because Kelly Johnson wasn't involved in the design

It's interesting how the C-130 has continued in production after some aircraft which were, in some aspects, better have faded into obscurity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Gulf of Sidra 1981 Info wanted
Replies
7
Views
805
Barrett
B
F
Allison J33 -A-24 Info
Replies
1
Views
846
mjfur
M
SR-72 Darkstar info
Replies
8
Views
755
SaparotRob
M
Some Interesting Vietnam Shots
Replies
5
Views
911
Gnomey
Experimental Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base. Some rare, unclassified footage
Replies
2
Views
557
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register