Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Is the F-35 a world beater? Is it a supersonic F2A3? Where did the buzz that the F-35 has problems going supersonic come from or is that more "S and J"?
So, the F-22 is about 50% more expensive? As for multi-role capability, I'd almost swear that there were proposals early on to enlarge the bays to carry the desired payload -- why was that never implemented, if it's not classified?
Why was the F-23 passed over in favor of the F-22?
I had a similar thought. If the F-22 (in sufficient numbers) cleared the sky of opposition one could use just about any other competent aircraft for all the other missions, subsonic or not. That's why I felt that canceling the Raptor was misplaced economy.The F-35 is a world beater. It's supersonic limitation is due to sensors and optical lenses installed throughout the fuselage. This is a systems limitations, not an airframe limitation. And even with this situation, is there a need for this aircraft to fly supersonic? If you have aerial superiority or can't be detected on radar, why is there a need for supersonic flight? The F-117A couldn't fly supersonic and look at it's combat record.
IMO the press HATES;..and why did the F-35 get such bad press?
While reading the article about the B-52 Arsenal working with the F-35, first thing that came to mind was the F-35 seemed like a single seat AWACS plane. I realize it's not but that was just the first thing that came to mind.Re: the video at 11:01 - I imagine the reason they're ramping up F-15 production is two words..."missile boats." A single F-35, operating inside hostile airspace, can designate targets for a number of F-15s. The F-15s fire their long range air to air missiles from beyond detection range, so they don't need to be stealthy. What they DO need is to be larger, twin-engine aircraft which can carry more missiles. Basically, the F-35 is too good at its job. One F-35 can keep any number of F-15s busy.
They even want to make B-52s into "arsenal planes," just to have something to carry enough missiles for the F-35s' targets.
B-52 Arsenal Planes
-Irish
While reading the article about the B-52 Arsenal working with the F-35, first thing that came to mind was the F-35 seemed like a single seat AWACS plane. I realize it's not but that was just the first thing that came to mind.
The F-35 being under scrutiny by the press is not a new thing.
You can almost take any of their hit-pieces (oops, I meant article) from their archives and replace the phrase "F-35" with any aircraft name and it would be virtually identical.
Here's a great example from the 1980's that covers several existing and new types, engines and manufacturers:
The Airplane That Doesn't Cost Enough
The F-35 being under scrutiny by the press is not a new thing.
You can almost take any of their hit-pieces (oops, I meant article) from their archives and replace the phrase "F-35" with any aircraft name and it would be virtually identical.
Here's a great example from the 1980's that covers several existing and new types, engines and manufacturers:
The Airplane That Doesn't Cost Enough
I remember this article now. My Lord, has it been that long ago? I may have been working for Jay-El Ducommun(?) at the time. Honestly, it didn't seem like a hatchet job to me. Yeah, I really liked the F-20 (The F-5's smoking hot sister). I agreed with that article. Now, I can hear more sides of the issue. What was I missing?The F-35 being under scrutiny by the press is not a new thing.
You can almost take any of their hit-pieces (oops, I meant article) from their archives and replace the phrase "F-35" with any aircraft name and it would be virtually identical.
Here's a great example from the 1980's that covers several existing and new types, engines and manufacturers:
The Airplane That Doesn't Cost Enough
Please spare us the bleeding heart - and don't make this political. I'd advise you to read this: A few ground rules for the new folksIt isn't surprising to me that the media often focus on weapons systems that cost billions of dollars and have serious problems that need fixing, when a good percentage of the citizens paying for the weapons are barely hanging on financially and millions are going hungry every day. There are a great many urgent needs that could be addressed with all those dollars, so intense scrutiny and accurate criticism are inevitable and appropriate.