The F-35 Is Now the World’s Most INSANE Stealth Fighter: Here's Why

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

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?
 
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"?

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.
 
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?

Costs? I remember reading about that as well. Also consider if you start modifying a dedicated air to air fighter to drop bombs, what does that do to overall mission if those modified aircraft as now configured different from the rest of the fleet? Will they have the same performance? Maintenance? Add all that up and maybe it's just better to leave well enough alone and go with the F-35.

Why was the F-23 passed over in favor of the F-22?

IIRC, production cost, sustainability and growth capability was what pushed the F-22A ahead of the F-23 despite the F-23 being the better performer in many cases. People say the decision was political based, I know this is BS.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.

Many of the articles I've seen about the F-35 like the pilot's role to being that of a quarterback, able to marshal tactical assets and apply force by employing weapons from multiple platforms.
 

The other issue is that we all have very poor memories. Anyone recall that the F-15, when it entered service, had worse radar performance than the F-4 that it was supposed to replace? The F-15 also had to contend with the back-seat-mafia who were firmly of the opinion that a single-seat air superiority fighter would never succeed (because if it did, their jobs were obsolete).

Every new aircraft is plagued by glitches coming into service and early variants are always far less capable than later variants, and yet some still expect cutting-edge technology to deliver fully-operational capabilities as soon as the new aircraft enters service.
 
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?
 
It 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.
 
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 folks
 
Individual government and/or regime politics and spending decisions aside, the armed forces is like an insurance policy; you have to pay for it, you'd rather spend money on other things, but it's there if you need it. And when you need it, you complain that it falls short in coverage. Why? Because not enough money is being spent on it. Go figure.
 
As for the F-35 and things going wrong and the press response? The majority of the press don't realise the policy that the aircraft's development operates under - Concurrency. In short, it goes into service with issues, which are dealt with through operational experience throughout all its operators and investigation through normal R and D channels. It might be a surprise to learn that the F-15, F-16 and F-18 programmes also went through Concurrency. It was under Macnamara that Concurrency programmes in the US military began.

An article that describes the fact that criticising Concurrency in the F-35's case is worthless.

How Concurrency In Building The F-35 Fighter Has Proven To Be A Big Plus
 
I'm just going to put this out there, for what it's worth:
With VERY few exceptions, military aircraft have always had issues of one sort or another between concept and acceptance since day one.

Also, during peacetime, a military aircraft's development between proposal and acceptance will take longer and has the luxury of change-orders that cause additional delays unlike in wartime, when the type is rushed through development and fixes/changes are made on the fly (no pun intended).

Just imagine if the B-29 were being developed today - the press would be delirious with fodder for their rants, there would be congressional hearings and special oversight investigations beyond belief...
 

Users who are viewing this thread