Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I also think that testing is more under a microscope than it has ever been. And it has been a long time since we have had a new fighter, so there are bound to be some teething problems. I have faith that the F-35 will deliver.
Back when I was in the USAF, the Marines were testing the Blackhawk helicopters. Nary a week went by without one crashing and killing more Marines. It was heart-wrenching to read about them in the Stars and Stripes. In those days, I wouldn't dream of stepping into one of those. Today, they have served very well and will be more remembered for their great service.
In 6 years? I doubt it.
I consider the F-22 and F-35 to be in the same generation. So, yes, it has been a long time. The last "new" fighter the US built prior to the F-22 was the F-18, and it's first production model was built in 1980, 30+ years ago. Everything else has been updates or upgrades to aircraft that were built in the 1970s. The F-22 is the most advanced fighter ever built by the US and with new technology comes new challenges. If you compare it to the B-1 program, there are similarities.
The F-35 will deliver a multi-role fighter, capable of fighter, attack and bomber roles with the advantage of stealth technology. While I agree that three different variants is a little crazy, the three variants will all be used in different mission profiles.
I don't think issues on the F-35 currently will cause the project to be shelved. Remember that today, the enemy is quite different and the days of waves of fighters attacking each other are probably not going to happen. You need a swift light force that can be deployed quickly to a hot spot.
And at close range the likes of thrust vectoring Su-35s would surely run rings around an F-35?
Close vectoring is for airshows.
My father in law used to deliver F-15s to USAF Squadrons. He once told me that if one allows themselves to get in close in modern combat they probably deserve to die. The only time you're going to get "close in" if you have to fight without radar, and if you're in that situation, you shouldn't be in combat to begin with.
It is/ was - but not the way the Russians are advertising it with maneuvers like "the cobra."So why do the likes of the F-22 have 2d vectoring engine nozzles? Was not agility a goal in that design?
They should if tactically possible.So, all engagements will beyond visual range?
Isn't this what happened with the F4's in Vietnam?It is/ was - but not the way the Russians are advertising it with maneuvers like "the cobra."
They should if tactically possible.
Vietnam had "rules of engagement" introduced my some moronic politicians. In the early part of the war a US fighter could not fire until fired upon and had to make visual contact with an agressor. Things changed later in the war that enabled the F-4 to engage when radar contact was made.Isn't this what happened with the F4's in Vietnam?