Skip to comments.The US's Stealth Fighter (F-35) Is Too Heavy and Slow
Posted on 07/03/2013 2:05:52 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
The Pentagon's pursuit of the Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter jet has been a heartbreaking one. If you're a tax payer, the program's estimated $1 trillion price tag probably breaks your heart a little bit. If you're an aviation enthusiast, the constant whittling away of the do-it-all aircraft's features, which in many cases actually amounts to adding weight and taking away maneuverability, must hurt a little bit, too.
If you're just an everyday American, though, you should be downright shattered that after a decade and a fortune spent, the F-35 will actually be more vulnerable than the aircraft it's replacing. At this point, the Pentagon is literally rewriting its rulebook so that the dumbed-down super jet will pass muster.
The Defense Department's annual weapons testing report reveals that the military actually adjusted the performance specifications for the consistently-underperforming line of F-35 fighter jets. In other words, they couldn't get the jets to do what they were supposed to do, so they just changed what they were supposed to do.
(Excerpt) Read more at motherboard.vice.com ...
Contrast with the F22, which performs way over spec. And which Obama killed.
>>More evidence that the F-35 will not be able to do the job it was promised to do.<<
A camel=A mouse built to government specifications.
The F-35 was a great idea. Then the bureaucrats got ahold of it.
The F-16 and F-18 will probably continue to be the best MRFs well into the century.
And since the F22 was scrapped (I’ll never know why), the F-15 once again rules the skies.
Old airframes but designed back when we could actually ACCOMPLISH things.
I have long wondered why we didn’t take existing airframes, power plants, and avionics and update them. Think what an F-16 could do with a bit of stealth technology, canards, and vector thrust exhaust nozzles. What could the F-14 do with similar technology?
Affirmative Action Aircraft, What a concept .
>>Think what an F-16 could do with a bit of stealth technology, canards, and vector thrust exhaust nozzles. What could the F-14 do with similar technology?<<
That was what led to the F-35. Had they stayed on that track, the F-35 could have unified and advanced MRFs. A homogeneous platform would save billions (maybe trillions over time) and countless man-hours since repairs and parts would be readily available at any NATO (or friendly) country.
To use stealth, canards, variable thrust, etc. is a redesign of the airframe which, if you were to look at what an F-16/18 would look like with those would be... TA DA! The F-35!
The F-35 has been on the drawing board for over a decade (IIRC). It took 27 months to go from a paper napkin to an operation craft called the SR-71.
The F-35 requirements have been rewritten many, many time prior to this. Range, weight, performance, price, schedule, electronics, STOVL capability, carrier adaptability, helmets, on and on.
The only target that does not change is it's ability to enrich LockMart and deplete the Treasury with unerring, unmatched, accuracy.
Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich are turning over in their graves.
They spend $1 TRILLION to “save money”. We are replacing Falcons and Eagles and Hornets with flying pigs.
I tend to not believe all that's written in a very biased media who speaks for an administration that is not interested in our strong defense.
The F-35 has barely gotten started after being born into a very hostile environment. Have people forgotten the bad press that comes with developing each new airplane? This is nothing new. The airplanes people love now got the same sort of reception as the F-35 is getting.
Personally, I find it intriguing, with all sorts of commonality built in from the start and what looks like a huge amount of space up front and elsewhere for whatever systems might be now or in the future.
If it's maintenance friendly and as easy to fly and performs as well as I've read, we'll be well served.
For a reason.
Get heavy and slow...
RAM isn’t light.
‘One-Size-Fits-All’ is a very poor policy for weapons development.
Downgrading the performance expectations pretty much says that the performance isn’t going to be what once was predicted.
Ugh. McNamara’s TFX Fighter version 2.0. We never learn from history....
No problem. Just put in a better engine.
Errr, nothing. "Stealth" isn't a panel you bolt on to an aircraft (despite the fact that you can coat one with *classified* materials that will reduce its radar returns. You need to change the shape to the point where radar is reflected in a direction as close to normal to the source as possible. Once you change the shape too much, you now have other issues that require more changes. A completely new design is far more practical than sprinkling magic "stealth" dust over an F-16. Ditto that with vector thrusting, etc.
Part of the problem is the incestuous relationship between the aircraft manufacturers and the DoD. Cost overruns are simply assumed (and paid), and everyone gets "comfortable" on the money spread around. A complete change in procurement procedures would be necessary reform in order to fix this. But then the people who get rich off of this (and donate lots of cash to politicians) would get hurt, and we can't have that... now can we?
not nearly as stealthy as F22
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.