In sum, the article is positive for the F-35.
Now that the environmentalists have taken over, we could make serious money investing in e85 and fry grease powered fighter jet technologies. Something tells me this is where our defense dollars will be going.
The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter seems to have even more detractors than other aircraft projects have had in the past.
“While supersonically the F-35 is limited to a seemingly unimpressive Mach 1.6 in level flight, Davis explains that the JSF is optimized for exceptional subsonic to supersonic acceleration. Transonic acceleration is much more relevant to a fighter pilot than the absolute max speed of the jet”
Unless if it is a scramble situation, where you are racing to intercept a threat. Something both the F-15 and F-14 had the ability to do.
I am not a fan of the JSF program, as it doesn’t do any job particularly well. It can’t replace the intercept abilities of fighters designed in the 60’s. It’s ability to do CAS (close air-support) is a joke compared to the A-10, which had better firepower and was very rugged. It’s ordnance load is unimpressive as well, (you’ll need to put up 2-3 in the air for each mission to do what the F-15 could do and these are nearly twice as expensive for each)
I could settle for the F-35 replacing the F/A-18 and the AV8 (Harrier) and maybe even the F-16. But no way does this expensive boondoggle replace the A-10 & F-15. While the airframes of the F-15 and F/A-18 are clearly aging and in need of replacement, this is not it.
We need more F-22s!
You should post a pic
this thread is useless without photos
(Just had to say it!)
chopping block.
The F-35 is shiny, and can easily replace, the F-16, F-18 and AV-8 Harrier, but NOTHING can replace the A-10 but a better, specifically designed A-10 replacement. If it can’t go in low and slow, and still survive, it can’t replace the A-10.