perhaps ... and even if they’re only exaggerating by only 50 %, then 50 % of their criticisms ARE legitimate ...
Isn’t this a stealth craft? Isn’t it also VTOL? It looks to me like it has a good chance with the right pilot. If there’s an aviator, maybe they can say more.
What do you expect ,The Pentagon is controlled by Obama and his Criminals
Did I read someplace that the AF wants to use this plane for ground support missions?
If that is the case how are they going to maintain the stand off distance harped above?
Could it be that we’ve reached the point of diminishing returns, technologically speaking, with fighter aircraft, and that, just maybe, this new generation (post F-15, F-16, F/A-18) are just hyper-expensive, hyper high-maintenance white elephants that don’t deliver any more bang for the buck, and maybe quite less, than the current generation?
There are some things you just don’t screw up, some lessons you can’t afford to learn the hard way. Air dominance is probably one of those things.
Well maybe there can be a bill to stop funding the F-35.
It’s a non-working, over priced and over hyped. .. .
Hmm... yeah not anytime soon I suppose. Guess as long as our AF is pitted against ISIS we’re okay though, as Iran I believe has F14’s. Don’t want to pick a fight with those.
and neither am I. It is an unethical boondoggle sponsored by Lockheed.
Can’t fight long range, can’t fight short range... just burns holes in the sky.
What a miserable POS.
0bama shut down the f-22 and promoted the f-35
Do you need anymore information as to which is better for America?
A half-century ago it was said “The F-4’s technology is designed to engage, shoot and kill its enemy from long distances”.
They were wrong then, too.
“against even a dated two-seat F-16D fighter jet”
The F16 is a damn good aircraft.
I’m sure it’s a good airplane, but not for the roles it was intended to fill. If you make it so that it will do everything, it will do nothing well.
I am around pilots flying the F-35 every week and I have yet to hear one bad word.
see... Whiz Kids, F-4 for further clarification
It's difficult for me to post on any thread relating to the F-35. For one, I always strive to cut through bias and evaluate something on merit (based on available information, of course), and that is definitely a difficult task when it comes to the F-35.
Why?
Well, in quick-point form:
1) The F-35 as a great plane: The F-35 will 100% guaranteed be a great plane, but with a very important caveat. That the US continues to engage the countries it has fought against militarily in the last three and a half decades. The likes of Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, etc. In essence, nations that really do not have advanced technological ability (or even anything close to parity - e.g. B-1B bombers sending JDAMs against Taliban positions in what may as well have been evil magic to the Tallies), have a qualitative mismatch (e.g. the NATO forces in the Balkans), have a quantitative mismatch (e.g. the Allied forces, which had a multitude of countries, including little Niger, against Iraq), a total dominance of situational awareness (looking at Iraq again, the Iraqi MiGs didn't even have radar-warning-receivers, and they were up against allied AWACS), proper battle strategy, etc. If the US/West continues to engage such countries, then the F-35 will have a superlative record and will be an amazing plane. Goodness, even an upgraded F-4 Phantom would be a wonderful platform in such a case! Thus, that is the F-35 as a great fighter, and as I mentioned, I 100% guarantee that as long as that caveat is maintained.
2) The F-35 as a great fighter that was betrayed by reality, time and cost: What do I mean here? Well, simply put, the JSF project that gave birth to the F-35 has to be looked at as originally envisioned. What was the original plan? Well, you would have the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter, which gave birth to the YF-22/23 competition that was won by the F-22) breaking down doors and destroying any advanced opposition, and the ATF would be supported by the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter, which gave birth to the X-32/35 competition that was won by the F-35). Thus, it was envisioned to have hundreds of ATFs supported by thousands of JSFs. Reality? The F-22 numbers were decimated from over 800 to less than 183-187 (due to crashes), and now the JSF (F-35) has to cover roles that were intended for the ATF (F-22) such as air-dominance. Now, there is a reason the ATF had a long list of attributes requested ...such as supercruise, high stealth, maneuverability etc, because it was meant to be the absolute best bar none. The JSF, on the other hand, was to have relatively good stealth, a great sensor suite, and be able to support the ATF. Now, the JSF project also has to be the ATF project as there are not enough F-22s. This means that the F-35 is being judged against something it was not meant to cover had reality not changed ...it is like a top NFL team being asked to play at the Soccer World Cup. They can do the job, but they will never be super. Maybe a better analogy would be comparing an F1 car (Raptor) go a Nascar vehicle (35). Both fast vehicles, but a Nascar vehicle would never do well in a F1 race (too slow and not maneuverable enough). The attributes that make it work for Nascar are punitive for F1.
3) The F-35 as a dog: Finally, the F-35 as a dog. There are two ways of looking at this:
a) the first is the program itself, and I will channel a FReeper called PukinDog who (a DECADE AGO) listed all the issues the F-35 is facing today. The program has been a failure in terms of meeting its targets ranging from systems/avionics to weight management. And then there is budget, which is sad considering one of the reasons the F-22 was cancelled was cost ... Also, apparently they have had to shift their judgement metrics several times for the F-35 to 'pass,' and I suspect that the fact the (clean configuration) F-35 was fighting against a F-16 with fuel tanks attached was another example of 'fudging' the test. Anyways, the program has encountered a lot of difficulty, which is something many military systems go through ...but the F-35 (as opposed to other systems, like the Abrams tank, Seawolf sub, and even F-22, that had difficulties as well) is having its difficulties in fundamental areas, which is the main difference from the three I have mentioned. That is troubling.
b) the second issue is how the F-35 will fare against top-level global threats. I am not talking about the usual Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya hammering, but rather a war against a near-peer adversary that actually has working sh!t. For example, a war with China or Russia. Those are countries that will have working systems and that have been working towards an anti-US solution. Now, I know on FR many are quick to say that the US would 'crush' China/Russia (and I believe the US would win btw, just that it would not be easy), but ask yourself if that is the case then why is the US so hesitant at 'smacking' the likes of Iran, north Korea and Pakistan? Yes, I know ...they have nuclear weapons would be the most likely response (even though it ignores that China/Russia have more than those three countries combined, but this is not the place to discuss lack of logical congruence). But Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons currently, so why not go in and 'smack' them? Because they have a military that the US could quickly dismantle, but at cost. It is never as simple as what people in forums think! The Gulf War turkey shoot that had the Allied forces hammer Saddam's forces still left 75 Allied aircraft (including 52 fixed wing aircraft) shot down, and that was against an Iraq that had a SAM system that was created to prevent a small-scale attack from Iran and/or Israel. Now, imagine the Chinese integrated air-defense system. Simply put, the only fighter jet currently known to be flying that can survive a Chinese IADS is the F-22, and even then it would be at the edge of the IADS engagement envelop. Sure, war is never about one asset ...it is an integrated system, and the US military machine would have launched hundreds of tomahawks to degrade the IADS, launched all sorts of cyber attacks to cripple the network, etc etc etc ...if we know this China knows this as well. It would never be that easy, and the F-35 acting as both JSF and ATF would have a hard time to put it mildly.
Thus, what's my conclusion?
Simply that the F-35 was intended to be a great plane as originally envisioned, it has been let down by reality (cancellation of continued ATF production) and rising costs/weight/timelines. However, even though the F-35 would have a difficult time in Russian or Chinese airspace, it WILL BE a great fighter due to the simple reason that it will be used against the likes of Libya, Afgahnistan and Iraq, countries that at most need a B-52H, and at worst need an F-15 with supporting F-16 Wild Weasel support and an occasional smattering of Tomahawks.
When it comes to fighter aircraft you can pretty much judge a book by its cover. Like the camel which looks like a horse designed by committee so to does the f-35. With fighter aircraft looks do matter.