Posted on 05/18/2012 3:54:58 PM PDT by Yo-Yo
That said, the F-35 will end up being an outstanding asset for decades to come.
We will be grateful to those who kept the program alive through this phase, as will the next couple of generations who live with it and fight with it.
And best of all, it isn't the Boeing Monica! Boy howdy, that thing is one seriously FUGLY aeroplane!
They are “optimistic” they will be able to pick up this turd by the clean end......soon.
Geez....that is such a silly statement I just don't know where to start.
Take you time. I’ll be here.
At least it looked happy...
Careful, the lovers of this brick will come out in droves against you.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Mine is that Lockheed has been very shifty about this airplane, lobbied against their own F-22 to preserve this project or make it stronger because it is more profitable, the airplane is a lightweight for the mission being short in range and light in payload compared to what it replaces, one engine isn’t a good plan. Lockheed does not have experience in carrier airplanes and the VSTOL is a questionable “asset”.
In negotiations for the fixes I read compromise. This airplane has too much compromise already.
“This airplane has too much compromise already.”
Well, as long as it does not have the F-22s oxygen system, maybe it will be OK.
“That said, the F-35 will end up being an outstanding asset for decades to come.”
Thank you Lockheed-Martin Marketing!
What a dog this thing is! way over schedule, way over budget, will cost way more than we can afford per copy and doesn’t really meet any of its performance goals. Should just buy more F/A-18’s
When I was in the Air Force from 1977-81, the aircraft that I worked on was the F-111A. Talk about your turd, the F-111 program was it to the nines.
However, the F-111F was a very capable aircraft that kicked Lybian ass on one of the the then longest non-stop combat sorties in USAF history, and was a champion tank-plinker in GW I.
The Jack-of-all-trades F-35 mentality came out of trying to design an aircraft to replace the F-16, F/A-18A and -C, and the AV-8B. The F-16’s multiple roles were slowly developed over decades, not designed in all at once.
It’s sort of like building a small house, then over the decades adding a family room, and a garage, and extra bedrooms, then wanting to build a new house that has to have all of those atributes of the old house from the start.
Of course the new house is going to cost much, much more and take much longer to build than the original 2 bedroom bungalow did 30 years ago...
SPOT ON!! The “dog” is YEARS behind schedule, millions over budget, major politicians are ready to can it, oh..did I mention they are on strike nation wide & at Pax River Md.,where they are in the flight test program. Let’s let that info rest....the fact it is a SINGLE ENGINE aircraft should speak volumes for those that really understand combat aircraft.....GO F-18 “Growler!!!”
If you saw the documentary Boeing had a redesign of the front that made it look much, much better.
That will come as news to Viking crews and some Neptune crews not to mention one KC-130 crew and a U-2 pilot.
VSTOL is a questionable “asset”.(sic)
The correct acronym is STOVL and the Marine Corps has four+ decades of experience that proves you are wrong.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
We certainly know what yours is worth.
Describe the commonality between the three variants.
And the defenders of the F-35 rise again like the Kraken from the sea.
Yes, they did build the Viking, that is true. A nice little airplane.
The Navy will be greatly relieved that you know all about C-130 operations to and from carriers. You can remedy their current problem with the F-35 engine deliveries to carriers since the current COD does not have a large enough fuselage interior for the new and large engines of the F-35.
The harrier proves nothing when compared to the F-35 variant. Too much fan and not enough fuel or payload but lots of hot air.
Have a nice day.
If you say so, I haven't seen or read much of it. I do have some familiarity with how this plays out.
Maybe it's because we haven't fielded many new designs in recent years, so people tend to forget how the process goes.
EVERY aircraft in our inventory, the ones you and everyone else uses as an example of why we don't need this new prototype, went through the same thing, with more or less the same complaints and then goes on to decades of projecting power, bringing pilots back to base and keeping the folks back home safe and sound.
If the critics would have won the day as you and others might like to with the F-35, then the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-22, B-1B, B2, etc. wouldn't exist, nor would the generation before them, etc.
Most of the complainers wouldn't know the difference between the Sukhois, MiGs and the F-15 and F/A-18, but they just know what a dog the F-35 is.
Yeah, 10-4, good buddy.
“We will be grateful to those who kept the program alive through this phase”
Yeah, Canada has a LOT invested in the F-35 Edsel. I have a lot of praise for PM Stephen Harper, but this is one of his few mistakes. A single engine for an aircraft that will have to do a lot of Arctic patrol? I don’t think so. Plus there’s the cost overuns and delays and ...
Power plant, avionics, and flight software. One example: Cockpit commonality has a "STOVL/HOOK" button that either lowers the hook on A/C or initiates STOVL flight mode on the B.
(Not to A.A. but to others reading this: Yes, the F-35A has a tail hook, as does the F-15, F-16, and F-22. It is not a carrier capable hook, however.)
So, what is the rational for a non-carrier capable tail hook?
Used for emergency landings on airstrips when a plane may not be able to stop, or perhaps because the strip is too short due to damage.
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.