Posted on 07/04/2017 9:19:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
The people working on various aspects of the F-35 fighter program must be very frustrated. The program is still highly classified, so that much that is taking place within the program is simply not available for discussion. And yet, the F-35’s critics are baying and howling and often deliberately misrepresenting the program and its products.
The F-35 program is not one program. It is several. Its products are three different aircraft and several brand-new, and highly innovative, technologies. It provides quantum leaps in aviation technology in many different areas. Simultaneously achieving all these technical breakthroughs has obviously proved difficult. But that is not surprising -- it is the norm in innovative engineering.
The program is producing three very different aircraft: the F-35A is a conventional takeoff aircraft for the Air Force. The F-35B is a vertical takeoff and landing capable aircraft for the Marine Corps. The F-35C is a catapult takeoff and carrier landing aircraft for the Navy. From a distance, the aircraft look alike and inside they share much avionics and the core of the engine. But don’t be fooled. These are very different aircraft.
The F/A-18 Hornet and the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet also look like they are the same aircraft. But they are really two completely different aircraft. The Hornet was developed in the 1970s and was manufactured in the 1980s. The Super Hornet was developed in the 1990s and was in production after 2000. The Super Hornet is 20% larger, up to 15,000 pounds heavier, has 40% greater range and 50% greater endurance. They look alike simply because the Super Hornet borrowed excellent aerodynamic design from the Hornet. Time and money saved.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Short legs unless it carries external fuel tanks that make it unstealthy.
Limited internal weapons load unless it uses wing hard points that make it unstealthy.
It’s a white elephant.
Fact is: Any airplane that needs this much defense and propaganda that it really is a good airplane.... ISN’T.
This thing is an Albatross that wants to be an Eagle.
Over promised, under delivered, way over cost.
In the late ‘80s Honeywell hired the former military program manager on one of my projects. He was hired to work on a different project. Any time my PM needed to call the Army they brought over the colonel and he schmoozed his way through the gate keepers chitchatted and then left when we got the colonel or general we needed. It was priceless, and technically illegal access. When the time limit expired he became the new PM on our project.
Finally, someone who is as outspoken as I about the credibility of Lockheed!
Wow! It carries that many round? A whole 180 bullets? Goodness me! It just sounds like brutal overkill. /s
Somebodies shouid be tried for treason to sent this kind of crap to our troops to do battle. It is a joke but a very sad one.
More like it was designed to help Lockheed make money.
Well. The F-35 is speaking poorly for itself so others are propagandizing for it.
After 21 years of development and trouble shooting it is obsolete befoe it is completed.
Somebody needs to just kill this POS. Too big to fail is a poor excuse for outrigh failure. Anybody that points to Lockheed as having retained their prowess as an aircraft builder needs to rethink their claims. Lockheed has milked the treasury for all it can and it is time to stop them.
This thing is a poster child of a failed project.
Oh, I see. Now I understand.
“trying to force fit one airplane into missions that are vastly different for three services. “
Exactly. The aerodynamics of low speed loiter flight are greatly different from transonic and especially supersonic flight. And what do you need stealth for when you are just whacking backward camel humpers? Jack of all trades master of none.
Oh, for a moment I thought you would know what an RFP is, or a PDR, or a CDR or you have worked with DCAA or DCAS or DPRO or know what a SPO is.
UCAVs are the future, anyway.
******************
without having to maintain a human life you can do almost anything with an unmanned vehicle for a tiny fraction of the cost ... You can launch off a tiny British carrier with RATO or a catapult that would kill a man ... You can carry enormous amounts of ordinance for CAS ... and you can command the skies with swarms of craft that can outmaneuver anything with a human. Who needs aircraft carriers ,, drop 6 or so unmanned microjets off a C-130 ramp and turn for home...
>>VMFA-121 received its first F-35B in November 2012, well ahead of the Marine Corps’ announcement of initial operational capability for the program in July 2015. First Marine Corps F-35 Squadron Deploys to Japan. (Jan 2017)<<
I was using the term “deployment” loosely based on Historical “In Use” dates.
If I grant you 2015, that shaves 3 years off from 21 to 18. I am sure with more research I could knock a few years off each of its predecessors’ deployment dates.
And that is one variant. The others are still not even close.
The F35 has turned into the biggest boondoggle ever. I mean ever. and by far.
They should bring back the F22 for air superiority, upgrade the F16/18 for MRF and F/15 as mission specific.
>>That’s assuming the aircraft are not superior aircraft.
The F-35A is an outstanding strike fighter and the STOVAL F-35B is a breakthrough aircraft technology that so outclasses the AV-8B it replaces that there is no comparison.
The jury is still out on the F-35C Navy variant but it should be much better than the F-18 it replaces. <<
I hope your grandkids appreciate it.
>>Just one: why did you leave out the timeline for the F-22?<<
From what I understand, the F-22 has never been deployed.
But based on a quick google it looks like it was 1981 concept to 2002 delivery — also 21 years.
Fact is: Any airplane that needs this much defense and propaganda that it really is a good airplane.... ISN’T.
This thing is an Albatross that wants to be an Eagle.
Lotta crow to be eaten.
>> Jack of all trades master of none.<<
That was SUPPOSED to be the F35. It was supposed to be a really good, upper-end MRF used by the US, NATO and our allies. Having one shared airframe would mean interchangeable mechanics and parts across the globe.
It was supposed to replace a hodgepodge of about 15 or 20 comparable milcraft (including the F18, the hole left by the F14, the upper-end F-16s and others) with a unified solution — and since it would be a unified platform it would be overall cheaper for EVERYONE.
Wonderful idea and I was one of its biggest proponents.
Now, F35 as it is now supporters, does that sound ANYTHING like what the F35 program has unfolded?
Instead we have not only 3 major variants but there are variants within the variants — attempts to change its mission profile have resulted it can meet none of the new mission parameters and rushing has resulted in billions in redos. A multibillion $ example of “never time to do it right, always time to do it over.”
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.