I am not really sure what the F35 would do any better than the latest fourth generation aircraft.
I am not really sure what the F35 would do any better than the latest fourth generation aircraft.
Of course.This opinion piece appeared in The Hill a few days ago. There is a rebuttal opinion by the president of the International Machinists Union appearing in The Hill today (3/30/21) touting the F-35 as a great jobs program.
The F-35 may be unsalvageable
Although it has an extraordinarily poor track record, killing off the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter entirely will prove difficult.thehill.com
Here's an F-35 pilot (now in the USAF Reserves) who thinks the demise of the F-35 is misplaced. He also talks about stuff I'm familiar with, such as bit-flip with electronics that are radiation hardened or not. I'd try to explain it, but that might cause eyes to glaze over.
Of course the source is someone who seems to be writing about this stuff for a living now that he's no longer active duty.
Justin Lee
www.sandboxx.us
Lockheed was most likely chosen because they were also prime contractor on the F-22 and had lots of background and technology to use on the F-35.Yes, these planes are future, but the problem is not just plane itself but the way all process was done and how Lockheed was chosen, which led to the plane like this.
Lockheed was most likely chosen because they were also prime contractor on the F-22 and had lots of background and technology to use on the F-35.
I know the Air Force made comments that they didn't like the "looks" of the Boeing X-32. There are a lot of videos on YouTube that show actual completion video and talk about the completion and the details of which plane did better in which categories.There was a lot of speculation that the X-32 lost out because it wasn’t sexy looking enough. Probably would have refined the look of the prototype, but it was still pretty homely looking. Wondering if Boeing could have delivered where Lockheed couldn’t.
I know the Air Force made comments that they didn't like the "looks" of the Boeing X-32. There are a lot of videos on YouTube that show actual completion video and talk about the completion and the details of which plane did better in which categories.
Actually, the F-4 wasn't developed as a joint fighter. It was a Navy only project, pressed into service with the Air Force because the Air Force had no decent fighters at the time. Interceptors like the F-104 and F-106, fair weather light bombers like the F-105 fought in Vietnam and performed poorly. Both the Navy F-4 and A-7 were adopted by the Air Force out of necessity.Three different aircraft might have been a better choice. The F-4 worked OK as a joint platform, but the F-111 didn’t.
Several air forces around the world adopted the F/A-18, so I wonder why the USAF didn’t, other than in a few movies.
I would bet the radar/sensor needed to detect the F35 will be easier to make than the F35 was.What concerns me about the F35 is this. Should the Russians or Chinese suddenly develop a tracking system that makes stealth redundant, what are we left with? In the case of the F22 it would still be the premier air defence fighter in the world. I am not really sure what the F35 would do any better than the latest fourth generation aircraft.
I would bet the radar/sensor needed to detect the F35 will be easier to make than the F35 was.
Long but pretty interesting documentary video - goes over lots of things on the fly-off completions.There was a lot of speculation that the X-32 lost out because it wasn’t sexy looking enough. Probably would have refined the look of the prototype, but it was still pretty homely looking. Wondering if Boeing could have delivered where Lockheed couldn’t.
Actually, the F-4 wasn't developed as a joint fighter. It was a Navy only project, pressed into service with the Air Force because the Air Force had no decent fighters at the time. Interceptors like the F-104 and F-106, fair weather light bombers like the F-105 fought in Vietnam and performed poorly. Both the Navy F-4 and A-7 were adopted by the Air Force out of necessity.
The F-18 was a different story. Basically a Northrop YF-17 (the competition for the General Dynamics F-16) built by McDonnell Douglas (the Navy wouldn't have a Northrop plane since they did not have experience building carrier aircraft), bought by the Navy. Under the agreement between Northrop and McD, Northrop was supposed to be sub-contractor for the Navy planes, and prime contractor for the foreign sales land based versions. In a stroke of marketing genius, Micky D sold other countries the carrier version, to be based on land.
So, no, the Air Force wouldn't buy the "loser" of the YF-16/YF-17 competition. That is not to say the YF-17/F-18 is a lesser aircraft.
The F-111 was another story. It was a plane nobody wanted, except the Secretary of Defense, who was not quite as smart as he thought he was. The Navy, wisely seeing the way the wind was blowing, let the aircraft be developed and kept their mouths shut. About the time they were handed the monstrosity, they correctly declared the "fighter" was too heavy for carrier ops.
The Air Force got stuck with that underperforming pig. The aircraft did shine during the Gulf War though.
Hi
HMS Queen Elizabeth is deploying to the far east this month. It will carry a grand total of 8 F35B. Seems an expensive way of transporting 8 aircraft. Plus, of course, asw and aew helicopters.
It will be accompanied by 2 royal navy type 45 destroyers, 2 RN type 23 frigates, a nuclear attack sub and two supply vessels.
Interestingly it will also be accompanied by the USS The Sullivans.
As Astro said earlier, it is great to see RN Aviation playing a roll on the world stage once more.