Forum: F-35 Lightning II

The F-35, an underpowered semi-stealth waste of effort.

Only thing going for it is its "stealth" and VTOL.
It can't turn like the F-16 (which it's supposed to be replacing)
Its thrust to weight is mediocre (0.8-0.9)
Does not even look anything like a solid fighter, more like a repugnent insect.
Helmet/"interface" looks like a cheap prop from an obscure horror film in the early 2000's
Slow
Will not survive down low (like an A-10 or an F-15E)

Im all for new tech., but this is unacceptable that this ****bird is going to be the new workhorse of our once great Airforce. Does anybody out there, honestly think the F-35 is anything impressive?

F-16.net Sponsor

How is presenting the unfortunate truth of the F-35's ultra uselessness trolling?

I specifically engineered that post to exclude troll symptoms, it is much rather the perspective of somebody who likes fighters that behave and at least look like fighters.

So Shabah, you say you like fighters and apparently judge them based on their looks. How many have yo flown??? You think the active pilots that have transitioned from current operational jets to the F35 know nothing or are lying about their experience in it? lease excuse me, but I must say, What an idiot you must be. What, you maybe in about 8th or 9th grade?

shabah_cactus wrote:

The F-35, an underpowered semi-stealth waste of effort.

Only thing going for it is its "stealth" and VTOL.
It can't turn like the F-16 (which it's supposed to be replacing)
Its thrust to weight is mediocre (0.8-0.9)
Does not even look anything like a solid fighter, more like a repugnent insect.
Helmet/"interface" looks like a cheap prop from an obscure horror film in the early 2000's
Slow
Will not survive down low (like an A-10 or an F-15E)

Im all for new tech., but this is unacceptable that this ****bird is going to be the new workhorse of our once great Airforce. Does anybody out there, honestly think the F-35 is anything impressive?

Where is the back up for your claims?

shabah_cactus wrote:

The F-35, an underpowered semi-stealth waste of effort.

First time I've ever heard of a fighter with a 43,000lbs thrust engine being called "underpowered...

Quote:

Only thing going for it is its "stealth" and VTOL.

And radar and EW kit and fuel fraction and EO/IR sensor suite and it's sensor fusion and internal weapons and fuel carriage and...

Quote:

It can't turn like the F-16 (which it's supposed to be replacing)

Says who? Load up an F-16 with 18,000lbs + of fuel and let's see how agile it is...

Quote:

Its thrust to weight is mediocre (0.8-0.9)

Compared to what? F-16? Try measuring apples and apples and see how your figures stack up. On the publicly released figures F-35 has a good power to weight ratio. Not brilliant, but good.

Quote:

Does not even look anything like a solid fighter, more like a repugnent insect.

Clearly looks are the important thing.

The first US Navy pilot described it as a "real solid aircraft". Can we take his word for it, over your opinion of it's appearance?

Quote:

Helmet/"interface" looks like a cheap prop from an obscure horror film in the early 2000's

Hmm. Looks again eh?

Okay how does it look here?

Quote:

Slow
Will not survive down low (like an A-10 or an F-15E)

Hmm. F-35 is slow, which is bad apparently and this equals non-survivability, but A-10 a jet that is even slower is somehow survivable?

This makes little sense to me...

Quote:

Im all for new tech., but this is unacceptable that this ****bird is going to be the new workhorse of our once great Airforce. Does anybody out there, honestly think the F-35 is anything impressive?

Compared to anything else that exists? JSF is VERY impressive...

The F-35 is a necessary component of the USAF.

Last edited by stereospace on Feb 27, 2011 - 05:37 PM; edited 1 time in total

I have to agree shabah_cactus about the F-35's looks. It's never going to win a beauty contest, that's for sure. I also believe - from a boots on the ground perspective - that the F-35 will be inferior in the CAS role. I believe we'll have A-10's in service for many years to come and then build something very similar to replace it.

That said, the pilots who've flown the F-35 keep telling us this is going to be a great aircraft, and they know far more about this than I do, so I'm going with that.

Salute!

As with the troll and Stereo, I wish the doggone thing was prettier!!

At a recent airshow, my buddy watched the 'birds and remarked," enjoy the Viper while you can. It will be the last great looking fighter we'll see as Thunderbirds."

Gums sends...

shabah_cactus wrote:

How is presenting the unfortunate truth of the F-35's ultra uselessness trolling?

I specifically engineered that post to exclude troll symptoms, it is much rather the perspective of somebody who likes fighters that behave and at least look like fighters.

Because the information you posted as fact, is inaccurate, and your dislike of the appearance is a subjective critique. The information you posted about T/W ratio, turning performance, RCS, etc... is all incorrect. As for F-35s vs. A-10s, you may want to consider that they likely won't use the same tactics, to achieve the same effect, so again it's not a valid critique.

@gums..... The Thunder Birds will probably end up flying Lockheed Martin T-50's once the airforce orders it's new jet trainers.

@wrightwing...... It's to bad you stopped short of telling shabab_cactus to go sit in the corner.

shabah_cactus wrote:

How is presenting the unfortunate truth of the F-35's ultra uselessness trolling?

Uh, how about because it's not "the truth", it's your uninformed opinion. Rolling Eyes

stereospace wrote:

I have to agree shabah_cactus about the F-35's looks.

Count yourself lucky, we could have had the F-32 Monica Wink

Gums wrote:

Salute!

As with the troll and Stereo, I wish the doggone thing was prettier!!

At a recent airshow, my buddy watched the 'birds and remarked," enjoy the Viper while you can. It will be the last great looking fighter we'll see as Thunderbirds."

Gums sends...

Just keep telling yourself "at least it's not an X-32" and it'll look prettier. Smile

shabah_cactus wrote:

The F-35, an underpowered semi-stealth WASTE OF EFFORT.

ONLY thing going for it is its "stealth" and VTOL.
It can't turn like the F-16 (which it's supposed to be replacing)
Its thrust to weight is mediocre (0.8-0.9)
Does NOT EVEN LOOK anything like a solid fighter, more like a REPUGNANT INSECT.
Helmet/"interface" LOOKS like a CHEAP PROP from an obscure horror film in the early 2000's
Slow
WILL NOT survive down low (like an A-10 or an F-15E)

Im all for new tech., but this is unacceptable that this ****bird is going to be the new workhorse of our once great Airforce. Does anybody out there, HONESTLY THINK the F-35 is anything impressive?

I'm going to bite and assume for a moment that you believe that your stated opinions are unbiased. I bolded the words that make me and likely others think that you are simply stirring the pot and creating unnecessary controversy.

As for your specific arguments, you provide no references or parameters for any of your claims. If you are going to make comparisons, make them apples to apples.

How are you comparing performance? With loaded or unloaded legacy aircraft? You're right, a clean F-16 may have some better parameters than a clean F-35 but load 'em up and let's see which fights better. As several people have said, the F-35 also appears to use its airframe to generate lift which does not figure into simple calculations of L/W.

How well can the F-35 manage data compared with legacy aircraft? AESA, advanced E/O, datalinks, sensor fusion, and a HMD are nothing to sneeze at.

You're not comparing apples to apples. You're comparing the strengths of very different aircraft to the compromises of the F-35.

You might as well say that the F-35A requires a much longer runway than a P-51 and can't stay in the air as long as a blimp. Now you have me trolling...

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 is unimpressive.