Forum: General F-35 Forum

I mean honestly. The F-22 and ace combat fanboys along with mr carlo kopp seem to be ragging on this aircraft quite a bit. Honestly i think the F-35 is an impressive aircraft. Please chime in and base your opinions everyone Smile

.

F-16.net Sponsor

Bad relative to what?

This whole F-35 forum is full of opinions one way or tuther. Do we need another thread on the same old same old? I think not.

You are right about opinions in the Forums. But as an outsider, you guys do an amazing job of providing information. A forum search for F-35 reveals every foible and fault that can be imagined (remember that recent 9g turn fiasco?).

You probably do not need another thread. The information has all been re-hashed.

But, the program is really hitting its strides now. Flight hours are climbing. Tanking tests, weapons loaded tests. Catapult launches. Pit weapons seperation [Link pending approval] all very informative. You may think us lurkers do not pay attention, but we appreciate the insights. They go above GOOGLE.
Like aircraft before this [Link pending approval] gets attacked before it even is operational. F-18? Super Bug? I mean they beat the living daylights out of that.

F-35 is not doing bad at all. I am impressed. The sensor package shows signs of great things. People in the know probably cannot really divulge performance, but still it looks good. Netcentric warfare is about to take leaps foward if budgets allow.

Over all, I think the negative comments can be compared to people griping that the A-6 and A-7 should still be flying.

I know what jet I would want to ride [Link pending approval] and I have heard f-18 pilots saying the same.

I can't help but notice that the people who put down new weapon systems as ineffective are the ones who, politically, WANT them to be ineffective...

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-15640.html

The F-35 debate is very cyclical...

alloycowboy wrote:

Bad relative to what?

When compared to the flankers,fulcrums,vipers,raptors and the PAK-FA. Also going back in time i do remeber reading that the F-16 had a difficult birth due to constant crashes (hence the nickname lawndart) but as time progressed the F-16 became one of the most successful military aircrafts available for export.

Does anyone remember the C-17's problems? We now have more of them than the original cold-war order.

I remember the C-17 wing the broke during testing, and like to bring if up to when anyone talks about the bulkhead cracks on the F-35B. I also like to bring up the PAK-FA that was retired with at most 200 FH due to Structural Cracking. The F-35B has now surpassed 3,000 FH last I heard.

Also on a tangent point. I like the arguement that was kind of trotted out recently (cough avaxa cough) concernign LM making a big deal out of every "little" milestone. Yes I'll admit previous aircraft did not make a huge deal about some of the things the F-35 has, but in the same breath, most of the issues/troubles the F-35 has experienced, though present in previous aircraft were not blown out of proportion as much as they are on the F-35. I think LM/JPO are trying to counteract the negatives being blown out of proportion by making a big deal out of every achievement they can.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Sufa Viper

Every single military aircraft was built with a single purpose in mind. The ones that have grown out of that single purpose to become the true greats with multiple purposes have each had their own set of challenging issues to overcome. But none of them came out of the box without these problems. Take the F-15 for example. In testing the jet had buffeting issues that caused redesigning of several components. Speed brake, wingtip, stabilator.... Once it reached the field the engines had so many issues they would pull them out, ship them back to McDonnell Douglas so they could fly another new jet to the field for delivery. But it didn’t stop the Eagle from becoming the golden standard for over 30 years. B-1B, there is a story of rags to riches. Abused by the media and politicians for 20 years and served for almost 14 years before seeing combat in Operation Desert Fox. Since then it has quietly served in almost every conflict and has become an outstanding weapons system that still has the enormous potential to grow. If you would have told the original YF-17 Cobra engineers that their design would grow and become the most dominant airframe in the US Navy after losing out to the YF-16 no one would have believed you.

Bottom line is the F-35 that bad, NO. Does it have issues to overcome, YES. Every argument that folks throw at this jet you could easily play ad-libs with by throwing in another jets name. And same can be said for the Raptor. Lots of capability, lots of room to mature and grow.

falcon17 wrote:

alloycowboy wrote:

Bad relative to what?

When compared to the flankers,fulcrums,vipers,raptors and the PAK-FA. Also going back in time i do remeber reading that the F-16 had a difficult birth due to constant crashes (hence the nickname lawndart) but as time progressed the F-16 became one of the most successful military aircrafts available for export.

The original question was framed poorly. The F-35 isn't bad, especially when compared to previous generation aircraft, which it should dominate. It wasn't designed to be just a little bit better.

It was designed as a cheap alternative to the F-22 Raptor.
In essence, it is the F-16 Fighting Falcon to the F-15 Eagle.
The Eagle beats the heck out of the Falcon in every aspect, but is many times more expensive.
The F-35 has extraordinary capabilities for its price, even with the cost overruns.
It also has new experimental vertical lift technology (nozzle swivel + lift fan), with state-of-the-art radar and stealth capabilities.
F-35 Lightning II is a good plane, though I agree that Lockheed could have made it a little better.

I'm convinced there are some people who would never be happy with the F-35's performance unless it could simultaneously out-turn an F-16, keep up with an F-22, cross the Atlantic, and land vertically on a hot day in Telluride, all while carrying an F-15E's full payload.

flighthawk128 wrote:

It also has new experimental vertical lift technology (nozzle swivel + lift fan), .

It was "experimental" on the X-35. It is not experimental today. Rolling Eyes

The vertical lift fan idea isn't new either. Just look at the XFV-12.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFV-12

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Is the F-35 really that bad?