Article: F-35 can't use warm fuel
#11
I agree that most of the time, it is as symbolic and pointless as the guy staring down the tank at Tianemen Square.
But there are successes. Due mostly, if not solely, to a grass-roots effort, Congress has forced the Air Force to keep the A-10 at least one more year.
They've also seen how far the Air Force will stoop to try and save this monstrosity. They've been exposed as disingenuous if not outright liars. I'm sure the Navy and Marines are right in step.
This thing should have met the same fate as the A-12.
Congress (and ALPA) only listen when a sizable audience complains and a threshold is met. Write; you might be the proverbial straw.
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,670
I can't remember but I thought it was you that make the joke in a similar thread a while ago. Something along the lines of;
Just by the latest Russian made jets and equip them with the U.S. electronics, sensors, PFM, wizards and spells and call it done.
Just by the latest Russian made jets and equip them with the U.S. electronics, sensors, PFM, wizards and spells and call it done.
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,192
The JSF is a lot of amazing technology wrapped in a mediocre airframe that they're trying to do way too much with. If the Hornet should've taught us anything, it's that the more multi-role you try and get, the more everything suffers.
#16
I have.
It is a near-equal in maneuverability to the F-22; F-22 might have a slight edge. Weapons: AA-10 and AA-11 are impressive in range and off-boresite capability.
Cockpit ergonomics are nowhere near US standards, especially in ease of radar use, although I think their helmet-mounted sight is superior (been fielded longer and seems to work).
Maintenance? I think airframe would be strong, avionics average. Russian engines do not last as long as Western engines, but seem to be pretty stout. Watching the Flanker fly backwards in afterburner and not compressor stall is a loud testament to aerodynamic design, not only of the intake, but the front of the engine.
It's not stealthy. On the other hand, it is only about one-fourth the cost of an F-22.
It is a near-equal in maneuverability to the F-22; F-22 might have a slight edge. Weapons: AA-10 and AA-11 are impressive in range and off-boresite capability.
Cockpit ergonomics are nowhere near US standards, especially in ease of radar use, although I think their helmet-mounted sight is superior (been fielded longer and seems to work).
Maintenance? I think airframe would be strong, avionics average. Russian engines do not last as long as Western engines, but seem to be pretty stout. Watching the Flanker fly backwards in afterburner and not compressor stall is a loud testament to aerodynamic design, not only of the intake, but the front of the engine.
It's not stealthy. On the other hand, it is only about one-fourth the cost of an F-22.
#17
I have.
It is a near-equal in maneuverability to the F-22; F-22 might have a slight edge. Weapons: AA-10 and AA-11 are impressive in range and off-boresite capability.
Cockpit ergonomics are nowhere near US standards, especially in ease of radar use, although I think their helmet-mounted sight is superior (been fielded longer and seems to work).
Maintenance? I think airframe would be strong, avionics average. Russian engines do not last as long as Western engines, but seem to be pretty stout. Watching the Flanker fly backwards in afterburner and not compressor stall is a loud testament to aerodynamic design, not only of the intake, but the front of the engine.
It's not stealthy. On the other hand, it is only about one-fourth the cost of an F-22.
It is a near-equal in maneuverability to the F-22; F-22 might have a slight edge. Weapons: AA-10 and AA-11 are impressive in range and off-boresite capability.
Cockpit ergonomics are nowhere near US standards, especially in ease of radar use, although I think their helmet-mounted sight is superior (been fielded longer and seems to work).
Maintenance? I think airframe would be strong, avionics average. Russian engines do not last as long as Western engines, but seem to be pretty stout. Watching the Flanker fly backwards in afterburner and not compressor stall is a loud testament to aerodynamic design, not only of the intake, but the front of the engine.
It's not stealthy. On the other hand, it is only about one-fourth the cost of an F-22.
#18
Still not cheap, or good taxpayer value IMO. I'm just about a proponent of scrapping it, buying some souped up 4.5 gen fighters and focusing R&D on a 5.5 or 6 gen system. The only thing that gives me pause on that is that so many of our allies are committed to the thing, and unfortunately it's probably worth pizzing a lot of money into the wind in order to maintain good relations with them.
Brilliant marketing scheme on the part of lockmart and their political hired guns...not only too big to fail, but too diverse to fail. The USAF of course gets credit for complete lack of discipline and oversight in a spiral development program (spiral development = spiral costs). Of course a lot of the spiral occurred post-9/11 when the sky was the limit on defense spending.
#19
Sounds like the start of a dystopian novel. I think the incredible avionics in a not-so-stellar airframe is something like what the mods did to their scooters. I hope we don't have to reach any deeper into our kid's piggy bank to pay for this, or we may need all those mirrors to look back on better days.
How to Become an Obnoxious Mod in Five Easy Steps | Mole Empire
How to Become an Obnoxious Mod in Five Easy Steps | Mole Empire
#20
Taxpayers should be absolutely furious about this, and Lockheed should be fully held to account for their FAILURES in both the F-22 and F-35 programs.
Cost overruns, O2 doesn't work, plane doesn't operate well in weather, plane can't use hot fuel, payload sucks, etc etc...
Cost overruns, O2 doesn't work, plane doesn't operate well in weather, plane can't use hot fuel, payload sucks, etc etc...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post