| Couldn't have said it better myself. Kill this project today. |
| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| The F-35: Throwing Good Money after Bad | |
| 2015-07-28 | |
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #17 The F-4C was a lead sled that was asked to do air to air and air to ground; while sitting nuclear alert and handling ship surveillance missions. It put out a exhaust trail that let the enemy find you by simply following the smoke and burned 1000 lbs. a minute in AB(with only a 12,000 lb. fuel load flying clean). Yet, I wish I could have flown in the E model. Most of us that flew it, loved it. The Israelis showed its true potential and that, despite being often outnumbered and, sometimes, outclassed by opposing equipment. Bottom line, it's still the guy (or gal) that straps on the plane that ultimately makes the difference. The F-35 looks like an expensive F-4 (note the same lack of rear visibility). Just get on with it. Can it or go into production, it's the time lag that makes for obsolescence. Maybe by the time there is an E model the enemy will be shuddering or at least the IAF will have installed an external rear view mirror. |
| Posted by: Total War 2015-07-28 19:54 |
| #16 Humm, u know stuff |
| Posted by: Shipman 2015-07-28 17:56 |
| #15 About all from the A-12 that survived was the radar ( in current gen F-18s). flight control software now obsolete, manufacturing processes obsolete. Oh yeah the engines live on in the Hornet/Superhornet. There was one canopy made that was later sold on Ebay to a private individual. and lots of neat swag. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2015-07-28 17:37 |
| #14 There was a metric boatload of money spent on the A-12, was it all wasted.? I wonder if some was side-tracked. My understanding is that from all the money spent there are only the remains of a boiler-plate stashed away. At least we got 100+ F-35' mostly Bees going directly to customers that want them. Deploying to Japan 2016(?). |
| Posted by: Shipman 2015-07-28 16:58 |
| #13 Yeah, Fort Worth, the proposed home to 50% of the A-12 production also. another gold plated POS (but at least it was the NAVY's POS) |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2015-07-28 15:02 |
| #12 Bottom line, We gotta make this thing work. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2015-07-28 14:39 |
| #11 Bob, then the answer would be to change the plan so it is built all in ft worth like the f16. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2015-07-28 13:58 |
| #10 Well the problems that buggered the F-35 have been around since the 1970's. One of the big ones is distributed manufacturing and design. Instead of building a complete aircraft at a site, pieces of it get parceled out do different states to get politicians behind it. Then they add security clearance requirements out the wazoo for the guys that actually build the tooling and design the software. Strange things happen. On one project the tail was an inch off diameter from fitting the fuselage. |
| Posted by: Bob These1478 2015-07-28 09:42 |
| #9 Ed: then maybe you should look at the people who are committing disarmament-by-goldbricking by keeping the production rate low and keeping it in eternal prototype status. Furthermore, the people committing disarmament-by-goldbricking have getting the project cancelled after spending the development money as one of their _objectives_. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2015-07-28 08:54 |
| #8 TFSM, here's the deal: It doesn't matter whether it can go into orbit like a flying saucer, if we can't afford to build them, then we can't have them. It's kind of like the plans for the fleet of B2's. |
| Posted by: ed in texas 2015-07-28 08:08 |
| #7 |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2015-07-28 04:33 |
| #6 "But, does it have port holes?" |
| Posted by: newc 2015-07-28 02:16 |
#5 Damnit, here's a link:Furthermore, it should be noted, there’s quite a few people pushing back against Axe’s sensationalistic piece. Far from being the true test that shows once and for all the F-35 is a POS, it was in fact, a first look, aimed at finding out not so much how well the F-35 performed against the F-16, but rather at what parts of the flight control software could be improved to give the F-35 more maneuverability, particularly at high Angles of Attack (AoA). It appears the F-35 used in the test, AF-2 the second build “A” model for the Air Force, was also using flight control software that restricted certain portions of the envelope. And my sources also tell me the test took place during a time when there were restrictions on the engine performance. While the pilot might have no restrictions on throttle movement, the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) was programmed in a manner that would restrict some of the output. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2015-07-28 01:26 |
| #4 And yeah, the article quotes the lies from the idiot David Axe piece. It's bad enough that he lies, why do y'all feel so damn compelled to lie to me on his behalf? |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2015-07-28 01:03 |
| #3 It sure left Oshkosh in a hurry. The F 22's were more impressive and just plain looked right. |
| Posted by: Zorba de Medici9541 2015-07-28 01:01 |
| #2 As usual, the techy loving admirals and generals tried to make the F-35 into a flying Swiss Army Knife...much like a bad rerun of the F-111 program |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2015-07-28 00:18 |
| #1 Amen. Kill the damn thing, before it kills us. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2015-07-28 00:16 |