Quote:
Originally Posted by Aktungbby
|
I've been saying that the F-35 has been a terrible idea for years now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oberon
To be fair the Harrier was pretty terrible when it first came out too, it was deadlier to its pilot than the enemy, and the EE Lightning was a hangar queen early in its life too. Then there's the F-104, look how much refitting that took before it became a half way to decent interceptor.
The F-35 will come round eventually, probably just in time to be replaced by drones...  |
I honestly never thought much of the Harrier. As a fighting aircraft, its capabilities are pretty crap. It has just one thing going for it, that it can do STOL and VTOL for landing (yes it can do VTOL takeoffs but only naked), which makes it somewhat useful for the helo-carriers. It's a poor dogfighter due to lack of energy, and its payload is very small.
I think many period early jets had high maintenance too, but the EE Lightning had the added problem of its stacked engines. I don't know if I would ever consider the Lawn Dart to be a particularly good aircraft. Sure its performance was great in it's interceptor role, though its payload was rather light. It could move but it couldn't turn well, and it had a very nasty habit of living up to its nickname.
I suspect the F-35 won't for the simple reason that it's basic design is bad. Energy problems and a lack of maneuverability are not something that can easily be fixed. I also think the Navy is deluding themselves. You can't use a stealth jet for target acquisition and relaying, at least not while having it remain semi stealthy (this whole idea makes no sense at all). Plus I highly doubt it is all that stealthy an aircraft to begin with (I suspect it is about comparable to the F-22). Furthermore if its design is as underpowered and unmaneuverable as is claimed, surface and aerial missiles will be a massive threat to it when it is detected, particularly against state of the art weapons systems which can't be jammed, are very maneuverable, and very resistant to chaff and flares. So it probably would be a bad idea to send these things into the heart of enemy territory (especially given how much these stupid things cost). You could buy half a squadron of F-16s for the cost of just one F-35.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politenessman
The problem with being reliant on keeping the fight BVR is that political considerations can preclude engaging targets without first having a visual ID (see USAF in Vietnam for example) and you don't want to be forced into visual range if you are flying an aircraft that is inadequate in that area.
Hopefully the F-35 well be fixed before it is really needed, another example of a total failure that was eventually fixed was the F-111.
It will be very expensive to fix.
|
This is very true, and not just in Vietnam, even the current wars had similar rules of engagement to avoid accidentally shooting down civilians or allies. Like I said above, it is also very very bad for trying to defeat missiles shot at you, as you won't be able to out energy or out turn it.
Without redesigning the entire aircraft I don't know how some of that stuff can be fixed. Sure at some point a new engine system will become available to fix some of the energy problems, but the fundamental problem is the underlying design, not the engine, so the aircraft will always be at a disadvantage.
Really the Air Force should just get the F-16 Super Viper, give it a state of the art engine with thrust vectoring, the avionics package from the F-35, and some other tweaks to improve its maneuverability, and a fully digital MFD system. The Navy could do the same with the F/A-18 Super Hornet. The Marines can just go back to walking, since they were a key contributor to the F-35 mess to begin with, because they wanted their version to be able to VTOL. That or the Marines can keep the F-35, but they get to pay for the entire development costs of it.