SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post - F-35 "Will get pilots SHOT DOWN"

Skybird · 03-08-13, 01:13 PM

If only it were about bubble canopies. If only it were some thgeoretical concerns on the other issues.

But there are so many other issues. And it is pilots flying that thin g reporting them. Low AOA. Low acceleration (just recently reduced even more). Low G. Poor maintenance record. Engine replacement not taking 2 hours, but 50+ hours. Battery systems failing at temps below 15°C. Randomly failing radar. Certain manouvers essential for dogfighting - unflyable without high risk of damaging the plane, thus permitted. Problems with the turbine blades. Helmet electronics pretty often failing. Flight attitude indicators misaligning. No protection against lightning striking. Mysterious rockings and turnings of the stick. No manouverability that makes the F35 competitive against other fighters of 4th (!) generation. Just recently the allowed acceleration has been reduced again, a change that is meant to stay in the design : the plane can no longer get out of Dodge anymore once it detected a missile launch in an engagement where other, older planes still can.

And many flight parameters cannot and so far have not even been tested, since they are forbidden to be tried. Not bad for a plane that already is used for pilot training: no mid air refueling so far. No 5G+ manouvers. No night flying. No flying in "not the right weather". No speeds in excess of 0.9 Mach. No simulated weapon engagement.

And this is just the AirForce version. The Navy and VTOL versions are even more complicated, and even more handicapped.

Plus operational limitations, namely the short legs. The navy can make use of this plane only by accepting greater risks to its carrier groups or by reducing flexibility in operational planning due to the need to add many more inflight refuelings. The inflight refuelings that until now are banned to be even tried, and thus have not been tested so far.

The positive thing is that the tankers must not take greater rsiks if not being used.

This thing is a dollar grave. Much worse problem than there have been with the Eurofighter initially. And many of them root in the core design of the F35 and thus cannot be bypassed or fixed like they did in the EF.

But the biggest argument against this flying turkey was, still is and remains to be the insane price. Taken for itself, it already is an unacceptable number. Standardising the price by a cost-gain calculation, it even becomes worse.

I would not be surprised that the Chinese not only took something with them when they broke into the Lockheed database and stole code of the control logic - but if they also left something behind.

03-08-13, 01:13 PM	#11
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,638 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	If only it were about bubble canopies. If only it were some thgeoretical concerns on the other issues. But there are so many other issues. And it is pilots flying that thin g reporting them. Low AOA. Low acceleration (just recently reduced even more). Low G. Poor maintenance record. Engine replacement not taking 2 hours, but 50+ hours. Battery systems failing at temps below 15°C. Randomly failing radar. Certain manouvers essential for dogfighting - unflyable without high risk of damaging the plane, thus permitted. Problems with the turbine blades. Helmet electronics pretty often failing. Flight attitude indicators misaligning. No protection against lightning striking. Mysterious rockings and turnings of the stick. No manouverability that makes the F35 competitive against other fighters of 4th (!) generation. Just recently the allowed acceleration has been reduced again, a change that is meant to stay in the design : the plane can no longer get out of Dodge anymore once it detected a missile launch in an engagement where other, older planes still can. And many flight parameters cannot and so far have not even been tested, since they are forbidden to be tried. Not bad for a plane that already is used for pilot training: no mid air refueling so far. No 5G+ manouvers. No night flying. No flying in "not the right weather". No speeds in excess of 0.9 Mach. No simulated weapon engagement. And this is just the AirForce version. The Navy and VTOL versions are even more complicated, and even more handicapped. Plus operational limitations, namely the short legs. The navy can make use of this plane only by accepting greater risks to its carrier groups or by reducing flexibility in operational planning due to the need to add many more inflight refuelings. The inflight refuelings that until now are banned to be even tried, and thus have not been tested so far. The positive thing is that the tankers must not take greater rsiks if not being used. This thing is a dollar grave. Much worse problem than there have been with the Eurofighter initially. And many of them root in the core design of the F35 and thus cannot be bypassed or fixed like they did in the EF. But the biggest argument against this flying turkey was, still is and remains to be the insane price. Taken for itself, it already is an unacceptable number. Standardising the price by a cost-gain calculation, it even becomes worse. I would not be surprised that the Chinese not only took something with them when they broke into the Lockheed database and stole code of the control logic - but if they also left something behind. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.