Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat
I'm Canadian btw.
|
Ah. Okay, noted.
Quote:
not sure where you get that from, a lot of info is still in a flux, which is not unusual for a complex project like this.
|
You get that from any source critical of the F35. The navy hates the short legs it has, needing to bring carrier groups closer to enemya sdhores and within reach for the enemy, or needing to hang fuel tanks under the wings, compromising the stealth factor, or needing signficantly more aerial refuelling, limitng and complicating tactical agility on operational level. Plus the plane has small payload only when not hanging ammo under the wings. The airforce does not like the agility that leaves to be desired, and again the short legs and slow acceleration, plus again the ammo problem. The Marines pay much for a vertical liftoff capability that in many people's opinion is not being needed and adds tremendously to the mechanical and technical complexity and is a potential source of problems.
See the articles I linked earlier, for examples.