Started by bayonetbrant, November 09, 2013, 08:08:31 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QuoteOwing to heavy design compromises foisted on the plane mostly by the Marine Corps, the F-35 is an inferior combatant, seriously outclassed by even older Russian and Chinese jets that can fly faster and farther and maneuver better. In a fast-moving aerial battle, the JSF "is a dog ... overweight and underpowered," according to Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C.And future enemy planes, designed strictly with air combat in mind, could prove even deadlier to the compromised JSF.It doesn't really matter how smoothly Lockheed and the government's work on the new warplane proceeds. Even the best-manufactured JSF is a second-rate fighter where it actually matters — in the air, in life-or-death combat against a determined foe. And that could mean a death sentence for American pilots required to fly the vulnerable F-35.
QuoteAdditionally, we get this report from Ares, over at Aviation Week, which notes that the standard config in which the JSF will be flown includes only 2 AAMs, so if the enemy send up 4 fighters, you get a chance to test your getaway speed...
QuoteSo we think it does, in fact, carry 2 AAMs, 2 air-to-ground bombs, and bunch of rounds in a cannon, plus whatever performance-impeding weapons can be bolted on outside. Not great. After all, having a "fighter" that can't fight isn't that useful.
QuoteGreat. 9g, huh? Comforting to know that we can crush our pilots to death faster and more efficiently than other aircraft, while turning at the same rate.
QuoteI guess that's fine if we're fighting legacy aircraft. But unless the Americans are strafing Aruba and facing the Dutch fleet of F16s, we might want to worry less about legacy aircraft and more about what's coming next.
QuoteOwing to heavy design compromises foisted on the plane mostly by the Marine Corps, the F-35 is an inferior combatant, seriously outclassed by even older Russian and Chinese jets that can fly faster and farther and maneuver better.
QuoteIn a fast-moving aerial battle, the JSF "is a dog ... overweight and underpowered
QuoteStillion and Perdue soon left the think tank. Stillion is now at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments think tank in Washington, D.C. Perdue currently works for Northrop Grumman.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 09, 2013, 10:42:12 AMnone of the articles authors have any historical depth.the F-111, arguably the best long range interdiction bomber of the Cold War had HUGE teething problems.the F-4, ment to be a do everything aircraft for all services and was fought tooth and nail by those same services became one of the most successful aircraft of all time.the F-16, ment to be the low budget partner to the F-15 had to fight its way through the Pentagons fighter mafia just to get to the prototype stage. became THE MOST successful fighter of the Cold War and one of aviations biggest commercial successes.the F-18, lost to the F-16 and is now the main fighter of the US Navy.just sayin'
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 09, 2013, 11:17:50 AMto an extent. all planes have teething problems. my opinion is that its better to work them out operationally then in testing. operational use really lets the ground crews and pilots figure things out. the eggheads with 7 Phd's are going to write 'the book' and the airmen are going to rewrite it so it actually works anyway.
Quote from: endfire79 on November 09, 2013, 12:08:57 PMI'm baffled how it's dragged on for so long - all this due to the VTOL requirement touted by the Marine Corps? I wonder why existing Harrier II's or Apache's could not satisfy the top brass. Is it because these platforms are seen as too 'old' by them?
Quote from: endfire79 on November 09, 2013, 12:08:57 PMall this due to the VTOL requirement touted by the Marine Corps?
QuoteIn August 1942 a force of U.S. Marines stormed ashore on Guadalcanal, part of the Solomons island chain in the South Pacific. Less than a year after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. and its allies were still fighting a defensive action against Japanese forces. The Guadalcanal landing was meant to blunt Tokyo's advance.But the lightly-equipped Marines ended up surrounded and all but abandoned after Japanese ships wiped out a portion of the Allied fleet. The Navy withdrew its precious aircraft carriers, and for months the Japanese planes, opposed by only a handful of Marine fighters flying from a crude beachhead airstrip, pounded the hapless Americans.Robert Leckie, a Marine rifleman on Guadalcanal, described one of his squadmates breaking under the strain. The rattled Marine grabbed a light machine gun — a totally ineffective weapon against airplanes — and charged against a strafing Japanese Zero fighter. "He could not bear huddling in the pit while the Jap [sic] made sport of us," Leckie wrote in his memoir Helmet for my Pillow.Luckily, the Marine survived his nearly suicidal confrontation with the Zero. But as an organization, the Marine Corps was forever changed by its exposure on Guadalcanal. "The lesson learned was that the U.S. Marine Corps needed to be able to bring its air power with it over the beach because the large-deck Navy aircraft carriers might not always be there," said Ben Kristy, an official Marine historian.In the 1950s and '60s the Corps bought hundreds of helicopters, a new invention at the time. But what it really wanted was a fighter plane that could launch from the same amphibious assault ships that hauled Marine ground troops. These big assault ships had flat helicopter flight deck areas, but with neither the catapults nor the runway length to support the big, high-performance planes favored by the Navy.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 09, 2013, 10:22:55 AMQuoteStillion and Perdue soon left the think tank. Stillion is now at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments think tank in Washington, D.C. Perdue currently works for Northrop Grumman.so one guy leaves for a job that basiclly bitches about how much the F-35 costs and the other guy gets a job with Lockheeds main competitor? no axe to grind or bias there.