Now the company concedes this specification problem (though perhaps not for the F-35A the RCAF is to get); the plane as designed just doesn’t seem quite able to do what the the computers, or whatever, predicted:... the details at 3D.
Now the company concedes this specification problem (though perhaps not for the F-35A the RCAF is to get); the plane as designed just doesn’t seem quite able to do what the the computers, or whatever, predicted:... the details at 3D.
6 comments:
Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va [and so far a strong supporter of the aircraft]., said that the revelation was not particularly surprising.
“It’s a strike fighter,” Aboulafia said. “It’s not an interceptor…[emphasis added]”Did I miss the memo, wasn't this F-35 suppose to be an interceptor for our northern regions?
The editor wrapped my text.
The "Did I miss the memo, wasn't this F-35 suppose to be an interceptor for our northern regions?" was my comment.
. . . but when you put weapons on those legacy aircraft, the F-35 blows their doors off in acceleration.
So what would you rather have and armed and very lethal F-35 or a better accelerating but unarmed and therefore useless F-16/F-18 ?
Right. Thought so.
Four missiles, clean on a JSF, are not adequate for the intercept mission, a major part of which is hunting down cruise missiles a bomber may have launched.
With external missiles on it there is no evidence I have seen the F-35 will be any better in terms of acceleration than possible alternatives.
And it still seems pretty bog slow.
Mark
Ottawa
I like Phil Slaton's comment over at Navy Times
"Amen. When you are in the middle of a moonless, rainy night, in the
middle of the ocean, and the aircraft's single engine is destroying
itself you are SOL. Time to grab the alternate handle and give the
single engine POS back to the tax payer. Add it to the collection of
other Navy aircraft at the bottom of the ocean.
Didn't we learn
this single engine lesson with the F-8, A-7 and A-4? Don't even tell
me that the F-35 engine is more reliable. That thing has more moving
parts that can go wrong than a working girl at Tailhook. (Ooops, me PC
bad!)"
So why we still getting this plane? Quebec jobs. Right, I forgot.
Post a Comment