Reply to thread

Message

Its big and heavy for a single engined fighter. Modest thrust to weight ratio. High wing loading, no thrust vectoring, draggy chubby airframe (albeit with some advantages of internal weapons) constant weight issues, heat issues...range issues...poor rearward visibility...helmet problems (disoriented pilots, refresh issues) over-reliance on technology and avionics to compensate for airframe shortcomings...millions of lines of programming and electronics that could develop glitches and could be a problem in real world combat and attrition situations. Do you really think there are going to be good programmers out in the field to fix these issues when they come up? I'm pro-technology, not anti-tech as some have made comments about the f-35s detractors as being "anti tech", I'm far from it. Its just that the f-35 is an example of a poorly thought concept run amok and the faith that enough tech loaded into one plane will allow it to do everything that 2 or three aircraft would do even better (and I'm not talking about legacy aircraft but all new designs). A lightweight air fighter, a ground attack aircraft, and a stovl. Possibly sharing an engine and avionics but better shaped for their own individual role. The F-35 is becoming so expensive because it is such a poor concept that more money is needed to allow it to do the role of 2-3 seperate airplanes, but none very well. The real problem is greed. The contractors wanted only one expensive aircraft. Why not have 2-3 that are more capable? Put more people to work, whats wrong with that approach?

<blockquote data-quote="kcran567" data-source="post: 208851" data-attributes="member: 3325"><p>Its big and heavy for a single engined fighter. Modest thrust to weight ratio. High wing loading, no thrust vectoring, draggy chubby airframe (albeit with some advantages of internal weapons) constant weight issues, heat issues...range issues...poor rearward visibility...helmet problems (disoriented pilots, refresh issues) over-reliance on technology and avionics to compensate for airframe shortcomings...millions of lines of programming and electronics that could develop glitches and could be a problem in real world combat and attrition situations. Do you really think there are going to be good programmers out in the field to fix these issues when they come up? I'm pro-technology, not anti-tech as some have made comments about the f-35s detractors as being &quot;anti tech&quot;, I'm far from it. Its just that the f-35 is an example of a poorly thought concept run amok and the faith that enough tech loaded into one plane will allow it to do everything that 2 or three aircraft would do even better (and I'm not talking about legacy aircraft but all new designs). A lightweight air fighter, a ground attack aircraft, and a stovl. Possibly sharing an engine and avionics but better shaped for their own individual role. The F-35 is becoming so expensive because it is such a poor concept that more money is needed to allow it to do the role of 2-3 seperate airplanes, but none very well. The real problem is greed. The contractors wanted only one expensive aircraft. Why not have 2-3 that are more capable? Put more people to work, whats wrong with that approach?</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="kcran567, post: 208851, member: 3325"] Its big and heavy for a single engined fighter. Modest thrust to weight ratio. High wing loading, no thrust vectoring, draggy chubby airframe (albeit with some advantages of internal weapons) constant weight issues, heat issues...range issues...poor rearward visibility...helmet problems (disoriented pilots, refresh issues) over-reliance on technology and avionics to compensate for airframe shortcomings...millions of lines of programming and electronics that could develop glitches and could be a problem in real world combat and attrition situations. Do you really think there are going to be good programmers out in the field to fix these issues when they come up? I'm pro-technology, not anti-tech as some have made comments about the f-35s detractors as being "anti tech", I'm far from it. Its just that the f-35 is an example of a poorly thought concept run amok and the faith that enough tech loaded into one plane will allow it to do everything that 2 or three aircraft would do even better (and I'm not talking about legacy aircraft but all new designs). A lightweight air fighter, a ground attack aircraft, and a stovl. Possibly sharing an engine and avionics but better shaped for their own individual role. The F-35 is becoming so expensive because it is such a poor concept that more money is needed to allow it to do the role of 2-3 seperate airplanes, but none very well. The real problem is greed. The contractors wanted only one expensive aircraft. Why not have 2-3 that are more capable? Put more people to work, whats wrong with that approach? [/QUOTE]

Verification