Reply to thread

Message

You are aware that you just demonstrated my point right?

It is not about directly comparing the F-35 to the F-105, F-15 or F-22 programmes. It is about comparing how far they push the technology of the day and it is far from clear that the F-35 is a unique stretch of technology compared to what previous programmes attempted. The F-35 is a technology drving fast-jet programme, it is entirely legitimate to compare it to other technology driving fast jet programmes- saying otherwise is just distraction, especially as the complexity is part of the programme and therefore itself a sensible area for analysis.

You are answering your own question the F-35, for good or for ill, is the most unique and complex technology aircraft EVER attempted in three iterations. Materials never used before, electronics and avionics never used before, 30 millions lines of code unprecedented in aircraft history.

I can agree on one criticism that is brought up, mainly, 'Is the scope and complexity of the aircraft TOO difficult and shouldn't have been attempted' but that argument is logically followed by, 'OK but what do we do now that we've built 100+ aircraft and are working though the issues?'

1) Stay Gen 4 planes less capable and less surviable

2) Develop three (or two net of F-35B) individual aircraft IOC 2100 making us need the Gen 4 planes for fifty + more years?

[/QUOTE]

<blockquote data-quote="bobbymike" data-source="post: 211548" data-attributes="member: 2901">You are aware that you just demonstrated my point right? It is not about directly comparing the F-35 to the F-105, F-15 or F-22 programmes. It is about comparing how far they push the technology of the day and it is far from clear that the F-35 is a unique stretch of technology compared to what previous programmes attempted. The F-35 is a technology drving fast-jet programme, it is entirely legitimate to compare it to other technology driving fast jet programmes- saying otherwise is just distraction, especially as the complexity is part of the programme and therefore itself a sensible area for analysis.</blockquote>You are answering your own question the F-35, for good or for ill, is the most unique and complex technology aircraft EVER attempted in three iterations. Materials never used before, electronics and avionics never used before, 30 millions lines of code unprecedented in aircraft history. &nbsp;I can agree on one criticism that is brought up, mainly, 'Is the scope and complexity of the aircraft TOO difficult and shouldn't have been attempted' but that argument is logically followed by, 'OK but what do we do now that we've built 100+ aircraft and are working though the issues?' 1) Stay Gen 4 planes less capable and less surviable2) Develop three (or two net of F-35B) individual aircraft IOC 2100&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite9" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!&nbsp; &nbsp; :eek:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":eek:" /> making us need the Gen 4 planes for fifty + more years?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="bobbymike, post: 211548, member: 2901"] You are aware that you just demonstrated my point right? It is not about directly comparing the F-35 to the F-105, F-15 or F-22 programmes. It is about comparing how far they push the technology of the day and it is far from clear that the F-35 is a unique stretch of technology compared to what previous programmes attempted. The F-35 is a technology drving fast-jet programme, it is entirely legitimate to compare it to other technology driving fast jet programmes- saying otherwise is just distraction, especially as the complexity is part of the programme and therefore itself a sensible area for analysis. [/quote] You are answering your own question the F-35, for good or for ill, is the most unique and complex technology aircraft EVER attempted in three iterations. Materials never used before, electronics and avionics never used before, 30 millions lines of code unprecedented in aircraft history. I can agree on one criticism that is brought up, mainly, 'Is the scope and complexity of the aircraft TOO difficult and shouldn't have been attempted' but that argument is logically followed by, 'OK but what do we do now that we've built 100+ aircraft and are working though the issues?' 1) Stay Gen 4 planes less capable and less surviable 2) Develop three (or two net of F-35B) individual aircraft IOC 2100 :o making us need the Gen 4 planes for fifty + more years? [/QUOTE]

Verification