Chiming in on the debate:
I am most disappointed by the airframe performance, largely by the (typical?) over promising of the manufactures and vocal proponents.
“Video game” style avionics I am a huge supporter of, which will help compensate for its limits.
Of the types:
F-35C (Navy) All for this one, even if pricey.
F-35B (VTOL) I am highly opposed to VTOL combat design, I feel the “V” abilty takes too much away from its combat ability, especially for naval (which UK foolishly did).
F-35A Jack of all, master of none, and UUUGLY to boot (warts and all). If the idea was to make something like an F-16, then F-35 is eating too much beer and hotdogs!
IMHO, the fact it is designated and “F” and comes in 3 very, very different versions (<25% common parts) shows of completely committed up this is.
Unlike the F-22 which really was made as a fighter that could carry bombs, the F-35 was designed (at last moment) to do ground attacks (thus the totally mindless plan to retire the A-10). Clearly it was done to make it all seem the same, but makes it easier to make mistakes.
What is should be is:
F/A-35 (for 35A)
AV-35 (35B)
FS-35 (35C) Yes, I made that one up, the S indicates “Ship” carrier based
Better
F/A-35 (for 35A)
AV-36 (35B)
FS-37 (35C)
Anyway, its here. I wonder how long before it is rendered obsolete?
Sign In
