Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs  
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5476 posts, RR: 30
Posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8959 times:

The F-35 hits another snag as the Pentagon reduces some previously specified capabilities of the aircraft, based on real world test performance. Sustained turn G-loads have been reduced in all three models as well as transonic acceleration rates.

As well, testing has shown significant transonic buffeting, as well as horizontal stabilator materials delamination at high speeds and altitude, forcing a reduction in the aircraft flight envelope until solutions are implemented. More issues with software, the helmet and metal fatigue are also being reported;


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...owers-f-35-performance-bar-381031/

Quote:
The US Department of Defense is lowering the performance bar for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter according to a new report by the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E).

The specifications for all three variants pertaining to transonic acceleration and sustained turn rates have been reduced. Worst hit in terms of acceleration is the US Navy's F-35C carrier-based model.

Lockheed says no, but I can't see how these issues can't affect the timetable for delivery or the price, since they can't say what the fixes are, much less when they'll be done.

Does this mean more delays?


What the...?
85 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 705 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8869 times:

Performances decreases and price increase. Logical...  



[Edited 2013-01-15 06:15:26]

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8854 times:

This is great news !!   

Another reason to seriously look at other aircraft that are somewhat more relevant to Canada's actual needs. One thing the F-35 cheerleaders keep avoiding is the real basis for the aircraft: offensive, deep-strike attacks against some presumed 'enemy' - whatever that means in today's world. LockMart have consistently touted it as an interceptor and a fighter. History has shown, however, that scabbing on additional tasks to a given airframe usually results in 2nd rate performance in those, and possibly degraded performance in the originally intended role. Weight growth being an important component.

Every reason to believe that this thing may become the most expensive turkey in history. But, from a political standpoint (and all large military programs live or die on political support, not military performance) it's too late to stop now. It will get deployed. And fixed. And fixed again. Give LockMart enough corporate welfare I am quite sure they'll tell you they can fix anything.

This makes my day ...



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8818 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
Does this mean more delays?

It means that the flight test program is doing what it is supposed to be doing... finding flaws that need to be fixed before it hits service.


I would think downgrading the the flight envelope until things are fixed is a solution to keep the program on time for now.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8770 times:

Oh god the world is ending..

Quote:
"The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35C, reducing turn performance from 5.1 to 5.0 sustained g's and increasing the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by at least 43 seconds," reads the report prepared by J Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's DOT&E. "These changes were due to the results of air vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations." Sustained turning performance for the F-35B is being reduced from 5G to 4.5G while the F-35A sinks from 5.3G to 4.6G according to the report.

 

Glad the testing phase is working how it should.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4017 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8694 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 4):
Glad the testing phase is working how it should.

Pity about the design and development phases, the costing phases and everything else Lockheed has done thus far...


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8635 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 5):
Pity about the design and development phases, the costing phases and everything else Lockheed has done thus far...

We should stop developing new technologies when they become too expensive and complex. Lets all live in caves and move around in horse carriages. Simple, cheap and safe.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4017 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8619 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 6):
We should stop developing new technologies when they become too expensive and complex. Lets all live in caves and move around in horse carriages. Simple, cheap and safe.

Meh, the "lets take this to the extreme" response...

How about we talk about a sensible compromise and hold companies to budgets and timescales? Stop thinking "lets develop the technology while we go, it will all work out in the end"?

Do we really need to be discovering issues like these 12 years in?


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3626 posts, RR: 27
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8539 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Am I reading this correct.. block 1 software is only 80% complete, and they've mushed on with two supposedly more advanced versions without resolving the problems of the first?

then there is another structural cracking problem.. I think it's time for a manufacturing break until they finish designing and testing the planes already out there.

singed elevators? didn't we have singed flaps as well.. or are they testing material flammability? If it's the stealth coating burning off, there goes any surprise.

If the trend continues we'll have a sub sonic plane limited to 1.5 G turns and requiring a P-8 to guide it to it's target.   


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8441 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 7):
Do we really need to be discovering issues like these 12 years in?
Quoting kanban (Reply 8):
If the trend continues we'll have a sub sonic plane limited to 1.5 G turns and requiring a P-8 to guide it to it's target.

   I applaud you both, gentlemen. Spot on. Meeting the spec/timeframe has never been LockMart's intention here. It's about screwing taxpayers all over the world for as many    as possible.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8428 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9):
It's about screwing taxpayers all over the world for as many    as possible.

This thread just got better. I'll go get my tinfoil hat.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8303 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 10):
This thread just got better. I'll go get my tinfoil hat.

        

In the real world contractors normally pay penalties when they can't meet spec or sked.
They don't get rewarded with more cash.
I don't see why LockMart shouldn't be held to the same standard here.

And to think in 1984 I was poised to take a job in Sunnyvale, California, with ..... Lockheed.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1083 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8291 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 10):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9):
It's about screwing taxpayers all over the world for as many    as possible.

This thread just got better.

How come countries keep feeding money to this program? It must be obvious that the Raptor and other LM programs have NEVER produced an advanced aircraft or delivered the bang for the "Buck" that the customer ordered???

" I'll go get my tinfoil hat."

Me Too, Only, mine is a modified Titanium Alloy / Element Zero model... On a side note? Expect new F35 orders soon...  



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8258 times:

What a joke this thing is.


Time to kill the program.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8218 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 11):
In the real world contractors normally pay penalties when they can't meet spec or sked.
They don't get rewarded with more cash.
I don't see why LockMart shouldn't be held to the same standard here.

And to think in 1984 I was poised to take a job in Sunnyvale, California, with ..... Lockheed.

You mean like McDD when the F-15 failed to hit the original target speed of Mach 2 armed? Wait, that never happened, the Pentagon just revised the specs.

Or when Boeing failed to hit a weight specification of 30,000 pounds empty weight on the F/A-18E/F, or when severe wing-drop problems occured that defied resolution, despite the use of every aerodynamic analytical tool available? Not to mention the Super Hornet did not meet a sustained turn rate, maneuvering, and acceleration specification. They just revised the specs on that by declaring that speed, acceleration and sustained turn rate were not, and had never been, Key Performance Parameters for the Super Hornet.

The F-35 transonic acceleration specifications were written based on clean-configuration F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet fighter. But unlike the Hornet or the F-16, the F-35 has the same configuration unloaded as it does loaded with weapons and fuel. When an F/A-18 or F-16 is encumbered with weapons, pylons and fuel tanks, those jets are robbed of much of their performance.

Having said that, similarly configured F-35As, Bs and Cs have significantly better transonic acceleration than does the Super Hornet - even with the changes.

My entire point was that the previous generation fighters has been successful despite its much-discussed warts. There is no reason to believe the F-35 will not also be successful. Pure aerodynamic performance is always nice to have, but it isn't be any means the sole determinant of fighter effectiveness.

Quoting kanban (Reply 8):
then there is another structural cracking problem.. I think it's time for a manufacturing break until they finish designing and testing the planes already out there.

singed elevators? didn't we have singed flaps as well.. or are they testing material flammability? If it's the stealth coating burning off, there goes any surprise.

So what? We have initial production Super Hornets that were life-limited at ~1,500 hours initially, until they received structural mods that gave them the full 6,000 hour service life.

An interesting 'study' is to go back through each of the Annual Reports and read the report sections on Super Hornet. Almost like public service announcements from CHINFO or Boeing compared to our most recent 18-page tome on F-35. Also on SH, they broke out the AESA development from the air vehicle, report-wise, and took a long time to get around saying how bad APG-79 was after having said how good it was before they actually tested it. (Failed OT miserably and has taken years to fix it).


User currently offlineJohnM From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8194 times:

Ok I have it now. LockMart is bad, but the "other" guys are as bad if not worse.....

I say once LockMart gets the C-5M figured out, they can press on with the fancy pointy airplanes.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8171 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 14):
You mean like McDD when the F-15 failed to hit the original target speed of Mach 2 armed? Wait, that never happened, the Pentagon just revised the specs.

Or when Boeing failed to hit a weight specification of 30,000 pounds empty weight on the F/A-18E/F, or when severe wing-drop problems occured that defied resolution, despite the use of every aerodynamic analytical tool available? Not to mention the Super Hornet did not meet a sustained turn rate, maneuvering, and acceleration specification. They just revised the specs on that by declaring that speed, acceleration and sustained turn rate were not, and had never been, Key Performance Parameters for the Super Hornet.

And they should have penalised at that point. Moving the goalposts when you find out your product can't do what you publicly said it would do is just lying by another name. I will say in Boeing's defense that, w.r.t. the 787 delays, they did go way out of their way to offer compensation to the customers. In that, at least, they were honourable. And they used their own $$ to do this, they didn't put a hand out to JAL, ANA, AC, etc., and say "We need more $$". But that's exactly what happens with defense programs.

Quoting JohnM (Reply 15):
I say once LockMart gets the C-5M figured out, they can press on with the fancy pointy airplanes.

Aye to that. How many in service now ? Three, maybe ?



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3626 posts, RR: 27
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8141 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 14):
My entire point

we read your point thread after thread and it appears to be -- because other programs had problems that entailed huge expenses to correct, after 12 years of development, we should accept a shoddy product from an incompetent manufacturer and gladly pay double the procurement price to extensively modify and correct the deficiencies to meet substantially downward readjusted criteria. Your point has been not to accept this plane is in trouble, but to spend pages rehashing faults of previous planes as justification for incompetent design and manufacturing.

Yes maybe after 16 major mods and 500 prototypes the plane might meet some standards.. but read the article.. things are not improving.. they're stagnant!!!


Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 14):
singed elevators? didn't we have singed flaps as well.. or are they testing material flammability? If it's the stealth coating burning off, there goes any surprise.

So what?

So What? Tell me that all fighters are designed to light their tail feathers on fire.... Had LM not figured out the exhaust pattern before sticking stuff into it?

Also please remember the Super Hornet was designed not by Boeing but by MD...


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6724 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8095 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 6):
We should stop developing new technologies when they become too expensive and complex. Lets all live in caves and move around in horse carriages. Simple, cheap and safe.

Well actually most wars nowadays are against opponents that do live in caves and move on horses, dromedaries, the occasional pick up truck or city bus...



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8068 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 18):
Well actually most wars nowadays are against opponents that do live in caves and move on horses, dromedaries, the occasional pick up truck or city bus...

You are right lets risk the lives of western troops, whose lives are more valuable, just to save a buck. The western world doesn't tolerate casualties. I know there are people out there who like to cut every possible corner, thankfully those people don't have any say in actual operations.

Quoting kanban (Reply 17):
Also please remember the Super Hornet was designed not by Boeing but by MD...

We all know how Boeing failed miserably vs. LM in the 5th gen JSF competition. To think that the whale would've done better is a joke at best.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3626 posts, RR: 27
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8063 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 19):
We all know how Boeing failed miserably vs. LM in the 5th gen JSF competition.

that is probably one of the few things we might agree on...however had they won there would have been fewer problems in meeting specs. Thanks for the diversion, but that is not the issue now.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7563 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8045 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 19):
whose lives are more valuable

More valuable than whose?


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4017 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8026 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 19):
You are right lets risk the lives of western troops, whose lives are more valuable, just to save a buck

To date, 3256 US, UK and international troops have been killed by enemy action in Afghanistan.

How many of those were crewing aircraft that were shot down by enemy action? 8. All helicopters.

I don't see tens of billions of dollars on the F-35 is going to change that situation much.


User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8002 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 7):
Do we really need to be discovering issues like these 12 years in?

Six (6) years in...not twelve.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7993 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 16):
And they should have penalised at that point. Moving the goalposts when you find out your product can't do what you publicly said it would do is just lying by another name. I will say in Boeing's defense that, w.r.t. the 787 delays, they did go way out of their way to offer compensation to the customers. In that, at least, they were honourable. And they used their own $$ to do this, they didn't put a hand out to JAL, ANA, AC, etc., and say "We need more $$". But that's exactly what happens with defense programs.

Or the goal posts weren't realistic; for example, the design spec of the F-35 for all variants would have meant that the the F-35 would have better transonic maneuverability than anything other than F-22, and be more maneuverable than any US-developed fighter available.

Guess what? The OTE report is MEANT to point out the problems during development a new system so they can go back and review the specifications and see if it can be made to work. If you demand perfection from the beginning, any future system would be stuck in development hell.

And Boeing's just as bad with development; it's just not only did Boeing miss targets, they missed targets by a mile. And I will point out that the goal posts were moved for the 787; if you compared the initially released specifications to the specifications of the current 787, the current 787 would be grossly overweight.

Also, initial prices of the 787-8 was set at $120 million back in 2004; by 2007, it ballooned to $157 million, and today's list price of a 787-8 is $206.8 million.

[Edited 2013-01-16 02:00:49]

25 moo : Where do you get that from? The contract with Lockheed was signed on the 26th of October 2001. I'm not sure why you think the 5 years prior to the fi
26 moo : Todays 787 list price may be $206.8Million, but almost all customers who have put down a deposit and ordered the aircraft prior to today won't be pay
27 connies4ever : Doesn't matter. LM agreed to these goalposts at contract signing, therefore they are locked in. Contracts can be renegogiated, but that has to be vol
28 Powerslide : Enemy, Taliban, whomever we are fighting. That is the point. Having the best equipment allows pilots to stay out of harms way.
29 Flighty : Yes, we should. Otherwise we will lose our security. The Pentagon's #1 security worry is not military defeat of the USA. The USSR did not suffer a to
30 KiwiRob : What an arrogant comment.
31 kanban : Nice try at deflection.. this thread is not about Commercial programs.. it's about Military Programs .. The two are separate and distinct companies w
32 Powerslide : I don't give those guys any justification for being human beings.
33 KiwiRob : They are just as human as you and I, just because you don't share their beliefs doesn't make them any less human or there lives worth any less than y
34 flyingturtle : They also fight for something. Therefore, have some respect. Just because their goals differ does not make them less human. David
35 Revelation : I think it just means the problems will be pencil-whipped. As in Watergate, follow the money. It gets delayed when the money gets delayed. Interestin
36 connies4ever : Being Devil's advocate to some degree here, but wouldn't the Talibs make the same statement about the west ? Seems to me their world view w.r.t. wome
37 tommytoyz : ThePointblank: What you fail to appreciate in the design problems of all the other aircraft you mentioned is: They were all far better than anything i
38 connies4ever : In fairness, a lot of Pentagon staff (not necessarily flag officers) ARE MBA grads. Crap, I've been a scientist/engineer for the most part of my care
39 Powerslide : Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.
40 moo : Why do you keep doing it then? Back on topic - is the F-35 really worth the $100Billion+ that's being pumped into it? IMHO, no, not for what it's bec
41 kanban : the last thread was closed because two people not only couldn't let an issue rest after stating their views, but continued to flamebait with pages of
42 Powerslide : Lets kill it now and start over. Then once they figure everything out they'll end up spending another 100billion. Great idea....
43 ThePointblank : Actually, F-35 will carry 15,000lb of ordinance armed wall to wall with external ordinance in a similar configuration to existing fighters. If LO is
44 moo : Do we need to start over? Do we need to do anything for another decade? The F-22 and the F-35 were born in the cold war, thre hasn't been a point in
45 Revelation : So was slavery, etc. The point was about respecting combatants, but for me it's hard to respect those who think someone should be denied an education
46 moo : Out of interest, and read nothing into this, but what is your opinion of the opposing sides of the American War of Independence and American Civil Wa
47 tommytoyz : Mach dependent, high speed critical Angle of Attack can occur at any altitude. I think perhaps the real problem is that the F35, being a low observab
48 Post contains images bikerthai : Don't know anything about meeting specs, but I'm pretty sure the wings, although not pretty, would have been awesome structurally. Don't know about m
49 ThePointblank : Except for the fact that when it came to the demonstration of VTOL flight, the Boeing X-32 could not demonstrate vertical flight in a satisfactory fo
50 seahawk : Well F-18 Super Hronet, with all it problems, at least stayed reasonably within time and budget. P-8 does look okay as well.
51 ThePointblank : There is a reason for that; both programs were low cost, low risk derivatives of existing platforms. There was a report that showed the learning curv
52 Post contains links tommytoyz : Sustained turning performance for the F-35B is being reduced from 5G to 4.5G while the F-35A sinks from 5.3G to 4.6G according to the report. http://w
53 bikerthai : Yep, growth potential was part of it's down fall. Also, the hot wing tip jets , , , Ah, but it was system integration that waylaid the Wedgetail prog
54 moo : Considering neither the F-35 nor the F-22 share *any* commonality at all with their demonstrators, I'm not entirely sure thats a valid point.
55 bikerthai : This is particular true when you look at the inner structure of the tech demonstrators. Because they are only tech demonstrators, much of the interna
56 kanban : I hope no one is implying that there is no difference between the F-35 and the prototype used to win the competition... since we know there were many
57 Post contains links tommytoyz : http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ificant-operational-impact-381683/ Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalen
58 ThePointblank : Two problems: 1. There is no single "sustained turn rate" or sustained g for an airplane. Every speed, altitude, gross weight, power setting, and sto
59 flyingturtle : Only 150? How good is the hit rate? David
60 Max Q : Need to stop making excuses for this thing and ditch it.
61 Post contains images bikerthai : LOL . . . good enough to shoot and scoot . . . bt
62 tommytoyz : Even empty, the F-35 has a max sustained G limitation of under 5G. Loaded like you describe, I would assume even less. With these structural limitati
63 Post contains links and images KC135TopBoom : No, Boeing was set up to fail the JSF Compitition by the DOD. Just four months before the JSF contract was awarded, the Navy changed its specs for th
64 ThePointblank : Incorrect. The maximum sustained G limitation structurally of the F-35A and C are 9G's. B is 7G. What is being described is the loaded limit with wea
65 bikerthai : This is very true with minor technicalities: At that time "Boeing" included the former North American which built the P-51 etc . . . Boeing have some
66 Powerslide : You need to stop whining with one-line statements on F35 threads. It's childish and doesn't help the discussion. I'm glad. I wouldn't choose that thi
67 ThePointblank : And the lift fan DOES work; it performed better during the JSF testing than expected, and ultimately, it was a more sound approach to STOVL than the
68 XT6Wagon : At this rate the A-10 will be a better interceptor than the F-35. The rate at which range, payload, and manuverablity keep dropping off the F-35 mean
69 KC135TopBoom : The USN had a lot of succes with the F-8 and A-7. Get real. The Chinese and Russian tactics are to swam the incoming package with lots of cheap fight
70 tommytoyz : Not true. You need to read what the baseline is, not sales brochures from 1 year ago. I don't even think you know what that means. Going to a high Ao
71 rwessel : I'm not sure where the 150 rounds came from, but the F-16's 20mm cannon carries some 510 rounds, the F-35's 25mm cannon has 182 rounds in the interna
72 Post contains links ThePointblank : I have read the baseline, and it is clear to me what the baseline is: http://2011.uploaded.fresh.co.il/2011/05/18/36290792.pdf See page 9, Figure 3.
73 Max Q : Very well said, if ever there was a case to ditch a weapons system this is it. Buy a few hundred more F22's and keep ugrading and building the superb
74 Post contains images Powerslide : No one knows how many fighters Russia and China will deploy, but it sure as hell won't be the amount of allied F35's, F22's, F-16's and F-15 that wil
75 kanban : dang here we go again.. pages of rehash.. trouble is while both sides swear to be the only truth around, both have lost creditably to the point nobody
76 bikerthai : No more than an F-18 considering the nose gear is behind the inlet as opposed to being in front of the inlet. I'll be interested to know how high off
77 tommytoyz : That is a college paper from five years ago (April, 2008), Figure 3 is full of old sales brochure figures from back then, including acceleration figu
78 Post contains images connies4ever : And we should be listening to your opinion, then ? Sure it was the mouth ? My uncle, ex-RCAF, ex-fighter pilot (Voodoo, F-16 {on exchange}) is dead s
79 Powerslide : Has he flown the F-35? If not, then his opinion is just as good (pointless) as anyone else's.
80 connies4ever : How charitable of you to comment on someone who wore the uniform for which you claim to have so much respect. You know, in life you get the respect y
81 Powerslide : That is nice however it doesn't qualify him on this F35 matter. I don't care for respect on internet forums. Who cares. Really. I disparage others' o
82 Max Q : Who, at this point mostly comprise test Pilots and may be just a little biased..
83 Powerslide : You are right......active military pilots are paid by Lockheed Martin to lie. All the capabilities that the F35 has over the legacy jets doesn't exis
84 XT6Wagon : You know, they do have to keep thier mouths shut BECAUSE they are active military pilots right? Thanks for playing this episode of "random internet d
85 jetblueguy22 : This thread has gotten a little heated and in order to not gut the thread it will be locked to further posts. Thanks Blue
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Turkey Delays F-35 Decision posted Fri Jan 11 2013 06:37:28 by TK787
Canada Scraps F-35 Purchase posted Thu Dec 6 2012 17:37:47 by FighterPilot
AFM: F-35 Can Supercruise posted Sat Nov 3 2012 14:58:39 by ThePointblank
Air Force Association Magazine On F-35 posted Tue Oct 2 2012 20:48:37 by ThePointblank
F-35 On Exhibition In Front Of Oslo Town Hall posted Fri Aug 31 2012 15:43:25 by Mortyman
F-35 Milestone - First Successful Weapons Drop posted Thu Aug 9 2012 21:14:19 by ThePointblank
F-35 Sonic Boom posted Sat Aug 4 2012 15:03:06 by 787atPAE
F-35 And Burlington, VT posted Thu Jul 5 2012 10:12:24 by ChrisNH
GAO On F-35, June 2012 posted Fri Jun 29 2012 13:37:21 by tommytoyz
Talk Of F-35 Project Being Scrapped! posted Sat Apr 28 2012 19:03:19 by Zkpilot