Warbird Information Exchange

I've taken some time and have read the wiki page and have watched many YouTube videos on this aircraft. It sounds horrible! Have we/did we/are we building such an unmitigated disaster of an airplane? A few examples of performance that I recall: 1) requires 43 seconds longer to accelerate from mach .8 to mach 1.2 than an F-16? 2) has a top speed of mach 1.6 on near 50,000 lbs of thrust? 3) that the Chinese hacked Lockheed's computers and stole a lot of code, in a code dependent aircraft, plus possibly pilfered some inflight telemetry during testing? 4) LO stealth is only in a very restricted range from the frontal aspect. That when it turns tail to "try" to run home it's goose is cooked? 5) and on, and on, and on...? 5) and lets not even talk about the stupid crazy unit cost/program cost overruns.

Is this the truth? Is there good news out there that I'm not privy to? They (Lockheed/the Air Force) intimate that the analyst naysayers aren't aware of certain "top secret" design features and weapons when they analyze and war game the airplane - that we need to "trust" that they aren't building a turkey that "can't shoot, can't turn and can't run".

I am having a hard time believing that we are so incompetent, but I might have to put my big boy pants on and accept that we can do something that FUBAR.

Are there any out there with the straight gouge on this bird?

Sounds like we should have attached a tail hook to the F-22 for the Navy, given some to the Maines (and reminded them that runways exist) and made some more for the AF.

_________________
Cessna 195

Grab a drink and a snack, GOOGLE Canadian TV CBC 'Fifth Estate' click on or select 'Runaway Fighter'. At the end of 55 minuites you'll step on your lower jaw after watching the three card monty scam Locoweed is running on Canadians. Listen carefully to the double speak slippery 'you need to buy this rusted out RAMBLER wagon explanation' the Locoweed Exec gives a crowd concerning costs for this dog. And we all know what you get when you polish a terd-

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

The big compromise was including STOVL for the Marines. That drove a big fuselage and other issues. A bad decision, IMO.

That said, with stand-off weapons (AMRAAM) and A2G standoff stuff, front aspect stealth is the primary consideration. You get relatively close using stealth, fire, then extend out of range before you're targeted. A retreating M1 target 10 or 20 miles away is a tough solution for most A2A or G2A weapons. The platform isn't designed for an up-close and personal mission in A2A or A2G.

This is the set of compromises we are buying. If you (we) are OK fighting a stand-off war, the F-35 is a fine, but expensive, choice. If it turns into a close quarters battle, there are quite a few platforms out there with better dynamic performance, but without much, if any, stealth.

The end-all, be-all (F-22 or equivalent) costs more...

Jack of all trades master of none is used a lot for the F-111 and F-4. Multi-use fighters to appease all services seem to end up that way. Ignoring the close in fighter style combat requirements has caused problems before. Gone are the days where we can scratch design/build a world class fighter with slide rules and ingenuity in 117 days to meet an immediate need. The F-22 was a 1986 RFP. First delivery seventeen years later in 2003.

I guess only time will tell.

_________________
Cessna 195

Unfortunately, in an era of shrinking budgets, there is a trend to make aircraft into Swiss Army Knives. Back in the day, the Air Force would have a request: We need a plane to carry recon gear and it has to go very, very, very fast. The engineers would turn out an SR-71. Now that same request would be: "We need a plane to carry recon gear, go very very fast, carry missiles and bombs, be able to dogfight, be used from concrete runways and aircraft carriers and needs a STOL capability". What you get is crap.

In the 1960s, the concept was called TFX -- a fighter that both the Air Force and Navy could use. That ended up becoming the F-111. While the F-111 ended up being a remarkable strike aircraft, it did not fulfill the role originally envisioned for it: a fighter that both Air Force and Navy could use. Once both services crammed the plane with everything they thought it needed to do its mission, it became far too large and heavy to be an effective fighter. The past is prologue.

You Lockheed haters....get real.
If the OP got most of his information from you tube, I'd say he's already made up his mind. There is a ton of anti-35 propaganda out there...all of it overlooking the fact that Lockheed and the DoD does know what they're doing.

(A pet peeve is the frequent overuse here of derogatory nicknames...like Lockoweed, etc. It's only not funny the first time. Repeated use annoying, not cute or witty).

As pointed out above, it's time for the "Jack of all trades" warplanes.
Look at the reality of defense budgets here and abroad. Look at the UK forces (in quantity, not quality) and it will make the US military look great by comparison.

Mods: Please put this stuff in the Military Matters Forum...not the Hangar.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

Here's a different point of view on the F-35 that's worth reading. Apologies to the "WIX Link Police" for posting this, but I think our members would find it interesting. I know I did.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomps ... ng-nicely/

I agree with JohnB that this thread should be moved to the Military Matters zone rather than Warbirds. Mods?

_________________
Dean Hemphill, K5DH
Lake Dallas, Republic of Texas

Yeah, lt's have a round of modern AIRACUDAS and Bf-110/210/410's or DEFIANTS, how about an upgraded A-18?
Some fine examples of 'jack of all trades, master of none' aircraft.
Please tell us what was the last LAC built airplane that was anywhere close to right the first 6 or 7 times and not needing zillons of dollars of 'corrections' or 'minor' redesigns to keep things like the wings from flapping off the airplane (and don't raise the SR-71, no one will ever know what it cost to keep those flying), airlines weren't interested in a running R & D program on the awful L-1011 (I built those and I wouldn't get on one to escape a rebel invasion) Near as I can figure the last, least trouble free design form LAC was the C-130 back in 1953.

And, it's LOCOWEED

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Who are you holding up as a paragon of success? I can't think of many aircraft in modern times that went from drawing board into service without hiccups - some major, some minor. See: Dreamliner.

Sorry that you are so upset about my inquiry for knowledge of a particular warbird. I'm not calling anybody or anything names. Additionally, the MMF header says this:

Military Matters
This section is for discussion of all things military, past or present, that are not aviation related. Armor, Infantry, Navy stuff all welcome here.

Is the F-35 not a warbird and is the discussion not aviation related? Then why not this forum?

I want to know more about this airplane, that's why I asked - I know there are people on this forum more knowledgeable on this subject than I. Why do you want to squelch this? Why don't you add to the discussion since you obviously have positive information on this aircraft? Why don't you share that - it's what I'm looking for. I don't want to believe the worst about the F-35 and Lockheed. Help a brother out!

Maybe it's not possible for anyone to add anything more than opinion, but the news stories and analysis that I've dredged up so far have been scathing in their indictment of the aircraft/program/company. Certainly if there is an opposing view it would be on the interweb somewhere! Point me to it!

Thank you.

Now that's more like what I'm after! It doesn't make sense that if this program were such a boondoggle that all the many different partner nations would still be aboard.

That said, the quoted performance standards still seem a bit weak. Is there any refuting evidence to it's speed, maneuverability, acceleration, etc. Also, is the alleged theft of the computer code real and if so, was it critical to aircraft, pilot, mission safety/accomplishment?

ps: I still think it's in the right forum.

The airplane is dynamically limited due to being stealthy and having an overly large fuselage. Again, the bay for the lift fan (among other things) drove the large fuselage, which had negative consequences for the other versions.

Whatever the answer is regarding the computer code, I doubt we'll ever know all of the facts.

The reality is that unless you're in an F-22, the F-35 is the best platform out there. Stealth and integrated information systems are extremely valuable.

See F-15 See F-16 See A-10 See 727 See DC-9-The 787's issues are mostly with the know nothing, give a crap less folks around the world who do all the subassembly work and I know that first hand.
Working on the L-1011 I had the unshakeable opinion that LAC was run by the Three Stooges with tech support by the Marx Bros. I witnessed serious structural items that anyone else would have busted their butts to correct, get signed off after a 5 minute 'off to the side' conversation between the shop General Super and the QC Supervisor, fraudulent selloffs of undone work by the simple expediant of moving airplane 3's paperwork into airplane 2's buyoff logs, getting the 'work' sold off to some poor green QC and then the paperwork moved back into the correct book during break time.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

If you have ever worked for Lockheed, you would understand why people call it Locoweed!