"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter the New F-4?" Topic

"The jet fighter can't maneuver, the critics say. It's based on a wrongheaded concept. It relies on unproved technologies. It's a one-size-fits-all jet for the Air Force, Navy and Marines, and yet it doesn't really meet any of their needs.

Is this Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter I'm describing? No, it's actually the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, the ubiquitous fighter-bomber, reconnaissance and radar-hunting aircraft that formed the backbone of U.S., NATO and Israeli air power in the 1960s and 1970s. More than 50 years later, the Phantom still flies, as evident when Syrian gunners downed a Turkish RF-4 recon plane last year.

While the Phantom still has many fans, it also had quite a few detractors. And many of those complaints are eerily similar to the criticisms now aimed at the Joint Strike Fighter. Is the F-4 a guide to what we can expect from the F-35?…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Or should that be F-104 ?

I suspect the F-35 will never live up to the Phantom's historical performance level.

I submit that better historical equivalents would be the much vaunted, Banshees, Demons, or Skyrays, from back in the day…….

Haven't you already posted this?

I remember reading something like this before….

If the F35 is as successful as the F4 Phantom, LockMart will be thrilled.

Colin Chapman's words for the ages.

Ron

P.S. No, I'm not fond of the F-35.

the only thing that saved the F4 was that they turned it into a light bomber it was never any good as a dog fighter its over powered engines and its super high payload saved it from being a total fail… 2 things the F35 does not have going for it.

You do realize that the F35's engine pushes 40,000lbs of thrust, right?

And the F35 can carry 13,000lbs of ordnance externally for a total of 18,000lbs.

"And the F35 can carry 13,000lbs of ordnance externally for a total of 18,000lbs".

Which, of course, totally negates any extremely expensive, stealth capabilities it may have (which are apparently somewhat over-rated anyway, since it is only really stealthy from the frontal arc, when not loaded down with external ordnance).

so its a F4 that costs 10 times more???? :)

F-35 was downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable",

RAND study found that during development the three different versions had drifted so far apart from each other that having a single base design might now be more expensive than if the three services had simply built entirely different aircraft tailored to their own requirements.

The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan.

using the afterburner damages the aircraft.

and the big one: Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified (it does not take that long to replace all 8 engines on a B-52) :)

out of 100 planes built and in testing only 30 are able to fly the other 70 are so damaged to the point of being called scrap/unrepairable… only 5 were used for test to fail testing. the rest just could not stand up to being used as an aircraft.

RAND study found that during development the three different versions had drifted so far apart from each other that having a single base design might now be more expensive than if the three services had simply built entirely different aircraft tailored to their own requirements.

Sometimes life sends us valuable lessons; surely this is one of them.

Ron

To be honest, I thought that the Boeing X32 would have been better for the Marines (simpler hovering system and much better view out of the cockpit), but the USAF wouldn't be caught dead in a bird that ugly. After all, the X32 looks like a cross between the A7 and F106…

I know the USAF variant actually was helped a lot by the weight concerns of the F35B. Resulted in a bird lighter than originally anticipated.

But as far as the ordnance goes, the F117 could carry two weapons of up to 2500lbs each. The A12 Avenger was designed to carry 2x 2000lb bombs, 2x AMRAAMs, and 2x HARMs. The F35A and -C can carry 2x 2000lb bombs and 2x AMRAAMs internally. Because of the LiftFan, the -B is limited to 1000lb bombs. So the F35 is already about as good as the A12 was planned to be and is faster, stealthier, and much more maneuverable. But the A12 had no capability to carry external ordnance whatsoever, while the F35 can load up and carry a whole lot more ordnance if the opposing air defenses suck.

Would I have insisted on an F35 that could carry as much as the A12 internally? Yes. But if you want to carry more than 5000lbs internally, you need a dang big plane. Bigger than an F111, in fact, since even the 'Vark only holds ~5000lbs internally. You would need a bomb bay some 72" wide (minimum) to hold a loaded 8-round rotary launcher as used by the B52, B1, and B2.