Bump for more news:
Air Force grounds F-35A operations at training base after pilots suffered hypoxia
Will this fighter ever really work? I'm not holding my breath.
That's the problem with the F-35, it's going to quite vulnerable to large numbers of older generation planes in close quarters. I mean the F-35 can't even carry that many missiles. When you are out of ammo you won't be able to run away, since it's a Mach 1.7 max airframe. The F-22 will probably be the first one's in contested airspace as it has the most powerful thrust of any jet-fighter ever made and can actual gun the engines and run if need be.
Good memory!Kind of interesting that the localized problem is affecting the same subsystem that grounded F-22s for a while. /shrug
___________
Well, you don't send a fighter/bomber squadron against a advanced military powers without interceptor support. Course, congress killed the F-22 program early, so we'll be using F-15s/16s.
Bump for more news:
Air Force grounds F-35A operations at training base after pilots suffered hypoxia
Will this fighter ever really work? I'm not holding my breath.
People who just want to throw stones cant be bothered to understand the difference between an attack fighter and an air superiority fighter. They'd rather just compare apples to oranges and celebrate. The F-35 can't fly at the altitude of the U-2, go as fast as the SR-71, or carry the ordinance load of a B-52. Therefore it clearly is a total failure.
The F-35 airframe is pretty much at parity with the F-22 at this point
If F-35s have to be escorted by F-22s to survive their mission
why not just have more F-22s?
If the F-16 airframe cost as much as the F-15, people would just buy more F-15s. Nobody intentionally buys a worse inferior product under the same budget just because some bean counters insist a piece of military hardware has given a defined title. That kind of reasoning is like the thought cognitive dissonance that goes on with military historians on the roles of tank destroyers and tanks.
The F-35 airframe is pretty much at parity with the F-22 at this point, and is a clearly inferior airframe. If F-35s have to be escorted by F-22s to survive their mission, why not just have more F-22s?
If the F-16 airframe cost as much as the F-15, people would just buy more F-15s. Nobody intentionally buys a worse inferior product under the same budget just because some bean counters insist a piece of military hardware has given a defined title. That kind of reasoning is like the thought cognitive dissonance that goes on with military historians on the roles of tank destroyers and tanks.
The F-35 airframe is pretty much at parity with the F-22 at this point, and is a clearly inferior airframe. If F-35s have to be escorted by F-22s to survive their mission, why not just have more F-22s?
I feel bad for the Navy. They used to have an Air Superiority Fighter (F-14). Then they went to the F-18, which was a pretty balanced design, IMHO. In the future they'll only have F-35 were there is a heavier trade off of close combat capability in favor of stealth - again, IMHO. But I haven't seen any air-combat videos, etc.
The F-35 is better than the super hornet in practically every aspect. Better fighter, better ground attack, better stealth, better range.
And the F-35 is flying again, even though they don't know what caused the oxygen problems. They do have a list of things that didn't cause the problem, though, including "aircraft maintenance issues and procedures surrounding pilots' flight equipment." I think that means it could still be a design flaw.