05 September 2014

Defense News

I tire of breathless reports about the failings of the F-35 program that don't mention which variant they're talking about.

It's actually three different planes.  There's so little commonality between them they should have been the F-24A, FV-25A and F/A-26A instead of F-35A, F-35B and F-35C respectively.

Never mind that it should never have kept the -35 designation from the X series anyway!  If I get on a designation system rant I'll be all day since I don't think that F/A-18E or F and the related EF-18G should be -18 but should have gotten a new designation number.  But the politics of acquisition spoke louder than using the defined system...

F-35 has a bulkhead crack!  Some F-35B have a crack, and it is likely related to stresses from the front lift fan and the ginormous barn door on top.  I've yet to read an explanation as to why they changed to that large door from the smaller ones.

F-35 tail-hook ineffective!  That's specific to the F-35C.  The emergency hook on the F-35A works just fine.

Grumble...
at

4 comments:

  1. Tam05 September, 2014 19:53

    Generalized F-35 hate is the skinny jeans and neck tattoos of warbird enthusiasts. It's how you spot a hipster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Angus McThag05 September, 2014 23:10

      I do worry that the program was too ambitious and the doors of Lock-Mart are a money event-horizon.

      But looking back at the disaster that was F-14A in the early 1970's and what a fine bird that turned out to be, I think it may be entirely too soon to count the F-35 program as unwinnable.

      Delete
    2. Tam09 September, 2014 21:39

      ...or the 'Vark. Not really a fighter or strategic bomber, but it turned out to have a couple tasks it was pretty good at.

      Delete
    3. Angus McThag10 September, 2014 15:24

      You mean the "wings fall off" problem from the pilot deployment in Vietnam? Or was it the stabilators?

      The one eleven should really have had an A designation, which the Air Force just can't cognizance.

      I'd really say that the 111 was the logical extension of where they were headed with the F-105. Faster, lower, longer, more accurate. I've occasionally wondered if the Navy hadn't been fully vested in the A-6 if an attack version of the 'Vark would have suited their needs.

      But like the Thud, the F-111 wasn't a fighter despite the designation.

      Delete

You are a guest here when you comment. This is my soapbox, not yours. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.

Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.

If you're trying to comment anonymously: You can't. Log into your Google account.

If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.