3 ms·

I spoke to an RAAF test pilot a few weeks ago who confirmed the stories that this plane is an absolute lemon. It's trying to be too many things and failing at

I spoke to an RAAF test pilot a few weeks ago who confirmed the stories that this plane is an absolute lemon. It's trying to be too many things and failing at all of them.

zobzu 11y ago
I spoke to a USAF pilot and he said the F-35 is a decent plane, easy to fly, well equipped even thus no match for specialized fighters its decently good at everything. Here's the problem though. None of your comment or these article bring any proof and is more of a click-bait than anything else. It's trendy to hit on them, that's all really. Also, I did actually talk to that pilot and a few others from other aircrafts as its actually an easy thing to do in the US so easy to do/verify on your own for many of us: since many HN readers are in the bay area, just visit the boats for SF's Fleet week - it's free, and there's always marine pilots of all kinds onboard (mainly heli, but also a few F-35, harrier and osprey pilots.
- neurotech1 11y ago
  I concur. The F-35 is a decent aircraft performance wise. It might not be quite as agile as an F-16 in airshow configuration, but when carrying a combat load, the F-35 has the edge. When it comes to the F-35 sensor package, its a huge leap beyond the F-16.
  - titzer 11y ago
    Not for the price. $1 trillion is a really step price tag for a "decent aircraft". As for the sensor package and stealth, I'm not entirely sure that suitable upgrades to the F-16 and F-18 series wouldn't have been a better option. Besides, for $1trillion, it should be possible to develop three or four different aircraft with specialist capabilities and use them together.
    - zobzu 11y ago
      i agree, albeit by that rationale you'd better get a Rafale - its the same kind of plane as the F35, minus a few nice features but much cheaper. Which is exactly why the only nations getting an F35 are US allies not making their own aircrafts. others either: -make their own (Eurofighters, SU35S, PAK, etc.) -get get older planes (F15s in particular) -French Rafales.
engi_nerd 11y ago
But the F-35 is still a big leap over his previous aircraft. I wonder what he doesn't like? Saying it's an "absolute lemon" is descriptive but not specifically informative.
ThrowawayZTN 11y ago
I'm a RAAF engineer; there are some pilots that don't like it, but they're in the minority. They're typically the guys that aren't very open minded in general and are literally just making their opinions off low-quality journalism they see on Facebook, etc. I've spoken to many other pilots and even the star-ranks that are in charge of the program, even dined with the CDF, and they're all firm believers in the jet's capabilities and would love to fly it for a living. I've also done quite a bit of research myself, and the jet's stealth, radar, EO/IR sensors, payload, range and EW capabilities are all top-class, with many being the best in the world. If I were a knucklehead, I'd definitely trade a Hornet / Super Hornet / Growler for an F-35.

I spoke to an RAAF test pilot a few weeks ago who confirmed the stories that this plane is an absolute lemon. It's trying to be too many things and failing at all of them.

zobzu 11y ago

I spoke to a USAF pilot and he said the F-35 is a decent plane, easy to fly, well equipped even thus no match for specialized fighters its decently good at everything. Here's the problem though. None of your comment or these article bring any proof and is more of a click-bait than anything else. It's trendy to hit on them, that's all really. Also, I did actually talk to that pilot and a few others from other aircrafts as its actually an easy thing to do in the US so easy to do/verify on your own for many of us: since many HN readers are in the bay area, just visit the boats for SF's Fleet week - it's free, and there's always marine pilots of all kinds onboard (mainly heli, but also a few F-35, harrier and osprey pilots.

neurotech1 11y ago
I concur. The F-35 is a decent aircraft performance wise. It might not be quite as agile as an F-16 in airshow configuration, but when carrying a combat load, the F-35 has the edge. When it comes to the F-35 sensor package, its a huge leap beyond the F-16.
- titzer 11y ago
  Not for the price. $1 trillion is a really step price tag for a "decent aircraft". As for the sensor package and stealth, I'm not entirely sure that suitable upgrades to the F-16 and F-18 series wouldn't have been a better option. Besides, for $1trillion, it should be possible to develop three or four different aircraft with specialist capabilities and use them together.
  - zobzu 11y ago
    i agree, albeit by that rationale you'd better get a Rafale - its the same kind of plane as the F35, minus a few nice features but much cheaper. Which is exactly why the only nations getting an F35 are US allies not making their own aircrafts. others either: -make their own (Eurofighters, SU35S, PAK, etc.) -get get older planes (F15s in particular) -French Rafales.

engi_nerd 11y ago

But the F-35 is still a big leap over his previous aircraft. I wonder what he doesn't like? Saying it's an "absolute lemon" is descriptive but not specifically informative.

ThrowawayZTN 11y ago

I'm a RAAF engineer; there are some pilots that don't like it, but they're in the minority. They're typically the guys that aren't very open minded in general and are literally just making their opinions off low-quality journalism they see on Facebook, etc. I've spoken to many other pilots and even the star-ranks that are in charge of the program, even dined with the CDF, and they're all firm believers in the jet's capabilities and would love to fly it for a living. I've also done quite a bit of research myself, and the jet's stealth, radar, EO/IR sensors, payload, range and EW capabilities are all top-class, with many being the best in the world. If I were a knucklehead, I'd definitely trade a Hornet / Super Hornet / Growler for an F-35.