3 ms·

I'm curious: how do the F-35's development troubles compare to other recent fighters, like the F-22 or Eurofighter? Are they objectively worse, or are the memo

I'm curious: how do the F-35's development troubles compare to other recent fighters, like the F-22 or Eurofighter? Are they objectively worse, or are the memories just fresher?

DrJokepu 11y ago
The F-16 used to be called "lawn dart" for a reason.
- gherkin0 11y ago
  Was that due to development problems, though? This article claims the nickname comes from the fact that it's a single-engine fighter: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,154457,00.html http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,154457,00.html > The F-16 is known in Air Force circles as the "lawn dart" for its tendency to plunge back to Earth when its single engine flames out, and in most years, engine failure causes more accidents than any other factor.
  - greedo 11y ago
    The F-16A was a useless fighter; nothing but guns and IR missiles, only useful in good weather. It wasn't until it received a series of upgrades that it became a valuable workhorse. And surprisingly, it became more expensive an heavier in the process.
  - neurotech1 11y ago
    The F-16 has made a successful engine-out landing before, when the conditions allow. Earlier jets like the F-104 were almost impossible to land engine-out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puia_yQxir8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puia_yQxir8 And how many F-14s were lost as a result of single-engine handling performance issues? F-14s have departed from controlled flight after one engine stalls, and entered a flat spin. Yes, the scene in Top Gun was somewhat based on real events. A few F/A-18s have been lost due to issues with single-engine performance. The F/A-18 doesn't have as much issues with asymmetric thrust, single engine flight isn't always possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Virginia_Beach_F/A-18_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Virginia_Beach_F/A-18_cra...
- greedo 11y ago
  The F-14 was a huge hangar queen too; requiring an inordinate amount of work between flights. It had a terrible set of engines until the F404 arrived. F-22 was a mess with it's oxygen system. F-15s mysteriously broke apart in mid-air, though this was unexpected wingbox fatigue late in their lives. The Navy had the "Gutless Cutlass" Vought F7. The USAF had the F104 nicknamed the Widowmaker; IIRC, more Luftwaffe pilots died flying this type than any other aircraft.
  - abrowne 11y ago
    > The USAF had the F104 nicknamed the Widowmaker; IIRC, more Luftwaffe pilots died flying this type than any other aircraft. This sentence made no sense until I realized the German air force is still called the Luftwaffe.
gozur88 11y ago
The technical problems are par for the course. What's different about the F-35 is cost - they failed in the quest to be the new F-16 to the F-22's F-15. For decades the US has pursued a high-low strategy, meaning a small number of very expensive, very high performance aircraft and a large number of inexpensive (but still good) aircraft. Where the F-35 went off the rails is on the "inexpensive" part. We would have been better off buying more F-22s for air superiority and keeping the F-16 for strike missions.

I'm curious: how do the F-35's development troubles compare to other recent fighters, like the F-22 or Eurofighter? Are they objectively worse, or are the memories just fresher?

DrJokepu 11y ago

The F-16 used to be called "lawn dart" for a reason.

gherkin0 11y ago
Was that due to development problems, though? This article claims the nickname comes from the fact that it's a single-engine fighter: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,154457,00.html http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,154457,00.html > The F-16 is known in Air Force circles as the "lawn dart" for its tendency to plunge back to Earth when its single engine flames out, and in most years, engine failure causes more accidents than any other factor.
- greedo 11y ago
  The F-16A was a useless fighter; nothing but guns and IR missiles, only useful in good weather. It wasn't until it received a series of upgrades that it became a valuable workhorse. And surprisingly, it became more expensive an heavier in the process.
- neurotech1 11y ago
  The F-16 has made a successful engine-out landing before, when the conditions allow. Earlier jets like the F-104 were almost impossible to land engine-out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puia_yQxir8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puia_yQxir8 And how many F-14s were lost as a result of single-engine handling performance issues? F-14s have departed from controlled flight after one engine stalls, and entered a flat spin. Yes, the scene in Top Gun was somewhat based on real events. A few F/A-18s have been lost due to issues with single-engine performance. The F/A-18 doesn't have as much issues with asymmetric thrust, single engine flight isn't always possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Virginia_Beach_F/A-18_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Virginia_Beach_F/A-18_cra...
greedo 11y ago
The F-14 was a huge hangar queen too; requiring an inordinate amount of work between flights. It had a terrible set of engines until the F404 arrived. F-22 was a mess with it's oxygen system. F-15s mysteriously broke apart in mid-air, though this was unexpected wingbox fatigue late in their lives. The Navy had the "Gutless Cutlass" Vought F7. The USAF had the F104 nicknamed the Widowmaker; IIRC, more Luftwaffe pilots died flying this type than any other aircraft.
- abrowne 11y ago
  > The USAF had the F104 nicknamed the Widowmaker; IIRC, more Luftwaffe pilots died flying this type than any other aircraft. This sentence made no sense until I realized the German air force is still called the Luftwaffe.

gozur88 11y ago

The technical problems are par for the course. What's different about the F-35 is cost - they failed in the quest to be the new F-16 to the F-22's F-15. For decades the US has pursued a high-low strategy, meaning a small number of very expensive, very high performance aircraft and a large number of inexpensive (but still good) aircraft. Where the F-35 went off the rails is on the "inexpensive" part. We would have been better off buying more F-22s for air superiority and keeping the F-16 for strike missions.