3 ms·
It is a huge waste of money ~$200m each. The project has been plagued with technical problems (it doesn't meet its performance specifications, it has structura
by fasteddie31003 13y ago
It is a huge waste of money ~$200m each.
The project has been plagued with technical problems (it doesn't meet its performance specifications, it has structural problems, etc.).
It does not perform any better than current fighter planes in war game simulations.
It is being made for a war that we will never fight with fighter planes. I wonder if America has fought its last human controlled air-to-air dog fight, or it will be extremely rare.
And it was shoved down the Pentagon's throat by lobbyists.
Take a look for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_...
- toomuchtodo 13y ago> I wonder if America has fought its last human controlled air-to-air dog fight, or it will be extremely rare. Yes. Drones and long-range weapons delivery (either high energy or SCRAM-driven missiles). Fighter jets? Might as well call out the buggy whips and horse drawn carriages. Obligatory A-10 shoutout: We still need something that can provide air-to-ground support to ground troops with a long dwell time, but high-speed cruise to fast deployment (shamelessly stolen from The Avengers: http://www.impdb.org/images/a/ae/Avengers2012CGI_2.jpg http://www.impdb.org/images/a/ae/Avengers2012CGI_2.jpg).
- philwelch 13y agoThere is a F-35 variant that's designed to provide close air support, but it's the USMC variant and it's designed to replace the Harrier, which is little consolation to the Army. Of course, designing the same airframe to replace both the Harrier and the F-16 is a ridiculous notion and the F-35 suffers for it.