5 ms·

OP's article is an anecdote, true, but it is one of many similar anecdotes. There are a number of factual data that support criticism of the F-35. >The article

OP's article is an anecdote, true, but it is one of many similar anecdotes. There are a number of factual data that support criticism of the F-35. >The article represents the analysis, abridged and without context, of one tester in one test of a system If what you're waiting for is some kind of controlled comprehensive experiment and lots of data, that's something you'll never get. It's something that the pentagon may even not get until many years of operation, and something that neither they nor Lockheed will ever share with the public. You'll have to make your decisions about the issue with imperfect information. >I don't know if dog-fighting is relevant; If it isn't, why build a fighter? Re: The propaganda. It exists on all sides of this F-35 debate. The author makes no secret of the fact that he is not a fan of the program. I also don't see much in the way of inflammatory language in the article that the author is supposedly trying to use to elicit anger or emotion. So, I am not sure what you're on about in that respect.

snowwrestler 11y ago
You can also look at it the other way--we have fighters, and what do they spend most of their time doing? The F-16 was designed expressly to win dog fights, but today most F-16 combat missions are air-to-ground. So when designing the plane to replace the F-16, it might make sense to take that balance of missions into account.
- lotharbot 11y ago
  The main reason the F-16's missions are primarily air-to-ground is because nobody wants to fly against it (especially not now, with F-22 support.) If you stop (successfully) designing aircraft to win air-to-air engagements, an opponent can focus on winning air-to-air engagements, and pretty soon it'll be their aircraft that are being used in ground attack roles ;)
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  So, a new attack aircraft instead of a new fighter? I'd go for that. I'd even go for a new fighter that fights (to ensure air superiority), and a new attack aircraft. I think you'd get better results in both areas and spend a lot less money.

snowwrestler 11y ago

You can also look at it the other way--we have fighters, and what do they spend most of their time doing? The F-16 was designed expressly to win dog fights, but today most F-16 combat missions are air-to-ground. So when designing the plane to replace the F-16, it might make sense to take that balance of missions into account.

lotharbot 11y ago
The main reason the F-16's missions are primarily air-to-ground is because nobody wants to fly against it (especially not now, with F-22 support.) If you stop (successfully) designing aircraft to win air-to-air engagements, an opponent can focus on winning air-to-air engagements, and pretty soon it'll be their aircraft that are being used in ground attack roles ;)
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
So, a new attack aircraft instead of a new fighter? I'd go for that. I'd even go for a new fighter that fights (to ensure air superiority), and a new attack aircraft. I think you'd get better results in both areas and spend a lot less money.