Citat:
Exakt vad jag tyckte också. Är det wing load faktorn som spökar?
Läste detta som jag tycker liknar en rejäl sågning:
"Retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Gary North, vice president for customer requirements at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, stated "there’s a part of Israel in every F-35 that’s ever been built."
1. The F-35 does not have stealth capabilities. The F-117 was shot down with 1960s tech, and the F-35's radar signature is not much better given relative advances by the Russians in anti-air missile technology.
2. It does not have a relevant internal combat load at ~2950kg- its enough for 4 missiles, or 1 bomb. When it is loaded up externally, its performance is unacceptable relative to other comparable aircraft (F-16, F-15, F-18). Without air cover this aircraft can't be counted on to hold its own (see point 10)
3. The price is out of line at 100-120 million a plane, set to rise to 200 million. You could have 10 A-10s for the price of 1 F-35, or more realistically 2 F-16s and 4-6 A-10s- or just about any assortment of 2 Gen 4++ fighters and four Gen 4 CAS. Russians can produce nearly 3-5 comparable fighters (SU-35, Mig-35). Same is true for Europeans. Any argument regarding stealth should see point 1. Wouldn't capitalism demand a lower price for inferior products? (See point 5.)
4. The F-35 takes nearly twice the amount of maintenance on the ground as the F-22, F-16, F-15 and F-18. Even though it has decreased, it still requires 50 man hours per flight hour to keep in the air.
5. ~50% of the fleet at any one time has been grounded since production- not related to point 4. This is due to logistical chain issues. A valid methodology for warfighting it exhausting the enemies ability to replenish losses. How long do you actually think a fleet of 200 will last in a real war? We only produce 50-100 per year. In the event of total war, the F-35 will not be an efficient solution to multi-role and CAS simply because we cannot produce enough, nor will we have enough to suffer losses. Additionally any argument stating that production will become efficient in wartime, is ignorant of history. Nearly every WW2 multirole fighter that was in service at the outbreak had been replaced with a superior design within a year.
6.- Mach 1.6 is slow for a fighter. F-16, F-15, F-18, Russian and European competition all pushes mach 2.0. The point regarding performance is that at and around sea level, where it will be primarily operating, it will have relatively less power than any comparable fighter in its role. Prove to me the F-35 can do mach 1.6 at sea level and I would reconsider- however lockheebs own website does not indicate this to be correct.
7. It turns like a dog but is intended to fulfill CAS and multirole missions, which require low speed maneuverability: quantified as degree/second change. Even at high attitudes where it was intended to excel, the F-35 is inferior to decades old aircraft of just about any national origin. The JSF version does not offer significant improvements.
8. Anti-semitism is necessary for the operation of an efficient military industrial complex. We had no enemies in the middle east before our allegiance to Israel. Lockheed is filled with those who put Israeli interests before American interests. This is not conducive to the production of an military hardware. If you want historical proof, review German war technology pre National Socialism and compare it to the technology developed by the Germans under National Socialism.
9. We designed it with 135 pound women in mind, I wonder how many compromises in design this induced.
10. It has lost actual dog fights to the F-16 which was loaded with fuel tanks. The F-35 was in clean configuration. This is the single strongest argument against the F-35.
Läste detta som jag tycker liknar en rejäl sågning:
"Retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Gary North, vice president for customer requirements at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, stated "there’s a part of Israel in every F-35 that’s ever been built."
1. The F-35 does not have stealth capabilities. The F-117 was shot down with 1960s tech, and the F-35's radar signature is not much better given relative advances by the Russians in anti-air missile technology.
2. It does not have a relevant internal combat load at ~2950kg- its enough for 4 missiles, or 1 bomb. When it is loaded up externally, its performance is unacceptable relative to other comparable aircraft (F-16, F-15, F-18). Without air cover this aircraft can't be counted on to hold its own (see point 10)
3. The price is out of line at 100-120 million a plane, set to rise to 200 million. You could have 10 A-10s for the price of 1 F-35, or more realistically 2 F-16s and 4-6 A-10s- or just about any assortment of 2 Gen 4++ fighters and four Gen 4 CAS. Russians can produce nearly 3-5 comparable fighters (SU-35, Mig-35). Same is true for Europeans. Any argument regarding stealth should see point 1. Wouldn't capitalism demand a lower price for inferior products? (See point 5.)
4. The F-35 takes nearly twice the amount of maintenance on the ground as the F-22, F-16, F-15 and F-18. Even though it has decreased, it still requires 50 man hours per flight hour to keep in the air.
5. ~50% of the fleet at any one time has been grounded since production- not related to point 4. This is due to logistical chain issues. A valid methodology for warfighting it exhausting the enemies ability to replenish losses. How long do you actually think a fleet of 200 will last in a real war? We only produce 50-100 per year. In the event of total war, the F-35 will not be an efficient solution to multi-role and CAS simply because we cannot produce enough, nor will we have enough to suffer losses. Additionally any argument stating that production will become efficient in wartime, is ignorant of history. Nearly every WW2 multirole fighter that was in service at the outbreak had been replaced with a superior design within a year.
6.- Mach 1.6 is slow for a fighter. F-16, F-15, F-18, Russian and European competition all pushes mach 2.0. The point regarding performance is that at and around sea level, where it will be primarily operating, it will have relatively less power than any comparable fighter in its role. Prove to me the F-35 can do mach 1.6 at sea level and I would reconsider- however lockheebs own website does not indicate this to be correct.
7. It turns like a dog but is intended to fulfill CAS and multirole missions, which require low speed maneuverability: quantified as degree/second change. Even at high attitudes where it was intended to excel, the F-35 is inferior to decades old aircraft of just about any national origin. The JSF version does not offer significant improvements.
8. Anti-semitism is necessary for the operation of an efficient military industrial complex. We had no enemies in the middle east before our allegiance to Israel. Lockheed is filled with those who put Israeli interests before American interests. This is not conducive to the production of an military hardware. If you want historical proof, review German war technology pre National Socialism and compare it to the technology developed by the Germans under National Socialism.
9. We designed it with 135 pound women in mind, I wonder how many compromises in design this induced.
10. It has lost actual dog fights to the F-16 which was loaded with fuel tanks. The F-35 was in clean configuration. This is the single strongest argument against the F-35.
Att "Retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Gary North, vice president for customer requirements at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, stated "there’s a part of Israel in every F-35 that’s ever been built"." är korrekt återgivet tvivlar jag inte på. Att punkterna 1 t.o.m. 10 skulle vara från honom, ser jag som väldigt osannolikt.
