Well, among ‘other’ issues with the F-35, these comments have been ‘released’…
“The out-of-cockpit visibility in the F-35A is less than other Air Force fighter aircraft,” states the report from the Defense Department’s Directorate of Operational Test and Evaluation, referring to a pilot’s ability to see the sky around them.
Test pilots’ comments quoted in the report are more blunt.
“The head rest is too large and will impede aft [rear] visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements,” said one. “Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned [down] every time” in dogfights, opined another.
Full article HERE.
The F-111 had similar issues, and was too heavy for carrier ops, but to make it a ‘joint’ airplane the Navy was forced to take ‘delivery’ of 12 F-111s to satisfy the requirements. They were promptly discarded…
Yet another case of history repeating itself by trying to build a one size fits all airplane, and it’s not going to ‘excel’ at any functions and will have real issues in carrier ops (and in the mean time the F-22 STILL has major problems with the O2 system and Raptor Cough with the pilots; which the AF is ignoring)…
And don’t get me started on the ‘spare’ F-35 engine… Program office has tried to kill that for at least 4 years, and the congresscritters keep funding it!!!
If you ‘really’ wanted to ‘fix’ the DOD budget, kill the F-35 and while you’re at it, kill the LCS program too…
Will the brass pay any attention to the comments?
The historical answer is “no”.
Have never understood the littoral combat ship argument. Seems the Inchon landings took place in restricted shallow waters. Regarding the F-35, the stealth argument is weak. Anti stealth technology is faster and cheaper to develop than any airplane. Spend the money where it can do some good.
We didn’t get rid of ALL of the F-111. We kept the Hawg-9 radar for the Tomcat. 😀
Hey….I broke my tail at Hughes working on the AWG-9/Phoenix!
It was way ahead of its time…..which might have been a problem….
Fuzzy- See Ed’s comment, and no they won’t…
Ed- Correct- too much money riding on it.
WSF- Both good points!
Larry- True, and also the TFR autopilot capability…
The LCS is too small a ship, too lightly crewed and too incapable to be of any use against an enemy more capable than Somali pirates. Worse, it discards one of the Navy’s prime abilities: Damage control. The LCS will not be able to take a hard punch and survive.
Might as well name the next one the USS Zippo…
IMHO, the biggest problem with the F-35 was the need to make it a VSTOL. Development time for a replacement F-18 if one was truly needed would have been reduced drastically if we could have produced a separate VSTOL aircraft. I do understand that the USN only wants one platform because of supply chain and related cost matters, but VSTOL changes everything on the airframe. You can’t build one airplane for almost every mission and make everyone happy or make it work properly – if you read history. It’s the same with ships. We’re trying to do it with the Arleigh Burke DDG’s which are very good platform — but you can’t make a ship an ABM platform, a destroyer, a cruiser, a species of BB and a specops ship all at the same time and make it work.
Kelly Johnson weeps.
LL- Dead on the money on all counts… Harrier= Excellent VSTOL, excellent CAS, lousy air-air; F-18= Excellent air-air, good CAS, NO VSTOL.
Stretch- That he does…
Nobody asked me…but…When an AF pilot is flying, one engine is fine. If it’s chewed up by a bird strike or something happens and it throws a rotor blade, the pilot punches out (usually over land) and can either E & E or wait for rescue. A Naval Aviator has different problems. If you lose power over the ocean, punching out doesn’t necessarily mean that anyone will find you and there’s no walking out. Which is why the two-engine jet philosophy has held sway. Until now. I’m not likely to ever get stick time on an F-35 but I still have a preference for a two-engine platform for a naval jet.
LL, I disagree. I’ve never understood why any pilot would jump into an aircraft with only one engine.
Not only do you increase your Murphy factor by having no backup, but the aircraft’s ordinance load is smaller on a single-engine jet. A waste of time and money since it was first drafted on paper.
CM- Good point and correct… DC went by the wayside on the LCS (unless the automation does it)…
LL/MSgt- Two is one, one is none…Myself, I prefer at least FOUR engines… 😀
F-35 = flying Swiss army knife. Handy for a variety of miscellaneous tasks, but for serious work you need specialized tools. Give me an A-10 for ground support any day.
If ANYone is interested in aircraft and how aircraft selection is made and the process by which it occurs — and its concomitant STUPIDITY — then EVERYONE needs to read the book “Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed The Art of War” by Robert Coram.
You will NOT regret buying this book and reading it thoroughly. Not only will you come away impressed by the oddball that was Boyd, but by the outrageous process and outright idiocy that comes with “gold-plating” an aircraft and its systems.
Repeat: EVERYone interested in aircraft should read and know not just about Boyd, but how Life in procurement REALLY works.
BZ
Tim- Good point!
BZ- I have it in the library, and yes it is EXCELLENT!
it’s amazing that they didn’t learn a thing from the F-4. If you want a “Joint” aircraft, they need to design first for the most stringent requirements and THEN adjust for the looser requirements. Build the VTOL or carrier capable first, then adapt that to the miles long run way chair force requirements.
But the morons build an airforce jet then can’t figure out why they have so much trouble adapting it to carriers, yet alone S/VTOL.
How many dolts does it take to design a Joint fighter aircraft?
All of them.