The Gun Counter

AKA, Gawker.

Champions of the anti-F-35 hype, these guys were all over the F-16 dogfight story.

The F-35 Can't Beat The Plane It's Replacing In A Dogfight: Report

We’ve heard of significant shortcomings before with the fighter jet that’s supposed to be America’s future, but this is just as bad as it gets. The F-35 performed so dismally in a dogfight, that the test pilot remarked that the it had pretty much no place fighting other aircraft within visual range.

Meanwhile, they're screaming bloody murder over the production end of the F-22:

As if they suddenly came to an epiphany, the United States Air Force brass is now admitting what many of us have been screaming about for so long: We didn’t build nearly enough F-22s, and the F-35 cannot simply pick up the slack. So why aren’t those who pushed so hard to cancel the F-22 program being held accountable?

Because the F-22 had its own hellish development cycle, capped with teething problems, and screaming about its failures was a reflex action for military bloggers? Remember OBOGS and how there were articles saying nobody wanted to fly the F-22?

Consider the following: An F-22 getting its ass kicked by a T-38 Talon, a 50-year-old, marginally supersonic trainer aircraft. Ouch. That's not losing to the jet you're supposed to replace, that's losing to the jet that had already been replaced by the jet replaced by two generations before the jet you're supposed to replace.

If the F-22 was still in production, Foxtrot Alpha would collectively come down with priapism and hump out a dozen blog posts about how the F-22 is doomed in a fight against Su-35s on the first day. Because that's their whole schtick: Being internet prophets of military doom for clickbait ad revenue.

I mean, these are the same guys who think the deadliest sub in the world is a dinky Swedish SSK, calling it a "carrier killer," demonstrating -as with the F-35 vs F-16 article- that they have no idea how dissimilar combat training and aggressors work.

Seriously, they suck.

The thing I wonder about the F-35 is does it have the maintenance software and the quick change engine of the F-22.

toad wrote:The thing I wonder about the F-35 is does it have the maintenance software and the quick change engine of the F-22.

The speed of an engine change has more to do with the engine bay than with the actual engine. F-15? Slip the old one out, put the new one in, whole operation done in half an hour if you rush it. A-10? Better hope you don't need your Engines specs for anything else that shift.

As for the F-35, I can't imagine they'd do anything radically different that'd slow down engine changes compared to any other fighter. And absurdly comprehensive MBITs are so standard now, even the C-130 guys are complaining that they only swap parts, 'cause the airplane troubleshoots itself. (The aircraft is not always right, but God help you if you don't go along with what it says anyway.) Again, dunno about the F-35, but it'd stand to reason it's the same.

I came across a puff piece on the F-22:
http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041831

Given the same super cruise ability, long range passive target acquisition, interior armament bays, quick maintenance it might be more deadly than given credit for. I suspect it may be harder to visually detect than the F-22.
As for the problems of vertical landing melting decks on ships, they might take a clue from Cape Canaveral rocket launches. They spray water into the pit that the rocket flame hits. It might be possible to put a water spray pad for a touch down spot for the F-35;
For vertical landings on shore perhaps silica tiles.

As it turns out, the F-35B doesn't melt decks. It does seem to cause more wear than the Harrier, though.

They'd already tested a new deck coating, too.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=4802

Jericho941 wrote:As it turns out, the F-35B doesn't melt decks. It does seem to cause more wear than the Harrier, though.

They'd already tested a new deck coating, too.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=4802

This is not a new problem. They had to redo the jet blast shields on the carriers when they came out with the F14.

They spray water into the pit that the rocket flame hits. It might be possible to put a water spray pad for a touch down spot for the F-35;

because atomized blast of salt water across the roof full of a/c is such a workable idea. Yeah, nice effort but not enough fresh water capacity onboard for that even if the crew was on water hours for an entire deployment.

blackeagle603 wrote:

They spray water into the pit that the rocket flame hits. It might be possible to put a water spray pad for a touch down spot for the F-35;

because atomized blast of salt water across the roof full of a/c is such a workable idea. Yeah, nice effort but not enough fresh water capacity onboard for that even if the crew was on water hours for an entire deployment.

The newer ships with reverse osmosis don't really use sea water for anything, even CHT. They can make more fresh water than they can use.