Nah, I'd say its definitely the cost of it.I don't know if the problems that plagued this airplane goes anymore beyond what other programs had to go through but surely the advent of Internet and everybody and their sister constantly critizing every little setback and blasting it all over the net had also contributed a great deal to the general negative feelings towards the program.
But seriously, Every ground breaking project gets cost over runs. The extent of those cost over runs should always be scrutinized though...
The aircraft in question, AF-2 is a early built model (it was never built to go operational I don't think) with a limited kinetic envelope (in other words, it wasn't allowed to use it's full manuverability), and it was without the software that would allow it to use it's sensors.
It was also without it's stealth coating.
If "dogfighting" was everything, we would have kept the f-8s.
This is one of the things I mentioned about the internet thing. Information is poured out there without the proper perspective that it makes the F-35 look like a piece of junk.
Last edited by YellowFever; 19 Dec 16, at 22:06.
So if it was a dubious source, which wouldn't surprise me at all. Could you please point me in the right direction, To debunk this even further?
Nothing to debunk.
But it wasn't a fully operational F-35 going up against the F-16D.
But in a pure knife fight, I really wouldn't be surprised if the Falcon does enjoy an advantage.
But we had a F-15 fighter pilot here a couple years ago who used to say pure dogfighting is like two guys fighting in no man's land with knives in WW1.
What good is winning one if there are many others ready to slot you with rifles all around?
Last edited by YellowFever; 19 Dec 16, at 22:22.
It's rather like the infamous Cope India '04 exercise: A splendid performance by the Indian Air Force to be sure...but not at all what it appeared to be on the surface.
The biggest thing about two "friendly" aircraft mixing it up against each other is that you're not trying to see who is "better". It's about training, evaluation and problem-solving.
Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt
I am reminded of an old book (1940) titled "Tragedy in France" by the (at the time) well known French author André Maurois. It was an attempt to explain to the rest of the Free World how France got trounced in 6 weeks despite having a numerically superior and arguably technically superior military. One of his explanations was that many of the higher technology weapons such as aircraft had a budget stretched out over several years and that a fleet of combat ready fighters (for example) would not get brought up to strength by the addition of a percentage of the amount each year,but all of them were brought up together so not many were truly combat ready, at least from a practical point of view. Anyway, that was how I remember it but take it with a grain of salt as it has been many years since I read it, and in 1940 most everything involving the war was going to be propaganda for one side or the other.
Anyway, I hate to sound like a commie pinko but I see the main advantage of an extended airframe life for the most expensive weapons system in history is that you can use it as a carrot for military brass involved in the program as they will know there will be plenty of consulting jobs available long after they retire from a military career.
I sincerely hope I am proved wrong at some point, but I will be more surprised if I am than if I am not, sadly enough.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)