John Boyd would definitely not approve.

It's an interesting plane, but seems to continue the Pentagon's tradition of making overly expensive, and bloated aircraft. The F-35 is a supposed do-it-all platform. The problem with that is a plane that does everything OK, does nothing exceptionally. It's also absurdly expensive, meaning you can't afford to lose very many in battle. Sure, you never want to lose any pilots or planes, but when you can't lose any due to a limited supply resulting from their cost...well, that isn't a great position to be in.

The most effective aircraft are relatively inexpensive, and are extremely efficient at their job (note that isn't plural). Good examples would be the A-10 and the F-16 (even though it was bastardized a bit over the original design by the Pentagon). Even the F-117 (although it isn't cheap). F-18 is also good, although the Navy bloated it even more than the F-16 (it was originally a pure lighweight fighter when it competed against the F-16 in the Air Force design competition).

The only benefit to the F-35 is it has the potential to make aircraft carriers smaller and less expensive. Ofcourse, the Pentagon won't allow that though.

Typical military procurement. Yeah, it's super cool, but 20 years in development, at $300M per is quite a price to pay. They need to get away from the everything to everyone, perfectly concept. It's just too much to ask for in an aircraft. Hence why we're flying B-52s, F-15s and F-16s still. The newest of those is from what, 1976?

Quote from: B.Rock on November 28, 2012, 02:59:53 PM
Hence why we're flying B-52s, F-15s and F-16s still. The newest of those is from what, 1976?

don't forget the hornet and super hornet ('83 and '99 respectively)...

and the same logic coming soon to a doc near you.

Quote from: derby on November 28, 2012, 07:52:57 PM
don't forget the hornet and super hornet ('83 and '99 respectively)...

All these 'dinosaurs' and their crews are still far ahead of what they'd have to fight in 99.99% of future battles; and the last 0.01% will be, unfortunately....

The Eurofighters and Sukhois of the world are really putting the pressure on the next generation fighters. I think that the F22 and F35 designers are putting too much stock on the hit them for afar mentality. Reminds me of the days of the F4. They originally designed it without a gun, all missiles, and not necessarily all that maneuverable. It was supposed to be able to identify a target at long range and shoot it down before it came too close. It worked for the most part, but then the MiGs got sneaky. The F35 has no thrust vectoring, which is becoming standard feature in all next gen fighters.

I don't understand why the DMF Gods,I mean Mods, allow military posts as it seems pretty political but they do,so I'll put this in here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us/in-federal-budget-cutting-f-35-fighter-jet-is-at-risk.html?hp

Quote from: Ducatamount on November 29, 2012, 10:05:09 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us/in-federal-budget-cutting-f-35-fighter-jet-is-at-risk.html?hp

And that's what happens when you try to make one platform do it all.

As long as we keep it to the fighters performance, or lack there of, then we stay on the safe side of the debate.

One stop shopping for a fighter is practically impossible. You want something that is really fast, but that is also slow enough for ground support. You also want a plane that is stealthy, but that can carry a shipload of munitions. You want it to be cheap, but to be the most advanced fighter ever designed.

Quote from: derby on November 28, 2012, 07:52:57 PM
don't forget the hornet and super hornet ('83 and '99 respectively)...

Oh, true. I was cherry-picking just a little to illustrate the point. Also, they're all fine aircraft to be certain. The B-52 has supposed to be replaced three times now, and yet, there it is.

Quote from: B.Rock on November 29, 2012, 11:49:42 AM
Oh, true. I was cherry-picking just a little to illustrate the point. Also, they're all fine aircraft to be certain. The B-52 has supposed to be replaced three times now, and yet, there it is.

No other plane in the AF can carry the payload. it's huge and they can see it coming a longs way away, but it's good at what it does, make a lot of shit disappear in deathly flames.

Quote from: derby on November 28, 2012, 07:52:57 PM
don't forget the hornet and super hornet ('83 and '99 respectively)...

I'm almost convinced that a re-powered and re-armed updated F-104 Starfighter would still be a formidable and affordable weapon today.

Quote from: Langanobob on December 02, 2012, 08:13:47 AM
I'm almost convinced that a re-powered and re-armed updated F-104 Starfighter would still be a formidable and affordable weapon today.

Interesting thought.

Found this chart for the F-104, I don't recall ever seeing this kind of thing:

Quote from: Langanobob on December 02, 2012, 08:13:47 AM
I'm almost convinced that a re-powered and re-armed updated F-104 Starfighter would still be a formidable and affordable weapon today.

Nah. The F-16 is far better. The F-104 was a good plane for its time, but had some issues.

Quote from: Speeddog on December 02, 2012, 11:35:57 AM


Found this chart for the F-104, I don't recall ever seeing this kind of thing:

I believe that's the chart that Boyd developed to describe the performance of an aircraft. I've never seen one before, despite looking for one. My guess to why they're hard to find is because they're classified for operational aircraft.

Fantastic book for those that like this sort of thing:

I read and enjoyed the Boyd book several years ago, then sent it to my Canadian uncle who is a WWII RCAF Spitfire Ace.  He liked the book too, which carries a lot more weight than my opinion.  He flew many planes during his career, but I asked and he never flew an F-104. 

Here's a link to an interesting F-104 article.

http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm