LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+22 22 0
Published 4 years ago with 6 Comments
 

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • NotWearingPants
    +4

    The F-35 is designed as a multi-role airframe. Multi-role frames are generally not going to be the best at any one thing because of trade offs that have to be made. You want an air superiority jet, that's what you design from the ground up (F-14, F-15, F-22). You want ground attack, that's what you design (A-10). You want something that can do a little of both, but neither as well as a single design, you build that (F-16, F/A-18, F-35).

    Is it too damn expensive? Yes. Does it have growing pains? Yes. Has every new fighter aircraft gone through this? Also yes, but not in the age of keyboard warriors who don't know what they are talking about.

    • Nightborn3
      +2

      Pretty much. The aircraft at least is flying now (all three iterations), and getting it's test on, so the can iron out the initial bugs in the system. This is, after all, government procurement ;)

  • sturle
    +2

    US should revive and continue developing the F-22. F-35 is broken.

    • Nightborn3
      +3

      Well, they aren't really comparable because one is a multirole fighter and one is built to be a very fast interceptor. It's like comparing apples to oranges, but for some reason it's an accepted rhetoric.

      To further expand, the F-35 (while hilariously overbudget, and underperforming, which are valid complaints), is meant to be a multirole aircraft (air and ground), and a replacement for the F15 and F16 aircraft.

      The F-22 is meant as an interceptor (remember seeing those Russian bombers off the coast?) and to intercept and interdict aircraft and force them to perform/go a specific way, and also be superior in beyond line of sight fighting, since that's the world we live in

      • cjromk
        +3

        Since you seem to be somewhat knowledgeable on the subject, in your opinion, can the F-35 ever actually replace the F15 and F16? Both have been in service since the 1970's and are largely considered to be some of the most successful multirole fighters of all time. With the F35's ridiculous costs and underperformance issues, is it really going to replace its predecessors?

  • ThermalShock
    +2

    We might end up with a far more even playing field in the skies than the Americans were banking on if China, India and Russia deliver on their stealth aircraft currently being developed. F-35 aircraft might have to rely on the F-22 for protection in the air while being limited to the ground attack role. Sucks for the NATO countries that bought into the program to replace their air-to-air aircraft.

Here are some other snaps you may like...