Over-achieved it certainly has. First time in history an aircraft manufacturer is building 3 separate fighter types from a relatively common core and they aredoing remarkably well.
We won't know until the engineering work is done to identify what caused the issue and what remedies (if any) are required to fix it. Last time was quite minor and the issue seemed to be fixed within only a couple of weeks.Yeah, just saw that, it is again AF4 and again problems with the IPP. IPP is a real interesting and incredible piece of machinery so it really isn't surprising to have difficulties with such a complex system, what is a bit concerning is it's troubles now. I mean, one would have expected difficulties in initial first stages of testing, I am a bit concerned that this is creeping out now so "late" in the program. Actually, for such a complex and new system, IPP has performed quite well, one could say it was a bright spot for JSF.
Is this something just with AF4 or sign of a more serious problem?
Also noteworthy that 10 years into flight testing with 10-20 aircraft in the air the X-35/F-35 has not crashed. Whereas the YF-22, Gripen and Typhoon all suffered crashes during flight testing (caused by the aircraft) and multiple cases with the European fighters. The Rafale never crashed during development.
You can't be that desperate to make a case against JSF to trot out McCains naval aviation experience from the vietnam war as proof of procurement and planning doctrine deficiencies?
You have managed in this post to ignore much of the history and changes within the US defence and aviation communities, as well as that of the Joint Strike Fighter programme.
With hindsight, it is not quite so clear that the Lockheed design was superior. Yes, it won, largely because of the superior performance for STOVL due to the lift fan. But, that fan set up has turned into an extremely expensive problem that has dogged the program, and lead to many of the cost over-runs. The complexity of getting these systems working, from a mechanical and software perspective, IMO wasn't fully understood.
10 years ago if someone had said that B52's and B1's would provide better CAS than fighters they would have been laughed out of the room
And the platforms cost. That's whats been missing here in the equations, by adding more and more capability into the aircraft beyond many of the mundane roles it will perform most of the time (e.g. basic bomb truck, which is much of modern missions), it just pushes up the maintenance. This is esp. the case with the stealth technology.
The Ferrari analogy is as bad as all the other ‘my life experience’ analogies that people offer up about complex systems they don’t understand. A Ferrari would be an ideal choice for your daily commute if the highway between your workplace and home was strewn with minefields that would activate with extreme prejudice for any car driving at less than 200 kph. Comparing cars to combat aircraft is just plain stupid. Without the survivability and lethality capability inherent in the F-35’s LO and sensor suite you just won’t survive in a future battlefield.
The only nonsense is that someone so ignorant of the F-35’s capability would make this claim. The A-10 has to fly low and slow as its primary means of acquiring targets is the pilot’s eyeballs. The F-35 can sit above the trashfire ceiling (~20-25,000 feet) and use its sensor suite and networking to find targets much quicker and safer than any A-10. When it comes to deploying weapons the F-35 has the edge on guided weapons and supplants the A-10’s 30mm gun with a 25mm gun. The 25mm gun is onboard (or attached too) the F-35 for air to ground as it is a far superior strafing gun than the 20mm but not as good an air to air gun (the later with all things being equal but with the F-35’s mission systems and long rang 25mm gun should enable it to do some very interesting air to air shooting like the Pabst manoeuvre). The 25mm is the next best thing to the 30mm gun but without the need to destroy tanks which any number of ATGMs will do quite well enough for the F-35. In its strafing paths the F-35 may not have the armoured cockpit of the A-10 but it will be much faster and with the helmet mounted sight much quicker to get front guns on target. All in all the F-35 should be a much more survivable strafer than the A-10.
Even with F-22's, a plane well ahead of any potential competition for decades, having secured the area? If we look at modern battlefields like Libya and Iraq, after the initial high intensity combat in the first week or two, all sorts of aircraft operate effectively. You are stuck in a cold-war mindset of an imagined battlefield that has never existed since the cold-war, a fairy tale battlefield of equals where high altitude defenses aren't quickly eliminated by the dominant power.
Yes, I know this, I also know that F-16's and various other aircraft can also perform precision bombing at high altitude. Has that eliminated the value of the A-10? Or the AC130A? Of course not, there is still a value in a slow low aircraft that can linger in the vicinity, the F35 will simply never be effective in that role (although of course, UCAV's are increasingly important).
That may be the case until the A-10C came along,Sniper Pod, Datalink, JDAM, LGB, massive gun with plenty of rounds and I believe that a contract has been issued to get a HMS onboard.
I agree with the last line, struggle with the first line Can you define better?
danger close is a condition where friendly fire could kill friendly forces because its called in close - danger close is usually a situation where your own team is at risk of being overwhelmed and calls in support despite the fact that they may suffer casualties from friendly fire