this thread is getting picked up by big-number accounts, which is a shame because it's full of mistakes and exaggerations. it is correct, however, that the f-35 is an airplane, is expensive, is stealthy and uses fuel
example: saying the f-35 can use vtol, or fly, but not both, and needs to be refueled "immediately after taking off.
guess what *all* carrier-launched planes do after takeoff, vtol or not?
midair refuel
doesn't mean it "can't fly"; means taking off w/weapons rather than fuel
guess what *all* carrier-launched planes do after takeoff, vtol or not?
midair refuel
doesn't mean it "can't fly"; means taking off w/weapons rather than fuel
another example: "its fuel trucks need special paint." well, no, they need *white* paint in high-temperature environments. that's because the fuel works as a heat sink on the aircraft, which it can't do efficiently if it starts off too hot.
truck paint is not a failure
truck paint is not a failure
the broad point that the plane's development and procurement was messy and overly expensive is correct. and saying the excess funds could have been better spent on stuff like schools is absolutely a legit point.
but that doesn't excuse a bunch of falsehoods and misdirection.
but that doesn't excuse a bunch of falsehoods and misdirection.
it doesn't seem to matter how many pilots say the plane is great, or how of a difference planners think it will make. there will always be some smug commentator waiting to say "it lost a dogfight to an f-16!" (it didn't)
anyway, enjoy this f-35 demo
anyway, enjoy this f-35 demo
