1. Another reason why the F-35 is a bad deal.

    The F-35 aircraft designs will not meet specification nor the operational requirements laid down in the JSF JORD (Joint Operational Requirements Document) by significant degrees, noting that these operational requirements and resulting specifications, themselves, were predicated on the capabilities of reference legacy Soviet Cold War threats from an era past (not for the 21st Century anti-access/area denial emerging threats) and subsequently subjected to the illogical and deeply flawed process known as CAIV (Cost As and Independent Variable).

    The designs of all three JSF variants are presenting with critical single points of failure while even the most basic elements of aircraft design (e.g. weight, volume, aerodynamics, structures, thermal management, electrical power, etc.) will almost certainly end up in what Engineers call “Coffin Corner”.

    In essence, the unethical Thana Marketing strategy is using to sell the JSF, along with the acquisition malpractice of concurrency in not only development, the production and testing but the actual designs of the JSF variants, themselves, have resulted in the JSF marketeers writing cheques that the aircraft designs and JSF Program cannot honour.

  2. The F-35 is sh*t. I have never thought well of this aircraft. It’s not good at any of the roles Lockheed Martin wants it to preform. For example, they want to replace the A-10 with the F-35 and that to me is the most bullsh*t idea ever, the A-10 is built for CAS, and it is not possible to use a multirole aircraft for CAS. Replacing the A-10 with the F-35 is like replacing a B-52 with a Cessna. Also, it does not work as a fighter, it has a fat body and tiny wings and no LEX to improve lift, therefore, it cannot turn, or climb. The best it can do is pull an aileron roll, a useless maneaver in combat. It also lacks range. Furthermore, the F-35 is to replace the best multirole fighter in the world, the F/A-18 Hornet, but once again cannot because the F-18 has great rang, large weapon ability, wonderful maneaverability, and is great at both air to air and air to ground ops in one mission. The F-35 can’t replace the F-18, or the CF-18(the Canadian version) because the CF-18 has to operate over vast areas of tundra close to the North Pole, but the CF-18 has two engines, and therefore can come home on one if the other fails. The F-35 is a single engine aircraft so if one goes down, and it will because all engines fail no matter how advanced they are, the F-35 pilot will have to ditch his/her aircraft and all of a sudden there goes $130 million and possibly a pilot. In conclusion, the pentigone is willing to spend 1/2 trillion dollars on a 5th generation aircraft that is worse then it’s 4th generation predecessors. Wtf??

  3. Project for Nuclear Awareness in Philadelphia fully supports this petition and the coalition’s larger goals. We have started a campaign called the Nuclear Budget Campaign that prioritizes human needs over the nuclear weapons industry by breaking down the federal costs of nuclear weapons by state and comparing the bloated budget to localized human needs by state… http://www.pnausa.org

  4. The most unbelievable thing to me is that the government and Lockheed-Martin seem to think that the F-35 can replace the A-10. More planes will crash and more pilots will die, which means more taxpayer dollars wasted. Many of Lockheed-Martin’s planes are fantastic, such as the C-130J Super Hercules and the F-16. The F-35 Lightning II is a terrible plane, a disgrace to the original P-38 lighting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s