KJakker 901 Posted August 17, 2015 WhiteBoySamurai's F-35 first gun live fire thread got me poking around Youtube again and I thought you would find the video of the F-35C doing carrier takeoff, landing, and touch and go's interesting. I also found these two videos that I thought were interesting but may stir up some debate. Reddit discussions for the two videos below. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Gunrunner 314 Posted August 18, 2015 Myth 1 : Can't turn, can't climb, can't run Answer: Doesn't really deny it, only puts it in the context where the F-35 will most often be "unladen" even though they carry coconuts while previous fighters were "laden", and reiterates the idea that "pah with all its gizmos it won't need aerodynamic performance anyway". It completely ignores the fact that over the life of the aircraft : A) changes in needs and requirement will mean that the plane will probably over time not rely only on internal carriage anymore. B) potential opposing planes will not be at a technological disadvantage, making the probability of classical engagement higher over time. Myth 2 : Can't fly at night or in the rain Answer: That's been solved, and thunderstorms are nearly solved too. I'm willing to accept that one. Myth 3 : The F-35B melts through decks Answer: No, it only diminishes their lifespan, everything's fine if we change the deck material. BULLSHIT, that's a straw-man, most serious commenters never suggested it did instantaneous, critical damage, but that over time it would wear it out much faster... which it does, to the point that they're acknowledging that they'll change deck material to solve that issue. Now on concrete spalling... this is entirely dismissed, however, to my knowledge this has not been tested with a fully loaded plane (requiring more thrust thus more heat and/or over a longer period) and not on every type of concrete revetment, I would not wager that all air bases are safe from F-35B yet. Myth 4 : The F-35 can't do CAS Answer: If we redefine what CAS is, provided all our gizmos work as intended and use expensive ammunitions, yes it can. It's all good on paper, but I don't see it working in a real war... Then there's the bullshit about using the gun without exposing itself to AA or MANPADS, the bit about the payload being higher than an A-10, yeah, with external payload, meaning you lose stealth, you can't run, you can't climb, you can't turn... It's enough to fight insurgents, but not a high intensity war. Then survivability... yes, on paper, let's wait their first conflict to say it actually works as intended shall we ? Myth 5 : Stealth doesn't work Answer: Noooo, LF radars need large antennas, we'll destroy them with cruise missiles before using our precious, precious planes... entirely missing the development of ground based radar networks since the 90's (granted, none of these are operational anywhere officially). Then this beautiful bit about advances in radar, making stealth not moot, but still an advantage over non-stealth aircrafts... yes of course, "stealth" aircrafts will still be detected later, but as long as they're detected far enough it doesn't matter anymore. And the final, "No stealth isn't a dead end, we've got event better things... for the next aircraft"... that will do a lot of good to the F-35 for sure. Myth 6 : The B variant compromises the others Answer: Straw-man, straw-man... the real claims about the compromise are about weight increase over the program and the development delays due to the focus over the F-35B and it's engineering problems. Myth 7 : A single engine us unsafe Answer: Non-sequitor about reliability of older engines... Nope, which is true, except that at present the reliability of the F-35 engine is not exactly at the point where it's entirely "safe", but even the most alarmist reports points that it's getting there... whether it will end up being the most reliable engine of all time as intended is another matter entirely, but it certainly will be safe enough. Myth 8 : The F-35 is too expensive, concurrency doesn't work Answer: All true, but only valid for the US and other air forces buying the F-35 over at least a decade. Doesn't address at all the cost problems for early adopters in low numbers like most european customers. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ironroad 218 Posted August 19, 2015 Thanks for sharing Kjakker and Gunrunner Personally I feel the F-35 is... And btw (and this not directed at you or anyone in particular) BUT CAN WE PLEASE HAVE A RETIREMENT CEREMONY FOR THE CLICHE AND MADE-UP TERM (THAT IS ALSO INCORRECTLY USED AS A VERB AND PHARSE) STRAW-MAN I see that, word, phrase, or term??? get thrown around waay to much in english-American diction. It is usually done by pseudo-intellectuals that have read one to many "get rich quick" books, faux armchair pundits, or those that want to tap into some fake MBA lexicon. In every context it is used in some emotional political, policy, or social argument by one emotional person to try and sound "smart" while negating the response of the opposing emotional person without actually saying anything of meaning. That, word, phrase, or term??, is on my S-list along with "tiger-team", "the cloud", and the all famous "politician thumb" (which is more of a gesture instead of a phrase). Sorry people, rant is now off... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Gunrunner 314 Posted August 19, 2015 (edited) Straw-man is already at least 200 years old. It's been used in it's current form and meaning in English for at least a century and with another (somewhat related) meaning in French for twice as long. Furthermore, unlike most other informal fallacies there is no other name for it anyway. Edited August 19, 2015 by Gunrunner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
