Lockheed Already Looking at Placing Fiber Laser on F-35

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: FyreByrd

Please provide current proof that the plane isn't working. (Not articles from 2010)

We will wait.

Like these from 2015:

www.businessinsider.com...

www.businessinsider.com...

www.airforcetimes.com...

A multifuntion miliary aircraft is about as functional in a operating environment as are multifunction printers. Decent for home or small office use but not where reliablity, indurance and stability are required - such as a 'real' war.

Sorry boys - this one is a loser (except for the profiteers).

Every business has multifunction printers, even printers.

Of course the U.S. Has the B1' B2 and B52 as dedicated bombers, just like the newspaper printers...your analogy sucks!

a reply to: anzha

What they don't talk about that much is the military use. The Other military use.

Afzal’s comments come amid a revolution in the combining and directing of electric lasers to essentially burn rockets, missiles and unmanned aircraft out of the sky.

And in close air support might they also be burning out the, uh, "targeting systems & sensors" of the enemy force?

Surely, not intentionally, my heavens, that's against the rules, but if the CAS aviator thought he saw a MANPAD or something.....

a reply to: FyreByrd

This is why I'm a Systems Engineer making boatloads of cash and you're not.

What do engine problems have to do with a fighter being multirole?

What does ALIS have to do with a fighter being role?

The answer is nothing.


Also why are you linking to what Business Insider thinks GAO thinks about the F-35, rather than just linking the GAO report directly?

www.gao.gov...

What you have presenting us is what you think of the F-35, using Business Insider as a source. Your own analysis doesn't make much sense because engine problems and ALIS don't have much to do with fighters being multirole. And Business Insider is giving their own take on what they think GAO has said. It's like we're playing a game of Chinese whispers here and it's exactly why public opinion on complex issues differs from reality so much.

a reply to: Zaphod58

All of those other ones didn't have to accomodate a VSTOL version with a profoundly different interior mechanics: multi-role including VSTOL is new.

That was the central error. Insisting on some airframe & design compatibility for the B version compromises aerodynamic performance for the A & C.

A better idea: Make A & C versions (F-16 and -18 successors and good multi-role) as one, and then a VSTOL version with the same computer, communication & interior systems but a distinct airframe. Similar program & acquisition pipeline, but not the same craft.

Is the next fighter program going to insist on a VSTOL variant? No.

The problem is not so much for USA but for all other buyers who expected F-35A to be very good and inexpensive for air defense like F-16 and a big jump up in capability: if not quite F-22 level, still very powerful. Most of them won't be doing as much interdiction bombing in SAM-heavy environments.

a reply to: mbkennel

And? They are still multifunction aircraft, which according to the comment that was in reply to are utterly useless pieces of crap.

The F-35 is a huge leap compared to any other fighter out there, even the F-22. Will it slice, dice, and make julienne fries? No, nothing else out there will either. But it will excel at the mission it's given, including airspace defense.