Link here. My favorite quote: Only 15 years. How long did it take to develop the F-15 and F-16? Half the time.
Blow-viate me. The JSF is not even close to being operational yet and it has already been 15 years. They are continually finding problems and the F-35s at Eglin are only able to fly instrument patterns. My next dump could be an operational MWS before the JSF is.
I was going to delete that thinking you'd misinterpret the humor. I recall reading somewhere that the U-2 aircraft was designed, tested, built and operational in less than 2 years. Amazing, and the aircraft is still flying today; in a modern variant of course. Still a true testament to the engineers who designed it without the use of advanced CAD/CAM technology no less.
You clearly do not give me any credit. I believe it was and without runaway costs. I will be a lot more calm when the F-35 comes online and they start dropping it on studs, but right now I need some Asseline for my chapped hide.
I'm not sold on the concept of single engine combat aircraft. No redundancy in that sort of system. Yes, the F-16 has been successful, but the JSF is a lot more complicated than the lawn dart. A golden bb and resultant loss of engine/thrust and it's good-bye millions of taxpayer's dollars.
The purpose of the F-35 is to provide it to different operators with different configurations to suit their needs. It makes sense they went with a single engine. It would be incredibly difficult for the JSF to complete a vertical landing with twin engines. I get it, but I still think it is a piece of (*)(*)(*)(*).
Technically... There are already two engines, one for CTOL and CV versions of the aircraft, while the other will power the STOVL. The Russian Yak-38 was a twin engined VTOL strike aircraft...but I suppose you're correct in your statement that this is an impractical solution.
That is a heavy rear-end. Another reason why it is better to go with a larger single-engine for STOVL aircraft.
