Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "" video.

It would have been cost effective to cancel the features necessary for the STVOL version, which buggered up the design.
2
The A-10 is the past. The F-35 is the future. Which do you think the U.S. needs more if it has to fight a modern battle. I know what the USAF, USN, and US Army think, and it's not what you think.
1
@sailingonasummerbreeze7892 Yes, it's not actually not unreasonable to design an airplane to perform more than one role when the basic airframe characteristics are suited to both roles. The F-111 airframe could actually have worked for the original intent, which was long range tactical strike for USAF and long endurance fleet defense for the Navy. Both roles required a large twin engine airplane with VG wings. But when the Navy realized it needed the same aircraft to perform air superiority as well as fleet defense they withdrew from the program because it was too late to make the F-111 a dogfighter. The F-35 airframe would likely be more efficient it didn’t include compromises for the VTOL role. I think the airplane is masterfully achievement considering that its transformer like ability was previously the stuff of fiction, but I don’t think it should have been done, because I think we needed the best CTOL airplane we could get rather than another VTOL airplane.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD I didn't come to the conclusion, I am merely "parroting" a conclusion that I've read in multiple places. My observations of YouTube comments indicates that's what they are for--the dissemination of unsubstantiated opinion. You could do us all favor by bucking that trend, and substantiating your own unsubstantiated claim that structural arrangements necessary for the lift fan and other VTOL equipment did not reduce the potential efficiency of the airframe.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD It's all about victory and defeat with you keyboard antagonists. Give me a break from the battle analogies becuse I'm not interested in who wins, only in real information. BTW you don't get to decide how it works, and you haven't disproved the opinion I parroted. A bigger weapons bay and fuel tank may improve payload and range but does not make the airframe more efficient. The opinion I was parroting is based on the airplane structure being larger and heavier than than it would needed if not for the VTOL gear, and it reduces aerodynamic and kinematic performance somewhat. It's an intuitively rational notion that I can accept, and it's not my job to prove it to you. You can prove it's not true if you possess real documented evidence, and I would love to see it, becuse I don't give a crap about defeating you.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD You're all about confrontation rather than discussion. You can call me stubborn (look in the mirror) and falsely accuse me of pretending to be an expert, but that does not prove your long list of unsubstantiated opinions is more correct than the one I parroted. I'm not interested in arguing them or your misunderstanding of what "proving a negative" means, so have a nice day. Maybe a cup of chamomile tea will help you relax.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD Actually, I suggested some nice herbal tea. But there's an idea -- maybe you should actually pound sand, if that will help release your stress. You're rambling all over about my behavior and my "claims", but I have zero interest in your litany of bogus charges against me. The next thing you hear will be the sound of one voice arguing.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD Oh, it’s “scathing” criticism! You really are just a bit too full of yourself. Maybe you would do better to present proof that the common view I repeated is incorrect, but you actually haven’t done that, you’ve just presented distracting factoids that don’t disprove anything. Many (including this very video) see logic in the view that the VTOL requirement greatly increased the difficulty in developing the F-35, or that the airplane could have been more efficient structurally and aerodynamically without it. They don’t call it Fat Amy for nothing. I think they did an amazing job meeting all these requirements, but meeting fewer requirements would have likely streamlined both the development and the final airframe. You’re entitled to a disagree, but you’re not entitled to pompously and “scathingly” tell others they can’t comment as they wish.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD The point is that if you didn't need the space and structure for the VTOL equipment the airplane could have been smaller/lighter/more slippery. I have read more than once that the compromises necessary for the for VTOL version affect the potential of the airplane even when they are not installed. Imagine a version of the Harrier with the rotatable nozzles and other equipment necessary for VTOL stripped out of it. It would have been able to carry more fuel or payload, but it would still be a slower and less efficient airplane compared to what would have been possible if it had not been designed for VTOL. I think the only reason you can't accept this is because you assume I'm an F-35 hater, and therefore your opponent in the ongoing internet fanboy wars over the airplane. But now that we have them I'm actually all for more F-35s, and for parking A-10s to use those funds to support them, just like USAF wanted. However, that doesn't blind me to the fact that it could have been an even better airplane, and developed sooner, if the design hadn't had to shoulder the burden of accommodating a VTOL version, which I think was the seminal misstep of the program. I would have asked for a different airplane that would have been even better, and available in greater numbers' again just like USAF originally wanted.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD First of all, I consider you to be the "hack" not those writing the more considered opinions I have read, so get off your pompous high horse, and trying reading more for yourself. You don't appear to understand the nature of airframe efficiency. Of course when if you make an airplane larger it increases it's range and payload, but that doesn't make it more efficient. You talk as if range and payload don't cost anything, but if they didn't we wouldn't have the F-5 or the F-18, would we. Why did they build the F-16 when they already had the larger F-15 of greater range and payload? The F-16 was not as capable as the F-15, but it did have a more efficient airframe and was more cost effective for its intended role. You seem to be completely unaware that the JSF was originally intended as a lower cost complement to the F-22 in the way the F-16 was to complement the F-15. It's obviously a waste of my time to try to make you to see what I'm talking about. My only intent now is to have you cease your "scathing criticism" of my original comments, and drop your claim that I have no right to them unless I can justify my opinions to a greater degree than you can justify your own. My final words are please just take your self righteous pompous ass elsewhere.
1