Is F-35 going to be scrapped? Pilots say can't see out of cockpit

G

Grandluxe

F-35 fighter panned by U.S. test pilots
Head-rest design prevents pilots from looking behind, leaked report says
Mar 6, 2013 10:30 PM ET


A leaked evaluation in Washington criticizes the visibility in the cockpit of the multi-role fighter, and contains blunt comments from test pilots that suggest the shortcomings could get planes shot down in combat.

The design prevents pilots from looking behind them.

"The head rest is too large and will impede aft (rear) visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements," one test pilot was quoted as saying in the U.S. Defense Department's directorate of operational test and evaluation report.

A second pilot reportedly said visibility is crucial and any disruption "will get the pilot gunned" down in dogfights.

The document was leaked and posted online Wednesday.


http://www.globalnews.ca/opposition...report+cites+more+flaws/6442822896/story.html
 
That sounds more like a hit piece than a story. I guess the statement is talking about Canada F-35 availability not U.S. There are F-35's flying in the U.S., just not in service. They were recently grounded due to a cracked engine fan blade in one while the reason is investigated.

But, the article mostly just talks about a poor seat headrest design. I don't see the fuss. When you are talking about a $100 million+ aircraft, a seat headrest redesign seems like a minor problem.
 
Quote from Ricter:

Dogfights, how romantic. Their days are numbered. Not saying that's a good thing.
More...


Air Combat medals to be awarded to some gawky internet gamer operating a drone controller. Definition of bravery will also change.
 
Quote from budcampbell:

Air Combat medals to be awarded to some gawky internet gamer operating a drone controller. Definition of bravery will also change.
More...
Agreed.
 
So how much money does this and other piss-the-money defense programs waste?

Sure, Senators and Congressmen will be fighting to keep the ball rolling because it means jobs in their state, but when they make crap it isn't doing anything "to keep us safer". :p

At some point the mismanagement and cost overruns amounts to nothing more than corporate welfare - and how big is that number compared to "welfare-welfare?" :mad:
 
I didn't even read the article, but I always wondered what the point of the F-35 was anyway. I know they say it was to fill multiple roles and at a lower cost than the Raptor, but I also read somewhere that it isn't as capable. And I believe this was developed by and for the service of multiple nations. What's the point of a new, advanced fighter if others have it as well?

Personally, I really don't care about the air force capabilities of other nations, and I view this as a waste of money. Another thing, I'm sick of seeing these US Navy commercials and their motto "a global force for good"... since when? Our military is paid for by us, and it is to be used in defense of this country, not travel the globe looking for problems to solve (or start).
 
Quote from pspr:

That sounds more like a hit piece than a story. I guess the statement is talking about Canada F-35 availability not U.S. There are F-35's flying in the U.S., just not in service. They were recently grounded due to a cracked engine fan blade in one while the reason is investigated.

But, the article mostly just talks about a poor seat headrest design. I don't see the fuss. When you are talking about a $100 million+ aircraft, a seat headrest redesign seems like a minor problem.
More...

This is a hit piece from the press in Canada. In Canada there is a sizeable political coalition that is opposed to the purchase of the F-35, and want to build a 'domestic fighter' themselves. This group avails themselves of every opportunity to disparage the F-35 in Ottawa and in the media.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top