Originally Posted by
KenV
It's been pointed out for some time by multiple forum members and a four star general in charge of the program that the F-35 was designed as an attack aircraft with a "good enough" self defense capability, and not as an air superiority fighter. Such statements just served to escalate the animosity on this forum, not deescalate it.
More an A-7 than an F-15, eh?
I am reminded of the great furor that erupted over the F-18, and the later F-18E/F (is it still an F-18?) and discover that the Hornet has done pretty well over its years in the fleet.
It was trying to be both attack and fighter, to replace the A-7 but still be able to perform Fighter roles.
Seen through that lens, F-35, or A-35, or F/A-35 seems to be arriving with furor, and the burden of multi role requirements. Something don't change.
What's in a name?
@Kbrockman:
Which again leads to the question, what's in it for us, how can we make it
work ? We might need a couple of squadrons of F35A's but not the wings our top brass is currently dreaming of. Also makes anyone wonder on why they decided to make it look like a 9G fighter in stead of something a little more relevant and cheaper.
Because the requirements folks did like was done for the F-18: it has to perform multiple roles.