I think the EE Lightning met the original requirements just fine...
I'm
much more optimistic. In my opinion the EE Lightning
brilliantly met the "original requirements." It was, without doubt, a brilliant design. The requirements? Not so much. I'm also more optimistic about the F-35. I think it's meeting its requirements "just fine," and in many ways brilliantly.
IF it turns out the F-35 does not meet real world operational requirements as many have suggested, that's the fault of the several governments who set down the requirements, and
not LM
And even a hint of criticizing the EE lightning on a forum with many UK folks is treading into dangerous waters
I do see it is as the iconic RAF cold war jet with blistering power/speed, but with some significant con's as well.
Understood. That's why I listed
one UK jet amongst a whole bunch of US jets that were "brilliant" yet in some ways "flawed". It was to get people to think without giving the impression that I was picking on the British. And predictably, not a single person batted an eye when all those US jets were described as brilliant yet flawed.
And about those "inherit limitations" and "con's" you mentioned? Were they the fault of the designer or of the requirements folks? I think it was the latter. Point designs are often brilliant. But they remain point designs that necessarily pay the bills by compromising in areas outside the narrow confines of the point requirements (like fuel load? engine access? no underwing pylons?). If the requirements are a little wrong (as they were for the F-12, B-70, F-104, F-105, F-111B) the result is a brilliant design with no future. If the requirements were a lot wrong (as they were for the F2Y Sea Dart, F-85 Goblin, FV-1 Pogo, Me-163 Komet and
many more) the result is often a brilliant disaster. Of course there are also total disasters (like the Percival P.74?)