The Unofficial Airfix Modellers' Forum

Ok folks show of hands, Who likes the F-35 and who doesn't?
With the current deployment at Lakenheath it got me wondering how popular she actually is.
Here is my opinion:
I don't see why so many people don't like the F-35.
I'm not including the people who dislike them due to it replacing (finally) the Harrier as I still have a burning hate for the people who decided to dispose of a legendary aircraft which still had years left in them aswell as being one if not my favourite aircraft.
The F-35 is a beautiful aircraft and with all the lumps and bumps and an obvious 2 tone grey scheme has heaps of personality aswell as a bonus of being super loud like any real Fighter should be!
If ever your thinking the F-35 is ugly just remember the X-32 she went up against.
Then again, I quite like that too as it's just so different and sports a syfi look.

I think Love and Hate are strong words, for me anyway. I don't think it looks like a particularly nasty war plane. So I am kind of indifferent, but will model one anyway in RAAF colours.

I like the A/C.

Dai

Can't say I love or hate it. I don't dislike its appearance. I just hope the thing is reliable and effective!!!

David

To be honest it is not a type that interests me. It in my humble opinion could never be called a good looking aircraft. I wouldn't call it aesthetically pleasing. It has no graceful lines. It looks purposeful sure enough. It does it's job admirably well but to me it just doesn't look 'right'. Few could argue that an example of a good looking aircraft is the Hunter.
Lets face it. Todays military aircraft are not really aircraft at all. They are flying weapons systems. Controlled by electronics and computers. If the electrics stop working it becomes nothing more than an expensive accident about to happen. The pilot is there to fly the system and designate the targets. Without those electronics and computets the thing just will not fly and this is the same for all fourth and fifth etc generation military aircraft. Just my take on it. No offence meant to anyone, especially pilots who have to fly the things. It's the same with modern cars but that's going off on a tangent.

All the best.

Greg

I voted for the F35. I am no authority but it seems that combat platforms are required constantly stay ahead of the threat. And all the negativity could just be disinformation. But the timing of the Harrier retirement was off a bit based on the last Libya foray. Thinking it would have been suited for that operation. Very partial to the Harrier and have several built up in the showcase.

I have little interest in it from a "looks" point of view. If I wanted to put a single wurd description to it, I would use the word "functional".

Ever since the advent of "grey" combat aircraft in the early 1980s, I have had little interest in modelling "current" front line aircraft.

The only saving grace of the F-35 is that it beat the alternative Boeing design.

I loathe this thing, for many reasons.

As a modeller, I find the thing just a hair more acceptable than helicopters, that is, they don't actually fly, but they're so ugly the earth repells them.

As an engineer, I find them overengineered, driven by featuritis and dogmatic devotion to stealth, to the detriment of buildability and reliability. It's a classical study of how large software projects fail, cheerfully providing examples of each and every possible cause of failure, all within a single project. The fact that they are barely flying doesn't help either.

As one of the plebs expected to pay for the flying junkpiles, I feel everyone but the US is buying the wrong plane, since the overengineering extends to operational procedures. For all intents and purposes, the F-35 can operate only in a USAF environment. Having to rely on US based infrastructure for all logistics, and an internationally distributed maintainance and support system, means we do not control our own weapons. We can use them only with support (and per implication, approval) of the US, or a large coalition. I'm willing to pay for an army, I'm not willing to pay for the privilege of supplying a unit to someone else's army.

As an armchair general, I think they're designed for the wrong war. Assuming they ever get these things to perform as advertised, they'll be supremely suited to penetrating heavily defended airspace and knocking out high value, pre planned ground targets. They also should have a decent air defense capability. Remind me, when was the last time we did anything like that? The invasions of Iraq were essentially US parties, with the rest of the West dragged along to sort of ligitimise the affair. None of the other coalition members could have done this, in fact, all of them combined couldn't have without the US. Anything other than the Iraq invasions, could have been done with much simpler, cheaper aircraft.
Even if we assume there is a requirement for this kind of ability, the F-35 is not the way to gain it. Uncompromising superiority fighters like the F-22 to sweep the skies clear of any opposition, and missiles and drones to pound pre-defined ground targets seems much more sensible, perhaps backed up by low tech machines like the A-10 for close support.

This ignores the case for STOVL, but again, there are better alternatives. For carrier based use, traditional catapult and hook, or even ramp and hook, is superior. For close to the front work, helicopters, drones and missiles should do better, especially considering that under those conditions simple systems are always better than complex machinery; don't expect any serious maintainance facilities there..

I think you should have included 'indifferent' to the pole Maverick as emotive words like Love and Hate will (I believe) exclude most on the forum, these words certainly did not encourage me to vote. I would join those who consider this weapons system (not aeroplane) to be simply functional. I do intend to build RAF and RN versions when I find that suitable 1/72 kits of the production aircraft appear but those two models will be the end of my interest in this machine.

David.

Wow she is an "aquired taste" to people isn't she!
I agree there are far cheaper ways of gaining the capability that she is capable of but I personally believe over time she will prove herself and I stand by my opinion that she is a beautiful aircraft.
I deliberately only put live and hate as humanity has a very strong opinion about the F-35.
To throw in another curveball how do people feel about the F-35C with the larger wing surface as a posed to the F-35A/B.

Maverick231 wrote:I personally believe over time she will prove herself

I sincerely hope we'll never find out. If we de find out, it will be because they've gone up against a serious opponent, and other types will also have gone up against that same opponent in some numbers. I'm fairly certain I don't even want to be on the same planet when an event of that scale occurs

I'm not overly fussed by it. To me it has no character, nor grace or beauty and although I have one in the stash it'll be a long while before I get around to building it I suspect

Interesting posts. I don't mind it for looks but it does have a little over complicated feel about it. If it can do the job fair enough but I think the 'previous generation' of aircraft are just as suitable, if not more so, for the rough it wars we seem to get into. America had the best in the sixties but they were ill suited to a Vietnam environment.
On a related note, while looking over models at ModelKraft MK, I heard three chaps discussing this very aircraft. Apart from disposing of the Harrier being 'the worst decision ever made', one chap said the RAF chaps out in America said 'it's rubbish, it's got so many problems'. Not sure if this is true but opinion is not only divided but strong. Time will tell, the proof of the pudding and all that.

The F35B is the only variant with the Rolls Royce 'Lift system' but that doesn't really make it a replacement Harrier. I have evey reason to think you will never see an F35 'in the field' hiding under camouflage netting. The reason we are getting the 'B' and not the 'C (Carrier) variant is because the catapult system (a system invented in the UK and pretty much universally adopted for aircraft carriers for the last 70 years) is not installed on the 2 new RN carriers. As a consequence we have ended up with the least capable, shortest range version - the only version capable of launching from a Queen Elizabeth class carrier.
As to liking it, as a modeller - it leaves me cold! As an ex-Phantom pilot - well it has potential that is so far beyond the capabilities of the F4, I shall say that I am ambivalent about it but good luck and safe flying to those who will fly them.

Iggie if you ever feel your dislike to her gets too much I'm here with open arms and would have the kit off you if I got a chance