Interesting after action information that didn't seem to make it into the original report.
The unnamed pilot also wrote that “the helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft.”
Okay, that's an honest flaw!
Pentagon officials said that the particular plane the test pilot flew did not have its special stealth coating, a Harry Potter-like “invisible cloak” that renders it invisible to radar. It was also lacking the sensors that allow “the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area,” the officials said.
That's kind of a big deal, that's a good 80% of the weapon's system
Finally, it didn’t have “the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.”
Another bid deal, especially in a tight dogfight.
Air Force Maj. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian said in the Pentagon’s statement. Its main advantage is its stealth, he said, the ability “to operate in threat environments where the F-16 could not survive.”
Just some perspective...when was the last time we went to a next generation fighter without any issues? The technology is just a stretch, the aircraft are complex and there's always a rough learning curve.
I can recall this much controversy with the F-18 and V-22. I can recall nearly this much with the F-15. The F4 had AT LEAST this much controversy.
With nearly everything, when you compare a perfected previous generation against a still infantile new generation, the new generation doesn't look so great. Once it's in service, more flaws will become apparent, they will be corrected, and pilots will have time to learn how to take it to the next level; and they will.
