I've never been a fan of the concept behind the F-35. Every time there is an attempt to design one aircraft that fits multiple services it doesn't seem to pan out.
I've never been a fan of the concept behind the F-35. Every time there is an attempt to design one aircraft that fits multiple services it doesn't seem to pan out.
I've never been a fan of the concept behind the F-35. Every time there is an attempt to design one aircraft that fits multiple services it doesn't seem to pan out.
F-18, H-60, CH-53...?
I was thinking more like the F-111 that was designed from the get go as a multi-service aircraft.
Yeah I was going to say that very fact. Very few were designed as multi-role/multi-service a/c. The F/A-18 was designed to be multi-role, but not multi-service. F4 and A7 were designed for the Navy and then later picked up by the USAF. H-60 was designed for the Army and then evolved into a platform for the other services. A lot of these are good examples of evolutionary engineering vice revolutionary. Take a proven platform and expand or change it's mission vice designing the entire thing from the ground up.I was thinking more like the F-111 that was designed from the get go as a multi-service aircraft. The F-4 and A-7 (to name a couple) were picked up by the air farce after they were in production for the Navy.
The F-4 seemed to work well for everyone involved.
I don't think it was designed as a tri-service aircraft but it certainly excelled as that.
Testing A-7s also made a good cover story to tell the family when hubby left for weeks to go to the Nevada desert to fly black jets.
H-60 was designed for the Army and then evolved into a platform for the other services. A lot of these are good examples of evolutionary engineering vice revolutionary.
. The F/A-18 was designed to be multi-role, but not multi-service.