Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
AF needs more than 189 high altitude fighters which f35 never will beMarines absolutely love it, they are the farthest onboard of any branch. I've seen no indication the Air Force wants to decrease their order.
I think the word "proof" is still lacking here.
260 for Navy...... Like quantity for Marines .,.....Doubt AF will buy even a thousand ......
You simply won't be able to afford them ..
AF needs more than 189 high altitude fighters which f35 never will beMarines absolutely love it, they are the farthest onboard of any branch. I've seen no indication the Air Force wants to decrease their order.
I think the word "proof" is still lacking here.
Why? Do you know how much fighting happens above 50,000 feet? Hint = very little.AF needs more than 189 high altitude fighters which f35 never will be
F15 is old...Not to mention we operate the oldest and least capable version in the worldYou simply won't be able to afford them ..
AF needs more than 189 high altitude fighters which f35 never will beMarines absolutely love it, they are the farthest onboard of any branch. I've seen no indication the Air Force wants to decrease their order.
I think the word "proof" is still lacking here.
They already have a very high altitude fighter, the F-15. If they need more, they can be bought. But at a whopping 110 mil each.
F15 is old...Not to mention we operate the oldest and least capable version in the worldYou simply won't be able to afford them ..
AF needs more than 189 high altitude fighters which f35 never will beMarines absolutely love it, they are the farthest onboard of any branch. I've seen no indication the Air Force wants to decrease their order.
I think the word "proof" is still lacking here.
They already have a very high altitude fighter, the F-15. If they need more, they can be bought. But at a whopping 110 mil each.
Might as well thrown in a targeting pod and an ECM pod if that F-16 wants to match F-35 in offensive capabilities.Now about capability. Let's do the same loadout on a F-16 that a F-35 normally carries. You are going to need two drop tanks, 4 Air to Air, two bombs, all carried externally. While the F-35A is capable of Mach 1.6, the F-16 just dropped to Mach 1.3 or less. The F-35A maintains a 9+ G rating while your F-16 drops to 7.5. Those are the real numbers, not something extracted from an early test.
I think we both know Westwall is just going to keep moving the goal posts here. We have F-35 being flown by pilots still learning how to best use the aircraft against some of the best pilots USAF has, and now he would have expected better than 15-1.When flying Red Flag, the F-15 doesn't come off so well. Remember, it's flying against the best of the best. It doesn't even make a 4 to 1 kill rate there. Yes, the real world, it's 105 to 0 but Red Flag is not real world. It's you against the best of the best. For the F-35A to get a 15 to 1 in air to air role, that's pretty damned impressive.
F-35 is showing it is a dominant air to air fighter, and he hates it. He hates that he was wrong about it, he takes pride as coming off as the expert so this drives him crazy.
I don't "hate" anything. What I desire is an aircraft that will do the job at a cost that is commensurate with it's capabilities. The Marines have a F-35 detachment in Japan with a 70-80% serviceability rate. Red Flag had 13 JSF's and they only managed to get 110 sorties in over the two week period. That's .6 sorties per day. Not exactly a blistering pace.
70 to 8o% against a F-15 at 70. Sounds like an improvement. BTW, the AV8B has a much lower rate that that.
Here is the rest of that writeup you cherry picked
Since the exercise began, Hill’s Airmen have generated 110 sorties, including their first 10-jet F-35A sortie Jan. 30 and turned around and launched eight jets that afternoon. They have not lost a single sortie to a maintenance issue and have a 92 percent mission-capable rate, said 1st Lt. Devin Ferguson, assistant officer in charge of the 34th Aircraft Maintenance Unit. Legacy aircraft average 70 to 85 percent mission-capable.
You are a lying piece of garbage. Stop lying or we will have the Moderator ban you.
Exactly, I'm baffled at this fixation with fighters zipping around at 60k feet. F-16 and F-35 have similar specs 50k+ feet yet many countries use F-16 as their primary interceptor. I believe Rafale is 50k+ as well. Up that high you have a turn radius about the size of Texas, it isn't practical. I forget exact but median altitude where air combat occurs since 90s was in the 20ks, and speed mach 0.8. Being over 50k is useful if you're a recon plane going in a straight line.Besides, there is little to trying to fight above 40K. The air gets too thin, the engines start to starve for air, the pilots start having some serious health problems. Most fights are 20k and below since that is where the fighters will have the best performance. You keep looking at the paper performance. The actual performance is different.
Aside from your obvious math fail, there is this:Red Flag had 13 JSF's and they only managed to get 110 sorties in over the two week period. That's .6 sorties per day. Not exactly a blistering pace.
Our F15 not as good as what we build for other nations and they are old and heavily used. Don't have to fly at 100000 if your opponent can only hit 30_35 when loaded....Quite a lot of head room there to exploit.....Course they would never do that nnnnnnooooF15 is old...Not to mention we operate the oldest and least capable version in the worldYou simply won't be able to afford them ..
AF needs more than 189 high altitude fighters which f35 never will beMarines absolutely love it, they are the farthest onboard of any branch. I've seen no indication the Air Force wants to decrease their order.
I think the word "proof" is still lacking here.
They already have a very high altitude fighter, the F-15. If they need more, they can be bought. But at a whopping 110 mil each.
You hinted we had none. Well, we do. And our F-15s have been upgraded till the cows come home. They still get first look/first shoot with every fighter except the F-22 and the F-35. And the F-15 can almost go into space and zoom to over 100,000 feet. The only one that can beat it is an old 60s bird, the Mig-25 for altitude. Can it fly at 60K, yes. Can it fly at 70K, yes. Can it fly at 80K, yes but the fuel and the pilots blood starts to boil.
Technically, we can build a jet to fly at 100,000 feet. But without a space suit, the pilot can't handle it. Hence the full pressure suits for the SR-71 pilots.
Besides, there is little to trying to fight above 40K. The air gets too thin, the engines start to starve for air, the pilots start having some serious health problems. Most fights are 20k and below since that is where the fighters will have the best performance. You keep looking at the paper performance. The actual performance is different.
You have this weird obsession with max altitude. Again I'd invite you to look at stats on where planes fight at in the modern era, it is almost always 25k-30k feet because that is there optimal cruising altitude. It isn't like all these fighter pilots, with aircraft that have been capable of 60k+ feet for decades just didn't think of it like you did. That high up and at high speed your turn radius is Gulf of Mexico.Don't have to fly at 100000 if your opponent can only hit 30_35 when loaded....Quite a lot of head room there to exploit.....Course they would never do that nnnnnnoooo
You have this weird obsession with max altitude. Again I'd invite you to look at stats on where planes fight at in the modern era, it is almost always 25k-30k feet because that is there optimal cruising altitude. It isn't like all these fighter pilots, with aircraft that have been capable of 60k+ feet for decades just didn't think of it like you did. That high up and at high speed your turn radius is Gulf of Mexico.Don't have to fly at 100000 if your opponent can only hit 30_35 when loaded....Quite a lot of head room there to exploit.....Course they would never do that nnnnnnoooo
You do bring up a good point on the load, aircraft with internal carry have a big advantage in performance since the specs are for clean. Drop tanks, targeting pods, ECM pods, external missiles (especially large Russian ones) all impact perfomance, but planes like F-22 and F-35 carrying weapons internally don't suffer the same penalties so their actual performance will be a lot closer to clean profile.
I witnessed A-10s work the tank tables at Fort Hood above my unit and what those things could do to tank chassis was most impressive. Those 30MM slugs especially at night would light up the area upon impact. The low hum of that gun would be great if you needed fire support as it would tear apart anything. May be it would not be the greatest tank killer ever invented but if I was ever in need of air support in a tight valley high up in the mountains where helicopters lose power I know what sound I would want to hear! It would that buruuup of that 30mm A-10 Warthog backing me up! It has saved many a ground pounders' bacon out of the fire not to mention scares the crap out of the bad guys with good reason!
So why on Earth did you resurrect this old dead tired useless thread ???... We'll just keep on coming back to find the history of your "wisdom" on the F-35 going forward.
Because so called "experts" who spout complete bullshit need to stand by their claims.So why on Earth did you resurrect this old dead tired useless thread ???
