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.
Hah hah who would look an an article about the next generation bomber that specifically ties it's introduction to the end of service life for B-1 and B-52, then conclude the B-2 is being replaced?What? The B-2 is ALREADY being replaced?
An extremely low observable aircraft is much harder to detect and hit with a radar guided missile than one that isn't. You are taking great leaps of illogic to try to ignore this point and chase your incorrect conclusions.That's true, but then that's all it would take to hit the B-2 too. I don't see a B-2 doing an overflight of Russia any time soon. Hell they flew them over South Korea..not North Korea. If they were so stealthy they could have done that and no one would have known.
Yep when the facts don't support you just fall back on conspiracy theories right? They were first over Baghdad not because they made the most sense as a much more survivable platform since stealthy, not it was just propaganda!As far as the MOP goes, they need to justify the existence of the B-2 so they will do whatever they can to support its supposed superiority.
It is still rated as low-observable and will get first look at any other aircraft in the world first that isn't called F-22 or B-2. You either greatly underestimate how much of an advantage first-look is or are being purposely obtuse to cling to you argument.That is completely untrue. As I said before there are compromises that have been made to the basic airframe that penalize the performance of ALL models. It won't be a good interceptor because it's stealthiness has been compromised. It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised and to think it can replace the A-10 or even the AV-8B is a crock.
F-35Bs combat radius is 450nm.Fuel consumption is outrageously high leading to short missions or frequent refueling requirements.
Compare that to AV8B (what it is replacing) combat radius of 300nm.
So basically you are complaining about short missions that are 50% improvement.
That is completely untrue. As I said before there are compromises that have been made to the basic airframe that penalize the performance of ALL models. It won't be a good interceptor because it's stealthiness has been compromised. It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised and to think it can replace the A-10 or even the AV-8B is a crock.
This is key, and falls among the bullshit like "can't fly in the rain" or "can't carry enough ordinance" arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny yet are repeated over and over. F-35A range is comparable to F-18, F-35C range exceeds it, and F-35B is far greater than AV-8B, yet we keep seeing this range thing brought up.Oh, and the combat range of the F-35 series? About the same as the F/A-18.
I do!Do you know of many, or any, examples of the A-10 being shot down or having failed in its primary mission?
Every exercise they have makes ignorant statements like this look a little bit funnier. From Red Flag going on right now at Nellis....As I said before there are compromises that have been made to the basic airframe that penalize the performance of ALL models. It won't be a good interceptor because it's stealthiness has been compromised.
Every exercise they have makes ignorant statements like this look a little bit funnier. From Red Flag going on right now at Nellis....As I said before there are compromises that have been made to the basic airframe that penalize the performance of ALL models. It won't be a good interceptor because it's stealthiness has been compromised.
Controversial F-35A warplane struts its stuff in Red Flag excercise
"As of Thursday the F-35’s kill ratio with aggressor jets stood at 15-1"
That sure sounds like a plane that can't perform in the air-to-air role due to compromised stealth eh? FOOL. The beauty of this is it'll keep on coming, year after year as more pilots fly this thing and it participates in more exercises it'll look more and more ridiculous people like you claiming it's all just PR stunts and propaganda.
We'll just keep on coming back to find the history of your "wisdom" on the F-35 going forward.
Ah I understand.
Your position is that F-35 dominating other fighters in Red Flag isn't really indicative of anything since they weren't actually shooting live missiles. They can't figure out who can actually see their opponents first, get into a position for a lock, evade, etc. nah these exercises they run every year produce no meaningful information to evaluate how well different aircraft perform against each other in air combat. Complete boondoggle. We'll take that further and say by extension the F-22 doesn't make a good interceptor, since there is absolutely no combat evidence that it is the dominant air superiority fighter they claim it is, we don't believe in useful data from simulated combat.
Therefore Westwall's claim that the F-35 won't make a good interceptor stands, regardless of dominance in these silly Red Flag exercises.
You can't make up comedy gold like this.
Ah I understand.
Your position is that F-35 dominating other fighters in Red Flag isn't really indicative of anything since they weren't actually shooting live missiles. They can't figure out who can actually see their opponents first, get into a position for a lock, evade, etc. nah these exercises they run every year produce no meaningful information to evaluate how well different aircraft perform against each other in air combat. Complete boondoggle. We'll take that further and say by extension the F-22 doesn't make a good interceptor, since there is absolutely no combat evidence that it is the dominant air superiority fighter they claim it is, we don't believe in useful data from simulated combat.
Therefore Westwall's claim that the F-35 won't make a good interceptor stands, regardless of dominance in these silly Red Flag exercises.
You can't make up comedy gold like this.
No, what I'm saying is the F-35 should have a 15-0 kill ratio based on the hype we are hearing. Simulated combat is a good way to assess an aircraft and 15-1 is good, but for the exhorbitant cost i would expect better performance than that. The F-15 is still the most successful air to air fighter ever fielded in real combat so that is what I am measuring the F-35 against.
and the tens of thousands of ground troops who are alive because of the close air support capability and massive fire power of the WarthogTalk to the pilots.
A-6s from Carriers in the gulf did a lot of that too.From what I heard the ground Troops loved the A-10 which they affectionately called "the warthog". The A-10 could come in low and slow and kick the doo-doo out of enemy troops. Hell, they used prop planes in Korea and Vietnam for the same reason. The times have changed and the fat asses in the Pentagon no longer want to fight or take responsibility for the deaths on both sides in a freaking battle. The A-10 is no longer useful because the fat asses set the rules so you couldn't use it. The US Troops in Afghanistan have to get permission practically from the Secretary of Defense to call in an artillery strike and Troops have to hold their fire and risk their lives rather than take a chance in a court martial if a rag head civilian is killed.
Jealous Air Force brass wanted a plane that could do what army helos could do. It NEVER did what it was suppose to do, cold war ended, and if it had tried it would have been pounded by Soviet AA fire. It was slow, vulenarable and not easily replaced. Junk, the only ones that like it are people that fight battles in their dreams
Yeah....right....
And on and on and on.... lots of pictures showing the destruction that the A-10's have wrought on enemy tanks.
You sir, are a moron..
A-6s from Carriers in the gulf did a lot of that too.From what I heard the ground Troops loved the A-10 which they affectionately called "the warthog". The A-10 could come in low and slow and kick the doo-doo out of enemy troops. Hell, they used prop planes in Korea and Vietnam for the same reason. The times have changed and the fat asses in the Pentagon no longer want to fight or take responsibility for the deaths on both sides in a freaking battle. The A-10 is no longer useful because the fat asses set the rules so you couldn't use it. The US Troops in Afghanistan have to get permission practically from the Secretary of Defense to call in an artillery strike and Troops have to hold their fire and risk their lives rather than take a chance in a court martial if a rag head civilian is killed.
Jealous Air Force brass wanted a plane that could do what army helos could do. It NEVER did what it was suppose to do, cold war ended, and if it had tried it would have been pounded by Soviet AA fire. It was slow, vulenarable and not easily replaced. Junk, the only ones that like it are people that fight battles in their dreams
Yeah....right....
And on and on and on.... lots of pictures showing the destruction that the A-10's have wrought on enemy tanks.
You sir, are a moron..
and the tens of thousands of ground troops who are alive because of the close air support capability and massive fire power of the WarthogTalk to the pilots.
