F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[Daryl Hunt]

Guy just said there was not much to watch........try to keep up

I am keeping up just fine. there wasn't ''t much to watch because of the British Limitations. Only you would come up with something negative about the F-35 which did exactly what the Brits allowed.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I asked a question about the show........one of few times I didnt outright"ding" your waste of tax dollars on a target

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I asked a question about the show........one of few times I didnt outright"ding" your waste of tax dollars on a target

Had I not interjected, you would have seen it as a sign of weakness and went off once again. Facts do get in your way.

 

[Manonthestreet]

had you not interjected likely I wouldnt have posted anything else in this thread......your delusions are showing

 

[Daryl Hunt]

had you not interjected likely I wouldnt have posted anything else in this thread......your delusions are showing

Considering most of us know you far too well, you sure do lie out your keister.

 

[RubberGloveSeduction]

Considering most of us know you far too well, you sure do lie out your keister.

Not only does ManOnTheStreet lie out of his keister, he demonstrates little knowledge on the thread topic other that regurgitating tidbits from anti-F35 hit pieces.

When ManOnTheStreet is asked for side/rear RCS info to back up his claim F-35 is only stealth from the front? He punts.
When ManOnTheStreet is asked how it's IR measures compares to other planes to back up his claim it has no IR reduction? He punts.

He doesn't actually know anything about the plane, which is why he retreats and hides from any discussion more than puddle deep that requires him actually providing data. With F-35 software maturing, pilots raving about it, and the plane turning in dominating performances in flight testing versus aggressor ManOnTheStreet is eating more crow and looking more stupid every day.

 

[RubberGloveSeduction]

Some people can't see past a good sales pitch. Math doesn't lie.

You called it. 24-0.

AIRSHOW-Lockheed F-35 jets ace exercises as U.S. readies for combat use

"I can't wait to get the airplane out to the Pacific," Lieutenant General Jon Davis, deputy commandant for aviation, told Reuters in an interview. "It's tailor-made for that part of the world with its fifth generation capability and its expeditionary capabilities to land on a small ship or strip, and flow back and forth between those."

Davis says the F-35s are doing far better in combat exercises than expected, achieving so-called "kill ratios" of 24 to zero, and surviving every sort of simulated enemy attack. "It is like watching a velociraptor going through. Everything in its path is killed," he told reporters.

He said the jets' performance in exercises like Red Flag showed that onboard radar sensors and electronic warfare equipment would give them a huge edge in future wars. While one-third to one-half of other aircraft would routinely be "killed" during tough exercises, no F-35s had been downed, he said.

 

[RubberGloveSeduction]

I think we should dedicate this thread to laughing at all the bullshit Manonthestreet has posted that has been proven false with available data and more recent F-35 performance in exercises. He's got a lot of crow to eat, so let's start serving it up, and I think it'll be an interesting exercise in how someone got caught up in the anti-F-35 hype so much that they become emotionally vested and were willing to believe anything they read, to lie, mislead, and move goalposts at the expense of common sense.

Except you can't. Cause not stealthy .....not to mention only plane that still trails black smoke is B-52 because of old engines.

f-35 cant dogfight and aint stealthy........thing is a sitting duck.

Not stealthy, no supercruise ergo not fifth generation fighter.

F-35 only has front aspect stealth.....F-35 will be falling from the sky as SU's shoot down on your low and slow gadget that still cant respond in an alert DRILL.....

Here is RCS data, from Air Combat: Russia’s PAK-FA versus the F-22 and F-35

Radar Cross Sections cited (X-band):
F-22A Front Aspect = 0.0001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 – 0.001 m2 (0.005 used in this analysis);
F-35A Front Aspect = 0.001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 m2;
PAK-FA All Aspect = 0.01 m2;
Su-35-1 Front Aspect= 2 m2.

Apparently Manonfstreet's definition of "not stealthy" means a 0.001 m2 and 0.01 m2 side aspect. It appears he realized he'd overstepped his BS and eventually retreated to the "front aspect only" position later, but as we can see from above numbers that is equally BS. We'll also note despite repeated invitations to post numbers supporting his no stealth claims he prefers to spend more time typing that others should find links he's allegedly posted than he could have just posting his proof. Clearly he has none and has been caught lying.

We'll turn now to the quote by General Hostage on F-35, from an interview often cited by those critical of the F-35:

"The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth"

Manonthestreet, his hands on experience being that of keyboard warrior, must also believe he knows more about the plane he says isn't stealthy than an Air Force general intimately familiar with the program who notes it's outstanding stealth characteristics.

Stay tuned next week when we look at Manonthestreet's many claims of F-35 sitting duck that will get shot down, compared to recent dominant flight performance versus aggressors flying F-15s and commentary from pilots who have been flying F-35 against other aircraft.

 

[RubberGloveSeduction]

Let's look at more Manonthestreet stupidity, specifically the low and slow thing he mindlessly chants.

The low and slow plane is not the aggressor...it is the target.dogfight 101

your low and slow gadget

I wish....... let us know if it wallows thru the sky like a pig compared to the others. Better have some crazy dance moves to make up for its low and slow profile

your low and slow ass.

Low slow and not stealthy......sounds like a plan.

"Low" is too easy to address, with Block 3F software the F-35 gets cleared for 50k+, same as F-18 and F-16. I'm guessing all those "low" F-16s that shot down the "high" MIG-29s in actual combat should learn from Manonthestreet that their service ceiling will lead to their demise.

"Slow" is fun because F-35 can make a mach 1.2 dash for 150 mile without afterburner, a much more useful mission application than anything F-16 or F-18 can manage. But it gets better with experience of a real F-16 pilot who has been flying the F-16. I know it would seem crazy to Manonthestreet to accept words of someone actually flying the plane instead of whatever blogger he's believing, but...

Å fly F-35 – erfaringer fra den første uka (Flying the F-35 – English translation below) |

My experience with aircraft so far is that the world is not black or white. «It depends» is an eternal mantra among pilots, and it is usually not easy to measure one system against another. Another point to consider is what data we are actually comparing. The F-16 manual for instance says that the aircraft is capable of going more than twice the speed of sound. I have flown more than 2,000 hours in the F-16 and have never been able to get the aircraft to go that fast. Is it not correct that the F-16 can achieve twice the speed of sound? Are we overstating the facts by claiming that this is the real performance of the aircraft?

I still claim that the F-35 is fast compared to the F-16, an aircraft I know well. Can this be explained as nothing but lies? I believe it can. The F-35 has a huge engine. Another important factor is that the F-35 has low aerodynamic drag, because it carries all the systems and weapons internally. The F-16 is fast and agile when clean, but external stores steals performance. It is never relevant to discuss the performance of a stripped F-16. Therefore, this is never as simple as discussing the ratio of thrust and weight alone.

In any case, technical discussions aside, I was impressed by how steep the F-35 climbed after I did a «touch-and-go» on my first flight. Without using afterburner, and with more fuel on board than the F-16 can carry, I accelerated the aircraft to 300 knots in a continuous climb. Acceleration only stopped when I lifted the nose to more than 25 degrees above the horizon. I do not think our F-16 could have kept up with me without the use of afterburner. I was also impressed with how quickly the F-35 accelerates in afterburner. On my fourth flight I took off using full afterburner. The plane became airborne at 180 knots. At that point I had to immediately bring the engine back to minimum afterburner to avoid overspeed of the landing gear before it was fully retracted (speed limit is 300 knots).

We've still got more crow for Manonthestreet to eat coming up.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Let's look at more Manonthestreet stupidity, specifically the low and slow thing he mindlessly chants.

The low and slow plane is not the aggressor...it is the target.dogfight 101

your low and slow gadget

I wish....... let us know if it wallows thru the sky like a pig compared to the others. Better have some crazy dance moves to make up for its low and slow profile

your low and slow ass.

Low slow and not stealthy......sounds like a plan.

"Low" is too easy to address, with Block 3F software the F-35 gets cleared for 50k+, same as F-18 and F-16. I'm guessing all those "low" F-16s that shot down the "high" MIG-29s in actual combat should learn from Manonthestreet that their service ceiling will lead to their demise.

"Slow" is fun because F-35 can make a mach 1.2 dash for 150 mile without afterburner, a much more useful mission application than anything F-16 or F-18 can manage. But it gets better with experience of a real F-16 pilot who has been flying the F-16. I know it would seem crazy to Manonthestreet to accept words of someone actually flying the plane instead of whatever blogger he's believing, but...

Å fly F-35 – erfaringer fra den første uka (Flying the F-35 – English translation below) |

My experience with aircraft so far is that the world is not black or white. «It depends» is an eternal mantra among pilots, and it is usually not easy to measure one system against another. Another point to consider is what data we are actually comparing. The F-16 manual for instance says that the aircraft is capable of going more than twice the speed of sound. I have flown more than 2,000 hours in the F-16 and have never been able to get the aircraft to go that fast. Is it not correct that the F-16 can achieve twice the speed of sound? Are we overstating the facts by claiming that this is the real performance of the aircraft?

I still claim that the F-35 is fast compared to the F-16, an aircraft I know well. Can this be explained as nothing but lies? I believe it can. The F-35 has a huge engine. Another important factor is that the F-35 has low aerodynamic drag, because it carries all the systems and weapons internally. The F-16 is fast and agile when clean, but external stores steals performance. It is never relevant to discuss the performance of a stripped F-16. Therefore, this is never as simple as discussing the ratio of thrust and weight alone.

In any case, technical discussions aside, I was impressed by how steep the F-35 climbed after I did a «touch-and-go» on my first flight. Without using afterburner, and with more fuel on board than the F-16 can carry, I accelerated the aircraft to 300 knots in a continuous climb. Acceleration only stopped when I lifted the nose to more than 25 degrees above the horizon. I do not think our F-16 could have kept up with me without the use of afterburner. I was also impressed with how quickly the F-35 accelerates in afterburner. On my fourth flight I took off using full afterburner. The plane became airborne at 180 knots. At that point I had to immediately bring the engine back to minimum afterburner to avoid overspeed of the landing gear before it was fully retracted (speed limit is 300 knots).

We've still got more crow for Manonthestreet to eat coming up.

That crow dinner comes as early as next week when two squadrons of F-35As goes operational.

 

[Kristian]

Oops. That seems to be the general opinion.

PS - terrific avatar. The F4 has a rugged charm that few aircraft can match.

F-16 C/D and F-18 E/F and Rafale and Jas Gripen E/F and PAK-50 are better than F-4.

For sure. Exsatly.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Let's look at more Manonthestreet stupidity, specifically the low and slow thing he mindlessly chants.

The low and slow plane is not the aggressor...it is the target.dogfight 101

your low and slow gadget

I wish....... let us know if it wallows thru the sky like a pig compared to the others. Better have some crazy dance moves to make up for its low and slow profile

your low and slow ass.

Low slow and not stealthy......sounds like a plan.

"Low" is too easy to address, with Block 3F software the F-35 gets cleared for 50k+, same as F-18 and F-16. I'm guessing all those "low" F-16s that shot down the "high" MIG-29s in actual combat should learn from Manonthestreet that their service ceiling will lead to their demise.

"Slow" is fun because F-35 can make a mach 1.2 dash for 150 mile without afterburner, a much more useful mission application than anything F-16 or F-18 can manage. But it gets better with experience of a real F-16 pilot who has been flying the F-16. I know it would seem crazy to Manonthestreet to accept words of someone actually flying the plane instead of whatever blogger he's believing, but...

Å fly F-35 – erfaringer fra den første uka (Flying the F-35 – English translation below) |

My experience with aircraft so far is that the world is not black or white. «It depends» is an eternal mantra among pilots, and it is usually not easy to measure one system against another. Another point to consider is what data we are actually comparing. The F-16 manual for instance says that the aircraft is capable of going more than twice the speed of sound. I have flown more than 2,000 hours in the F-16 and have never been able to get the aircraft to go that fast. Is it not correct that the F-16 can achieve twice the speed of sound? Are we overstating the facts by claiming that this is the real performance of the aircraft?

I still claim that the F-35 is fast compared to the F-16, an aircraft I know well. Can this be explained as nothing but lies? I believe it can. The F-35 has a huge engine. Another important factor is that the F-35 has low aerodynamic drag, because it carries all the systems and weapons internally. The F-16 is fast and agile when clean, but external stores steals performance. It is never relevant to discuss the performance of a stripped F-16. Therefore, this is never as simple as discussing the ratio of thrust and weight alone.

In any case, technical discussions aside, I was impressed by how steep the F-35 climbed after I did a «touch-and-go» on my first flight. Without using afterburner, and with more fuel on board than the F-16 can carry, I accelerated the aircraft to 300 knots in a continuous climb. Acceleration only stopped when I lifted the nose to more than 25 degrees above the horizon. I do not think our F-16 could have kept up with me without the use of afterburner. I was also impressed with how quickly the F-35 accelerates in afterburner. On my fourth flight I took off using full afterburner. The plane became airborne at 180 knots. At that point I had to immediately bring the engine back to minimum afterburner to avoid overspeed of the landing gear before it was fully retracted (speed limit is 300 knots).

We've still got more crow for Manonthestreet to eat coming up.

F-35 does not have supercruise.....omg

 

[Kristian]

Maybe not Rafale but I liked themes 3 bomb in middle off course also you liked. Four air crafts better than F-4 true story.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Oops. That seems to be the general opinion.

PS - terrific avatar. The F4 has a rugged charm that few aircraft can match.

F-16 C/D and F-18 E/F and Rafale and Jas Gripen E/F and PAK-50 are better than F-4.

For sure. Exsatly.

I question the F-18 and the Rafale whether they are better in carrier configuration. On of the limiting factors on the F-4, it was carrier meaning it carried a beefed up fuselage and landing gear which is required for carrier duty. All carrier qualified fighters have a distinct disadvantage when going against land based fighters.

Plus, the FA-50 is still a pipe dream. If the Russians can't come up with the bucks, it won't go into production. They are finding out the cost of building even an almost Gen 5 fighter is damned expensive and beyond their purse strings.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Let's look at more Manonthestreet stupidity, specifically the low and slow thing he mindlessly chants.

The low and slow plane is not the aggressor...it is the target.dogfight 101

your low and slow gadget

I wish....... let us know if it wallows thru the sky like a pig compared to the others. Better have some crazy dance moves to make up for its low and slow profile

your low and slow ass.

Low slow and not stealthy......sounds like a plan.

"Low" is too easy to address, with Block 3F software the F-35 gets cleared for 50k+, same as F-18 and F-16. I'm guessing all those "low" F-16s that shot down the "high" MIG-29s in actual combat should learn from Manonthestreet that their service ceiling will lead to their demise.

"Slow" is fun because F-35 can make a mach 1.2 dash for 150 mile without afterburner, a much more useful mission application than anything F-16 or F-18 can manage. But it gets better with experience of a real F-16 pilot who has been flying the F-16. I know it would seem crazy to Manonthestreet to accept words of someone actually flying the plane instead of whatever blogger he's believing, but...

Å fly F-35 – erfaringer fra den første uka (Flying the F-35 – English translation below) |

My experience with aircraft so far is that the world is not black or white. «It depends» is an eternal mantra among pilots, and it is usually not easy to measure one system against another. Another point to consider is what data we are actually comparing. The F-16 manual for instance says that the aircraft is capable of going more than twice the speed of sound. I have flown more than 2,000 hours in the F-16 and have never been able to get the aircraft to go that fast. Is it not correct that the F-16 can achieve twice the speed of sound? Are we overstating the facts by claiming that this is the real performance of the aircraft?

I still claim that the F-35 is fast compared to the F-16, an aircraft I know well. Can this be explained as nothing but lies? I believe it can. The F-35 has a huge engine. Another important factor is that the F-35 has low aerodynamic drag, because it carries all the systems and weapons internally. The F-16 is fast and agile when clean, but external stores steals performance. It is never relevant to discuss the performance of a stripped F-16. Therefore, this is never as simple as discussing the ratio of thrust and weight alone.

In any case, technical discussions aside, I was impressed by how steep the F-35 climbed after I did a «touch-and-go» on my first flight. Without using afterburner, and with more fuel on board than the F-16 can carry, I accelerated the aircraft to 300 knots in a continuous climb. Acceleration only stopped when I lifted the nose to more than 25 degrees above the horizon. I do not think our F-16 could have kept up with me without the use of afterburner. I was also impressed with how quickly the F-35 accelerates in afterburner. On my fourth flight I took off using full afterburner. The plane became airborne at 180 knots. At that point I had to immediately bring the engine back to minimum afterburner to avoid overspeed of the landing gear before it was fully retracted (speed limit is 300 knots).

We've still got more crow for Manonthestreet to eat coming up.

F-35 does not have supercruise.....omg

That is the first thing you have ever said about the F-35. That's one in a row.

 

[RubberGloveSeduction]

F-35 does not have supercruise.....omg

You are correct, nice work!

However what I was addressing was your claim that it was too slow. The ability to make a 150 mile mach 1.2 dash without afterburner is a far more useful application of speed in real world missions than anything a F-16 or F-18 can pull off. I also provided direct quotes from a F-35 pilot who says the F-35 accelerates better, climbs better, and feels like a faster plane than the F-16 that he has thousands of hours of experience flying. I don't suppose you have much experience flying the F-16 or F-35 to counter that, you've got some blog posts where some people who don't fly are calculating engine thrust and aircraft weight to attempt to determine it's performance. I think I'll trust the actual pilot more.

This makes your "too slow" chant ridiculously naive, you were just parroting something you'd heard without the facts. I'd also invite you to take a look at statistics on modern air-to-air combat kills and what speed missiles were launched. You'll find sub mach 1 to be your answer. Your repeatedly clinging to a top speed of F-35 then stupidly comparing it to clean configuration of other fighters that would never be flying clean made no sense.

Don't worry we're not done with you, you've got so much tripe in this thread to pick apart, you're a great example of someone caught up in the anti-F35 echo chamber... big on talk, short on facts. Enjoy your crow.

 

[RubberGloveSeduction]

Plus, the FA-50 is still a pipe dream.

Yep, once India started getting shaky that thing thing was even more doomed. The US will probably have more aircraft carriers than Russia PAK-FAs.

 

[RubberGloveSeduction]

No just the facts...your ceiling is low Forties

Apparently you wouldn't know a fact if it smacked you upside the head, so to help out:

From the offical United States Air Force website at:
F-35A Lightning II Conventional Takeoff and Landing Variant > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

Primary Function: Multirole fighter
Prime Contractor: Lockheed Martin
Power Plant: One Pratt & Whitney F135-PW-100 turbofan engine
Thrust: 43,000 pounds
Wingspan: 35 feet (10.7 meters)
Length: 51 feet (15.7 meters)
Height: 14 feet (4.38 meters)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 70,000 pound class
Fuel Capacity: Internal: 18,498 pounds
Payload: 18,000 pounds (8,160 kilograms)
Speed: Mach 1.6 (~1,200 mph)
Range: More than 1,350 miles with internal fuel (1,200+ nautical miles), unlimited with aerial refueling
Ceiling: Above 50,000 feet (15 kilometers)
Armament: Internal and external capability. Munitions carried vary based on mission requirements.
Crew: One

To take this further, one of the listed elements of Block 3F software changing flight control limits to raise the operating ceiling from the 40k to 50k. That would be somewhat silly to do if the plane can't fly at 50k feet. Turns out you were full of shit yet again.

More crow coming for Manonthestreet.

 

[RubberGloveSeduction]

It wasnt designed to kill the enemy

Once again people actually using the plane have different results than Manonthestreet.

F-35B Tactics Evolve As Pilots' Understanding Of Tech Matures

As part of the test, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121 performed an armed reconnaissance mission that can sometimes take AV-8B Harrier and F-18 Hornet pilots all day to complete.

“These guys went out there and they found all the targets very quickly and killed all the targets,” he said, noting the early proficiency of the squadron.
“Most importantly, … we put a radar [surface-to-air missile] out in the objective area. In the old days we’d have to go take care of the radar SAM, get somebody in to go take care of that because you don’t do armed reconnaissance, which is patrolling for targets out there, unless you’ve got a permissive threat environment and you beat that threat. These guys went out with the SAM in the area and did that and they killed the SAM.”

The first was done with fewer planes than Davis thought was needed, but otherwise went according to plan. He said the pilots were given a scenario that was “very high-end, off the ship, go into the jaws of death, double-digit SAMs, fighter threat, and go after a very strategic target on the ground. I watched them do it as a foursome, which normally I would say it would be 13 or 14 airplanes normally, what I would do as [commanding officer] of the weapons school, which I was. … They killed the fighters, they killed the SAMs, they killed the target, they came home.

The second drill, though, did not go as planned – in the best possible way, Davis said. The planes were to fly a close-air support mission through clouds at 1,000 feet, with the planes in the 3F configuration that allows for pylons to externally carry 18,000 pounds of bombs.

“I’m out there, the commandant of the Marine Corps is out there, I want to impress the commandant,” Davis said.
“This first scenario was awesome, and then right before the second scenario I said, are we ready to go? And this young major comes up … he goes, ‘we’re not going to do exactly what you want us to do.’ I’m like [eyes grow wide]. “Because we didn’t think the tasking was challenging enough. So we’ve got two that are slick and two that are loaded up as bomb trucks. We can do the job sir, don’t worry.’”

So two planes forfeited their external carry capacity in exchange for stealth, and “it was a work of art,” Davis said. The planes hit all their targets in five and a half minutes, with the four planes passing images through the clouds and successfully taking out the missile threat early on.

So we are at our usual dilemma, believing Manonthestreet who's combat experience is regurgitating blogs or USMC commanders watching missions happen saying F-35s are killing everything in front of them? I guess we'll go with the latter, and note that once again Manonthestreet is choking on crow. Everything he's said is proving to be completely wrong as more and more results come in from pilots using the F-35, and we see how utterly stupid he looks.

We're not done with Manonthestreet, more to come...

 

[RubberGloveSeduction]

Except you can't. Cause not stealthy

aint stealthy

Not stealthy

The F-35 is so stealthy, it produced training challenges, pilot says

The F-35 is so stealthy, it produced training challenges, pilot says

During a recent exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, F-35 squadrons wanted to practice evading surface-to-air threats. There was just one problem: No one on the ground could track the plane. “If they never saw us, they couldn’t target us,” said Lt. Col. George Watkins, the commander of the 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. The F-35s resorted to flipping on their transponders, used for FAA identification, so that simulated anti-air weapons could track the planes, Watkins said.
...
“When we go to train, it’s really an unfair fight for the guys who are simulating the adversaries,” Watkins continued. “We’ve been amazed by what we can do when we go up against fourth-gen adversaries in our training environment, in the air and on the ground.” Watkins said he can take four F-35s and “be everywhere and nowhere at the same time because we can cover so much ground with our sensors, so much ground and so much airspace. And the F-15s or F-16s, or whoever is simulating an adversary or red air threat, they have no idea where we’re at and they can’t see us and they can’t target us.”


If there is a way, any way that Manonthestreet could look more stupid after repeatedly claiming the F-35 isn't stealthy I sure can't imagine it. More crow coming up...