F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[westwall]

You mean these? For someone who is so knowledgeable I'm shocked you didn't know that JDAMS were also targeted by lasers.

Hah, nice try. You said JDAM, not LJDAM.

There is a LSDB under development too, that doesn't mean an SDB is laser guided.

Just give it up. Your attempt at deflection is duly noted. JDAM is the accepted shorthand for the weapon and you bloody well know it.

 

[westwall]

Nope. The F-18 is a fine aircraft. How many of those can I buy for ONE of your F-35's? Let's see here. The absolute top price for an F-18 is 57 million for the newest and bestest with all the bells and whistles. The PROJECTED cost for the F-35 is now 160 million (and still going up). Per plane. Hmmm.

I'm sorry you must have misunderstood the question I brought up, I'll try again.

You said the F-35s won't be a good naval fighter because its range is compromised, but the range of the naval variant F-35B is in fact greater than the F-18.

You are attempting to explain this bizarre logic by going into cost projections.

I'll try again: how does the F-35's range make it a poor naval fighter (your words) when it is on par with F-18, which you say is a good naval fighter?

Focus. Range.

If the F-35 can indeed attain the range they project that will be better than an F-18. No doubt. Now how can your F-35 be in the three places my F-18's can be. Focus, cost to operate, cost per unit, mean time between failure, unit operational rate etc. There are squadrons that have a 90+ operational percentage rate with the F-18. Based on F22 experience that is simply unattainable with your F-35 that is nowhere near as reliable as the F22 currently is, granted it has had 10 years of development, but it is still not able to maintain a 50% operational rate.

So, based on average figures I'll have 2 aircraft ready to go and you'll have .75 of one. How does that .75 get off the ground I wonder

I would expect an aircraft that is at minimum three times the cost of mine to at least be twice as capable. Only yours isn't.

 

[SteadyMercury]

It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised

If the F-35 can indeed attain the range they project that will be better than an F-18. No doubt.

Yup.

Quick! Throw some more "cost projections" smoke grenades!

 

[SteadyMercury]

Just give it up. Your attempt at deflection is duly noted. JDAM is the accepted shorthand for the weapon and you bloody well know it.

Negative. A JDAM is a GPS guided weapon, a LJDAM is a dual-mode laser variant.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Now how can your F-35 be in the three places my F-18's
...
I would expect an aircraft that is at minimum three times the cost of mine to at least be twice as capable. Only yours isn't.

The F-35 isn't mine, anymore than a sniper pod or EOTS is mine, or a Harrier or F-18 yours.

I think I'm starting to sense why you're acting so irrational here, you have a strange emotional attachment like we're arguing over sports teams. I don't give a shit about the F-35, I'm just trying to debate some of the ridiculous exaggerations that get thrown about in some of these threads, whereas you clearly think this is some competition where each poster has a fighter they support yours and mine.

That is the only explanation I can think of for hearing you say things like the F-35 doesn't have the required range when you know it does, can't replace the AV-8B, or trying to rationalize it's additional advantages over Harrier such as speed, range, ability to fly CAP, operate in contested airspace as useless to the Marines.

 

[westwall]

It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised

If the F-35 can indeed attain the range they project that will be better than an F-18. No doubt.

Yup.

Quick! Throw some more "cost projections" smoke grenades!

Absolutely. I as the taxpayer paying for this boondoggle want to know as much as possible about it. Funny that you don't seem to care.

 

[westwall]

Just give it up. Your attempt at deflection is duly noted. JDAM is the accepted shorthand for the weapon and you bloody well know it.

Negative. A JDAM is a GPS guided weapon, a LJDAM is a dual-mode laser variant.

And the whole aviation community refers to all of them as JDAMs. The only people who get persnickety about them are aviation ordnance men and internet experts. The people dropping them don't give a shit. They just use them.

 

[HenryBHough]

There's this button on the left side of the stick in the F35.

Press it and the lame duck quacks so loudly that enemies are frightened and run away.

 

[westwall]

Now how can your F-35 be in the three places my F-18's
...
I would expect an aircraft that is at minimum three times the cost of mine to at least be twice as capable. Only yours isn't.

The F-35 isn't mine, anymore than a sniper pod or EOTS is mine, or a Harrier or F-18 yours.

I think I'm starting to sense why you're acting so irrational here, you have a strange emotional attachment like we're arguing over sports teams. I don't give a shit about the F-35, I'm just trying to debate some of the ridiculous exaggerations that get thrown about in some of these threads, whereas you clearly think this is some competition where each poster has a fighter they support yours and mine.

That is the only explanation I can think of for hearing you say things like the F-35 doesn't have the required range when you know it does, can't replace the AV-8B, or trying to rationalize it's additional advantages over Harrier such as speed, range, ability to fly CAP, operate in contested airspace as useless to the Marines.

You are putting words in my mouth yet again. My complaint about the F-35 is that for that amount of money I expect an aircraft that is exponentially better than what we already have. It isn't. It is a make work project that is being primarily pushed by politicians and not the people who will be expected to use them.

There have been many projects that were cancelled because of massive cost over runs. Hopefully this one will be too.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Absolutely. I as the taxpayer paying for this boondoggle want to know as much as possible about it. Funny that you don't seem to care.

You confuse caring with not being led into a distraction from your nonsensical complaint about the F-35s range limitations.

Steady: why would you say it's range is bad when it is more than an F-18
WestWall: cost! I get 2 fighters per one!

Nice try.

So why again were you saying the F-35s range made it a bad naval fighter? Still haven't heard the rationale behind that one.

 

[SteadyMercury]

And the whole aviation community refers to all of them as JDAMs. The only people who get persnickety about them are aviation ordnance men and internet experts. The people dropping them don't give a shit. They just use them.

Ahh more appeal to authority, westwall now speaking for the entire aviation community. They give a shit if some poor sap is aiming a laser when they don't have an LJDAM.

It would sound just as silly if you talked about using a laser to designate for an SDB.

 

[SteadyMercury]

You are putting words in my mouth yet again. My complaint about the F-35 is that for that amount of money I expect an aircraft that is exponentially better than what we already have. It isn't. It is a make work project that is being primarily pushed by politicians and not the people who will be expected to use them.

Back to the cost smoke screens, I'm talking about battlefield performance of the aircraft and you know it.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, you claimed the F-35 couldn't even replace the Harrier. You can backtrack all you want and try to spin it into budgetary issues but you know damn well you were caught up in the "go team" spirit you carry you just went over the top irrational over it.

They've used AV-8Bs for bombing missions in Syria and to enforce no-fly zones in Libya, both mission that the F-35B would be far better suited for in addition to the CAS role. Isn't even close.

 

[westwall]

Absolutely. I as the taxpayer paying for this boondoggle want to know as much as possible about it. Funny that you don't seem to care.

You confuse caring with not being led into a distraction from your nonsensical complaint about the F-35s range limitations.

Steady: why would you say it's range is bad when it is more than an F-18
WestWall: cost! I get 2 fighters per one!

Nice try.

So why again were you saying the F-35s range made it a bad naval fighter? Still haven't heard the rationale behind that one.

Talking in circles I see. Didn't you see my post where I stated if they were able to get what they claim that would be better? Are you blind?

 

[westwall]

And the whole aviation community refers to all of them as JDAMs. The only people who get persnickety about them are aviation ordnance men and internet experts. The people dropping them don't give a shit. They just use them.

Ahh more appeal to authority, westwall now speaking for the entire aviation community. They give a shit if some poor sap is aiming a laser when they don't have an LJDAM.

It would sound just as silly if you talked about using a laser to designate for an SDB.

Not at all. A statement of FACT.

 

[westwall]

You are putting words in my mouth yet again. My complaint about the F-35 is that for that amount of money I expect an aircraft that is exponentially better than what we already have. It isn't. It is a make work project that is being primarily pushed by politicians and not the people who will be expected to use them.

Back to the cost smoke screens, I'm talking about battlefield performance of the aircraft and you know it.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, you claimed the F-35 couldn't even replace the Harrier. You can backtrack all you want and try to spin it into budgetary issues but you know damn well you were caught up in the "go team" spirit you carry you just went over the top irrational over it.

They've used AV-8Bs for bombing missions in Syria and to enforce no-fly zones in Libya, both mission that the F-35B would be far better suited for in addition to the CAS role. Isn't even close.

The battlefield performance of the F-35 is not three times better than the F-18 you referenced so it is a net loss to the aviation community to purchase them. That is my statement. Parse it all you wish, but that is my statement.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Talking in circles I see. Didn't you see my post where I stated if they were able to get what they claim that would be better? Are you blind?

You made a direct statement that the F-35's range made it a poor naval fighter. That was utterly retarded, and now after failing with the cost distraction you are attempting to add qualifiers.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Not at all. A statement of FACT.

Yep, and I'm sure you've got little pictures of patches to prove it, you do indeed speak for the entire aviation community and you hang out in fighter pilot bars and saw Top Gun 37 times etc. whatever.

 

[SteadyMercury]

The battlefield performance of the F-35 is not three times better than the F-18 you referenced so it is a net loss to the aviation community to purchase them. That is my statement. Parse it all you wish, but that is my statement.

Fair enough, I was in the thread talking about the performance of the aircraft, not playing math games to make a point about said performance.

You were too until cornered with your idiotic F-35B can't even replace the AV-8B statement.

 

[westwall]

Talking in circles I see. Didn't you see my post where I stated if they were able to get what they claim that would be better? Are you blind?

You made a direct statement that the F-35's range made it a poor naval fighter. That was utterly retarded, and now after failing with the cost distraction you are attempting to add qualifiers.

And I stated that if it were true, that would make it better. Can't you read?

 

[westwall]

The battlefield performance of the F-35 is not three times better than the F-18 you referenced so it is a net loss to the aviation community to purchase them. That is my statement. Parse it all you wish, but that is my statement.

Fair enough, I was in the thread talking about the performance of the aircraft, not playing math games to make a point about said performance.

You were too until cornered with your idiotic F-35B can't even replace the AV-8B statement.

I stated that an updated and improved Harrier would cost far less and do nearly as good a job. That is what I said. My argument has ALWAYS been that the F-35 is not worth purchasing because it's performance doesn't match its cost. Period.