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.
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.Not at all. A statement of FACT.
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.
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.
Okay that is even funnier. How many pictures did you take of your little goodie bag?I didn't show any "patches" silly man. I posted pictures of the goodie BAG that all participants get at Tailhook
Look back thru your own posts too there Mr. Self-Righteous.It is sad that you feel the need to belittle people who disagree with you.
Yep I saw you say this pages later after called out on your initial bullshit.And I stated that if it were true, that would make it better. Can't you read?
That's right, you have some fantasy all we need to do is do some tweaking on a 50 year old subsonic plane and voila it'll be better. Equally hilarious.
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.
The quote function is inconvenient for you:
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.
You fail... again.
This exactly the type of irrational logic I've come to expect from you. Since the F-35, a multirole fighter/bomber, isn't as good as the most advanced air superiority fighter in the world, it fails as an interceptor. Taking your puddle deep thinking further, every other fighter in the world also fails as an interceptor too.No, I don't. Even you admit that it is inferior to the F-22. Thus it fails as an interceptor.
Really?It costs 16 times more than an A-10, can't take a hit, and doesn't carry anywhere near the ordnance of the A-10, nor have the loiter time.
Nope, I'm just not interested in your constant attempts to weasel out of getting called on making bullshit claims by suddenly getting interested in cost. I'm here to discuss the capabilities of the aircraft.You are myopic in the extreme allowing yourself merely to compare single aircraft while the rest of us look at what we can buy with that money and we say to ourselves that the F-35 is not three times as good as the Harrier. Do you get it yet?
I don't think F-35 is necessarily better than the A-10 at CAS, just different. There are things the A-10 will do better in a close air support role, and things the F-35 will do better.The question is, as a CAS aircraft, does it need to be better, or can you just upgrade the electronics to improve targeting?
Same applies for the A10 - you have to admit - it's a hell of a monster against ground targets.
Cash Vs. speed?
This exactly the type of irrational logic I've come to expect from you. Since the F-35, a multirole fighter/bomber, isn't as good as the most advanced air superiority fighter in the world, it fails as an interceptor. Taking your puddle deep thinking further, every other fighter in the world also fails as an interceptor too.No, I don't. Even you admit that it is inferior to the F-22. Thus it fails as an interceptor.
Really?It costs 16 times more than an A-10, can't take a hit, and doesn't carry anywhere near the ordnance of the A-10, nor have the loiter time.
Okay why don't you tell me the loiter time of an A-10 (range 800 miles) flying low with hardpoint mounted weapons versus an F-35 (range 1,200 miles) flying higher where air is thinner and 8 SDB IIs carried internally? Including the fuel used to get to the battlefield.
How much longer is the A-10s loiter time than the F-35s then?
Nope, I'm just not interested in your constant attempts to weasel out of getting called on making bullshit claims by suddenly getting interested in cost. I'm here to discuss the capabilities of the aircraft.You are myopic in the extreme allowing yourself merely to compare single aircraft while the rest of us look at what we can buy with that money and we say to ourselves that the F-35 is not three times as good as the Harrier. Do you get it yet?
I don't think F-35 is necessarily better than the A-10 at CAS, just different. There are things the A-10 will do better in a close air support role, and things the F-35 will do better.The question is, as a CAS aircraft, does it need to be better, or can you just upgrade the electronics to improve targeting?
Same applies for the A10 - you have to admit - it's a hell of a monster against ground targets.
Cash Vs. speed?
First it isn't "my" F-35, you are clearly approaching this like someone rooting for a college football team or boxer, which probably explains how willing you are to sling such laughable bullshit.Loiter for the A-10 is 250 nautical miles out, 1.7 hour loiter time with a payload of 9,500 pounds, and 250 nautical back to base. Nearly five times as much ordnance as your F-35.
And hence your bullshit... you are admitting you have no idea what the loiter time is for the F-35, after having just claimed that loiter range was inferior to the A-10.There ARE no figures I can find for the F-35's loiter time. None, nada, zilch, zero.
A-10 does some things better, F-35 does other things better.The only thing I can see the F-35 doing "better" in the CAS role is getting to the scene. There's no question it will get there faster. Once there though, and every edge is to the A-10.
Sorry for the delay in answering I just noticed you had replied! Loiter for the A-10 is 250 nautical miles out, 1.7 hour loiter time with a payload of 9,500 pounds, and 250 nautical back to base. Nearly five times as much ordnance as your F-35.
F-35 doesn't attack a ground target from low level.An aircraft attacking a ground target from low level will get everything the enemy has available tossed at it. That will probably include a lot of big machine guns and canons.
The A10 can take a lot as it's simple and rugged, but the F35 seems pretty much unable to fly in a straight line without a computer.
What happens if it takes a hit in a sensitive system?
First it isn't "my" F-35, you are clearly approaching this like someone rooting for a college football team or boxer, which probably explains how willing you are to sling such laughable bullshit.Loiter for the A-10 is 250 nautical miles out, 1.7 hour loiter time with a payload of 9,500 pounds, and 250 nautical back to base. Nearly five times as much ordnance as your F-35.
And hence your bullshit... you are admitting you have no idea what the loiter time is for the F-35, after having just claimed that loiter range was inferior to the A-10.There ARE no figures I can find for the F-35's loiter time. None, nada, zilch, zero.
This comes right on the heels of you claiming it doesn't have the range to be a naval fighter, despite F-35C having superior range to the F-18. Then suddenly you're questioning whether the stated range of F-35C is true.
A-10 does some things better, F-35 does other things better.The only thing I can see the F-35 doing "better" in the CAS role is getting to the scene. There's no question it will get there faster. Once there though, and every edge is to the A-10.
You can't see anything better about the F-35 because you rah rah fanboy go team.
F-35 doesn't attack a ground target from low level.An aircraft attacking a ground target from low level will get everything the enemy has available tossed at it. That will probably include a lot of big machine guns and canons.
The A10 can take a lot as it's simple and rugged, but the F35 seems pretty much unable to fly in a straight line without a computer.
What happens if it takes a hit in a sensitive system?
It uses sensors to identify/track/engage targets from an altitude outside the range of guns or MANPADS. It has a Distributed Aperture System to see in every direction at once and a built-in EOTS for targeting. There are advantages to flying low using your eyes, and advantages to flying higher with superior sensors seeing the whole battle field.
Not getting hit at all is better than being able to survive getting hit.
