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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
I do!
Every exercise they have makes ignorant statements like this look a little bit funnier. From Red Flag going on right now at Nellis....
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 Warthog
A-6s from Carriers in the gulf did a lot of that too.
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..
