F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[DrainBamage]

It's amazing how he can keep on claiming an F-35 was shot down without evidence. Anything that fits his world view must be correct, regardless of lack of facts and obvious flaws in his silly theories.

Let's see.... Israel wants to keep secret that they had an F-35 hit by a missile. Instead of doing the logical thing and not saying anything, they concoct some bird story as cover. To what end? What would that gain them? Nothing. It makes no sense.

Dumb fuck.

 

[Bleipriester]

It's amazing how he can keep on claiming an F-35 was shot down without evidence. Anything that fits his world view must be correct, regardless of lack of facts and obvious flaws in his silly theories.

Let's see.... Israel wants to keep secret that they had an F-35 hit by a missile. Instead of doing the logical thing and not saying anything, they concoct some bird story as cover. To what end? What would that gain them? Nothing. It makes no sense.

Dumb fuck.

You are on ignore.

 

[DrainBamage]

That an F-35 was around is not doubted by any side, by the way, only the time differs.

This is how the lies get generated by the tiny little mind of BluePoster. By "around" he means an F-35 was in the Middle East, because no side has said an F_35 was in the area of the missile incident.

This is followed by more lies about an F-35 being shot down.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If you say a lie enough times does it become true?

Now for another point. The SA-200 has about a 50KM lock rate. That's about 35 miles. You may know they are there but you can nothing about it. This includes the F-16 which has a better stealth rating than anything that the Russians may have. And that over 35 miles, the choice of weapons to take out a radar array is very large. Just because you can see it doesn't mean you can fire on it. Your type of history is ripe with false hoods.

Again, while you accuse others of lying, you are put in the next lie - without a source, of course.

Syrian S-200 have a range of 150 miles.

S-200 (missile) - Wikipedia

Why are you constantly lying?

A usual radar site comprises of different radars. One is used to track the target and the other is used to lock onto the target to guide a weapon to it. You keep using the Scan distance which, btw, is 170 miles on something the size of a 747. As the target gets smaller, deploys counter measures or uses stealth that distance shrinks. And so does the lock distance.
Did I use small enough words for you?

It´s in the article how big a target must be.

There are so many other factors involved. Each factor shortens each type of radars range. For instance, the F-35 is not invisible. You can track him at a decent range or at lest be aware he is there. But the lock radar range is severely curtailed to about 35 miles. This is why the Russians have interceptor aircraft stationed near their S-300 and S-400 sites to go have a closer look see.

Prove it is 35 miles. Why should an air defense system have a range of 150 miles then? Prove it. Post a source, get an evidence or keep this nonsense down. KEEP IT DOWN.

Easy answer to someone with at least an ounce of sense. There are considerations that change the range of detection.

• Junk in the air returns radar. Meaning, even a clear day has impurities in the air. This goes on until there isn't enough signal to return.
• Size of target. The smaller the target, the more the atmospheric disturbance affects your radar return
• Counter messures. Including shape, covering, etc. The F-117 used a completely different method of stealth just by it's shape just by redirecting the radar at odd angles away from it's source.
• Curvature of the Earth. Believe it or not, Radar can't see through the earth unless it's VLF. And true VLF radars require HUGE arrays or extremely long antennae. Your maximum range is direct line of site under ideal conditions.

So, if you have a 170 mile range due to line of site, and all the other items contribute, your maximum range lessens by many degrees. What the F-35 and the F-22 bring to the table is all the other atributes without considering the curvature of the earth. But that last factor is available to them if they need it. Search for him and he will know it. Try to do a lock and he will know it. Get a lock and he will know it. Even after you fire your missile, you have to maintain a good lock until the missile is close enough to maintain the lock by itself. This is why most missiles will miss the F-35 and F-22. There are just too many variables that have to be right to actually hit the target. If any of the variables fail then the missile will go ballistic and land in some field or housing section as a dud.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It's amazing how he can keep on claiming an F-35 was shot down without evidence. Anything that fits his world view must be correct, regardless of lack of facts and obvious flaws in his silly theories.

Let's see.... Israel wants to keep secret that they had an F-35 hit by a missile. Instead of doing the logical thing and not saying anything, they concoct some bird story as cover. To what end? What would that gain them? Nothing. It makes no sense.

Dumb fuck.

You are on ignore.

Oh, please, please, do me next

 

[Bleipriester]

Again, while you accuse others of lying, you are put in the next lie - without a source, of course.

Syrian S-200 have a range of 150 miles.

S-200 (missile) - Wikipedia

Why are you constantly lying?

A usual radar site comprises of different radars. One is used to track the target and the other is used to lock onto the target to guide a weapon to it. You keep using the Scan distance which, btw, is 170 miles on something the size of a 747. As the target gets smaller, deploys counter measures or uses stealth that distance shrinks. And so does the lock distance.
Did I use small enough words for you?

It´s in the article how big a target must be.

There are so many other factors involved. Each factor shortens each type of radars range. For instance, the F-35 is not invisible. You can track him at a decent range or at lest be aware he is there. But the lock radar range is severely curtailed to about 35 miles. This is why the Russians have interceptor aircraft stationed near their S-300 and S-400 sites to go have a closer look see.

Prove it is 35 miles. Why should an air defense system have a range of 150 miles then? Prove it. Post a source, get an evidence or keep this nonsense down. KEEP IT DOWN.

Easy answer to someone with at least an ounce of sense. There are considerations that change the range of detection.

• Junk in the air returns radar. Meaning, even a clear day has impurities in the air. This goes on until there isn't enough signal to return.
• Size of target. The smaller the target, the more the atmospheric disturbance affects your radar return
• Counter messures. Including shape, covering, etc. The F-117 used a completely different method of stealth just by it's shape just by redirecting the radar at odd angles away from it's source.
• Curvature of the Earth. Believe it or not, Radar can't see through the earth unless it's VLF. And true VLF radars require HUGE arrays or extremely long antennae. Your maximum range is direct line of site under ideal conditions.

So, if you have a 170 mile range due to line of site, and all the other items contribute, your maximum range lessens by many degrees. What the F-35 and the F-22 bring to the table is all the other atributes without considering the curvature of the earth. But that last factor is available to them if they need it. Search for him and he will know it. Try to do a lock and he will know it. Get a lock and he will know it. Even after you fire your missile, you have to maintain a good lock until the missile is close enough to maintain the lock by itself. This is why most missiles will miss the F-35 and F-22. There are just too many variables that have to be right to actually hit the target. If any of the variables fail then the missile will go ballistic and land in some field or housing section as a dud.

No source?

 

[Bleipriester]

It's amazing how he can keep on claiming an F-35 was shot down without evidence. Anything that fits his world view must be correct, regardless of lack of facts and obvious flaws in his silly theories.

Let's see.... Israel wants to keep secret that they had an F-35 hit by a missile. Instead of doing the logical thing and not saying anything, they concoct some bird story as cover. To what end? What would that gain them? Nothing. It makes no sense.

Dumb fuck.

You are on ignore.

Oh, please, please, do me next

You´re working hard on it but I am very indulgent...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

A usual radar site comprises of different radars. One is used to track the target and the other is used to lock onto the target to guide a weapon to it. You keep using the Scan distance which, btw, is 170 miles on something the size of a 747. As the target gets smaller, deploys counter measures or uses stealth that distance shrinks. And so does the lock distance.
Did I use small enough words for you?

It´s in the article how big a target must be.

There are so many other factors involved. Each factor shortens each type of radars range. For instance, the F-35 is not invisible. You can track him at a decent range or at lest be aware he is there. But the lock radar range is severely curtailed to about 35 miles. This is why the Russians have interceptor aircraft stationed near their S-300 and S-400 sites to go have a closer look see.

Prove it is 35 miles. Why should an air defense system have a range of 150 miles then? Prove it. Post a source, get an evidence or keep this nonsense down. KEEP IT DOWN.

Easy answer to someone with at least an ounce of sense. There are considerations that change the range of detection.

• Junk in the air returns radar. Meaning, even a clear day has impurities in the air. This goes on until there isn't enough signal to return.
• Size of target. The smaller the target, the more the atmospheric disturbance affects your radar return
• Counter messures. Including shape, covering, etc. The F-117 used a completely different method of stealth just by it's shape just by redirecting the radar at odd angles away from it's source.
• Curvature of the Earth. Believe it or not, Radar can't see through the earth unless it's VLF. And true VLF radars require HUGE arrays or extremely long antennae. Your maximum range is direct line of site under ideal conditions.

So, if you have a 170 mile range due to line of site, and all the other items contribute, your maximum range lessens by many degrees. What the F-35 and the F-22 bring to the table is all the other atributes without considering the curvature of the earth. But that last factor is available to them if they need it. Search for him and he will know it. Try to do a lock and he will know it. Get a lock and he will know it. Even after you fire your missile, you have to maintain a good lock until the missile is close enough to maintain the lock by itself. This is why most missiles will miss the F-35 and F-22. There are just too many variables that have to be right to actually hit the target. If any of the variables fail then the missile will go ballistic and land in some field or housing section as a dud.

No source?

It's physics 101. But you never attended the class. And with over 20 years in the USAF I AM the source.

 

[DrainBamage]

He's got an honorary degree from Syrian-Army-Propaganda University, with an additional certificate from Gullibility Training Inc.

 

[Bleipriester]

It´s in the article how big a target must be.

There are so many other factors involved. Each factor shortens each type of radars range. For instance, the F-35 is not invisible. You can track him at a decent range or at lest be aware he is there. But the lock radar range is severely curtailed to about 35 miles. This is why the Russians have interceptor aircraft stationed near their S-300 and S-400 sites to go have a closer look see.

Prove it is 35 miles. Why should an air defense system have a range of 150 miles then? Prove it. Post a source, get an evidence or keep this nonsense down. KEEP IT DOWN.

Easy answer to someone with at least an ounce of sense. There are considerations that change the range of detection.

• Junk in the air returns radar. Meaning, even a clear day has impurities in the air. This goes on until there isn't enough signal to return.
• Size of target. The smaller the target, the more the atmospheric disturbance affects your radar return
• Counter messures. Including shape, covering, etc. The F-117 used a completely different method of stealth just by it's shape just by redirecting the radar at odd angles away from it's source.
• Curvature of the Earth. Believe it or not, Radar can't see through the earth unless it's VLF. And true VLF radars require HUGE arrays or extremely long antennae. Your maximum range is direct line of site under ideal conditions.

So, if you have a 170 mile range due to line of site, and all the other items contribute, your maximum range lessens by many degrees. What the F-35 and the F-22 bring to the table is all the other atributes without considering the curvature of the earth. But that last factor is available to them if they need it. Search for him and he will know it. Try to do a lock and he will know it. Get a lock and he will know it. Even after you fire your missile, you have to maintain a good lock until the missile is close enough to maintain the lock by itself. This is why most missiles will miss the F-35 and F-22. There are just too many variables that have to be right to actually hit the target. If any of the variables fail then the missile will go ballistic and land in some field or housing section as a dud.

No source?

It's physics 101. But you never attended the class. And with over 20 years in the USAF I AM the source.

You claims were considered false so far, so sources are required.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

He's got an honorary degree from Syrian-Army-Propaganda University, with an additional certificate from Gullibility Training Inc.

He is full of sticky stuff and lots of different nuts and has a halflife of about 50,000 years.

 

[DrainBamage]

Left unsaid so far is what will become of the 81 F-35s purchased by the Marine Corps and Navy during that same period. If they are left in their current state, nearly 200 F-35s might permanently remain unready for combat because the Pentagon would rather buy new aircraft than upgrade the ones the American people have already paid for.

That is only "unsaid" because it isn't true, the number among all services that might not be upgraded is exactly 108, as stated by DoD. If there were more, they would have stated a higher number. This 200 number is floating around from a blogger who is speculating without facts, nobody has said they have 200 except his imagination.

No decisions have been made, and of the 108, 45 require upgrades that take less than 3 days.

What makes this particularly galling is the aircraft that would be left behind by such a scheme were the most expensive F-35s purchased so far. When the tab for all the aircraft purchased in an immature state is added up, the total comes to nearly $40 billion. That is a lot of money to spend on training jets and aircraft that will simply be stripped for spare parts. 108 F-35s Will Not Be Combat Capable | RealClearDefense
How not to do it.......40 billion in useable junk.......gee that 3-4 carriers ......20 or more Virginia Subs.......,.gee why dont we have any money

You're not a real deep thinker are you? You're comparing the early year procurement costs when initial models of F-35 are being built and tested to unit costs of later stage programs like Virginia subs. If they didn't spend it to get the program up and running in 2007 we wouldn't now have F-35s rolling off the line that cost less than 100 million apiece, and that will likely cost close to 80 million by 2020.

You keep reading the same sources that you used to assure us that F-35 wouldn't be able to fight, it's racking up ridiculous kill ratios and the pilots love it yet you keep on relying on the same obviously poor fountains of information.

 

[DrainBamage]

they know F35 isn't rdy for primetime. Rumbles of EU designing their own now......

Sucks when your speculation meets the cold slap of reality...

Germany declares preference for F-35 to replace Tornado | Jane's 360

The German Air Force has a shortlist of existing platforms to replace its Panavia Tornados from 2025 to 2030, but the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is the service’s “preferred choice", a senior service official said on 8 November. Speaking under the Chatham House Rule, the official said that the F-35 already fulfils most of the requirements that the Luftwaffe requires to replace its Tornados in the 2025 to 2030 timeframe, and that it offers a number of other benefits besides.

“The Tornado replacement needs to be fifth-generation aircraft that can be detected as late as possible, if at all. It must be able to identify targets from a long way off and to target them as soon as possible. “The German Ministry of Defence [MoD] is looking at several aircraft today, including the F-35 – it is commercially available already, has been ordered by many nations and is being introduced into service today, and has most of the capabilities required.”


How many posts have you had now implying no confidence and intl partners dropping out? Yet all we're getting is more countries jumping on as real performance data and pilot experiences come to light. Germany wasn't even on the map a few years ago, and both Belgium and Switzerland are looking studying it as an option.

 

[DrainBamage]

Sounds like Naval version is in real trouble...landing gear needs full rework.....Trump can go Jerry Ford and veto and tweet away......they'll never hold up under the pressure.

Sounds like you're wrong again, Chicken Little.

The U.S. Navy recently completed F-35C carrier evaluations aboard the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) off the coast of California in October and the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) off the east coast in September. As part of the evaluations, the Navy tested an improved launch technique and pilot ‘strap in’ procedure to reduce oscillation during catapult launches, and test pilots evaluated our enhanced Organic LED (OLED) helmet display to increase fidelity and eliminate reported green glow. I’m pleased to share that each evaluation generated excellent feedback. Both test and fleet F-35C pilots were pleased with the progress made in reducing oscillations seen during catapult shots – and test pilots reported no ‘greenglow’ present in the new OLED helmet display. While the formal evaluations are still in progress, we are very encouraged by the early performance and confident in the path forward. I’d like to thank all of those involved in designing, implementing and testing these upgrades – you’re playing a critical role in delivering the game changing F-35 capability to the warfighter.

I wold only buy the Marine version and some for AF.....not a great many just enough to keep up with retirements.....Ad in some of the F-15s we sell to others that are better than ours and move on to next design.......

This is why you're not in charge of anything. You ignore the fact that every modern aircraft produced has problems when it is introduced, and the logical path is to solve them instead of of screaming that the plane is doomed and can't ever possibly work. Helmet night vision issues you once declared show stopper, fixed. Catapult issue you announced as "real trouble" fixed, without the "full rework" you so expertly prescribed as necessary.

 

[DrainBamage]

Contrary to Manonthestreet's "wisdom" that international partners would drop out, they just keep piling up...

US Air Force official confirms rumors of F-35 talks with UAE
DUBAI — The U.S. Defense Department has begun talks with the United Arab Emirates about a potential sale of F-35 joint strike fighters, the U.S. Air Force’s number-two general said Friday.

The statements, made by Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Stephen Wilson during a roundtable with reporters ahead of Dubai Airshow, confirm an earlier report by Defense News. The story cited sources close to the talks that claimed President Donald Trump’s administration was considering delivering a classified briefing on the jet’s capabilities to UAE officials.

 

[Bleipriester]

F-35 incapable of fighting in air combat but might be forced to due to lack of other models.

What if Russia's Su-35 Went to War with America's F-35 Stealth Fighter?
America's F-35 Stealth Fighter vs. Russia's Su-35: Who Wins?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

F-35 incapable of fighting in air combat but might be forced to due to lack of other models.

What if Russia's Su-35 Went to War with America's F-35 Stealth Fighter?
America's F-35 Stealth Fighter vs. Russia's Su-35: Who Wins?

Nice try. It should be noted that when you go to fight one F-35 you also have to fight the Topcap of F-22s and F-15s which will clean the SU-35s clock in just shear numbers. Plus, until the merge, the SU-35 is more worried about incoming missiles from the F-35 than it is about what it's going to do once it wades through that. 4 against 4. The F-35A has a 17-1 kill rate against the F-15. Like the F-22, the biggest gripe from the Eagle Drivers is that they aren't even aware of the F-35 until they start losing buddies.

Once again, you are shooting your mouth out your rectum.

 

[DrainBamage]

Dave Majumdar's experience as a pilot? Zero. Dave Majumdar's experience in the military? Zero. Dude writes clickbait articles for naive idiots like BleePusser, and doesn't bother rationalizing how much F-35 has dominated other aircraft in exercises because he knows the low-information types like BleatRooster will just lap it up without bothering to apply an ounce of critical thinking.

SU-35, is an upgraded SU-30, which is an upgraded SU-27. It's basically a late 70s era design with additional bells and whistles.

 

[Bleipriester]

Once again you are in denial of regular news about planes. Is it another partisan, anti-American source? Don´t make a fool out of your self with the ever same nonsense.

 

[DrainBamage]

As usual PleirBluster with a comment real short on any facts, the king of making an utter ass of himself reigns forever.

I'd love to hear you explain how an SU-35 isn't an upgraded versions of an SU-27, designed along with MIG-29 to fight F-15s.