F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[Daryl Hunt]

Grounded.

"The F-35A is only fully mission capable 34% of the time, and the F-35B is only fully mission capable 16% of the time. The F-35C, however, lags far behind even those low numbers, being fully capable of everything required of it on the battlefield only 2% of the time, according to the GAO."

F-35 fully mission capable 27 percent of the time: GOA

Your source is questionable at best. It's a Syrian News Agency that isn't know to be that truthful. Try again, comrade.

 

[Bleipriester]

Grounded.

"The F-35A is only fully mission capable 34% of the time, and the F-35B is only fully mission capable 16% of the time. The F-35C, however, lags far behind even those low numbers, being fully capable of everything required of it on the battlefield only 2% of the time, according to the GAO."

F-35 fully mission capable 27 percent of the time: GOA

Your source is questionable at best. It's a Syrian News Agency that isn't know to be that truthful. Try again, comrade.

The source is even in the headline: Government Accountability Office
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698693.pdf

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Grounded.

"The F-35A is only fully mission capable 34% of the time, and the F-35B is only fully mission capable 16% of the time. The F-35C, however, lags far behind even those low numbers, being fully capable of everything required of it on the battlefield only 2% of the time, according to the GAO."

F-35 fully mission capable 27 percent of the time: GOA

Your source is questionable at best. It's a Syrian News Agency that isn't know to be that truthful. Try again, comrade.

The source is even in the headline: Government Accountability Office
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698693.pdf

Now, that was painless, wasn't it. Here we go.

Have you ever worked on a new weapon system? I have. Spare Parts are sometimes hard to get. And those parts on a weapon system that is in thee field and being upgraded at the factories, you will have to have a Field Level Maintenance support to modify many of those parts to fit the ones that came out before the modifications. We went through that with our F-15A models after they were producing the F-15C. The parts were for the C and we had modified A to C models. Not just the big stuff but the little stuff as well. They should have given the updated A model F-35s a different letter disignator if they were true to form. It's about 35% the same aircraft as the original As that were first accepted.

Keep that 35% figure in mind. The original idea was for all three to share at least 75% of the parts. They only share about 35% of the parts between the 3 of the models. Trying to have one supply chain for all 3 just doesn't work. They tried some new ideas. As usual, they are going to have to do a rethink. It's like that with all developing weapons systems as complicated as the F-35. And then you add in the 3 variants it gets even more difficult.

Not to worry your pretty head, the ones that are sitting just off the possible front lines have the parts and have the Field Level Maintenance to go with it. While the overall fleet may be operating at between 27 and 35%, the Marine F-35Bs flying off the small carriers are at a 70% while the Air Force F-35As in Asia are above 75%. The ones in the States or in non hot areas will just have to put up with it until they get a handle on it.

Funny, I also saw the same problem with the Antique Aircraft where we had to make parts, learn to relearn about their modifications that weren't even on the books. Yet we still met our missions. Push comes to shove, all the Branches of the US Military can make it work if called upon.

It's the People that maintain the system and fly the system that makes it all work, not necessarily the weapon system.

 

[Bleipriester]

Grounded.

"The F-35A is only fully mission capable 34% of the time, and the F-35B is only fully mission capable 16% of the time. The F-35C, however, lags far behind even those low numbers, being fully capable of everything required of it on the battlefield only 2% of the time, according to the GAO."

F-35 fully mission capable 27 percent of the time: GOA

Your source is questionable at best. It's a Syrian News Agency that isn't know to be that truthful. Try again, comrade.

The source is even in the headline: Government Accountability Office
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698693.pdf

Now, that was painless, wasn't it. Here we go.

Have you ever worked on a new weapon system? I have. Spare Parts are sometimes hard to get. And those parts on a weapon system that is in thee field and being upgraded at the factories, you will have to have a Field Level Maintenance support to modify many of those parts to fit the ones that came out before the modifications. We went through that with our F-15A models after they were producing the F-15C. The parts were for the C and we had modified A to C models. Not just the big stuff but the little stuff as well. They should have given the updated A model F-35s a different letter disignator if they were true to form. It's about 35% the same aircraft as the original As that were first accepted.

Keep that 35% figure in mind. The original idea was for all three to share at least 75% of the parts. They only share about 35% of the parts between the 3 of the models. Trying to have one supply chain for all 3 just doesn't work. They tried some new ideas. As usual, they are going to have to do a rethink. It's like that with all developing weapons systems as complicated as the F-35. And then you add in the 3 variants it gets even more difficult.

Not to worry your pretty head, the ones that are sitting just off the possible front lines have the parts and have the Field Level Maintenance to go with it. While the overall fleet may be operating at between 27 and 35%, the Marine F-35Bs flying off the small carriers are at a 70% while the Air Force F-35As in Asia are above 75%. The ones in the States or in non hot areas will just have to put up with it until they get a handle on it.

Funny, I also saw the same problem with the Antique Aircraft where we had to make parts, learn to relearn about their modifications that weren't even on the books. Yet we still met our missions. Push comes to shove, all the Branches of the US Military can make it work if called upon.

It's the People that maintain the system and fly the system that makes it all work, not necessarily the weapon system.

When you can reduce a dozen types to three that even share 35 % of the parts, it must be easier to deliver than before. Unless your plane production is spread all across the globe.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Grounded.

"The F-35A is only fully mission capable 34% of the time, and the F-35B is only fully mission capable 16% of the time. The F-35C, however, lags far behind even those low numbers, being fully capable of everything required of it on the battlefield only 2% of the time, according to the GAO."

F-35 fully mission capable 27 percent of the time: GOA

Your source is questionable at best. It's a Syrian News Agency that isn't know to be that truthful. Try again, comrade.

The source is even in the headline: Government Accountability Office
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698693.pdf

Now, that was painless, wasn't it. Here we go.

Have you ever worked on a new weapon system? I have. Spare Parts are sometimes hard to get. And those parts on a weapon system that is in thee field and being upgraded at the factories, you will have to have a Field Level Maintenance support to modify many of those parts to fit the ones that came out before the modifications. We went through that with our F-15A models after they were producing the F-15C. The parts were for the C and we had modified A to C models. Not just the big stuff but the little stuff as well. They should have given the updated A model F-35s a different letter disignator if they were true to form. It's about 35% the same aircraft as the original As that were first accepted.

Keep that 35% figure in mind. The original idea was for all three to share at least 75% of the parts. They only share about 35% of the parts between the 3 of the models. Trying to have one supply chain for all 3 just doesn't work. They tried some new ideas. As usual, they are going to have to do a rethink. It's like that with all developing weapons systems as complicated as the F-35. And then you add in the 3 variants it gets even more difficult.

Not to worry your pretty head, the ones that are sitting just off the possible front lines have the parts and have the Field Level Maintenance to go with it. While the overall fleet may be operating at between 27 and 35%, the Marine F-35Bs flying off the small carriers are at a 70% while the Air Force F-35As in Asia are above 75%. The ones in the States or in non hot areas will just have to put up with it until they get a handle on it.

Funny, I also saw the same problem with the Antique Aircraft where we had to make parts, learn to relearn about their modifications that weren't even on the books. Yet we still met our missions. Push comes to shove, all the Branches of the US Military can make it work if called upon.

It's the People that maintain the system and fly the system that makes it all work, not necessarily the weapon system.

When you can reduce a dozen types to three that even share 35 % of the parts, it must be easier to deliver than before. Unless your plane production is spread all across the globe.

One would think so. But the problem is, each service came up with their own needs and their types have been adapted and modified to meet those requirements. For instance, the Marines needed to tie in with the Ships weapons systems. The Navy also needs that. But the AF didn't. The Navy and Marines needed a moderate weapons load. Butt the AF needed a massive weapons load. The Navy and the AF needs a Air to Air weapons system but the Marines not so much. Even the onboard weapon needs is different between the 3 because the missions are so different. The Marines and Navy can settle for a 7.5G turn rate but the AF needed a 9.5+ turn rate. Each one got what they wanted. But it costs in the different parts required to support each mission.

Then add to the fact that some parts are made overseas and those programs are iffy at best. This prompts Lockheed and it's various stateside suppliers to have to go into over time to make up the difference.

Now about the parts. The Black Box you received a year ago in your supply chain may already be obsolete. The worst one for that is the F-35A. The changes happen almost overnight. Yes, it gets deadlier each day but the supply chain of the most recent upgrades and updates are hard pressed to keep up with it. But just remember this, Bitburg AB with their bright and shiny new F-15As flew against Spangalem AFB tired old F-4Es. After all the dust cleared, Bitburg could only get a sortie generation off 35% while Spang had a sortie generation of over 95%. Sounds like the F-4 should have won. It was considered a draw since the F-15, even the A, was equal to 3 F-4Es. AFter it was looked at, the F-15 would lose Radar (a weak spot in the As) and have to scrub since all weapons systems fed through the Radar Systems. Meanwhile, a flight of F-4s, only one might have working Radar and spot for the other 4. The other 4 had weaver 7x hunting scopes mounted on the dash and they used that for targeting of Guns and Sidewinders. One of the advantages of a Gen3 Fighter over either a Gen4 or Gen5 fighters is it's ability to fight when crippled.

So, this isn't the first time this has happened and even you have to admit what came out of the early fledgling F-15 program was and still is a pretty damned competent weapon system.

 

[Bleipriester]

Grounded.

"The F-35A is only fully mission capable 34% of the time, and the F-35B is only fully mission capable 16% of the time. The F-35C, however, lags far behind even those low numbers, being fully capable of everything required of it on the battlefield only 2% of the time, according to the GAO."

F-35 fully mission capable 27 percent of the time: GOA

Your source is questionable at best. It's a Syrian News Agency that isn't know to be that truthful. Try again, comrade.

The source is even in the headline: Government Accountability Office
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698693.pdf

Now, that was painless, wasn't it. Here we go.

Have you ever worked on a new weapon system? I have. Spare Parts are sometimes hard to get. And those parts on a weapon system that is in thee field and being upgraded at the factories, you will have to have a Field Level Maintenance support to modify many of those parts to fit the ones that came out before the modifications. We went through that with our F-15A models after they were producing the F-15C. The parts were for the C and we had modified A to C models. Not just the big stuff but the little stuff as well. They should have given the updated A model F-35s a different letter disignator if they were true to form. It's about 35% the same aircraft as the original As that were first accepted.

Keep that 35% figure in mind. The original idea was for all three to share at least 75% of the parts. They only share about 35% of the parts between the 3 of the models. Trying to have one supply chain for all 3 just doesn't work. They tried some new ideas. As usual, they are going to have to do a rethink. It's like that with all developing weapons systems as complicated as the F-35. And then you add in the 3 variants it gets even more difficult.

Not to worry your pretty head, the ones that are sitting just off the possible front lines have the parts and have the Field Level Maintenance to go with it. While the overall fleet may be operating at between 27 and 35%, the Marine F-35Bs flying off the small carriers are at a 70% while the Air Force F-35As in Asia are above 75%. The ones in the States or in non hot areas will just have to put up with it until they get a handle on it.

Funny, I also saw the same problem with the Antique Aircraft where we had to make parts, learn to relearn about their modifications that weren't even on the books. Yet we still met our missions. Push comes to shove, all the Branches of the US Military can make it work if called upon.

It's the People that maintain the system and fly the system that makes it all work, not necessarily the weapon system.

When you can reduce a dozen types to three that even share 35 % of the parts, it must be easier to deliver than before. Unless your plane production is spread all across the globe.

One would think so. But the problem is, each service came up with their own needs and their types have been adapted and modified to meet those requirements. For instance, the Marines needed to tie in with the Ships weapons systems. The Navy also needs that. But the AF didn't. The Navy and Marines needed a moderate weapons load. Butt the AF needed a massive weapons load. The Navy and the AF needs a Air to Air weapons system but the Marines not so much. Even the onboard weapon needs is different between the 3 because the missions are so different. The Marines and Navy can settle for a 7.5G turn rate but the AF needed a 9.5+ turn rate. Each one got what they wanted. But it costs in the different parts required to support each mission.

Then add to the fact that some parts are made overseas and those programs are iffy at best. This prompts Lockheed and it's various stateside suppliers to have to go into over time to make up the difference.

Now about the parts. The Black Box you received a year ago in your supply chain may already be obsolete. The worst one for that is the F-35A. The changes happen almost overnight. Yes, it gets deadlier each day but the supply chain of the most recent upgrades and updates are hard pressed to keep up with it. But just remember this, Bitburg AB with their bright and shiny new F-15As flew against Spangalem AFB tired old F-4Es. After all the dust cleared, Bitburg could only get a sortie generation off 35% while Spang had a sortie generation of over 95%. Sounds like the F-4 should have won. It was considered a draw since the F-15, even the A, was equal to 3 F-4Es. AFter it was looked at, the F-15 would lose Radar (a weak spot in the As) and have to scrub since all weapons systems fed through the Radar Systems. Meanwhile, a flight of F-4s, only one might have working Radar and spot for the other 4. The other 4 had weaver 7x hunting scopes mounted on the dash and they used that for targeting of Guns and Sidewinders. One of the advantages of a Gen3 Fighter over either a Gen4 or Gen5 fighters is it's ability to fight when crippled.

So, this isn't the first time this has happened and even you have to admit what came out of the early fledgling F-15 program was and still is a pretty damned competent weapon system.

I don´t know for the development of the F-15 and I prefer the F-16 anyway, but I think the F-15 is a very good weapon. Times change, however, and the end of the cold war could have led to a relax time during which skills go away.
For example, it is rarely mentioned what a disaster the Eurofighter is.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Your source is questionable at best. It's a Syrian News Agency that isn't know to be that truthful. Try again, comrade.

The source is even in the headline: Government Accountability Office
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698693.pdf

Now, that was painless, wasn't it. Here we go.

Have you ever worked on a new weapon system? I have. Spare Parts are sometimes hard to get. And those parts on a weapon system that is in thee field and being upgraded at the factories, you will have to have a Field Level Maintenance support to modify many of those parts to fit the ones that came out before the modifications. We went through that with our F-15A models after they were producing the F-15C. The parts were for the C and we had modified A to C models. Not just the big stuff but the little stuff as well. They should have given the updated A model F-35s a different letter disignator if they were true to form. It's about 35% the same aircraft as the original As that were first accepted.

Keep that 35% figure in mind. The original idea was for all three to share at least 75% of the parts. They only share about 35% of the parts between the 3 of the models. Trying to have one supply chain for all 3 just doesn't work. They tried some new ideas. As usual, they are going to have to do a rethink. It's like that with all developing weapons systems as complicated as the F-35. And then you add in the 3 variants it gets even more difficult.

Not to worry your pretty head, the ones that are sitting just off the possible front lines have the parts and have the Field Level Maintenance to go with it. While the overall fleet may be operating at between 27 and 35%, the Marine F-35Bs flying off the small carriers are at a 70% while the Air Force F-35As in Asia are above 75%. The ones in the States or in non hot areas will just have to put up with it until they get a handle on it.

Funny, I also saw the same problem with the Antique Aircraft where we had to make parts, learn to relearn about their modifications that weren't even on the books. Yet we still met our missions. Push comes to shove, all the Branches of the US Military can make it work if called upon.

It's the People that maintain the system and fly the system that makes it all work, not necessarily the weapon system.

When you can reduce a dozen types to three that even share 35 % of the parts, it must be easier to deliver than before. Unless your plane production is spread all across the globe.

One would think so. But the problem is, each service came up with their own needs and their types have been adapted and modified to meet those requirements. For instance, the Marines needed to tie in with the Ships weapons systems. The Navy also needs that. But the AF didn't. The Navy and Marines needed a moderate weapons load. Butt the AF needed a massive weapons load. The Navy and the AF needs a Air to Air weapons system but the Marines not so much. Even the onboard weapon needs is different between the 3 because the missions are so different. The Marines and Navy can settle for a 7.5G turn rate but the AF needed a 9.5+ turn rate. Each one got what they wanted. But it costs in the different parts required to support each mission.

Then add to the fact that some parts are made overseas and those programs are iffy at best. This prompts Lockheed and it's various stateside suppliers to have to go into over time to make up the difference.

Now about the parts. The Black Box you received a year ago in your supply chain may already be obsolete. The worst one for that is the F-35A. The changes happen almost overnight. Yes, it gets deadlier each day but the supply chain of the most recent upgrades and updates are hard pressed to keep up with it. But just remember this, Bitburg AB with their bright and shiny new F-15As flew against Spangalem AFB tired old F-4Es. After all the dust cleared, Bitburg could only get a sortie generation off 35% while Spang had a sortie generation of over 95%. Sounds like the F-4 should have won. It was considered a draw since the F-15, even the A, was equal to 3 F-4Es. AFter it was looked at, the F-15 would lose Radar (a weak spot in the As) and have to scrub since all weapons systems fed through the Radar Systems. Meanwhile, a flight of F-4s, only one might have working Radar and spot for the other 4. The other 4 had weaver 7x hunting scopes mounted on the dash and they used that for targeting of Guns and Sidewinders. One of the advantages of a Gen3 Fighter over either a Gen4 or Gen5 fighters is it's ability to fight when crippled.

So, this isn't the first time this has happened and even you have to admit what came out of the early fledgling F-15 program was and still is a pretty damned competent weapon system.

I don´t know for the development of the F-15 and I prefer the F-16 anyway, but I think the F-15 is a very good weapon. Times change, however, and the end of the cold war could have led to a relax time during which skills go away.
For example, it is rarely mentioned what a disaster the Eurofighter is.

The F-16 is a good fighter that is designed to do it all. But a do it all fighter isn't going to fair well against a specialized fighter. The fact that the F-15 has been modified (E) to do it all doesn't mean the F-16 can tangle with it. But the F-16 was never designed to tangle head to head with either the F-15, Eurofighter, or SU-27 Family. It's requirements are, be cheap (or at least cheaper), be able to deliver a load, back up the other pure fighters when need be, and be numerous as hell. Much like the Mig-29 versus the SU-27 and it's family.

Now, you keep telling us what isn't so great, how about telling us what is?

 

[Bleipriester]

The source is even in the headline: Government Accountability Office
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698693.pdf

Now, that was painless, wasn't it. Here we go.

Have you ever worked on a new weapon system? I have. Spare Parts are sometimes hard to get. And those parts on a weapon system that is in thee field and being upgraded at the factories, you will have to have a Field Level Maintenance support to modify many of those parts to fit the ones that came out before the modifications. We went through that with our F-15A models after they were producing the F-15C. The parts were for the C and we had modified A to C models. Not just the big stuff but the little stuff as well. They should have given the updated A model F-35s a different letter disignator if they were true to form. It's about 35% the same aircraft as the original As that were first accepted.

Keep that 35% figure in mind. The original idea was for all three to share at least 75% of the parts. They only share about 35% of the parts between the 3 of the models. Trying to have one supply chain for all 3 just doesn't work. They tried some new ideas. As usual, they are going to have to do a rethink. It's like that with all developing weapons systems as complicated as the F-35. And then you add in the 3 variants it gets even more difficult.

Not to worry your pretty head, the ones that are sitting just off the possible front lines have the parts and have the Field Level Maintenance to go with it. While the overall fleet may be operating at between 27 and 35%, the Marine F-35Bs flying off the small carriers are at a 70% while the Air Force F-35As in Asia are above 75%. The ones in the States or in non hot areas will just have to put up with it until they get a handle on it.

Funny, I also saw the same problem with the Antique Aircraft where we had to make parts, learn to relearn about their modifications that weren't even on the books. Yet we still met our missions. Push comes to shove, all the Branches of the US Military can make it work if called upon.

It's the People that maintain the system and fly the system that makes it all work, not necessarily the weapon system.

When you can reduce a dozen types to three that even share 35 % of the parts, it must be easier to deliver than before. Unless your plane production is spread all across the globe.

One would think so. But the problem is, each service came up with their own needs and their types have been adapted and modified to meet those requirements. For instance, the Marines needed to tie in with the Ships weapons systems. The Navy also needs that. But the AF didn't. The Navy and Marines needed a moderate weapons load. Butt the AF needed a massive weapons load. The Navy and the AF needs a Air to Air weapons system but the Marines not so much. Even the onboard weapon needs is different between the 3 because the missions are so different. The Marines and Navy can settle for a 7.5G turn rate but the AF needed a 9.5+ turn rate. Each one got what they wanted. But it costs in the different parts required to support each mission.

Then add to the fact that some parts are made overseas and those programs are iffy at best. This prompts Lockheed and it's various stateside suppliers to have to go into over time to make up the difference.

Now about the parts. The Black Box you received a year ago in your supply chain may already be obsolete. The worst one for that is the F-35A. The changes happen almost overnight. Yes, it gets deadlier each day but the supply chain of the most recent upgrades and updates are hard pressed to keep up with it. But just remember this, Bitburg AB with their bright and shiny new F-15As flew against Spangalem AFB tired old F-4Es. After all the dust cleared, Bitburg could only get a sortie generation off 35% while Spang had a sortie generation of over 95%. Sounds like the F-4 should have won. It was considered a draw since the F-15, even the A, was equal to 3 F-4Es. AFter it was looked at, the F-15 would lose Radar (a weak spot in the As) and have to scrub since all weapons systems fed through the Radar Systems. Meanwhile, a flight of F-4s, only one might have working Radar and spot for the other 4. The other 4 had weaver 7x hunting scopes mounted on the dash and they used that for targeting of Guns and Sidewinders. One of the advantages of a Gen3 Fighter over either a Gen4 or Gen5 fighters is it's ability to fight when crippled.

So, this isn't the first time this has happened and even you have to admit what came out of the early fledgling F-15 program was and still is a pretty damned competent weapon system.

I don´t know for the development of the F-15 and I prefer the F-16 anyway, but I think the F-15 is a very good weapon. Times change, however, and the end of the cold war could have led to a relax time during which skills go away.
For example, it is rarely mentioned what a disaster the Eurofighter is.

The F-16 is a good fighter that is designed to do it all. But a do it all fighter isn't going to fair well against a specialized fighter. The fact that the F-15 has been modified (E) to do it all doesn't mean the F-16 can tangle with it. But the F-16 was never designed to tangle head to head with either the F-15, Eurofighter, or SU-27 Family. It's requirements are, be cheap (or at least cheaper), be able to deliver a load, back up the other pure fighters when need be, and be numerous as hell. Much like the Mig-29 versus the SU-27 and it's family.

Now, you keep telling us what isn't so great, how about telling us what is?

I think the F-16 is great. It is light weight, maneuverable and next to the F-15 the only one that comes in relevant numbers.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Now, that was painless, wasn't it. Here we go.

Have you ever worked on a new weapon system? I have. Spare Parts are sometimes hard to get. And those parts on a weapon system that is in thee field and being upgraded at the factories, you will have to have a Field Level Maintenance support to modify many of those parts to fit the ones that came out before the modifications. We went through that with our F-15A models after they were producing the F-15C. The parts were for the C and we had modified A to C models. Not just the big stuff but the little stuff as well. They should have given the updated A model F-35s a different letter disignator if they were true to form. It's about 35% the same aircraft as the original As that were first accepted.

Keep that 35% figure in mind. The original idea was for all three to share at least 75% of the parts. They only share about 35% of the parts between the 3 of the models. Trying to have one supply chain for all 3 just doesn't work. They tried some new ideas. As usual, they are going to have to do a rethink. It's like that with all developing weapons systems as complicated as the F-35. And then you add in the 3 variants it gets even more difficult.

Not to worry your pretty head, the ones that are sitting just off the possible front lines have the parts and have the Field Level Maintenance to go with it. While the overall fleet may be operating at between 27 and 35%, the Marine F-35Bs flying off the small carriers are at a 70% while the Air Force F-35As in Asia are above 75%. The ones in the States or in non hot areas will just have to put up with it until they get a handle on it.

Funny, I also saw the same problem with the Antique Aircraft where we had to make parts, learn to relearn about their modifications that weren't even on the books. Yet we still met our missions. Push comes to shove, all the Branches of the US Military can make it work if called upon.

It's the People that maintain the system and fly the system that makes it all work, not necessarily the weapon system.

When you can reduce a dozen types to three that even share 35 % of the parts, it must be easier to deliver than before. Unless your plane production is spread all across the globe.

One would think so. But the problem is, each service came up with their own needs and their types have been adapted and modified to meet those requirements. For instance, the Marines needed to tie in with the Ships weapons systems. The Navy also needs that. But the AF didn't. The Navy and Marines needed a moderate weapons load. Butt the AF needed a massive weapons load. The Navy and the AF needs a Air to Air weapons system but the Marines not so much. Even the onboard weapon needs is different between the 3 because the missions are so different. The Marines and Navy can settle for a 7.5G turn rate but the AF needed a 9.5+ turn rate. Each one got what they wanted. But it costs in the different parts required to support each mission.

Then add to the fact that some parts are made overseas and those programs are iffy at best. This prompts Lockheed and it's various stateside suppliers to have to go into over time to make up the difference.

Now about the parts. The Black Box you received a year ago in your supply chain may already be obsolete. The worst one for that is the F-35A. The changes happen almost overnight. Yes, it gets deadlier each day but the supply chain of the most recent upgrades and updates are hard pressed to keep up with it. But just remember this, Bitburg AB with their bright and shiny new F-15As flew against Spangalem AFB tired old F-4Es. After all the dust cleared, Bitburg could only get a sortie generation off 35% while Spang had a sortie generation of over 95%. Sounds like the F-4 should have won. It was considered a draw since the F-15, even the A, was equal to 3 F-4Es. AFter it was looked at, the F-15 would lose Radar (a weak spot in the As) and have to scrub since all weapons systems fed through the Radar Systems. Meanwhile, a flight of F-4s, only one might have working Radar and spot for the other 4. The other 4 had weaver 7x hunting scopes mounted on the dash and they used that for targeting of Guns and Sidewinders. One of the advantages of a Gen3 Fighter over either a Gen4 or Gen5 fighters is it's ability to fight when crippled.

So, this isn't the first time this has happened and even you have to admit what came out of the early fledgling F-15 program was and still is a pretty damned competent weapon system.

I don´t know for the development of the F-15 and I prefer the F-16 anyway, but I think the F-15 is a very good weapon. Times change, however, and the end of the cold war could have led to a relax time during which skills go away.
For example, it is rarely mentioned what a disaster the Eurofighter is.

The F-16 is a good fighter that is designed to do it all. But a do it all fighter isn't going to fair well against a specialized fighter. The fact that the F-15 has been modified (E) to do it all doesn't mean the F-16 can tangle with it. But the F-16 was never designed to tangle head to head with either the F-15, Eurofighter, or SU-27 Family. It's requirements are, be cheap (or at least cheaper), be able to deliver a load, back up the other pure fighters when need be, and be numerous as hell. Much like the Mig-29 versus the SU-27 and it's family.

Now, you keep telling us what isn't so great, how about telling us what is?

I think the F-16 is great. It is light weight, maneuverable and next to the F-15 the only one that comes in relevant numbers.

And ones in the inventory are tired, real tired. Do you buy more of an outdated fighter or go with something shiny and new for almost the same cost. Remember, the test you referred to was of a fully functional F-16 with drop tanks capable of pulling over 7 gees with the tanks and the F-35 was on of the original test birds limited to only 6.5 gs with a different engine. The F-35A in production today has a higher output on it's engine and is capable of a 9.5+ g turn rate. They still claim the F-35 has top speed of mach 1.6 but if that is for the F-35B and C, the lighter F-35A should easily exceed that if needed. The B and C can fly at Mach .95 without afterburner. That means the F-35A should be up around mach 1.2 or 1.3. Keep in mind, the B and C are totally different Aircraft than the A. What's happened, the F-35A now outperforms the F-16 in every margin. And all they were shooting for was to equal the F-16 while being stealthy. Now that the cost is below 90mil, it sounds like the F-35A is worth it's weight in gold. When you do a cost analysis for parts, you need to specify which model you are dealing with. The AF is showing almost identical combat readiness as the F-16 which is one of the best in the world. They are totally different aircraft and one item written doesn't apply to all three.

 

[Bleipriester]

When you can reduce a dozen types to three that even share 35 % of the parts, it must be easier to deliver than before. Unless your plane production is spread all across the globe.

One would think so. But the problem is, each service came up with their own needs and their types have been adapted and modified to meet those requirements. For instance, the Marines needed to tie in with the Ships weapons systems. The Navy also needs that. But the AF didn't. The Navy and Marines needed a moderate weapons load. Butt the AF needed a massive weapons load. The Navy and the AF needs a Air to Air weapons system but the Marines not so much. Even the onboard weapon needs is different between the 3 because the missions are so different. The Marines and Navy can settle for a 7.5G turn rate but the AF needed a 9.5+ turn rate. Each one got what they wanted. But it costs in the different parts required to support each mission.

Then add to the fact that some parts are made overseas and those programs are iffy at best. This prompts Lockheed and it's various stateside suppliers to have to go into over time to make up the difference.

Now about the parts. The Black Box you received a year ago in your supply chain may already be obsolete. The worst one for that is the F-35A. The changes happen almost overnight. Yes, it gets deadlier each day but the supply chain of the most recent upgrades and updates are hard pressed to keep up with it. But just remember this, Bitburg AB with their bright and shiny new F-15As flew against Spangalem AFB tired old F-4Es. After all the dust cleared, Bitburg could only get a sortie generation off 35% while Spang had a sortie generation of over 95%. Sounds like the F-4 should have won. It was considered a draw since the F-15, even the A, was equal to 3 F-4Es. AFter it was looked at, the F-15 would lose Radar (a weak spot in the As) and have to scrub since all weapons systems fed through the Radar Systems. Meanwhile, a flight of F-4s, only one might have working Radar and spot for the other 4. The other 4 had weaver 7x hunting scopes mounted on the dash and they used that for targeting of Guns and Sidewinders. One of the advantages of a Gen3 Fighter over either a Gen4 or Gen5 fighters is it's ability to fight when crippled.

So, this isn't the first time this has happened and even you have to admit what came out of the early fledgling F-15 program was and still is a pretty damned competent weapon system.

I don´t know for the development of the F-15 and I prefer the F-16 anyway, but I think the F-15 is a very good weapon. Times change, however, and the end of the cold war could have led to a relax time during which skills go away.
For example, it is rarely mentioned what a disaster the Eurofighter is.

The F-16 is a good fighter that is designed to do it all. But a do it all fighter isn't going to fair well against a specialized fighter. The fact that the F-15 has been modified (E) to do it all doesn't mean the F-16 can tangle with it. But the F-16 was never designed to tangle head to head with either the F-15, Eurofighter, or SU-27 Family. It's requirements are, be cheap (or at least cheaper), be able to deliver a load, back up the other pure fighters when need be, and be numerous as hell. Much like the Mig-29 versus the SU-27 and it's family.

Now, you keep telling us what isn't so great, how about telling us what is?

I think the F-16 is great. It is light weight, maneuverable and next to the F-15 the only one that comes in relevant numbers.

And ones in the inventory are tired, real tired. Do you buy more of an outdated fighter or go with something shiny and new for almost the same cost. Remember, the test you referred to was of a fully functional F-16 with drop tanks capable of pulling over 7 gees with the tanks and the F-35 was on of the original test birds limited to only 6.5 gs with a different engine. The F-35A in production today has a higher output on it's engine and is capable of a 9.5+ g turn rate. They still claim the F-35 has top speed of mach 1.6 but if that is for the F-35B and C, the lighter F-35A should easily exceed that if needed. The B and C can fly at Mach .95 without afterburner. That means the F-35A should be up around mach 1.2 or 1.3. Keep in mind, the B and C are totally different Aircraft than the A. What's happened, the F-35A now outperforms the F-16 in every margin. And all they were shooting for was to equal the F-16 while being stealthy. Now that the cost is below 90mil, it sounds like the F-35A is worth it's weight in gold. When you do a cost analysis for parts, you need to specify which model you are dealing with. The AF is showing almost identical combat readiness as the F-16 which is one of the best in the world. They are totally different aircraft and one item written doesn't apply to all three.

There are bad news about the F35 regularly and we need to wait until the F35 has proven its capabilities.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

One would think so. But the problem is, each service came up with their own needs and their types have been adapted and modified to meet those requirements. For instance, the Marines needed to tie in with the Ships weapons systems. The Navy also needs that. But the AF didn't. The Navy and Marines needed a moderate weapons load. Butt the AF needed a massive weapons load. The Navy and the AF needs a Air to Air weapons system but the Marines not so much. Even the onboard weapon needs is different between the 3 because the missions are so different. The Marines and Navy can settle for a 7.5G turn rate but the AF needed a 9.5+ turn rate. Each one got what they wanted. But it costs in the different parts required to support each mission.

Then add to the fact that some parts are made overseas and those programs are iffy at best. This prompts Lockheed and it's various stateside suppliers to have to go into over time to make up the difference.

Now about the parts. The Black Box you received a year ago in your supply chain may already be obsolete. The worst one for that is the F-35A. The changes happen almost overnight. Yes, it gets deadlier each day but the supply chain of the most recent upgrades and updates are hard pressed to keep up with it. But just remember this, Bitburg AB with their bright and shiny new F-15As flew against Spangalem AFB tired old F-4Es. After all the dust cleared, Bitburg could only get a sortie generation off 35% while Spang had a sortie generation of over 95%. Sounds like the F-4 should have won. It was considered a draw since the F-15, even the A, was equal to 3 F-4Es. AFter it was looked at, the F-15 would lose Radar (a weak spot in the As) and have to scrub since all weapons systems fed through the Radar Systems. Meanwhile, a flight of F-4s, only one might have working Radar and spot for the other 4. The other 4 had weaver 7x hunting scopes mounted on the dash and they used that for targeting of Guns and Sidewinders. One of the advantages of a Gen3 Fighter over either a Gen4 or Gen5 fighters is it's ability to fight when crippled.

So, this isn't the first time this has happened and even you have to admit what came out of the early fledgling F-15 program was and still is a pretty damned competent weapon system.

I don´t know for the development of the F-15 and I prefer the F-16 anyway, but I think the F-15 is a very good weapon. Times change, however, and the end of the cold war could have led to a relax time during which skills go away.
For example, it is rarely mentioned what a disaster the Eurofighter is.

The F-16 is a good fighter that is designed to do it all. But a do it all fighter isn't going to fair well against a specialized fighter. The fact that the F-15 has been modified (E) to do it all doesn't mean the F-16 can tangle with it. But the F-16 was never designed to tangle head to head with either the F-15, Eurofighter, or SU-27 Family. It's requirements are, be cheap (or at least cheaper), be able to deliver a load, back up the other pure fighters when need be, and be numerous as hell. Much like the Mig-29 versus the SU-27 and it's family.

Now, you keep telling us what isn't so great, how about telling us what is?

I think the F-16 is great. It is light weight, maneuverable and next to the F-15 the only one that comes in relevant numbers.

And ones in the inventory are tired, real tired. Do you buy more of an outdated fighter or go with something shiny and new for almost the same cost. Remember, the test you referred to was of a fully functional F-16 with drop tanks capable of pulling over 7 gees with the tanks and the F-35 was on of the original test birds limited to only 6.5 gs with a different engine. The F-35A in production today has a higher output on it's engine and is capable of a 9.5+ g turn rate. They still claim the F-35 has top speed of mach 1.6 but if that is for the F-35B and C, the lighter F-35A should easily exceed that if needed. The B and C can fly at Mach .95 without afterburner. That means the F-35A should be up around mach 1.2 or 1.3. Keep in mind, the B and C are totally different Aircraft than the A. What's happened, the F-35A now outperforms the F-16 in every margin. And all they were shooting for was to equal the F-16 while being stealthy. Now that the cost is below 90mil, it sounds like the F-35A is worth it's weight in gold. When you do a cost analysis for parts, you need to specify which model you are dealing with. The AF is showing almost identical combat readiness as the F-16 which is one of the best in the world. They are totally different aircraft and one item written doesn't apply to all three.

There are bad news about the F35 regularly and we need to wait until the F35 has proven its capabilities.

It's like the F-22, the F-35 scares the living hell out of other Air Forces. It's been proven with the B model in combat already flying off postage carriers. Meanwhile, the Chinese are giving the F-35A a very wide birth. Yes, they talk a good game but they aren't playing their little games with the F-35 and F-22 that they play with slow lumbering cargo planes that can't shoot back. China and Russia find it very capable yet you don't. I think I'll go by the Chinese and Russian actions rather than what either they nor you have to say about it.

 

[Bleipriester]

I don´t know for the development of the F-15 and I prefer the F-16 anyway, but I think the F-15 is a very good weapon. Times change, however, and the end of the cold war could have led to a relax time during which skills go away.
For example, it is rarely mentioned what a disaster the Eurofighter is.

The F-16 is a good fighter that is designed to do it all. But a do it all fighter isn't going to fair well against a specialized fighter. The fact that the F-15 has been modified (E) to do it all doesn't mean the F-16 can tangle with it. But the F-16 was never designed to tangle head to head with either the F-15, Eurofighter, or SU-27 Family. It's requirements are, be cheap (or at least cheaper), be able to deliver a load, back up the other pure fighters when need be, and be numerous as hell. Much like the Mig-29 versus the SU-27 and it's family.

Now, you keep telling us what isn't so great, how about telling us what is?

I think the F-16 is great. It is light weight, maneuverable and next to the F-15 the only one that comes in relevant numbers.

And ones in the inventory are tired, real tired. Do you buy more of an outdated fighter or go with something shiny and new for almost the same cost. Remember, the test you referred to was of a fully functional F-16 with drop tanks capable of pulling over 7 gees with the tanks and the F-35 was on of the original test birds limited to only 6.5 gs with a different engine. The F-35A in production today has a higher output on it's engine and is capable of a 9.5+ g turn rate. They still claim the F-35 has top speed of mach 1.6 but if that is for the F-35B and C, the lighter F-35A should easily exceed that if needed. The B and C can fly at Mach .95 without afterburner. That means the F-35A should be up around mach 1.2 or 1.3. Keep in mind, the B and C are totally different Aircraft than the A. What's happened, the F-35A now outperforms the F-16 in every margin. And all they were shooting for was to equal the F-16 while being stealthy. Now that the cost is below 90mil, it sounds like the F-35A is worth it's weight in gold. When you do a cost analysis for parts, you need to specify which model you are dealing with. The AF is showing almost identical combat readiness as the F-16 which is one of the best in the world. They are totally different aircraft and one item written doesn't apply to all three.

There are bad news about the F35 regularly and we need to wait until the F35 has proven its capabilities.

It's like the F-22, the F-35 scares the living hell out of other Air Forces. It's been proven with the B model in combat already flying off postage carriers. Meanwhile, the Chinese are giving the F-35A a very wide birth. Yes, they talk a good game but they aren't playing their little games with the F-35 and F-22 that they play with slow lumbering cargo planes that can't shoot back. China and Russia find it very capable yet you don't. I think I'll go by the Chinese and Russian actions rather than what either they nor you have to say about it.

Moscow and Peking may shit their pants but the Syrians, who actually fired a missile at it, downed it. That must be accounted but as single example it is not enough.
The Chinese cargo plane is new, it is not a combat vehicle.

Chengdu J-10 - Wikipedia
Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia
Shenyang FC-31 - Wikipedia

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The word is "berth", not "birth"!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The F-16 is a good fighter that is designed to do it all. But a do it all fighter isn't going to fair well against a specialized fighter. The fact that the F-15 has been modified (E) to do it all doesn't mean the F-16 can tangle with it. But the F-16 was never designed to tangle head to head with either the F-15, Eurofighter, or SU-27 Family. It's requirements are, be cheap (or at least cheaper), be able to deliver a load, back up the other pure fighters when need be, and be numerous as hell. Much like the Mig-29 versus the SU-27 and it's family.

Now, you keep telling us what isn't so great, how about telling us what is?

I think the F-16 is great. It is light weight, maneuverable and next to the F-15 the only one that comes in relevant numbers.

And ones in the inventory are tired, real tired. Do you buy more of an outdated fighter or go with something shiny and new for almost the same cost. Remember, the test you referred to was of a fully functional F-16 with drop tanks capable of pulling over 7 gees with the tanks and the F-35 was on of the original test birds limited to only 6.5 gs with a different engine. The F-35A in production today has a higher output on it's engine and is capable of a 9.5+ g turn rate. They still claim the F-35 has top speed of mach 1.6 but if that is for the F-35B and C, the lighter F-35A should easily exceed that if needed. The B and C can fly at Mach .95 without afterburner. That means the F-35A should be up around mach 1.2 or 1.3. Keep in mind, the B and C are totally different Aircraft than the A. What's happened, the F-35A now outperforms the F-16 in every margin. And all they were shooting for was to equal the F-16 while being stealthy. Now that the cost is below 90mil, it sounds like the F-35A is worth it's weight in gold. When you do a cost analysis for parts, you need to specify which model you are dealing with. The AF is showing almost identical combat readiness as the F-16 which is one of the best in the world. They are totally different aircraft and one item written doesn't apply to all three.

There are bad news about the F35 regularly and we need to wait until the F35 has proven its capabilities.

It's like the F-22, the F-35 scares the living hell out of other Air Forces. It's been proven with the B model in combat already flying off postage carriers. Meanwhile, the Chinese are giving the F-35A a very wide birth. Yes, they talk a good game but they aren't playing their little games with the F-35 and F-22 that they play with slow lumbering cargo planes that can't shoot back. China and Russia find it very capable yet you don't. I think I'll go by the Chinese and Russian actions rather than what either they nor you have to say about it.

Moscow and Peking may shit their pants but the Syrians, who actually fired a missile at it, downed it. That must be accounted but as single example it is not enough.
The Chinese cargo plane is new, it is not a combat vehicle.

Chengdu J-10 - Wikipedia
Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia
Shenyang FC-31 - Wikipedia

I notice that both of your sources come from Syria. One is extremely questionable. The Syrians downed a F-16 and claimed it was a F-35. About the same time period, an F-35 took bird strike damage and had to safely land. Your Syrian report was made up.

Proof of that is, the F-22 is flying whenever and wherever it wants. Since the F-35 is about as equally stealthy on the average as the F-22 then one would think that at least one F-22 would have either taken severe damage or been shot down by the same weapon systems. Use your brain. If they could have shot either one down, both would have been affected. I doubt, when both are operating, there isn't much information on the Radar Sites side to distinguish between the two. Thinking it's there or even knowing it's there isn't the same as having enough radar signature to keep a lock on long enough to strike it. Your Syrian source was debunked long ago. Stop lying.

 

[Bleipriester]

I think the F-16 is great. It is light weight, maneuverable and next to the F-15 the only one that comes in relevant numbers.

And ones in the inventory are tired, real tired. Do you buy more of an outdated fighter or go with something shiny and new for almost the same cost. Remember, the test you referred to was of a fully functional F-16 with drop tanks capable of pulling over 7 gees with the tanks and the F-35 was on of the original test birds limited to only 6.5 gs with a different engine. The F-35A in production today has a higher output on it's engine and is capable of a 9.5+ g turn rate. They still claim the F-35 has top speed of mach 1.6 but if that is for the F-35B and C, the lighter F-35A should easily exceed that if needed. The B and C can fly at Mach .95 without afterburner. That means the F-35A should be up around mach 1.2 or 1.3. Keep in mind, the B and C are totally different Aircraft than the A. What's happened, the F-35A now outperforms the F-16 in every margin. And all they were shooting for was to equal the F-16 while being stealthy. Now that the cost is below 90mil, it sounds like the F-35A is worth it's weight in gold. When you do a cost analysis for parts, you need to specify which model you are dealing with. The AF is showing almost identical combat readiness as the F-16 which is one of the best in the world. They are totally different aircraft and one item written doesn't apply to all three.

There are bad news about the F35 regularly and we need to wait until the F35 has proven its capabilities.

It's like the F-22, the F-35 scares the living hell out of other Air Forces. It's been proven with the B model in combat already flying off postage carriers. Meanwhile, the Chinese are giving the F-35A a very wide birth. Yes, they talk a good game but they aren't playing their little games with the F-35 and F-22 that they play with slow lumbering cargo planes that can't shoot back. China and Russia find it very capable yet you don't. I think I'll go by the Chinese and Russian actions rather than what either they nor you have to say about it.

Moscow and Peking may shit their pants but the Syrians, who actually fired a missile at it, downed it. That must be accounted but as single example it is not enough.
The Chinese cargo plane is new, it is not a combat vehicle.

Chengdu J-10 - Wikipedia
Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia
Shenyang FC-31 - Wikipedia

I notice that both of your sources come from Syria. One is extremely questionable. The Syrians downed a F-16 and claimed it was a F-35. About the same time period, an F-35 took bird strike damage and had to safely land. Your Syrian report was made up.

Proof of that is, the F-22 is flying whenever and wherever it wants. Since the F-35 is about as equally stealthy on the average as the F-22 then one would think that at least one F-22 would have either taken severe damage or been shot down by the same weapon systems. Use your brain. If they could have shot either one down, both would have been affected. I doubt, when both are operating, there isn't much information on the Radar Sites side to distinguish between the two. Thinking it's there or even knowing it's there isn't the same as having enough radar signature to keep a lock on long enough to strike it. Your Syrian source was debunked long ago. Stop lying.

You can check various sources. There is no claim that a F-16 was a F-35. Those are two cases.
As for the F-16, there are no doubts. As for the F-35, the bird strike is nothing more than an Israeli claim. There are no proofs for either version. You must apply logics. The F-35 was on a combat mission against Syrian targets and it operated in Lebanese airspace. A bird strike is not likely. If it was a bird strike, it would have been easy for Israel to show us the F-35. Also, the F-35 was tested against bird strikes. It is bird strike proof.
The stealth capability of the F-35 is not equal to that of the F-22
Blaming sources is not helping you, the "bird strike" was discussed on every serious platform that has something to do with military aviation and if you serous about this you admit a maximum of 10 % bird strike probability.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And ones in the inventory are tired, real tired. Do you buy more of an outdated fighter or go with something shiny and new for almost the same cost. Remember, the test you referred to was of a fully functional F-16 with drop tanks capable of pulling over 7 gees with the tanks and the F-35 was on of the original test birds limited to only 6.5 gs with a different engine. The F-35A in production today has a higher output on it's engine and is capable of a 9.5+ g turn rate. They still claim the F-35 has top speed of mach 1.6 but if that is for the F-35B and C, the lighter F-35A should easily exceed that if needed. The B and C can fly at Mach .95 without afterburner. That means the F-35A should be up around mach 1.2 or 1.3. Keep in mind, the B and C are totally different Aircraft than the A. What's happened, the F-35A now outperforms the F-16 in every margin. And all they were shooting for was to equal the F-16 while being stealthy. Now that the cost is below 90mil, it sounds like the F-35A is worth it's weight in gold. When you do a cost analysis for parts, you need to specify which model you are dealing with. The AF is showing almost identical combat readiness as the F-16 which is one of the best in the world. They are totally different aircraft and one item written doesn't apply to all three.

There are bad news about the F35 regularly and we need to wait until the F35 has proven its capabilities.

It's like the F-22, the F-35 scares the living hell out of other Air Forces. It's been proven with the B model in combat already flying off postage carriers. Meanwhile, the Chinese are giving the F-35A a very wide birth. Yes, they talk a good game but they aren't playing their little games with the F-35 and F-22 that they play with slow lumbering cargo planes that can't shoot back. China and Russia find it very capable yet you don't. I think I'll go by the Chinese and Russian actions rather than what either they nor you have to say about it.

Moscow and Peking may shit their pants but the Syrians, who actually fired a missile at it, downed it. That must be accounted but as single example it is not enough.
The Chinese cargo plane is new, it is not a combat vehicle.

Chengdu J-10 - Wikipedia
Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia
Shenyang FC-31 - Wikipedia

I notice that both of your sources come from Syria. One is extremely questionable. The Syrians downed a F-16 and claimed it was a F-35. About the same time period, an F-35 took bird strike damage and had to safely land. Your Syrian report was made up.

Proof of that is, the F-22 is flying whenever and wherever it wants. Since the F-35 is about as equally stealthy on the average as the F-22 then one would think that at least one F-22 would have either taken severe damage or been shot down by the same weapon systems. Use your brain. If they could have shot either one down, both would have been affected. I doubt, when both are operating, there isn't much information on the Radar Sites side to distinguish between the two. Thinking it's there or even knowing it's there isn't the same as having enough radar signature to keep a lock on long enough to strike it. Your Syrian source was debunked long ago. Stop lying.

You can check various sources. There is no claim that a F-16 was a F-35. Those are two cases.
As for the F-16, there are no doubts. As for the F-35, the bird strike is nothing more than an Israeli claim. There are no proofs for either version. You must apply logics. The F-35 was on a combat mission against Syrian targets and it operated in Lebanese airspace. A bird strike is not likely. If it was a bird strike, it would have been easy for Israel to show us the F-35. Also, the F-35 was tested against bird strikes. It is bird strike proof.
The stealth capability of the F-35 is not equal to that of the F-22
Blaming sources is not helping you, the "bird strike" was discussed on every serious platform that has something to do with military aviation and if you serous about this you admit a maximum of 10 % bird strike probability.

You back to this tired old BS again? Think about this, I have water Proof Matches. Does that mean they are no subject to water? No, when we, they won't light. And the word you are you looking at is Resitant, not Proof. Nothing that flies at over 400 mph is bird strike proof. Proof,meaning, not affected.

Here are a few Fighter Bird Strikes. And there has been two recorded Bird Strikes on the F-35 so far. But many other fighters had had bird strikes. They usually mean either punch out of find a nice place to set it down fast. I used the Chinese to show that it doesn't happen to just the US and Israel.




Then there are times that the plane is lost and punch out. You get to ride the bird all the way to ground on this one.


Yes, the Windscreen on the F-35 is bird strike resistant (or proof) but the rest of the aircraft is not.

 

[Bleipriester]

There are bad news about the F35 regularly and we need to wait until the F35 has proven its capabilities.

It's like the F-22, the F-35 scares the living hell out of other Air Forces. It's been proven with the B model in combat already flying off postage carriers. Meanwhile, the Chinese are giving the F-35A a very wide birth. Yes, they talk a good game but they aren't playing their little games with the F-35 and F-22 that they play with slow lumbering cargo planes that can't shoot back. China and Russia find it very capable yet you don't. I think I'll go by the Chinese and Russian actions rather than what either they nor you have to say about it.

Moscow and Peking may shit their pants but the Syrians, who actually fired a missile at it, downed it. That must be accounted but as single example it is not enough.
The Chinese cargo plane is new, it is not a combat vehicle.

Chengdu J-10 - Wikipedia
Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia
Shenyang FC-31 - Wikipedia

I notice that both of your sources come from Syria. One is extremely questionable. The Syrians downed a F-16 and claimed it was a F-35. About the same time period, an F-35 took bird strike damage and had to safely land. Your Syrian report was made up.

Proof of that is, the F-22 is flying whenever and wherever it wants. Since the F-35 is about as equally stealthy on the average as the F-22 then one would think that at least one F-22 would have either taken severe damage or been shot down by the same weapon systems. Use your brain. If they could have shot either one down, both would have been affected. I doubt, when both are operating, there isn't much information on the Radar Sites side to distinguish between the two. Thinking it's there or even knowing it's there isn't the same as having enough radar signature to keep a lock on long enough to strike it. Your Syrian source was debunked long ago. Stop lying.

You can check various sources. There is no claim that a F-16 was a F-35. Those are two cases.
As for the F-16, there are no doubts. As for the F-35, the bird strike is nothing more than an Israeli claim. There are no proofs for either version. You must apply logics. The F-35 was on a combat mission against Syrian targets and it operated in Lebanese airspace. A bird strike is not likely. If it was a bird strike, it would have been easy for Israel to show us the F-35. Also, the F-35 was tested against bird strikes. It is bird strike proof.
The stealth capability of the F-35 is not equal to that of the F-22
Blaming sources is not helping you, the "bird strike" was discussed on every serious platform that has something to do with military aviation and if you serous about this you admit a maximum of 10 % bird strike probability.

You back to this tired old BS again? Think about this, I have water Proof Matches. Does that mean they are no subject to water? No, when we, they won't light. And the word you are you looking at is Resitant, not Proof. Nothing that flies at over 400 mph is bird strike proof. Proof,meaning, not affected.

Here are a few Fighter Bird Strikes. And there has been two recorded Bird Strikes on the F-35 so far. But many other fighters had had bird strikes. They usually mean either punch out of find a nice place to set it down fast. I used the Chinese to show that it doesn't happen to just the US and Israel.




Then there are times that the plane is lost and punch out. You get to ride the bird all the way to ground on this one.


Yes, the Windscreen on the F-35 is bird strike resistant (or proof) but the rest of the aircraft is not.

Still the likelihood of a S-200 missile is way beyond the bird´s horizon.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It's like the F-22, the F-35 scares the living hell out of other Air Forces. It's been proven with the B model in combat already flying off postage carriers. Meanwhile, the Chinese are giving the F-35A a very wide birth. Yes, they talk a good game but they aren't playing their little games with the F-35 and F-22 that they play with slow lumbering cargo planes that can't shoot back. China and Russia find it very capable yet you don't. I think I'll go by the Chinese and Russian actions rather than what either they nor you have to say about it.

Moscow and Peking may shit their pants but the Syrians, who actually fired a missile at it, downed it. That must be accounted but as single example it is not enough.
The Chinese cargo plane is new, it is not a combat vehicle.

Chengdu J-10 - Wikipedia
Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia
Shenyang FC-31 - Wikipedia

I notice that both of your sources come from Syria. One is extremely questionable. The Syrians downed a F-16 and claimed it was a F-35. About the same time period, an F-35 took bird strike damage and had to safely land. Your Syrian report was made up.

Proof of that is, the F-22 is flying whenever and wherever it wants. Since the F-35 is about as equally stealthy on the average as the F-22 then one would think that at least one F-22 would have either taken severe damage or been shot down by the same weapon systems. Use your brain. If they could have shot either one down, both would have been affected. I doubt, when both are operating, there isn't much information on the Radar Sites side to distinguish between the two. Thinking it's there or even knowing it's there isn't the same as having enough radar signature to keep a lock on long enough to strike it. Your Syrian source was debunked long ago. Stop lying.

You can check various sources. There is no claim that a F-16 was a F-35. Those are two cases.
As for the F-16, there are no doubts. As for the F-35, the bird strike is nothing more than an Israeli claim. There are no proofs for either version. You must apply logics. The F-35 was on a combat mission against Syrian targets and it operated in Lebanese airspace. A bird strike is not likely. If it was a bird strike, it would have been easy for Israel to show us the F-35. Also, the F-35 was tested against bird strikes. It is bird strike proof.
The stealth capability of the F-35 is not equal to that of the F-22
Blaming sources is not helping you, the "bird strike" was discussed on every serious platform that has something to do with military aviation and if you serous about this you admit a maximum of 10 % bird strike probability.

You back to this tired old BS again? Think about this, I have water Proof Matches. Does that mean they are no subject to water? No, when we, they won't light. And the word you are you looking at is Resitant, not Proof. Nothing that flies at over 400 mph is bird strike proof. Proof,meaning, not affected.

Here are a few Fighter Bird Strikes. And there has been two recorded Bird Strikes on the F-35 so far. But many other fighters had had bird strikes. They usually mean either punch out of find a nice place to set it down fast. I used the Chinese to show that it doesn't happen to just the US and Israel.




Then there are times that the plane is lost and punch out. You get to ride the bird all the way to ground on this one.


Yes, the Windscreen on the F-35 is bird strike resistant (or proof) but the rest of the aircraft is not.

Still the likelihood of a S-200 missile is way beyond the bird´s horizon.

A F-117 is like a beacon in the sky in comparison. And the only way they were able to shoot it down with a S-200 was knowing exactly where it would be at exactly the altitude, at exactly the right time to the second. They placed their launchers and sites at exactly the right location for best shot. Then they fired blind with multiple missiles at the exact spot the F-117 should be. They used the shotgun approach and even then,almost missed completely. The information of it's flight was snuck out and made available to the serbs who used it to their best advantage. Now, unless all things are perfect and the flight data is previously made available to the sites, there is an almost zero chance of the S-200 to bag a F-35. Even if you know it's there, you can't lock on and you don't have enough time to move in enough launchers to use the shotgun affect. The shootdown of the F-117 was done by the incompatance of whomever was in charge of the USAF for Serbia and he should be charged and put into prison.

I doubt seriously if those perfect conditions will come along in very long time. Remember, they got the U-2 over Russia the same way.

 

[Bleipriester]

Moscow and Peking may shit their pants but the Syrians, who actually fired a missile at it, downed it. That must be accounted but as single example it is not enough.
The Chinese cargo plane is new, it is not a combat vehicle.

Chengdu J-10 - Wikipedia
Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia
Shenyang FC-31 - Wikipedia

I notice that both of your sources come from Syria. One is extremely questionable. The Syrians downed a F-16 and claimed it was a F-35. About the same time period, an F-35 took bird strike damage and had to safely land. Your Syrian report was made up.

Proof of that is, the F-22 is flying whenever and wherever it wants. Since the F-35 is about as equally stealthy on the average as the F-22 then one would think that at least one F-22 would have either taken severe damage or been shot down by the same weapon systems. Use your brain. If they could have shot either one down, both would have been affected. I doubt, when both are operating, there isn't much information on the Radar Sites side to distinguish between the two. Thinking it's there or even knowing it's there isn't the same as having enough radar signature to keep a lock on long enough to strike it. Your Syrian source was debunked long ago. Stop lying.

You can check various sources. There is no claim that a F-16 was a F-35. Those are two cases.
As for the F-16, there are no doubts. As for the F-35, the bird strike is nothing more than an Israeli claim. There are no proofs for either version. You must apply logics. The F-35 was on a combat mission against Syrian targets and it operated in Lebanese airspace. A bird strike is not likely. If it was a bird strike, it would have been easy for Israel to show us the F-35. Also, the F-35 was tested against bird strikes. It is bird strike proof.
The stealth capability of the F-35 is not equal to that of the F-22
Blaming sources is not helping you, the "bird strike" was discussed on every serious platform that has something to do with military aviation and if you serous about this you admit a maximum of 10 % bird strike probability.

You back to this tired old BS again? Think about this, I have water Proof Matches. Does that mean they are no subject to water? No, when we, they won't light. And the word you are you looking at is Resitant, not Proof. Nothing that flies at over 400 mph is bird strike proof. Proof,meaning, not affected.

Here are a few Fighter Bird Strikes. And there has been two recorded Bird Strikes on the F-35 so far. But many other fighters had had bird strikes. They usually mean either punch out of find a nice place to set it down fast. I used the Chinese to show that it doesn't happen to just the US and Israel.




Then there are times that the plane is lost and punch out. You get to ride the bird all the way to ground on this one.


Yes, the Windscreen on the F-35 is bird strike resistant (or proof) but the rest of the aircraft is not.

Still the likelihood of a S-200 missile is way beyond the bird´s horizon.

A F-117 is like a beacon in the sky in comparison. And the only way they were able to shoot it down with a S-200 was knowing exactly where it would be at exactly the altitude, at exactly the right time to the second. They placed their launchers and sites at exactly the right location for best shot. Then they fired blind with multiple missiles at the exact spot the F-117 should be. They used the shotgun approach and even then,almost missed completely. The information of it's flight was snuck out and made available to the serbs who used it to their best advantage. Now, unless all things are perfect and the flight data is previously made available to the sites, there is an almost zero chance of the S-200 to bag a F-35. Even if you know it's there, you can't lock on and you don't have enough time to move in enough launchers to use the shotgun affect. The shootdown of the F-117 was done by the incompatance of whomever was in charge of the USAF for Serbia and he should be charged and put into prison.

I doubt seriously if those perfect conditions will come along in very long time. Remember, they got the U-2 over Russia the same way.

That´s strange what you are saying there. However, your invincibility claim is nonsense.

Israeli F-35 jets bombed Aleppo after flying through 2 Arab countries: report

People don´t go to prison. The F-117 is unable to manoeuvre around.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I notice that both of your sources come from Syria. One is extremely questionable. The Syrians downed a F-16 and claimed it was a F-35. About the same time period, an F-35 took bird strike damage and had to safely land. Your Syrian report was made up.

Proof of that is, the F-22 is flying whenever and wherever it wants. Since the F-35 is about as equally stealthy on the average as the F-22 then one would think that at least one F-22 would have either taken severe damage or been shot down by the same weapon systems. Use your brain. If they could have shot either one down, both would have been affected. I doubt, when both are operating, there isn't much information on the Radar Sites side to distinguish between the two. Thinking it's there or even knowing it's there isn't the same as having enough radar signature to keep a lock on long enough to strike it. Your Syrian source was debunked long ago. Stop lying.

You can check various sources. There is no claim that a F-16 was a F-35. Those are two cases.
As for the F-16, there are no doubts. As for the F-35, the bird strike is nothing more than an Israeli claim. There are no proofs for either version. You must apply logics. The F-35 was on a combat mission against Syrian targets and it operated in Lebanese airspace. A bird strike is not likely. If it was a bird strike, it would have been easy for Israel to show us the F-35. Also, the F-35 was tested against bird strikes. It is bird strike proof.
The stealth capability of the F-35 is not equal to that of the F-22
Blaming sources is not helping you, the "bird strike" was discussed on every serious platform that has something to do with military aviation and if you serous about this you admit a maximum of 10 % bird strike probability.

You back to this tired old BS again? Think about this, I have water Proof Matches. Does that mean they are no subject to water? No, when we, they won't light. And the word you are you looking at is Resitant, not Proof. Nothing that flies at over 400 mph is bird strike proof. Proof,meaning, not affected.

Here are a few Fighter Bird Strikes. And there has been two recorded Bird Strikes on the F-35 so far. But many other fighters had had bird strikes. They usually mean either punch out of find a nice place to set it down fast. I used the Chinese to show that it doesn't happen to just the US and Israel.




Then there are times that the plane is lost and punch out. You get to ride the bird all the way to ground on this one.


Yes, the Windscreen on the F-35 is bird strike resistant (or proof) but the rest of the aircraft is not.

Still the likelihood of a S-200 missile is way beyond the bird´s horizon.

A F-117 is like a beacon in the sky in comparison. And the only way they were able to shoot it down with a S-200 was knowing exactly where it would be at exactly the altitude, at exactly the right time to the second. They placed their launchers and sites at exactly the right location for best shot. Then they fired blind with multiple missiles at the exact spot the F-117 should be. They used the shotgun approach and even then,almost missed completely. The information of it's flight was snuck out and made available to the serbs who used it to their best advantage. Now, unless all things are perfect and the flight data is previously made available to the sites, there is an almost zero chance of the S-200 to bag a F-35. Even if you know it's there, you can't lock on and you don't have enough time to move in enough launchers to use the shotgun affect. The shootdown of the F-117 was done by the incompatance of whomever was in charge of the USAF for Serbia and he should be charged and put into prison.

I doubt seriously if those perfect conditions will come along in very long time. Remember, they got the U-2 over Russia the same way.

That´s strange what you are saying there. However, your invincibility claim is nonsense.

Israeli F-35 jets bombed Aleppo after flying through 2 Arab countries: report

People don´t go to prison. The F-117 is unable to manoeuvre around.

Your article is full of holes. The model of S-200 that syria has has over a 100K altitude range. The F-35 probably doesn't go much over 40K in altitude. With a max altitude of 50K, it's not going to be operating for very long at that altitude. So, flying high with a fighter does NOT defeat the S-200 or the S-300 system. But just because you can see it with your tracking radar doesn't mean a thing if you can't get a lock and neither the S-200 or the S-300 can get a lock on a F-35 with it flying at 40K. If it were a 4th gen fighter, the S-200 and S-300 would have a chance. Until they can start using longwave to lock on with, the F-35 and F-22 can go about anywhere they wish unimpeded. You can stop this nonsense right now. You are looking like an ....... I almost said Idiot. Had I said that, I would have received a huge deluge of mail from the millions of Idiots demanding an apology.