F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[Daryl Hunt]

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

Are you talking to me......Are you talking to me........Say hello to my little friend.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

Are you talking to me......Are you talking to me........Say hello to my little friend.

Funny! You are definitely funny, but looks aren't everything!

 

[Bleipriester]

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.

So you are effectively confirming what is in the article. And don´t complain, that´s the only source.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

So you are effectively confirming what is in the article. And don´t complain, that´s the only source.

The F-35 doesn't fly any higher than the F-16s do in a combat zone. the F-16 can and has been hit by the S-200 or S-300 before.Therefore, the F-35 is stealthy and the F-16 isn't. That also means the F-35 has a very low probability of being locked on by either the S-200 or S-300 unless very, very close and at strictly low altitude. Wow, what a fighter. And at 40K altitude, it can drop a 500lber right on your Radar Array if you try and bother him too much. It's never flown against the S-400 but most of the same things will still be true.

But, as usual, you want all F-35s to fly in a straight line, announce their flight path, fly the same time each day and be at low altitude at all times. I'll send that memo to the General in charge of the Air Force so that he can force all F-35s around the world to comply with your request.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

Are you talking to me......Are you talking to me........Say hello to my little friend.

Funny! You are definitely funny, but looks aren't everything!

 

[Bleipriester]

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.

So you are effectively confirming what is in the article. And don´t complain, that´s the only source.

The F-35 doesn't fly any higher than the F-16s do in a combat zone. the F-16 can and has been hit by the S-200 or S-300 before.Therefore, the F-35 is stealthy and the F-16 isn't. That also means the F-35 has a very low probability of being locked on by either the S-200 or S-300 unless very, very close and at strictly low altitude. Wow, what a fighter. And at 40K altitude, it can drop a 500lber right on your Radar Array if you try and bother him too much. It's never flown against the S-400 but most of the same things will still be true.

But, as usual, you want all F-35s to fly in a straight line, announce their flight path, fly the same time each day and be at low altitude at all times. I'll send that memo to the General in charge of the Air Force so that he can force all F-35s around the world to comply with your request.

How is my request going?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

So you are effectively confirming what is in the article. And don´t complain, that´s the only source.

The F-35 doesn't fly any higher than the F-16s do in a combat zone. the F-16 can and has been hit by the S-200 or S-300 before.Therefore, the F-35 is stealthy and the F-16 isn't. That also means the F-35 has a very low probability of being locked on by either the S-200 or S-300 unless very, very close and at strictly low altitude. Wow, what a fighter. And at 40K altitude, it can drop a 500lber right on your Radar Array if you try and bother him too much. It's never flown against the S-400 but most of the same things will still be true.

But, as usual, you want all F-35s to fly in a straight line, announce their flight path, fly the same time each day and be at low altitude at all times. I'll send that memo to the General in charge of the Air Force so that he can force all F-35s around the world to comply with your request.

How is my request going?

Not real good. Well, at least,not so good for ISIS, Taliban and Iran. But I don't find it too difficult to live with that.

 

[Bleipriester]

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.

So you are effectively confirming what is in the article. And don´t complain, that´s the only source.

The F-35 doesn't fly any higher than the F-16s do in a combat zone. the F-16 can and has been hit by the S-200 or S-300 before.Therefore, the F-35 is stealthy and the F-16 isn't. That also means the F-35 has a very low probability of being locked on by either the S-200 or S-300 unless very, very close and at strictly low altitude. Wow, what a fighter. And at 40K altitude, it can drop a 500lber right on your Radar Array if you try and bother him too much. It's never flown against the S-400 but most of the same things will still be true.

But, as usual, you want all F-35s to fly in a straight line, announce their flight path, fly the same time each day and be at low altitude at all times. I'll send that memo to the General in charge of the Air Force so that he can force all F-35s around the world to comply with your request.

How is my request going?

Not real good. Well, at least,not so good for ISIS, Taliban and Iran. But I don't find it too difficult to live with that.

Taliban is doing well, as far as I know. That´s due to the absence of a determined force the like the Syrian Army.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

So you are effectively confirming what is in the article. And don´t complain, that´s the only source.

The F-35 doesn't fly any higher than the F-16s do in a combat zone. the F-16 can and has been hit by the S-200 or S-300 before.Therefore, the F-35 is stealthy and the F-16 isn't. That also means the F-35 has a very low probability of being locked on by either the S-200 or S-300 unless very, very close and at strictly low altitude. Wow, what a fighter. And at 40K altitude, it can drop a 500lber right on your Radar Array if you try and bother him too much. It's never flown against the S-400 but most of the same things will still be true.

But, as usual, you want all F-35s to fly in a straight line, announce their flight path, fly the same time each day and be at low altitude at all times. I'll send that memo to the General in charge of the Air Force so that he can force all F-35s around the world to comply with your request.

How is my request going?

Not real good. Well, at least,not so good for ISIS, Taliban and Iran. But I don't find it too difficult to live with that.

Taliban is doing well, as far as I know. That´s due to the absence of a determined force the like the Syrian Army.

And the fact that the US Military is hamstrung in Afghanistan unlike Iraq and Syria.

 

[Bleipriester]

So you are effectively confirming what is in the article. And don´t complain, that´s the only source.

The F-35 doesn't fly any higher than the F-16s do in a combat zone. the F-16 can and has been hit by the S-200 or S-300 before.Therefore, the F-35 is stealthy and the F-16 isn't. That also means the F-35 has a very low probability of being locked on by either the S-200 or S-300 unless very, very close and at strictly low altitude. Wow, what a fighter. And at 40K altitude, it can drop a 500lber right on your Radar Array if you try and bother him too much. It's never flown against the S-400 but most of the same things will still be true.

But, as usual, you want all F-35s to fly in a straight line, announce their flight path, fly the same time each day and be at low altitude at all times. I'll send that memo to the General in charge of the Air Force so that he can force all F-35s around the world to comply with your request.

How is my request going?

Not real good. Well, at least,not so good for ISIS, Taliban and Iran. But I don't find it too difficult to live with that.

Taliban is doing well, as far as I know. That´s due to the absence of a determined force the like the Syrian Army.

And the fact that the US Military is hamstrung in Afghanistan unlike Iraq and Syria.

The means ain´t appropriate. The asymmetrical warfare doesn´t work and the Afghan "army" is a joke.

 

[DrainBamage]

the Syrians, who actually fired a missile at it, downed it.

No they didn't. We've been through this topic before with you, and just like every other thread you participate in your "proof" withers under scrutiny. To you proof is anything that comes from whatever Syrian propaganda sites you can dig up.

 

[DrainBamage]

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.

Fair enough, but as we've seen in this forum you have massive gaping holes in your understanding of military affairs so you applying logic is a bit suspect.

The F-35 was on a combat mission against Syrian targets and it operated in Lebanese airspace. A bird strike is not likely.

The F-35 was on a training mission in Israel, and you have no idea how likely a bird strike is in that area so you're just making something up when offering your opinion on how likely a bird strike is.

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.

1. Israel has absolutely zero motivation to show anyone a bird strike damage photo, catering to online conspiracy theorists just produces more conspiracies so they are best ignored.

2. Please provide proof that F-35 is bird strike proof, that is an absurd claim. A stork hit at 700 mph can take out a much larger multi-engined plane, I'm genuinely curious what has put into your head that there is something magical about a single engine F-35 that makes it immune to bird damage. Do you believe it has some layer of armor or something?

The stealth capability of the F-35 is not equal to that of the F-22

Not according to analysis of their stealth shaping. What actual information do you have (true numbers) on how stealthy an F-35 is compared to an F-22? It's better from some angles, similar head on, and worse at other angles, there is no evidence to support one is stealthier as a whole. Here's the opinion of General Hostage, from Gen. Mike Hostage On The F-35; No Growlers Needed When War Starts

“The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets,” says Hostage, leaning forward. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”

Now it's possible Hostage is talking about active stealth management in addition to the plane itself, since by all accounts F-35 has even better RF situational awareness than F-22 to manage it's potential stealth exposure, but that's exactly what counts in a war zone.

 

[DrainBamage]

Also, the F-35 was tested against bird strikes. It is bird strike proof.

While we wait out the crickets chirping on this claim you made that F-35 is magically immune to bird strikes (yes, we know you made that up) you can chew on this....

Bird strike causes more than $2 million in damages to Japan-based Marine Corps F-35B
Birds can be a hazard for civilian and military aircraft, causing millions in damages every year. On Tuesday an F-35B with Marine Aircraft Group 12, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, out of Iwakuni, Japan, was forced to abort a take-off because of a bird strike, according to Major Eric Flanagan, a spokesman for 1st Marine Aircraft Wing. The aircraft “safely taxied off the runway,” but initial assessments indicated the high-tech stealth fighter suffered more than $2 million in damages, making it a Class A mishap, Flanagan told Marine Corps Times in an emailed statement. The incident is currently under investigation and a complete damage assessment is underway.

Apparently USMC isn't aware that F-35 is bird strike proof either, only our local Village Idiot has this insider info. Said Village Idiot is using this bullshit claim to support another bullshit claim, so the entire house of turds collapses.

 

[Bleipriester]

Also, the F-35 was tested against bird strikes. It is bird strike proof.

While we wait out the crickets chirping on this claim you made that F-35 is magically immune to bird strikes (yes, we know you made that up) you can chew on this....

Bird strike causes more than $2 million in damages to Japan-based Marine Corps F-35B
Birds can be a hazard for civilian and military aircraft, causing millions in damages every year. On Tuesday an F-35B with Marine Aircraft Group 12, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, out of Iwakuni, Japan, was forced to abort a take-off because of a bird strike, according to Major Eric Flanagan, a spokesman for 1st Marine Aircraft Wing. The aircraft “safely taxied off the runway,” but initial assessments indicated the high-tech stealth fighter suffered more than $2 million in damages, making it a Class A mishap, Flanagan told Marine Corps Times in an emailed statement. The incident is currently under investigation and a complete damage assessment is underway.

Apparently USMC isn't aware that F-35 is bird strike proof either, only our local Village Idiot has this insider info. Said Village Idiot is using this bullshit claim to support another bullshit claim, so the entire house of turds collapses.

www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=13106

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Also, the F-35 was tested against bird strikes. It is bird strike proof.

While we wait out the crickets chirping on this claim you made that F-35 is magically immune to bird strikes (yes, we know you made that up) you can chew on this....

Bird strike causes more than $2 million in damages to Japan-based Marine Corps F-35B
Birds can be a hazard for civilian and military aircraft, causing millions in damages every year. On Tuesday an F-35B with Marine Aircraft Group 12, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, out of Iwakuni, Japan, was forced to abort a take-off because of a bird strike, according to Major Eric Flanagan, a spokesman for 1st Marine Aircraft Wing. The aircraft “safely taxied off the runway,” but initial assessments indicated the high-tech stealth fighter suffered more than $2 million in damages, making it a Class A mishap, Flanagan told Marine Corps Times in an emailed statement. The incident is currently under investigation and a complete damage assessment is underway.

Apparently USMC isn't aware that F-35 is bird strike proof either, only our local Village Idiot has this insider info. Said Village Idiot is using this bullshit claim to support another bullshit claim, so the entire house of turds collapses.

www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=13106

That is just in the windshield. Most of bird damage will be done in intakes (engine), leading edges and more. If you built the whole aircraft as strong as the canopy you would need a saturn V to get it off the ground.

 

[DrainBamage]

The document you linked doesn't support your claim that F-35 is bird strike proof. It maintains that test proved:
1. Windshield can withstand 4lb bird strike at 480kts
2. Canopy crown can withstand 4lb bird strike at 350kts
3. Lift fan inlet can withstand 2lb bird strike at 168kts
It also defines success as not injuring the pilot, damaging the canopy in a manner that incapacitates the pilot, and not preventing plane from egress to safely land.

These qualifications for size, speed, and whether incapacitates clearly don't indicate that an F-35 cannot be damaged by a bird strike, unless you believe all birds weigh less than 4lbs, planes never go above those speeds, and all birds are polite enough to fly right into these qualified areas of the aircraft. Note the Israel F-35 bird strike was a stork, which can weigh up to 20lbs.

The F-35 in Japan taking 2 million in damage from a bird strike further sink your bullshit that F-35 is bird strike proof.

Are there any threads in this entire forum where you haven't been caught lying?

 

[Bleipriester]

As far as I know the Japanese F-35 is not yet found and there is no reason for the disappearance yet.

 

[DrainBamage]

As far as I know the Japanese F-35 is not yet found and there is no reason for the disappearance yet.

I linked to the information just a few posts ago:
On Tuesday an F-35B with Marine Aircraft Group 12, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, out of Iwakuni, Japan, was forced to abort a take-off because of a bird strike, according to Major Eric Flanagan, a spokesman for 1st Marine Aircraft Wing. The aircraft “safely taxied off the runway,” but initial assessments indicated the high-tech stealth fighter suffered more than $2 million in damages, making it a Class A mishap, Flanagan told Marine Corps Times in an emailed statement. The incident is currently under investigation and a complete damage assessment is underway.

I get that English isn't your first language, but how on earth do you read that and decide it's the missing Japanese F-35? Do you just ignore things that aren't convenient to you, can you not read well, or are you just mentally retarded?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

As far as I know the Japanese F-35 is not yet found and there is no reason for the disappearance yet.

They found it. The problem is, it's a deep wide ocean. They found the wreckage but haven't found the pilot.

 

[Bleipriester]

As far as I know the Japanese F-35 is not yet found and there is no reason for the disappearance yet.

They found it. The problem is, it's a deep wide ocean. They found the wreckage but haven't found the pilot.

Thanks for the update. Sad incident.