Originally Posted by LBP
Originally Posted by jwp475
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Beware you are about to incur the wrath of the USAF gas station attendant. The F-35 does have some pretty state of the art gizmos, then again you can put them on a 747 and get the same results. As a fighter, it's a DOG, particularly in multi-bandit environments AFTER the merge, not to mention the idiocy of a single engine platform for Naval Aviation.
F-35s have been supplying very good ISR on this conflict. Being able to open a 50 mile AESA aperture is ground breaking, pun intended.

Not going to do that with the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of a 747.

The 2 engined Tomcat has a much worse safety record than the F-35.

It's fun to correct old cogers who can't keep up with current millitary aviation.

Originally Posted by ...HorHay69 yelling at clouds
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
Originally Posted by jorgeI
1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.

Obviously I know quite a bit more than you concerning the F-35.

The F-35 has a much better safety record than the Tomcat. That's simply a fact.

The F-35 excels at the merge because it can employ weapons 360 degrees and can PID at much longer range than anything else.

The world of mil aviation has gone well beyond your limited experience.

Originally Posted by HoorHay
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]


Burns has to be the biggest idiot on 24 Hour, he claims to know more about fighter planes than Jorge, yet Jorge flew carrier based fighters and commanded an airwing

Jeez Loueez

Burns has got to be joking, he can’t be this stupid can he?

Oh yes he can. He just spends some time on google and parrots a lot of bullshit and half truths. For example, comparing the safety record of an aircraft that served for over 25 years(Tomcat and the F-16) to a relatively new one (35) is absurd. He avoids the central issue that a single engine aircraft (35)is at a disadvantage over a twin engine (F-14) one over water for reasons that are so obvious to a moron (thus Burns) SHOULD capture and the issue of the F-35s superb weapons system with (on paper 360 engagement envelope which is has), but eventually, you get to the "merge" and in that regard the 35 is a DOG.

Overwight (hint) and underpowered. There are a lot more issues with the 35 that are carrier specific issues to list here, but why bother? listen to Burns, he "knows" his stuff!. And for the record, one does not need to have actually FLOWN a particular airframe to discuss it intelligently (thus leaving Burns and other out) . And no I wasn't a Fighter guy, just a lowly Viking driver, but I was a Top Gun graduate, fought and flew in a lot of different platforms and I am well versed in the 35, the biggest over budgeted boondoggle in aviation history. But again, listen to a guy whose experience is limited to Google and a couple of years as a gas station attendant in the Air Force. I only spent 30 years in the Navy with over five thousand hours and combat tours in several theaters.

A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”