Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by ribka
Have you flown the F 35?

How does it do in scenarios with employed air defense systems?

You can go back to your rocking chair now boomer





Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by ribka
The US wastes trillions of dollars on failed air craft and weapons systems yet we still cant even win a war against a Stone Age third world country like Afghanistan




The F-35

One of the biggest boondoggles in the US DoD budget—and the focus of this article—is the F-35, the most expensive weapons system in history. And of course, the costs continue to go up, according to a recent DoD report. The Pentagon first put out the project for bids in 1996, and the first F-35s were manufactured and flown in 2006. However, it wasn’t until 2018 that they saw combat for the first time when Israel deployed them. Since then, the USMC, USAF, and RAF have used them in combat only rarely. For a plane that is supposed to be sufficiently versatile and modular to replace virtually all other combat aircraft, the F-35 has been used very little.

The F-35 program will cost about $1.5 trillion, or approximately what the US government spent on the entire Iraq war.
Perhaps you’re wondering if this is a typical timeframe for a high-tech military project. Well, in 2001, the DoD expected to have its first combat-capable F-35s in 2010. That did not happen—not by a long shot. At least as late as 2013, these fifth-generation fighter jets could not fly in bad weather or at night. Despite all this, the F-35 program will cost about $1.5 trillion, or approximately what the US government spent on the entire Iraq war.

Last year, Defense News identified 13 significant deficiencies in one or more F-35 models, including the possibility of a blown tire destroying the entire aircraft, inadequate vision and sensor systems, and not being to fly too high, too fast, or in certain maneuvers without either apparent or actual major problems. Other issues included logistical and security concerns. Many of these have solutions in progress, although several additional issues with the weapons systems have been identified since then.
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]

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.

To whom are you addressing this post to sir?


I'd assume Burns.

Are the sensors better on the F-35? BVR...is that a thing?