24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,898
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,898
Originally Posted by gonehuntin
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Helping Ukraine become the country they want to be by sending weapons is a much better use of US assets.

Will pay handsome dividends in the future.

Ukraine has been paying handsome dividends to Democrat investments, courtesy of the American taxpayers, for the past several years. So you want that investment model to continue?? Pfft...

Leakage has always been an issue. Iraq and Afganistan were worse with no return.

Destroying the Orc Army like this is pennies on the dollar for the American Taxpayer with no American Blood.

Deal of the Century for the USA.

We should have given Rhodesia the same support and the world would be a much better place.

They were willing to fight to save their country against the Horde and we left them hanging.

I don't want to see that same mistake repeated.


John Burns

I have all the sources.
They can't stop the signal.

BP-B2

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 27,371
A
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
A
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 27,371
How exactly were Iraq and Afghanistan without return?

We didn’t kill any Taliban and terrorists ?


[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 27,371
A
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
A
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 27,371
Originally Posted by JuanSquirms
[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]


?


[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,484
Campfire 'Bwana
Online Content
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,484
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by dassa
Originally Posted by jorgeI
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.

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.
Some of the most entertaining stuff on here is when he tries to explain to you how military aviation works. The man is an expert's expert.


Would you rather be in a Mig?

How is that relevant? bu since you asked, an F-22...


They don't land on ships...

But I get your point.
Neither do MiGs..


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…”
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,660
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,660


[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]

Z
IC B2

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,484
Campfire 'Bwana
Online Content
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,484
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.


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…”
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 946
T
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
T
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 946
To believe that the Russians will employ T34s is about the most ridiculous assertion I have heard about this war yet! A bad joke, nyet?

The notion that the Russians are back to their Soviet WWII tactics of "human wave" attack is even more ludicrous and another example of establishment media propaganda. Their tactics are based mostly on ISR which is basically locate and identify the enemy and smash him with stand off weaponry. If human wave tactics are being employed it's by the Ukrainians.

Do you think the Russians are going to pull out all stops, use every weapon and tactic they have in Ukraine, when the specter of a NATO incursion is obviously a major consideration for them? Their stockpiles are there for a possible future conflict with NATO, That's called contingency planning.

MAGA!


"an armed society is a polite society"
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 17,017
V
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
V
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 17,017
This^

Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 682
7
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
7
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 682
Woke up drank some coffee and still don’t care.

Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,594
A
Campfire 'Bwana
OP Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
A
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,594
Originally Posted by TreeMutt
To believe that the Russians will employ T34s is about the most ridiculous assertion I have heard about this war yet! A bad joke, nyet?

The notion that the Russians are back to their Soviet WWII tactics of "human wave" attack is even more ludicrous and another example of establishment media propaganda. Their tactics are based mostly on ISR which is basically locate and identify the enemy and smash him with stand off weaponry. If human wave tactics are being employed it's by the Ukrainians.

Do you think the Russians are going to pull out all stops, use every weapon and tactic they have in Ukraine, when the specter of a NATO incursion is obviously a major consideration for them? Their stockpiles are there for a possible future conflict with NATO, That's called contingency planning.

MAGA!

TreeMutt,

Did you watch the video starting at 55 seconds where the Russian propogandist actually talked about pulling T-34's off war monuments and sending many thousands of them to Ukraine? If not watch the video, it's quite humorous of the current propaganda war. If the absurdity of this went over your head, there's a thread on good single malt whiskey's that might help.


You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.

You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
IC B3

Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 946
T
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
T
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 946
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by TreeMutt
To believe that the Russians will employ T34s is about the most ridiculous assertion I have heard about this war yet! A bad joke, nyet?

The notion that the Russians are back to their Soviet WWII tactics of "human wave" attack is even more ludicrous and another example of establishment media propaganda. Their tactics are based mostly on ISR which is basically locate and identify the enemy and smash him with stand off weaponry. If human wave tactics are being employed it's by the Ukrainians.

Do you think the Russians are going to pull out all stops, use every weapon and tactic they have in Ukraine, when the specter of a NATO incursion is obviously a major consideration for them? Their stockpiles are there for a possible future conflict with NATO, That's called contingency planning.

MAGA!

TreeMutt,

Did you watch the video starting at 55 seconds where the Russian propogandist actually talked about pulling T-34's off war monuments and sending many thousands of them to Ukraine? If not watch the video, it's quite humorous of the current propaganda war. If the absurdity of this went over your head, there's a thread on good single malt whiskey's that might help.

I did watch it, but only once...."removing tanks from monument plinths"? I think the dude is being sarcastic...didn't he say "very inappropriate jokes by propagandists that we will be removing T34s from monuments" Then the other guy chimed in sarcastically, like yeah, we could do it if we wanted to.

All I saw were railcar loads of T55s moving in some direction.

But again, people believe what they want to believe.

MMAGA!


"an armed society is a polite society"
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 23,924
R
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
R
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 23,924
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.

Last edited by ribka; 03/28/23.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 23,924
R
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
R
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 23,924
Hey what was your MOS in the military?



Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by TreeMutt
To believe that the Russians will employ T34s is about the most ridiculous assertion I have heard about this war yet! A bad joke, nyet?

The notion that the Russians are back to their Soviet WWII tactics of "human wave" attack is even more ludicrous and another example of establishment media propaganda. Their tactics are based mostly on ISR which is basically locate and identify the enemy and smash him with stand off weaponry. If human wave tactics are being employed it's by the Ukrainians.

Do you think the Russians are going to pull out all stops, use every weapon and tactic they have in Ukraine, when the specter of a NATO incursion is obviously a major consideration for them? Their stockpiles are there for a possible future conflict with NATO, That's called contingency planning.

MAGA!

TreeMutt,

Did you watch the video starting at 55 seconds where the Russian propogandist actually talked about pulling T-34's off war monuments and sending many thousands of them to Ukraine? If not watch the video, it's quite humorous of the current propaganda war. If the absurdity of this went over your head, there's a thread on good single malt whiskey's that might help.

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,898
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,898
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]


John Burns

I have all the sources.
They can't stop the signal.

Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 26,238
R
Campfire Ranger
Online Content
Campfire Ranger
R
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 26,238
Wizardry, pure wizardry!


FJB & FJT
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 95,100
J
Campfire Oracle
Online Content
Campfire Oracle
J
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 95,100
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]

So how come your so freaking dumb about Putin kicking Zelenskys bum?


Ecc 10:2
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.

A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.

"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".

I Dindo Nuffin
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,692
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,692


Russia Re-Uses Museum Tanks - When Militaries Bring Antiques Back Into Service
video posted to YouTube on Mar 16, 2023

It has emerged that Russia is quickly reconditioning hundreds of old T-62 tanks to serve in Ukraine - a tank design 60 years old! Some are being taken from museums! But Russia is not the only country to plunder museums for vehicles and spare parts, as this videos shows.

Dr. Mark Felton FRHistS, FRSA, is a well-known British historian, the author of 22 non-fiction books, including bestsellers 'Zero Night' and 'Castle of the Eagles', both currently being developed into movies in Hollywood. In addition to writing, Mark also appears regularly in television documentaries around the world, including on The History Channel, Netflix, National Geographic, Quest, American Heroes Channel and RMC Decouverte. His books have formed the background to several TV and radio documentaries.

YouTube channel: Mark Felton Productions


"Whose bright idea was it to put every idiot in the world in touch with every other idiot? It's working!" -- P. J. O'Rourke
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,221
J
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
J
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,221
Bristoe said this couldn't happen.

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,811
J
Campfire 'Bwana
Online Sleepy
Campfire 'Bwana
J
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,811
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



I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,221
J
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
J
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,221
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by dassa
Originally Posted by jorgeI
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.

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.
Some of the most entertaining stuff on here is when he tries to explain to you how military aviation works. The man is an expert's expert.


Would you rather be in a Mig?

How is that relevant? bu since you asked, an F-22...


They don't land on ships...

But I get your point.
Neither do MiGs..


Have to have a functioning carrier for Migs to land on...

Oh well.

Page 4 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
635 members (09wingates, 2003and2013, 007FJ, 160user, 10gaugeman, 17CalFan, 59 invisible), 2,527 guests, and 1,167 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,599
Posts18,398,261
Members73,817
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.106s Queries: 15 (0.005s) Memory: 0.9406 MB (Peak: 1.1560 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-28 13:16:20 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS