... 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. ...
BTW, in case anyone here doesn't know what a Viking is.
The video's description on YouTube:
"The Lockheed S-3 Viking was a jet aircraft used by the United States Navy to identify, track, and destroy enemy submarines. In the late 1990s, the S-3B's mission focus shifted to surface warfare and aerial refueling. The Viking also provided electronic warfare and surface surveillance capabilities to the carrier battle group.
A carrier-based, subsonic, all-weather, multi-mission aircraft with long range, it carried automated weapon systems, and was capable of extended missions with in-flight refueling. Because of the engines high-pitched sound, it was nicknamed the "Hoover" after the brand of vacuum cleaner. The US Navy retired the S-3 Viking in January 2009, with its missions being assumed by other platforms."
Cheers, jorge! Bob F.
"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
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
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
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?
Tell us about how incapable the F-35s are...
Please, be specific.
I don’t know anything about the 35’s capability but clearly Jorge does. It was Burns battle of wits with Jorge I was referring to.
Will Munny: It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.
The Schofield Kid: Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming.
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
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
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?
Tell us about how incapable the F-35s are...
Please, be specific.
I don’t know anything about the 35’s capability but clearly Jorge does. It was Burns battle of wits with Jorge I was referring to.
The 22 is another example of going WAY over budget, but the biggest difference between it at the 35, is that it met IOC AND SOW expectations, whereas the 35 (look at the videos above for startters0 wasn't even close
Damn you're a silly old man.
All 3 F-35 have met IOC years ago.
And the F-22 still does not have IRST across the fleet.
Originally Posted by ...HoorHay
Last edited by JohnBurns; 03/29/23.
John Burns
I have all the sources. They can't stop the signal.
The 22 is another example of going WAY over budget, but the biggest difference between it at the 35, is that it met IOC AND SOW expectations, whereas the 35 (look at the videos above for startters0 wasn't even close
Damn you're a silly old man.
All 3 F-35 have met IOC years ago.
And the F-22 still does not have IRST across the fleet.
The 22 is another example of going WAY over budget, but the biggest difference between it at the 35, is that it met IOC AND SOW expectations, whereas the 35 (look at the videos above for startters0 wasn't even close
Damn you're a silly old man.
All 3 F-35 have met IOC years ago.
And the F-22 still does not have IRST across the fleet.
Originally Posted by ...HoorHay
Maybe so, but you are plain stupid. OF COURSE the 35 was IOC years ago, otherwise it would not be deployed with the services you moron. My point, which your alcoholic/cough syrup addled brain failed to capture was the 35 DID NOT MEET OPEVAL requirements (just like for example the Hornet failed OPEVAL yet we deployed it anyway) and it still has a crapload of critical failures. Man you are truly an idiot.
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…”
Maybe so, but you are plain stupid. OF COURSE the 35 was IOC years ago, otherwise it would not be deployed with the services you moron. My point, which your alcoholic/cough syrup addled brain failed to capture was the 35 DID NOT MEET OPEVAL requirements (just like for example the Hornet failed OPEVAL yet we deployed it anyway) and it still has a crapload of critical failures. Man you are truly an idiot.
So we agree you didn't understand that the F-35 met IOC years ago but you still used those words in your post and now want to use different words.
Originally Posted by ... Old Man George trying to figure out how to type words
John Burns
I have all the sources. They can't stop the signal.
Maybe so, but you are plain stupid. OF COURSE the 35 was IOC years ago, otherwise it would not be deployed with the services you moron. My point, which your alcoholic/cough syrup addled brain failed to capture was the 35 DID NOT MEET OPEVAL requirements (just like for example the Hornet failed OPEVAL yet we deployed it anyway) and it still has a crapload of critical failures. Man you are truly an idiot.
So we agree you didn't understand that the F-35 met IOC years ago but you still used those words in your post and now want to use different words.
Originally Posted by ... Old Man George trying to figure out how to type words
Man, you are a f ucking moon. IOC and OPEVAL are two different issues. The Hornet failed OPEVAL yet it still IOC'd. two different issues. The 35 still has literally dozens of critical failure issues. Stick to what you know as obviously it isn't this
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…”
The 22 is another example of going WAY over budget, but the biggest difference between it at the 35, is that it met IOC AND SOW expectations, whereas the 35 (look at the videos above for startters0 wasn't even close
Originally Posted by jorgeI
OF COURSE the 35 was IOC years ago, otherwise it would not be deployed with the services you moron. .
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
So we agree you didn't understand that the F-35 met IOC years ago but you still used those words in your post and now want to use different words.
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Man, you are a f ucking moon. IOC and OPEVAL are two different issues. The Hornet failed OPEVAL yet it still IOC'd. two different issues. The 35 still has literally dozens of critical failure issues.
Well the record is pretty clear on your posts.
Maybe we can move on and you can tell the class the "literally dozens of critical failure issues" of the Block 3 F-35s.
A numbered list instead of bullets point would help everyone out.
John Burns
I have all the sources. They can't stop the signal.
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…”
Tweet says "Use of military aviation along line of contact may indicate deterioration of Ukraine's air defenses" but Bristoe reads, and subsequently declares, that "Russia owns the sky over Ukraine."
Tweet says "Use of military aviation along line of contact may indicate deterioration of Ukraine's air defenses" but Bristoe reads, and subsequently declares, that "Russia owns the sky over Ukraine."
That's his idea of facts.
What Bristoe hears in his head is never what the author or poster typed.
He uses the "Bristoe Filter" to make sure it confirms his bias.
But it is funny to watch in a sad funny way.
John Burns
I have all the sources. They can't stop the signal.