Video of F-35B Lightening II deck operations on USS Wasp

[jhungary]

I just wasted half hour of my life.

Dude, next time if you have to answer on my quote, try use a different color bold character. I very much gone blind trying to find your comment on my post......

OMG they are different???

Seriously though, as you said no one has exclusive knowledge about how good or bad these machines will be.So how can you say that F 35 is better than, say J-20 or Pak-Fa ? You seem to contradict yourself.

wow, how stupid you have to be to ask this question...

Then what is the different between F-15 and F-16? How about F-14 and F-18?? The role, for all intend and purpose, is the different.

Also, don't forget the F-22 we got were tested and build during the 1990s. Today, it's the 2013. Don't drag on for 23 years, how about do you know how much it cost you to buy a PS3 console when they first come out in 2006 and if you try to buy one now? Do you know why it cost $799 USD retail to buy a crap 60GB PS3 console and if you buy one today, it's going to cost you $399 for a 500GB PS3 Console?? If you do not know the different, then I cannot help you.

No I was merely pointing out the probable number what I read in the reports. Otherwise what is the point of even talking about these things since none of us can see the future ?
Should we wait for an actual war to see which plane will have advantage and what will be the numbers of each plane ?When talking about future one has to make assumptions. Common sense, right ?

I assumed that Russia and India will have 250 each of Pak-Fa and FGFA respectively since that is the number being bandied about in reports. If want a debate based on hard facts about fighter planes that will be in service 20-30 years from now, then you are never going to get it.

What you based on your assumption? Because you say so? What are the specific requirement you can operate on if you don't even know how much each FGFA and PAK-FA is going to cost? This is the same thing why we only bought 189 F-22 on a 600 billions budget. And how much is the budget for both Russia and India combine? You also need to look at the time when you can field the aircraft.

So, even the best mind in Russian and Indian come together still cannot figure out how many of those Gen 5 planes they wanted. How do you know?? What is your qualification allow you to predict such a number??

Yes I knew India would be getting FGFA not Pak Fa.Which is a modified Pak-Fa.
How India getting Pak-Fa or FGFA comes into the argument, I don't know.Probably you were trying to nitpick.Well done, you spotted an error that doesn't make an ounce of difference to the argument, but well done anyway.My bad.I wrote Pak-Fa because the name FGFA is so generic.
And btw from what I have read, FGFA will be even better than Pak-Fa just like MKI is better than SU-30.

Now if you are done with point scoring lets get back to discussing.
What I said was Russia China India are all getting 5th gen planes by 2020-30.In greater numbers than F 22.If F 35 is not more capable than these planes, what is the point of F 35 ?

Again, assume what you say is true, then F-35 is super duper inferior than the Russian, Indian and Chinese Gen 5. Then can you also agree the F-16 is inferior than F-15C, SU-35 or SU-37 if you talk about air-to-air combat, then please explain to me why we need 1000 F-16 to field 200 something squadron?? While we have no more than 500 F-15 of all type??

The situation is the same. F-35 is to compliment F-22 and take over the role of F-16. Precision ground attack, CAP and interdiction strike. Name any one of the other Gen 5 can do what the F-35 do?

Don't forget even after China, Russia and India fully fielded Gen 5 aircraft, those role I mentioned is still being carry out by 4/4.5 gen aircraft.

In Army term, do you know why we push M2/3 Bradley into front line mixed with The Abram? While one shot from a T-72 can destroy a Bradley. It is needed to fill the role you cannot do with Abrams...Did anyone driving a Bradley would expect they would be used the same roles as in Abrams? No, but do they also took on tanks? Yes.

You are looking at the wrong side of the mirror. Buddy

And as you said only time can tell if F 35 will be amazing or a dud.I am saying it may/may not be great.You are saying it will definitely be great.

And you are saying it definitely NOT going to be great, then what's your problem? You have your view and I have mine.

I found it funny for someone who never even saw a F-35 in action and started to comment on what a failure they are. I am even more amazed that people can know into the future that some aircraft not yet in service is better than an aircraft that had been made and now putting into service.

I mean how can anyone, technical expert or otherwise can compare an actual production model of F-35 to a Prototype J-20, PAK-FA and a yet to exist FGFA?? From paper value??

Let me tell you this, battlefield science 101, you never expect stuff perform as they said they will on paper. Paper value mean Jack shiite, if paper value is so important, then there will not be any "Long odds" engagement happening in the world. But yet from 2000 years ago, smaller guys still win over big dog over and over again. If you had served in the Armed force, you'd know paper value mean absolutely crap to you, what you can see they do is king, otherwise I do not have any interest to talk about anything they are "Supposed" to do.

Start building J-20, J-31, PAK-FA, FGFA, or whatever then we can talk. Otherwise, it's just in another level man.

But aren't we debating the merits of decision to make less F 22s and more F 35s ?
Now, you are saying you will replace it with more F-22s if needed.This is exactly my point-if the JSF does its job, you shouldn't need to build more F 22s.

Dude, there are no co-relation between F-22 and F-35, build more F-22 does not mean F-35 cannot perform their job well, you have carpal tunnel symptom and see F-35 is what extended from F-22. Actually no.

F-35 is a multirole fighter, while F-22 is a Air superiority fighter. Those two did a different job, you don't expect solely rely on F-35 to gain air superiority, but if this is their job to do, they can do that. Nor you don't expect to use a F-22 to do a surgical strike, but if the time comes and needed a F-22 to do that, they can do them too. That does not mean if you build more of other type aircraft, mean they cannot perform what they are supposed to. Simply because they are intended for DIFFERENT things.

So, today, if we build more F-16, does that mean F-15 cannot do their job well? Or if we build more F-15, does that mean F-16 cannot do the job well?

Thank you kind Sir for the patronizing remark. Much appreciated.Please tell me the correct facts about numbers of Pak-Fa and J20 in 2020 since you can obviously see the future and don't make assumptions on reports like the rest of us.

dude, I am not the one who wave and say we don't have enough F-22 and the Chinese, Russian and Indian have more Gen 5 planes than we do.

So your basically saying F35 is built to fight against enemy 4.5 gen jets.We are in agreement here. Now tell me why can't F 15 Eagle/Hornet do the same thing at lower cost ? Don't you claim US planes are the best flying machines out there ?
This is the point junoon made.You are basically validating my point.

First of all, I did not say they are intend to fight off 4/4.5 gen jet, you say that, not me.

Secondly I did not say F-35 is any inferior as a Gen 5 jet, I said, "ASSUME YOU ARE RIGHT" because I do not want to get in to the whole "F-35 is inferior to whatever still not rolled out of assembly line" argument

Dude, how would they be lower cost if we already stopped the production line, even if they still open, do you have any idea how much to maintain the production line? And how much to maintain an older jet?? You don't, don't you?

Try imagine you have a very old computer, say still using 1GB DDR1 400 MHz RAM, do you know how much you need to pay for a new replacement part of that today? it will cost you around 30 bucks to buy a new stick of DDR 400 RAM, how much it is for a 4GB DDR3 1333 MHZ ram? 25 bucks.

How do those old airframe save money, can you specify more?

Yeah you already paid for it.It shows on your economy.The point ,I will repeat again, is that you could have achieved same thing by sticking to 4.5 gen planes for low end of the air force.

THen why don't we all go back to F-100 Super Sabre Gen 2 fighter while we are at it? THey cost dirt cheap to make and all you need is to fire missile and drop bombs right??

We could have 10,000 F-100 for the price of 100 F-35A, but what's the point then??

I have already show you it's cost way more to maintain the production line and older fighter. It's not economical to a point you should just start over and build a new one. Just like why you rather buy a new computer than upgrade an old one.

Wow!! that sounds like good ol' fairy tale.And then, the world was always 1 generation behind us and we lived happily ever after.I don't want to go off on a tangent from JSF to who will build 7th, 8th ...nth gen plane first.you So just stick to the topic.If you kept F 22 as the only 5th gen platform, you could have saved F 35 money.Or conversely you could have built 2 separate 5th gen platforms to the work of F 35 so you are not totally dependent on it.

So you are an aviation expert and say F-35 is NOT a 5th Gen Platform? and We only have F-22 as a 5th Gen platform?

And this is the point, if we keep the F-35 money, we will not be doing anything before the world catch us on. The point is always stay one generation ahead, it is not a fairy tale, we are doing it at the moment. We are literally building F-35 while we are researching the 6th Gen, while the rest of the world are still twitching their own Gen 5.

I don't see why not spend money to ensure nobody is going to catch us up.

You may want to read the difference between theory,hypothesis and inquiry before throwing words like stupid at others.Raising questions about infallibility of a fighter plane does not make a person stupid.

Dude, you are the one who work on Theory and Hypothesis, if you want to discuss what F-35 can do and what they cannot do, you can just pop down to the USAF test rage as they keep flying those production model. We literally have a plane out and answering people doubt by doing what they say they can do. Meanwhile people like you keep talking about how inferior to some plane that DOES NOT EVEN EXIST ON THE PRODUCTION LEVEL YET.

For your sake, you can't even use the Argument F-35 perform badly to [WHATEVER 5th GEN AIRCRAFT] in real world as there afre none of the exist in real world, on the other hand, F-35 is very much real and people have been flying all over the place.

Then can you explain to me how F-35 is inferior than any gen 5 aircraft if there are no one in production yet?

Why do u need F-15? F-4 can do the same thing at lower cost.

You probably don't even need a F-4, maybe a F-100 Super Sabre can do the trick, all he say is fire missile and drop bomb, even F-100 can do that, you just have to figure a way to put a modern sidewinder on them, which I think cost much much much less than making a single F-35 lol

Ummm I am not sure if F-4 can beat 4.5 gen planes....but if you say so....

dude, if according to what you say, any fighter from any generation can defeat a 4.5 gen, all you need is a missile firing capability and gun run. Any gen, from Gen 2 forward can do the trick with modern missile, as it is the missile that kills plane, not the aircraft.

Right here...

And I do not have to pray to find it.

It is funny that in one breath, you told us that you are no expert but in another breath you have no problem declaring that we should keep an aircraft for X years. Make up your mind. Which is it? Do you have any experience in aviation or not?

I have been debating the F-35 long and with many people enough to tell who is in it for a serious debate apart from who is in it just to score mindless criticisms and rhetorical points. You are the latter.


Har...You made a funny...

I guess in your world when equipment are worn out, you wait until all your gear rotted away completely before you start getting new ones to replace them.

For a claimed non expert you certainly are sure of your non expert opinion.

Good. You are learning something. It looks like my 30 min is not completely wasted after all.

lol this guy is really funny I suppose. And he obliviously don't know why we are building the F-35.....Jesus

 

[500]

500 , darling , f-4 is a heavy azz , so it sure can't beat f-18 hornet , hope this helps

F-4 is less maneuverable, but has more speed (2.23 Mach vs 1.8 Mach) and more ceiling (60,000 ft vs 50,000 ft).

By the way, F-4s maneuvering is not bad at all:

The Blue Angels F 4 Phantom - YouTube

If you add JHMCS it will became a very potent plane in close combat as well.

 

[BeyondHeretic]

F-4 is less maneuverable, but has more speed (2.23 Mach vs 1.8 Mach) and more ceiling (60,000 ft vs 50,000 ft).

By the way, F-4s maneuvering is not bad at all:

The Blue Angels F 4 Phantom - YouTube

If you add JHMCS it will became a very potent plane in close combat as well.

Bro , I guess f-4 was an answer to mig-21 with its own very soviet flaws , while f-18 , f-15 and f-35 are indigenous designs for a confrontation with soviet union. That said I appreciate what you are promoting on this forum , you are encouraging Pakistanis to buy f-4s from turkey

 

[gambit]

But aren't we debating the merits of decision to make less F 22s and more F 35s ?
Now, you are saying you will replace it with more F-22s if needed.This is exactly my point-if the JSF does its job, you shouldn't need to build more F 22s.

Dude, there are no co-relation between F-22 and F-35, build more F-22 does not mean F-35 cannot perform their job well, you have carpal tunnel symptom and see F-35 is what extended from F-22. Actually no.

F-35 is a multirole fighter, while F-22 is a Air superiority fighter. Those two did a different job, you don't expect solely rely on F-35 to gain air superiority, but if this is their job to do, they can do that. Nor you don't expect to use a F-22 to do a surgical strike, but if the time comes and needed a F-22 to do that, they can do them too. That does not mean if you build more of other type aircraft, mean they cannot perform what they are supposed to. Simply because they are intended for DIFFERENT things.

So, today, if we build more F-16, does that mean F-15 cannot do their job well? Or if we build more F-15, does that mean F-16 cannot do the job well?

In a way, it is an understandable misconception: That whatever comes after SHOULD be more capable than what was before, and this misconception is reinforced by history of technology, in and out of the military.

But the error from our 'deity of armed conflicts' here is not knowing that in armed conflicts, supposedly his area of expertise alleged by his forum handle, sometimes dedicated platforms are necessary in order to make the battlefield more accessible to other platforms, sometimes dedicated platforms are necessary to do only one or even two things very well because those things have greater strategic values. The SR-71 is one such example. My old 1950s technology F-111 is another and to this day it is still the world's greatest low altitude strategic fighter/bomber/penetrator. The Soviets were nearly orgasmic when we retired both aircrafts.

But I think we can cut our 'deity of armed conflicts' some slack here...He must be a junior in the pantheon of deities.

 

[BeyondHeretic]

In a way, it is an understandable misconception: That whatever comes after SHOULD be more capable than what was before, and this misconception is reinforced by history of technology, in and out of the military.

But the error from our 'deity of armed conflicts' here is not knowing that in armed conflicts, supposedly his area of expertise alleged by his forum handle, sometimes dedicated platforms are necessary in order to make the battlefield more accessible to other platforms, sometimes dedicated platforms are necessary to do only one or even two things very well because those things have greater strategic values. The SR-71 is one such example. My old 1950s technology F-111 is another and to this day it is still the world's greatest low altitude strategic fighter/bomber/penetrator. The Soviets were nearly orgasmic when we retired both aircrafts.

But I think we can cut our 'deity of armed conflicts' some slack here...He must be a junior in the pantheon of deities.

So why did you give f-111 s to Australia?

 

[jhungary]

In a way, it is an understandable misconception: That whatever comes after SHOULD be more capable than what was before, and this misconception is reinforced by history of technology, in and out of the military.

But the error from our 'deity of armed conflicts' here is not knowing that in armed conflicts, supposedly his area of expertise alleged by his forum handle, sometimes dedicated platforms are necessary in order to make the battlefield more accessible to other platforms, sometimes dedicated platforms are necessary to do only one or even two things very well because those things have greater strategic values. The SR-71 is one such example. My old 1950s technology F-111 is another and to this day it is still the world's greatest low altitude strategic fighter/bomber/penetrator. The Soviets were nearly orgasmic when we retired both aircrafts.

But I think we can cut our 'deity of armed conflicts' some slack here...He must be a junior in the pantheon of deities.

Misconception continue........

But still, ignorant should not be a legal excuse for not knowing what things are supposed to do. They are Indian, not Iraqi.

Reminded me once I was in Iraq had all the shiite we got, we ask for air support, and the closest CAP had been out of munitions, so they do a dry run and a fly by to scare those insurgent. And it worked LOL

So why did you give f-111 s to Australia?

I don't think the US gave the F-111 to Australia, Australian bought them

 

[BeyondHeretic]

I don't think the US gave the F-111 to Australia, Australian bought them

True , but it's like saying the US didn't give apache to Israel , Israel bought them , my Swedish friend

I think they were given to Australia so that aus can do reconnaissance missions on the soviets , only from another direction

 

[jhungary]

True , but it's like saying the US didn't give apache to Israel , Israel bought them , my Swedish friend

well, consider Aussie buy them in 1973, I don't see anything behind the F-111 deal beside a normal business transaction. Australia is a long term business and military partner of the US. I don't exactly see what you are going with the F-111 in Australia??

By the way, I am also an Aussie and I hold a Chinese Passport. I am flying Swedish flag because if I don't, my wife will have my balls.

 

[BeyondHeretic]

well, consider Aussie buy them in 1973, I don't see anything behind the F-111 deal beside a normal business transaction. Australia is a long term business and military partner of the US. I don't exactly see what you are going with the F-111 in Australia??

By the way, I am also an Aussie and I hold a Chinese Passport. I am flying Swedish flag because if I don't, my wife will have my balls.

Ok , the aussies must have a terrible sense of defence then , my Asian friend

 

[jhungary]

Ok , the aussies must have a terrible sense of defence then , my Asian friend

No, when aussie say "Defence" force, they really mean "Defend"

Beside, F-111 is a nice aircraft, we just retire our stock in 2010, that's 37 years of using it, and we are still here. There, have it.

 

[BeyondHeretic]

No, when aussie say "Defence" force, they really mean "Defend"

Beside, F-111 is a nice aircraft, we just retire our stock in 2010, that's 37 years of using it, and we are still here. There, have it.

I see , thanks for the info

 

[godofwar]

snip

In a way, it is an understandable misconception: That whatever comes after SHOULD be more capable than what was before, and this misconception is reinforced by history of technology, in and out of the military.

But the error from our 'deity of armed conflicts' here is not knowing that in armed conflicts, supposedly his area of expertise alleged by his forum handle, sometimes dedicated platforms are necessary in order to make the battlefield more accessible to other platforms, sometimes dedicated platforms are necessary to do only one or even two things very well because those things have greater strategic values. The SR-71 is one such example. My old 1950s technology F-111 is another and to this day it is still the world's greatest low altitude strategic fighter/bomber/penetrator. The Soviets were nearly orgasmic when we retired both aircrafts.

But I think we can cut our 'deity of armed conflicts' some slack here...He must be a junior in the pantheon of deities.

Only time will tell how good or bad F-35 is, keeping in mind cost as well as capability.It has been bashed up by Australian analyst Carlo Kopp.Of course nobody will take thw word of Americans when it comes to their own plane.

 

[jhungary]

Only time will tell how good or bad F-35 is, keeping in mind cost as well as capability.It has been bashed up by Australian analyst Carlo Kopp.Of course nobody will take thw word of Americans when it comes to their own plane.

here we come the Carlo Kopp remarks again.

How many time do I have to tell "you people" Carlo Kopp is NOT ANY AVIATION expert. Please, before you read or reference on someone remark, can you check his background? Carlo Kopp is a Trained "Computer Scientist" he got a PhD in Computer Science. the first line from his Monash University Bio is this

I am a part time Computer Science Lecturer at the Monash University Clayton School of Information Technology

you do realise you are quoting a Computer Engineer who had some time in an F-18 joyride and sim and F-111 sim going up against people who actually FLEW the F-111 right???

If Carlo Kopp is any Aviation Expert, then my Private Pilot License will may me an Royal Australian Air Force Ace lol

please, read up the guys BIOS before quoting him, seriously, here, let me help you

Getting to know ... Carlo Kopp, Monash University

Carlo Kopp's Homepage

The only thing there are slight Aviation related to Carlo Kopp is the AMAIAA, which according to AIAA website, you will have it as long as you pay $110 membership fee

Associate Member Grade in AIAA is open to individuals interested in the development or application of aeronautics and astronautics, but who do not hold a degree in science or engineering. Associate Members do not vote in elections for AIAA officers and constitution and bylaw changes. $110 a year.

Basically, you can become an Associated Member of American Institute of Aeronautic and Astronautics

AIAA Individual Membership Types and Benefits : The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 

[godofwar]

here we come the Carlo Kopp remarks again.

How many time do I have to tell "you people" Carlo Kopp is NOT ANY AVIATION expert. Please, before you read or reference on someone remark, can you check his background? Carlo Kopp is a Trained "Computer Scientist" he got a PhD in Computer Science. the first line from his Monash University Bio is this



snip

Then please tell me who is an expert in your eyes ? Keeping in mind most capabilities of military planes are kept hidden.

 

[jhungary]

Then please tell me who is an expert in your eyes ? Keeping in mind most capabilities of military planes are kept hidden.

lol, well, if you think a computer scientist is an aviation expert, then be my guest.........

My brother is an Aviation Expert, he have a BEng and MEng in Mechanical Engineering from UCLA, and he is currently employed by Boeing, but then, I know, you will say Carlo Kopp is better

EVERYONE IN AUSTRALIA KNOW CARLO KOPP IS A FRAUD, END OF STORY