'Workhorse' is First F-35 to Achieve 1,000 Flight Hours

[Oldman1]

Oh guess what, it can actually turn!

 

[libertad]

Its an overpriced hunk of junk.

 

[Oldman1]

Its an overpriced hunk of junk.

And people say it couldn't even turn. No words from you should even be taken as a grain of salt at least.

 

[libertad]

And people say it couldn't even turn. No words from you should even be taken as a grain of salt at least.

The aircraft is a joke. F-16s can turn better. How long did it take for it to log 1000 hours? From what i hear, one scratch on its 'stealth' exterior grounds it for days. Its annihilated in wargames against older jets, its way too expensive, it can't fly in bad weather and it can't do close support because of its fragility and fuel costs. The F35 is a complete bust. At this point its all about saving face and suckering puppet 'allies' like NATO, Canada, Japan and Australia into buying it. We've also cancelled the F22, another cropduster. Lockheed really did a number on America with this one.

 

[gambit]

The aircraft is a joke. How long did it take for it to log 1000 hours? From what i hear, one scratch on its 'stealth' exterior grounds it for days. Its annihilated in wargames against Su35s, its way too expensive, it can't fly in bad weather, it can't do close support because of its fragility and high fuel costs and its got the agility of a bomber The F35 is a complete bust. At this point its all about saving face and suckering puppet 'allies' like NATO, Canada, Japan and Australia into buying it. We've also cancelled the F22, another cropduster. Lockheed really did a number on America with this one.

Let us know if you are ready to discuss the F-35 rationally. Equally important is if -- a big IF -- you have the intellectual honesty to admit you are wrong if proven wrong. But I doubt either one for you.

 

[libertad]

Let us know if you are ready to discuss the F-35 rationally. Equally important is if -- a big IF -- you have the intellectual honesty to admit you are wrong if proven wrong. But I doubt either one for you.

Tell me where i'm wrong. Why are the Canadians and Australians second guessing and reducing their orders?

 

[gambit]

Tell me where i'm wrong. Why are the Canadians and Australians second guessing and reducing their orders?

Let us know if you are willing to discuss the F-35, one subject at a time, in a rational manner. You talk as if you have new opinions and information. The reality is that you cannot educate us, least of all -- me. And it will be YOU who will be educated.

 

[libertad]

Let us know if you are willing to discuss the F-35, one subject at a time, in a rational manner. You talk as if you have new opinions and information. The reality is that you cannot educate us, least of all -- me. And it will be YOU who will be educated.

Break it down for me. What are you waiting for??

 

[gambit]

Break it down for me. What are you waiting for??

Am waiting for any kind of maturity from you. Anyone who started the criticism with the word 'junk', like you have, is pretty much a child to me. Hence, your criticism, as generously labeled, is not to be taken seriously, least of all by me, who have nearly 19 yrs in aviation, in and out of the military, specifically the USAF.

You said...

From what i hear, one scratch on its 'stealth' exterior grounds it for days.

There are several things wrong here.

For starter, have you exercised any critical thinking on what you heard, as in its credibility ? Have you paused and wondered if there are any technical reasons apart from tactical ones ? Have you looked at the aircraft's exterior and noticed the multitudes of panel gaps and asked yourself what make a scratch different from those gaps ? Have you asked that if such a scratch is so detrimental, would that be applicable to other 'stealth' fighters like the ones from China and Russia ?

I can answer those questions: No.

I do not hold anyone's lack of military experience against him, provided they do not behave like a child as you have. I have a reputation on this forum as someone who will exercise patience in posting reasonably technical answers and supported with credible public sources. So far, no one have ever returned and accused me of lying/misleading the interested laymen. Hard to do that when they have keywords and at least one linked source, such as from IEEE or an .edu, to verify what I say. People here, as in adults, know that if whatever they asked crossed the 'classified' line, which is extremely rare because they are adults, I will not reveal what I know and I will say so. I have declined to go further on questions before. Adults understands and respects that.

You already made up your mind about the F-35 so all you did was searched -- credulously -- for any criticisms that negatively portrayed the jet about any individual item. So do not pretend and/or delude yourself that you have anything new to contribute to the debate.

 

[libertad]

Am waiting for any kind of maturity from you. Anyone who started the criticism with the word 'junk', like you have, is pretty much a child to me. Hence, your criticism, as generously labeled, is not to be taken seriously, least of all by me, who have nearly 19 yrs in aviation, in and out of the military, specifically the USAF.

You sound butthurt. The aircraft is JUNK.....the best junk that $400 billion (and counting) can buy. I think your affiliation with the USAF is compromising you objectivity.

You said...

There are several things wrong here.

For starter, have you exercised any critical thinking on what you heard, as in its credibility ? Have you paused and wondered if there are any technical reasons apart from tactical ones ? Have you looked at the aircraft's exterior and noticed the multitudes of panel gaps and asked yourself what make a scratch different from those gaps ? Have you asked that if such a scratch is so detrimental, would that be applicable to other 'stealth' fighters like the ones from China and Russia ?

I can answer those questions: No.

I do not hold anyone's lack of military experience against him, provided they do not behave like a child as you have. I have a reputation on this forum as someone who will exercise patience in posting reasonably technical answers and supported with credible public sources. So far, no one have ever returned and accused me of lying/misleading the interested laymen. Hard to do that when they have keywords and at least one linked source, such as from IEEE or an .edu, to verify what I say. People here, as in adults, know that if whatever they asked crossed the 'classified' line, which is extremely rare because they are adults, I will not reveal what I know and I will say so. I have declined to go further on questions before. Adults understands and respects that.

You already made up your mind about the F-35 so all you did was searched -- credulously -- for any criticisms that negatively portrayed the jet about any individual item. So do not pretend and/or delude yourself that you have anything new to contribute to the debate.

I see you've got nothing to counter my points other than ad hominem attacks. I have already come to my personal conclusion on the F35, but i'm open to being convinced otherwise by evidence. The best way to convince naysayers like me would be for it to actually be deployed, but that won't be until 2016. I'm wondering how many years it took for that 'workhorse' to log 1000 hours. Or is that also classified? I'm not an insider or military buff. I get my info through various outlets. Just about all non government, non Lockheed sources have crapped all over the jet.

Annihilated in war games.
Joint Strike Fighters ‘Clubbed’ in Computer War Game | Danger Room | WIRED

Pierre Sprey telling it like it is.

Canada, Italy, Netherlands having second thoughts, reducing orders
Canada’s second thoughts on F-35 Lightning show concerns about plane’s high cost - The Washington Post

Lockheed is laughing all the way to the bank as the drooling American taxpayers are robbed blind. 20 years and $400 billion and we still don't have an operational aircraft. Its estimated to cost a trillion and a half when its all said and done. How can you possibly defend this fail?

 

[gambit]

You sound butthurt. The aircraft is JUNK.....the best junk that $400 billion (and counting) can buy.

Then what is the point of debate in the first place if you already made up your mind ?

I think your affiliation with the USAF is compromising you objectivity.

And unlike you, adults thinks that is a positive because they now have the other side of the debate.

I see you've got nothing to counter my points other than ad hominem attacks.

I have more than you think. But if you have a problem with me characterizing you as immature, which is true, then we should criticize you for casting ad hominem attacks against the jet as 'junk'.

I have already come to my personal conclusion on the F35, but i'm open to being convinced otherwise by evidence. The best way to convince naysayers like me would be for it to actually be deployed, but that won't be until 2016. I'm wondering how many years it took for that 'workhorse' to log 1000 hours. Or is that also classified? I'm not an insider or military buff. I get my info through various outlets. Just about all non government, non Lockheed sources have crapped all over the jet.

That is hilarious and further indicative of your lack of critical thinking skill, which is not an ad hominem attack but an analysis.

In order for the jet to be deployed, it must go through development and testing, but if there are issues during development, and there always are, you demand the program to be scrapped. So how can anyone prove anything deployable in the first place ?

Annihilated in war games.
Joint Strike Fighters ‘Clubbed’ in Computer War Game | Danger Room | WIRED

Yeah...War games. Did you know that back in Desert Storm time, the Chinese and the Russians predicted, based on their war games or whatever versions they have, that the US would win but suffer Vietnam War level casualties ? Turned out the US military was more in danger of fratricide and road accidents than from the Iraqi military.

Pierre Sprey telling it like it is.

Sprey have been debated and debunked, with all due respect to his contribution to aviation.

First of all, Sprey was not a 'designer' as people tried to portrayed him. He was a data cruncher.

Now, Sprey and his crew originally wanted the F-16 to have no radar at all, only to be shepherded to the fight by others to engage in guns only combat. We know how that thinking turned out, do we ?

Like I said, you think you brought on anything new ?

Lockheed is laughing all the way to the bank as the drooling American taxpayers are robbed blind. 20 years and $400 billion and we still don't have an operational aircraft. Its estimated to cost a trillion and a half when its all said and done. How can you possibly defend this fail?

Let me know if you are ready to debate in a rational manner. We have already seen your failure in critical thinking so it is rather a futile request.

 

[Viper0011.]

You sound butthurt. The aircraft is JUNK.....the best junk that $400 billion (and counting) can buy.

Common guys. Ya'all are makin' a scene on this thread.
@libertad If you think this puppy ain't worth it and its a "junk". How about you wait and allow the -35 to protect our freedom across the globe and show you its credentials? May be once these -35's becomes an operational success you'll change your mind......I frankly don't think you have good understanding of this beast's capabilities.

 

[F-22Raptor]

Then what is the point of debate in the first place if you already made up your mind ?


And unlike you, adults thinks that is a positive because they now have the other side of the debate.


I have more than you think. But if you have a problem with me characterizing you as immature, which is true, then we should criticize you for casting ad hominem attacks against the jet as 'junk'.


That is hilarious and further indicative of your lack of critical thinking skill, which is not an ad hominem attack but an analysis.

In order for the jet to be deployed, it must go through development and testing, but if there are issues during development, and there always are, you demand the program to be scrapped. So how can anyone prove anything deployable in the first place ?


Yeah...War games. Did you know that back in Desert Storm time, the Chinese and the Russians predicted, based on their war games or whatever versions they have, that the US would win but suffer Vietnam War level casualties ? Turned out the US military was more in danger of fratricide and road accidents than from the Iraqi military.


Sprey have been debated and debunked, with all due respect to his contribution to aviation.

First of all, Sprey was not a 'designer' as people tried to portrayed him. He was a data cruncher.

Now, Sprey and his crew originally wanted the F-16 to have no radar at all, only to be shepherded to the fight by others to engage in guns only combat. We know how that thinking turned out, do we ?

Like I said, you think you brought on anything new ?


Let me know if you are ready to debate in a rational manner. We have already seen your failure in critical thinking so it is rather a futile request.

The guy cited Pierre Sprey. His opinion is now utterly worthless.

 

[libertad]

I have more than you think. But if you have a problem with me characterizing you as immature, which is true, then we should criticize you for casting ad hominem attacks against the jet as 'junk'.

Sorry, Did I hurt the jet's feelings?

That is hilarious and further indicative of your lack of critical thinking skill, which is not an ad hominem attack but an analysis.

In order for the jet to be deployed, it must go through development and testing, but if there are issues during development, and there always are, you demand the program to be scrapped. So how can anyone prove anything deployable in the first place ?

20 years, $400 billion and counting. What do we have to show for this so far? How much more money are you willing to throw at this thing?

Yeah...War games. Did you know that back in Desert Storm time, the Chinese and the Russians predicted, based on their war games or whatever versions they have, that the US would win but suffer Vietnam War level casualties ? Turned out the US military was more in danger of fratricide and road accidents than from the Iraqi military.

Since the bird is a year and a half away from deployment, this is all we have to go by thus far. Su-35 will be waiting.

Sprey have been debated and debunked, with all due respect to his contribution to aviation.

First of all, Sprey was not a 'designer' as people tried to portrayed him. He was a data cruncher.

Now, Sprey and his crew originally wanted the F-16 to have no radar at all, only to be shepherded to the fight by others to engage in guns only combat. We know how that thinking turned out, do we ?

Like I said, you think you brought on anything new ?


Let me know if you are ready to debate in a rational manner. We have already seen your failure in critical thinking so it is rather a futile request.

Please let me know who has debunked him (not affiliated with the government or Lockheed). Whatever Sprey is, I'm going out on a limb and taking his word over yours and the tax fattened stooges at the USAF and Lockheed.

The guy cited Pierre Sprey. His opinion is now utterly worthless.

How so? By who? Funny you would call yourself f22. That dud has been cancelled .

 

[F-22Raptor]

Common guys. Ya'all are makin' a scene on this thread.
@libertad If you think this puppy ain't worth it and its a "junk". How about you wait and allow the -35 to protect our freedom across the globe and show you its credentials? May be once these -35's becomes an operational success you'll change your mind......I frankly don't think you have good understanding of this beast's capabilities.

The F-35 will revolutionize air warfare over the next 20 years. Its advanced sensors, 360 degree situational awareness, data fusion, and network centric warfare are all gamechangers.