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

[gambit]

Yes I am biased. I have been convinced by a plethora of skeptics. Sprey being the most prominent. There are many many others among them the governments of Canada, Australia, Netherlands and Italy. I've posted numerous sources reporting on the f35's fallability. You've posted NONE to suggest otherwise..

I asked you to select one item for debate. Just pick one. What make the F-35 a 'fail' and 'junk', according to you, contains many items/issues. So just pick one. Why is that so difficult ? What are you afraid of, being proved wrong regardless of your sources ?

You are no different than others who tried and found themselves floundering. You accused me of being biased, but now you admitted you yourself is biased. So is being biased bad or good ? For you, if anyone agrees with you, then that person is 'objective', but if he disagrees, no matter how legitimate and technically valid his arguments may be, you would dismiss him as 'biased' or 'paid stooge' or 'fanboy'. There is no reasoning with your kind the way intellectually honest discussions should happens for the benefits of everyone.

You have not been 'convinced' by anyone. You already made up your mind from other non-technical reasons and sought out opinions to 'confirm' what you think is true about the jet. That is no way to start a rational discussion. You brought on Sprey ? Fine. He said that Russian low frequency radars can defeat 'stealth'. You think that subject is new here, kid ? It is not. I proved how Sprey is wrong and I did it without touching a single math equation. I proved Sprey wrong using publicly available and impeccable sources and so solid that even those without any aviation experience are convinced Sprey should be dismissed. But these people are adults, a group that so far does not appears to contains you.

 

[libertad]

I asked you to select one item for debate. Just pick one. What make the F-35 a 'fail' and 'junk', according to you, contains many items/issues. So just pick one. Why is that so difficult ? What are you afraid of, being proved wrong regardless of your sources ?

*sigh*...i've posted several concerns in previous posts. Pick one, heck pick all of them and respond.

You are no different than others who tried and found themselves floundering. You accused me of being biased, but now you admitted you yourself is biased. So is being biased bad or good ? For you, if anyone agrees with you, then that person is 'objective', but if he disagrees, no matter how legitimate and technically valid his arguments may be, you would dismiss him as 'biased' or 'paid stooge' or 'fanboy'. There is no reasoning with your kind the way intellectually honest discussions should happens for the benefits of everyone.

Yes i am biased. I am biased against the government and innately skeptical of anything it does. That used to be a common trait among Americans. We are ripped off with high taxes and the money is then given to connected, cronyist corporations like Lockheed to produce shiny toys that we don't need. I personally see them as junk because they add no value to the life of common folks, yet they are build with hard earned money confiscated from them.

You have not been 'convinced' by anyone. You already made up your mind from other non-technical reasons and sought out opinions to 'confirm' what you think is true about the jet. That is no way to start a rational discussion. You brought on Sprey ? Fine. He said that Russian low frequency radars can defeat 'stealth'. You think that subject is new here, kid ? It is not. I proved how Sprey is wrong and I did it without touching a single math equation. I proved Sprey wrong using publicly available and impeccable sources and so solid that even those without any aviation experience are convinced Sprey should be dismissed. But these people are adults, a group that so far does not appears to contains you.

Sprey is right. How else was a 'stealth' f117 shot down in Yugoslavia? How are the Iranians shooting down our drones? You haven't proven Sprey wrong. You haven't posted a single website, article, source etc to disprove him. Let me see those sources.

 

[sincity]

F35 just for showcase and cost 400 millions dollars too much to flight into war zone then shot down by the enemy anti air missiles defend.

 

[gambit]

*sigh*...i've posted several concerns in previous posts. Pick one, heck pick all of them and respond.

As you wish...

Yes i am biased. I am biased against the government and innately skeptical of anything it does. That used to be a common trait among Americans. We are ripped off with high taxes and the money is then given to connected, cronyist corporations like Lockheed to produce shiny toys that we don't need. I personally see them as junk because they add no value to the life of common folks, yet they are build with hard earned money confiscated from them.

Nothing related to the subject.

Sprey is right. How else was a 'stealth' f117 shot down in Yugoslavia? How are the Iranians shooting down our drones? You haven't proven Sprey wrong. You haven't posted a single website, article, source etc to disprove him. Let me see those sources.

NATO conducted over 30 THOUSANDS sorties over Yugoslavia and lost only 2 aircrafts: one F-16 and one F-117. If whatever the Serbs did worked so well, why only two out of 30 THOUSANDS ? And included in that 30 THOUSANDS were about thirty B-2s sorties that flew from CONUS to Yugoslavia and back. Why not even one B-2 lost ? And please do not source loony conspiracy web sites.

I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that you have no idea how much NATO flew over Yugoslavia. This one punch, out of two, is enough to knock Sprey's argument senseless. As a prelude to punch number two, Sprey is correct that 'low frequency' radars can detect 'stealth', but his explanation is grossly simplistic and simplistic enough to take in the gullibles, like yourself. In radar detection, NOTHING is 'invisible' and I said that many times on this forum. It may surprise you to read that, but in no way does that validate Sprey's argument.

So if nothing is invisible in radar, from individual raindrops to smaller insects to the large B-2, why is Sprey still wrong ?

 

[Esc8781]

Sprey is right. How else was a 'stealth' f117 shot down in Yugoslavia? How are the Iranians shooting down our drones? You haven't proven Sprey wrong.

Here you go. A brief explanation by a sensor operator.

 

[Wave]

All the F-35 haters always seem to cite the same 4articles or the the Sprey interview, and dont seem to understand that Stealth does not equal invisible, which is weird in a defence forum.

 

[C130]

Its an overpriced hunk of junk.

economy of scale will bring the price way down.
it's a fine plane it just needs be rolling off the assembly line quicker.

and makes you wonder how the Boeing X-32 would of fared if it won.