My question is why are we wasting money on the F-35 when we could either upgrade the F-16 or just get the Eurofighter or Rafale?
Just to stir the pot a little bitIn 2004, United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper said after flying the Eurofighter, "I have flown all the air force jets. None was as good as the Eurofighter."
Any of the countries that we want have their own ELECTRONIC COUNTERMEASURES.... plus we would probably help them out with our ECM / Stealth abilities... you only really need those when you are establishing air superiority... once you have air superiority then those measures are not as much of a concern
If it's not foggy
and you have your fog lights on
you are a doofus.
"Pro Tip: Don't **** with people who've been trollin' longer than you've been alive." - OOOO-A3
23.... didn't they crash and burn with one in Guam a couple months ago or something.... Wasn't that the Spirit of San Francisco.... get it crashed and burned.... because it went up in flames....All, what?... 2 dozen of 'em?
get it? don't worry I will be here all week folks... be sure to tip your waitresses
Worked with one, as a matter of fact, David Poole, CDR, RN. He was VP of Engineering of a small aerospace startup I worked at in the 90s. He flew the Sea Harrier during carrier trials. Has a Martin-Baker tie from it, too. Also flew F-4s during the Falklands era, developed high-AOA air combat tactics for the Royal Navy. His specialty was controlling yaw at high AOA using differential thrust.
He quite liked the Harrier, actually, thought it a MUCH underrated air-to-air platform, particularly as a dogfighter (!) because of its low observable characteristics. Had a very small frontal cross section and relatively clean-burning exhaust. In contrast to say, F-14s, which he often went up against in simulated air combat exercises and which he derided as "great big smoky things".
When I pressed him to pick an airplane he actually would choose to go to war in, though, he somewhat shamefacedly picked the F/A-18 as the best compromise of airframe, avionics, weapons. He wasn't happy about it, though He really loved his F-4s -- "big, fast, loud -- very American".
"Personally, I believe that 'fairness' consists in the fruits of my labor not being taken by corrupt hacks to redistribute to their cronies in exchange for votes." -- Glenn Reynolds
Multi-role Aircraft = Compromised Airframe that can do different things, but none of it exceptionally well
I do like that they are replacing the EA-6B with the EF/A-18G ... that is a good job by the Navy
I just caught this thread and just watched that video and I tend to agree.
The F-35 seems to be too big of a compromise to do everything everyone wants it to. While the B Version can land vertically, its appears that it would take longer to cycle jets that way than the 'old fashion' way.
I think different, purpose specific aircraft are still the way to go.
Originally Posted by 90quattrocoupe