F-35 VS F-18 FIGHTER JETS

Here is another one.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35...hter-maneuvers Originally Posted by wordup666

article is 2 years old.

the comments in the article say otherwise. they basically ripped the F-35.

Would have helped if you had bothered to read the articles, but you would rather spew crap.

Both covered more than fuel. Originally Posted by wordup666

I wasn't referencing your "poop" sheets about ranges. I was referencing earlier discussions in the thread. I'm not spewing shit ... you are!

I prefer to utilize military analysis and DOD testing reports! I was asking BL for the source of his information.

But in your normal style you stuck your nose into something you don't know anything about with your bullshit!

The F35 program is in trouble...not to mention overruns. Originally Posted by LexusLover

article is 2 years old.

the comments in the article say otherwise. they basically ripped the F-35. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Thanks DF.

Proof it takes a village to raise an idiot.

May be that's the reason Trump prefers CURRENT military officers to run national security ..... as opposed to politicians and lobbyists for the aircraft industry.

2nd request for a link to THE TEST RESULTS. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Sorry in Rio de Janeiro fucking 3 girls a day. I'll post a link when I get back. There were lots of stories on every news sites about its recent performance test

Sorry in Rio de Janeiro fucking 3 girls a day. I'll post a link when I get back. There were lots of stories on every news sites about its recent performance test Originally Posted by BigLouie

You mean 3 Trannies a day!!!!!!

Sorry in Rio de Janeiro fucking 3 girls a day. I'll post a link when I get back. There were lots of stories on every news sites about its recent performance test Originally Posted by BigLouie

You and SissyLips need to buddy up on your tales.

In test the F-35 had shown itself to be vastly superior to anything else in the air. You can't sub any other plane for it Originally Posted by BigLouie

No one here said anything about substituting for it. My point is what is better; 1200 fighters in the sky or 480 fighters in the sky...for the same amount of money. They used to post stats on dogfighting. You know, an F-15 is able to defeat 3 Mig-25s with it's stand off capability and close in weapons. They just don't put that stuff out there anymore. I suspect that a F-35 is much better at a distance (that stealth factor) than at eyeball range.

I suspect that a F-35 is much better at a distance (that stealth factor) than at eyeball range. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

If you look at some of the "war game" comparison the F16 can take the F35 in close-in maneuvering. If you look at the DOD comments that is one of the issues with F35 ... pilot visibility. The other is range ... then there are apparently some electronic issues .. that are dangerous. The bugs haven't been eliminated so ...

how the hell can someone say anything about it's superiority?

Manufacturer, politician bullshit.

article is 2 years old.

the comments in the article say otherwise. they basically ripped the F-35. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

90% of any article regarding test results on the F 35 are negative. What is your point?

Thanks DF.

Proof it takes a village to raise an idiot.

May be that's the reason Trump prefers CURRENT military officers to run national security ..... as opposed to politicians and lobbyists for the aircraft industry. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Reading through your almost 30,000 posts show you didn't need a village, you are a self made idiot.

Reading through your almost 30,000 posts show you didn't need a village, you are a self made idiot. Originally Posted by wordup666

I'm impressed you can read, ..

...but I'm even more impressed you read all "almost 30,000" of my posts.


I'm easily impressed at times!

I'm impressed you can read, ..

...but I'm even more impressed you read all "almost 30,000" of my posts.


I'm easily impressed at times! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Idiots usually are.

Idiots usually are. Originally Posted by wordup666

Your self-analysis is noteworthy. But you're not qualified to evaluate me, and your apparent belief that you are demonstrates that you are not. But calling me names doesn't really affect me, it just shows how insecure you are. Usually when little guys like you start the name calling they've realized they've lost.

Because infrastructure and personnel costs are so high in the US, the US will deploy a fixed number of planes.

We value our personnel, and the ability to engage in situations is dependent on being able to deploy the personnel with confidence that they will come back whole.

The survivability in most situations is dependent on the ability to evade detection. The F22, F35, and stealth bombers are the only deployable options in high risk scenarios.

If the F18, F16, or F15 are acceptable from a detectability standpoint, there is no reason to build out our Air Force, or Navy air fleets. The consequence of that philosophy is that the people who would destabilize the world behind a curtain of SAM missiles can do so with impunity. Are we really ready to accept that?

Carriers have a limited number of planes they can carry. They ought to be full of the best planes we can buy. Anything else is contrary to our values.

We should never deploy our stealth aircraft on low risk missions. The fact that we do so is a testimony to the arrogance and stupidity of individuals(particulary some of our presidents).

Carriers have a limited number of planes they can carry. They ought to be full of the best planes we can buy. Anything else is contrary to our values.

We should never deploy our stealth aircraft on low risk missions. The fact that we do so is a testimony to the arrogance and stupidity of individuals(particulary some of our presidents). Originally Posted by kehaar

The discussion of carriers focuses on their vulnerability and the need now or in the not so distant future of staging the fleet a substantial distance from the conflicted area.

As for stealth ... I've had the impression that they were used because we lacked "fly over" permissions and they could "fly over" without detection to we don't have any hurt feelings and information released of an impending attack.

Example: I recall Reagan had those issues with respect to the flight into Libya to pay Gaddafi a wake up call. The flight path had to circumvent Spain from England to get to North Africa.

90% of any article regarding test results on the F 35 are negative. What is your point? Originally Posted by wordup666

my point? F35 is nothing to roar about. Its an expensive pig in a turd.

the F35 designation is a misnomer.