Real good level of debate this. Lets play tic for tac. How about you answer the question i posed first re the level of F35 testing. You seem to have a blind eye to that question…wonder why.

To be fair, kind of, not taking sides or anything, but I remember when a certain member, mention no names but I’ll give you a clue: ‘You’re having a discussion with him right now.’(Not me), was talking about the source codes to be transfered to the UK so we could do whatever it was/is we have planned for them and of course the Yanks saying NO because they don’t seem to trust any of their allies etc, and then someone asked a “particular” member to answer, something along the lines of: ‘What if the tables were turned and the UK refused to give source codes to the US? Would you accept that? Yes or no?’ Something like that anyways. I remember that person not giving a yes or no answer, instead it was a post full of nonsense jibberish & not really answering anything…Doesn’t that just get on your t!t ends?…Lots of people on here like that.

Sorry, I’m having abit of a natter. 😀

My favourites:

Bac/EE Lightning. Prettiest fighter of the cold war.
Harrier GR3, GR9, FRS-1 & FA-2.
Tornado GR4.
Gripen.
Rafale. (Without doubt the prettiest of modern day fighters).
Mig-29, the Slovak kind with the digi camo, very cool.
Typhoon, some angles.
Jaguar.
Mirage series.
SU-27, 35.
PAK-FA, but only from the front. The more I look at it from other angles the uglier it seems to get IMO.
Saab Draken.

Many more…

Hmmm…Nobody said A-10 yet?…*Evil Giggling*

Yes you are spinning. You are spinning the fact that as a multi-role fighter the F-35 was designed to have significant air-to-ground capabilities (in addition to its air-to-air capabilities) to make the false claim that it was designed as an attack aircraft rather than a fighter.

No, I was not! I said the F-35 was primarily an air-to-ground platform not an air-to-air platform, although according to LM & co its no slouch in air-to-air and to which I’m not questioning nor doubting. Just because people say its primarily an air-to-ground airplane doesn’t mean its a load of tosh as a fighter, does it? Nothing wrong with that. Get over it & stop making it sound so negative for once.

According to “Jon Lake” over on typhoon.starstreak forum he said, I quote; The RAF turned down the offer of DACT with F-22, not vica versa. Funny thing is though “he” said it on an open forum and not in the article in the AirForces Monthly magazine when he was writing about it. Not to my knowledge anyway.

Sounds familiar….Don’t you think?…

The F-35 IS primarily designed as a fighter. But fighters have become a ‘jack of all trades’ – dedicated/single mission oriented interceptors & attack aircraft have gone out of style (primarily for economic reasons).

Would’ve thought that you of all people would’ve known that its primerily designed as a bomber not a fighter.

That’s funny, you claim to be interrested in what a particular airplane can do and how it does it yet do not believe the nomenclature devised (DECADES AGO) to tell you that (in general terms).

Is there a point to what you’re saying or are you just being the same old pfcem? I’m interested in a lot of things and how they do it, not just airplanes, and I’m sure you and everyone else on here is too…..Hmmm well, just read other members posts on this topic, (not yours) they’ve pretty much answered what needs to be said.

No, “cheap” was never the word used. It is/was always “affordable” &/or “cost-effective.

Affordable + Cost Effective =…….Cheap!

Complete & utter BS. Fighter generations have been used by most all nations/designers/manufactures/writers since the 1950s.

Please, instead of calling other peoples opinions “complete & utter BS” like you seem to do quite often on here, why don’t you go about it a nicer more friendly way of disagreeing with with them? Because frankly, its getting a bit silly now don’t you think?

I 100% agree with Fedaykin on this matter, its hardly a bad thing is it?