Wind your neck in, Fedaykin. Give me a Sweetman direct quote or citation or retract.

Jones is pretty lamesauce, because he was quite clearly just quoting the papers. He’s got no serious knowledge of the program.

Wind my neck in? Demands for citations? Really…I haven’t stuck my neck out and it is you who has made a fool of yourself. Saying Jones is a lame source (P.S. I would look into getting a spell checker) is a comical changing of the goalposts, he is a public figure making silly statements. Not knowing who Bill Sweetman (edit I just got an email telling me who you are…made my day LowObservable…definitely it is you who needs to wind his neck in if that is true – actually it would be rather easy for you to find the citations you so desire) is surprising considering you feel the desire to participate in a military aviation forum…I am not your personal Google if you don’t know who he is and why it has elicited a certain degree of mirth I suggest you go away and come back when you have calmed down a bit.

Considering I see no reason to apologise considering I have met your demands I think we can call it a day can’t we.

Care for some cheese with that whine? You’re entitled to your opinions but not to your own facts.

“The naysayers have consistently brought up the deck melting thing as an issue”

So would you please cite a serious naysayerTM who literally said the jet would “melt decks”?

And when you don’t, would you offer an apology?

Bill Sweetman and Shadow Defence minister Kevan Jones to name a couple…big enough for you?

Sooooo when do I get my apology? I gave you an example I await your blustering answer.

This isn’t a zero sum game. You clearly think you are entitled to your own facts along with Snafu352, look all I am asking is simple we are all entitled to our opinions it would just be a nice if when those opinions pertain to the F-35 you are not instantly accused of Strawman arguments.

I will have some Cheese with that wine.

Cheap shot Snafu352 and frankly quite pathetic! I am not saying the USN are liars and dumping a link to a 24 page PDF I have never read before and then accusing me of Strawman arguments is childish and frankly unsurprising for someone who lurks in this forum fingers at the keyboard ready to disagree with anybody who expresses interest, support or any kind of positive opinion about the F-35 program.

Where did I write that there wasn’t concern with thermal problems? I was writing about an old TV sketch that expressed an opinion which has been common that the F-35B would melt through the deck like a blow torch. It has proven to be an engineering problem that is solvable and your above comment is in all respects a Strawman.

You don’t like the F-35…fine I am not stopping you commenting as such on this forum but I will politely ask you not to insult me with Strawman attacks just because my views differ.

What will be interesting in 2018 when the F-35B (hopefully) starts sea trials from HMS Queen Elizabeth is what kind of influence the USN and USMC will have had on deck handling practice. Currently the only RN deck handlers working with fast jets at sea are with the USN as part of the US-UK Long Lead Specialist Skills Program (LLSSP), they are assigned to the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and USS Kearsarge. I wouldn’t be surprised it the little flags make a disappearance, frankly it makes plenty of sense to bring UK fast jet deck practice as close as possible to that of the USN/USMC to allow easy interoperability considering USMC F-35B and MV-22 will more then likely by regular visitors to the QE class.

British Harrier jets were armed with AIM-9L which was an important factor in the Harrier’s success in the war. Yak-38 were armed with R-60.

Actually that is a myth that has seeped into the general public conciousness that refuses to die out even when multiple sources have explained the AIM-9L in itself was not the critical factor. All the Harrier pilots (except maybe some that had been on trials work) who went south only had experience with the AIM-9G, the Sea Harriers at the time were using Golf model Sidewinder stocks left over from the Phantoms as were the GR3. The footage you often see of the task force Harriers practising with Sidewinders as they went South were actually firing AIM-9G. The AIM-9L were delivered to the task force on route robbed from UK QRA stocks and presumably RAFG, that in itself presented another myth that built up after the conflict. It is often reported that the US directly supplied more AIM-9L from its own European based fighter units to make up for those used in the conflict, the assumption being these missiles went down to the task force. In fact these missiles went to UK based Phantom units on QRA that had just lost their AIM-9L stocks to the taskforce (I do acknowledge that some AIM-9L stocks directly from the US probably did go down to the taskforce later in the conflict). To get back to the earlier point about a myth building up about the AIM-9L used by taskforce Sea Harriers, the pilots had only trained with the AIM-9G and were not fully understanding of the engagement envelope of the all aspect AIM-9L. That means they used the tactics developed for the AIM-9G which meant they took their shots with the AIM-9L within the engagement envelope of the older missile. In other words fairly close in tail chaser shots within a fairly small cone aft of the aircraft they were chasing, the reason they were able to do that was because the Argentine jets were having to come down low and slow to attack the ships allowing a classic tail chase engagement exactly what the pilots had been trained for. All shots taken with the AIM-9L by taskforce Sea Harriers were taken within the engagement envelope of the AIM-9G, it is interesting to note that a year after the taskforce liberated the Falklands the Sea Harriers participated in an exercise with RAAF Mirage-III armed with AIM-9G. Those Australian Mirage-III had a similar performance to the Argentine Dagger with a similar performing missile to what the Argentines fielded at the time, the Australian Mirage-III by all accounts slaughtered the Sea Harriers in the exercise. The reason being the Australian pilots played to the Mirages advantages staying high and fast, using the advantage of their speed and altitude to dictate engagements with the slower and lower flying Sea Harrier. Many a task force Sea Harrier pilots openly state that if the Argentines had thrown every Mirage-III they had with an A-2-A payload playing to the performance advantages of the type things would of played out rather differently.

To conclude this rather rambling post, within the confines of training and doctrine of the Sea Harrier pilots in the task force and if the Argentines stuck to what they actually did fielding the AIM-9L made no serious difference to the outcome. My guess the main difference the AIM-9L made was the fact it was newer and probably more reliable then the AIM-9G kicking around in FAA/RAF armouries for many years.

It came up in a freedom of information request recently, it is a sensible solution in all respects. Eventually they can make a decision down the line of they want to add the capability to all six. Personally I think it is silly the recent talk about adding strike length silos to the T45, the money is far better spent getting as many capabilities on the T26.

So they’ve been waiting since 1991?

Which part of “fighter sales have collapsed by 90% since 1991” don’t you understand? In the last 20 years, many countries have been wholesale gutting their fighter fleets and in some instances getting rid of the capability all together.

Fighters are useless or too expensive in most conflicts experienced today.

Things like Mi-35 Hinds or Mi-17 Hips or EMB-314 Super Tucanos are not and hence sell like hot cakes.

Also you asked:

You realise that the last time RCAF pilots fought in A2A combat was in Korea as part of USAF squadrons?

Last time RCAF aircraft engaged enemy aircraft was World War II.

So how likely is it they will tangle with J-31s or Pak Fas in an era where many countries can’t even afford or need a JF-17! Countries that can afford aircraft buy mere handfuls – 48 airframes is a huge order these days.

In fact since 2000 there has been no A2A combat between Western fighters and opponents in any of the wars they’ve fought.

And also what are those US F-22s doing in your scenario?

The USAF handles all air superiority ops in these kind of scenarios. Hence the large kill tallies by USAF F-15s and since 1991 only 3 kills for US allies (2 for Saudi F-15s in 1991 and 1 for a Dutch F-16 in 1999). No A2A combat for French Mirages or British/Italian Tornados or large numbers of foreign F-16s and F/A-18s.

The other NATO aircraft have been used as bombers, no fly zone enforcement or airspace control (e.g protecting flight routes or escorting high value assets ala tankers and AWACS).

I have seen these arguments made before and frankly they don’t stand up to scrutiny. OK so fighters don’t do much A2A these days, it does not mean there has been no air combat in the last twenty years. We have been lucky that Western airforces have faced low probability of air combat in the last few decades nevertheless it is always a risk. Air combat is a perishable skill and a technology field that has to be kept at the bleeding edge to be effective. Also it is a gross presumption that the USA will just drop everything and provide air superiority for allied nations…how many F-14 did the US Navy commit to the Falklands war? Zero! The countries getting rid of the capability all together tend to be virtually broke…Albania for example. By in large countries are maintaining smaller multi role fighter forces, gone are the days when a country will field single role types. Hind, Hip and Super Tucano are excellent platforms for CAS but they can’t beat the payload or time on station of a jet. It should also be noted that the B-1B is regarded as the best CAS platform over Afghanistan at the moment…how does that figure into your thinking?

What is the RCAF doing with its current fleet of Hornet beyond dropping bombs on people? Oh yes QRA of their ADIZ, good luck trying to intercept an airliner,il-38, Tu-95, Tu-142 or Tu-160 with a Super Tucano! That Canadian pilots have not seen air to air combat since the Korean War is immaterial in the face of needing to patrol their ADIZ, the proven platform in that role is a Supersonic combat jet. Ironically Canada did try and drop its manned fighter fleet with the fielding of the CIM-10 Bomarc, it was proven to be a flawed experiment.