I talked to a good friend of mine. He was a Marine f-4 pilot. Mainly he was trained for close air support of Marine troops. Surprisingly he thot the F-35 would be a fine aircraft. He was talking about using stand off smart bombs and other guide weapons, and then beating a path for home. But———–as I told him that doesnt always happen in the real world. What if the enemy put real fighters in the area. The F-35 would then be put in the defensive position, and have to fight their way home. Free of bombs and other ordinance if it cant dogfight it is a hugely expensive coffin for our pilots.

Pondering my last post for a few minutes, it occured to me that since the F-35 is designed by nit wits to be a do all end all machine, after they fire their missiles at long range, even if the missiles didnt down all the enemy fighters, our pilots must continue the attack. The pilots flying an inferior dog fighter must now press the attack with bombs. But then they will be attacked close in, and get into that dog fight that the fools in the Pentagon think that will never happen. Our pilots will be screwed.

There are so many people that never seem to learn from history. First the arm chair warriors in the Pentagon said guns were no longer needed. Nam proved other wise. Then they tried to foist a dual purpose (fighter) the F-111 off on both the Air Force and the Navy. That turkey was no fighter at all, but was turned into a pretty good medium bomber.

If they cant make a dual purpose figher work, how the hell do they think that a triple purpose machine is going to work? The truth is starting to come out————it doesnt.

In defence of the F-35 – Why future air combat will be different
F-22 pilots found that no gen 4 pilots wanted to play if they kept being killed BVR. So F-22s kill the gen 4s twice in BVR (but keep quiet about it) before the merge to keep the gen 4 zipper-suited heros happy in their ignorance.

Do you remember when the F4 was built without guns? Know it alls setting the the Pentagon “just knew” that fighters would have no use for guns. But then in Nam they had to hang a gun pod under the F4 since it was NEEDED.

Super Hornet? It’s not in the same class (e.g. it’s much bigger and has twin engines so higher operating cost) and I just don’t see the value which would justify the cost of upgrading to it from e.g. an F-16 MLU given that it’s also slower and has a shorter range. I’ll admit that I’m strongly biased against it, though.

I don’t think we can decide what their specific needs are. The upgrade program costs a lot and it’s probably supposed to last for another e.g. 30+ years like e.g. the F-16’s did.

Rember back when the Navy bought the F4 instead of the F8U-3 Crusader. They said then that having 2 engines were a safety factor. But the Crusader with one engine could fly rings around the F4. There have been so many BAD decisions on which new planes to buy, mainly based on politics.

So————-the F-35 can carry a big load of bombs, but then after it drops them it can be shot down because it cant out maneuver opponents. Not a good day for the pilot.

Leftwing sites and a unnamed pilot is your proof? Good luck with that. I’ll stick to what these pilots said.

But what do they know, right?

Lol. David Axe.

What do you expect the chief test pilot that works for the company to say. He ends up being little more than a rah rah cheerleader for the airplane and the company.

BTW I am a bed rock conservative, and want our pilots to have the very best tools possible. I want ALL our pilots to come home after EVERY combat engagement!!!!!!