ok, now that its finally revealed

which trainer wins in the looks department

scorpion
northrop grumpy
raythoen/italians
lockheed/koreans
boink/saab

How old are you? Serious question…

Personally I don’t want to have to wade through 19 obligatory posts of tripe. The sooner newer posters realize: 1. he has no idea what he is talking about 2. cannot defend what he post because it is wrong 3. reposts things repeatedly despite it being refuted 4. has a rudimentary understanding of flight in general…. the better for everyone who has been on here for years and know his M.O. Interesting topics get buried by people honesty trying to respond to the drivel.

It may sound contentious, but reading the same inane posts over and over again in the F-35 thread posted by him is tiresome.

Of course they know that, and that is why they do it.

It takes almost no time to shower this thread with garbage and wait for others to spend real time correcting it all. Then you just wait a few days and repeat. A normal person wouldn’t relish looking like an idiot, but if it is just a name with no real connection to a real person… why not? It is the basic question with trolls everywhere.

Why are you so obsessed with the idea that we all trust the good things about the F-35? :confused:

Nobody has said anything of the sort.

We have on the one hand the firsthand accounts of dozens of highly experienced fighter pilots from multiple nations. We have firsthand accounts from pilots who have flown against the F-35 and found it a hopelessly challenging foe. We have the firsthand accounts of those involved in the development of the F-35. We have the results of every single procurement contest the F-35 participated in…

…and on the other hand we have the opinions of a handful of internet fanboys.

The last few pages here have been a real blast from the past… 5-6 years ago this sort of stupidity was par for the course. We had one self proclaimed RCS, aerodynamic, etc, expert making (unfailingly negative) assessments of the F-35 based on pictures.

Here we are in 2016 with actual pilot testimonies, etc, and the whole thing is just kind of pathetic.

Friends, if you think that the whole of Siberia is covered with asphalt or concrete, it is not so 😉

This is getting embarrassing. You realize that, right?

It would be like me sitting down and “calculating” the PAK FA’s maximum speed and concluding that it can only reach M1.3.

We have official LM slides stating the F-35A can fly 760NM radius combat missions on internal fuel. Any calculation that results in a radius of less than that is flawed. On a ferry type flight it will easily fly >1500NM.

Reported- go back to the tin hat anti-Semitic place from whence you came. Your posts are gibberish and offensive, not to mention the worst type of regurgitation of refuted garbage this forum can do without

His post is gobbledygook, but I don’t see how it is anti-semitic.

Criticizing Israel or Israel’s policies is fair game.

It is his ridiculous word salad, counterfactual posts that I find offensive.

[QUOTE=LEG;2335690]

Ok sir, I can’t help but to think your disdain for Lockheed has clouded your judgment.
I will attempt to help you see the light:

1. The main fan face was exposed when a radar blocker wasn’t covering it. Which is a killer for VLO

You don’t ever want to get so close to a threat, while flying on a wing which honestly has the same supercruise at 40-50K capability as the F-22 that someone -can- look right down your inlet. You turn obliquely and then drop a GBU-53 at 40nm or a SPEAR-3 derivative thereof at 100nm.

This is fairly simple logic in comparison with blowing right through a 7-11 overlap at danger-close standoffs, opening a ‘can you see me now?’ bombbay which prevents supersonic releases RIGHT OVER the terminal defenses and then continuing right on through overflight because any angular change actually increases your RCS compared to an in-and-out profile.

2. The blocker hurt supersonic performance. So you had to choose to either have the blocker on for vlo or, off for mach.

The Super Hornet has blockers. The SHornet’s blockers don’t hurt supersonic performance (as inlet ram recovery), having a straight winged tank with bloated LEX and horrible aspect ratios does.

3. Direct lift has always ran the risk of hot gas ingestion. The X-32 was no exception, even have a incident happen on the 1st VL.

Bloody Marvelous. We agree that STOVL is a worthless metric by which to judge the capabilities of ANY fighter. Because, if a 600nm radius platform cannot secure it’s basing mode against a 1,200nm DF-21D or a 1,500nm DF-26, the one generating one sortie per day, the other generating fresh shots every 10-15 minutes, how can a 460nm (neh 250nm) STOVL fighter do better? You literally have to steam inside the threat WEZ for MORE THAN TWENTY FOUR HOURS just to reach Doolittle range. And I mean _very little_.

Add to this the fact that STOVL is worthless at force filling USN airwings because it’s gear cannot handle being run over a strung pendant, it cannot recover vertically, over the side (deck parks, LSO platform) and it hasn’t got enough running room ahead of the JBD to run work off any conventional carrier (or a helo carrier with active deckspots as 2nd wavers get ready to go ashore) and the STOVL fighter is just a hideous waste of money and time because any (SPOD Capture) operational tasking which requires a high end VLO jet to be survivable is a theater threat which needs a 40-60 jet airwing, not an 8 aircraft detachment or even a 20 jet CVE.

>>
4. Form usually follows function. I truly believe that if a plane looks good it will fly good. Generals are human after all, and when they name your plane Monica Lewinsky it cant be good.
>>

The YF-22 looked like a beached whale. The Navy changed the specs in the middle of the JSF competition. Lockheed ‘lost’ 60 million in accounting errors and should have been disqualified then. The Rhino (no, not that one, the FIRST AND ONLY /Rhino/) is a kluge of McDonnell Great Book Of Aerodynamic Solutions. The Turkey, is inferior to the F-4S with VTAS in a straight up EM dogfight and the Israelis laughed so hard they fell over straight into McDonnell’s Eagle Nest. The F-35 looks like a duffle bag with a harp shoved inside it.

The PWSC F-32 might or might not have been a looker, certaintly having an engine in the middle of the jet, solely because of STOVL CG metrics, didn’t help. But it would have been a production optimized design based on a jet which already outflew the F-35 in the X-jet stages where time has shown that the Lightning was never fit to be judged because all the factors which chubbed it up were left off. DO NOT THINK that that wasn’t deliberate. Anymore than covering up 4,000lbs of bloat, right through PDR, wasn’t deliberate.

No weapons bay, no wingroot gear, no proper location of engine auxiliaries, no gun, no radar, no FLIR, no shared STOVL plumbing. This by itself proves that you are dead wrong in your external aesthetics judgment because it was the GUTS OF THE AIRFRAME which, within a largely similar moldline between X-35/F-35, changed everything, turning this jet from a turkey to a turd.

>>
5. If I can recall the bomb bay was an odd design.
>>

You could put an AGM-154 into the lateral bays of the X-32. You cannot launch a supersonic anything from an F-35 because the inwards toe-in prevents the opening of the doors above 1.2 and 1.2 is the absolutely _minimum_ threshold for transonic clearance as about 30% of the airframe is still sheathed in mixed flow.

>>
6. I’m not sure the wing planform could have met Navy KPP for bring back and trap.
>>

Neither was the USN. But like you, they only required that the F-35 meet minimum specs because ‘the rest was aesthetics’. Bluntly, with such a major aerodynamic redesign on the F-32 PWSC there was little to be learned from the X-32. Just as the absent guts of the F-35 made it all but impossible to say whether a gallon could really be poured into a pint pot on the basis of (CBO warned since 1997) concurrent materials ‘predictions’ (a dream by any other name, a greedy optimist’s delusion remains).

With 9/11 having just been announced and most of Europe quite happy to coast on the F-16AM, while we could have restarted F-16CJ production or even shifted to the Blk.60 at any time, there was _no reason_ to commit to a downselect with such poorly understood concepts on the eve of a very expensive bootslogger campaign for which A-UAV like the Reaper and Predator (3,000dph and 900dph, respectively) were fare better suited for everything from ISR to overhead CAS.

>>
7. Like we mentioned before the F-35 has reached 50+ degrees Aoa and a moderate super-cruise at mach 1.2 That is hardly a straight and level.only modern F-117 analog
In fact sir we did have a 3 way competition, and Lockheed won.Are they perfect? No! Have the built the world best fighter to date? Yes.
>>

Rah-Rah. Shake that booty. You are such a good cheerleader. I’ll come to your pep rally any time. As no less than Jon Beesely himself has said however:

‘Most of superman is thrust trust and we don’t have the goose to carry the moose, everything the Russians do is about inertials carrying the jet through flip, we can do everything the F-22 does, only without vector, we do it much slower…’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZWsaJDc8PI

Agility is to Maneuverability what quick is to fast. And if you are going to end up going downhill for 1,500-5,000ft before you get another airspeed under the wings to be a viable turn and burn platform again, you have just given whomever you _miss_ (because gunshots are notoriously unreliable, even with IFF and you don’t have HOBS + LO, only one or the other) the topside of your airframe, allowing him to cut across the top of your turn circle and use _his_ K-74 or IRIS-T or Python-5 etc. to stick an expanding rod warhead in your ear.

The reality of air combat in a LO platform is that you are deep in the ugly and cannot afford, either by fuel, visual/radar/IR signature or shot count to be sticking around in a fight you don’t have to be in. Nose on, minimum deflection vertically, max-pole and slash out. Just like Snake Sez: Keep your fangs clean grasshopper.

And the F-35 cannot do that. It hasn’t got the shot count so how well it targets hardly matters. The weapons it does have prevents it from using truly spatially dispersed hunter:hunter sniping tactics. Which means it has to fly around bunched up in gaggles, making for a potential multi-kill mazcat if a shadowing fighter can call up a Growler site and start flinging 9M96 by the bakers dozen at you. And of course, while it has the LO, it hasn’t got the smash to avoid the intercept geometry by being four miles higher and ten miles per minute faster than the threat can adjust to.

As for a three way competition, uhhhh, no. Not really. The big bad blue suiters reached right into DARPAs demesne, effectively got the UDS director fired, stuck their skeletal fist around the program and snatched it out of blackworld into their own special kind of ‘Coma’ ward. And then crushed it, in 2001. On the eve of committing to a major war in SWA for which the F-35 was anything but the ideal loitering NTISR/CAS option. Had the UDS become the UOS instead of the J-UCAS sacrificial lamb, it would have exited the demonstration phase in 2006 and been ready to go into production, meeting the Congressionally mandated 2010 period for 1/3rd of all long range strike to be unmanned.

And on simple things like radius and hold time, it would have wiped the floor with the F-35 which had only -began- CDR on the CTOL version in 2006 and didn’t complete until 2008 or so. A CDR so full of holes as continuing lies about weight vs. structural integrity (i.e. why the PDR was a pencil-whipped wish list rather than a responsible exercise of program management authority) that they had to rebaseline the entire effort in 2010.

So. What I am saying is that you absolutely cannot trust anyone looking with starry eyed lust at a multi hundred billion dollar contract to tell the truth. Not the SPO chief, not the Company, not the DOT&E oversight group. They’re all compromisable as a function of coming from within the system which wants to justify it’s own existence with a new toy as fresh threat.

As such, the only responsible way forward is to fund by increments from vanilla X-jets through YF (FSD) levels of breadboard systems function and onto a final competitive downselect of an ‘as we would build it’ complete weapons system with ALL material/sensor/weapon/propulsion innovations being GFE held patents (helping the companies limp along on price+incentive by concentrating on subsystem innovation) so that they can be shared within a limited R&D allocation to both companies. No reinventing the wheel nonsense. Most importantly, you have to be absolutely ruthless to the ‘heroes’ group of operators because, in the final analysis, they are more union thugs than killable warriors as indeed, you ‘don’t want to risk them, unnecessarily’. If you can instead save half the price of a ‘fighter’ airframe which will spend 90% of it’s operational life looking for targets on a needle-in-wheatfield basis of sanitized nothingness. Before BOMBING what it does find, without any consideration of disparate performance levels. Aircraft bomb ground targets because ground targets cannot shoot effectively back. Duhhhhh.

We don’t do these kinds of separation of boyish customer from taxpayer wallet and missionized system optimization, trusting officers but not gentlemen to play honorably in light of the gravity of national defense which is at stake. And then we are surprised when they instead choose to serve their own interests in a completely corrupted system.

The criminal leading the retarded. Right off a dual cliff of deficiency act illegality and national techbase loss to smarter, hungrier, competitor states.

The Derpage is just astounding.

Numerous errors of fact, to say nothing of reasoning.

Just cramming more errors into one post isn’t a viable strategy.