Your statement was very simple, for reasons known only to yourself (although those with the capability for independent thought can make some astute guesses ;))you introduced other platforms into the discussion when the timeline of the F35 program was noted.

None of my comments have been strawmen or a misrepresentation of your statements.

I have simply pointed out your dis-honesty in comparing apples with oranges.

Edit: PS did I touch a nerve with a reference to your mum? Did she not prepare your favourite for din dins this time?

My my, more insults and bluster, but no more content than the first time. Seems you don’t have much to contribute here do you?

As an European, I am quite glad we don’t waste money on such bullsh!t.. There isn’t any reason to justify such spending..

Well given how close Norway is to the US they can buy most of it once the US is ready to export.

Not really, It is pretty common in aerospace to engineer just enough strength into the airframe. Look for example at the civilian side of things with Boeing and Airbus either failing just short or just over their testing of wing load targets. The A380 failed within 3% of the wing load test. I don’t recall the A380 wing requiring a re-test, just some validation that strengthening had been applied to the right places.

Therefore, it is often easier to add a couple of pounds of reinforcement to the wing or structure to reach the limit than remove it when the structure has far exceeded the design specification. F-35C wing is another example with a half a pound of additional strengthening required to get the wing to the full 8,000 hr minimum design limit.

As the old saying goes… any idiot can build a bridge that will stay up. It takes a civil engineer to build a bridge that will barely stay up.

The same principle applies to aviation obviously… simply throwing more weight/material at a problem is not the mark of a good engineering team. You always want to leave a margin for error and degradation over time, but everything past that is just dead weight.

Another successful launch and boosted recovery of a reused first stage by SpaceX only weeks after the last one.

Not really mil news but how long time before we see a mil application of this scalable technology?

This is most certainly military news. It is far more than just military news… but there are a heck of a lot of military or dual use assets in space.

What SpaceX is doing will revolutionize space access. Also, this video is worth watching…

French Navy achieved IOC in lesd than 1.5 years after the first aircraft were handed over and FOCed after 3.5 years, missions over Afghanistan in tanker and fighter roles were flown within IOC timescales already.

French Air Force Rafales achieved FOC in less than two years after the first aircraft were delivered, though they benefitted from 4 years Navy experience in advance of this.

:rolleyes: Sure, the Rafale was “FOC” if you consider an “omnirole” fighter that didn’t even have a working targeting pod for another decade “fully operational.”

So nice try, but compare apples with apples.

Yep…

You have 2 choices:
a) vote for the left and keep the F-35
b) vote for Trump and cancel the F-35, or at least seriously mess up the recapitalization of the 3 services.

Pick one.

This is going way off topic.

The F-35 is going to be safe no matter what. The US Congress strongly supports it and in our system of government that makes it essentially impossible for a president to kill it. Besides, Trump has already shown a willingness to change his mind on things… sometimes several times in a few days. Just because he said he would kill the F-35 doesn’t mean he actually would if he got into office and the services explained what that would mean.

Comments such as this merely confirm the essential dis-honestly of your opinion.

Political and budget restraints hindering programs timelines versus the timeline of a fully funded and supported program can in no way be deemed comparable.

The fact that you constantly try and compare the two timelines as if they are indeed subject to the same parameters declares for those interested in factual accuracy that your “opinion” is not one that is worthy of consideration.

Facts are facts and no amount of crying and complaining will change them. The F-35 has moved more quickly than the Eurocanards did. That is a fact. You can blame politics or whatever, but that doesn’t mean a think to the air forces that didn’t receive a mature product in a timely manner.

Even now with the Gripen NG they are shooting for an IOC in 2023 and FOC in 2026. Who are they going to blame for needing 10 years after first flight to reach FOC on a 4th generation fighter upgrade?