WTF was that answer? Your links prove exactly what I say, you arrogant idiot! And they’re gonna do exactly that, which is to paint the plane in lighter color. Will it have a dual color paint on top like the F-22 we will see, but the most important is that the plane is close to light grey!

I think you’ve said enough stupidities for the rest of the week now. Go get some rest!

Look at the color they’ve started painting F-16’s. Google is your friend. Again your point is stupid, look at the shades used by the F-22, F-35 ( the new shade has zero to do with visibility- it’s the application of the coating), they are not changing shading for visibility reasons. The grey used on all usaf aircraft may shade lighter or darker but irregardless, your point about the F-35 being “too dark” for a fighter was dumb and looking at the F-23 and F-35 flying together should have stopped that train of thought before you wasted a page and started insulting other posters.

Your wrong and acting like a child (which considering your posts, I’m not sure you aren’t). I won’t call you names as I’m pretty sure you are a teen or youth. Perhaps it’s time to stop posting and learn.

Here is a new F-16 color scheme:

https://theaviationist.com/2016/09/25/south-dakota-ang-f-16c-jets-inclu…

Edit- not that I necessarily buy cenciotti’s explanation that the dark grey is a new Have Glass treatment, but clearly these f-16’s are a darker grey.

pfwahahah he continues 😀 omg!

Anyways it was almost obvious there was a problem with the color, except for the idiots.. and there are a lot of them LOL! especially with group thinking coming into play.. 🙂

Seriously, instead of calling others names, look up why the US aircraft are that shade of grey.

Then grow up, learn, and don’t insult others who are correcting your silly posts.
The color is called “air superiority grey”, and while there is some variation in the shades, they are all greyish.
https://theaviationist.com/2013/02/25/gray-dragon-story/

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/18/science/air-force-sees-beauty-in-ugly…

Just make an hot take off with a F-35 headed to operative quote as fast as it can and publish the results after.
Also a normal climb rate data would be appreciated anyway, given that the plane has been declared operative.

And what has been released on the climb rates for the F-22, Rafale, and Typhoon? Other than vague charts or some initial climb rate figures, not much. An F-22 pilot got into deep trouble posting some impressions of the F-22 climb and supersonic ability on a forum a few years back. There won’t be any official release of the data you want due to OPSEC. In other words, you may want figures for climb to altitude then acceleration to supersonic, but your not going to see a flight manual or acceleration graphs released by the L-M or any service for a long time (if ever).

No, Panavia F-104S, please.
Maybe having had them is a reason for this , we actually have this aggregated data of it, not just initial climb rate that means nothing in itself.

In reality, it’s just to settle up if F-35 is a real multirole fighter or as i’m more inclined to believe an excellent strike fighter obliged to take up also air defence missions, ’cause F-22 abrupt end of production.
Given that my own air force will have both f-5 than EF, I think the comparison would be quite easy to do.

And quite worthless. What does your drag race comparison prove?

As Haavarla pointed out, was the F-104 a particularly good air superiority fighter?
What about the Mig-23? Or the Bae Lighting?

Being a good interceptor is one aspect of a fighter in the DCA role.

This is a pipe dream. No service would be interested in spending money to do a direct comparison on a scramble mission of randomized aircraft in such a limited role. Look at the scenarios given for in the Belgium RFP. You may believe this would “prove” the F-35 worthy as a flighted. I seriously doubt that those who fly the aircraft would agree. They have flown it at Red Flag.

http://warisboring.com/f-d-how-the-u-s-and-its-allies-got-stuck-with-the-world-s-worst-new-warplane/

???

I thought the Rand study had been debunked ages ago? What’s happening here?

War is Boring & National Interest represent the type of junkfood pseudo-journalism that I’ve had to spend an inordinate amount of time refuting. Up until recently, I’d had the opinion that it was a result of 20 somethings growing up in the era of information via social media and “The Daily Show”. Unfortunately the past election cycle was an eye opener, as even colleagues quote clickbait news articles on geo-politics and military issues in conversation. (Perhaps Trump should reconsider defunding NPR)

Needless to say, this article was discussed at length on this forum. The intellectual integrity displayed in this piece has not improved with age.