US Pentagon pissed over F-35 costs, lashes out at Lockheed and contractors.
147 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Jund;39753771]No shit I never said it was a good idea
Don't try to invalidate my points by pretending I said things that I never did[/QUOTE]
What are your points if its a bad idea?
[QUOTE=laserguided;39753780]What are your points if its a bad idea?[/QUOTE]
My points are that
-complaining about the F-35's dogfighting capabilities is useless, if you're in a war with Russia, China or the US well then GOOD LUCK cause you'll need more than a cheaper aircraft
-F-22 production has been on and off for the last decade, with the latest one being built in December 2011 (nice edit by the way)
[editline]28th February 2013[/editline]
It's stupid expensive and the benefits vastly outweigh the costs
That doesn't make the benefits disappear though
[QUOTE=Jund;39753872]My points are that
-complaining about the F-35's dogfighting capabilities is useless, if you're in a war with Russia, China or the US well then GOOD LUCK cause you'll need more than a cheaper aircraft
-F-22 production has been on and off for the last decade, with the latest one being built in December 2011 (nice edit by the way)[/QUOTE]
So basically you're saying they should build a underperforming aircraft and replace most of their fighters with those underperforming aircraft on the basis that you don't think they'll need to fight other jets. That isn't much of a point, why are they building very expensive fighter jets, which are forcing them to cut back their buy and raise costs even more. It makes no sense, when they could have built a cheaper multirole fighter that could have done everything the F-35 could at a lower cost. Yeah, I personally don't see why you're arguing if you also agree its a bad idea and that it costs too much for what it is (a bad idea).
[QUOTE=laserguided;39753947]So basically you're saying they should build a underperforming aircraft and replace most of their fighters with those underperforming aircraft on the basis that you don't think they'll need to fight other jets. That isn't much of a point, why are they building very expensive fighter jets, which are forcing them to cut back their buy and raise costs even more. It makes no sense, when they could have built a cheaper multirole fighter that could have done everything the F-35 could at a lower cost. Yeah, I personally don't see why you're arguing if you also agree its a bad idea and that it costs too much for what it is (a bad idea).
Yeah, its built for BVR because it can't perform that well. But guess what, so is the F-22.
[t]http://www.alert5.com/newsphotos/f18fgunf2202.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
"You're basically saying"
Please point to me where I "basically said" anything of the sort
The point of the F-35 was that it was suppose to be a more economic and profitable F-22. If the F-35 isn't cheap to produce then there is no point of it existing, the F-22 (ignoring STOVL/VTOL) was always better and the F-35 was suppose to be made for export. If a single 5th generation fighter is made available for other countries (let's say a Russian one), that would make the F-35 completely pointless (ignoring STOVL/VTOL) as well as a massive financial failure.
4.5 Generation fighters with AESA radar can also get rid of the stealth aspect of F-35s.
[QUOTE=Jund;39753974]"You're basically saying"
Please point to me where I "basically said" anything of the sort[/QUOTE]
Now you're bringing this argument in circles. I don't know why but I'll go along with it.
Here you say its useless to complain about its dogfighting capabilities because there isn't a big risk of war, for an aircraft built for 40 years.
[QUOTE]complaining about the F-35's dogfighting capabilities is useless, if you're in a war with Russia, China or the US well then GOOD LUCK cause you'll need more than a cheaper aircraft[/QUOTE]
F35 would be fine if it didn't cost more per unit than the F22 lol
I can't wait for the day when the F-35 is useless because of technological advancements or alternatives to radar.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39754057]Now you're bringing this argument in circles. I don't know why but I'll go along with it.
Here you say its useless to complain about its dogfighting capabilities because there isn't a big risk of war, for an aircraft built for 40 years.[/QUOTE]
Okay? What does that have to do with you claiming that I said we should build F-35s
[QUOTE=laserguided;39753947]So basically you're saying they should build a underperforming aircraft and replace most of their fighters with those underperforming aircraft on the basis that you don't think they'll need to fight other jets.[/QUOTE]
You're the one who's bringing this in circles
[editline]28th February 2013[/editline]
If the only defense you have against what I'm saying is claiming that I said stuff that I didn't then it's time to stop posting
[QUOTE=smeismastger;39751416]Now if you had communism instead of that barely functioning capitalism, this wouldn't have happened.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1238730[/url]
[QUOTE=Jund;39754126]Okay? What does that have to do with you claiming that I said we should build F-35s
You're the one who's bringing this in circles[/QUOTE]
If you're not in favour of the F-35 why are you arguing against me. What is your point if you agree its a bad idea and that they should not be built.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39754156]If you're not in favour of the F-35 why are you arguing against me. What is your point if you agree its a bad idea and that they should not be built.[/QUOTE]
Just because I agree with you that F-35s shouldn't be built doesn't mean you're infallible regarding everything you say about the aircraft
[editline]28th February 2013[/editline]
Really it's not any more complex than me agreeing with you on one thing and disagreeing on another
It's not impossible you know
[QUOTE=Jund;39754197]Just because I agree with you that F-35s shouldn't be built doesn't mean you're infallible regarding everything you say about the aircraft
[editline]28th February 2013[/editline]
Really it's not any more complex than me agreeing with you on one thing and disagreeing on another
It's not impossible you know[/QUOTE]
What do you disagree with.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39754231]What do you disagree with.[/QUOTE]
Your dogfighting and F-22 replacement arguments
Pointless continuing F-22 production when 99% of first world countries have their hands in conflicts where the enemy's airforce consists of this
[img]http://puu.sh/2a09t[/img]
Since the F-35 project flopped, it'd be wiser for the US to upgrade their older multirole aircraft or start a new project, and other countries should do the same
[editline]28th February 2013[/editline]
If Russia or China becomes a threat then just restart F-22 production and refit the older ones if possible
F-22s weren't anything more than "hey look at what we can do" at the time they first came out
[QUOTE=Jund;39754356]Your dogfighting and F-22 replacement arguments
Pointless continuing F-22 production when 99% of first world countries have their hands in conflicts where the enemy's airforce consists of this
[img]http://puu.sh/2a09t[/img]
Since the F-35 project flopped, it'd be wiser for the US to upgrade their older multirole aircraft or start a new project, and other countries should do the same[/QUOTE]
Where did I say the F-35 was replacing the F-22 and where did I say they should continue production?
Starting a new project is out of the question since the F-35 is already in pre-production phase and the enormous development costs of a new jet would be unjustifiable for the taxpayers.
It makes me want to cry to see so much wasted money. Seriously, one billion sent towards this monster could have modernized the entire fleet of Kiowa Warrior helicopters that the Army has, or even replaced the whole fleet with new aircraft. Such waste absolutely sickens me.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39754435]Where did I say the F-35 was replacing the F-22 and where did I say they should continue production?
Starting a new project is out of the question since the F-35 is already in pre-production phase and the enormous development costs of a new jet would be unjustifiable for the taxpayers.[/QUOTE]
You edited most of your posts bringing up the F-22 BVR capabilities
Don't bring it up if you don't intend on using it (which you can't really since F-22s can either try to shoot or crash into ground targets to take them out)
[QUOTE=Jund;39754533]You edited most of your posts bringing up the F-22 BVR capabilities
Don't bring it up if you don't intend on using it (which you can't really since F-22s can either try to shoot or crash into ground targets to take them out)[/QUOTE]
No I didn't, I said the F-22 gets into dogfights even though its stealthy and excels at BVR. I don't know how that translates into saying it should be replaced or should continue production.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39754550]No I didn't, I said the F-22 gets into dogfights even though its stealthy and excels at BVR. I don't know how that translates into saying it should be replaced or should continue production.[/QUOTE]
So what was your point in saying that? You either have no point or a wrong one
So maybe an F-16 can somehow sneak up on an F22 and get into dogfighting range (gonna need a source on that)
What does that have to do with using F-35s to counter SAMs and at most decade old MiGs
[QUOTE=Jund;39754632]
So maybe an F-16 can somehow sneak up on an F22 and get into dogfighting range (gonna need a source on that)
[/QUOTE]
Here is a F-18F gunning down a F-22 raptor.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/7ria4m0.jpg[/IMG]
That's a source?
[QUOTE=Jund;39754688]That's a source?[/QUOTE]
Photographic evidence doesn't mean anything to you? You aren't willing to admit your wrong because you let your ego get attached to your post.
You can't be serious
Here is a Growler with a F-22 simulated kill decal.
[t]http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/ea18g_f22kill.jpg[/t]
[editline]28th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jund;39754713]You can't be serious[/QUOTE]
No its true, because I presented evidence and you denied it because you let your ego get attached to your post.
Okay? Are you going to give me a source on the pictures? I don't think you understand what a source is
Not like this has anything to do with F-35s anyway
[QUOTE=Jund;39754762]Okay? Are you going to give me a source on the pictures? I don't think you understand what a source is
Not like this has anything to do with F-35s anyway[/QUOTE]
First one,
[url]http://www.alert5.com/2006/04/fa-18f-guns-down-f-22a.html[/url]
second one,
[url]http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/growler-power-ea-18g-boasts-f-.html[/url]
It has everything to do with the F-35 because you seem to think they don't need to get into dogfights because they're stealthy and are designed for BVR.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39754787]First one,
[url]http://www.alert5.com/2006/04/fa-18f-guns-down-f-22a.html[/url]
second one,
[url]http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/growler-power-ea-18g-boasts-f-.html[/url]
It has everything to do with the F-35 because you seem to think they don't need to get into dogfights because they're stealthy and are designed for BVR.[/QUOTE]
[quote]What does that have to do with using F-35s to counter SAMs and at most decade old MiGs[/quote]
The sources aren't the foremost at reliability but at least they're better than just pictures
[QUOTE=Jund;39754848]The sources aren't the foremost at reliability but at least they're better than just pictures[/QUOTE]
Flightglobal isn't reliable?
[QUOTE=laserguided;39754905]Flightglobal isn't reliable?[/QUOTE]
It's a secondary source
Nothing more reliable than hearing a rumor that your friend heard at the bar, especially given the Navy v AF mentality, and that an EW fighter managed to supposedly shoot down an F-22
Doesn't say anything about the parameters of the simulation either
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;39749444]I wonder why the Canadian government seems like it is still going to buy these jets, the public at large is no longer interested in owning something that costs this much and fails this hard.[/QUOTE]
Because Harper.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.