I miss Obama

[Spider]

Yep.

Unencumbered by the VTOL hardware, the thing performs very similarly to an FA-18 in a strictly dynamic sense...and that's leaving aside all the inherent advantages of the platform. The VTOL version blows away that hot garbage Harrier its meant to replace so completely that it bears no mention. The USAF version is the one I'm most concerned about, as it has trouble against a F-16...but then again those Viper jocks routinely trash F-15's (and even F-22s) in wargames. Reason being of course that 20th century close range aerial gun fighting is a thing of the past. Tom Cruise need not apply. Where the new stuff excels is under the conditions it was designed for...long range, high speed, stealth...basically 21st century warfare. If an F-35 pilot has somehow gotten himself into a situation where he's in a tight turning contest in visual range...he's already f**k up completely. In today's world of helmet mounted off-bore sight targeting...any pilot flying anything who gets themselves into such a 1970's situation is probably f**k. Which is how F-16's manage to kill F-22's in simulations. They are set up in demos of old school close range dogfights, with predictable results.

And media, being entirely ignorant of all this, crows about it. And the public, the only people possibly even more ignorant than the media, lap it up.

Real world, an F-16 is so wildly bogged down with fuel tanks, hard points loadout, and extended electronic warfare equipment that it turns into a dog.

In actuality, we simply won't know what the F-35 is going to be capable of until the software is dialed in.

Then you've got the afore mentioned military...who simply hate change. Top to bottom. Loath it.

There are lots of reasons to bitch about the F-35...but the sort of thing you're going to find by googling...dumbed down for the masses...isn't one of them.

[exploited]

[Spider]

Something you have to bear in mind is that this isn't comparable to an ASF. It doesn't replace the F-15, or the F-22. So comparisons there are moot. It replaces the Harrier, which is truly crap, and always has been. It replaces the F-16...which in order to do the same job has to be heavily encumbered, but also has most of the same limitations. F-16 is great at 20th century dogfighting...and mostly dead in the water in 21st century technological contests. The FA-18....replacing that is actually the worst argument for the F-35.

I'm not saying its not expensive. I'm not saying its not got cost overrruns and bugs. (Though this has been trumped up massively both by the politics and the press).

I'm simply pointing out that it in fact is demonstrably not a "piece of shit". Its an excellent machine, and you're going to be seeing them in service all over the world this century. Thousands are being built.

That's all.

[exploited]

[Spider]

OK, ex. Live in your fantasy land.

If only shittiness correlated with expense. That would certainly make the problems associated with weapon tech/cost inflation more interesting, at any rate.

You want to keep flying planes that were contemporaries of Jimi Hendrix up there, have at it. Nobody's stopping you. They are still perfectly functional planes.

[Philly]

OK Spider, in laymans terms: What does this plane do that other planes don't, and why does our military need it to do those things. Go.

[exploited]

[exploited]

[Spider]

See above. I'm not arguing about value at all. I'm talking about demonstrable capability. The cost of that capability is beyond the scope of my position, but those costs have been repeatedly stipulated to. The Burke Class destroyers are also wildly expensive as destroyers go. And they also are *not* pieces of shit. Same is true of the F-22...and it costs better than twice as much as the F-35. The new Ford Class CVNs are coming in at 13 billion each...massively over budget. Far more so than the F-35. McCain has been screaming his ancient ass off over it. Zero indication thus far that the Ford class is going to be "shit", regardless.

As I said. CF-18 sounds like your speed. Its a good plane. Good bang for the buck. Though of course, back when it first flew, it too was wildly expensive and came in massively over budget. And all the same arguments you are making now were then bandied about over replacing the famously popular F-14 with the "shitty" F/A-18. The Navy practically had a stroke.

All this has happened before and it will happen again. Its just how this lovely military industrial complex we're all suffering under works.

I think I've thrashed you enough for the time being. No need to feed a pile-on.

[Philly]