17 Jul 21
@wildgrass saidThis is the misinformation I was referring to:
But then you're not answering the question I keep asking. No one is, apparently.
What is the strategic necessity of spending $1.7 trillion on the F-35 program?
What was the misinformation you were referring to? I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong.
The F35 is fantastic at dogfights. You said it was not.
I'm not sure why you are having trouble understanding that. I was extremely specific and clear.
I answered your question. You didn't like my answer so you ignored it. I'm not going to waste my time on your spam if you ignore my answers.
By the way, we have fortified bunkers in the USA IN CASE WE GET NUKED. That was what I was referring to. I assume you want to shut this down too? I mean, we haven't been nuked in the last 20 years so...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Underground_Command_Center
19 Jul 21
https://www.quora.com/Is-a-single-engined-fighter-aircraft-better-than-a-double-engined-one-Why-or-why-not
Performance of an aircraft relies on a lot more factors than number of engine. In general, a twin-engine aircraft has a greater operational ceiling, high-altitude kinematic performance and payload. Of course, there will be certain exceptions.
A single-engine aircraft’s primary advantage is being relatively light-weight and often less-draggy airframe as well. While twin-engine aircraft gets the advantage of a lot more thrust, that is usually always to compensate the additional weight of the airframe/payload due to mission requirements...
The F-35 is a unique example. The F135 engine’s massive 40,000 lb thrust allowed designers to add a lot more capabilities to the aircraft and do many things that are usually restricted to twin-engine aircraft. This also helped keep the manufacturing and operational cost low...
“Reasons why single engined fighters tend to have better combat effectiveness are several. Single engined fighters tend to be smaller, lighter, and better optimized aerodynamically, which automatically improves survivability in a dogfight. Having one engine means that mass is distributed closer to the centerline axis, which reduces roll inertia and improves roll onset rate. F-16 also has comparable roll rate to the F-22 despite latter’s thrust vectoring allowing it to use all control surfaces to roll [similar to how the Su57 maneuvers]
20 Jul 21
1 edit
@athousandyoung saidOk, well that's a very specific and minor parenthetical in a much larger debate. I think it's quite hyperbolic to say that I'm disseminating "constant misinformation" based on that minor point.
This is the misinformation I was referring to:
The F35 is fantastic at dogfights. You said it was not.
I'm not sure why you are having trouble understanding that. I was extremely specific and clear.
I answered your question. You didn't like my answer so you ignored it. I'm not going to waste my time on your spam if you ignore my answers.
...[text shortened]... en nuked in the last 20 years so...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Underground_Command_Center
Again, it was a minor point (and might be wrong), but I was basing the poor skills of the F-35 in dogfights on several military publications. It seems like the best defense is to say that the F-35 was built to avoid dogfights by disabling enemies ahead of time.
20 Jul 21
1 edit
@athousandyoung saidUm, The Armed Services Committee aren't military experts. They are experts in providing legislative oversight on the military. I've also quoted the US Secretary of Defense and the Air Force Chief of Staff who have made statements that the F-35 program may be unnecessary. My point stands that they know what they are talking about with regard to proper stewardship of tax dollars for protection of US citizens. It's an overbudgeted rathole.
Your "authority" - the Armed Services Committee - is made up of members of Congress - NOT military experts as you seem to think.
Someone needs to be the grownup in the room and make decisions on whether resources are being properly allocated, right? The military experts would probably love a death star too, but that's not in the budget.
20 Jul 21
1 edit
@wildgrass said
Um, The Armed Services Committee aren't military experts. They are experts in providing legislative oversight on the military. I've also quoted the US Secretary of Defense and the Air Force Chief of Staff who have made statements that the F-35 program may be unnecessary. My point stands that they know what they are talking about with regard to proper stewardship of tax doll ...[text shortened]... ted, right? The military experts would probably love a death star too, but that's not in the budget.
Members of the Armed Services Committee and the Government Accountability Office also know what they're talking about. They call the F-35 program a "rathole". They say it "fails to deliver on promised capabilities" and is over budget.
That's not me. That's experts who study military capabilities for a living. What am I missing?
I'm glad to have been able to clear this up for you.
20 Jul 21
1 edit
@athousandyoung saidSheeeeeeesh this is top-notch nitpicking. Charles Brown and Lloyd Austin are 4-star generals. I was also quoting ASC and GAO folks who are not military brass but they do study military capabilities in order to make many important military decisions on where money is spent based on expert testimony and they take that job very seriously. Obviously this is an important group to solicit opinions when it come to to the topic of whether the program is worth the price tag.Members of the Armed Services Committee and the Government Accountability Office also know what they're talking about. They call the F-35 program a "rathole". They say it "fails to deliver on promised capabilities" and is over budget.
That's not me. That's experts who study military capabilities for a living. What am I missing?
I'm glad to have been able to clear this up for you.
22 Jul 21
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-105282
Recent report from GAO on the F-35. Taxpayers aren't paying attention but at least someone is.
Currently, the program is more than 8 years delayed and $165 billion over original cost expectations. As the program progresses toward completing operational testing of the aircraft's baseline capabilities, it still faces risks.
26 Jul 21
@athousandyoung saidHow much does it cost?
[youtube Binkov S500 new Russian SAM]9_aflWnKQk0[/youtube]
[youtube Binkov new Russian fighter]cuH5B_IKU4o[/youtube]
Wow that new Russian plane looks like an F35 clone I guess the Russians can appreciate the plane even if some Americans don't.
14 Aug 21
LOL The HELMET the F-35 pilots use costs more than a ferrari. $400,000 for a helmet? There's no freaking way the Russian version of this plane costs this much. They're literally burning our tax dollars and then asking for more fuel.
https://taskandpurpose.com/military-tech/air-force-f-35-helmet-fitting/