"jon_banquer" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:09:46 AM UTC-7, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"jon_banquer" wrote in message

...

On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:59:15 AM UTC-7,

wrote:



I've seen some pro's and con's with Stealth tech. Most
notoriously,

the British Navy claim they see its reflection on the surface of
the

water. But some people claim that that's the case with modern

non-stealth aircraft today, too. So in short, you may be stealthy

or not. Its a roll of the dice.



No argument with what you wrote on stealth.



As far as the F-35/JSF is concerned, I'm convinced lots of the
orders

for it will be canceled. This is what happens when you try and make
a

plane do everything. It's a compromise just like an amphibious

vehicle... it's not a good car and it's not a good boat.



==========



Which foreign government is paying you to fish for classified data

with disinformation as bait?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Sprey

"He is a critic of the F-35. He asserts that despite its 200 million
dollar price tag per plane, it is less agile than the F-16, and flies
at altitudes and speeds too high and fast to replace the A-10.
Compared to the F-16 or A-10 (in both of whose operational roles it
operates) he characterized the F-35 as overweight and dangerous,
stating "It's as if Detroit suddenly put out a car with lighter fluid
in the radiator and gasoline in the hydraulic brake lines: That's how
unsafe this plane is..." and "full of bugs". He asserts the plane is
too heavy (nearly 30,000 pounds heavier than a fully loaded F-16).
Most of all, the plane's wings are too small to give the fighter
maneuverability in combat."

====

The F-22 is the dedicated super-agile air superiority fighter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eiskRcC2ys

The F-35 is a more generalized mud-moving improvement on the subsonic
Harrier, to send in after the F-22 has sufficiently reduced the enemy
first-line fighter threat. Its independently-designated or GPS-guided
standoff weapons eliminate(?) the need for the A-10's protection
against ground AA fire and man-portable (thus short-ranged) missiles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154...tandoff_Weapon

Compare them to Mustangs and Spitfires which owned the skies, and
Thunderbolts and Typhoons which beat up the Wehrmacht beneath their
protection. Experience proved that neither pair could do the others'
job as well. Heavily armed and armored planes lack superior agility
and vice versa.

Sprey's highly opinionated faction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_Mafia
"The group strongly believed that an ideal fighter should not include
any of the sophisticated radar and missile systems or rudimentary
ground-attack capability that found their way into the F-15."

Their motto was "not a pound for Air-to-Ground".

It opposed the "Missileer" faction that declared that electronics had
made human pilots obsolete.

Neither side has clearly proven their case, and won't until WW3.

-jsw