Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "F-35, Why is it the Best Fighter in the World Today?" video.

  1.  @impaugjuldivmax  You're the ones making claims so your credentials are in question, not the people asking you about them.
    9
  2.  @britishrocklovingyank3491  The trillion dollars is an estimate for total program cost until requirement.
    4
  3. Since the F-16 days that flying is dependent on computer systems.
    3
  4.  @QurttoRco  Always fighting the last war.
    3
  5. They'll get front row seats to watch their defenses get pummeled into oblivion but unable to do anything about it.
    2
  6. The F-16 costs between 90-100 million if you look at recent contracts. Meanwhile the F-35A costs as low as 85 million.
    2
  7. All aircraft runs on software these days.
    2
  8. Fit the electronics onto other airframes, and all you'll have is an easily shot-down aircraft carrying expensive equipment it can't use because it can't get close to the enemy without getting missiles fired at it.
    2
  9. Yeah, because the media is so reliable.
    2
  10. Wow, citing certified moron Pierre Sprey.
    2
  11. It did win multiple fights against the typhoon.
    2
  12. Can't find a source for that. Care to share with the rest of the class?
    2
  13. "You don't want a $150 million mach 2 airplane doing close ground support." - Actually, you do. The less time it takes to arrive on scene, the longer your troops live."armour plated" - heavy, useless against missiles.
    1
  14. It's just as cheap as buying newly built 4th gen fighters.
    1
  15. >see "problems with f35">finds more bad propagandathanks boss
    1
  16.  @britishrocklovingyank3491  "We are going to spend a trillion dollars for something that isn't going to fight the wars it is supposed to fight." - Wtf no more wars? I love the F-35 even more now.
    1
  17.  @konquer247  If you isolate yourself from the network, you're blind.
    1
  18. "It is classed as a bomber not a fighter" - it has the F designation..."Its skills as a fighter are terrible" - The Red Flag kill records state otherwise."The power nor the wing size are not there to compensate for it." - It's a powerful engine, it will have less drag carrying weapons internally, and the body generates lift which means you can't simply calculate the wing area like it was the 1950s.
    1
  19. "there is a lot of uncommonality in the three subtypes" - but the commonality that does exist streamlines a lot."trying to use such a common airframe has compromised the operational envelope of all three subtypes." - it hasn't.
    1
  20. "the f35 will not be flown in missions unless air superiority has been achieved or otherwise the enemies can somehow shoot it down and steal its technology" - didn't the israelis already flex their F-35s in Syrian airspace?
    1
  21. "it simply reduces the range wich you need to be in for a lock on." - which means non-stealth aircraft will be dead before they get within range"youre not invisible to less accurate radar that doesnt grant weapon lock on. wich means the enemy WILL know youre there and send fighters up there to get close and get a weapon lock" - and they'll be dead before getting within range."if you turn on your own radar everyone knows youre there" - they encrypt the radar signal so that it looks like background radiation. The plane knows which signals it is sending and thus can tell when they bounce back, but the receiving aircraft will not know it's being beamed because it can't tell which signals are radar and which signals are worldwide communications.
    1
  22. "They have the S-500 which sees stealth" - it doesn't.
    1
  23. "you can basically slap modern electronics onto those old aircrafts as well" - but they're still a vulnerable aircraft that won't see the F-35 while being easy prey
    1
  24. If it's free why am I still paying for it out of my paycheck?
    1
  25. They'd probably mishandle that money. Check out how much they get every year.
    1
  26. Seems like the pilots are forgetting their SERE courses, then.Single engine reliability is pretty good today.
    1
  27.  @NagromMit1  Statistically speaking, it doesn't matter. https://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/documents/Aviation/Engine%20Statistics/USAF%20Twin%20Engine.pdf?ver=2019-12-05-121310-513 https://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/documents/Aviation/Engine%20Statistics/USAF%20Single%20Engine.pdf?ver=2019-12-05-121311-920 The F-15 fitted with the F100-229 has a cummulative rate of 0.61 class A mishaps per 100k hours, while the F-16 fitted with the same engine has had zero class A mishaps. Even though the engine is the same, the two engine aircraft is less reliable than the single engine one. The conclusion that single-engine aircraft are inherently less reliable can't be drawn from modern engines.
    1
  28. Okay Pierre Sprey.
    1
  29. "the Russians have already figured out how to shoot it down, for only a fraction of the cost of the F-35." - then why haven't they used that in Syria?
    1
  30.  @Jordan-lr4bi  Germany only started WWII as a consequence of WWI, which was in itself provoked by belligerent empires. You can't use war to justify ending situations that were started by warfare.
    1
  31. That's what Russian propagandists want you to think. Why would RT keep running segments on trying to make Americans realize it's a bad plane? Why do they have a Russian documentary with a Russian aviation expert trying to "help" Americans realize it's a mistake with a bad English voice-over?They're shitting themselves in fear.
    1
  32. That is what we call fighting the last war. You make the weapons for the future, not for the past.
    1
  33. "The IR is not dampened as far as I can see!!" - Get glasses. The F-35 has cold air exhaust around the nozzle to lower its IR signature."you cant jam 30mm cannon shells" - I mean, considering that modern aerial gunnery uses rangefinding to accurately give the pilot lead computation, it might be possible."That 'high manoeuvrability' part of the demonstration was a stripped down version I expect" - Almost all aerobatics are performed with clean configurations. Even if the F-35 was a stripped down version, its 4th gen competitors will be flying with weapons and fuel bags under the wings. They won't be able to perform aerobatics in a real fight."high wing loading" - In the F-35, the body is also a wing. You can't say it has high wing loading when most of the airframe produces lift, not just the wing.
    1
  34. By that logic the US would never fight Russian tanks because it would mean nuclear war. But it fought Russian tanks in Iraq. No nuclear exchange. Huh. It's almost like Russian or Chinese designs might get sold to hostile nations.
    1
  35. "It's far smarter to go with the plane that can do the job well enough and build a lot of that than to spend more and get less. The US knew this in WW2" - by that logic the P-51 Mustang wouldn't have existed. Why bother with the Merlin engine? Just put something more reasonable in there.
    1
  36. That's why pilots from other planes were trained on F-35s and quized about their likes and dislikes. Obviously they were biased towards their own planes, but by cross referencing what they answered you can tell by the overall picture that they were impressed and liked it.
    1
  37. Becuase you believe your own propaganda.
    1
  38. But "lesser powers" may get weapons from real powers and use them in proxy wars.Don't forget, the US had to bomb insurgents in Iraq after actually defeating the real Iraq armed forces.
    1
  39. "leading military sources" - from Russia?
    1
  40. The last air-to-air kill by US aircraft was in 2017 and the previous one was in 1999. At this rate it would take 432 years for your requirements to be fulfilled (two dozens * 18 years between kills).
    1
  41.  @johnparrish9215  "It is not even as agile as a Mig 21." - show us footage of a MiG-21 pulling these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBEbdCgJvdg "untill stealth is defeated, about 10 years" - the laws of physics will not be defeated with time. "The biggest flaw in the F-35 was in forcing the designers to give it VTOL, if the Marines had asked for it to be able to operate from a 350 meter dirt road the aircraft would be far better, more range, more agile, higher top speed." - There's literally no basis for this claim other than Pierre Sprey's 1950s aviation knowledge. No, "forcing" the VTOL is not a flaw. Short deck carriers are not 350 meter dirt roads.
    1
  42. Wipes the floor with everything else on exercises.
    1
  43. And how many of its true rivals have been built?
    1
  44. "mount a better radar" - sure, let's violate the laws of physics.
    1