Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "" video.

All combat jet aircraft are expensive Ferraris.
16
@Biden_is_demented The coating issue happened once years ago, and since it has only occurred twice. It can't be replicated in testing. Thank you for playing.
4
@Biden_is_demented That's false. They did keep testing to try and replicate the issue, and it hasn't come up again.
4
I kinda wish Mover had to do exercises against the F-35 while he gets his aircraft of choice. It would be a humbling experience.
3
In the aircraft world, multiroles are kings. They do refrigerate and they do bake the meatloaf. Like it or not, it works.
3
They're holding onto the A-10 because they're OBLIGATED TO. They propose retirement and Congress shuts them down. They've actually requested 42 A-10s to be retired for FY2022 so they can use the money on actually useful aircraft. There's no super warthog. Stop reading buzzfeed-tier defense blogs. They're getting jam resistant GPS and small diameter bombs. That's not a "super" anything.
3
@blurglide This is false. You're claiming it's indisputable but you can't even substantiate your claims.
2
@RodriguezIsaac33 So like the F-16? Master of all trades?
2
@deathlocus1571 The gun was not omitted on the Phantom over weight concerns. It simply did not need to have it. As a naval interceptor, it would have to go head to head with aircraft coming in to sink the aircraft carrier. If a Phantom driver had to get behind the incoming threat to get a gun kill, he would not have a carrier to land back on. Because it would have sunk.
2
The F-22 is an extremely limited aircraft in comparison. If that was done, we'd be now spending billions and billions to keep it up to date.
1
@austinlowrance5943 The starting superiority was against 1990s Soviet Union. It ceased to exist in 1991. The F-22 is severely lacking in features. That's why it was estimated that retiring it and replacing it with an entirely new aircraft is more feasible than a fleet upgrade. It's not about competitors but the fact that it lacks features. The F-35 masks its exhaust. Yes, you would have to still need F-35s because the F-22 was only meant to replace F-15s. That's the High in the High/Low combo. You'd still need the Low aircraft. You can't escape that expenditure, the F-22 would not be a feasible Low aircraft. Upgrading the F-22 would not save any money. No, the F-22 can't be upgraded at leisure. It was designed prior to such considerations being adopted. It's a very difficult aircraft to upgrade upon. The F-35 is easier to upgrade and the NGAD will be even easier to upgrade than the F-35.
1
They started with the B because the CALF project was always intended to be a USMC aircraft that would then be modified for Air Force use and the USAF would buy it as a way to cut development costs down. The Navy was the last branch to join the project.
1
@gort8203 It didn't bugger up the design. This is just a made up "factoid" that people parrot.
1
@gort8203 "The F-35 airframe would likely be more efficient it didn’t include compromises for the VTOL role." - How? Actually explain and substantiate your claim. I want to hear how you came to this conclusion.
1
@gort8203 That's not how it works. You made the claim, you back it up. You cannot ask me to prove a negative. I first need to know what you think the VTOL requirements did, for me to be able to counter the argument. I'll be the better man and bite. The structural arrangements for the lift fan are inconsequential because not only is the A variant lighter as a result of not needing those specific structural arrangements and actually carrying the damned thing, but the A and C variant also benefit from a slightly larger weapons bay and greater fuel capacity. The A and C variants are like an athlete training with a weighted vest. Take the vest off, and you've increased the performance. That's not a reduction in potential. It's an increase. Again, me responding to your challenge is completely inconsequential. You admitted defeat by making a claim and requiring others do disprove it. I simply chose to take the high ground.
1
@gort8203 Exactly. Someone confronted you and you complain. You should be complaining about your stubbornness and your lack of knowledge on the topics you INSIST on pretending to be an expert on. Not about the people calling you out on your BS. Calling out BS is healthy. It keeps people in check. Apparently you don't enjoy being checked. Sure, I don't get to decide how it works. Over 2000 years of theory of logic and rhetoric do. And it's the claimant that shares the burden of the evidence. Don't point the finger at me. Go tell the courts you should have the right to accuse anyone of anything and not have to provide evidence. They get to decide how it works. Point the finger at them. "A bigger weapons bay and fuel tank may improve payload and range but does not make the airframe more efficient" - Prove that the airframe is not efficient. "is based on the airplane structure being larger and heavier than than it would needed if not for the VTOL gear" - FALSE. The VTOL fan does not make the structure larger. In fact the X-35 prototype was smaller and capable of STOVL. The structure is a result of avionics and weapons capacity. If you remove the B variant from the F-35 line up, you cannot reduce the sizes of the A or C variant without suffering from the loss of capacity in the weapons bay, and obviously range reduction due to lower fuel capacity. Therefore, the lift fan does not create a size disadvantage, because the F-35 cannot be made smaller even if the B variant was eliminated. The structure is not heavier as evidenced by the fact that the A model had weight reduction. The C variant requires structural strength due to the demands of carrier operations. "It's an intuitively rational notion that I can accept" - But if you are rational and accept that reducing the size of the F-35A or C would cripple it, you cannot claim that the B variant is responsible. It's cause and effect. "it's not my job to prove it to you" - It is if you make claims about it. "You can prove it's not true if you possess real documented evidence" - Not really because it's proving a negative. There's no documented evidence of a smaller F-35A because such aircraft was never developed. There was a smaller JSF. The X-35. Which had the B variant STOVL capabilities. The size was augmented to increase its combat capabilities. Either way, I can point to the logical train of thought that absolves the B variant from wrongdoing, but asking for documented evidence that CANNOT exist, and even if it did, COULD NOT be published due to secrecy, to prove a negative is a massive faux pas. Those who make the claim have to prove it. Otherwise I can claim the universe's largest planet is made of pudding and not prove it. It's you who has to analyze every single planet.
1
@gort8203 Buddy. When you make claims and when questioned you tell others to go pound sand, that's confrontation. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house. Oh, but I am stubborn. Nothing wrong with stubbornness. The problem is that you would rather complain about being questioned rather than have some self-awareness and realize what caused others to question you. The opinions are not unsubstantiated. The X-35 was smaller than the F-35. Fact. Not even an opinion. And it's more than substantiated. Again, wrong. Maybe a nice cup of "stop talking about what you don't understand" would do you nicely too. Go away now. Run.
1
@gort8203 It's not a ramble, it's just scathing criticism. Perhaps you've lived through life with people handling you with kid gloves. I don't care if you're not interested. It's here for other people to read this and think twice about parroting what people say on the internet.
1
@gort8203 The proof has been presented. You cannot change the A variant without sacrificing fuel or weapons. The B variant sacrifices fuel and weapons to fit the VTOL. Therefore it's the B variant that sacrifices capabilities to keep the VTOL, not the A. Again, what can you do to the aerodynamics of the F-35 without reducing the internal fuel volume or the weapons bay? They call it the Fat Amy because derogatory names are a thing. The F-4 was also called a lead sled. Did you ever heard about the BUFF or the SLUF? However, if you look at the frontal cross section the F-35C is not any fatter than the F/A-18E. The name is just a funny joke, not a factual statement about aerodynamics. The pilots actually praise how the F-35 flies.
1
@gort8203 "if you didn't need the space and structure for the VTOL equipment the airplane could have been smaller/lighter/more slippery" - Again, making it smaller reduces range and weapons capacity. "I have read more than once" - Okay, and who wrote it? Because there's plenty of hack frauds who made a career out of complaining about the F-35. "Imagine a version of the Harrier with the rotatable nozzles and other equipment necessary for VTOL stripped out of it [...] it would still be a slower and less efficient airplane" - I mean, it would have performance in line with what other attack aircraft had. It wasn't a multirole fighter in USMC/RAF service, essentially only the Sea Harrier was expected to perform air to air fleet defense and their main strength was being so far away from enemy air bases that even supersonic fighters could not light their afterburner otherwise they'd have no fuel left to make the trip back. So they had an advantage even against technically higher performance aircraft by playing on home turf. Either way, the Harrier was designed much earlier than the F-35 and you don't see the issues with the STOVL design. Frankly, the Harrier flies like a Cold War attacker. The F-35B flies like a fighter. "it could have been an even better airplane" - But how? Making it "better" according to 1960s metrics by kneecapping range and weapons capacity is not my idea of a good trade off. "and available in greater numbers" - The reason the F-35 went over 600 units delivered is precisely thanks to the STOVL variant. It gives allied countries with shorter carriers 5th gen capability. By giving up the B variant, the product would not have been such a success.
1
Most aircraft pile too much into the package at once. It works fine.
1
The NGAD is a F-22 replacement, and the F-15EX is both a bone being tossed at Boeing by their friends in government, a way to keep military manufacturing busy, and a source of fresh F-15s that can then be passed down to the air national guard.
1