Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Switzerland chooses the F-35" video.

@MrRouxs "Its stealth is useless in Switzerland" - Why? "it's hyper connectivty also useless in a context of small patrol" - It's extremely useful. Now a small patrol is extremely aware, thus extremely deadly. If the point of having a defensive patrol is to search the skies and maintain a deadly presence that deters intruders, then having the most aware, and thus deadlier, fighters in the air is a fine way of telling everyone to never intrude on your airspace.
9
@MrRouxs "It's literally like buying a Ferrari ! It's faster than your regular car, but it won't really make you go faster to work on your 10min journey." - This is somewhat of a misrepresentation. The Ferrari comparison is used because it's a performance-driven car that's extremely inconvenient for regular road use, but the F-35 is the most utilitarian aircraft one can get for the money. "Just a reminder that Switzerland is 350km at its widest" - That's way beyond IRST range.
6
Who told you they were scrapping anything? I think 48 will be delivered next year.
4
Not "the US". A few people who like to create a ruckus and secure sales for their friends at Boeing.
3
@WALTERBROADDUS You said the USMC and USN fly the same version. Yes the USMC happens to fly the C because the USMC needed replacements for their F/A-18s that take off from Navy carriers.
2
@kolerick "30-35h of maintenance for each flight... that would mean at best (on a period of 48h, 30h maintenance on 18h (very inflated) hours of availability) 31,8% availability" - But are the 30-35h of maintenance consecutive or concurrent? Because if there's people working on different required maintenance plans at the same time on different parts of the aircraft, you can get 35 hours of work done in a single day if you have enough people or you split your crews by shifts.
2
These are F-35As, they don't have STOVL.
2
@WALTERBROADDUS The USMC has F-35Cs that board US Navy ships but their main variant is the F-35B.
1
@WALTERBROADDUS I didn't catch that.
1
@philgooddr.7850 There's one type of engine used both by the F-15 and F-16 that has had a couple engine losses leading to loss of the aircraft on the F-15 while the F-16 has none. Twin engine reliability is overstated, especially since catastrophic engine failure on a fighter will most likely take out both and the same time.
1
@philgooddr.7850 "that is why since the Starfighter widow maker massacre, the Luftwaffe ONLY flies twins" - This is a highly fallacious argument. The West German Luftwaffe was a relatively recent organization, many pilots were not trained to the level required to fly such a demanding aircraft, the ground crews were conscripts with high turnover, the weather is poor in that region of Europe, and landings were done at high speed on a high throttle setting. It was a risky aircraft to fly that sacrificed a lot for high performance. Later in its service the issue became structural faults. The problems with the Starfighter were not the engine, and even if the issue was the engine a single aircraft having problems should not make an organization recoil in fear and adopt knee-jerk measures. "The f35 is too fat for it" - You don't know what you're talking about. "Note all recent Migs and Sukhoi’s are twins" - Because Russia has problems with engine thrust, reliability and durability. And in the 2000s they still had to ground them due to crashes anyway. "The F35 has one engine because of its VTOL version" - And because it's a F-16 replacement, which is a single engine aircraft. "but this is no feature at all" - Wrong.
1
@philgooddr.7850 Yeah and what one country specified because of a bad experience they had decades ago isn't an argument. It's their personal, highly subjective, opnion. "your “inexperience reason” does not stand" - Then how come other countries had better safety track records? "have very good and meticulous engine specialists" - Engineers aren't the kind of people who are "conscripted" into the job. A 18-19 year old kid who'll only do the job for however long the conscription service is not an engineer. An engineer isn't made in 1-2 years. "the Phantom 2 and F104 were fitted with same GE engine but have there very dissimilar safety records" - The Phantom was not as demanding to fly and it's not as much of a hotrod.
1
@hankakah4180 Not all parts are interchangeable. The interchangeability means that the same factories can produce parts for all aircraft variants without requiring changes in their tooling, but it doesn't mean an aircraft can be converted from one variant to another. If I'm not mistaken only around 30% of the parts are interchangeable between the A and B.
1