On Guard for Thee Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 You disbar nothing. You keep repeating the same old talking points and accusing everyone of being rednecks. The facts behind the talking points haven't changed much it seems. What's it got to do with rednecks? Quote
Smallc Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 You're right, there were no facts behind most of them before, and none now. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 You're right, there were no facts behind most of them before, and none now. I suppose if you subscribe to LockMart magazine and don't look over the cover. Quote
Smallc Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 Look, you still haven't been able to figure out the difference between a multirole fighter (what we currently have and what the F-35 is) and the air superiority fighter that you criticize the F-35 for not being (the F-15, F-22, possibly Typhoon). Quote
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 The F-35 project is on life support, especially come next election since the F-22 is already a capable aircraft and the F-35 was a cash grab by Lockheed-Martin to pawn off the tech of the F-22 in a smaller package. The latest look into costs over the life cycle was $40 billion and for 65 Aircraft the last number I heard was $14 billion. Divided by 65, that brings the cost to $215 million+. And those costs keep escalating. There was actually a recent release by someone at Lockheed-Martin boasting the stealth would be better than the F-22. Pretty bold claim. You may want to look into Russian Radar tech as well. Stealth isn't quite as meaningful as the Americans claim it is. American Propaganda aside on Russian tech, I'm more impressed with the new SU-35 upgrades. The Super Hornet has been tested extensively in War and has a proven record, so yes we do know. Those of us who at least take the time to read up on things. Seems a lot of people on here take the bully approach as well. Tells me a lot about you. Oh and the F-18's have air brakes to aid in slowing down. Not fucking drag chutes, they're a last resort. Oh and unless (and I could be wrong) we are buying the F-35C and not the F-35A, no, it does not have a tail hook. Quote
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 And that Martin release could be a hoax, but everything you've all claimed could be just as fabricated. I'm basing many of my arguments in the massive amount of literature I've read over the course of 25 years paired with what I can discern of all the contrary info. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 Look, you still haven't been able to figure out the difference between a multirole fighter (what we currently have and what the F-35 is) and the air superiority fighter that you criticize the F-35 for not being (the F-15, F-22, possibly Typhoon). Alright, if you think you know all that, explain to us (keep in mind you may have some professionals in the audience) what "fifth generation" is. Quote
Smallc Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 Alright, if you think you know all that, explain to us (keep in mind you may have some professionals in the audience) what "fifth generation" is. It's a generation of aircraft that has several definable qualities. Quote
Smallc Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 The F-35 project is on life support, especially come next election since the F-22 is already a capable aircraft and the F-35 was a cash grab by Lockheed-Martin to pawn off the tech of the F-22 in a smaller package. They aren't the same type of aircraft, and the F-22, despite what you've heard, is far more expensive. The latest look into costs over the life cycle was $40 billion and for 65 Aircraft the last number I heard was $14 billion. Divided by 65, that brings the cost to $215 million+. And those costs keep escalating. $9B acquisition (planes and related infrastructure and purchases), $14B with service contracts. There was actually a recent release by someone at Lockheed-Martin boasting the stealth would be better than the F-22. Pretty bold claim. You may want to look into Russian Radar tech as well. Stealth isn't quite as meaningful as the Americans claim it is. American Propaganda aside on Russian tech, I'm more impressed with the new SU-35 upgrades. So you believe Russian propaganda no problem then? Quote
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 Fifth generation was a term that some claim the U.S. and Lockheed in particular coined, but many argue the Russian's used the term first (who really knows) and it was to define post 2004 aircraft that incorporated several state of the art avionics systems and structural advancements to aid in stealth capability, maneuverability, etc, etc. The F-22 was the first "Fifth Gen" to make it to market. Happy? Quote
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 They aren't the same type of aircraft, and the F-22, despite what you've heard, is far more expensive. $9B acquisition (planes and related infrastructure and purchases), $14B with service contracts. So you believe Russian propaganda no problem then? What you believe U.S. Propaganda? Quote
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 Not even, Lockheed propaganda, never mind the U.S. Quote
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 Or do you really think the U.S. is any more honest? They all lie. Newsflash. I do all I can to read info from all corners of the World and draw parallels. Does it make everything I say right? Obviously not, but It gives me the confidence to stand by many of my opinions. But i'm also open to change. Clearly something a few people on here aren't big on. I have several Encyclopedia's on aircraft, and I don't subscribe to one magazine or source. I take all arguments into account. And the Super Hornet there laddy, is a strong and proven airframe that has been in service since 1995 and has flown a great many combat missions and proven itself many times over. It's compatibility with our current aircraft make it an excellent choice and it's new upgrades make it more than capable in the stealth department. Did I miss something by the way? When did Canada become an instigator of conflicts? What the hell do we need the F-35 for? Lot's of cash for no guarantee. And sub $100 million per unit? Hmmm, that $300+ billion cost for the program so far, coupled with the sales forecast not being as strong and the costs rising further tells me that a cost that is so close to the Super Hornet per aircraft is complete Bull. But by all means, continue buying everything you read simply because you don't believe that Lockheed-Martin, a corporation with Billions at stake, and the U.S. who is desperate to make the F-35 relevant wouldn't tell a lie. Not a chance! Super Hornet all day as far as I'm concerned. We don't need to go all in on the F-35, especially since every Country including the U.S. is already looking at 6th gen aircraft and new upgrades to renew the F-22 into the future. Henc why the F-35 has to sell so badly. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 It's a generation of aircraft that has several definable qualities. And those qualities are? And the F 35 measures up how? Boy did you walk into that one! Quote
Smallc Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 The qualities vary depending on who you ask. Data fusion and advanced stealth are generally seen to be at their core. Quote
Smallc Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 Get back to me when you figure out what a multirole fighter is. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 The qualities vary depending on who you ask. Data fusion and advanced stealth are generally seen to be at their core. And the bomb truck seems to fail on both. We have a multi role. Superhornet. Does the job, hugeely less expensive. Maybe you like shelling out tax bucks worthlessly. I don't. Quote
Moonbox Posted January 7, 2015 Author Report Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) And like in the other thread(s), there is a direct correlation between your lack of understanding of a given topic and your rate of insults hurled at those that do........ Those aren't insults. Those are facts. You are not a defense expert, grossly mistaking being an enthusiast for being an actual authority. That you find the comment insulting is likely because your ego was bruised. Sorry! Nukes would end who? The North? You understand the South does not have the ability to launch a counter-strike right? I implied the North Korean state wouldn't last long in the event that it nuked Seoul. Not only would Chinese troops likely be in Pyonyang before you blinked, South Korea's latent nuclear capabilities far surpass that of the North and they very likely would and could launch a counter-strike in short order, being a paranuclear nation a proverbial "screwdriver's turn" from assembling a bomb. As to your implication that North Korean artillery isn't a threat Once again, I didn't say or imply that. I simply said that the idea of Seoul being flattened or even destroyed is gross exaggeration, stemming from Pyonyang's typical bluster and the media's penchant for sensationalism. A self-styled defense expert like you should know better. (By all means insult me or explain how your opinion is counter to that of the South Koreans), why are all South Korean and US facilities hardened, The ability of North Korea to shell Seoul was never questioned Derek, nor was anything even said that remotely suggested that. It was made VERY CLEAR that the effectiveness of the bombardment was in question. There have been enough industrial-era sieges (both in WW2 and beyond) to show us how long it ACTUALLY takes to 'flatten' a city with artillery bombardment. Look it up and get a clue. blind firing? You think the North Koreans incapable of deploying FOO teams across the DMZ with a map case and radio? You vastly overestimate the accuracy of 170mm field guns firing over 35 miles away as well as the ability of FOO teams to remain hidden and provide worthwhile information, especially since the guns would be shooting and scooting the whole time rather than maintaining constant barrages. Edited January 7, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Those aren't insults. Those are facts. You are not a defense expert, grossly mistaking being an enthusiast for being an actual authority. That you find the comment insulting is likely because your ego was bruised. Sorry! Define a "defense expert"........well illustrating where I have been factually wrong........With that said, there has been no bruised ego, fore I certainly consider the source and have been called far worse, by far, far better. I implied the North Korean state wouldn't last long in the event that it nuked Seoul. Not only would Chinese troops likely be in Pyonyang before you blinked, South Korea's latent nuclear capabilities far surpass that of the North and they very likely would and could launch a counter-strike in short order, being a paranuclear nation a proverbial "screwdriver's turn" from assembling a bomb. So now you're suggesting the South Koreans, after being attacked by the North, would develop their own nuclear weapons program.........astounding!!!!! Once again, I didn't say or imply that. I simply said that the idea of Seoul being flattened or even destroyed is gross exaggeration, stemming from Pyonyang's typical bluster and the media's penchant for sensationalism. A self-styled defense expert like you should know better. The North could very well flatten Seoul with a sustained bombardment, none the less, within the opening hours, the devastation on the civilian population of Seoul would be catastrophic......this is not the "bluster" of the North Koreans, or the MSM, but the South Korean Government's (likewise USFK) opinion...... The ability of North Korea to shell Seoul was never questioned Derek, nor was anything even said that remotely suggested that. It was made VERY CLEAR that the effectiveness of the bombardment was in question. There have been enough industrial-era sieges (both in WW2 and beyond) to show us how long it ACTUALLY takes to 'flatten' a city with artillery bombardment. Look it up and get a clue. I, unlike yourself do have a clue......by simply examining the results of the Allies aerial bombing of German and Japanese cities, then contrasting with the sustained firepower the North is capable of delivering through both tube and rocket artillery, combined with IRBMs.......and of course, the South Korean's ability to defend against such threats... You vastly overestimate the accuracy of 170mm field guns firing over 35 miles away as well as the ability of FOO teams to remain hidden and provide worthwhile information, especially since the guns would be shooting and scooting the whole time rather than maintaining constant barrages. Overestimate the accuracy? You understand the city of Seoul is not mobile and in a rather well known location....as such, has been "bracketed" for more than half a century by the North Korean army........... You have now demonstrated not only your lack of understanding of this topic, but grade school trigonometry..... Edited January 7, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote
Moonbox Posted January 7, 2015 Author Report Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Define a "defense expert"........well illustrating where I have been factually wrong........With that said, there has been no bruised ego, fore I certainly consider the source and have been called far worse, by far, far better. Hey, you're the one who started whining about armchair general and make-believe defense expert comments! So now you're suggesting the South Koreans, after being attacked by the North, would develop their own nuclear weapons program.........astounding! I'm suggesting that it wouldn't take them long to build one. The point is neither here nor there, however, since the only reason they don't have one is because of American pressure and assurances that South Korea falls under the umbrella of American deterrence. The North could very well flatten Seoul with a sustained bombardment, none the less, within the opening hours, the devastation on the civilian population of Seoul would be catastrophic......this is not the "bluster" of the North Koreans, or the MSM, but the South Korean Government's (likewise USFK) opinion...... It IS bluster, with the number of North Korean batteries actually capable of hitting Seoul nowhere near the oft-quoted 13,000 figure and with the damage and death-toll massively exaggerated. Not only is there room for about 20,000,000 people in underground shelters, but up to 1/4 of North Korean shells turn out to be duds. Yes, there would be significant damage. Yes, thousands would die, but the catastrophic flattening is wildly ignorant hyperbole and misinformation. I, unlike yourself do have a clue......by simply examining the results of the Allies aerial bombing of German and Japanese cities, then contrasting with the sustained firepower the North is capable of delivering through both tube and rocket artillery, No, you're just pretending to have a clue and pretending to be an expert. First, North Korea isn't capable of carpet bombing Seoul. Second, large-scale strategic bombing is far more destructive than sustained artillery, so your point is doubly obtuse. Leningrad was besieged and bombarded for almost three years, with the Germans firing point-blank into the city throughout. It wasn't flattened and it didn't fall, and the vast, overwhelming majority of casualties were due to starvation and deprivation. Overestimate the accuracy? You understand the city of Seoul is not mobile and in a rather well known location. You understand that firing from 35-miles away means a lot of shells land in parks, streets, on top of each other, on rubble, in rivers etc? You understand that Seoul is a 605 square kilometer area that would require a volume of sustained bombardment that due to practical, logistical and retaliatory measures, North Korea simply isn't capable of maintaining? You have now demonstrated not only your lack of understanding of this topic, but grade school trigonometry..... More armchair-general bluster, from a guy who makes it painfully obvious he hasn't done the math himself. Edited January 7, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 So I'm still awaiting more points from SmallC or someone else on the F-35. Staying away from this Korea debate as I know I am out of my depth at present lol Quote
Moonbox Posted January 7, 2015 Author Report Posted January 7, 2015 So I'm still awaiting more points from SmallC or someone else on the F-35. Staying away from this Korea debate as I know I am out of my depth at present lol This thread has been going on for years, with the Super Hornet comparison being debated at length and discounted by a large number of people there. Yes, it's a good plane, but there's a reason it's not gaining widespread adoption and most of that has to do with timing and competition. It was a stop-gap for the US military and isn't enough of an upgrade from existing 4th-gen fighters for most countries to be interested. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 This thread has been going on for years, with the Super Hornet comparison being debated at length and discounted by a large number of people there. Yes, it's a good plane, but there's a reason it's not gaining widespread adoption and most of that has to do with timing and competition. It was a stop-gap for the US military and isn't enough of an upgrade from existing 4th-gen fighters for most countries to be interested. Wasn't as stop Gap at all. Much like what the F-22 has in store, it received an upgrade package to pull it into the next generation. American military is always divided on every front. The F-22 according to many is a waste as well. Again, this comes down to people making their own judgement. I've watched combat footage of the Super Hornet's and listened to what critics and supporters have had to say. I've also listened to what people who have gone up against them have had to say and there is a reason that they are being upgraded again. Much like the SU-35 in Russia, the U.S. Navy has figured out that they have a very well built airframe with excellent flight dynamics that can be a threat with upgrades to bring it closer to "fifth gen". The hallmarks of a good plane. That excuse of a stop gap holds no weight with me. It's an excellent aircraft. Australia bought it, and with the absence at Farnborough last year of the F-35, many Countries involved in the F-35 purchase are considering the Super Hornet harder. Quote
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 Even if it started as a stop gap, it's most recent upgrades and many Naval staff's support of it, speaks volumes to me. Clearly it was far better than they originally thought it would be. And many are losing interest in that F-35 even in the U.S. Military. Canada would be daft to avoid the Super Hornet Quote
chris-b-crunch Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz2Cl3TnRyM Super Hornet (Farnborough) About 2:33 you get a real demo of it's maneuverability when maxed. These clips are where the sales pitches are made, and when you watch the speed it can change directions, the level of control near stall speed and it's characteristics in a dogfight, tell me more about how it isn't worthy and is just a stop gap. Bare in mind it also has extensive combat experience in Air to Air and Air to Ground runs. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.