F-16.net

Raptor_One wrote:

Why don't you people just keep quiet? These diatribes are annoying. They just take up space. Who reads them? Anyone?

And we had all the same type of dialog about how UNCAPABLE the Viper was going to be too when it first appeared. Lightweight, throwaway, daytime fighter. Useless compared to the mighty F-15, on and on.

They were apparently wrong then too ....
Fisk

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1090

I'm just tired of hearing random people's opinions (based on what I couldn't tell you) cheer for or against fighters like the F-35 and F-22. It's annoying and uninformative and a waste of space. I seriously want to know who bothers reading diatribes like the one above.

FireFox137 wrote:

THE F-35 HAS NOT EVEN FLOWN. WHAT YOU ARE STATING IS OPINION - PERIOD. WHAT YOU ARE STATING IS A WISH - PERIOD.

And what are you doing, preaching the holy word? Rolling Eyes

Seeing as how you're doing the same thing in your post I dare say you're talking out your backside again, and it's really getting old.

Raptor_One wrote:

I seriously want to know who bothers reading diatribes like the one above.

Oh, I learned long ago not to waste time actually reading those. Besides, if you've read one, you've pretty much read them all.

Although, I must admit sometimes they are fun to read just for the entertainment value. I mean, who can forget such classics as:

FireFox137 wrote:

*IF* the F-35 can actually "fly"

Yup, he caught us. We have no idea if this sucker will get off the ground. All those thousands of hours of testing in the finest wind tunnels in the free world. Tens of thousands of simulation runs in the highest-fidelity simulation model ever used for the design of a fighter. All the cumulative design and build experience from the F-16, F-22, and X-35 (plus others). Even with all that, we really don't know. Jon's just gonna set up at the end of the runway, hit the throttle and hope for the best. Rolling Eyes

FireFox137 wrote:

...not with some 8 tons of fuel and the aerodynamics of an F-4 (which is only logical to assume because with all that thrust in an F-16 sized package that can't supercruside it's simply got to have poor aerdynamics)

Aerodynamics of an F-4??? And he expects anyone to take him seriously? Wow - when I think of all that time and money wasted in the aforementioned tunnels. We could have just picked up an old F-4 math model out of the Boeing trash bins.

Of course, then he turns around and admits that:

FireFox137 wrote:

Sure, the requirements package called for 'the same' a2a capability of an F-16...

So that must mean that the F-16 also has similar aerodynamics as the F-4. Hmmmmm. Hadn't considered that possibility. Guess I have something new to think about.

fiskerwad wrote:

Raptor_One wrote:

Why don't you people just keep quiet? These diatribes are annoying. They just take up space. Who reads them? Anyone?

And we had all the same type of dialog about how UNCAPABLE the Viper was going to be too when it first appeared. Lightweight, throwaway, daytime fighter. Useless compared to the mighty F-15, on and on.

They were apparently wrong then too ....
Fisk

Yeah, except that was from the USAF about the YF-16. Anyone remember history?

Raptor_claw wrote:

Raptor_One wrote:

I seriously want to know who bothers reading diatribes like the one above.

Oh, I learned long ago not to waste time actually reading those. Besides, if you've read one, you've pretty much read them all.

Although, I must admit sometimes they are fun to read just for the entertainment value. I mean, who can forget such classics as:

FireFox137 wrote:

*IF* the F-35 can actually "fly"

Yup, he caught us. We have no idea if this sucker will get off the ground. All those thousands of hours of testing in the finest wind tunnels in the free world. Tens of thousands of simulation runs in the highest-fidelity simulation model ever used for the design of a fighter. All the cumulative design and build experience from the F-16, F-22, and X-35 (plus others). Even with all that, we really don't know. Jon's just gonna set up at the end of the runway, hit the throttle and hope for the best. Rolling Eyes

FireFox137 wrote:

...not with some 8 tons of fuel and the aerodynamics of an F-4 (which is only logical to assume because with all that thrust in an F-16 sized package that can't supercruside it's simply got to have poor aerdynamics)

Aerodynamics of an F-4??? And he expects anyone to take him seriously? Wow - when I think of all that time and money wasted in the aforementioned tunnels. We could have just picked up an old F-4 math model out of the Boeing trash bins.

Of course, then he turns around and admits that:

FireFox137 wrote:

Sure, the requirements package called for 'the same' a2a capability of an F-16...

So that must mean that the F-16 also has similar aerodynamics as the F-4. Hmmmmm. Hadn't considered that possibility. Guess I have something new to think about.

Um, what was the thrust of the F-4? And what was it's speed? Whats the thrust of the F-35, and its speed? How LARGE was the F-4, and how small is the F-35. Seems to me there's a lot to be desired left out of the F-35.

F-35's air intakes and wings are designed for cost and weight... Not performance. The entire F-35 is designed for cost, not performance.

Please don't anyone compare the YF-16 to the F-35; its apples and oranges.
The USAF didn't want the 16, and does want the 35. The people on the "outside" wanted the 16 and those on the "inside" did not want it. Those on the outside of the 35 don't want it, and those who claim to be on the "inside" do want it. The F-35 situation is the inverse of the YF-16.

The 16 was designed to take on the Migs and live kill more the next day, and was not designed to be a light bomb truck. If you want to compare the F-35 to anything from the past then it should be the A-7, ie another bomb truck. The A-7 didn't have the aerodynamics of the 16 and with a big enough engine bolted on was supersonic capable.... Much... very much like the F-35 situation today. The ONLY thing this 35 has over things from the past is a certain ammount of LO technologies. Once that veil has been lifted the AF may as well roll some F-4s out of the boneyard, toss in a new engine design and be better off than with the 35.

A spade is a spade, no matter what else its called. And the 35 is a bomb truck and not a fighter.

Again, this plane has not even flown and there are several key indicators as to its limited a2a abilities and NONE to point towards its CAPABILITIES.

Look, anything can fly with enough thrust. But there's a difference between flying, and actually FLYING when dealing with combat aircraft.

Hey diddle diddle people.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1090

I suggest no one give this guy the time of day, let alone the satisfaction he derives from engaging people in pointless debate.

Raptor_One, why do you think all the distinguished members of the forums don't post here... except habu2 to make fun of him.

Also, for ****s and giggles:

LOL! That's freakin weird, yet strangely funny. Very Happy

LordOfBunnies wrote:

Raptor_One, why do you think all the distinguished members of the forums don't post here... except habu2 to make fun of him.

He is doing a fine job of making an a$$ of himself - he doesn't need any help from me... Cool

Cm'on Firefox.. If the 35 was simply a bomb-truck then usaf was throwing away a lot of money (and time) developping engines whith 40000 (and maybe more..) pound of thrust!.. and what about thrust vectoring!??.. So do you think one day we could see thrust vectoring also on tornado's and B2's?.. Confused

Neno wrote:

Cm'on Firefox.. If the 35 was simply a bomb-truck then usaf was throwing away a lot of money (and time) developping engines whith 40000 (and maybe more..) pound of thrust!.. and what about thrust vectoring!??.. So do you think one day we could see thrust vectoring also on tornado's and B2's?.. Confused

Regardless, of the T/W of the F-35 over current fighters. It won't have the drag associated with carrying stores and tanks!!!!! Confused

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1002 Status: Offline

Raptor_One wrote:

Why don't you people just keep quiet? These diatribes are annoying. They just take up space. Who reads them? Anyone?

"F-35 will not fulfull the BVR requirement with neither authority nor competence."

I got that far before I tuned out. Laughing

With the exception of the F-22 Raptor. What fighter would be superior to the F-35 in a BVR engagement???? Confused

sferrin wrote:

"F-35 will not fulfull the BVR requirement with neither authority nor competence."

I got that far before I tuned out. Laughing

I especially enjoyed how he didn't not nor never use no double negatives neither! Rolling Eyes

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 - 40,000lbs of thrust for 45,000lbs aircraft?