The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 [DefenseNews]

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1266
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 15:10

Let the moderators decide who is and isn't a troll. Your opinions are just as strong as Mixelflick just in an opposite slant. However he does not try to bully others to conform to his pov. We really could do without the self-appointed F-35/SH police trying to squash dissenting opinions, it makes for an unpleasant atmosphere ...
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2168
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 16:10

marsavian wrote:We really could do without the self-appointed F-35/SH police trying to squash dissenting opinions, it makes for an unpleasant atmosphere ...


And we could really, really do without people who's opinions have been dismissed and more than proven to be false, time after time and after time (which is the case of mixelflick and his opinion about the Hornet/SH) and yet still posting those same opinions time after time and after time... This borderlines with trolling behavior and it has hardly anything to do with pro "F-35/SH" opinions/facts.

The problem is that I (and I believe others as well) are getting to the point that it's not even worth the bother to refute these posts/opinions. Look at my last but one post for instance!
Moreover, I can see from other posts by mixelflick and the fact that he already has a warning that there's a good chance that he's not that innocent as you're trying to claim or defend.

Moreover if you have something against people defending the "F-35/SH" as you say, perhaps you're in the wrong forum, no?? I'm sure that there are many more forums out there where there's no "F-35/SH police", whatever that means... :roll:
Anyway, this is not the case of defending the 'X' or 'Y' plane as you can read above on the first paragraph!
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1266
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 16:25

Opinions dismissed by you ? What makes you the great judge of what is right and wrong ? The fact is even Hornet pilots complain about its lack of kinematics. Personally I think Mixelflick concentrates too much on this as SH is a balanced design with LO, good big AESA, plenty of fuel, great AoA ability, high stores capability however each to his own. Just ignore him if you don't care for his opinion and stop trying to be the thought police on this forum.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2662
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 16:28

You all might want to note that the triggering comment was mine (go back in the thread), and it had nothing to do with SH.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2168
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 17:04

marsavian wrote:Opinions dismissed by you ? What makes you the great judge of what is right and wrong ?


Nope, they were dismissed by many (not only by me!). Even by you, if we read what you posted next and which I'll quote below.
So, go read other posts and replies involving the same author, will you... :roll:

marsavian wrote: The fact is even Hornet pilots complain about its lack of kinematics.


Define "kinematics"?
In terms of "supersonic kinematics", yes there are some "not so good" or negative point about the aircraft - nobody here ever denied it, as far as I know.
However in terms of "subsonic kinematics" which is where the vast majority or air combats seem to take place the SH has some very good kinematics.
Moreover in terms of high AoA maneuvering - I don't know if you consider this to be "kinematics" but I do - it excels the vast majority of other fighter aircraft in existence. (the F-35 being on of the few exceptions)

marsavian wrote:Personally I think Mixelflick concentrates too much on this as SH is a balanced design with LO, good big AESA, plenty of fuel, great AoA ability, high stores capability however each to his own.


Yes, that's what I mean about the SH and what I (and others) have been telling him.

marsavian wrote:Just ignore him if you don't care for his opinion and stop trying to be the thought police on this forum.


Not trying to be a "police". Just trying to call for some "common sense".
Let's say that I don't think that it's good for the forum to have someone repeating the same already dismissed opinion over and over and over again. Of course this is only my personal opinion...
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1266
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 18:57

Even subsonically the F-18 is not ideal, it can't match the F-22/F-35/F-15/F-16. Whenever they do DACT with Typhoons or Rafales Hornet pilots are envious of their zoom/acceleration ability and finally look at the comparative test results against X-31 compared to F-15/F-16. Hornets have enough overall ability to make up for these kinematic deficiencies but let us not pretend it is leading in this sphere.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2662
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 19:14

marsavian wrote:Even subsonically the F-18 is not ideal, it can't match the F-22/F-35/F-15/F-16. Whenever they do DACT with Typhoons or Rafales Hornet pilots are envious of their zoom/acceleration ability and finally look at the comparative test results against X-31 compared to F-15/F-16. Hornets have enough overall ability to make up for these kinematic deficiencies but let us not pretend it is leading in this sphere.


There is always something a fighter pilot wants more of, or better than — it’s about having every advantage possible going into the show. The ultimate test of a type is performance in combat and overall performance over time, which includes survivability, reliability and ease of maintenance, and it’s safety record.
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1316
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 21:12

The ultimate test of a type........and it’s safety record.


That used to be more a function of the drivers than the type. Now, as fighters become more 'technologically' advanced, and subsequently 'safer' to operate, the difference between the worst pilot in the squadron and the best pilot in any area you pick has narrowed.

For example, operationally, a comparison of the range of squadron manual (gasp) bombing scores versus bombing scores after squadron upgrade to a computed delivery system would highlight that 'narrower' gap. Narrowed even more with 'smart' bombs and the same 'dumb' pilots.

Though the 'worst' pilot was always considered adequate above a somewhat arbitrarily set cutoff (depending on the overall need for bodies to fill cockpits) below which was considered inadequate....safety-wise, the previous 'wider' gap was often highlighted by a fairly regular change in the standings resulting in a new 'worst' pilot in the squadron after each accident.

Safety records in the teen series and beyond are significantly improved over the predecessors....due more to the type than the same range of drivers.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2662
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post18 Jun 2019, 21:36

Yep. The new stuff is safer, and easier...and better.

Some of the ‘new’ were step-function shifts from their predecessors — the Hornet would be one, in spite of the conspicuous controversy during its development and introduction. I am less specifically familiar with the Viper but would argue its case similarly.
Online

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post19 Jun 2019, 01:58

optimist wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Except the pilots/wives really were stuck with an inferior aircraft on many counts.

Politics and $ built the Hornet and SH, military requirements - not so much. To this day that decision weighs heavily on the carrier air wing, with a less than dominant "strike fighter" filling the decks of every large carrier we field.


I'll take that as your uninformed opinion. They actually kept the politics out of the super hornet and is the reason it looks like it does. The block ll is where boeing dumped their 5th gen tech and radar from their x-32.


This is what struck me as factually wrong, as a quick google will show. Indeed if he knew anything, He would know it wasn't politics that built the Super hornet. It was deliberately done as a legacy hornet 'update' by USN, that kept a lot of political oversight out of it. It was indeed a master stroke that may not work next time. Depending on memories. It was a design made to look like the legacy hornet, It could have just as easily be shaped differently. It had to go through all the elements of a clean sheet design. It was the reason it came in on time and budget compared to other clean sheet programs. It was indeed built by military requirements and politics had relatively, nothing to do with it.

As to 'pilots wives', other than being straight out offensive. There is a USN boat forum, where the USN pilots post. It's not hard to read snippets of what they think of their ride, in an unclas environment.

As I said in my reply, block II was a way for Boeing to make money out of the X-32 5th gen tech. They sold the navy on the idea and the rest is history.

It's not hard to pick who's trolling on any forum, about anything. There are indeed trolls here, it's just a matter of how many are acceptable and the manner in which they troll. I really wouldn't miss a couple of them.

As to "Let the moderators decide who is and isn't a troll." I haven't referred any posts for moderation and as you would know. The board isn't moderated closely
Aussie fanboy
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3446
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post19 Jun 2019, 17:32

ricnunes wrote:
marsavian wrote:We really could do without the self-appointed F-35/SH police trying to squash dissenting opinions, it makes for an unpleasant atmosphere ...


And we could really, really do without people who's opinions have been dismissed and more than proven to be false, time after time and after time (which is the case of mixelflick and his opinion about the Hornet/SH) and yet still posting those same opinions time after time and after time... This borderlines with trolling behavior and it has hardly anything to do with pro "F-35/SH" opinions/facts.

The problem is that I (and I believe others as well) are getting to the point that it's not even worth the bother to refute these posts/opinions. Look at my last but one post for instance!
Moreover, I can see from other posts by mixelflick and the fact that he already has a warning that there's a good chance that he's not that innocent as you're trying to claim or defend.

Moreover if you have something against people defending the "F-35/SH" as you say, perhaps you're in the wrong forum, no?? I'm sure that there are many more forums out there where there's no "F-35/SH police", whatever that means... :roll:
Anyway, this is not the case of defending the 'X' or 'Y' plane as you can read above on the first paragraph!
4


Good lord, because I have a strong opinion and "a warning", I'm "not so innocent"? Meaning what exactly? I'm a troll and come here just to argue with people?

You may not like my strong comments regarding the SH, but I never once asked/badgered someone to change their opinion (which is more than I can say for you). I've also been around here for no small amount of time, which is one hell of a lot longer than what can be said of you. If I benefited from someone's information, I've said so and thanked them. There are numerous examples of such over the 9+ years I've been here.

With respect to getting a "warning", so what? One warning in almost a decade? That's what you're using to say I'm a "troll".

Really???

Listen champ, I'm not here to make you happy. I'm here to learn and share, and I've been doing it for years. You don't like the fact I don't care for the SH? Fine. But I'm not the only one making similar comments about it. So don't try to make me (or anyone) out to be the bad guy, just because our opinion doesn't match yours.

If anyone's suspect or "not so innocent" because of their behavior, it's people like you...
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2168
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post19 Jun 2019, 19:37

mixelflick wrote: You don't like the fact I don't care for the SH? Fine.


This is not a matter of you liking the Hornet/SH or don't. I couldn't care less if you like or not...

The "problem" that I have here is the false premisses of your comments such as:
- Stating the "Hornet is crap" just because it was shot down by a Mig-25 during Operation Desert Storm during after some very unfortunate events that were in NO WAY related to the quality (or not) of the Hornet! Several members in this forum (besides me) proven that you're wrong about this. However the result of this was that you didn't learn anything with this as you continued to mock the facts given by you (about the Hornet's strong points and how they prove you wrong), this on other threads around this same forum.
- Another example/problem is the UTTER LIES that you spelled in this thread which were:
1- Comments that I'm pretty sure no Hornet/SH did.
2- With the above trying to prove the false premisse that the Hornet wasn't any better than what it was replacing (here, I assume the A-7 and/or F-4) when in fact it's well known that the Hornet is far superior than these planes (again the A-7 and F-4).
3- Also, with the above trying to prove the false premisse that the SH (super Hornet) wasn't any better than what it was replacing (I assume F-14) when in fact it's well known that the SH is superior in many regards/features than the F-14.

The above are facts which by the way totally contradicts what you said earlier and which I'll re-post/quote below:
mixelflick wrote:I'm here to learn and share, and I've been doing it for years.


:roll:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3446
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post19 Jun 2019, 19:47

ricnunes wrote:
mixelflick wrote: You don't like the fact I don't care for the SH? Fine.


This is not a matter of you liking the Hornet/SH or don't. I couldn't care less if you like or not...

The "problem" that I have here is the false premisses of your comments such as:
- Stating the "Hornet is crap" just because it was shot down by a Mig-25 during Operation Desert Storm during after some very unfortunate events that were in NO WAY related to the quality (or not) of the Hornet! Several members in this forum (besides me) proven that you're wrong about this. However the result of this was that you didn't learn anything with this as you continued to mock the facts given by you (about the Hornet's strong points and how they prove you wrong), this on other threads around this same forum.
- Another example/problem is the UTTER LIES that you spelled in this thread which were:
1- Comments that I'm pretty sure no Hornet/SH did.
2- With the above trying to prove the false premisse that the Hornet wasn't any better than what it was replacing (here, I assume the A-7 and/or F-4) when in fact it's well known that the Hornet is far superior than these planes (again the A-7 and F-4).
3- Also, with the above trying to prove the false premisse that the SH (super Hornet) wasn't any better than what it was replacing (I assume F-14) when in fact it's well known that the SH is superior in many regards/features than the F-14.

The above are facts which by the way totally contradicts what you said earlier and which I'll re-post/quote below:
mixelflick wrote:I'm here to learn and share, and I've been doing it for years.


:roll:


YOU: Comments that I'm pretty sure no Hornet/SH did.

You would be wrong. Very, very wrong.

Nevertheless, you accuse me of being a liar. In fact you went so far as to capitalize it for the whole world to see (UTTER LIES). Saying that I'm spreading that (supposed) lie to help make my points. That's a pretty strong accusation to make, knowing you can do so behind an anonymous username. If you and I were face to face, I'm quite sure you wouldn't be so brazen. And even if you were, how ridiculous is it for 2 adults to be engaged in that kind of banter?

I didn't record it because I didn't know someone like you would be so antagonistic (and ridiculous) to say it never happened. And the F-18 shoot down (let me get this straight), has nothing to do with the F-18? Because that's what you're strongly implying. You don't like the fact I think it does?


Refer to this point..

Listen champ, I'm not here to make you happy.


You also attempt to move the goal posts saying where the Hornet/SH is far superior to the A-7/F-4. No sh#$ sherlock. Kindly point out where I ever said we should go back to the A-7 or F-4. Whenever I spoke about the F-18, it was usually in the context of comparing it to the F-14, Tomcat 21 etc.. But because you like taking things out of context, you're attempting to do so again here. Don't think I or the other members here are that stupid.

I also note that you completely avoided the fact you're a Johnny come lately, whereas I've been around here a lot longer than you and in those 9+ years received just ONE warning. Do you see me attacking you? No. And believe me champ, there's plenty of material to use. Since you ascribe such importance to warnings though, keep posting your rubbish for all to see. It just gives me more material to give it to a mod with..

And I'm not "learning" because I don't agree with some points discussed? That's YOUR opinion. I'm of a different opinion. And it doesn't matter if you get a citation from God, I'm standing by my convictions.

With respect to all of the other "crap" you wrote, refer to this again...

One more time champ": I'm not here to make you happy...
Last edited by mixelflick on 19 Jun 2019, 20:49, edited 6 times in total.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3446
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post19 Jun 2019, 20:27

marsavian wrote:Let the moderators decide who is and isn't a troll. Your opinions are just as strong as Mixelflick just in an opposite slant. However he does not try to bully others to conform to his pov. We really could do without the self-appointed F-35/SH police trying to squash dissenting opinions, it makes for an unpleasant atmosphere ...


Listen Boss, you should take the above advice (instead of spewing verbal insults/calling people liars)
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2168
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post20 Jun 2019, 12:16

mixelflick wrote:Nevertheless, you accuse me of being a liar. In fact you went so far as to capitalize it for the whole world to see (UTTER LIES). Saying that I'm spreading that (supposed) lie to help make my points. That's a pretty strong accusation to make, knowing you can do so behind an anonymous username.


Ok, while I still stand by the logic of what I said in my previous post, I admit that I used some harsh words towards you, namely and specially the ones that you're referring in the part that I quoted above (I should have used other words).

As such I apologize for the words that I used above.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Corsair1963 and 20 guests