More basement dweller stupidity.

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

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1047
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77550

Unread post30 Apr 2018, 16:44

Anybody familiar with this site: World Defence Fortum (https://worlddefenceforum.blogspot.com/) and who is behind it?
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Offline
User avatar

archeman

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 700
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post30 Apr 2018, 21:11

lamoey wrote:Anybody familiar with this site: World Defence Fortum (https://worlddefenceforum.blogspot.com/) and who is behind it?


It looks to be an operation of Russian Trolls.

The 'Contributors' appear to be the following:

John Smith (why not just call yourself Joe Americanski??)
Makarthur Petrov
and something called RD Delta

All the stories are lightly papered pro Russia perspective.
Daddy why do we have to hide? Because we use VI son, and they use windows.
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post01 May 2018, 01:58

mixelflick wrote:35 years later it's the most successful air to air platform in history: 105 - 0 :mrgreen:


Not to disagree, but the F-15 is only tied for the most successful Air-to-Air platform (being undefeated) in history with the Sea Harrier (also undefeated): 21 - 0.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2564
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post02 May 2018, 17:13

usnvo wrote:
mixelflick wrote:35 years later it's the most successful air to air platform in history: 105 - 0 :mrgreen:


Not to disagree, but the F-15 is only tied for the most successful Air-to-Air platform (being undefeated) in history with the Sea Harrier (also undefeated): 21 - 0.


Ah, but does anyone think a sea harrier would last 5 minutes with an Eagle? I can appreciate what you're saying though. To me, the Eagle has done it all (almost).

It's waxed plenty of Mig-21's and 23's, as would be expected. It has vanquished its stated foe, the Mig-25 Foxbat. And it has even trounced the Mig-29, an aircraft designed to compete with it and developed some years after the F-15 first flew. And it has done all of this with Israeli, US and Saudi pilots at the controls. It has done it in multiple theatre's, and under highly contested conditions. And today, it shoulders the burden of air superiority for the USAF as it has for the past 30 years. Even now, our highly upgraded F-15's with AESA, 9x etc. are more than a match for the best airframes Russia and China are pumping out. Even Typhoon and Rafale drivers would be foolish to take it lightly. A remarkable testament to her design team, pilots, maintainers etc..

For its final act, I'd love to see it dispatch a Flanker. That would be the cherry on top leading to its retirement and eventual rightful place in the Smithsonian, etc...
Offline
User avatar

grab6303

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2004, 05:35

Unread post16 May 2018, 13:37

More solid gold from Burlington!
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/4448 ... n-reaction

My favorite line -
"The F-35 fighter bomber is screamingly loud. The US Air Force also says that the F-35 has a high crash rate."

That crash rate of zero is pretty appalling. Great investigative journalism.

Grab
523 FS 97-00, 35 FS 00-01, 14 FS 02-04, USAFADS 04-08, F-35A/B DT 08-10, 58 AMU 10-14,
34 AMU 14-16, HAF A4 16-Present
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4804
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post16 May 2018, 14:50

usnvo wrote:
mixelflick wrote:35 years later it's the most successful air to air platform in history: 105 - 0 :mrgreen:


Not to disagree, but the F-15 is only tied for the most successful Air-to-Air platform (being undefeated) in history with the Sea Harrier (also undefeated): 21 - 0.


So you'd agree that the A-10 (2 - 0) is as successful in air combat as the Sea Harrier?
"There I was. . ."
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post17 May 2018, 02:48

lrrpf52 wrote:
usnvo wrote:
mixelflick wrote:35 years later it's the most successful air to air platform in history: 105 - 0 :mrgreen:


Not to disagree, but the F-15 is only tied for the most successful Air-to-Air platform (being undefeated) in history with the Sea Harrier (also undefeated): 21 - 0.

This math isn't making sense to me.

F-15: 104-0
Sea Harrier: 21-0

104 > 21 by about a factor of 5.


Undefeated is undefeated, regardless of the number, so a kill ratio of infinite (104/0) is the same as a kill ratio of infinite (21/0). For instance, the SU-27 has a 6-0 record in air-to-air combat so it also matches the F-15 kill ratio at infinite, but does Ethiopia vs Eritrea really provide a decent comparison? If anything, since there were far fewer Sea Harriers versus F-15s, they actually vastly exceed the F-15 in kills per aircraft deployed (another perfectly valid MOP for evaluating fighter aircraft).
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post17 May 2018, 02:50

sferrin wrote:
usnvo wrote:
mixelflick wrote:35 years later it's the most successful air to air platform in history: 105 - 0 :mrgreen:


Not to disagree, but the F-15 is only tied for the most successful Air-to-Air platform (being undefeated) in history with the Sea Harrier (also undefeated): 21 - 0.


So you'd agree that the A-10 (2 - 0) is as successful in air combat as the Sea Harrier?


I would, but it should be pointed out that both aircraft were helos and if you include those, you should really make the F-15 106-0 since they bagged two Blackhawks as well.
Offline
User avatar

white_lightning35

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 368
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07
  • Location: Home of nuclear submarines, engines, and that's about it.

Unread post17 May 2018, 03:56

grab6303 wrote:More solid gold from Burlington!
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/4448 ... n-reaction

My favorite line -
"The F-35 fighter bomber is screamingly loud. The US Air Force also says that the F-35 has a high crash rate."

That crash rate of zero is pretty appalling. Great investigative journalism.

Grab


I just hate these people so much, it's hard to describe. At the risk of sounding melodramatic, I'll say this: I believe people like this "journalist" are a bigger long term threat to my country than the terrorists out there. Because they're already one of us, they can't be defeated in the way a foreign enemy could, because we're stuck on the "same" side that they are.

They're just oozing malicious deceit, and are constantly working to further their idiotic agendas. That article goes into that a little: trying to shove in their race-baiting and identity politics everywhere, whining about the oppressive others that want to push down their evil planes on the poor little pot smokers of Burlington. They literally use the same methods of arguing ad the basement dwellers we make fun of on here.

In my ideal fantasy world, Burlington gets a few cessnas with proven safety records, gets kicked of the U.S., and is given as fair game for anyone in the world to take over. I lived near there for several years, and there will be very little to miss except for a few restaurants. Now Burlington will be free to make its own laws and take in those "refugees" it so desperately craves (for other people to take in).

End rant.
Offline

zhangmdev

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 73
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post17 May 2018, 09:04

I don't understand what are they complaining about. There is already an international airport in their back yard, from which F-16 is flying. "Burlington International Airport sees 112,224 total operations annually." Considering noise, F-35 can't be that bad?

http://digital.vpr.net/post/burlington- ... -35-basing
http://digital.vpr.net/post/5-things-yo ... -35-basing
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2564
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post17 May 2018, 14:23

[/quote]

Undefeated is undefeated, regardless of the number, so a kill ratio of infinite (104/0) is the same as a kill ratio of infinite (21/0). For instance, the SU-27 has a 6-0 record in air-to-air combat so it also matches the F-15 kill ratio at infinite, but does Ethiopia vs Eritrea really provide a decent comparison? If anything, since there were far fewer Sea Harriers versus F-15s, they actually vastly exceed the F-15 in kills per aircraft deployed (another perfectly valid MOP for evaluating fighter aircraft).[/quote]

But look at how many different aircraft the F-15 has defeated! Mig-21, 23, 25, 29, Mirage F1, Mig 17's, 19's.. The list goes on and on, and includes not only aircraft the F-15 was designed to beat (i.e. Mig-25) but aircraft that were designed to defeat it (Mig-29). The sea harrier? Mirage's and A-4's. One was a supersonic stud yes, but the A-4? Light attack aircraft, should have been easy pickings. And there's never been a conflict where a foreign air force has stood down like the Iraqi's, because the F-15 was that feared.

I still say 104-0 is much more impressive than the sea harrier, and certainly the SU-27's 6-0.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5669
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post22 May 2018, 17:36

usnvo wrote:
Undefeated is undefeated, regardless of the number, so a kill ratio of infinite (104/0) is the same as a kill ratio of infinite (21/0). For instance, the SU-27 has a 6-0 record in air-to-air combat so it also matches the F-15 kill ratio at infinite, but does Ethiopia vs Eritrea really provide a decent comparison? If anything, since there were far fewer Sea Harriers versus F-15s, they actually vastly exceed the F-15 in kills per aircraft deployed (another perfectly valid MOP for evaluating fighter aircraft).


Super hornet 1-0
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4804
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post22 May 2018, 17:45

XanderCrews wrote:
usnvo wrote:
Undefeated is undefeated, regardless of the number, so a kill ratio of infinite (104/0) is the same as a kill ratio of infinite (21/0). For instance, the SU-27 has a 6-0 record in air-to-air combat so it also matches the F-15 kill ratio at infinite, but does Ethiopia vs Eritrea really provide a decent comparison? If anything, since there were far fewer Sea Harriers versus F-15s, they actually vastly exceed the F-15 in kills per aircraft deployed (another perfectly valid MOP for evaluating fighter aircraft).


Super hornet 1-0


Obviously that means the A-10 is twice the air-combat fighter the Super Hornet is. :wink:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

gideonic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 273
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2015, 13:54

Unread post23 May 2018, 10:04

F-35C lacks the range without refueling, when Carriers operate at longer distances in fear of the Anti-ship ballistic missile threat, therefore the aircraft is terrible :roll: Citing POGO and more:

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/navy-s- ... e-1.528359
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1643
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 May 2018, 16:54

The Canadian and Liberal Biased ottawacitizen, more precisely its defence blog "Defence Watch" not only completely omitted the latest F-35 news that the aircraft entered in combat for the first time (with Israel) but today it came up with this "gem" (piece of garbage, actually):

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/ ... ed-instead

The article above has the following title:
Reports say F-35 on the chopping block (LOL, what's a F-35 in the "chopping block"??) in the UK – more Eurofighter Typhoons to be purchased instead


But even worse the article above states:
News media in the United Kingdom are reporting that the government there is considering cutting the number of F-35s it intends to buy so it can save money. The Ministry of Defense in the UK has committed to 48 Lockheed Martin F-35s so far and hopes to buy 138 in total.

My Defense News colleague Andrew Chuter has reported that there is talk instead of buying the less costly Eurofighter Typhoons and that this is being looked at by the government’s defence review, officially known as the Defence Modernisation Programme.

Peter Ruddock, the top Lockheed Martin official in the UK, doesn’t appear to be worried. He says there are other areas in defence where savings can be made. “I am quietly confident that we will see F-35 being delivered in the numbers that we anticipate for some time to come,” Ruddock has noted.


LOL, the "less costly Eurofighter Typhoon"!! In which planet may I ask?? Definitely not on planet Earth! :doh: :doh: :doh:
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: No registered users and 12 guests