Originally Posted by
gums
Where are the factual basis for
Oh, let's not get there. You didn't give any factual basis for anything you said, so let's keep it civil.
Originally Posted by
gums
The helmet is working very well or we would have had numerous crashes when the folks are doing things you have not thought of or can imagine. Have you seen the optical and other sensor systems that dwarf anything previous fighter/attack planes have? You can actually look thru the floor using that : helmet toy".
You can. IF you are short enough and your head is far enough from the canopy to be able to actually move that helmet in that cockpit. One of the pilots complained that he could not use all those wonderful systems because he simply couldn't turn his head.
Originally Posted by
gums
Makes it real easy to land on a small carrier like the Marines do. Awfully nice to "check six", ya think?
I think they did that even when the helmet wasn't operational. As a matter of fact they made NINETEEN vertical landings on USS Wasp AT SEA without that Nintendo gadget.
Originally Posted by
gums
This plane has had a lower crash/loss/whatever in its first few hundred thousands than we have seen since the F-106 in the 60's, and maybe the USAF A-7D in the 70's.
Well, back then the loss of "only" 10% of a passenger plane issue made a good safety record. We now expect a bit more from our planes, don't we? And losing a plane two weeks after the first Japanese squadron was declared operational is a bit 1970-ish, don't ya think?
Originally Posted by
gums
There is a lotta difference between "falling outta the sky" and "hitting the ground when you do not want to".
Really? What exactly is the difference? The result is still a "BOOM!".
Originally Posted by
gums
I flew three planes within one year of when they were adopted by USAF ( although one was not declared "operational" for the military mission for another year). So my opinions of the F-35 safety record is not without a few thousand hours of experience.
In your own words, explain that to the family of the Japanese pilot who has likely lost his life in that plane.
Originally Posted by
gums
If I told you that the F-35 looks like a small bird on basic air traffic control radar or various air defense radar systems. I would not be bragging. It is not completely invisible, but so small that it can be too close for you to react.
If you told me that, I would remind you that it is only true for the USAF planes. For the export ones, it's more like the same as F-16 and maybe a bit larger. And the "Level 1 partners" paid a lot of money for that program BEFORE they knew that. And quite a few air forces around the world have either dropped the plane completely or reduced the orders by A LOT.
Originally Posted by
gums
The jet has a transponder for "peacetime" use when training and to allow civilian ground radar to "see" it.
As far as I know, ALL military planes have those, even the Tu-95. Because civilian ATC don't use primary radars but rather get the information from those transponders.
Originally Posted by
gums
Otherwise, go to the military websites and see what the opposing pilot reports are when encountering the beast.
Would you be so kind as to point me to the right quote? The "opposing pilots" is who? Chinese? Russian? North Korean? I'd love to see what they say about the beast.
Originally Posted by
gums
Oh yeah, go to other sites and see how much of a "dog" the thing is at an airshow. See:
OH, WOW! It banks almost as much as an A340!!! And gains altitude almost as fast! When the afterburner is on. COOL!
And now, this:
Check out the 2:25 mark and WEEP!
If you show that video to F-35, it won't stop running until its only engine stalls.