Bye-bye F-35?

#401
#401
Orangeburst said:
It is rather dependent on funding and what has to be shoehorned into acceptance of roles and budget. From my understanding the EX will replace C's and D's, but the EX is two seater like the E. But the F-35 will replace the F-16 and maybe E's while the EX's replace C's and D's, while having F-35's replace F-22's as well.

LOL..Honestly...the C's are aged and in more need of replacement so the EX's will replace C's and at some point the E's will need a replacement.
Click to expand...

The F-35 did replace an F-15 unit.

33rd FW went with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
#409
#409
Orangeburst said:
This is semantical . As mentioned this is just a training wing..F-35's have not replaced the air superiority operational mission of F-15C.
Click to expand...

They also took an operational wing and turned it into a training squadron because they didn't/couldn't buy enough F-22s.
 
#415
#415
NorthDallas40 said:
Of Lockheed’s money. The DD-250 hadn’t been executed yet it was a test flight.
Click to expand...

Looks like the lift fan stayed engaged when it should of decluchced from the engine..to my novice eye.

NM..another dumb comment by me..It could of been anything
 
Last edited:
#418
#418
Orangeburst said:
Looks like the lift fan stayed engaged when it should of decluchced from the engine..to my novice eye.

NM..another dumb comment by me..It could of been anything
Click to expand...
It really doesn't matter if the dumaflauchy didn't sync with the rotor thingies, this multi Billion-dollar mistake is a flaming example of the waste of money the Pentagon spends every year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#419
#419
VolStrom said:
It really doesn't matter if the dumaflauchy didn't sync with the rotor thingies, this multi Billion-dollar mistake is a flaming example of the waste of money the Pentagon spends every year.
Click to expand...

When you get right down to it, why do the Marines need vertical takeoff fighters anyway? Are we going to build vertical takeoff and landing cargo planes like the C-17 to deliver the goods to keep them flying from places that don't have real runways? It's not just that military hardware is expensive; it's the what in the hell were they thinking that's astounding. As you pointed out elsewhere, industry has to make a profit; the military isn't going to make a profit, but there certainly needs to be some adult guidance when it comes to planning hardware.
 
#423
#423
AM64 said:
Another why kind of thing. Those are going to be like sitting ducks.
Click to expand...



Normally escorted by a minimum of 2 DDG's and a cruiser. Also loaded with a couple of Marines and their ship to shore transport. The -35 replaces the Harrier which also gives them air to air capability. Far from sitting ducks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#424
#424
newokie03 said:
Normally escorted by a minimum of 2 DDG's and a cruiser. Also loaded with a couple of Marines and their ship to shore transport. The -35 replaces the Harrier which also gives them air to air capability. Far from sitting ducks.
Click to expand...

Well see when they face a country with a real air force or naval support. Might work for another Grenada, but China is the threat, and they will be fodder - the hunted rather than the hunter.
 
#425
#425
AM64 said:
Well see when they face a country with a real air force or naval support. Might work for another Grenada, but China is the threat, and they will be fodder - the hunted rather than the hunter.
Click to expand...


 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top