garrya

When i re-read it, I thought i got it totally totally wrong at first aka CL max is the same even when wing fold back fully (i thought that due to higher AoA with fold back wing, to make sure i don't get it wrong again, i go ask people with the new charts and information i acquired ) , turn out what i said originally wasn't total false, and the CLmax did reduce and ITR did suffer, hence the need to edit it again, on the otherhand you was right about the flap. Since the explanation and calculations to come to that are complex and you don't like me posting the quote, it is also off topic according to basher, i decided to just give the link.

Actually i just re read the thread and realized that i did get it a bit wrong here https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2638123&postcount=159 apologize. Anyway, since some of you don't like me took posts across forums since it unfair, the rest of discussion can be found here: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=28783&p=374296#p374296

Did i say i know at exactly what point the wing sweep back? No i didn't. I only suggest that F-14 will not generate as much lift at similar AoA when its wing go back at high speed so it is hard to estimate. He said the wing start to go back at Mach 0.45 which isn't wrong but he could easily post the manual pages where it's swept angle start to be significant at Mach 0.7 onwards which fit my point. Not just a frame of reference, if he only said garry did that before and linked the thread then that is one thing but he did post various rude comments about me after that, even though i restraint from replying at first And i admitted that i asked for their input because my knowledge alone has limit. At no point i pretend like the expert comments was mine, i even go as far as screenshot the whole thing. What wrong about that?. Just like people searching for answers on Google. If i have a collection of knowledgeable people why not ask them as well? I did talk about LERX ability to generate vortex and explained that from what i know the wing gloves wasn't called lerx because it wasn't sharp and hence not very effective in vortex generation like normal LEXR like on F-16, F-18 with their specific characteristics. Iam not saying that i do not get several things wrong in that thread such as add up DI and Ps curve but to say that i always wrong is not true . To say that i don't change based on new evidences is also isn't true

I would have pages ago if wasn't for various personal attacks towards me.So i thought i should represent my side as well. But fine, it is very OT so i stop.

You said i was proven wrong at every turn but not take in new information???. When i was wrong about drag index. I thought you was wrong but once i realized you was right I accepted it. But when expert disagree with you about looking at a body and estimate its body lift, at no point you even consider the possibility that you are wrong and more data are needed for conclusion When we talk about F-14 ITR you said it would be better than all others aircraft at all speed based on the lift chart. I told you that it is hard to know because the line higher than 7G was not draw due to the G limit and if we let F-14 excess its recommended G limit for ITR then we should also let F-18, F-15, F-35 excess the recommended G limit. Same standard should apply to all of them. How is that not reasonable?. You said that it will be better because F-14 ITR below Mach 0.7 is much better. Once again, i suggest that it is still hard to know because F-14 with its wing sweep back will not generate as much lift.You brush over it and told me F-14 wing start to sweep back at Mach 0.45. But you chose to omit the very important part about how much it sweep back, clearly, the rate of back sweep vs speed is much higher after Mach 0.7 (show in the steep of the lines). So my argument wasn't invalid and worth discussing instead of throwing insult at me like you did Another argument you told to support that point was I don't have the charts for F-14 so i have no idea There isn't 35k ft graph in F-16 block 50 HAF manual either but at 30k ft, and Mach 1, the max instantaneous load factor of F-16 with DI50 is 7.1 G (there are 6 squares between 7G and 8G, the Mach1 line up with second square) at 40k ft and Mach 1, the max instantaneous load factor of F-16 with DI50 is around 4.4 G. (there are 10 squares between 4G and 5G, the Mach 1 line up after 4 squares) 35k ft is between 40k ft and 30k ft so it is safe to assume F-16 max instantaneous load factors at 35k ft, Mach 1 would be the middle value or (4.4+7.1)/2 = 5.75G. Since they are very close, i can accept that you only do a rough estimate before you commented. But that not the point, the point is many times your arguments only based on it looks like this and that without providing actual numbers. No problem but you can't force me to take that as fact. At the most you can say that it is an educated guess. Or when we discussing, i always put everything on the table, from where i got the quote from, to the manual pages. But you have very sneaky way of arguing when you choose to hide a part of the data. Last but not least, you said i shouldn't open threads in another forums to double check because it is not polite, but don't you think it is also impolite to bring back an old thread then make rude comments toward me?

I search le bourget and found this photo looks so much better, smooth vortex and sleek looking body

F-35 looks like a fat pig in that photo haha. Did the photo get resize weirdly or it looks like that?

SURVIVABILITY IN THE DIGITAL AGE STEALTH: The Imperative for Stealth http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a2dd91_cd5494417b644d1fa7d7aacb9295324d.pdf

Cool F-35 photo

Hummingbird, i didn't reply to your earlier comment in https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3223873&postcount=193 because i dont want another pointless hundreds pages of personal attacks. But now you say all the experts opinion piling up against me but i didn't change, i think i deserved a chance to explain myself. This is the discussion in F-16.net http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=28783 my initial question: I made it very clear how i interpret the manual data and that iam not 100% sure so i want others inputs. Exactly like what i have been saying all along. The replies are as following: Or do you remember when we spent hundreds of pages discussing what fuselage is better for body lift? You said flat body with separate nacelles is better, i said it is debateable and i need data to confirm that. Nevertheless i did research on it to make sure that my point was accurate. http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=15069&start=15 From what i understand, they do agree with my points. If experts agree with me and there is no charts or simulation contradict it then why should i change my view? And no, it isn't a trick i used against you. It is simply facts check. In the age of internet, i can cross check everything. So why let that opportunity go to waste?. If your assessment is accurate then it would be accurate regardless of how many experts or sources i double check with. If it is incorrect then it would be incorrect regardless.

I said it already, i do not care if neo (or anyone here) is real or not. I care whether F-35 has pitch bulking problem or not. So it is either i base that on my and neofightr opinion and knowledge alone which could be bias and wrong or i ask for extra input from many others to improve the accuracy of my final assessment . Many brains > 1-2 brains alone. The same thing for Sprey vs F-35 pilot comments. I checked the accuracy of both sides by many sources before i form my opinion. I see no problem with that. Simply healthy skepticism towards everyone including myself. Like i said, i give everyone benefit of the doubt but i also analyze and double check everyone's comments regardless of who they are. If more aspects, calculations, insights and theories are presented then it will only improve the accuracy of the final conclusion. That the whole point of internet discussion, you learn much quicker and has much wider range of information than you do alone because when you discussing the process of gathering information have been done for you by many people. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, you always get something news out of it. And seriously, why does it even matter to be wrong on internet? no one knows who you are. No one knows what you do. In 2 days nobody give 2 ****. Why would you be angry or embarrassed?. I would much rather make mistakes on internet than in real life. Worst case scenario, if it bother you that much, make a new account.5 seconds. Bamm. New start

I already told you many times, your occupation doesn't matter to me because this is a topic with various different views point between professionals.So I only care and want to learn about the technical aspects and that it. Iam not interested in discredit you or find out who you are because if an argument is correct, it would be correct regardless of who say it. I post the reply in public because F-16.net is an aviation forum with many care about how the F-35 perform, the part where 35AoA said you are fake is not important to me and many others there. Many only care about the second part about T-45 and pickbulk. That it. Same for the discussion, it is because iam interested in the f-35 and want to share what i gathered as well as learning more. Not because i want to embarrass or insult someone who i don't even know the face. If my goal was to insult or embarrass you in public i would have post the whole topic with many insult here or join in the attack over there. But i didn't because that was not what i want to get out of this discussion. There is no point continuing talking if the only thing we do is insult each others.

Thank you, finally someone who put himself in my shoe. I having enough with these personal attack even though i did **** all

What the ****? Can't you read what i wrote in the quotes message? My exact words are as following: If you can point out to me what word in there giving the assumption that you are fake with others here agree then i will apologize!!! I even go as far as saying that if your statement was correct it would be correct regardless of who you are. What else do you want me to say to them?. I didn't share that to attack you, i share the message to show others in forum that F-35 doesn't have pitch problems. Why? Because it is an aviation forum, where people discussing AIRCRAFT and their characteristics. As i said many times before, aviation field is my interest, physics is my interest. Radar is my interest. NOT YOUR OCCUPATION. I couldn't give 2**** about attacking someone on the internet

Your exact words were all documents have read attacking Sprey only done that on political bias and you repeatedly said that we are uninformed every single time we questioning Sprey and his comments. You repeatedly attack us for not having background in the industry even though i have said many time that we also form our opinions based on what others people in the industries have said. You said that you are a pilot. Fine i ok with that. Not once, i demanded you to show evidence for that. Every time, me or anyone present arguments opposed you, you brush over it saying we don't know anything because we are not in the industry. Fine i accept that so i only post comments from others that have experienced and widely known fact. You repeatedly trying to assert total authority and personal attack toward me. Yet i calmly explained exactly why I can't just take your words for it but rather need a detail explanations. You are free to express your personal opinions, feeling, even insults sometime on this board but iam not even allowed to support my point with data? . You are free to point out where iam wrong or that i lack in experience in public but if i cite others professionals and slides to defend my view in public then that suddenly too disrespectful?. What kind of discussion is that?. If iam defending my view equal me not being respectful then what does that say about your respect of you toward anyone else?. I actually said that the program has delay and multirole have compromises. But that not the point, this board is not included of only me and you, others members on this board already talk about F-35 bugs and delays, why would i waste my time repeat it when it was not even the topic i was trying to argue against you?. The bottom line is: if we can criticize LM, if we can criticize many countries decision in buying the F-35 then we can also criticize Sprey and you. We are not in a church, so no one's opinion is immune from criticism, your is no different. . And for all we know, you could be just a fanboy or alternatively you could be working for Boeing reps. That argument can go both ways. But that not my point, the point is: even though we have those documents from the people who have the most access to F-35 classified data, we don't just take their words as fact. We analyzed the jet anyway. So your comments, whoever you are still subject to questioning and criticism. That depends, i don't know, i don't have the number here yet. But that the point. We don't just take the comments from professional as absolute fact, we examine them carefully before we draw any conclusion.That the whole point of this thread And neither you or Sprey flew the F-35 or against it so that argument is moot. Moreover, I will also remind you that there are also many others professionals with opposing opinions with you, so arguments from authority do not in itself enough for this case. You cannot expect people to just take your words for it if you can't represent your case. You need to accept that.

Iam not trying to dismiss your insight. I merely present what make my view opposite from you such as calculations, others pilots opinion..etc. As i said earlier, the expert opinion argument will be able to stand for itself only if there isn't any other expert of similar or higher skills and experience oppose your view point. In other words, if all experts agree on one thing then the average Joe will happily accept it, even if he don't understand why. On the other hand, for an issue that has conflicting opinions between experts such as about the F-35, then obviously argument from authority is not enough anymore, you have to actually represent your case, an average person will trust the expert who can present a more reasonable, logical explanation or preferably some number and calculation to prove his point. This doesn't mean iam attacking you as a person but rather critical thinking and skepticism. .Furthermore, talking about experience argument, Current pilots flying the F-35 will have more experience about it than anyone here. LM engineers and the countries purchase F-35 will obviously have access to more of its classified data than anyone on this board. Wouldn't you agree?. We have these kind of charts from LM: a) Early b) Late We have these charts from Denmark recent official internal evaluation a) Mission effectiveness b) Mission survivability Without any doubt those are information said by people with the most experience about F-35, having the most access to its classified data. But still, we don't just take their words for it. We are still here discussing F-35 design, discussing whether it would make a good fighter or not. If we take all professional comments as absolute truth then this thread will not even exist in the first place. If we can criticize a product made by a cooperation with thousands of engineers and scientists. If we can criticize the buying decision of dozens of countries with hundreds to thousands technical consultants then why would it be so bad when i discuss with you about the F-35? Why would it be so bad to point out the wrong part in Sprey's assessment? What so terrible about it? I strongly disagree with this, LM doesn't get a pass, if they do we would not be here discussing issue of the F-35. Same for Sprey part, every one of his comments that i disagree with, i have presented very clear case of why with source, calculation and manual data, my criticism has nothing to do with who he is as a person but rather the technical accuracy of his statements. I find it really unfair when you call all people who dare to question Sprey based that only on political view. I know at least myself do not, and there are many others who doubt his credibility simply based on technical aspect of it Fine, i admitted that i have the tendency to post many charts and numbers. But again, what so bad about it?. I only try to support my case. I already told everyone here that iam not a pilot, if iam not a pilot, without first-hand experience then the only other way i can support my argument is through official sources, calculation, equations, theories, and numbers. I see no problem with that. If no one try to support their case by sources or numbers then the forum will just become a contest of who can shout their opinions louder, or who can thow a better insult which in my opinions will not benefit anyone. Finally, it is not just against you that i posted a huge amount of slides and charts, i used to discuss with humming bird a lot about F-14, F-16, we both posts many of charts and slide ..etc. You shouldn't take it personal because it is not something i do only to you He basically trying to say that: 1- Pitch bucking is the phenomenon of aircraft at CLmax when they uncommanded going in and out of stall 2- Some moment in video the aircraft nose drop slightly but at very low AoA hence it is not pitch bucking but rather pilot trying to be more precise in his flight path control due to confined space following an exacting regimen 3- To know that F-35 has pitch bucking we would have to know absolutely that the pilot is holding steady aft stick and the nose oscillates out of his control. We simply don't have this information. Those are his points No offense but as far as i know from others pilots: F-15, F-16, and F-22 demos all list specific entry, execution, and exit criteria for slicked off light fuel load aircraft, i don't think all of them are unrefined products but rather that those requirements are for safety and confined space. Actually i didn't represent you as fake at all, you can read all my post in the link Tiak provided http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53341&start=15 I only ask a question, it is not within my power to control the skepticism of others. To start with, like i said before, You have to put yourself in the shoe of forum readers, we are on the internet, anyone can claim to be anyone, it is very hard to know for certain if a person is who they claimed to be, so it is perfectly normal for others to have doubt about your occupation. It is healthy skepticism. You shouldn't feel offended with that. It is actually horrible if everyone took everything said on the internet as truth. For example: if i started this discussion by claiming (pretending) that i flew the F-16 and now moved to F-35 and every time you present your arguments, i just brush over it by say :" you don't know anything, you only flew the F-18...etc bla bla" . Then everyone siding with me. How would that make you feel?. What kind of trend would that create? Furthermore, it is not my intention to try to prove you as fake or anything even remotely similar. As i have stated in the start of this thread and also in F-16.net. If you excuse me i will quote my exact words: #98 http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53341&start=15 So as you can see, it is not important for me whether you are an F-18 pilot or not, iam interested in aviation, so i want to discuss from the technical angle with numbers and evidences. I want to know what give you your view point, is that a legitimate problem or not. That what iam interested in. Others aspect like occupations are just like bonus, but not the main factor for me to decide whether to trust a person or not. People can be bias but numbers, physics, maths do not lie. They stay the same, these are what i want to get out of this discussion.

Iam not trying to dismiss your insight, I know there are more to it than academic knowledge But i merely want to argue because it is actually rare for me to have a chance to talk to pilot that have similar opinion with Sprey. Hence, iam interest to know why do you have different view point from others pilots or engineers i have the chance to talk to. It is always good to hear reasoning Iam not trying to gloss over the fact that more complex project are more prone to bugs and delays. But i wanted to argue that various problems with F-35 are blown ways out of proportion by Sprey and general media alike. For example, everyone acts like F-35 is a stealth C-130 that as soon as BVR missiles, stealth, HOBS missiles, and DAS stop working, it will be whipped by even Mig-21. But we know from KPP analyze, flight manual, airshows, and pilots testimony that F-35 nearly match F-16 STR, with very good subsonic acceleration (better than Su-35), and better post stall agility than F-18E. Fine, it isn't as agile and fancy as an F-22 but it is not that terrible. I would also want to argue that having separate aircraft for each purpose is not necessarily much cheaper while will cause various problems For example: Let say instead of an F-35B, you make a pure fighter, a pure CAS aircraft and a pure STOVL aircraft. A pure fighter such as original F-15C cost 30 million USD in 1998, adjusted for inflation, it would cost around 45 millions USD today, and as we know, this F-15 doesn't have AESA radar, digital RWR, internal jammer, an IRST or stealth. The cost of these added things could easily be 10-20 millions USD.This is a very conservative estimate because the cost to keep current F-15 fleet fly beyond 2020 could easily be 30-40 millions per aircraft. http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/center-fuselage-rebuild-could-be-f-15cd-achilles-heel So we ended up with a fighter that cost 55-65 millions USD at the very minimum. Much more likely that it will cost 80-100 millions USD https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=13&year1=199401&year2=201707 A pure STOVL aircraft such as AV-8B cost 30 millions in 1996, adjusted for inflation, it would cost around 38-47.5 million USD today. https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=13&year1=199401&year2=201707 A pure CAS aircraft such as A-10 cost around 26.6 millions in today dollars http://controversialtimes.com/politics/brrrrrrt-amazing-facts-about-americas-favorite-plane-the-a-10-warthog-videos/ Instead of buying an F-35B which cost 122.8 millions USD according to LRIP 10, not full production yet. You have the cost of modern (F-15C + A-10 + AV-8B) combined which is around 121.6 - 174 millions USD. This is still conservative estimate because obviously a modern version of any of these aircraft can easily cost a great deal more if they want to make them very good. For example: F-22, a pure fighter that cost even more than the multi role F-35 Furthermore, 3 separate aircraft instead of one will require 3 different production line/chain. They will need different replaceable parts and pilots for different aircraft will need to be trained differently as well. Then there is the economy of scale, this apply for any business not only in the military field. Higher unit of product will drive the cost down due to the spread of fixed cost. One of the main problem with single role fighter is that it would be very hard to find buyers for them. Not many governments willing to spend loads of money on aircraft that can only do a single role. Even if they do, they won't purchase them in high quantity For example Mig-25/Mig-31 are superb interceptors, they are fast, have long range missiles and big radars. How many countries bought them and at what quantity compared to Su-27/30/35 series? F-15C is an awesome fighter agile,big radar, can carry load of missiles , it is also much cheaper than F-15E and its variations. However, F-15C has half the amount of customers that F-15E does. A-10 is a good CAS aircraft, however it is bought exclusively by USA, all others countries are happy with multi-role aircraft doing CAS. Moreover, cost problem aside, there are the logistic problem with single role aircraft. For the sake of simplification: let imagine an aircraft carrier that can always carry 90 aircraft irrelevant of their size. If you have 3 different kinds of aircraft such as a dedicated bomber, a dedicated CAS, a dedicated fighter. Then technically, you can have 30 of each kind. On the otherhand, if you have multirole aircraft then you can have 90 fighters/bombers/CAS at the same time. Let say if the mission is to achieve air superiority then the side with multirole fighter can put up many more fighters on the air. If the mission is to attack structures then they can also put up many more bombers on the air ..etc. It is fair to say that a single role aircraft can do that specific job better since it requires less trade off. But 3 times better? I highly doubt that. I tried to find a part where they did similar maneuver for ease of comparison but you are right, i didn't pay much attention to pitch of the F-35 in video, anyway since i only know the theory and manual data, but lack first-hand experience, i took your comment and the video to an aerodynamic engineer, and a F-16 pilot, here are their comments: (On their behalf, i apologize before hand for their harsh language) From the aero engineer From F-16 pilot But the question is why? why would we need/want a new interceptor or a modern version of F-14?. F-14 was designed as a fleet interceptor: has long range missiles, good radar, can fly very fast but it wasn't a good dogfighter as F-16. It is also a very complex, maintenance heavy aircraft with all these electrics and swing wing. In other words, it has the exact same problems as the F-35, that Sprey and you just criticized. Namely, not focused in close combat, heavy maintenance, way too complex and likely to be very expensive Moreover, as far as i know the need for F-14 style interceptor is no longer there. It was intended to shotdown bombers before they attack the carrier.But nowadays Aegis defense offers much better reaction time.Furthermore modern AsHm out range air to air missiles by a great margin anyway. Kh-22 can fly for 600 km, 3M-54 Klub can fly for 600-1000 km, I mean even the JSM that fit inside F-35 has 550 km range, while missiles like LRASM will have 1000 km range. Bombers and strikers can launch missiles toward aircraft carrier group and fly aways before interceptors can stop them

AFAIK, Eurofighter have a massive delay trying to integrate modern equipment such as the AESA and digital receiver as well as some AH weapons promised at the start. It also have a fair share of issues with cost overrun https://m.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/ F-14 had the same engine fan rubbing problem as F-35 F-16 had problems with its vertical tail and FBW early in the program B-2 is massively expensive and a hangar queen https://mobile.nytimes.com/1997/08/23/world/the-2-billion-stealth-bomber-can-t-go-out-in-the-rain.html https://medium.com/war-is-boring/america-has-20-stealth-bombers-guess-how-many-can-fly-right-now-9f0575cd52ff F-22 had massive delay, is a hangar queen and very expensive also The Russian PAK-FA is not immune from delay either, it also recently have the engine fan rubbing problem and results in the burn of one aircraft

It started with you posted the video #53 saying it gives an idea of a realistic picture. Then i said that i don't think you were serious because the video have too many bias points and i pointed them out in post #57. Then in #60, you said that we don't know the real picture because everything are classified, so my guess is only as good as the video. In post #82 i disagreed with you on the ground that while real performance of the military system are classified, the video did get so many simple facts wrong, and i also listed them. In #92 you separate out a very small part from my earlier comment about jamming and said that iam entitled to my opinion but thousands of hours of working the Hornet radar and your advanced master's course in radar theory and operation tell you that you know what you talking about. The wording and the fact that you mentioned your radar theory course clearly shows that you disagreed with that specific statement. So either your opinion is that lower RCS doesn't affect jamming or that it makes jamming harder. Both option surprise me In #97, i explained that while iam not a naval student, i do read alot of book and studies about radar and also fortunate enough to talk to several F-16 pilots and a SAM operator about jamming and RCS, i even quoted them and state where i got my statement from. I didn't try to attack you or to prove that i know better than you, but rather politely ask you to point out where iam wrong in my statement and educate me on why because iam very surprised when you seem to disagree with that specific comments. Since radar is what im interested in, i quite eager to learn where am wrong. In #100 you said that my 2 and 3 hand knowledge is not enough to disqualify your statement. Thus, in post #102 , i explained that i didn't try to disqualify your statement but rather your statement in #92 go against all theories i ever learned, all equations, as well as statements of various people with first-hand knowledge that i talked to. Thus, i wanted an explanation as to why do you think my statement is wrong. Then i made an analogy explained my point of view and why do i want an explanation rather than just statement. In #104, you said my analogy is off and made an analogy about F-35 development and Sprey, which iam pretty sure not the focus of my posts even since the start. I rarely even mentioned him. And now that you said that you didn't disagree with my statement, make me very confused. P/s: I linked all post to these numbers so you can just click on them to recap it. May be it is just my feeling but you did seem very aggressive when anyone criticizes Sprey opinion Actually, i never implied that aircraft kinematic performance are some hidden knowledge. In fact, flight manual data of Mig-21, Mig-29, Su-27, Mig-23, F-4, Mig-25, Mirage 2000, F-16A/B, F-16C/D, F-15A, F-15C, F-15E, F-14A, F-14D , F-18A/B/C, F-18E/F are all available to download even for an average Joe. So anyone wants to compare the turn rate of these aircraft or to know what are the combat radius in a certain condition, what are the acceleration rate.. etc. He/she can open the manual and check for charts, diagram. Pilot can remember wrong or being bias but test data doesn't lie Just in case you think iam lying, iam not, it is very easy to have access to supposedly restricted information in this day and age. You have to put yourself in the shoe of forum readers. To begin with, we are on the internet, anyone can claim to be anyone, it is very hard to know for certain if a person is who they claimed to be, so people on here will be more likely to challenge your opinions than in real life. You shouldn't feel offended with that. Furthermore, even in real life, let say people know for sure that you are a pilot and what not, the "informed expert opinion" argument will be able to stand for itself only if there isn't any other expert of similar or higher skills and experience oppose your view point. In other words, if all experts agree on one thing then the average Joe will happily accept it, even if he don't understand why. For example: all scientists agree that nothing can go faster than light, an average person will accept it even if he don't understand the physics. Because, in his mind, all these scientists spend billions of dollars studies and researching every year, if they all agree then it couldn't be wrong. On the other hand, for an issue that has conflicting opinions between experts (such as the one we discussing now), then obviously appeal to authority is simply not enough anymore, you have to actually represent your case, an average person will trust the expert who can present a more reasonable, logical explanation or preferably some number and calculation to prove his point. So now you understand why i want you to explain your case instead of talking about your occupation? It is not to prove that iam better than you, but rather the fact that these are many other experts that have different opinions from you so obviously i would want you to giving some evidence to support your point. Anyway, iam not spitting these numbers or references as a way to show off. I quoted them as a mean to support my point. I mean how else do i support my point if not through numbers and source?. I already stated at the start that iam not a pilot so i can't just say a statement and leave it there, expect people to take my words .Basically, Sprey said that F-35 will be defeated by Mig-21 easily in a dogfight while F-35 test pilots said that in a dogfight he can fight F-15 and F-16 on equal footing. Who should i believe ?. On one hand, the F-35 pilots are the one who actually fly and have the experience with the aircraft. On the other hand, they could be biased toward their own aircraft. So what do i do?. i asked 2 different aero engineers to make an analysis based on F-16 flight manual data and F-35 KPP. They both explained their analysis in great detail, step by step. Their results doesn't support Sprey statement. People can be bias but number don't lie.Physics and Maths doesn't change just because you feel like it. So either that Sprey does not know that F-35 kinematics in dogfight is far better than Mig-21(less likely) or he made the statement just because it is catchy and he feel like it. Both options will damage his credibility and make him an unreliable source for me to get information from Sprey wanted the F-16 to be a day only fighter without radar, but it became something different. Nevertheless, F-16 take on the strike aircraft role in many air forces and it does the job well enough (as in still the most popular multi role aircraft, more popular than Mirage or F-18 or Mig-29). Anyway, F-35 was designed to replace F-16, AV-8B ,A-10 and F-18C so comparing it with B-52 or B-2 in bomber role is TBH rather ridiculous, F-35 is not in the same class and was never ever meant to replace either B-52 or B-2. If you complain that F-35 don't have the range or the bomb load of B-2 , B-52 then you may as well complain that it doesn't shot laser as far as YAL-1, fly as fast as Mig-31 or has radar as big as an E-3. Furthermore, i don't understand why you would consider F-18 to be an adequate marine bomber while F-35 isn't. If the situation requires stealth, F-35 can carry 8 SDB or 2 JDAM/ JSM internally. If situation requires stealth then F-18A/C cannot even operate. 8 bombs > 0 bombs If stealth isn't needed (their SAM aren't that good, or your support jamming are very good ..etc) then F-35 can carry more bombs than F-18A/C ( more pylons) while having bigger radar and can fly longer distance, so why wouldn't it be adequate? But nothing beat an early block F-16 block 30 sustained turn rate at sea level yet, not even Rafale, Typhoon or Gripen according to their airshow performance. There was also a Eurofighter pilot who said F-16 is very evenly match with Typhoon below 10k feet, so why is it so bad just matching F-16 performance? I actually just did. For post stall maneuver, logically aircraft with TVC will be better so i will only compare conventional maneuver. In video below, PAK-FA started a vertical loop at 8:45 and finished it at 8:52, the loop took 7 seconds to finish In video below, F-35 started a vertical loop at 3:27 and finished it at 3:34, the loop took 7 seconds to finish In the video below, F-35 started a vertical loop at 1:54 and finished at 2, the loop took around 6 second to finish https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S85cyE-BIJQ&feature=youtu.be They are approximately the same, so i don't think F-35 agility is really that terrible. I did, F-35 does suffer from delays and bugs, but so does all modern aircraft such as Rafale, Eurofighter, PAK-FA ,hardly a special case. Now, you will say that Sprey is spot on again and we should only have very simple fighters no more of those EW, DAS.. etc, just refined of the basics. So i want to argue that while more modern and complex systems will always take longer to develop, they will provide better capabilities. For example: let consider a knife versus a gun.A gun can attack from distance but it requires much higher technology. A knife is much cheaper, work in all environments, a knife won't overheat , you can run out of bullet but you can't run out of stab, a knife is much more quiet, knife attack are much more unlikely to friendly fire.. etc. Based on all those points it would sound like a knife is a better thing to equip our marine. But we all know it is better to be armed with a gun in the battlefield. i don't think this is a reasonable argument. If only people here disagree with you then it is one thing. But there are various informed people who support the F-35 , not just the pilots testing it but many old fighters pilots veterans. It is not just the internet crowd that doesn't like the Sprey Moreover there are dozens of countries that purchase F-35 instead of Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, F-16, F-18E or F-15. I don't believe that none of those countries have their own consultants, engineers to assess F-35 real capabilities. And with all due respect if your only argument is that you are a pilot and therefore you know better than us, then there is no need to reply, because there are others pilots, engineer who have opinions literally opposite of you. They also have their own share of education and first hand experience so their opinions worth just as much as your. Why should we trust you more if others experts elaborate their point in details and evidence and you don't?

Yes, but when a person being wrong many time, he will start to lose his credibility regardless of who he is For example, take this video ${1} "1:10- The F-15 Is Loaded Up With A Bunch Of Junk... A Bunch Of Electronic Stuff That Has No Relevance To Combat" => We all know how successful the F-15 is as a fighter "3:10- 'The Marines Have This Mindless Passion Now, Recently, For Vertical Takeoff Airplanes" => USMC introduced the AV-8A Harrier since 1971 and it has been a mainstay of their air arm ever since. It wouldn't call a period of over 40 years recently "3:55- 'The Airplane Is Astonishingly Unmaneuverable... In Dog-fighting It's Hopeless. You Can Guarantee That A 1950's design MiG-21 Or French Mirage Would Hopelessly Whip The F-35" => According to pilots recent testimony from several exercises F-35 can be in equal footing against F-16, F-15 thanks to its high nose pointing capability and superb subsonic acceleration ( even better than F-16). But you will think those pilots are bought by contractors, so instead i will copy an analysis made by an aero engineer based on what we known about the KPP (at the time KPP sustained G threshold was reduced from 5.3G to 4.6G at Mach 0.8, 15K feet.). Later F-35A 240-3 achieved 4.95G at Mach 0.8, 15k feet. People can be bias but numbers are fair. "5:30- 'It's A Terrible Bomber... You can put two bombs inside this thing, which is a ridiculous payload" => F-16 with enough fuel to reach similar combat radius as F-35, targeting pod to designate targets like EOTS and big bombs will look like this: he also ignored small bombs like SDB I/II, Spice250 that allows F-35 carry 8 bombs internally 6:05- "Stealth Is A Scam, It Simply Doesn't Work" => Stealth was used in the last 25 years of air combat activities including Desert Storm, Allied Force, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Neptune Spear and Operation Odyssey Dawn. In its histories of thousand sorties, F-117 was only shot down once, hardly a proof that stealth doesn't work. There are low frequency since forever, they still have their disadvantages such as lower accuracy, less mobile..etc. There are new advance RAM that has much wider bandwidth as well. Before you say that i don't know it because i don't have first hand experiences or classified information. Fine but how about these thousands, even millions engineers, scientists working on these new stealth programs. Do none of them have access to classified information as much as Sprey?. In other words, if stealth truly a scam then how come China, Russia, Japan, Korea, India, USA all pursuing it? They all have their own stealth fighters programs, how come? Fair enough, that is your choice and you are entitled to it. On the other hand, why is it wrong for people on this board to take David Berke and various others pilots, expert best guess over Sprey? .I think there is a miscommunication here. I didn't make an analogy about Sprey and F-35 development, i was making an analogy about why i wanted you to explain your point about how " jamming doesn't benefit from low RCS" , hence the reason i mentioned J/S ratio and what not

With all due respect. If it is only my statements vs your statement then fair enough, i will pretty much believe that your statements as correct. However, in this case. It is your statements Vs statements of a SAM operators + F-16 pilots statements + J/S ratio equation+ pretty much all books about jamming and RCS that i have seen. The SAM operator obviously have his first-hand experience as well, so are those F-16 pilots. So why should i take your words over their words and all theories I ever read if you dont even care to explain why your point is correct and others aren't. (.Just to clarify your point is that lower RCS doesn't benefit jamming, correct?). Shouldn't you at least elaborate it given that extraordinary claims should have extraordinary evidence? For example: let talk about something we generally accepted as truth, such as a car with engine can go faster than a bicycle, all car drivers and bike rider you ever talked to all accepted that . It also makes sense for you logically. One day, you meet a person claimed to be expert in bike riding, he told you " actually, a bike can go faster " .Do you immediately accept that or will you remain skeptical and demand some explanation?. Or do you suggest that i just take your words for it and don't question because professional people can't be wrong? Where is the skepticism, where are the critical thinking you mentioned earlier. What if opinions of one professional contradict with another? Sprey is someone you would consider to be a professional, correct? Yet he is wrong many times before. Engineers working on F-35 are without a doubt very professional,yet we are discussing the practical of their design here So why should your opinion be the exception to criticism? But how does your first-hand knowledge benefit the discussion in any way if it is not actually shared?. All you said is about how you was in the Naval school and flew the F-18, but not really the information to back up your points Most of them are quite old and retired, while you can argue that they are secretly bought by some big companies, how would we know if you yourself aren't bought by the opposition company? See my point?. Those kind of arguments can go both ways

I would assume that Basher didn't design or fly aircraft, however, i had the opportunities to talk with many informed people who still have very negative opinions about Sprey. And i don't mean young pilots flying the F-35 just now but rather old people who of similar generation with Sprey. For example: Lt. Col. Pat "Gums" McAdoo (F-102, F-101B, A-37, A-7, F-16 pilot) John William (retired structure engineer worked on YF-16 ,F-16A and F-16XL) SMSgt Mac (a retired Air Force Senior NCO, maintained and tested airborne precision guided weapons such as AIMVAL/ACEVAL, TASVAL79, AIM-9L FOT&E the first half of his Air Force career and flight tested RPVs, Drones and Cruise Missiles such as XBQM-106A, Pave Tiger/Panther, CALCM, ACM and others for the second half). There are also some others pilots and aero engineer who also don't like Sprey such as 35_aoa, Spurts, Snake handler, Andraxxus ..etc but i only know their account name. Nevertheless, i don't care that much about pilots or aero engineers generic statement. What important are actual numbers. If someone said something and then able to prove it by equation and calculation or some test data (such as flight manual) then i will believe him regardless of how old he is or what is his occupation. On the other hand, if a famous guy said something, but then the maths or the test data contradict him then i would take these test data over his words any day in the week and twice on sunday

Iam not an F-18 pilot so without any doubt your assessment of you about F-18 would be ways more accurate than mine. With that being said, since we live in the digital age, almost everything are available on the internet, thus, while iam not a naval academy undergraduate student, I still have access to many of their books and lecture slides. I also have seen optical simulated radar scattering charts of many aircraft (obviously nowhere as good as an anechoic chamber but it gives a general idea). Thus, i believe that understand the basics of radar well enough( atleast the general physics and the formula). Just in case you think iam lying, iamnot: Moreover, iam fortunate enough to have the opportunities to chat with an ex SAM operator and several F-16 pilots on usual basis. We discussed the benefit of low RCS for jamming many times, but never once they stated that i was wrong when i commented: " low RCS will make jamming more effective".In fact, the SAM operator even said this: And as far as i understand it, jamming efficiency and burn through distance both determined by jamming to signal ratio, lower RCS will result in lower power in the signal part. Hence, easier jamming and shorter burn through distance. Seem very logical to me. There is also an equation to calculate how these will be varied with each other. While the exact performance of radars system are classified, their general physics aren't. So if you find that iam wrong in what i said, please do state where and educate me on why. With all due respect, just stating your occupation doesn't really benefit the discussion in any way. For example: if there is another pilot coming here and have completely opposite opinion with you. Whose words should we take if neither explains their point?

I agree, credibility is hard to earn but easy to lose That interesting, i didn't know he bash the A-10 as well

the third missile is also internal so stealth characteristics will not be affected :huh: Sprey didn't help design the F-15, in fact he said that F-15 is too heavy, too expensive and loaded with too much junk.. etc