+15 16 1
Published 8 years ago by AdelleChattre with 2 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • kabamman
    +2

    This article is so aggravatingly wrong, David Axe is a 'military' correspondent with absolutely no background in that area. He doesn't know what he's talking about has even fabricated stories about the F-35 in the past.

    1. It lost to the F-16 because it's on a profile not allowing it to turn as it can or accelerate as much as it can.

    2. It's not built to dogfight the F-16 was designed to be incredibly nimble and cheap and go and help the F-15 which was neither. The f-35 was built as a companion to the F-22 which is the best dogfighter there is. The F-35s primary roles are CAS reconnaissance and pretty much everything that isn't dogfighting. It's built to be able to stay on target a long time and to carry a lot of munitions that makes it not that good at dogfighting but that's fine because we haven't seen a dogfight since the invasion of Iraq and even if we did get into one it could fight most aircraft plus it's meant to operate in close proximity to the F-22.

    • AdelleChattre
      +2

      It lost to the F-16 because it's on a profile not allowing it to turn as it can or accelerate as much as it can.

      It lost to the F-16, carrying drop tanks by the way, because it hasn't got enough wing surface.

      The F-35s primary roles are CAS reconnaissance and pretty much everything that isn't dogfighting.

      It's meant to do everything, for everyone, instead of everything else. What any one thing does it do well?

      It's built to be able to stay on target a long time....

      The last I heard there were a hundred maintenance hours for every hour in the air for this thing. Can we afford for it to stay on target a long time? Can it survive ground fire?

      Are we going to be pretending there are no problems with the F-35, then?

Here are some other snaps you may like...