Russia kills its F-35 Killer

Well, that's quite naive, IMO. Outside pressure in military buying circles does exist; If the world militaries simply bought the right product, everyone would be equipped with Rafales - you too.

Like I've wrote, I can see no reason for anyone to favor this mediocre, fragile, costly and divatic piece of crap, furthermore that it's about to be completely obsolete in a few years from now. That's probably why the Russians, who spend their (relatively) meager military budget with the greatest of care, doesn't follow the "5th gen" route anymore.

 

The Super Hornet is a decent, reliable and economical multi-purpose aircraft, if not a "modern" one.

 

The stealth bomber ... an F-117 ... was captured by P-12 radar systems of the former USSR, then shot at by a Russian / Ex- USSR R-60 / AA-8 Aphid (from 1975 !!!) anti-aircraft missile and hit in left engine ... then by an ancient MIG 21 spotted and attacked... a jet from the 1960's and also attacked and then finally destroyed by an Ex-USSR Kub / SA-6 Gainfull or a Neva / SA-3 Goa air to ground missile ... both form the 1960 and 1970's too! Which one of both hit the F-117 is unclear, because both were simultaneously shot at the F-117).

So in conclusion, the F-117 was shot down by Ex-USSR stuff from the 1960 and 1970's

In itself, however, the airspace was already under the control of NATO ... much like Germany in 1945 by the Allies.

 

Oh please this silly rewrite of history.

Most of the serbian air force was destroyed on the ground and what got up in the air was shot down.

The only real modern fighter they had (the mig-29) was (after they shot 5 out of the sky) kept on the ground and barely did any missions (and then it was stricly bombing).

NATO on the other hand did 38 000 sorties and only lost 3 planes all due to ground fire.

 

No, funny facts that you don't like to read ... maybe!

 

Yes, once they knew the radar image, it wasn't stealthed any more.

 

Serb Foxbats flew every day of the war and had zero casualties.
Serb AA systems had several kills.

Bombing campaign was unsuccessful. With a total of one tank kills.
The T34 on the plinth outside the front of the war museum. Lol.

No mate. Serbia wasn't Iraq. Didn't go the same way.

 

Could you present a gram of it only?

FORENSIC evidence? For hackers??? Oh, my God... What would you say about a white mouse? Why the mouse? Because it's an evidence that Trump is a rabbit. Why is it the evidence of it? Because the mouse is white, like the rabbit. I adore your sparking logics

You repeat bullshit. I study English.

 

Oh... Everybody knows your justice. You show fake tube and kill millions. May your justice is a reason that all the world hate the USA? Think about it, dude. By the way, do I have to explain to you the term "think"?

 

Ok then tell me what current or next gen fighter russia wil take into mass production?

 

Seeing they had no mig-25's thats quite feat.

yougaslavia has mig-29's and when they went up against NATO airplanes they were all shot down. The rest of the war they mostly hid the only sorites they did during the war were short and low bombing runs .

Yes 2 or 3 cant recall out of 38 000 sorties of wich 12 000 in enemy airspace.

So thats nothing to brag about.

Well no it took the coalition several days to clear the iraqi airspace it only took a few hours with yougaslavia or serbia.

You had **** for weapons like the iraqi and they worked like **** for wapons, stop this nationalistic nonsense it somehow means something.

 

You never succeeded in Serbia.
Didn't happen.


Is 3-4 kills is more than you got?
Lost those planes in exchange for ... nothing much.

This is how I remember it, Fudge Yeah America was all Stealth Bomber and Wings of The Apache.


And then Apaches and Stealth Bombers got arse raped and Owen Wilson got shot down, and America didn't want to fly any more.
And then the Europeans did all the dangerous missions for the rest of the war while Americans made preposterous excuses to cover for their cowardice.
I don't really remember any stunning US victory, Sorry.

What I remember is a lot of post Iraq War over-confidence and a lack of commitment to a war the US was not interested in.

 

It's not polite to answer a question with a counter question, but here's an exception:

Tell me which of the US Next Generation Fighters works satisfactorily and is no longer a maintenance and repair aircraft as an operational aircraft?

 

Oh no doubt you saw some nice pro serbian propaganda rewriting that war . Take the airforce 121 aircraft destroyed what meant most of the airforce was simply gone. those are figures from serbia btw.

I would suggest you inform yourself a bit, serbian forces hid themselves for the most, they didnt even dare to turn on their radars in most cases.

They build decoys and had to take cover most of the time and eventually had to surender making it a full NATO victory that resulted into an independent Kosovo.

 

Of course you dont want to answer, its none. Russia has no current gen fighters and has no close to production fighters .

Seeing how many russian planes have crashed when it tried to impress the world with smokey the aircraft carrier they could do with some more maintenance and repair. Of course you need budget for that.

 

Yes they used decoys.

Very effectively. That's all the USAF hit.

They turned their radars on and shot USAF planes down.
So much so that US aircraft refused to fly.

NATO forces didn't intend to stop at Kosovo. They got stopped.

 

It’s an example of how aircraft with problematic rollouts turned out to be very good aircraft.

 

No NATO destroyed dozens of tanks/APC's and over a 120 planes and helicopters

No they kep t them of shooting hundreds of missiles that almost all missed .

Simply not true.

LOL NATO wanted to stop the genocide and make sure kosovo was safe . Both were 100% achieved.

Nobody was intrested in bombed out piss poor serbia.

 

Why should I answer a question that is irrelevant if the US itself does not have a satisfactorily functioning Generation 5 jet, eh?

And as for accidents, sorry, you Americans are not better!

 

Both f-35 and f-22 have been used in combat mission without issues.

Lol I am not an american.

And russia still has a horrible accident rate with its planes, comes from underfunding.

Perhaps thats why they pulled this plane? They need to money to keep the current planes flying? COuld be.

 

Sure some members have taken some due to politics but if this was a descent plane we would not have Canada opting for the Super Hornet, Australia doesn't want any, Germany does not want them .. and so on.

 

Well, you claimed NATO doesn’t want these planes, and you were wrong.

 

Sure ... if you mean ....

F-22 "Raptor"
It's supposed to be the newest, most up-to-date and most powerful, which is currently on the move in the sky. No airplane had grown up fighting the F-22 "Raptor", for enemy radar the machine was almost invisible. So the US military praises its new fighter jet. What is less aggressively marketed: The F-22 is a product of the Cold War, which was technically obsolete, long before it has now completed its first combat mission in Syria.
US General Michael Hostage, chief of Air Combat Command, told in February this year in an interview with the Air Force Times:
"Already while the F-22 was being produced, it flew with computers so outdated they would not have been found in any children's game consoles in the living room"!

We remember that the F-22 was originally supposed to replace the fleet of F-15 jets that once replaced the F-4 Phantom? ... that's not even remotely mentioned very fast again and totally forgotten today, with the paltry 200 Pieces that need more hours in maintenance than they fly!

F-35
The F-35 is told to become the future backbone of the US Air Force and the USA wants to procure more than 2,400 planes. The cost has doubled from the originally planned $ 780 billion to an incredible $ 1.5 trillion....!!!!
Nevertheless, the F-35 will hardly, as promised once, keep enemy aircraft at bay and at the same time fight ground targets well. And certainly the F-35 will not attack ground targets effectively with the few bombs in the Stealthy bomb bay ... for that she also needs the outstations, but are they used, the F-35 is as stealthy as a school bus

In particular, on the capabilities of the F-35 in aerial combat experts have repeatedly expressed great doubts. The above named General Hostage seems to share these concerns in same interview. Wordly he told: "If I do not keep the "pathetic small" F-22 fleet going," the officer said, "the F-35 fleet will frankly be irrelevant."

I do not even want to come up with the ultra-long list of problems with the jet ... that would blow up the thread!
But as far as the first mission is concerned, which by the way was not flown by the USA but by Israel, absolutely nothing is known about how good or bad it went!

 

comparing problems with moving from a prop plane to a jet - to the problems the F-35 is having is a false dichotomy.

The issues with the F-35 are not technological as much as they are political. Different parts of the plane are produced in something like 40 different states. When these parts arrive for assembly they have to be retooled.

As Pierre Sprey points out "The F-35 was born on an exceptionally dumb piece of PR spin" "an airplane built on a dumb idea"

 

You can upgrade computers in pretty much any aircraft, everyone does that.
I’m sure Israel shared the info with the US about F-35 performance. If there were issues they would probably have to do that at least to get these issues addressed. The info is probably classified. This is one of those situations where no news is good news.