It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

F35 Fighter In Big Trouble - Leaked Report

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
So apparently it can't dogfight, an F16 can beat it !

It's a dud !

F35

For America it doesn't matter they have the F22, but for countries that were going to buy the plane this is an issue, Canada for example was going to buy them to replace it's F-18 from the eighties.




posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to concern ourselves with weapons and concentrated on cooperation instead? War is a scam that keeps evil people rich and sends poor and middle class kids off to slaughter. I refuse to participate & so should everyone else or this garbage continues!



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

This topic has been done already a couple of times.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Australia is waiting on a shipment as well.

From what I know the F35 has been touted as being impervious to electronic attacks, which is nice given the current shift towards electronic warfare. But still it needs to be able to perform as a fighter and there is no point in making a fighter that can't dogfight.

Zaphod would be the man the ask in 3...2...1...



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Can't dogfight?

It doesn't bounce very well either.

But it was designed to do neither .



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
It's suppose to replace the A10 warthog, if those 2 got in a dogfight no missiles which one would win, well the F35 has so few bullets it would need to not miss on it's first shot, the A10 could miss 6 times and still have reserve to finish it off.

Mind you the F35 could just run away



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Then maybe we shouldn't be calling it a "fighter?"

I suggest "rampster" given what recently has been shown as part of its intended launch affair.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

Maybe


But I would like to ask you a question that is relevant. Can you name the last time since the Vietnam war that premier jet fighters were involved in a turning machine gun firing dogfight ?



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33




So apparently it can't dogfight, an F16 can beat it !


Here this should help that out...


Now that’s out of the way we can begin, the accusations of the F-35 being inferior may seem shocking at first but it should be noted that the specific F-35 involved was ‘AF-2′, this airframe is designed for flight testing, it’s designed to fly in certain restricted flight envelopes. It does not feature the majority of systems present in frontline aircraft. The aircraft, due to it being a test aircraft, had also not had the software installed that is required to use the sensors and mission systems that would be used in combat. Additionally, ‘AF-2′ does not feature the radar-absorbent material coating that operational aircraft have.


ukdefencejournal.org.uk...

Wonder what happens when an F16 takes on a fully operational F35...



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

The A-10 would die at least 9 out of 10 times in a dogfight. A-10s were not designed for dogfighting and they are completely vulnerable in any theater of operation where the sky isn't already owned by us. They were designed for ground support not air to air they would be sitting ducks against ground to air missiles. A-10s are great if you already control the skies and are not facing an enemy with ground to air capability, but if the requisites are not met you would just be sending the pilots to their death.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

Perhaps Zaph can explain why it has a fighter designation as opposed to attack.

Whatever the designation, doesn't change the platform's primary role, nor does it change this "dogfight" was heavily stacked against it.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: HUMBLEONE

It would be.

It'd also be great if rainbows really had pots of gold at the end and unicorn farts really did all the stuff they're supposed to.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
and landmines weren't meant to be thrown, what is the point of the multiple topics on this subject
?
edit on 5-7-2015 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Because fighter is more complicated than "turns really well and shoots down other aircraft with a gun".

The F-15 isn't a fighter, neither was the F-14. The F-15E couldn't dogfight its way out of a paper bag.

The F-35 will hit any opposing fighters before they know it's there. The detection range for radars capable of firing on the F-35 is well within the range that a Lightning will be able to have shot and moved on to the next target.
edit on 7/5/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Please direct your comments to this ongoing thread

Pilot says F35 CAN'T dogfight!




top topics



 
3

log in

join