The Gun Counter

More horseshit from paid shills, at peril of their careers.
The TL;DR version would have been: "The F-35 can do some cool maneuvering, and if I sit almost backwards in the seat, I can see my opponent almost as well as in the F-16 sitting normally. And It's more maneuverable in ACM than the -16, which would really help, if it weren't for that whole "getting my ass waxed head to head in dogfights 9 times out of 10" thingie."
The honest article would also have entailed the quote: "I used to take my life support gear for granted, but in dogfighting the F-35, if combat is likely, I'd now really pay attention to making sure my parachute, ejection seat, and survival gear are all top-notch and ready to use. 'Cuz I figure to need them in short order."

Because of course no serving pilot who wants to remain so can say "It's a trillion-$ gold-plated tub o' pig shit with wings".

The best thing about the F-35 is the fond hope that someday soon, it proves more amenable to use as target drones than a generation of F-4 Phantoms.

Yeah, I don't believe pilots when they talk about the planes they fly either.

Jericho941 wrote:Yeah, I don't believe pilots when they talk about the planes they fly either.

We noticed that in your discussion of the merits re: the A-10.
And to the contrary, I believe the guy wholeheartedly likes the plane.
Because if he didn't, he'd be an unemployed civilian, instead of a major in the USAF.

And as noted, except for that whole "got its ass handed to it time and time again by legacy aircraft costing 1/10th as much" he keeps leaving out of the discussion, I'm sure he isn't exaggerating things a single bit.

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

You two really gonna do this again?

If by "doing this", you mean respond to taking it personal by responding in kind, yes.

If Jericho can focus on the merits, or lack of them, in the referenced article, and stick to them instead of who's talking, we should have no problem.

I wasn't necessarily speaking of the personal attacks... The topic itself is just getting a bit worn at this point...

Aesop wrote:

Jericho941 wrote:Yeah, I don't believe pilots when they talk about the planes they fly either.

We noticed that in your discussion of the merits re: the A-10.

Sauce, goose, some assembly required.

Aesop wrote:If by "doing this", you mean respond to taking it personal by responding in kind, yes.

If Jericho can focus on the merits, or lack of them, in the referenced article, and stick to them instead of who's talking, we should have no problem.

You took that as a personal attack? Seriously? You dismissed the pilot of the aircraft as a "paid shill," and that was what I responded to. I'm not dodging the technical merits of your post because there are none. If you wanna have a dick dance, carry on. I'm out.

It's pretty obvious who brought the dick to this dance.
Your entire reply was completely at me, and nothing about the article, and you're surprised I took it as personal, exactly as intended.
And my reply in kind somehow absolves you from starting it? Sh'yeah, okay.
But now that you're called on it, you're "out". Got it. Next time, maybe skip to Step Two from the get-go? Just a thought.
Or just stick to commenting on the article. As I did.


You want to talk about technical merits in the article?
Google "Serving USAF pilot reveals major flaws in trillion $ aircraft program" and call me when you get a single hit.
I'm shocked! Shocked, I say, to find out that someone in the F-35 test program thinks it's better than an 18-year-old nymphomaniac whose father owns a liquor store. (By a strange coincidence, his boss, 5 ranks higher on the totem pole, and evidently rising to just below the top rung without acquiring so much as one single hour of combat flight experience, sez exactly the same thing. And he's flown the F-16 too. So it must be true then.)

And said major extols the Thunderjug's virtues, maneuverability, and the noise it makes as somehow being germane to a discussion of why it got its ass handed to it repeatedly in ACM by aircraft 40 years older. He may as well have claimed the sun was in his eyes.

If that's all the smarter he is, militarily, we're fucked.
Assuming he's deliberately BSing is therefore the most generous assumption I can make about his personal intelligence and character, at this point.
John Boyd would have beaten him to a bloody pulp, and left him for dead.
If he's really that stupid, we should simply invite Putin to move into the White House now, and sell Alaska and Hawaii to the Chinese up front, with an option to take over the west coast in the near future.

Or at least, get Maj. Asskiss a hanky to wipe the brown ring from around his mouth.

Gentlefolks, did we REALLY need to have this acrimony again? You are both being tiresome.

This is a final warning to Jericho941 and Aesop. If, as seems to be the case, you are not able to converse civilly about aeroplanes with one another here, simply grow up, avoid whatever reflex is triggering your involuntary and temporary imbecility, and stop talking about aeroplanes. Your behaviour is discourteous to the original poster, and boring for the rest of us, regardless of who might have started what and regardless of who might be to blame.

This thread is locked. (Sorry, toad - if you want to start an unspoiled one with the same link, feel free).