>Hanche also writes that the F-35 can tilt its nose upward under control beyond the ability of the F-16. Even at these extreme angles, the pilot can still “point” the nose easily by simply tapping the rudder pedals, Hanche says, adding that he is “impressed with the stability and predictability of the airplane”.
>Hanche writes on the MoD’s official blog that he is “impressed by how quickly the F-35 accelerates when I reduce the [angle of attack]”, suggesting the aircraft instead rapidly regains energy after “breaking” to a near stop with its nose pointed up to 40˚ high in mid-air.
>“The final ‘textbook’ for how to best employ the F-35 in visual combat – basic fighter maneouvres – has not been written yet,” Hanche says. “It is literally being written by my neighbour down here in Arizona!”
Sprey-fags BTFO
Norwegian pilot
>yey
>>29114986
FORGOT LINK SORRY:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/norwegian-pilot-counters-leaked-f-35-dogfight-report-422552/
>>29114986
Nice. Based-35 will be gong to Norway.
>>29115314
Considering Norway is one of the biggest adopters of the F-16, that's pretty important.
>>29114986
>one pilot praises the f35
weew
>>29115396
well, we only have like 70 of them, so not that big, but i get your point.
Isn't any pilot from a country that's invested into the F-35 program suspect?
>>29114986
good for him if he got paid
>>29114986
>Middle aged pilot sucking up to Lockmart for a future testpilot position
>S-spreyfags b-btfo!
>>29115539
Yeah, you can't listen to anyone who might actually know something about the plane, you can only trust the opinions of armchair experts that rely on clickbait media to get their messages out.
>>29115720
heh, that would make /k/ the new Fighter Mafia
>>29115720
Well shit people with vested interests lie, was that not what was implied by my post.
Should I trust leaked secret documents or PR statements?
>>29115747
Which one suits your narrative more?
The recent F-16 models are quite sluggish. Prime example of putting more and more stuff on an aircraft although it was never designed for it.
>>29115759
>your narrative
more like why should people write such documents if everything is happy in the first place?
>>29115774
I really think my country would have been better of developing another 4.5 gen of our own for carrier use and then waiting till the F-35 project was done eating money and not flying well before buying in.
Is that a Norwegian Roundel in OP's pic? The little triangle in the circle, never seen it before.
>>29115774
>more like why should people write such documents if everything is happy in the first place?
A bit like when China "leaks" information about their new ships and all that.
>>29115774
Because nobody cares if a government program is running well. If you can convince every idiot that the program is going to shit, you'll sell more magazines and get more views.
>>29115821
Are you reading what I'm reading?
>>29115819
the grey one on the side of the intake? yep, Norwegian AF marking. You will see it if you google Norwegian F-16 and so on
>>29115821
>>29115843
None of the two posts make sense in whatever way.
>>29115862
opps.
It does sound stupid now that i read it.
>>29115862
Mine makes perfect sense. Time and time again it's been proven that "journalists" such as David Axe are willing to produce forged leaked documents and intentionally misinterpret personal accounts of the program in order to get views/money. It happened when they said that the gun wouldn't work until 2019, it happened when they said that it needed white fuel trucks, it happened when they said it lost to the F-16 in a dogfight.
They intentionally spin non-problems into "the F-35 is doomed." Meanwhile, LM has been nothing but transparent with the bugs that they need to have worked out.
Everything about the F-35 has to be transparent because it's a multi-national project.
If this was a closed door in house project, we would never know about the growing pains and would be masturbating to pics that slowly leak out, and stats that may or may not be correct.
(aka like every slav/chink project)
>>29115982
My normal opinion of LockMart is that they can go choke on a bag of cocks. In the case of the F-35, it's looking better anytime some countershill claims how shit it is.
> We will run SEAD against the ayyy lmaos in these birds, they better be fine.
>>29115765
True. An aircraft gets fatter the more you put on it. However it cannot survive without it. A lot of people have a hard time understanding ECM and ECCM but the modern battlefield requires it, and there are a lot of missions where an AWACS is not available to cover your ass. Shit the EW game is getting to the point where infantry carry it on them, and not just their vehicles.
This guy is on his way to test fly he f-35 and gives a bit of insight into what he will be doing that day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0iAQnCQp9o
>>29115802
The thing is the development cost, or money eating, as you put it, is not simply absorbed by the developers. It is passed on to the consumers of the aircraft by increasing the cost of each air frame. It is not like uncle sam and his friends are simply going to go "oh man, we sure did get hosed on building these planes early on, but hey everyone, here they are now, nice and cheap, because we are such good dudes ya know?" Each country that backs out of the F-35 project makes it more expensive, each country that buys into it makes it that much cheaper.
The "bulk buy" is not offsetting the production cost of the aircraft that much, it is offsetting the development costs.
>>29116196
So it's better to pay for development and the finished product instead of just buying the finished product. If that's true economics is horseshit and should be burnt to the ground.
>BREAKING NEWS: Pilot wants to keep his job
>>29115885
Fuck off, teenager. We do not want to talk to you.
>>29116685
>BREAKING NEWS, faggots still can't admit the F-16 is becoming obsolete.
>>29116857
more like
>Highly trained person with professional insight into both aircraft knows more than McAnon Shitposterson
>>29115720
Maybe we should look at the one proxy that matters, it's maneuvering performance against other planes.
I'm suspect of what a few pilots say. When I hear 200-300 I'll start to agree with them.
>>29114986
I'm sure you are all aware that the information leaked out is very controlled. They want it to sheen and look shity at the same time. They will never tell us how fast it is our how good it really is because they don't want others building stuff to take it down before it is even out.
>>29114986
Yeah, the F-35 is good.
Anyone who honestly believes Sprey or WIB is an idiot.
>>29118038
the whole program in it self might be a bit of a clusterfuck, with the whole idea of getting 3 different planes out of one, but it is shaping up to be one hell of a plane.
>>29115747
You mean the leaked document that does not say an F-35 lost a dogfight to an F-16 despite what David Axe wants you to believe?
>>29116925
So your prerequisite is twice as many pilots as there are F-35's currently.
And when your demand is met you will shift goalposts anyway :^)
Why do Europoors have nice planes when they let themselves be invaded with a smile by Islamist every day? Use the planes on the migrants fagots
>>29114986
Why did we spend trillions of dollars on an aircraft that at best, is only marginally better than a fucking f-16 from 30 years ago?
I'll say what I said 3 years ago today. The F-35 problems remind me of the AH-64. During the AH-64s development people were saying it was a over priced over complicated piece of shit that will break and be shot down. Years later the Apache turned out to be one of the best attack helicopters in the world.
>>29119724
>Sevice cost projected to be1.5 trillion over 50 years
>America will generate 4 QUADRILLION dollars in the same time
I don't know where you are from, but there are these things called search engines that are great for looking up and verifying information. you should try them out some time, they've gotten really good lately.
>>29116925
I'll take "Goalposts on Wheels" for 500, Alex.
>>29115861
I like it, looks sleek and original.
This is great and all, but Pierre Sprey said the F-35 was a turkey so try and dispute that
>>29115539
>>29115584
>actual pilots who fly the plane and have experience flying the planes it's replacing
>armchair generals and keyboard commandos who just repeat Sprey memes about muh turkey and "can't run can't climb can't turn"
right.
>>29115765
lol go away Pierre Sprey. A clean modern F-16 is plenty agile. What "more and more stuff" is added on modern F-16's that isn't on older ones?
>>29119724
1) the unit cost is around the same as a fully modernized F-16. The much-cited "trillion dollars" is a meme. Those figures are for the total project cost over the 50 year lifetime. That includes every single bomb and missile the F-35 will drop, ever single gallon of fuel, every single hour of maintenance, every single spare part, almost 2500 airframes, etc. Nobody has ever tracked cost for a plane project in the same way, so we have no idea what, say, the equivalent cost was of the F-15.
2) the F-35 is only "marginally better" in WVR dogfighting ability. That makes up less than 5-10% of modern air combat. In every other aspect, the F-35 is vastly superior to the F-16. 3x the range on internal fuel, stealth, way better avionics and sensors, etc.
>>29119724
>Why are we spending a trillion dollars across half a century on an aircraft that at present, is significantly better than a fucking f-16 from less than 5 years ago?
FTFY
>>29119724
>Deptula says that one F-35 “can create effects that require dozens of legacy aircraft, and in some cases dozens of legacy aircraft simply cannot accomplish with one or two ‘F’-22s or ‘F’-35s can accomplish.”
>>29120051
And as we all know countries that go to war a lot don't incur heavier life time costs as war swallows up resources.
