MAKO69

The F-35C is not the A-7's replacement. The F/A-18 Legacy Hornet was the replacement for the A-7. The F-35C will replace the Legacy Hornets and the older Super Hornets. The last A-7 squadrons were retired in 1991.

What's up with the old school fighter comparisons to gen 4,4+ and 5 fighters still, this is about the F-35 and F/A-18 Super Hornet not warbirds, which is what all the century series and cousins are. A Japanese zero is way more of a dog fighter than an F-14, well yeah, but the Tommy cat will splash the zero every time. Didn't you guys see the movie.

Stop comparisons between the F-104 and F-35, there is a big difference. An F-104 in any form compared to an F-35 is like throwing a bullet. while the F-35 is the sniper who is BVR with a high powered .50 cal. sniper rifle. The 104 was forced on the fledgling NATO countries, oh well to bad so sad the price you pay for being on the "right" side of the wall. All the air arms that had the F-104 used them in their own ways, their own tactics, and even made their own upgrades to the planes. Good air forces can adapt and overcome, which is what they all did with the F-104. Now the F-35 may not fly as well as an F/A-18 Legacy, super hornet, F-16, Typhoon, Rafale, F-15, F-22 or any other contemporary fighter plane, but keep in mind it was designed as a stealth aircraft first, and I'm sure it won't be a dump truck in the sky in a dog fight either. With a stealth strike fighter their has to be compromise in performance. I said it before Warfare is not Fair, you must cheat to get the advantage and win. If that means you have a strike fighter that was not meant to get in a dog fight, oh well. The F-35 is a stealth/strike fighter. Stealth above all else will help this plane complete it's missions its part of the whole package which includes tactics on how to employ such aircraft. It may not be invisible, but the radar signature of an F/A-18 ( Super hornet has stealth built in maybe not as much as the following, but still incorporates stealth), F-22, and F-35 is a hell of a lot smaller than all other fighters out there. Why get into a dog fight when a pilot can simply select a BVR missile and fire such missile at a plane(s) who's pilot has no clue he's about to meet his maker, then drop his smart mud moving gear, and head back without breaking a sweat from ACM. Sounds a lot better than bringing in a "Bomb Truck" and having to fly like a fool whipping the ponies down low trying to avoid radar, and if you get into a dogfight, have to drop your war load and fight to just retreat. What would you prefer your expensive pilots fly an F-104 or an F-35? The USAF will not be using the F-22 as an SAED plane for a long time, that's other planes job to include the F-35 when they come on line. Is the F-35 going to be the perfect strike platform, no. Will it do a great job of the missions it will be tasked, yes. Is it going to be a world beater dog fighter, no, it wasn't designed to be a dogfighter, that's the F-22's job. The whole philosophy with stealth technology is to "Work smarter not harder".

We can only hope that the plane makes it to the finish line before it gets cut, because it is a vicious little plane that will be a great asset.

You bring up valid points. The Stealth program was started back during the "Cold War" and a lot of those guys were still around when the A-12, F/A-18 Super hornet, F-22 and F-35 programs started. The need for a stealth aircraft is still needed, God forbid we don't have them when we need them. Warfare is not Fair, therefore if one can cheat to get an advantage, well then take it. I want my soldiers wheather they are on the ground with a rifle or 10K above the battlefield in a strike/fighter to have every possible chance to succeed in their mission and go home. As for replacing the F-15s, F-16s not all of them are to old and with less F-22 and F-35s to be built, well its a numbers game not all F-15s and 16s will be replaced so they will truck on for more decades to come. As for the A-10s well that plane is running out of time fast due for retirement in the next 2-3 years. From the red headed step child to the fair haired prince in one felled swoop. The A-10 was the go to platform for the USAF since the GF1. Both good and bad, because now the planes are literally going to time out and have to be grounded and a small number with lower hours will be mothballed in a ready state of storage. Its all numbers, a single F/A-18 Super hornet can carry 12+ smart bombs and destroy said number where 20+ years ago 6+ planes would launch to conduct t he same strike. One F-22 ( which is here now) can shoot down 6-8 F-15 or similar aircraft. The F-35 ( not here yet 2015+ before decent numbers are able to be deployed if there are no more issues) would be able to destroy aircraft and drop a sizable war load accurately. So we may not need the numbers of past to accomplish the missions of the future. Only time will tell. Keep your fingers crossed hopefully we will never have to use these weapons ever again. As it should be.

The F-35 was due to replace the Harrier, F/A-18 legacy hornets, F-16, A-10. The super bugs where already being developed to possibly replace the legacy hornets and F-14. The cancelled MD A-12 was to replace A-6, EA-6 and A-7 platforms. With no other indigenous design the F/A-18 Legacy and Super Hornets filled the gap for all of the above in Navy and USMC service. The F-35 depending on what you read is between 5 and 7 years behind schedule. The RAF and RN retired their Harriers as planned, the F-35 was to be ready to go and filling squadrons as aircraft were retired. The RAF has the typhoon coming on line strong and a handful of tornados left, but they have no harriers, and the Royal Navy has been without a strike/fighter since 2011. The F/A-18 legacy and super hornet is a proven platform. The F-35 has only proven that it is going to take more time and a lot more money to complete. The Iraq and Afghan Wars has put a toll on both legacy and super hornets. The F-35 if and when they come online will replace the tired timed out and trapped out airframes of the hornets (this is already a problem with many legacy and some of the original production run super hornets now) and the older USAF F-16s, A-10s, and if it takes longer possibly some of the older F-15Es. With less F-35 that are going to be built as originally planned (US Navy cut their order by half other air arms have reduced numbers also) less of the afore mentioned aircraft will be replaced, with the inevitable reduction of strike fighter squadrons in all branches of service. It takes time to replace aircraft because they can only build so many a month/year so yes it takes about a decade to fully transition into a new aircraft give or take a few years depending on the platform and upgrades that may come along a with possible retro refits. All aircraft have teething issues, don't compare the tomcats maiden flight of 1970 to front line service deployment in 1974 to the F-35 ludicrous going on 14 years of development and over budget by almost 100 billion US dollars. The F-35 should already be here in decent numbers, the F-35 if and when it finally gets here will be a great plane. Boeing is going to capitalize on the F-35s development issues, can't blame them. Boeing has designed a weapons pod that makes the plane extremely stealthy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inN8zSrr8OA The F-22 has cabinet space for war computer software upgrades, and can and has carried mud moving gear in its belly, and if needed there are hard points on the wings to hang some more mud moving gear. I think what we will see is a combo of the Gen 4 and 4+ planes fighting along side the JSF-35, and an F/A-22 in the future not a total replacement. I'm not debunking the F-35 I am still pulling for the program, however I think that it's wishful thinking now. I'm just coming to realize it may not be as big a part of the future then what was proposed.

Found surfin' the web thought I'd share. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCTzXj13rjA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kvilB7azDU

Apples and Oranges. The F-14 was the F-4s replacement, the Super Hornet and F-35 are contemporary strike fighters competing for the same slots in air arms around the world. The F-35 has had several teething issues and should have been in front line service just a few years after the Superhornet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2Lg-x1tAyE

Harrier pilots still have to drop bombs and dogfight if need be, so they truly are a cut above most. You just don't go from getting your wings pinned to fly Harriers one must prove themselves not only worthy, but competent in handling the plane, only the top students get picked. Not all that begin training make it through, seasoned Hornet and attack pilots get washed out.

Didn't film, found surfing the web. There are several programs out there for filming PC games.

"Remembering those that gave their time, and those that gave it all, so you may just have".- Me "The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war." — General Douglas MacArthur

Well I like the lines. It looks like a Mini me A-4 Skyhawk. Me thinks you should expand and finish it, looks very cool.

Marine front line and Navy reserve units. At least 100 units converted from A-4C to A-4L.

Holy SH!T It's the Bandit! Cool effect RAVEN, by the way what kind of plane is that, some kind of animation test plane?

United B777 pilot who doubles as combat flier rescues 90 troops in daring Afghanistan attack. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BP8fRbuadA

What altitude are you dog fighting at?

Like I said we don't have combat soldiers on the streets, but just last January C-17s were dropping off military supplies in Baghdad. There are a small amount of advisers both military and civilian contractors. You are right all combat forces have left the country. There are only a small number of troops to be used for defensive purposes only under the direction of the embassy.

No Mirage F1 stuff, but these are few more books that are a MUST!

No there is no combat forces meaning troops on the strreet, but plenty of military advisers both civilian contract and military

What I'm saying is the United States will be more involved with Iraq now than in the past and making sure Iraq will stay as it is and not revert to a dictatorship or a radical Islamic state. After all we do have forces in Iraq that are going to be there for a long time. Think back to US and allied forces in Europe. Judging by everyone's response to your thought, I think you are the only one concerned with their new F-16s.

Some planes manage their energy better than others. A vague question when there are several types of aircraft, fighter configurations, and power levels.

This is a knee jerk reaction. Do some research and see how involved the U.S. still is and will be involved with Iraq, decades my friend we are in the long haul with the Iraqis. I think we have learned our lesson dealing with these fragile societies.

This is the one that keeps popping up, must be this or something very similar.

Not if Maj. Gant is involved! Look it up rookie.