To: sukhoi-30mki
Why would a 5th gen aircraft that is stealth have external armament? Or is that what “Beast Mode” is?
2 posted on
02/05/2019 5:16:40 AM PST by
EQAndyBuzz
(Millennials are Morons)
To: sukhoi-30mki
Durability testing data indicates service-life of initial F-35B short-takeoff-vertical landing jets bought by Marine Corps is well under expected service life of 8,000 fleet hours; may be as low as 2,100″ hours. They buried that little nugget. Wow, that is criminally bad.
3 posted on
02/05/2019 5:16:55 AM PST by
PilotDave
(No, really, you just can't make this stuff up!!)
To: sukhoi-30mki
8,000 fleet hours seems low to me. Are we really building aircraft with a lifespan of 7 years?
To: sukhoi-30mki
..we had M-188 750lb LGB's back in 1969...
17 posted on
02/05/2019 6:14:40 AM PST by
Doogle
(( USAF.68-73....8th TFW Ubon Thailand....never store a threat you should have eliminated)))
To: sukhoi-30mki
Beast mode- Also known as zero stealth. So it just becomes a slowish moonpig that cannot maneuver.
Btw- they keep calling it stealthy. It is orders of magnitude more visible than an F-117.
22 posted on
02/05/2019 7:06:01 AM PST by
DesertRhino
(Dog is man's best friend, and moslems hate dogs. Add that up. ....)
To: sukhoi-30mki
Wow-6 bombs, 2 sidewinders, 2 sparrows. That’s a real “bomb truck”.
23 posted on
02/05/2019 7:11:41 AM PST by
DesertRhino
(Dog is man's best friend, and moslems hate dogs. Add that up. ....)
To: sukhoi-30mki
"Beast mode"? Two missiles and four 500 lb bombs is beast mode? You gotta be kidding me. I hate to say it but I doubt the airplane will make it to the "Third Day of War". I realize it is taking off from a LHA and no other aircraft can do that but "Beast Mode"? Sounds downright silly. According to a Pentagon test office document recently obtained by Bloomberg, Durability testing data indicates service-life of initial F-35B short-takeoff-vertical landing jets bought by Marine Corps is well under expected service life of 8,000 fleet hours; may be as low as 2,100″ hours. 2,100 hours? 8,000 is unreasonably low for this kind of investment. 2,100 is failure. What a monumental failure. It would simply be a waste but it is much worse. It is a waste that has crippled us. The weak efforts to put a good face on are pitiful.
27 posted on
02/05/2019 7:18:44 AM PST by
Sequoyah101
(It feels like we have exchanged our dreams for survival. We just hava few days that don't suck.)
To: sukhoi-30mki
This adds 10 “small” carriers to the fleet. Each capable of carrying 12-20 F-35B.
And they’re STILL bigger than any non-US carrier afloat except the British.
That said, there is no plan to employ them in that configuration. They will remain Amphibious Assault Ships with the principal mission of deploying a Battalion Landing Team and supporting it for 30 days unassisted.
In that configuration they would carry but 6 F-35s, augmented by up to 40 helos, both attack and transport.
31 posted on
02/05/2019 7:34:45 AM PST by
Mariner
(War Criminal #18)
To: sukhoi-30mki
It’s magical, an F-35 that turns into an F-16 on the third day of War.
It is a great replacement for the Harrier Jump Jet though.
41 posted on
02/05/2019 9:13:37 AM PST by
Kickass Conservative
(THEY LIVE, and we're the only ones wearing the Sunglasses.)
To: sukhoi-30mki
so now it's a 1/4 ass bombtruck... somewhere, PukinDog is laughing
49 posted on
02/05/2019 6:28:39 PM PST by
Chode
( WeÂ’re America, Bitch!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson