On Sep 18, 10:41Â pm, Typhoon502
gmail.com> wrote:> On Sep 18, 7:30Â am, true.blue.bl...@
gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Paul Saccani wrote:
>>> Neither of your suggested models are based in fact. Â You seem to put
>>> undue weight on the dog fighting value of the F35, and ignore the
>>> reality of its capability to destroy, say, a Su-35 *before* the Su-35
>>> is able to detect it.
>
>> Whose Su35 would that be? Because if its *ours*, it will be perfectly
>> capable of detecting all it needs to detect.
>> Â And how does detecting something help in any way a plane that carries
>> virtually no weapons, is underpowered, and can barely maneuver?
>
> The F-35 that outruns F-16s during testing, you mean? Yep, not enough
> power.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!
So when did one of those wheels down dinky toys 'outrun'
an F-16?
>
> Besides, even if the Aussies get into a scrap with a nation that has
> enough cash to buy a squadron of Su-35s and keep it airworthy, all
> your F-35s have to do is survive long enough for the US to get its
> F-22s in theater, and then Bob's your uncle.
So, the defence of Australia should consist of losing as few
sub-standard F-35s as we can, as they are clubbed liked
'baby seals' by any Su-30-35 in the area, and then, the USSA
will fire up it's own 100 F-22s and come and save the day?
Sorry, I don't like this mission for a number of reasons.
Mark Addinall.
