http://www.lockheedmartin.com/how/st...vl_player.html

Absolutely ridiculous that this program was allowed to proceed. It's at LEAST 50% over budget, and computer hackers stole the build plans in 2007 to formulate defensive plans against it. It weighs a piggish 60,000lbs so maneuverability will not be its strong suit. Another negative is it needs air to air refueling, which in one scenario resulted in destruction of the tankers, forcing the planes back to the base.

Why do we continue to throw money at these incredibly expensive boondoggles when we're fighting ragtag terrorists on the ground???

[QUOTE]Another negative is it needs air to air refueling, which in one scenario resulted in destruction of the tankers, forcing the planes back to the base./QUOTE]

what the hell are you talking about, air to air refueling is a requirement that all services want, this is a joint strike fighter that will be sold to many countries. air to air re-fueling provides longer range and time on station, so why is this bad???

I think he is referring to an article I saw. The article referred to some study evaluating the mission capability of the F35.

The one major negative scenario. Was that when the refueling tanker got shot down, the aircraft were forced to return to base without completing the mission.

The article attempted to make it sound as if the aircraft was a failure due to this one scenario. All modern combat or military support aircraft rely on air to air refueling. The exact same scenario would have the same exact affect on any aircraft operating on a mission that requires aerial refueling. All air forces of the world are well aware of this type of scenario. Each take measures to protect the tankers as best as possible.

This one scenario in no way what so ever, proves that the F35 is a bad airplane.

Ignore cat he is a troll