Both the F-16 and F-18 have long operational service histories, combat histories, established infrastructure, trained personel, a well develop R&D supply chain base and more. Almost all the claims of how the F-35 is so good come from those who stand to financially profit from the selling the plane (no doubt, one fellow in here in particular). Independent analysis of its capabilities from industry veterans draws negative responses which are quickly buried and quietly overlooked.
Right. Pilots that fly it, take it to Red Flag, Northern edge and other large force exercises be damned. All that is required is to simply look at a bunch of forums. No need to listen to the actual airmen flying it, or flying against it.
The P-51 has even longer service history in terms of actual air-combat. Should we produce that compared to F-16's?
This is how all military decisions should be made. After all what does the operator community know about all this. It's not like they are experts.
And BTW, your phantom 5th generation capability possessing aircraft has absolutely ZILCH in terms of combat proven performance, or R&D..It by your standards shouldn't even be contemplated.
In other news, the JSF is so bad books are literally being written on why it should be killed.
Next up, POGO..they have writen many books and articles on how each and every new military program has to be killed. Sprey and Wheeler have been doing back and forth with Sprey even claiming the F-16 is superior to the F-22A when the F-16's get killed in quantity when these things go head to head.
I for one stopped taking this seriously right about the time you spoke of hypersonic-cruise being 5th generation requirement, and what not. But what really sealed the deal was quoting Sprey that we have discussed at length here much earlier.
Those that decide on these matters actually go to SME's and ask for their input.
And please point me to what level of access to the aircraft or program your independent assesses have? based on which their opinion should be treated at a higher level than those that fly the thing, put it up in large force exercises, and take them out to the various range infrastructure that the nation maintains for this very purpose? All you need to do is a search of this forum and see that many of the things mentioned in that article have been addressed by the program. Do you want to do some research to the questions I have requested you to provide answers to? I'm sure quite a few of us would like to know.
Please enlighten us, how would you compare a PROVEN," HAS R&D" investment F-16 to a Sukhoi Su-35, let alone a T-50?
The last thing the boon dogglers would attempt is real 5th gen technology when trying to peddle 4th gen stuff.
Yes, the REAL 5th generation technology "requirement" that you made up a couple of days ago that no one around the world is designing to for some damn obvious reasons..
The irony in all this is that you think the JSF is too expensive and should be hacked, while you want to send the USAF on a wild goose chase with requirements being what you have stated earlier.
Love the " Hey the JSF is too expensive, but let's invest in a mach 5 cruising, laser firing IBM Watson with some flashy Chameleon Skin"
argument. It's quite unique.