Roger that, techinsanity

I did not explain myself correctly. The picture can not be of an F-22A at Anderson because it is a photo of one of the two YF-22 prototypes , which only was flight tested at Edwards in California. The surviving one is a museum piece. It has been unflyable since around 1987.

Photo #1 is a YF-22, so it can't be from Guam.

Photo #1 cannot be at Guam. It is an F-22 prototype.

For personal reasons, I have issues with the A-7F project, but no issues with anything you have written here. I am interested in the perspective of an LTV connected person from the time, because I worked for brand X then. There is no lack of intrigue when it comes to DOD procurement. If you look into another project…

The 302 FS "vanity plate" tail gets a publicity shot intercept credit The actual tail number is 054102, I think. You don't see many F-22 pix with external tanks.

Yes it makes sense that for acceptance tests and training the radar signature would be enhanced. In fact, the pictures may show a reflector. The ball that looks like an antenna dome might be one of those devices. A spherical shape is certainly not consistent with other design details like the planform aligned hatch…

You might be confusing me with someone else. I don't believe I compared the F119 to the F135. Misunderstanding? The reason I brought up the F-35B cost is because that is the subject of this thread, but you piqued my interest, so I looked up some numbers. The last buy of F-22s was bought in a batch of 24 for $169.073…

What are you talking about? In fact, the F-35B is more expensive than an F-22, and always will be. I am talking about how much it costs to build the next jet, not some projected out-year average that can be manipulated. The cost of the last 4 F-22s built at that ridiculous rate was far less than the F-35Bs being…

Well said, Comrade. Taking Tyler's article as an example, you have to turn things upside down to wring any utility from the F-35B.

Hold it. I think it has been established the there was no advantage to the common aircraft design concept. The cost leverage that was supposed to come from the common design configuration has been debunked. Because commonality and exportability was a constraint, costs increased, not decreased. Leverage worked in…

Sigh......the X-32 prototype could not even hover with "bingo" fuel aboard. They had to off-load airframe parts to get hover margin, and it wasn't even hot day conditions. Maybe the X-32 "bigger Harrier" concept was viable, but Boeing couldn't make it work. The catapult launch arrested landing version of the X-32…

...And that is what you are meant to think after over a decade of propaganda. Tyler has done you a service in his article and tells you all the extra effort that has to be performed to get the utility you think already exists. These seven things, and more, must be done if the small carriers will ever have useful…

The A-10 has a lot of pounds of titanium for sure, but it is all in the armor around the cockpit. There are no spares for that assembly stocked, nor needed. Yes, there are a lot of hard hours on the airframes, but all it would take is the will and the resources to keep them going indefinitely. We can get a force…

I can't emphasize enough the A-10 configuration does not lend itself to operations from aircraft carriers. The modifications required would be so costly and heavy it would be better to start somewhere else. A case in point would be how to accommodate nose tow launch on a nose gear that is not on centerline. There are…

The first time I entered a discussion with a person with the exact same argument as yours was in 1975. Back then, there was no combat record. There was no right or wrong, only opinion. In the latest 20 years, I think the data supports the utility of the A-10, especially the bang for the buck.