A fleet of ponies would be more cost effective than the F-35.

Bakumaru said:
A fleet of ponies would be more cost effective than the F-35.

Not to mention, RainbowDash is a lot faster...
and good with kids ;)
Oh ... and you can cuddle it !

Bakumaru said:
A fleet of ponies would be more cost effective than the F-35.

ZombieFX said:
Not to mention, RainbowDash is a lot faster...
and good with kids ;)
Oh ... and you can cuddle it !

Those are F/A-18s, not F-35s.

Cheaper? Definitely. Faster? Maybe (the F/A-18 can hit a top speed of Mach 1.8 at high altitude). However, I doubt ponies could carry an M61 Vulcan 20mm rotary autocannon with 578 rounds, over 13,000 lbs of additional ordnance, and a variety of targeting, defense, and communication systems.

HarryDevil said:
Those are F/A-18s, not F-35s.

words words weapons guns and more words

MAGIC

Bakumaru said:
A fleet of ponies would be more cost effective than the F-35.

ZombieFX said:
Not to mention, RainbowDash is a lot faster...
and good with kids ;)
Oh ... and you can cuddle it !

But are those two the flying middle finger known as the A-10 Thunderbolt II? AKA The Warthog.

Falcon 5: This is Falcon 5 to bird nest over.
Bird nest: Bird nest to Falcon 5 what is the situation over
Falcon 5: Bird nest we got a UFH at our 5 o'clock over
Bird nest: copy again Falcon 5? UFH
Falcon 5: Bird nest it is an Unidentified Flying Horse.

HarryDevil said:
Those are F/A-18s, not F-35s.

Cheaper? Definitely. Faster? Maybe (the F/A-18 can hit a top speed of Mach 1.8 at high altitude). However, I doubt ponies could carry an M61 Vulcan 20mm rotary autocannon with 578 rounds, over 13,000 lbs of additional ordnance, and a variety of targeting, defense, and communication systems.

you egg head

dracotay said:
MAGIC

Pegasus magic allows them to fly and affect weather to a degree. That's it.

If you were to give them additional magic, then in a world where both pegasi and F/A-18 Hornets exist, one must argue: why not just give that same magic to the Hornets and make them even better than before?

Bakumaru said:
A fleet of ponies would be more cost effective than the F-35.

Also ponies fly better then the F-35

D4rk said:
Also ponies fly better then the F-35

No, seriously. The F-35 is a big failure

That's hardly a fair comparison. If you're talking about maneuverability, then technically yes, a pegasus could make tighter turns and achieve sharper descent and ascent angles. However, no pony (with the possible exception of Rainbow Dash) could even hope to match an F-35, or any modern jet fighter, in terms of sheer speed or acceleration, and although we've never seen the affects of high altitude on ponies, I doubt they'd be able to handle that as well either (given that jet powered flight intrinsically works better at higher altitudes, whereas wing or prop powered flight does not).

Also, the disaster behind the F-35 is an economic one, not a performance one. The plane performs decently, especially when you compare its fully loaded performance against other planes' fully loaded performance. The issue is that Lockheed-Martin essentially put it into production before they finished testing it, which means that instead of working out the bugs in just a couple of aircraft, they have to work out the bugs in hundreds of them.

HarryDevil said:

Experts declared that it would take at least till 2025 for the plane to be somekind of useable.

And for all that it costs 237 Millionen Dollar each, and about one trillion dollar to keep them ready.

I would call that a huge, expensive fail

D4rk said:

List of biggest problems

- The F-35 is restricted to mach 1.4 for security reasons
- Many maneuver are prohibited due structure problems
- The climbing rate is also lowered because the angle with which it pulls up is also restricted. (Safety reason)
- It has way less capacity for equipment then the F/A-18
- For the purpose as multirole aircraft it's way to underarmed
- The stealth design is also not worked out (The new generation of passive radars would make the design obsolete)
- It takes about 35 hours of maintenance to get it ready again after a mission. (planned were 6 hours)
- It's a "good weather plane"; it can't handle most of the weather conditions that are found on the northern hemisphere.
- The operating range is also very limited due the design
- And the worst: Even a few 7.62 mm bullets are a serious threat for that plane

Experts declared that it would take at least till 2025 for the plane to be somekind of useable.

And for all that it costs 237 Millionen Dollar each, and about one trillion dollar to keep them ready.

I would call that a huge, expensive fail

Where are you even getting this information? I can't find anything to validate what you're saying.

HarryDevil said:
Where are you even getting this information? I can't find anything to validate what you're saying.

I have a friend from times in the army that works for the air force. He had the chance to inspect a F-35 .

And then he got a list with things they shouldn't do during a test flight

And I red an article about it in a military magazine about it 2 months ago Can't find it online :/

D4rk said:
I have a friend from times in the army that works for the air force. He had the chance to inspect a F-35 .

And then he got a list with things they shouldn't do during a test flight

And I red an article about it in a military magazine about it 2 months ago Can't find it online :/

Well, of the things that you mentioned, the only thing that I can even find information on is the cost, and the number you're showing is pretty far off. Even the most expensive variant, the F-35C, is approximately $116 million (without engine), which is cheaper than the F-22. Furthermore, Lockheed-Martin has stated that they intend to lower the cost of the aircraft, projecting that the low production F-35A (without engine) will cost ~$85 million in 2018. Here's where I got that information.

The engines are supplied independently by Pratt & Whitney, who refuse to publicly release the prices on the the F135 engines. However, assuming they're equivalent to modern fighter jet engines, the CTOL variants probably cost around $10-15 million, while the STOVL variant (used only on the F-35B) may be double that.

HarryDevil said:
Well, of the things that you mentioned, the only thing that I can even find information on is the cost, and the number you're showing is pretty far off. Even the most expensive variant, the F-35C, is approximately $116 million (without engine), which is cheaper than the F-22. Furthermore, Lockheed-Martin has stated that they intend to lower the cost of the aircraft, projecting that the low production F-35A (without engine) will cost ~$85 million in 2018. Here's where I got that information.

The engines are supplied independently by Pratt & Whitney, who refuse to publicly release the prices on the the F135 engines. However, assuming they're equivalent to modern fighter jet engines, the CTOL variants probably cost around $10-15 million, while the STOVL variant (used only on the F-35B) may be double that.

I found the magazine ( turns out it wasn't the one from 2 monhs ago ^^) , here are some of the mentioned sources

A combat ready plane is somewhat different :/

BLUE FUCKING ANGELS

John: Why didn't you have the Wonderbolts flying in formation with the Blue Angels

Billy_Mays said:
ZombieFX said:
Not to mention, RainbowDash is a lot faster...
and good with kids ;)
Oh ... and you can cuddle it !

But are those two the flying middle finger known as the A-10 Thunderbolt II? AKA The Warthog.
[/quote]

"Flying middle finger". Why is that so accurate.

norritt said:
Falcon 5: This is Falcon 5 to bird nest over.
Bird nest: Bird nest to Falcon 5 what is the situation over
Falcon 5: Bird nest we got a UFH at our 5 o'clock over
Bird nest: copy again Falcon 5? UFH
Falcon 5: Bird nest it is an Unidentified Flying Horse.

You could say this was ace combat dialogue and I’d believe it