No More New Fighter Aircraft Types?

Yeah those facts are a damn inconvenience aren't they?

Facts are something you have always been in short supply of Ferrin,

Yet another claim that Tarver can't back up. In our little debates
YOU are the one constantly whining about not being able to post any
references. If you want to show us facts here is your grand
opportunity. Show us a link that talks about those strakes you keep
babbling about on the F-22. Of course you won't. You can't. You're
such a pathetic excuse that you don't have the balls to admit there
AREN'T any references out there because there AREN'T and never have
been strakes on the F-22. You're WRONG. Just like you were WRONG
about the F-22 EVER having canards at any point in the design process.
(I dare ya to deny you ever said THAT).




otherwise you would have agreed with me about the F-22 from the time I
started posting about it at ram.

When you actually manage to post something true (by accident most
likely) I'm in complete agreement. I realize you have the disability
of seeing what you want to see but I've *never* claimed the F-22 *as a
program* was a stellar example. My steadfast assertion has been that
as an aircraft it's the best of the available choices. Period. Any
reading comprehension problems you have are your own problem. Feel
free to check dejanews and prove me wrong. Of course you won't. You
wouldn't know what the word "research" meant if you had a dictionary.
(That fat book thing with all the hard to pronounce words and no
pictures).




If you mean that cheerleaders like
yourself like to reference URLs from other cheerleaders, then I agree.



You must be a glutton for punishment. You're whining because I
referenced someone's URL? I wasn't referencing it for their input I
was referencing it for the picture. A picture that was released by
Lockheed. But hey, you know more than Lockheed, the USAF and the USN
because you think you're an "expert" right? That fact that they also
had information there (that happens to be correct I might add) had
nothing to do with it. The only reason you can never reference
*anything* is because there isn't any. It always makes me laugh when
dumbasses like yourself make wild claims and then whine because nobody
believes them. If you're such an "expert" why is it that you can't
back up the garbage you spew here? Are ALL websites garbage because
they don't flow from the mouth of Tarver? If I state that the B-52
has eight engines on a website does it automatically NOT have eight
engines in your tiny little universe? You're as bad as the pompus ass
a week or two ago who clamied that since he was a "professional" that
he'd killfile anybody who didn't accept everything he said as fact.