What kind of fighter jets does your cunt fly?
Do you like them?
Will they be useful for removing kebab and/or gommies?
basically F16 frame with everything replaced .
everything older (f15\f16s with stock engines ) is complete shit .
i served 3 years in the IAF ,only a few months in a fighter jet base and mostly in air-defense (arrow\irondome systems)
>What kind of fighter jets does your cunt fly?
F-15 (Eagle), F-15 E (Strike Eagle), F-16, F/A-18 A/B/C/D (Hornet), F/A-18 E/F (Super Hornet), F-22, F-35.
>Do you like them?
Yes. I miss the F-14 and wish we had more F-22s but no complaints really.
>Will they be useful for removing kebab and/or gommies?
they're actually falling apart because the iranians dont have good quality spare parts for them .
but then iran invests more in air defense then planes .
nope ,in my pic is the IAF's best plane , they even added that shit on the sides above the win because they didnt have room in the original frame for the fuckton of new systems they added . the IAF pilots are in love with the f16 for some reason , its kind of a legend ever since we bombed some iraqi reactors with it .
Yeah they're nice. Even though because of the gripen half of them are being retired and others are being updated.
>the IAF pilots are in love with the f16 for some reason , its kind of a legend ever since we bombed some iraqi reactors with it .
No retard. You're mistaking it with the F-15. IAF hate the F-16.
It's an F-18 but modified n sheit
The RCAF currently uses them to bomb ISIS
maybe we did at some point get f15s , what im telling you is that currently the israeli airforce is in love with its upgraded f16s and 90% of air attacks in the past 4 years and probably before that were by f16s .
totally useless vietnam war leftovers and shit
I bet they have vietcong bullet holes
hopefully we´ll get yak 130 or korean golden eagle soon
F-14 was more expensive than the F-15 desu.
And there are so many versions of the F-16 it really depends which you're talking about. Some are complete shit, some are top tier to elite.
i fucking served in israeli airforce HAS es in several airforce bases so im prettu sure i know a thing or two about the iaf .
we have like 3-4 f15 squadrons only one of which is the new actually good ones .
and a gorillion f16 squadrons
Mostly CF-18s. We were just about to adopt the F-35 but le weed man dropped the plan, so we are more than likely going to adopt the Eurofighter Typhoon, which will piss me off for the rest of my life.
>literally only useful as a short ranged interceptor or low altitude dog fighter
Nothing can beat the Qaher 313. Especially when you factor price into account.
im pretty sure anything can beat this 'flying' abortion .
it looks like some iranian engineer got drunk and watched stealth .
im sure the israeli plane project would have turned out just as shit but ours actually looked like a plane and not some anime shit .
We only have maritime surveillance and transport planes, which are useful at both tasks anyway
Look at that fucking gear
LOOK AT IT
ITS JUST FUCK MY SHIT UP TIER
F/A-18 Hornet, F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, and E/A-18 Growlers. This is a Growler here
They will fuck your shit right up.
You're also buying F-35As to retire the legacy Hornets.
>F-15 is the best plane
>muh sneaky stealthy shit is nothing but a gimmick
Why not both?
why iranians try so hard to be hardcore . i mean ffs u got hot persian chicks .
Never discuss about air planes on the internet. Burgers gonna say "F-22 best"
Bydlos gonna say "Sukhoi best"
Yuros gonna say "Yurofighter best"
Swedes gonna say "Gripen best"
Turks gonna say "Donkeys best"
iw as a 3d designer in the IDF when this shit came out .
our commander made us watch it and said 'want and learn' . i mean its not isis production quality but the 3d is pretty good compared to the shit we were making .
Why so rude? Even burgers doesn't sound so rude!
The Israelis recently asked for it again, and from what I've heard, we said no. Again.
Gotta get those F-35 orders instead. We're too far in, we can't pull out now! More blood for the JSF god!
this is all memes man .
a plane is as good as the systems each nation puts on it . the only other difference is you can fit more bombs on bigger planes .
america pretty much sells israel stripped planes (they can fly stock but have no avionics\weapon systems \anything modern) so everything on the plane is made by the israeli aerospace industries , which make amazing systems simply because they have a shitton of data and feedback .
i dont think there has been a period of more then 4 months in the last 15 year where the IAF didnt bomb at least one target .
from my understanding pic related (like the new latest ones) BTFOs pretty much anything .
>What kind of fighter jets does your cunt fly?
F-16s with the MLU
Getting F-35As. We have 2 of them now, stationed in the US for training/testing.
Too bad we're only getting 37 of them. The acquisition was right in the middle of the financial crisis and our defense budget was being cut every year. Now we're actually increasing defense spending again, but it's unlikely any of that will into buying more F-35s.
whatever makes you sleep better
meant to post this /.
Posting this since it's relevant to the thread
You again. No! We have Typhoons!
Strike attack aircraft.
It can't be targeted by modern SAMs unless it's almost on top of them. Stealth isn't a meme, and the F-35 uses stealth to take out SAMs, and open up paths for non stealth aircraft.
The economy is growing. There is room in the budget.
>have 1 F-16 reserved for our display team
>it gets called back by the Air Force because they desperately need another F-16 in operational state
>gets an anti-corrosion treatment and is painted grey again
And I don't think Lockheed will allow us fucking up the RAM coating on the F-35 by painting it orange :^)
anything flying can be detected by radar no matter how uberstealth it is , that's not the point .
a big plane that returns a big juicy radar signal is piss easy easy to track lock unto and shoot down with even old as fuck AA .
stealth planes drastically reduce the range at which you can get a reliable radar lock ,make it nearly impossible to identify the types and numbers of planes flying together and when you you add anti-radar tactics into the mix like countermeasures ,decoys , electronic warfare and more that means the enemy has no clue what the fuck's going on in the air from the radar alone .
this is a shit analog but its like the difference between getting a nice clean wifi signal you can get good speeds on at home and trying a shitty over saturated public wifi with overlapping channels and a shitton of interference . sure you can browse on both but its not the same .
stealth is not a meme , stealth making planes undetectable is .
>And I don't think Lockheed will allow us fucking up the RAM coating on the F-35 by painting it orange :^)
Ptobably not but if you REALLY want one I'm sure they'll be happy to design one for you.
For a reasonable fee of course.
>anything flying can be detected by radar no matter how uberstealth it is ,
Doesn't matter if it's detected. What matters is if it can be targeted, and L band radar cannot target.
What good does it do you knowing a plane is somewhere in the general area if it cannot be killed?
>no-frills, best value
well turboprop is sort of kind of a jet engine .
if you start a new country you probably dont have enough money to but the latest gen fighter planes , superkingair is a multirole , reliable , good plane and you can get spares for cheap from a trillion different countries .
IAF loves this plane , i got into one i wasnt supposed to get on and it was loaded with super sekrit cameras and surveillance stuff .
Ruskies should be more proud of pic related. I hear it's been doing great at blowing up the levant
They are proud of them, and they should be. It's a fantastic B-1 copy.
They were so proud of them that they announced they were going to build more....before they realized everyone who actually knew how to build the damn thing had left for the US or Israel 20 years ago.
I didn't say they were bad, I said it was a half assed choice for Finland. Countries like Finland only buy jets every 30-50 years.
If you expect your jet to last that amount of time you should go with the most advanced option.
Obviously the Super Hornet is based but if they bought it now it would be a 20 year old airframe before they even started flying it.
It didn't really, which is partially why they stopped doing it.
I doubt they intended it to in the first place. If you haven't realized, the Russians have been using Syria as a laboratory to test weapon systems. Which is why they're launching cruise missiles and sending expensive strategic bombers when they could otherwise be dropping dumb bombs from SU-25s. The use of the Tu-160 in Syria is the first time they've ever actually used it in combat. A great way to collect data.
Pretty sure they went over Raqqa last week, but I could be wrong. It's not like they're using it at max. capacity anyway. And they're using their older bears too.
Ever heard how these beauties ended up in Ukraine's hands and how they just decommissioned (rekt) most of them?
>cuckraine in charge of doing anything right.
my point was american superhornets are great .
if find buy em they're as good as what fins put on them (unless they're buying them with all the systems which costs kajilions )
Because the world is yet to develop something at least nearly as awesome as it.
>if find buy em they're as good as what fins put on them (unless they're buying them with all the systems which costs kajilions )
Not really. We sold Australia Growlers for Christs sake.
And Finland isn't exactly poor, they could easily afford fully loaded Super Hornets. It would just be dumb, because they'll be stuck with them for perhaps half a century.
I'm still conflicted about the cancellation of further f-22 orders.
In one hand, it is true that we will probably never be challenged by a powerful country to a 1v1 conventional war so we don't need thousands of them.
But without more production we have fewer than 200 for the next 15 years until the F/A-XX comes into service.
The only consolation imo is that no other country will be able to create anything that can top it until then.
They could still end up buying it. It will be included in the competition
We're down to 200 F-15 C-D's
240 F-15E's with the first retired ones in a year.
The air supremacy ones will go ANG and die by 2025, and the bombhogs are going to be retired by 2030.
The F-22 will be carrying a huge load the next 25 years. Hopefully they stop killing pilots by then.
The gator fleet doesn't fight like the USN. And trying to do so would make them even more irrelevant.
It's coincidence that the Corps is now talking about using the LHAs purely for F-35Bs to support the CVNs in strike missions.
Buying into a ludicrously expensive new project like a potential AWACS V22 is nowhere in the realm of economic possibilities for them.
The USA has used strategic bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. If you have the material, you might as well use it.
I wasn't trying to be mean.
I'm no autist. I just am anti-Western international neoliberalism so
F-35 = a too big to fail program forming an arm of American propaganda military diplomacy.
Still, I think it is amazing. I simply like to keep things factual. Too many pro and anti F-35 memes.
>98 million a plane
>can't dogfight therefore bad
>B has IOC therefore it is ACTIVE
>98% functional = ACTIVE
I just think the whole program is a giant political game being played to please all Congressmen.
b1 is a sexy plane
i remember i was staying at an air force base for cub scouts and me and my dad sneaked into a restricted area to watch b1s take off
>using Sea Stallions
Come on it's 2016!
But seriously, the marines need more money. A bunch of their F-18's are breaking down and a few crashed last year.
>and 90% of air attacks in the past 4 years and probably before that were by f16s .
You realize you are agreeing with him when you say that? Bomb trucking is a job for low-end fighters, with air cover performed by the good shit(F-15s)
>tfw the US Navy has the world's second largest air force, right behind the US Air Force
Why are the marines using F-35B's if the Navy uses F-35C's for the same role?
Why not just build more supercarriers and C's instead of more marine carriers and B's?
The Marines literally built the America class LHA just to be a F-35B carrier.
The F-35 wouldn't even be a thing if the Marines didn't ask for a STOVL plane.
Don't ask me. The military and congress don't make any sense.
only one of you has suggested one pro: power projection
on the other hand it's a shitload of money
allot isn't even maintained properly
and of course
>STOP BEING MUH INTERNATIONAL WATCHDOG, LIGHT THAT GUARDS THE REALM FROM COMMUNISM, AND GLOBAL POLICE
>They don't want us there
As a civilian who just happens to like pictures of fighter jets, I understand that the US army and Marines are treated as distinct branches but I've never really understood why? My understanding is that Army combat units have a lot more vehicles and armor (tanks) integrated into their forces whereas the Marines do most things on foot and rely more on air support for their heavy hitting. What's the real story?
They are useful.
But can't you put them on supercarriers?
In my view, our LHA's should be helicopter carriers working alongside our supercarriers.
Now they are pseudo-carriers with their own little battle groups.
Essentially far far less capable sitting ducks compared to a CBG in a hot war.
They serve no purpose for us.
If the US ever finds itself in a position where it NEEDS stovl F-35Bs to win, then the war is already lost.
The Chinese would like nothing more than to see some LHA trying to attack their territory for some odd reason.
Any serious conflict with a real country will involve us hitting them from 2k km out.
Most of those are extremely minor.
For example in 2013 I stayed in the NATO lodge in Garmisch. It was literally a lodge with some fencing around it.
Also it was joint NATO not American.
Oh, and Garmisch is absolutely gorgeous. One of the best places on earth.
Zugspitz is great as well for being the tallest mountain in the former Germany.
STOVL aircraft are useful for providing air support for ground troops. They can land closer to the front which means it takes less time for them to get back to base and rearm for another bombing run.
It's a 1940's-1950's meme that has survived to present.
Essentially established bureacracy that is impossible to kill because of the extremely pro-military politics of Congress.
It literally should be absorbed into the Navy.
>The Marines literally built the America class LHA just to be a F-35B carrier.
You are now disqualified from saying anything else on the matter. You don't know crap about what LHA/LHD are for. There's gonna be four Bs per in normal conditions. It's purely for supporting the MEFs carried by the same ships, it's not like a real carrier that uses air power to dominate a broad swath of sea.
I agree on the latter but care to elaborate that it's a clusterfuck?
Our navy has been doing pretty decent despite the budget cuts. Entire fleet is modern and well equipped in terms of sensor suites and armaments. We're one of the few countries with a green-water navy and we'll also be one of the first countries to have proper BMD capabilities on our destroyers (SMART-L EWC/APAR + SM-3). Getting new multipurpose frigates and submarines as well. The Belgian Navy is also pretty much integrated into ours so we get some extra capabilities in terms of mine hunting and anti-submarine warfare.
Army has seen a bigger loss in capabilities/equipment, but then again, it was hugely oversized since the Cold War. We got rid of most of the stuff that was catching dust, including most of of our Leopard 2A6s. Still got one squadron of them left which are being upgraded to 2A7+ standards. Furthermore lots of CV-90s, Fenneks, Boxers, Bushmasters, SPGs and solid IADS with multiple Patriot and NASAMS 2 batteries. Really need some multiple rocket launchers though.
Marines got decent amphibious capabilities with LCUs, LCVPs, NH90 helis and a shitload of tracked personnel carriers.
nah , while they let other planes bomb palestinians , in an actual war scenario F16 sufa is israel's air superiority fighter ,we have like 25 F15 raams (the good ones) with only maybe 13 ready to fly\in the air at a time . where's we have 100 sufa's which are israel's most advanced , most expensive multirole planes .
f16 sufa is the fighter plane israel has .
That's why I said the former republic of Germany.
When I went in June 2013 I saw two brownish people in all of Garmisch.
According to Germanons it is now a major crossing point for those "refugees" entering.
Like a horde of orcs rushing down the valley towards the fertile blonde pussies of the former republic of Germany's lowlands.
Marines are extra useful because they can be plopped on an assault ship near the usual trouble spots and get into the action in days or even hours.
US Army lacks the Amphib specialization, and also takes longer to "run up" for a deployment outside of a few SOF units.
Nobody can yet tell what modern air combat looks like and what aspects will emerge victorious under total war conditions. The history of aerial warfare is filled with false assumptions.
The Marines are a pointless branch of the military that should be absorbed into the Navy.
Nothing should change fundamentally, but separate branches has created improper allocation of resources.
>Now they are pseudo-carriers with their own little battle groups.
In the entire history of America's Amphib Assault ships, there has been exactly one(1) case of an LH* being loaded up with jets to act as a pseudo-carrier.
In other words, you are pulling things out your ass and should really stop talking
>My understanding is that Army combat units have a lot more vehicles and armor (tanks) integrated into their forces
LMAO. Tons of heavy units are being downgraded to wheels to save money and man-hours. We've learned NOTHING from the past decade.
The top USMC brass like Lt. Gen. Jon Davis himself has said that the USMC needs to start looking into loading the LHAs wt 16-20 F35s to support the CVNs.
The USMC is redundant in the 21st century.
They were redundant for most of the second half of the 20th as well.
>So just fully integrate the Marines into the Navy's branch?
How would integrating a sea based assault force expected to fight on land into a branch with zero experience or training in land warfare be anything other than a complete and total disaster?
You realize this exact same fuckup happened when the Army and Air Force were in one branch right?
As I understand it, the bases are there for projection of ground forces into east Europe. Germany doesn't need defending any more
This debate is interesting because the "whole force" concept of the USMC is admired by quite a few British defence analysts, and reform of the British armed forces is partly informed by the experience of the USMC. The British military is going that way, increased integration in order to be more effective
The two that actually exist do not have welldecks.
They were also originally designed to have no welldeck.
Seems like you're disqualified for being absolutely wrong and providing no accurate evidence.
>This debate is interesting because the "whole force" concept of the USMC is admired by quite a few British defence analysts
>reform of the British armed forces is partly informed by the experience of the USMC.
Top USMC brass, huh?
IE the only people outside of congress dinosaurs that thought the '80s revival of Iowas was a good idea? USMC brass, like the one that advocated against the Marines adopting a shorter rifle for reasons that can best be summed up as autism? The ones that buy an overpriced DMR and pretend it's a SAW replacement when they really want it just because new rifle?
The F-35B being used on the LHA's is the main purpose of the F-35B being made.
Also, the LHA's are always carriers if they carry fixed wing craft or not.
Because the Army knows how to operate amphibious assault ships and LHA's?
Davis just wants carriers of his own because navy has them. His statements should not be taken as indicating the future development of the force. They should be taken as what they are: interservice squabbling between USMC and Navy.
Tell me about all the experience the Army has operating LHA's and AAV's.
I'm not saying the Navy should control the Marines, I'm saying the branches should be integrated to make up for redudancies.
The Navy should control the LHA's and air contigents and the Marines control the land vehicles and soldiers.
Looks like I am triggering a lot of autists though.
Response time is terrific because they have land, air and naval power integrated into a unified structure. And history has shown they are effective as well as fast to react
Now that the Cold War is over, the British military is becoming an expeditionary force like it used to be before the world wars. Less emphasis on army, more emphasis on navy and power projection. The British government needs a force that can react very quickly to international situations, and amphibious assault is crucial. A more unified force structure is helpful and the USMC is an obvious model as it can act almost independently. Now obviously there are major differences, the British military isn't going to become the USMC, but the philosophy is similar
>using 1980's planes.
That really isn't very strange. The USA is just beginning to shed its 1970s aircraft.
That doesn't change the fact the Marines wanted the B from the start of the JSF.
Also, the Bongs weren't part of it when the F-35X was being designed 1995-1997.
They had little to nothing to do with the design.
>Tell me about all the experience the Army has operating LHA's and AAV's.
Tell me about the experience the USN has fighting on land. The answer to both is none.
So we can agree then that the Marines serve a purpose.
Army pathetic? Based on what?
Our navy has literally no old platforms bar our mine hunters, which have no priority.
You still use F-15s, F-16s and F-18s as well. Retarded argument. And did you know we were the first foreign country to receive the F-35A for testing/training?
I hoped you had some good insights but you're just spouting shit.
>between the Navy and a Marine land force.
So..if we're going to have a Marine land force anyway what have we actually achieved in your scenario other than creating a chain of command clusterfuck and branches with missions that will become conflicted in resource allocation?
The UK is the only "level 1" partner of the F-35 programme which means it had design input. This is explicitly said by Lockmart and your government.
It's not because you love us, it's because we paid a larger amount of money into the programme than other countries, and BAE put some of its own research into it (which is why BAE is one of the primary manufacturers)
By the way, you lied in your post. You said Britain wasn't involved in the 1995-1997 period. However
>The United Kingdom is the sole "Level 1" partner, contributing US$2.5 billion, which was about 10% of the planned development costs under the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding that brought the UK into the project.
>1995 Memorandum of Understanding that brought the UK into the project.
Understand that? So fuck you.
>What kind of fighter jets does your cunt fly?
The sexy kind
>Do you like them?
>Will they be useful for removing kebab and/or gommies?
Programme (as in a tv programme) has a distinct meaning to program (like to program a computer). It's not my fault if your variant of English doesn't bother making the distinction. You don't even differentiate between cheque (for money) and check (to make sure). It's mad, but each to their own.
I dunno how likely that is but that would be an interesting sight
Damn shame we've only built one carrier though
Why would you choose simplified English over the regular kind? I know how the Taiwanese must feel now.
Metre (unit of measurement) and meter (something that measures) is another one. Two meanings but you use the same word
I'm tired of this "German Engineering" meme. They made dope as fuck automatic weapons in WWII and that's it throughout all of history I swear.
Great job Germany, a decade of excellence in a field.
Reeeeeeeeee we do so much fucking moreee
>No cuckramp though please
That will never happen, ever. Though Rafales can theoretically takeoff from ramps, we do need a catapult to get maximum performance out of it. We might have to drop the nuclear reactors on our next design though.
Anyway, with the current budget a carrier class won't be built anytime soon, we'll probably have them around the time CDG retires
Yes and no. Pretty much every part of the political spectrum has fucked our late 80s to 90s procurement programmes, resulting on expensive Rafales, a single carrier, only 400 tanks ...
You could theoretically use Rafales on a STOBAR design (like Russia, India and China use), but that would be insane, it gives even worse performance than STOVL carriers (like the UK uses)
If you make another carrier it will definitely have catapults imo
We could sell them pic related
>implying the rest of NATO doesn't let the US do all the military spending
Memes aside, if Russians ever get around to building a new carrier I have a feeling it will be STOBAR. There's a lot of new stuff they would have to develop for a CATOBAR (or indeed STOVL) carrier. They would have to go balls to the wall and put unprecedented effort into the navy.
Some of those really small countries should just pay into a pool of money for NATO to purchase shared assets (like those AWACS planes for example).
What is Luxembourg going to achieve by spending 2% on defence? Nothing, that's what. Better it goes to something useful
NATO has a command system, it's decided by who happens to be commanding the relevant branch at the relevant time. And I suppose countries could request the use of them. Shared NATO assets already exist, so there must be a system in use already.
Air transport would be an obvious one. Or air tankers.
If oil goes back up they can just build bigger shipyards. They're not incapable of this stuff, it's just that doing carriers properly is extremely expensive, so they would need to see significant improvements in their economic situation. Which is unlikely.
Then again, no one saw the oil crash coming
>oil price which none of us can predict
>he doesn't know what economic warfare and espionage is.
We raped russia hard for their actions in Crimea - without firing a shot.
Protip: stockpiles in the middle east of oil waiting to flood the market, just fuck russia
>Protip: stockpiles in the middle east of oil waiting to flood the market, just fuck russia
Woah wait you actually did some of that already? See gas has been pretty cheap as of lately
That you guys carry NATO so hard that everyone else can basically sit back and let you guys do most of the military spending
That should also be one of the biggest concerns for Europe. If you guys somehow pull out of NATO, we're fucked. Europe should not take the current situation for granted and pull their own weight
That's a good idea. There should also be more cooperation between countries. Like we have the same interests in the Caribbean yet I don't see any joint NL/UK/FR operations. Could easily be done for the simpler things like anti-piracy and anti-drug trafficking missions.
Maybe fun to know: right now we're in the process of setting up a joint Dutch/German tank battalion. We'll have control over our own tank squadron, but training and maintenance will be done together.
We're also sharing our mine hunter fleet with the Belgian Navy. There's a central command center for them in the Netherlands, and maintenance/training/logistics is done by the Belgians.