So I'm told that the f-35 is the best fighter ever. That

>>28343534
It's not like it has a lot of competition.

>>28343591
Yeah, because the J-20 is already on track to beat it to EDG.

File: f35.png (123KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 500x334px

best multi-role fighter, F-22 is still the better air superiority aircraft

Yes, after years of shitposting /k/ finally came around to love the CUTE that is the F35.

>>28343594
Chinese planes.

Why do I even have to argue beyond this point?

>>28343688
You don't need to, because your prejudice is so ingrained at this point that beating it out of you with a 2x4 would be the only option. Same applies for much of /k/

>>28343741
Cash it in, fiddy. Your planes a shit.

File: f-35curvy.jpg (578KB, 1200x1144px) Image search: [Google]

578KB, 1200x1144px

>>28343648
Chinese/Russian shills are asleep, post positive things about the F-35!

The F-35 has a combat radius of 450+ to 600+ miles, depending on variant. Compared to 285 miles of an A-10.

Even if it turns out to be a total crock of shit, the B version will be a million times better than the harrier.

>>28343534
>Best fighter ever
>Defeated by F-16 in NATO test
>Not better than EuroFighter

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35-will-never-beat-the-eurofighter-2013-2

http://www.stripes.com/blog-f-16-beat-f-35-lightning-ii-in-air-combat-test-1.355799

>>28343853
>being this new

>>28343853
>according to the blog war is boring
The second link can be disregarded completely.

>>28343853
>F35 is a trainer with gimped systems
>"combat test"
>businessinsider as a source for anything

>>28343833
The A-10 combat radius you are quoting includes almost 2 HOURS of loiter time and 10 minutes of combat.

The F-35 combat radius you are quoting does not include that loiter.

The combat radius is higher because of the F-35's speed. Actual time on station is lower, by far.

>>28343853
jesus

>http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35-will-never-beat-the-eurofighter-2013-2
A multirole fighter will never beat Europe's latest and equally expensive air superiority fighter in air combat. Well holy shit no way.

>http://www.stripes.com/blog-f-16-beat-f-35-lightning-ii-in-air-combat-test-1.355799
So a test bed version of the F-35 doing exercises with an F-16, one of the most maneuverable fighters in the world, and didn't fly circles around it. Did you even read the article or did you skim the headline and call it a day?

>>28343899
Is there any solid info out there that detail the A-10's and F-35's range and loiter times, maybe projected loiter times with drop tanks?

>>28343914

Motherfucking this.

I really wish people would understand that if you make something that's okay at anything, you end up with something that excels at nothing.

Jack of all trades, master of none
Often better than a master of one.

No one needs air superiority fighters right now. Its not WW2 or the cold war.

File: f35.jpg (225KB, 1200x1144px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1200x1144px

>>28343833
>F-35
>Literally has a dick on it

No thanks

>>28344036
?
"multi-role" is a PROGRAMMING/SENSORS thing more than anything else.
You don't lose any capabilities just because you can carry jdams.

F-35 is shit. We don't need it. We have F-15s, F-16s, and F-22s as fighters and air support, and the F-22 has plenty of stealth technology. Plus the F-35 is shit compared to the A-10 in close air support.

File: 1412936197677.png (132KB, 250x299px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 250x299px

>>28344036
>No one needs air superiority fighters right now

>>28344129
>Plus the F-35 is shit compared to the A-10 in close air support
Explain why.

>>28344139
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTT

>>28344129
If the army had proper weaponry, they wouldn't need anywhere near as much close air support.
You know that planes don't last forever and those old aircraft need to be replaced, right?

>>28343853
Anyone who believes that war games are an indicator of a plane's performance is an idiot or baiting. Usually one side is gimped for training purposes.

>>28344147
And?

>>28344036
Yeah, no one needs anything, until they desperately need it.

>>28344154
It wasn't even a wargame

>>28344168
Okay testing, doesn't change what I said to be wrong. Don't they put a module on the F-22 to make enemy planes detect the raptor easier?

I got a full retard question.
For the same price as a f-35 (aprox $90million) you can get about 300-400 stunt/aerobatic aircraft and equip them with IR missiles that dont need an exstensive radar system and basic gunpods. Wouldnt the sheer number of aircraft overwhelm the f-35s? Obviously the stunt aircraft have little hope of catching and shooting down the f-35s, simply spotting them would be next to impossible. The advanced jets will eventually have to land. So assuming they know where the airbase is why not use hundreds of cheaper aircraft as fodder and go for a full out attack when they are on land? It just seems these modern jets would do poorly in a long war of attrition.

>>28344245
Because airbases aren't just places without defenses.

>>28344245
You're right, that is a full retard question

>>28344249
This. And because you have more than one there and can cycle them in and out of the sky.

>>28344245
Ultra cheap aircraft operating off roads/fields/rivers/lakes would invalidate the massive trillion dollar defense industry

The only innovation the government is capable of is "throw more money at it"

>>28344245

who are you going to get to pilot the thousands of aircraft you are going to scramble?

where are you going to hold thousands of aircraft? where are you going to launch them from?

ignoring the combat ability of the craft in question, think of the logistics involved in just getting them up in the air for such a sortie

>>28344278
MORE MONEY FOR MUH PROGRAMS

>>28344299
Imagine how much more capable the military would be if they didn't frivolously waste billions on useless crap like strykers
So the whole army turns into a mostly light infantry force utterly reliant on air support to do anything..

>>28343853
>mfw that dogfight never happened

>>28344156
It's a common mistake to not differentiate high and low altitude CAS, both of which have their values.

>>28344408
There currently exists no aircraft able to do low altitude CAS
Maybe if the army was able to possess fixed wing aircraft, they would try to produce one.

>>28344415
Besides the A-10.

>>28344680
No, the A-10 does COIN

>>28344711
No, the A-10 does CAS (and FAC, CSAR, rotorcraft escort, etc), this isn't tumblr where you get to redefine words.

>>28344747
The a-10 only operates in areas without AA or enemy aircraft
That is COIN, not cas in an actual shooting war.

>>28344771
Again, you do not get to redefine existing definitions, being shot at is not a qualifier for performing CAS. Even if the A-10 is one of the better aircraft out there for taking a hit, something that will happen in low altitude CAS.

>>28344830
>Even if the A-10 is one of the better aircraft out there for taking a hit, something that will happen in low altitude CAS.

Literally destroyed by a 1KG warhead Igla, and getting hit takes it out of the fight.

Its a stupid point to make.

>>28344830
dropping bombs on goat rapists who can't fight back is COIN
not CAS

>>28344843
The difference being other aircraft would have suffered even worse losses.

>>28344882
By your logic the B-1 is a COIN aircraft.

>>28344949
>The difference being other aircraft would have suffered even worse losses.

Uh, no actually.

Theres a great day in which F-16s had to take up the slack of CAS work because A-10s a shit and 3 were lost in one day, many others damaged.

Taking ground fire is a result of low'n'slow CAS. Having to do it is a failure of aircraft design now. Because you will die, and its totally unecessary.

>>28344949
>By your logic the B-1 is a COIN aircraft.
who needs some sissy little gun on a slow aircraft when you have a supersonic bomber with a 125,000 lb payload?

>>28344965
>Theres a great day in which F-16s had to take up the slack of CAS work

That isn't what happened at all, you are as bad as the anti F-35.

>>28344965
>and its totally unecessary.

Much like the tanks are obsolete claim, real life proves you wrong every time.

>>28345017
So you are in fact calling the B-1 a COIN aircraft.

>>28344415
The Army does have fixed-wing aircraft, you know.

>>28345063
other than drones?

>>28345053
i'm calling it pretty rad

>>28344949
The B-1B is quite capable of operating when the enemy's air-defense network is operational. The A-10...not so much.

>>28345071
Yes. Wiesbaden Airfield in Germany has a flight of Intel planes. Prop-driven, bit still fixed-wing.

>>28345042
If by 'real life' you mean "Your headcanon in which MUHREENS asking for A-10s makes them effective"

>>28345031
The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It’s a function of thrust, it’s not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq’s [less formidable] front-line units. That’s fine if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard.

Q: At what point did you do that?

A: I think I had fourteen airplanes sitting on the ramp having battle damage repaired, and I lost two A- 10s in one day [February 15], and I said, “I’ve had enough of this.” ….”

>>28345081
You mean like A-10s in the Balkans.

So what happened to claiming bombing snackbars = COIN.

>>28343534
Idk. We will have to wait until the new Independence Day movie comes out to know for sure.

>>28345108
It is hilarious that you strawman about headcanon while creating your own headcanon.

>>28345186
k, keep being deluded into thinking CAS requires you to be low, I guess.

Not that your opinion matters jack shit, after all.

>>28345108
>Republic Guard = the entire Iraqi army
>cannot actually quantify what F-16s did

>>28345212
So A-10s were shit enough to be pulled back from doing work against the entire Iraqi army

cool beans, bro.

>>28345196
And you can continue arguing with strawman when reality disagrees with you.

>>28345229
You might want to actually quantify what you mean by "real life" when the vast majority of CAS isn't performed by the A-10 but rather the B-1B, and of that CAS, the vast majority is PGM work.

Neither of which were low.

>>28345224
Your reading comprehension is lacking.

>>28345125
An air-defense network that's too afraid to light anything up because they know we have Prowlers waiting may as well be a COIN operation.

>>28345241
The vast majority of CAS has not been performed by B-1s, and A-10s performed more missions relative to their numbers than any other CAS performing aircraft.

>>28345287

Not him, but what else can they do for nothing but CAS?

>>28345287
The B-1B did more in Afghanistan.

And theoretically speaking, a B-1B, because of its speed, range, loiter and sheer payload can perform a he'll of a lot more CAS on one sortie than a group of A-10s on multiple sorties.