There are now more F-35s than any other 5th gen

>>30775666
>"But the F35 is just a meme!"

>>30775666

I want to see more. I want thousands of these things after the amount of money spent on their design. I want em' to be the T-55 of planes!

>>30775666

F-35 is also at red flag as we speak.

>https://news.usni.org/2016/07/25/marine-corps-f-35b-makes-red-flag-air-combat-debut

Early next year F-35Bs will be operationally deployed to the SCS.

But, the program will be cancelled at any time, amirite my vatnik/chicom friends?

File: hqdefault[1].jpg (7KB, 196x110px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 196x110px

>>30775682
Can't wait to see an F-35 elephant walk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwhBQx76WHY

File: F16elephantwalk.webm (510KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 1280x720px

>>30775705

>>30775705
>>30775727
Give it about 3-5 more years, and you will

>>30775666
>At least 194 F-35s
Of which how many are combat capable?
>Russia's gradually working towards 20 PAK-FAs by 2020
No.
>China's made 2 non-test J-20s
What does this even have to do with 5th gen?

>>30775863
>Of which how many are combat capable?
Tech-wise, the majority, although personnel-wise, only something like 24 (increasing to 36 or more later this year with USAF IOC), the rest are for training, about a dozen for testing. Most of the F-22 fleet is for training as well.

>No.
No what?

>What does this even have to do with 5th gen?
J-20s are 5th gen fighters, arguably more so than the PAK-FA.

>>30775918
>only something like 24
So about 160 less combat capable F-35 than F-22. Nice clickbait.
>No what?
No that.
>Fullmetal barn with aerodynamics of a railway carriage and shitty copycats of Su-27 engines
>5th gen
Poor joke.
>5th gen

>>30776001
>So about 160 less combat capable F-35 than F-22. Nice clickbait.
Only 123 F-22s are physically capable of combat (have combat-capable software), many of those pilots would also not be fully trained to go to war tomorrow.

>No that.
You're right, they're only building 18; 6 test jets today, another 12 LRIP jets being acquired through to 2020.

>Poor joke.
5th gen isn't about aerodynamics, its about stealth and sensors. The chinks aren't up to par, but their jet at least has S-ducts, 1-piece canopies, etc. Also at least they've already put AESAs into service.

>>30776036
>Only 123 F-22s are physically capable of combat
I'm going to need a source on that.
>they're only building 18
No.
>5th gen isn't about aerodynamics
Yes it is.
> The chinks aren't up to par
Yes they aren't.

>>30776124
>I'm going to need a source on that.
https://news.usni.org/2014/05/16/air-force-evaluating-new-targeting-monocle-f-22-raptor

>No.
http://in.rbth.com/economics/2015/03/25/russian_air_force_to_buy_fewer_pak_fa_fighter_aircraft_42179

>Yes it is.
Which is obviously why the F-35 is a Mach 3 thrust vectoring dogfighter.

>Yes they aren't.
Doesn't mean it's not 5th gen.

>>30776161
>https://news.usni.org/2014/05/16/air-force-evaluating-new-targeting-monocle-f-22-raptor
So still about 100-120 more combat capable F-22 than F-35. Nice clickbait.
>http://in.rbth.com/economics/2015/03/25/russian_air_force_to_buy_fewer_pak_fa_fighter_aircraft_42179
Literal "12 T-50 meme".
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2559994
>Which is obviously why the F-35 is a Mach 3 thrust vectoring dogfighter.
No, which is obviously why F-35 is not even 5th gen being limited to Mach 1.6.
>Doesn't mean it's not 5th gen.
It being a fullmetal barn with aerodynamics of a railway carriage and shitty copycats of Su-27 engines does.

>>30776216

>being this much of a Vatnik

We should outlaw Russia. We really should.

File: u mad.jpg (196KB, 1280x852px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1280x852px

>>30776238
>Being this out of arguments
Kek.

>More F-22s than Su-35s
>More F-35s than F-22s
Russia is so broke and far behind, they should just quit

>>30776256

No, I just don't have the desire to post the same shit that has been posted in 200+ previous threads ripping apart the Pak-FA and correcting the misinfo about the F-35.

Even if I do all of this you will still scream
>T-50 for lyfe! F-35 not even a plane! cleverly disguised hamburger!

If I walk away from this internet argument now, I can enjoy maybe a nice walk around town, grab a bite to eat at the local diner, maybe just enjoy a movie on Netflix with some popcorn.

Whereas you, my friend, will still be upset.

>>30775666
It's almost like the F-35 program started over a decade before all the rest minus the F-22

File: he mad.jpg (446KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 1600x1067px

>>30776304
>There's still more combat capable F-22 than F-35
>There's still more than 12 T-50 to be delivered till 2020
>F-35 still can't supercruise
>J-20 is still a fullmetal barn with aerodynamics of a railway carriage and shitty copycats of Su-27 engines
It's almost sad to see you struggling with your pathetic strawman.

>>30776036
>its about stealth and sensors
Which they've got. J-20 has a better frontal aspect than the F-35 and worse rear (due to the engine chassis). They're the only other country with a full 360 EODAS, IRST and have sensors mounted all over the fucking thing.

What more do you want from them to call it 5th gen?

>>30775666
>there are now more F-35's than F-22's
>Source clearly states there are as many F-35's as F-22's

Come on OP.

>>30775702
>Early next year F-35Bs will be operationally deployed to the SCS.

(Citation needed)

>>30776298
I am pretty confident we aren't competing with Russia on MUH NUMBERS.

File: 7uko0NH.jpg (77KB, 1457x885px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1457x885px

>>30775666
>China's made 2 non-test J-20s
lol wut
they already test fly the eleven prototype

File: J-20A LRIP - 8.7.16 parts.jpg (268KB, 1194x1234px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1194x1234px

>>30776462
China hasn't actually yet demo'd its DAS, so we're not yet certain whether they're going with a full DAS system or just copying the F-22 with its MLD (the F-22 has 6 IR cameras facing all directions like the F-35, but no image stitching and no aircraft detection / tracking).

I'm also not sure about the J-20 having a better frontal aspect; the F-35 is supposed to be better than the F-22 from the front, which was already the stealthiest aircraft in the world. RAM in particular will impact frontal signature quite a bit, which is something China lags behind on.

Also I'm the one calling it 5th gen, it's the vatnik I replied to that's saying otherwise.

>>30776507
>The figures revealed to Lockheed Martin investors brings the total number of F-35s to 194 (174 plus 20 SDD airframes) as of 26 June

It was 194 jets more than a month ago.

>>30776529
We're competing in numbers and tech.

>>30776562
I said 2 non-test J-20s; the test jets have 20XX serials. The LRIP J-20s have 21XX serials and low-vis roundels

File: 1639487_-_main.jpg (73KB, 752x423px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 752x423px

>>30776600
>China hasn't actually yet demo'd its DAS
Marketing materials shows EOTS-89 is listed as a 360 degree DAS for detecting and illuminating B-2s at 150km and F-22s at 100km. Detection range is unverified but it is a 360 degree tracking and illuminating DAS.

>F-35 is supposed to be better than the F-22 from the front
Nope, F-22 has always been better on all aspects.

>was already the stealthiest aircraft in the world
B-2 is the stealthiest by far.

>RAM in particular will impact frontal signature quite a bit
Not nearly as much as the intakes which unlike the F-22 are DSIs, they get a handicap in that regard. RAM has a larger impact on the side and rear aspect where the boxy shape is more prevalent. The chinks have done a remarkable job with the frontal aspect, it's not F-22 tier but it does match the F-35. The rear however needs work.

>>30776700
So much wrong in one post

>>30775677
>taking pride in dysfunctional aircraft
>taking pride you have them in abundant quantities

>>30775666
We see through your lies, Satan. Probably only half of these F-35 are air worthy and the others are sidelined due to software glitches.

>>30776700
>Marketing materials shows EOTS-89 is listed as a 360 degree DAS
No, it's saying that it's a TACFLIR/IRST that can mechanically swivel 360 degrees, just like the F-35's EOTS (which like other IRSTs, has to mechanically scan back and forth to locate a target). The F-35's DAS is a separate system comprising of 6 cameras that stare in all direction continuously; DAS doesn't have anywhere near the angular pixel density, but it's very sensitive and covers all directions simultaneously.

>Nope, F-22 has always been better on all aspects.

>The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war.
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/

>"I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/December%202014/The-F-35-on-Final-Approach.aspx

>During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.
www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/August/06/F35-Lightning-public-debut-shows-the-right-stuff

>B-2 is the stealthiest by far.
To VHF, sure, but for X-band the F-22 and F-35 are superior (I'll add another quote in reply to this post)

>RAM has a larger impact on the side and rear aspect where the boxy shape is more prevalent
Nope, shaping significantly reduces RCS in the front and rear, with RAM having a greater relative effect where RCS is already small.

>>30776822
The following quote says the F-22 is stealthier than the F-35, but it comes from 2005, which was before the first F-35 was actually built and about 4 years before the first real F-35 had its RCS measured. Note the comparison to the B-2.

>November 25, 2005: The U.S. Air Force, in it's effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how "stealthy" the F-22 is. It's RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117. Much older aircraft, like the B-52, have a huge RCS, which makes them very easy to spot on radar. But with a smaller RCS, it's more likely that the aircraft won't be detected at all.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20051125.aspx

File: giphy.gif (1MB, 290x260px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 290x260px

>>30776822
>X-band
Not even that guy but fucking please, you're straying into vatnik territory

>>30776869
Do you even know what X-band is? Also, see >30776836

>>30776562
What the FUCK. They fucked around with the radome area so much between iterations. And those landing gear. They completely redesigned it from the first plane and then moved to a whole new door for the front gear in the third iteration.

The rear dorsal fins and the front ailerons are hilarious too.

File: 1449565130701.gif (691KB, 255x209px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 255x209px

>>30776869
This should be good.

Why is it "Vatnik territory" to talk about the radar band used by all targeting radars, including those found in missiles and fighters themselves?

>>30776216
>No, which is obviously why F-35 is not even 5th gen

Lel, such impotence from this vatnik.

>>30776529
>>Early next year F-35Bs will be operationally deployed to the SCS.

Why dont you fucking google it, you lazy fuck.

>>30775727
>>30775705
muh dick

Is any variant of the f-35 even finished yet?

>>30780286
>Is any variant of the f-35 even finished yet?

What did he mean by this

>>30780286
I sure hope so considering the nearby airforce base flies them over my house every day.

>>30780286
Define "finished".

Autistically speaking, the F-18 is not "Finished", neither is the F-22 for that matter.

F-16 is most likely done though (again, Autistically speaking).

Reasonably, the F-35B is done, C almost done and A is close.

>>30780294
>>30780299
Thought they were still writing software and testing various things and all the jets that have been built are 95% finished demos desu

>>30780318
Hornets are done, the Super Duper Hornet is dead on arrival like the Silent Eagle.

>>30780406
Growler is still getting upgrades...flir pod and what not.

Advanced super (duper) hornet has been getting some legs due to being a drop in upgrade (for the most part)

>>30780347
Dumb and you should feel dumb.

>>30780436
>Dumb and you should feel dumb.
no u haha

>>30775727
>The sheer force of thousands of dollars of jet fuel being burned at idle every minute on the runway
>muh dick

>>30780436
>Advanced super (duper) hornet has been getting some legs due to being a drop in upgrade (for the most part)

Any buyers?

File: HMS-Queen-Elizabeth.jpg (230KB, 2000x1346px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 2000x1346px

About bloody time, it was getting a bit ridiculous that we scrapped our harrier/sea harriers without a working replacment.

>>30780487
Navy is thinking about it. Tip toeing around actual new airframes that are not growlers.

>The Navy has already put on contract three Super Hornet upgrades included in Boeing’s new Advanced Super Hornet design. The service will upgrade its Raytheon AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. It will add the Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (IDECM) Block IV with increased electronic warfare self-protection, which is set to be fielded later this year. And the Navy will buy Lockheed Martin’s Infrared Search and Track (IRST) sensor system to supplement the aircraft’s radar, which is set to reach initial operational capability for the first block later this decade, Gillian said.

https://news.usni.org/2016/05/24/boeing-new-kit-super-hornets-growlers

File: Pinewood-Derby.jpg (437KB, 1958x1394px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 1958x1394px

>>30776562

>>30780527

Ehhhh, I know everyone else had a fit about it, but I was okay with Lusty and the harriers going to the yanks or scrap heap.

>>30780689
It just looks a bit ridiculous having those things sat across the river with huge polytunnels over the deck years from service. When we could have been keeping at least one Invincible class active with a few harriers/sea harriers. Sending Typhoons/Tornados from the UK to a base in Italy to bomb Libya when we could have used a carrier far more cheaply.

>>30780733

It does look a little funny, but the choice was made at a dire time and I certainly don't think it would have been cheaper at all to half-arse the carrier capability. Either keep it or you don't.

>>30780779
they did half-arse it.

>>30780406
>>30780436
>>30780487
>>30780530
AND possibly Canada, depending on what Fancy Hair & MoDND Sikh decide to do about the CF-188 replacements.

>>30780527
That boat just looks like a giant floating pile of compromises.

>>30781240
Pretty much.. still better than any other non-USA carrier afloat.

>>30780797

Apaches on HMS Ocean were fine.

>>30781240

To your mind, but to the British it is major step up in capability.

Besides everyone project has compromises.

File: bob7.jpg (165KB, 1600x1024px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1600x1024px

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/07/27/first-operational-f-35a-squadron-ioc-hill-air-force/87640282/

>The Air Force’s first F-35 squadron has completed all preparations necessary to declare the joint strike fighter combat capable, and sources say an initial operating capability declaration could be made early next week.

File: 1434825137036.jpg (145KB, 1200x970px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1200x970px

>>30781457
ITS FUCKING LIT SENPAI

>>30781457

So that's marines and AF, that's both at ioc.

breddy gud

Is the F-35 actually a legit investment for small euro countries (read Finland) or is it just a waste of money if you can't afford a massive fleet? The hornets kinda need replacing

>>30781669

A legit investment.

However, it seems that most F35s will not be used to their fullest by the smaller yuro countries and will be operated like 4.5+++++ gen aircraft.

competition improves the breed. too bad it doesn't have any.

>>30781733
>I have nothing of substance to say but must be part of the conversation

>>30780347
At the moment the final Block 3F software is 99.9% done, aka it's written, but the last 0.1% is subject to change as bug-testing continues.

Hardware-wise it's also just minor changes; LRIP 8 aircraft only have something like 2 concurrency modifications required to be brought fully up to what's currently considered 'done'. By comparison, LRIP 5 jets needed something like 150 modifications.

Pratt & Whitney have also 100% completed development of the engine, although they're contractually required to help out with testing until the fleet reaches 200,000 flight hours (it's about 60-70,000 hours at the moment, increasing exponentially as the fleet grows).

>>30781457
>>30781623
>>30781626
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/air-force-expects-declare-f-35-ioc-aug-2

TTTTUUUUEEEESSSSDDDDAAAAYYY

>>30780527
Maybe worry about getting your carriers to work first.

>>30780527

Why is there an f35 sitting on the ramp? I mean, obviously it's not launching from there, right? Right?

>>30781291
No, French carrier is vastly superior.

File: image.jpg (142KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 640x1136px

>>30778093

>>30776600
4 non-test J-20's actually.

File: dmBGbay.png (1MB, 1350x1909px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1350x1909px

>>30775682
>>30775705

Gunna be a while

>>30775666
>20 PAK-FA

But what about 5th generation craft?

>>30784687
4.5 has a 5 in it doesn't it?

>>30776238

> My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.

>>30781120
If you are buying a new fleet of Super Hornets in 2016 you dun fucked up.

>>30785222
K-kek, please, I have family in the Zone...

>>30783681
Your googlefu is weak as fuck.

http://lmgtfy.com/?f-35+marine+deployment

0/10, see me after class.

>>30780476
>all as part of a big "come at me, bro" to Best Korea

>>30783584
Might be just a mock-up so simulate deck-handling, or just plain PR to get some cool shots

>>30783584
>>30785902
It's just a mock-up, definitely for PR, although deck handling simulation as a secondary role is definitely possible (though I would expect them to have done most of that digitally prior).

File: F-35B BF-01 GAU-22 Gun Pod Test.webm (2MB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x480px

Also

>>30785922
I swear, do these F-35 treads work like a bat-signal for you? Its like OPpenheimer always showing up in every tread debating nukes

Anyways, always nice to have you back.

>>30785927
Any videos of the new APEX ammo hitting things? I'n Norwegian, so anything Kongberg-ish is a national pride. That and the Peace Prize, ironic as it is

>>30785939
Kongsberg*

>>30785927

T....thats i...impossible!

The gun dont work....THE GUN DONT WORK!

SOMEONE GET SPREY ON THE LINE THIS, INSTANT!!!

File: CmWe4WVWcAAS5Cz.jpg (70KB, 650x467px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 650x467px

>>30783584

The mock-up is gone now, she's much further along.

File: 25mm APEX penetration.webm (799KB, 768x432px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 768x432px

>>30785930
I lurk a bit and post anonymously sometimes on some things. I also have a few F-35 searches bookmarked on my browser (one for 4chan, one for Reddit and one for Google News, sorted by date).

>>30785939
This is the only one I have, although if you search "25mm APEX PDF" there's a few PDFs with images of damage to various things.

>>30785939
America here

>50mm penetration with explosive effects.

Look norway, im a reasonable guy but....*readys freedom*.... gib ammo now.

>>30786042
Buy a shitload of our NSM, then we'll talk

>>30786110
We already bought the rights for domestic production, what more do you want you rotten fish eating albino?

And it's a hangar queen so the US will rely on their aging fleet in F-15 and F-16 regardless. There's no conceivable means of securing air superiority over Russian IADS network in any foreseeable future. Considering how USAF is unused and unprepared to operate within contested airspace, even initially small number of T-50s backed up by Su-30/35s would be enough to dominate the air and disrupt NATO ground operations.

tl;dr your dickwaving bravado is pathetically laughable

>>30786186
>There's no conceivable means of securing air superiority over Russian IADS network

MALD
A
L
D

>>30783589
in terms of fixed-wing AWACs and refuelling maybe, but in terms of almost everything else (principle fighter, radar, etc) it's inferior, especially so since the RN is getting two QE classes while the French only have one.

>>30783589

It really isn't.

>>30776562
>Chinese design
>competent

>>30786126
A signed copy of Bridget The Midget: Collectors Edition
An R&D job waiting for me at SpaceX when I finish my Bachelor
10 of whatever burger Harold and Kumar had to get at White Castle
2 year contract for Dwane Johnson to be my PT
2 genuine Mariachi-bands that I can set to follow any person of my choosing around, for 2 days
Trumps tax-papers

>>30786276
The signed copy of briget the midget is a bridge too far.

Prepare to be freed, finn.

>>30786312
As a Norwayfag, i'm kinda ok with you freeing the Finns. Good luck though, those guys are fucking crazy

>>30786186
>There's no conceivable means of securing air superiority over Russian IADS network in any foreseeable future.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>30786186
>There's no conceivable means of securing air superiority over Russian IADS network in any foreseeable future
The triad of stealth, jamming and decoys renders any currently existing IADS woefully lacking.
Your sentence should read "There's no conceivable means of for russia to contest american air superiority in any foreseeable future"

>>30786186
t. Vatnik

>>30787125
truth

>>30775727
>>30775705
Waiting for the Russian murder-quadcopter to show up.

>>30785927
aw that's cute, all 180 rounds

>>30788392
That was apparently only 80/220.

Quick random question what was that thing the F22: used in training to handicap and change its signature during training?

>>30792147
Luneberg lens

>>30792147
Krylon high gloss metallic spray bomb from Home Depot.

>>30793064
Finally someone answers.
Thanks anon

>>30783589

>5 knots slower
>only available 60% of the year
>Only 66% of the size or so
>Literally half the sorties per day
>No 5th gens
>No AESA/PESA dual radars
>30% less combat jets
>Less than a third of the helos
>No on board simulators
>Still uses manual munitions handling
>Only 2 AEW craft, so extremely vulnerable to craft loss crippling its AEW
>Half the lift capacity
>Only 1 ship
>Older catapults more prone to breakdown, and only two of them
>Much less flight deck area
>Smaller hanger
>Can't launch and recovery simultaneously

CdG is not even vaguely close.

>>30793122

Yeah, but it still has a cuckramp LOL

>>30776355
>Flankers are still F-15/16/18 chow
>T-50s barely better than Eurocanards
>Vatniks gettin dat 34 Rubles per post

>>30785922
Love your vids guy. When is the next Mythbusting episode to be expected? Or have you busted all the myths?

>>30795476
Basically whenever the LRIP 9 / 10 contracts are finally finished being negotiated (they've been saying "we're almost finished!" since like April). That's because Ep.4 covers F-4 Phantom / Vietnam / no internal gun = death, the ejection seat, fuel / weapon bay overheating and cost (because a lot of people still think that the jet costs $250m flyaway, or that we've already spent $1.5 trillion, or multiple trillions, or even that each jet costs a trillion (I doubt I'm going to be able to do much for those that believe the last one).

Due to the extended LRIP negotiations I was going to just do a half-episode, but then I was busy moving into a different city and real life.

They then said they expected to release them at Farnborough and so I waited for that, but it didn't happen and now nobody knows when it's going to happen, other than some time this year.

So maybe I'll get the half-episode done soon, but if I don't release the half-episode, you can be assured that I'll be dug into the full thing once the LRIP 9/10 contracts are out. Surely they won't take too much longer... right....? (Actually I really want to know what is exactly stalling things; it might be that the Pentagon wants a certain price point for LRIP 10, but Lockheed's profit margins are going to be tight and uncertain due to some of the USAF orders being deferred. Could alternatively or also be an issue with supply / subcontractors.

>>30794809
>T-50s barely better than Eurocanards

Better than the Rafale, maybe.

>>30780527
Anyone else getting tired of brits butting in at any opportunity? We get it, you're building a carrier

>>30788006
>>30788006
i get it

>>30796574

It's almost like this is a board with people from a lot of countries discussing things or something where anything can be discussed that's relevant to the plane.

Shock horror.

>>30795783
>That's because Ep.4 covers F-4 Phantom / Vietnam / no internal gun = death, the ejection seat, fuel / weapon bay overheating and cost (because a lot of people still think that the jet costs $250m flyaway, or that we've already spent $1.5 trillion, or multiple trillions, or even that each jet costs a trillion (I doubt I'm going to be able to do much for those that believe the last one
Doing God's work, anon. Still, must feel like swimming against the stream at times?

>>30797266
with the same stock photos of the same carrier pretty much on a daily basis in any thread even tangentially related.

>thread about F-35s
>that one brit tries to make it about muh carrier
>again

File: HMS Prince of Wales S-1850M Lift.jpg (125KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 800x534px

>>30797302

If you want people to post more varied photos of something, then you could just ask if they have any others rather than throwing a tantrum. Here, I'll even give you one that's very new and recent.

It doesn't come up nearly as much as some other things in other threads, and /k/ has a fairly substantial group of Brits who are pretty excited as its nearing its first sail later this year to Portsmouth, F-35 = Carrier over here in people's minds. So it's fairly natural it'd come up. Once its not as "immediate news" things will calm down a bit.

Pics of the latest pak-fa prototypes?

>>30797402
wait, they've made more? what are we at now, 10?

>>30797411
There's a pic of like 6 flying together in formation, it's still in development like the Chinese one and there's always lots of interesting changes.

>>30797426
The J-20 is already undergoing LRIP.

File: f35b.jpg (262KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 2560x1600px

>>30797344
Is that a sunny day? Shopped surely?

>>30776700
>Nope, F-22 has always been better on all aspects.
wrong

>>30786186
>There's no conceivable means of for russia to contest american air superiority in any foreseeable future

File: attachment[1].jpg (234KB, 1201x920px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1201x920px

>>30797286
I just generally don't read the comments on my videos.

>>30797402
>>30797411
I generally get my PAK-FA news from secretprojects.co.uk/forum; the most recent post: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,15626.msg285486.html#msg285486

>>Already in the shop - six Su-35 aircraft under the plan 2016, two aircraft T-50 and T-50-11 cockpit. Workers of all sites are configured for operational work and high commitment. In the anniversary year for the workshop we will hand over ten Su-35, four aircraft to foreign customers, as well as the three T-50's. To be a new stage in repair and modernization of the Su-27 aircraft. In the same year, will launch serial production of T-50. Now we are preparing the necessary equipment, technical documentation is studied, equipment is being mastered.

>T-50-8 has been at paint shop and LIS for a while now, so he is talking about T-50-9 and -10 being in the final assembly shop, along with -11's cockpit. The plan to hand over three T-50's includes 6-2, so they are handing over 6-2, -8 and -9 this year. All those were planned to be handed over last year...

>>30798330
>I just generally don't read the comments on my videos.
That might be the only sane option, desu

>>30797302
Protip:

All those "QE is the best" or "QE is shit" threads probably aren't even made by Bongs.

They're just guaranteed (yous)

>>30798330
do you work in acquisitions or for a contractor or something?

File: 1456440077975.png (228KB, 1192x830px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1192x830px

>>30784631
>tfw all those vipers and I will never be a viper pilot

>>30799663
>There will be even more F-35As

>>30800672
I don't want to fly a F-35, I want to fly F-14s, or F-21 Super tomcat, but since that's in fairytale land I want to fly the Viper

>>30775705
Holy crap. Could you imagine all of those up at once like a fucking Armada of death

>>30776256
There's no point in arguing with someone like you. You'll never change your mind, no matter what evidence is provided. Because you've seen what you've seen and you know what you know. Right?

>>30800709
You don't want to fly a nigh-invisible war machine that can dance in the skies, carry enough weapons to flatten an airfield by itself, and can visually ID your truck from 50nmi out?

>>30800709
Why would you want to do that

>>30800869
nope.
I wanna fly the Viper

>>30800880
I like the look and the operational history of the Viper.
and I've got a fetish for the Tomcat and SuperTomcat.
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14x.htm

>>30776256
You know when you talk to THAT guy who goes on with some slightly retarded conspiracy, like the moon landings being faked or whatever. You try and explain to the guy how the videos weren't faked, like the low gravity and atmosphere of the moon, and its effects can't be replicated on Earth by hanging the guys on strings and so on. Then, instead of replying with anything decent, he just states the "fact" that the Earth is flat. There's no getting to him because he'll only reply to arguments with more delusions. Not only that, but he thinks that each delusion is a well thought out argument and that he's educating you. Well YOU are that guy.

>>30801644
FULL

METAL

BARN

I'm not sure what this means, but FMBFMB

>>30786186
Wow, this will trigger the burgers for sure. Well done!

>>30775702
Cancelled, no, but you' have to wait for a bit till it's battle-ready.

ITT insecure F-35 fanboys circlejerk

>>30801967
There's no real rush.

>>30794809
>Flankers are still F-15/16/18 chow
The Japs no longer think so, lol.

>>30802123
triggered vatnik is triggered

>>30802146
They've always been playing their own semi-independent fighter game, though, like how they had to go their own way and build an LM partnered local F-16 clone, the F-2.