F-16 or even a jet from the 50's could easily trump a F-35.

>>32005752

If you are going to bait, at least make it somewhat good.

Good ways to start a F-35 B8 thread is to point out the cost, or to say that the A-10 is better at CAS. Those baits are better as people are more likley to take them serious.

This one is just to obvious. But then again, this is /k/, you will probably get 300 replies anyway

>>32005752
REPORT SAGE HIDE

USAF is investing in both actually
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/02/politics/us-air-force-f-15-upgrades/

F-15 2040C will be workhorse for actual combat missions. F-35 will remain crippled hangar queen for leeching taxpayers money.

File: 745[1].jpg (27KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x600px

>>32005752
>F-16 or even a jet from the 50's could easily trump a F-35*.
*Prototype Model
*Without RAM or combat avionics
*Wasn't actually dogfighting, but as a maneuver reference point while testing that version of the Control Laws

Fukkin' bait.

>>32005922
>F-35 will remain crippled hangar queen for leeching taxpayers money.
t. Retard

Trump originally said he would cancel the F-35 but has since changed his mind. Aboulafia didn't think the F-35 could get up to the production levels we wanted for a full air force so seeing how everything plays out is going to be fascinating.

>>32005752
Go away Lind, nobody likes you.

fighters are the most obnoxious kind of aircraft and attract the worst people

>>32005752
Your premise is horribly wrong, but continue to spew misinformation.

File: lindsanity.jpg (345KB, 1028x778px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1028x778px

>>32006716
L I G H T R A I L E N T H U S I A S T

>>32006713
He couldn't cancel the F-35 at this point even if he wanted to.

>>32005752
I dunno, I think F-35s could win as long as they aren't piloted by California lesbian feminists

>>32006551
butthurt airfag detected

>>32007059
Just because you're wrong and stupid doesn't mean I'm butthurt.

File: spooked.gif (494KB, 646x466px)

494KB, 646x466px

>When you realize it would have been cheaper and produced a better aircraft if the F-22 was the F/A-22 as originally conceptualized.

File: pierre sprey.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>32005752

>>32007183
Nice asspull.

>>32005752
What i wanna know is why we in Denmark will buy F-35s and end up having less jets overall because theyre so fucking expensive instead of just buying some swedish gripens and calling it a day not to mention we will first get them in 10 fucking years

t. denmark

>>32009404
1 F-35 worth 5+ Gripens.
Gripens can't carry your B61 bombs.

>>32009742
ah i see man if only i could change our airforce a bit its stupid how little my government talks to the guys repairing and flying the jets

File: bait vatnik.png (117KB, 1208x782px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1208x782px

>>32005752
No, they couldn't.

>>32009890
Except the F-35 is designed from the ground-up for ease of maintenance, and the ALIS system means it can self-diagnose issues before they cause problems.

>>32009742
>1 F-35 worth 5+ Gripens.
I seriously doubht that. A Gripen can carry as much as a F-35s internal (yes I know it can carry externals too) and with the Meteor missile its not to far behind in air to air engagements.

Not to mention the Gripens superior sortie rate. I guess it all comes down to mission, If the mission is to deliver air to ground munitions undetected the F-35 might be 5 times as good. But in any other scenario it just isnt.

>Gripens can't carry your B61 bombs.
This one makes sense, Denmark wants that fun-switch.

>>32009988
Except the F-35 is designed from the ground-up for ease of maintenance.
So was the Gripen, and it was desigend to be maintained by one technican and 5 conscripts in total. No fancy special equipment or proffesional training needed.
>and the ALIS system means it can self-diagnose issues before they cause problems.
Gripen C also has a similar system, and Id be suprised if the E didnt. I dont remember the name now.

>>32010000
>>32009742
>>32009988
Well it's prolly also got something to do with the fact i think some company is making a part for the jet in denmark so buying them would put some people at work and political shit and honestly it's prolly gonna be fine but i just don't think it's clever when we constantly have jets in the baltics, iraq, syria and we also must keep some at home

>>32010000
It's not just capacity, but the sensors, datalinks, stealth, and greater NATO interoperability.

And it's likely the F-35's sortie rate will go up once they take all the training wheels off. It's done fantastically in US exercises since June.

I just looked up the numbers again because i forgot and we could go from having 35 single seater f-16s and 10 trainee f-16s to having 27 f-35s and i have no fucking clue if we'll just keep using f-16 trainee aircraft or what

>>32010085
I guess that makes sense. But call me back when you can refuel and fully rearm (including missiles) a F-35 in less than 8 minutes, with only 5 people.

Then Ill agree it has a better sortie rate.

Are there any US plans to upgrade the F-16? How many F-16 airframes have been flying for over 2 decades now? How many have been flying for 3 decades?

>>32010205
If you're in that kind of reactive scramble mode:
A: You fucked up and lost the initiative.
B: All normal rules about ground maintenance time are out the window and you've hot your reloads hot and ready to slap on the moment it lands.

>>32010241
Almost all has flown for over 20 years, and most of them has passed are well beyond 3 decades.

>>32010241
Not US in-service F-16s. They're already starting to rotate F-35As into F-16 squadrons with IOC now, 2 test Squadrons and 3 Operational. UAE just bought F-16E/F Block 60s, though.

>>32010287
Thats not scramble mode. Thats standard wartime procedure for the Gripen system.
Naturally peacetime is different.

Also, the Swedish air force will never be the one to initiate combat, thats just not possible due to swedish law. We will have to react to anyone else attacking us.

>>32010241
They're doing some life-extension, but no real upgrades. Wouldn't make much sense cost-wise since the F-35 is coming in. Hell they're already converting the oldest ones in service into target drones. Other F-16 operators like Taiwan and South Korea are going for upgrades to the F-16V variant though, which adds an AESA radar among other improvements.

>>32007183
>When you realize it would have been cheaper and produced a better aircraft if the F-22 was the F/A-22 as originally conceptualized.
Except for the part where the F-22 was designed from the ground up as an air superiority platform, not a strike fighter. If they where originally going to make a strike fighter the F-23 would have won the competition as it fit that kind of role better than the F-22. The JSF program was partly conceptualized as the strike fighter platform to compliment the F-22 air dominance role.

>>32010041
The difference between the two is that one will make it back to have maintenance, the other won't because it's far less advanced.

>>32010479
>Implying the Russians has anything better than a Gripen E

>>32010443
>not a pound for air to ground
So was the F-15, yet still the F-15E ended up great.

>>32010532
Su-35, PAK-FA, MiG-31; each either very competitive or outright superior.

>>32010549
F-15E required a fairly hefty redesign of the F-15 airframe to accomplish bru.

>>32010568
The only one would be the PAK-FA, and im afraid that it will end up like the Armata, only produced in low numbers for any forseable future.

The bulk of the RuAF will still be Su-27+++++++ and MiG-29 variants.

Maby the MiG-31 if its one of the uppgraded variants, but that one has its limitations and the Meteor has comparable range to its missiles.

>>32010000
>Denmark wants that fun switch
man if only we had some just so that the swedes and norwegians would forever be shit tier compared to denmark :^)

>>32010627
But now you dont. Sweden even had a nuclear weapons programe but that was taken down as it costed way to much.

Now you danes are forever inferor to your swedish masters. ;)

>>32010682
Reeee we do way more in modern conflicts than the swedes and our navy is sexier

when was this swedish nuclear program btw?

File: 1280px-Saab_1300-71D_Vindtunnelmodell.jpg (147KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1280x960px

>>32010723
There were studies done in the 50s. Around the same time they started experimenting with nuclear power. It never went past study stage afaik.

pic related is a windtunnel model for a suggested atomic capable bomber

>>32010723
50s and 60s. Formaly disbanded in 1973. There is still several thousand reports on the project that is classified.

File: 91wH2oj.png (218KB, 512x724px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 512x724px

>>32010549
Except the F-22 is hampered by a shallow weapon's bay which precludes carrying any A2G outside of 2 1000 pound JDAMs or SDBs, changing that would require MASSIVE reworking of the aircraft. And that's before you touch anything like adding a second seat along the lines of the strike eagle.

>>32011195
Plus the major rework to add an EOTS and EO-DAS.

>>32005752
Weeeellll... Gliders are more silent and stealthy than any modern fighters. Bring back gliders Yea/Nay?