Find a flaw.

File: F35 damaged.jpg (22KB, 680x385px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 680x385px

>>32556922
A fucking ramp.

Can't turn, can't climb, can't run. It's a turkey

>>32556922
Why are the bombs angled differently than the missles? Doesnt that cause unnecessary drag during flight?

>>32556922
Performing a vertical takeoff melts the runway.

>>32557278
It's all to do with the way the air flows around the wing. They'll be as optimised as possible to reduce parasitic drag.

>>32556922
It's going to take decisive wins against another developed nation's air force for the haters to shut up, which probably means WWIII.

>>32556922
m-m-my momma says f35s are ornery because they got all that money and cant build a good airplane

>>32557309
Intersting. Is there a name to describinig this i can use for further reading?

>>32556922

Too expensive, nothing to use it on, and pointless when drones are the future.

>>32557328
I'm not sure, but you'll notice they do the same thing on the F/A-18, for example.

>>32557328
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washout_(aeronautics)

>>32557529
>>32557385
Thanks

>>32556922
It's fatty and got tightened edges alongside its curves like an obese feminist in latex lingerie wearing problem glasses.

>>32556922
>ugly and not cute like f-16

>>32557138
pretty much this

>>32557138
MEME

Thought it only had front landing gear for a second

>>32556922
all of it

>>32556922
The nose?

File: f35 real fighters have curves.jpg (825KB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

825KB, 2560x1920px

>>32558477
>It's fatty
It's a healthy weight for its role.

>>32556922
Can be killed with a truck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsz79bztNJI

Too much money for such poor performance

>>32558477
It's literally a lifting body.
>>>/fit/

>>32556922
Try doing a gunrun with it... oh wait, the B needs a fucking pod

>>32556922
>External hardpoints
>Stealth
>Trillion $ project

>>32556922
>No GAU-8

>>32557310
This.

>>32557310
SHIIIII

>>32560650
external hardpoints dont automatically negate stealth components to where its as if it doesnt have it. It may be "easier" to spot with externally mounted munitions, but it will still have a RCS magnitudes smaller than a non stealth counterpart due to the nature of the frame of the design alone, as well as RAM.

Plus, not all missions require stealth capabilities, so gimping the crafts potential payload for the sake of maintaining stealth at all times is a waste or resources.

>>32557138
It's nice the nursing home lets you shitpost, Pierre.

>>32560613
>implying gun runs are that important

>>32556922
It's expensive and appears to have a lot of problems even though money keeps getting thrown at it

>>32556922
>no BRRRRRT

>>32556922
A VLO dogfighter would tear it a new one

>>32561743
>appears to have a lot of problems
Please do name those problems.

>>32561778

If half the detractors are to be believed adding BRRRRT would make it worse. Sincerely though, let a dedicated BRRRRT plane handle BRRRT.

>>32556922
Can't beat an F-16.

>>32561931

Literally wrong. The F-35 has dominated every combat air exercise, and the event you're thinking of was a control law (software limitations on the flight surfaces) test that required aggressive piloting in a neutered performance envelope.

>>32561950
Yeah, but if he's still parroting that garbage-tier intentionally false interpretation by David Axe he's either a troll or beyond all hope.

>>32561931
neither can the F-18 which it shares a flight profile with

might as well dump the F-18 too

>>32562042
That's not entirely true, though, it depends on if the Hornet can force a high alpha fight or if the Viper can make it a turning fight.

And the -35 has better Alpha than a Hornet and the A is a 9G turner like the Viper.

...We really need to a secondary, one word name for it to use as shorthand instead of "Lightning II".

>>32562159
The F-16 is not a 9G turner unless its practically clean.

File: f18vsf35et6.jpg (36KB, 622x375px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 622x375px

>>32557138
troll. too obvious. be more subtle next time.
>>32557289
meme. exaggerated. all it was doing was causing excessive wear on the deck, which would have meant excessive maintenance costs. The problem is already mostly fixed.

>>32557361
can't tell if trolling. F-35 cost is now cheaper than any other modern fighters being produced. You can thank modern production and r&d methods. Drones are only part of the future, and will complement the F-35 just fine.

>>32558477
that's what happens when a fighter takes the lifting body design to a maximum combined with stealth, as well as carrying massive amounts of internal fuel giving it massive range.

>>32560613
>gunrun
bro srsly. gunruns? just use a chopper.

>>32560650
>external hardpoints
you mean options it can choose to use? If it needs stealth, it can still carry the same payload as an F-16 and have much longer range on internal fuel than an F-16 with bags. Also, stealth+hardpoints is still much harder to detect than nostealth+hardpoints.
>Stealth
I think you don't understand what a "problem" is.
>Trillion $ project
yeah, total lifetime projected costs. factors in all r&d, all ammo and fuel expenditures over the projected 50 year lifespan, all spare engines and parts, etc. Pretty much no other fighter has had its total project costs calculated in the same way.

>>32561931
meme. was literally one test that was being done where they were specifically flying the plane a certain way to push the control law limits and see how the computer performs when handling extreme AoA flight. Pretending that it was some super serial real battle test and the F-16 won is stupid. It's like if a martial arts instructor is demonstrating a technique as the losing partner, and someone yells at him "haha you lost to a noob!"

>>32562159
agreed. Lightning II is a terrible name lol.

Could always stick with JSF, but that sounds meme-tier.

>>32562182
And? It's not like the measures on maximum dogfight performance are taken on anything but 50% internal fuel and a few missiles on any plane anyways.

>>32562189
>If it needs stealth, it can still carry the same payload as an F-16 and have much longer range on internal fuel than an F-16 with bags
It's also important to note that it can carry the same 1k/2k payload per bay as the F-117 AND has two AMRAAMs AND can carry smaller payloads like 4 500 lbs JDAM/Paveway or 8 SDBs.

>>32562340
yup. It always amuses me how people hold the F-35 to such insanely high standards, much higher than any other aircraft, and then declare it's shit. Like, you have a VLO fighter with the most advanced sensors package and avionics and massive range on internal fuel, and it can carry the same payload as the F-16 can but all internally and with more range, it can outperform an F-18, it is a much better strike fighter than the F-117 ever was.

>>32562159
I think some Marines wanted to call it the Reaper

>>32562446
already taken by the UAV though right?

>>32562461
yeah

>>32562461
How about The Penetrator? The Violator?

>>32556922
Single engine
Smaller payload than the competition
Slower than the competition
Heavier than the competition
Worse T/W than the competition
More maintenance intensive than the competition
Higher alpha than most but still less than a legacy hornet.
Stealth is getting less useful by the minute
Louder than the actual apocalypse
Its kinda weird lookin
Most importantly though, its mission availability is abysmal. Until it gets more established, the question shouldn't be "F-35 vs Typhoon/Raf/SH/Fulcrum/Flanker", the question would more accurately be F-35 vs 2 or 3 of any other plane.

I will give it its fancy avionics, but that isn't truly an airframe advantage so much as an appliance advantage.

In all seriousness, I'm sure it will turn out to be a great fighter for a lot of small or rich countries, but being a Canuck, I have to hate it and I will literally cry if Canada buys any, its just so poorly suited for us.

>>32562536
>I will literally cry if Canada buys any
Justin Trudeau posts on 4chan?

>>32562536
>I am wrong about everything I'm saying but really confident about it

>>32562536
oooo this is nice and juicy bait. yum.

>Single engine
modern engines have such high mechanical reliability than single engine planes are actually more reliable.
>Smaller payload than the competition
simply incorrect. F/A-18 has payload of 13,700lbs, F-35A can carry total 18,000lbs
>Slower than the competition
wrong. comparable max speed to the F-18, and the F-16 is only faster when it's stripped bare, if it carries any serious payload the F-35 is just as fast. Only things faster than the F-35 are the dedicated air superiority fighters like the F-15 and F-22.
>Heavier than the competition
because it carries more internal fuel than an F-16 can carry on internal + bags total. Internal fuel only, it carries almost double what the F-18 does, and almost triple what the F-16 does.
>Worse T/W than the competition
again, comparable to the F-16 and F-18, and if it cuts back on internal fuel it actually is better TWR
>More maintenance intensive than the competition
simply false. Also, you keep saying "the competition" but never specify planes.
>Higher alpha than most but still less than a legacy hornet.
simply false. can achieve greater AoA than the Hornet, and has much better performance at that high AoA.
>Stealth is getting less useful by the minute
please explain. inb4 muh WWII radars
>Louder than the actual apocalypse
stupid.
>Its kinda weird lookin
stupid.
>Most importantly though, its mission availability is abysmal.
sauce.

>In all seriousness, I'm sure it will turn out to be a great fighter for a lot of small or rich countries, but being a Canuck, I have to hate it and I will literally cry if Canada buys any, its just so poorly suited for us.
stfu Canada needs it. What the hell do you think would be better? The fucking Gripen? lol

>>32562674
>simply incorrect. F/A-18 has payload of 13,700lbs, F-35A can carry total 18,000lbs
And looking at the max carry of each pylon it could be in the ~23k range.

>>32562696
yeah it will likely improve as it sees upgrades to the internal bays and the pylons get cleared to carry additional crap.

One of the next steps is already shoving an extra 2 amraams inside the bay for a total of 6 internal amraams.

Not to mention that with stuff like the SDB and that other a2a missile equivalent (the one where it has like 6 mini-missiles on one pylon) will see sheer poundage be less important. We could literally see F-35's with Ace Combat-tier loadouts of dozens of missiles.

>>32562788
The LM CUDA missile. Which it can fit 12 AMRAAM-equivalent internally.

>>32562840
yeah that was it.

>>32558477
>>32559185
I don't get this meme

Can you guys actually imagine the F-32 would be entering the production instead?

>>32562674
>Comparing to 35 year old Legacy Hornets and Vipers

I was more referring to Rafs, Typhoons, and SHs

Engines are getting more reliable, thats true. The problem is that the consequence of a failure is higher if you don't have a second engine to fly home on. This isn't as big of a problem in europe or the US, where airports and rescue personnel are closer, but its a big problem if you lose your only engine over Nunavut.

Rafale 21000lbs in 4 more mounts
Typhoon 20000lbs in 3 more mounts

F-35 Mach 1.6
Not sure about EFs
Rafale's are supposedly 1.8 in A2A, but I've been told its significantly faster than that by Rafale Pilots
And like you said, Eagles and raptors, plus most russian planes. Its not slow, but not really fast either.

Ill give you the internal fuel weight and the equivalent TWs. That was mostly just me being an asshole

Its not as expensive to maintain as a Raptor, but more so than any non-stealth plane.

No, its limited to 50*. CF-18s which are basically C/D models, have full pitch and roll authority up to 55+, with centreline tanks, fuselage missiles and wingtip missiles having very little effect.

Radars have gotten a lot better in the last 60 years, and it is a lot easier and cheaper to upgrade and update radar than it is to design totally new stealth airframes to counter it. Stealth as a concept is more important than ever. Stealth as fancy lockheed paint has gotten less cost effective when compared to ECM.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150320031559/http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/dod/2014f35jsf.pdf

Canada needs a fighter, desperately, but not a single engine stealth interceptor when our missions consist entirely of flying over the arctic or bombing insurgents. I was mostly just being a smartass though, like i said, I'm sure it will be a great fighter, its just the wrong one for where we are and what we do. A Raf would be better suited to us, or a typhoon(If we can get software from the brits, instead of the germans)

>>32562159
>We really need to a secondary, one word name for it

Turkey

>>32563279
>F-35 beats Eurocanards in every meaningful metric
I think your comparing the F-35's internal -only pylon count instead of it's total station count. Your pretty badly informed overall.

>>32563314
Go to bed, Pierre.

>>32563327
6 on wings, 4 on inside. 6+4=10

>>32563347
I don't see how the Eurocanards are actually beating that in any meaningful way, especially without an internal EOTS equivalent.

>>32563377
Rafale has internal EOTS, its called OSF because its french.
Typhoon has a lite version.

>>32563475
>Pods

File: osf-rafale.jpg (192KB, 821x540px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 821x540px

>>32563493
Yeah this definitely looks like a pod mounted to a pylon.

>>32563554
>mounted over nose
>Useful for ground targeting

File: close+encounters.png (203KB, 576x249px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 576x249px

>>32556922
"..he's coming in straight.. the bastard thinks we can't see him.."

>>32563554
Yeah it primarily uses radar for AG and IR for AA, 35 is opposite. But I'm tired of bickering. Publicly posted specs on the most modern combat aircraft are only worth a grain of salt anyways. I'll just listen to the pilots flying them. Goodnight dude, no hard feelings.

>>32563279

The problem when it comes to "needing a second engine to fly home on" is that because of the reliability of modern engines the most likely failures are ones that will destroy the other engine as well. This provides no benefit to having two engines in the first place when it comes to reliability.

>>32562182
It can reach 9G with any A-A payload and any fuel quantity. However with A-G munition or ext fuel tanks high G maneuvers can damage airframe, so load factor artificially restricted to 5G. Though this restriction can be lifted by pilot.

>>32563279
>The problem is that the consequence of a failure is higher if you don't have a second engine to fly home on.

The rate of engine related class A mishaps is higher on modern twin engined aircraft than single engined aircraft.

Guess why that is.

>>32564247
Twice as many engines for a ground crew to fuck up on?

>>32564341
Yep, plus on adjacent-twins any problem on one will probably cascade to the other.

File: Fminus35.jpg (40KB, 312x229px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 312x229px

>>32562189

>Find a flaw.

Cupholders in arm rest only hold standard drinks, 44+ oz cups don't fit.

>>32562294
Because the F-16 without bags might as well not take off for all the useful combat radius it has.

>>32565338
You never know, there might be an enemy at the other end of the runway

File: df_3029_neuburg_18-07-12.jpg (396KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1024x683px

>>32557310

>>32565470
Its pathetic to paint fake kills that happened only in restricted training scenarios.

>>32556922
>Find a flaw.
Somebody left the toilet lid open.

>>32557310
>It's going to take decisive wins against another developed nation's air force for the haters to shut up, which probably means WWIII.
WWIII breaks out, we're all mutating into cockroaches, living in the desert, distilling moisture from the blood of other manroaches that we ambush as they cross the desert highways in their juryrigged rust-mobiles.

At least no one shitposts against the F35 anymore.

>worth it

>>32563145
That the F-32 is obese doesn't change the fact that the F-35 is fat.

>>32556922
No flaws, but no advantages either. Just a modern plane sophisticated for nothing.

>>32566023
>Its pathetic to paint fake kills that happened only in restricted training scenarios.
What are the stars?

File: 5.jpg (130KB, 1100x605px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1100x605px

Jesus. How can so many people fall for the F-35 koolaid? It cost the US taxpayer 1.5 trillion dollars with no service to show for it; bad at everything it does. Huge waste of time and money.

Why can't we augle a better jet instead, like pic related? I mean just look at this sexual chocolate plane.

https://youtu.be/Rm7htwm1vbc

>>32566344
Don't let your memes be dreams.

Be like this guy.

Meme hard.

>>32562159
Remember that the F-22 should have been named the Lightning II, which would have been a far better fit for the role.

JSF should have been something like "F-24 Phantom III", to honor its multi-service/multi-role nature; or, it could have gotten "Raptor", given its more air-to-ground focus.

But then, these are the same folks who gave us "B-21" instead of B-3.

>>32556922
Dunno. Quick question though; how many years before the Marines declare their version FOC?

>>32567954
>Remember that the F-22 should have been named the Lightning II, which would have been a far better fit for the role.

As a successor to the P-38..?

no

>>32568036
Yes.

There was actually a lot of talk at the time that the F-22 would indeed be named Lightning, and it was quite a shock when they went with Raptor. Usenet practically exploded with apoplexy.

>>32556922
It doesn't look cool; and as every single planefag knows then the Absolute First Requirement of any warbird is that it has to look cool. Big mistake.

>>32566344
>Why can't we augle a better jet instead
Because it isn't multirole, and no, the occasional JDAM run doesn't mean that it is.

Also you're argument is made of memes. Its sensors and avionics are first rate as are its sensor fusion capabilities. Don't forget that aging air frames need to be replaced, not upgraded until they fall apart, and the F-22 cannot replace the F-18 or F-16 due to the fact it isn't carrier borne and it costs far more in terms of flight hours to be a viable replacement for the F-16 (even thought it already cant because its not multi role).

>>32556922
The planes software development has been the biggest clusterfuck of all.

>>32556922
There is a slim chance that it <might> end up being the biggest and most embarrassing aviation balls up in history. Not certain, but still possible.

File: 1483406506826.png (12KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 160x160px

>>32567954

>But then, these are the same folks who gave us "B-21" instead of B-3.

Seriously.

What the fuck was that about.

>>32568254
>>32568254
the official reason is they want to be lame and reference the 21st century

wishful thinking would hope they're reserving the designation for something more paradigm shifting
the B21 does look like a ver B2.1 judging from the appearance in the concept

File: broh.jpg (126KB, 761x899px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 761x899px

>>32557138
1/10 made me reply

>>32559185
It has literally "FAT" written on it

> inb4 bodyshaming shitlord

>>32566148
underrated

>>32562674
>modern engines have such high mechanical reliability than single engine planes are actually more reliable.

For minor writeups but that's a minor tradeoff.

A single engine fighter will have higher airframe LOSS rates in trade. Got two engines? Fly home on one. Got one? Hope you can glide and your APU/EPU/etc work well.

Former F-16 engine troop here, both on Pratts and GE. They are both good engines. The Air Force Safety weenies are remarkably good at predicting Class A mishap rates over time. We'll see just how good the newer engines are, but anything that spins that fast and gets that hot will fail sometimes.

>>32568939
except that you can't actually fly home on one engine on a twin engine jet

>>32568992
>except that you can't actually fly home on one engine on a twin engine jet

WHERE THE FUCK DID YOU GET THAT IDEA?

>>32556922
>Find a flaw.
They built it.

>>32568414
Eh, proven shape + all the tech the F-35 did the pathfinding work on = cheaper overall bomber.

>>32569015
He's probably thinking about the F-14 which was almost impossible to fly back on one engine as a result of the distance of the engines from one another. To my knowledge its doable with the F-15, however I do not know if the F-18 can do it.

>>32562674
You're forgetting comparisons to the AV-8 as well.

Honestly, just the B variant is incredible because every single one of our amphibs that runs them now has elevated its strike capability immensely.

>>32568786
>Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501 (VMFAT-501)

>>32568939
>We'll see just how good the newer engines are, but anything that spins that fast and gets that hot will fail sometimes.
By the same 50,000 fleet hours point the F-35 was already way below prior models' Class A rates.

>>32569034
>>32569015
the F-14 is exactly where I got that idea

didn't know it didn't apply to all twin jet fighters

>>32569034
I've personally seen F-15 do it. Even the bricklike Phantom could do it and the one I witnessed also had the radome destroyed and antenna umbrella-ed from a midair.

>>32569069
Something to keep in mind is that if you have a major failure in a twin-engine with adjacent engines, any major failure in one can easily cascade to the other.

And it doubles the chance of a maintenance error.

File: How-to-Carve-a-Turkey-700x538.jpg (59KB, 700x538px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 700x538px

>>32557138

>>32569109
They didn't think to put an armor plate between the engines?

>>32569034
Personally seen a Hornet and Alpha Jet do it with no drama.

>>32569109
The only real risks of the problem spreading is if it ingests multiple birds (Except for the typhoon which could double ingest one bird), or throws a turbine, but that catastrophic of failures are rare.

File: F-35 clever girl.jpg (1MB, 1915x1788px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1915x1788px

>>32557138

>>32570033
You could. But then you'd have a lead sled flying through the sky.

>>32569069
The F-14 could fly on one engine no problem, you shit talking dope

It even could fly with one engine and one wing fully swept and one unswept as shown during testing

>>32571607
Just don't have an engine failure at high speeds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qMtnFtB38I

>>32563145
>F-32
More like F-Hohohoho

File: Grumman-F14-Tomcat-Takeoff.jpg (38KB, 600x310px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x310px

>>32556922
>Find a flaw.
Not a Grumman Cat
Not the F-14
Two right there.

>>32557138
muh lifting body
muh multi role