Jet Set Future

The F-22 was expensive to maintain on account of the RAM.

Also, fighter-bombers generally kick ass, and the Navy and Marines also wanted F-35s.

>>32733434

politics.

>>32733434
We can't sell the F22 to other counties. We can the F35.

>>32733481
Why not?

>>32733510
You always keep the best toys for yourself. Plus, once the F22 gets upgraded with all the new tech that the F-35 program has spawned, it will shit all over everything else in the sky.

>>32733510
There's a federal law against exporting the F-22.

>>32733523
>You always keep the best toys for yourself
Okay, but why go and build the F-35 to be a jack of all trades if there's already a really good fighter jet available?

I can't imagine that foreign sales would recoup anywhere near the kind of money that the US has spent on the F-35 program, either.

>>32733534
Who the hell thought that was a good idea?

File: 1408763495259.jpg (119KB, 1100x582px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1100x582px

Wonder if Trump will support restarting production. Imagine if they took it a step further.

The US has used a high/low mix for the better part of 50 years.

F-22 was the high, but the main opponent you would need a super high performance air superiority fighter for (the USSR) collapses and the economy started going to shit, so we canned it. F-35 is the low, gets produced a bunch cause its cheap and our older jets are literally falling out of the sky

>>32733564
Because they're more expensive to produce and are air superiority fighters, whereas the F-35 is cheaper and multirole. You send the 22 in ahead of the 35s to clear the airspace, then the 35s come in and clean up, or bomb the shit out of ground targets, or whatever role they need to perform for that specific mission.

>>32733434
Got cut by Obama as part of a reduction in future military spending. They kept the F-35 around though because they had foreign orders and didn't want to leave those guys out in the rain. With Trump we might see the production line opened back up.

>>32733564
F-35 fills a completely different doctrinal role. The F-22 is still very much a product of the late 80s - the onboard computer systems are not nearly as advanced as the F-35 and not nearly as capable in areas of sensor fusion and integration (traditionally something that could only be done by airborne AWACs platforms).

The doctrine that the USAF is pursuing is very stealth and detection focused, because all the maneuverability in the world will not save you if you don't see the attack coming. Since the very beginning of air warfare, the vast majority of kills have been scored against targets that were not aware of the enemy. Despite dogfights often being the most romanticized and depicted forms of air combat, they are relatively rare - most air engagements can be summed up as "we saw them first, dived down to engage, and shot them down".

The idea behind the latest generation of fighters is to improve situational awareness with advanced sensors and the computers to process that data, while minimizing your own sensor signature via the application of stealth technologies. The key idea is not to become invisible, but to extend the few seconds afforded by an ambush to ensure a kill before the enemy realizes you are there.

>>32733619
>swing wings

Hello, maintenance nightmare.

>>32733680
How can i ever be maverick without swing wings tho

>>32733564
>>32733662
Secondly, the F-35 provides something the F-22 doesn't - projection capability. The naval version is obvious, but the F-35B VTOL variant can be operated off much smaller Marine Corps escort carriers, which means that an MEF no longer will require one of the big supercarriers to babysit them and provide fixed-wing support, giving the American forces ~30+ more escort carriers that can operate far more independently.

File: Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics.gif.png (95KB, 704x463px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 704x463px

>>32733434
>but is there any reason why the F-22 (which I understand is a pretty damn good aircraft) was shelved and so much money was put into the F-35?

In the end, it comes down to pic related.

>>32733715
>ywn fly a naval swing wing variant of the F-22 while blasting Kenny Loggins
Why even live?

>>32733434
The F-22 was "shelved" (there's still 185 in service) because at the time there was a resurgence in Iraq (or was it Afghanistan?). The SecDef at the time, Gates, wanted to spend money on things needed then, not for in the future, so the F-22 order was cut in exchange for acquisitions of things like $50 billion in MRAPs.

The US also knew that China and Russia were working on 5th gens, but most didn't anticipate them having maiden flights so soon, so the current lot of F-22s was thought to be more than enough.

We're now at a point where the F-22 is frankly too old to be put back into production, not because of manufacturing equipment, etc being in boxes or whatever, but because the USAF already has superior stuff in the works (as the Penetrating Counter Air program, previously known as NGAD) that they want to field by 2030.

File: 12ImIwg.png (25KB, 518x179px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 518x179px

>>32733434


What would it take to totally overpower a typical US carrier group, in terms of jet numbers; would it be possible to field a shitton of older aircraft against what the USA has to offer, or do you have to have some comparable hardware too?

>>32735211

It would probably be impractical, at least on open water.

Cheaper older aircraft would likely be smaller and so have a short endurance, so massing enough of them airborne at the same time would be difficult unless you have numerous undamaged airfields and the carrier group is near to shore. This would result in attacker waves being spaced somewhat and so easier to deal with.

Cheaper older aircraft would likely not be carrying the most advanced AShM (which CIWS and EW countermeasures have a high chance of working against), and probably won't be able to carry many of them.

Many of the attacker aircraft will be unable to contribute to air combat meaningfully due to their AShM payload. While the US fighters will have a 100% air combat payload.

Besides US intelligence assets getting early warning that something is coming, AEW patrols will pick up non-stealthy aircraft at long distance. Allowing some time to prepare. Repositioning ships and getting more fighters airborne.

In a war against an enemy capable of such a large attack the CSG will probably have more escorts, each Burke has 96 VLS, most of which will be carrying some sort of SAM

Older aircraft won't be as capable at the BVR air combat which late 4th gen & 5th gen aircraft are so capable at. This is

>>32735101

Lockheed lost alot of the the tooling too

>>32733434
F-22 was meant to only replace the F-15.
F-35 is mean to replace the F-16, F-18, A-10, and Harrier.

>>32736083
This.

Also I don't think "shelved" is the right term. When you have ~200 operational and the rest of the world is struggling to get their very first 5th gen fighter operational...you only need to be so far ahead.

>>32733564
>Who the hell thought that was a good idea?
The United States Congress.

File: F-35 weapons bay.jpg (252KB, 640x481px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 640x481px

>>32733564
>Okay, but why go and build the F-35 to be a jack of all trades if there's already a really good fighter jet available?
Because the F-22 is garbage for the mundane task of air-to-ground, yet air-to-ground is about 100 times more frequent and more important these days than air superiority. F-22's a show pony, F-35 is a genuine workhorse.

>>32733634
>cheap

there is nothing cheap about the F-35

>>32736420
Flyaway cost is cheap compared to its competitors

>>32736167
F-22 was made to be an ASF. In reality it's filling in the role of an interceptor, the Alaska/Hawaii Bear/H-6 interception mission is it's highest profile job

>>32736112
In reality the Air Force uses the F-22 as an interceptor. Because Supercruise and decent A2A loadout.
The F-15 isn't going anywhere for a long time, the Viper/Falcon will go first

>>32733564
It fits in with the general doctrine of having a specialized air to air fighter and a cheaper more numerous multirole fighter.

>>32736438
whats the going rate for a f35 these days?
compared to the competition ?

they ever fix the not being able to use fuel thats been sitting in the sun for to long problem?

f-35 program seems like its been a complete disaster desu

>>32736630
$102 million, to be $95 million in about a week (reports say LRIP 10 will be signed before the end of the month), $85 million or less in 2019 ($75 million in 2013 dollars). The F-22 (the only real competition) was $150m in 2013, the Typhoon Tranche 3 these days is around $110 million, the Rafale C is about $95 million.

If you go by procurement cost (whole weapons system cost), the F-35 is cheaper yet; even new-model F-16s and F/A-18s are more expensive.

>they ever fix the not being able to use fuel thats been sitting in the sun for to long problem?
Never was a problem, blogs just blew up a squadron-level experiment being run by some airmen.

>>32737504
It is 100% still a problem and F35's have to fly with weapon bays open under a certain altitude because of it.

"Between 5,000 and 25,000 feet in the air and at speeds between around 575 and 700 miles per hour, pilots cannot keep the plane’s weapon bay closed for more than 10 minutes at a time for fear of overheating the aircraft. With the doors open, the F-35 is no longer stealthy."

>>32737562
Who are you quoting, friend? Ausairpower? :)

>>32737562
What you're describing has nothing to do with fuel; it's a matter of the air in the weapon bays getting hot and exceeding the official rated temperature of a piece of electronics that was moved to the weapons bay for ease of maintenance.

At no point were there any failures of these electronics, it was just a matter of the manufacturer not having tested them to the thermal standard required to operate in the bay at high speeds and low altitudes. It was an administrative / risk mitigation move.

As for it being an issue today; the 2016 DOT&E report has no mention of it or those limitations existing any more, it's safe to assume the kit was tested and proven to be fine.

>>32737562
That's not accurate. Without breaching opsec, I work in the field and no for a simple fact that's a lie, or some sort of uncommon, one-off problem.

>>32733640
>we might see the production line opened back up.

No, we won't. Why do people constantly talk about this? It is NOT going to happen. A lot of the tooling to make it gone, not ilded or in storage, making restarting production far too expensive for any potential customers besides the US, and the air force wants to move on to 6th generation, meaning the US isn't interested in more Raptors.

>>32736083
It doesn't replace the A-10, they're just getting rid of that.

can anyone recommend me some good documetaries or books about modern airforce/specific airplane/air war.. most documetaries are offer no real information. I recently read revolt of the majors and am looking for something else

>>32738632
>most documetaries are offer no real information.

They don't have access to the serious hard numbers, but it depends how "modern" you're talking about

>>32738657
anything after ww2

>>32736081
well memed

File: 2f4763d5af0c652bd375c58cbbfaafd5-1.jpg (96KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 900x600px

>>32733715
fuck you faggots. real men aardvark.

>>32736112
>Also I don't think "shelved" is the right term
USAF expected to buy 600+ F-22, to replace the aging F-15. instead they got ~200.
now the rest of the F-15 will have to be replaced by F-35.

so, the "hi-lo" mix of US fighters now becomes biased towards "lo"

>>32737504
Are those priced with engine?

>>32738632
Depends exactly what you're looking for. Tom Clancy did a collaboration with Chuck Horner (the guy in charge of air operations in the Gulf War) to do a book about the Gulf War air campaign that was really well done.

For smaller wars, there's good books like
>Fledgeling to Eagle by Dick Lord - the South African Air Force during the Border War
>Wings over Ogaden by Tom Cooper - Ogaden War air campaign, be wary of some of Cooper's claims as he often relies on unverified accounts of pilots

As for important campaigns or operations to look at, I'd say the Bekaa Valley air battle/Operation Mole Cricket 19 would be a good case study for how lopsided things can get with modern technology.

>>32739996
>now the rest of the F-15 will have to be replaced by F-35.
No. The Strike Eagles are sticking around into the 2040s last I heard, and we'll likely see late production F-15Cs sticking around long enough to be replaced by a 6th gen fighter.

>>32740205
but that's even worse. you can't keep those rust buckets flying forever.

>>32733434
Unit cost

>>32740303
but the unit cost of f-22 would go down if they made more of them

>>32740189
thank you!

>>32740276
>>32739996

The USAF never had 600+ F-15C.

>>32740334
Which is more expensive in absolute terms

>>32740276
>F-15E
>rust bucket
Why talk about things if you don't know anything about them?

>>32740276
Yes, but they're in better condition than you'd expect. The Strike Eagle fleet is actually a hell of a lot newer than you'd expect - the last one was delivered in 2001, making them only a little older than many of the Yurocanards.

And worst case, the F-15E production line looks like it's going to keep going for quite some time, so keeping them flying isn't going to be as much of an issue in the near future compared to many other aircraft on the block for replacement, where production is either done or about to come to an end.

>>32740334
Only by so much. The F-22 was an incredibly expensive plane to both procure and operate, and a larger production run wouldn't really cut prices all that much, especially in the long run.

The biggest issue with the F-22 fleet when it comes to cost isn't procurement costs, but operating costs - they're tremendously expensive to operate thanks to things like their special RAM coating requiring expensive and time-consuming maintenance. Even with plans to make them cheaper to fly, the F-22 will always be prohibitively expensive to operate in large numbers (on the scale of the F-35) just as the F-15 was compared to the F-16.

>>32733434
They cover different roles.
The F-22 is an air superiority fighter and deep strike bomber, while the F-35 would be employed for CAS and combat air patrols.

Also politics.

>>32740459
>The F-22 is an air superiority fighter and deep strike bomber

Just the former.

Nobody is going to be sending out F-22s with dick all payload or method of targeting outside of GPS for "deep strike"

File: Screenshot_2016-05-09-15-52-25-1.png (387KB, 949x540px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 949x540px

>>32733434
I know this is shitty bait but here goes.

The F35s was designed to do everything the f22 sucked at.
They are complementary aircraft

They will operate like the f15 and f16 do.
F22s pick off air threats, F35s take out strategic ground targets

>>32737562
Was proven to bullshit for Like a year now.
>>32740276
>Carbon fiber
>rusting

>>32740001
Yep

>>32740549
Not likely with the F-35 around, but after the F-117 retired, the F-22 was the only stealthy tactical bomber; the F-22 may not have a laser designator or the ability to carry 2x 2000lb bombs, but it has other features that make it superior for missions that didn't require hitting a moving target (most F-117 missions) and ones where a GBU-32 or GBU-39 would suffice (unlike the F-117, the F-22 has a RWR / ESM system, EW capabilities, SAR mapping, better stealth, faster flight speeds, better maintainability, etc).

>>32740358
The USAF over the years has bought nearly 600 F-15C/Ds.

>>32738497
The F-35A does partly replace the A-10; or it will if it defeats the A-10 in a CAS fly-off in IOT&E in a few years. There's also OA-X and A-X2 that are replacing the A-10 though.

>>32743085
>or it will if it defeats the A-10 in a CAS fly-off in IOT&E in a few years
>if
I don't think the A-10 really stands a chance.

>>32743490
It depends all on what the test consists of:

Amount of soft-tops that can be killed in a COIN environment? That goes to the A-10.

Ability to deliver CAS against modern MBTs, etc, in contested airspace? That goes to the F-35A.

The analysis will likely cover a wide spectrum, but we'll just have to see.

>>32743535
>Amount of soft-tops that can be killed in a COIN environment? That goes to the A-10.
Eh, 24 SDBs plus controlled-burst on the gun could easily make that much easier on the F-35.

Or carry a few CBU-97s and one-shot entire formations.

>>32743085
What are the timelines like for the OA-X and A-X2 like?

>>32743747
For Block 3F, SDBs are only cleared for internal carriage and CBU-97s aren't being certified; so for IOT&E the only weapons capable of hitting moving targets will be the gun and GBU-12. Block 4 intends to add something like 20 more weapons, but that comes after IOT&E.

>>32744011
OA-X is being looked at now; the USAF is currently doing a sort of unofficial RFI, looking at the Super Tucano, Scorpion, etc. A-X2 will take longer because it's meant to be a new design.

File: 81fd605a8c236f9484c9f3bbae3a0655.jpg (564KB, 1280x1475px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 1280x1475px

>>32733619
X-02 Wyvern when?

>>32733718
>Not knowing that Marine Pilots can't VTOL anymore because shit is broke
>Amos' shit doctrine was to forward deploy F35B's and have them operate on austere runways, despite the fact that FOD will kill them anyway. Also having to clear out land to have forward airbases (fucking why)
>30 LHA's
Try like 9 my dude.

>>32735211
Some older aircraft have a longer range or are more maneuverable than our current CATOBAR airframes (A-4, A-7, F-14), but they don't have Link-16 or the same integrates systems that we do. Between the AEGIS shield that the DDG's (and CG's if they haven't all been shit canned) impose a 500nm sphere around the carrier strike group, then the E2D's radar picking up multiple air and surface targets roughly 1000nm out, then vectoring in Super Hornets with air-to-air packages, it would be very difficult to get the jump on a Carrier Strike Group, and the only alternative would be to zerg rush them, but knowing that they know you're coming puts you at a disadvantage, then systems like CIWS and SeaRAM work against you, in addition to AEGIS, roughly 75 very capable air-to-air airframes (F/A-18E/F, EA-18G, F-35?) and potential support from the MH60R's, and then inevitable small arms fire.

>>32744700
They can STOVL and don't have any more issues with FOD than similar aircraft. They're just as capable of operating off roads and other small fields as Harriers are. Israel is thinking about purchasing some specifically because of this.

>>32744675
Never.

>t. Aerospace Engineer

>>32743085
I am under the impression nothing is replacing the A-10. Doing strike missions it might if it was deployed and ready to go? Absolutely. Replacing implies they fill some function unique to the A-10, but in reality F-35s are just being introduced as the A-10s are shown the door.

The flyoff is just McCain level memery tuh buh huh famalam.

>>32746751
You're correct in that everything else doing CAS will move in to fill the 'gap' that the A-10s retirement, with the F-35 just simply joining that pool of "everything else", but either way, from a legislative perspective the F-35 is replacing the A-10.

I'm sure you've seen this article or a reblogging of the contents, but for others: http://aviationweek.com/defense/congress-wants-10-vs-f-35-flyoff

>The Air Force may begin divesting the A-10 only after the secretary submits a report to lawmakers on the results of IOT&E and the flyoff, a plan to address any concerns about the F-35’s capability, and a strategy to preserve the service’s ability to conduct the missions, according to the text of the reconciled bill.

I wouldn't be surprised if they don't allow the A-10 to retire until the F-35 has received some Block 4 upgrades to add things like ROVER, automated target leading, SDB-II, etc.

>>32747491
You seem pretty knowledgeable, what are the chances of the A-10s being sold off to other countries once they're put out of US service?

I love those damn planes, it'd be a shame to see them scrapped.

>>32733434
Any knick in the paint will render it stealthless. Its very expensive paint.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 2704x1809px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2704x1809px

>>32742132
The F-16 will kick the F-15s ass in a dogfight.

The F-35 sucks at dogfighting.

>>32733434

Because of the 1st Amendment.

>>32733523
>once

They already upgraded the radar with new t/r moduals.

Air to ground SAR mode, but more importantly, 450 km a2a range.

F-22 now has the most long range fighter radar in the world.

>>32739996
>biased towards lo

The 6th gen fighter program is already starting to chug along.

>>32747579
I wouldn't rule it out, but the chances probably aren't that great; flying a mixed fleet is expensive and the A-10 isn't that cheap to operate in comparison to other COIN platforms. Those that could afford it (eg, Saudi Arabia) would likely rather spend the money on more fast jets.

File: hngq1flbmceczncxaogm[1].jpg (29KB, 635x386px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 635x386px

>>32736167
The f35 can only carry 2 air to ground bombs. Doesn't seem so great to me.

>>32747616
>F-16 will kick the F-15s ass in a dogfight.

LOL.

>>32747716
Thats only due to software limitations.

Tons of room internally and externally for more bombs.

>>32747725
LOL all you want but it's been the case for 40 years now, sorry you're clueless.

File: 1469447135259.jpg (84KB, 636x607px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 636x607px

>>32747755
>f16
>Ever beating the fastest interceptor in the world

Pick one.

>>32747754
Do you SEE any more room internally for more bombs?

File: F-35_Weapon_Stations[1].jpg (56KB, 770x558px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 770x558px

>>32747716
Up to 8x Small Diameter Bombs internally, or 2x 2000lb bombs internally, plus another 4 hardpoints / 15,000lb worth of bombs externally.

>>32747767
>>32747755
F-16s are pretty extreme turners, but F-15s can beat them in a vertical fight.

>>32747767
Yes.

>>32747761
This triggers the vatnik

File: image.jpg (35KB, 696x413px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 696x413px

>>32747761
>knows the F15 has gotten smoked by the F16 in dogfight trainings literally thousands of times now over multiple decades

>so changes argument to interception speed

>>32747761
Pretty sure that title goes to the Mig-31. Though the best it could do is hope to detect the F-15 first at a long enough range, launch its R-33/37s and turn around and book it. I don't see it beating an F-15 in AMRAAM range or in a close dogfight.

>>32745156
Wings fall off to easy?

File: 1466146747345.png (90KB, 189x218px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 189x218px

>>32747819
>MFW I looked up the results and the f15 was the actual winner
>MFW you just got confirmed to be full of shit

File: image.jpg (67KB, 514x390px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 514x390px

>>32747890
>resorts to lies

Post your magical link then, you fucking faggot liar.

*crickets*

File: 1357687060514.gif (1MB, 350x219px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 350x219px

>>32747948
If you actually had "thousands" of examples of the F16 beating the F15, that was the time to show them. F15 was never beaten in a dogfight in its operational history until F22 came along. F15 is a designated interception and air superiority fighter, F16 is multi role. F16 can only win below 30000 feet, where it can maneuver. The eagle flies at 60000 feet, where it maintains an advantage in its flight envelope.

>>32748060
The F-16 has been routinely beating the F-15 in their simulated dogfights since the USAF got them.

Anyone with ANY basic knowledge of military aviation knows this.

You don't have basic knowledge as you're an internet poser speaking of "looking up" a magical data base of exercise records when none exists to support your fanboy lies.

It's a matter of reality and physics, dumbass. And not video game physics... which is the closest you've ever been to millitary aviation.

The F-15 had major trouble in close quarters with the goddamn huge ass F-14 once it got good engines, much less more agile fighters like the F-16.

File: 1373676104640.gif (3MB, 312x176px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 312x176px

>>32748127
>F-15 losses: 0
>F-16 losses: Not zero

What more is there to say?

>>32748152
A stupid strawman argument by a stupid person.

File: image.jpg (234KB, 627x800px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 627x800px

>>32748127
nah, the f-14 was kicking f-15 ass even when it had the shit engines

https://www.airwarriors.com/community/index.php?threads/no-kill-like-a-gun-kill-the-legendary-joe-hoser-satrapas-famous-eagle-model.35572/

File: 1476826736741.jpg (88KB, 377x325px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 377x325px

>>32748157
Says the guy thinking a dogfight is about physics WHEN THE F15 HAS BETTER RADAR AND LONGER RANGE MISSILES.

All the F15 has to do is look at an F16 and it's all over. There's no sneaky stealth here. Even at close range, the f15 can just fire off an all aspect missile and end the fight immediately.

>>32748127
The f16 doesn't even have to break a sweat against the plodding f15

http://youtu.be/HiZ9UhnRycY

With similar pilot skill, it's not even fair

The f15 had better hope any f16 encounter is BVR and at high altitude

>>32747643
>F-22 now has the most long range fighter radar in the world.
This title belongs to J-20.

>>32748206
Absolutly wrong, nothing is known about the J-20.

>>32748209
Filthy dog, J-20 is already in service with PLAAF while F-35 continues to struggle toward death spiral.

>>32748214
Lel, well played.

6/10

>>32748197
>The f15 had better hope any f16 encounter is BVR and at high altitude

Which is what they would be. F-16 isn't touching it. F-15 pilots say they can beat anyone from their ideal flight envelope. F-16 can't even fly as high as the F-15, by 15000 feet.

File: AIM-54_6_Pack.jpg (306KB, 1172x832px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 1172x832px

>>32748164
This. and 130nm of tracking:

>>32748224
the argument was which is the best dogfighter.

the f-16 was by far the best dogfighter of its generation.

any 14/15/16/18 pilot will tell you that.

>>32748237
>>32748225
why was the f-14 scrapped so dishonourably?

>>32748242
Navy wanted to cut back on $$$ and because of the Super Hornet.

File: Su-27.jpg (42KB, 960x532px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 960x532px

>>32748224
>F-15 pilots say they can beat anyone from their ideal flight envelope
O hai, can I play too?

>>32748242
Because iran decided to take US hostages for over a year.

>>32748251
The Su-27? Yeah, you can play but you will lose.

>>32748242
Sustainability and maintenance on swept wing craft were fucking horrid and expensive.

>>32748251
KEK.

Even Canadian F-18C's would destroy.

>>32733634
>You send the 22 in ahead of the 35s to clear the airspace, then the 35s come in and clean up, or bomb the shit out of ground targets, or whatever role they need to perform for that specific mission.

Lel, once the F22 clears the airspace, and I assume the SAMs then why the bloody fuck do you need the expensive F35 to clean up ground targets when cheaper aircraft can do that? Typical Lockheed Martin thinking use a golden toothpick to use after lunch and throw it away for the next.

>>32748258
>>32748250
They were retired due to this.

They were not sent to the boneyard due to iran.

>>32736630
>f-35 program seems like its been a complete disaster desu

Be mindful of your words or F35 fags will call you Sprey. Flying Bradley.

>>32748268
>and I assume the SAMs

You assumed wrong, im not even that guy.

>>32748242
Because Cheney's a Dick

>>32748278
>Flying Bradley.

Oh. You mean that program that was lambaseted by mainstream media then it turned out to be an elder god tier vehicle?

>>32748268
You never know when some of the soldiers that the F-22 didn't hit might bring out a stinger. The f-35 was designed to be used against actual armies, not just goatfuckers. It would have been foolish not to. We still have the A10 for COIN.

>>32748268
You don't understand war and logistics do you?

>>32733634
>You send the 22 in ahead of the 35s to clear the airspace

Except no one will try to take on the 22, no, they will keep their fighters back and will try to shoot them down with SAMs. Much more cost efficient then letting their fighters get slaughtered by the Raptors.

Unless the Raptors are good at SEAD missions there is no point in sending them in the first wave. It's much cheaper to try and SEAD with cruise missiles.

>>32748289
>war and logistics
You mean US war and logistics? As in spending as much money so MIC contractors get new orders?

>>32748287
LEL, if fucking MANPADs are a real threat for the F35 then it really must suck big time.

>>32748224
>F-15 pilots say they can beat anyone from their ideal flight envelope
same goes for a p-51, retard

"jump into muh guard!!!"

>>32748285
>Bradley god tier vehicle

Against goatfuckers? Yeah, probably. Against competent soldiers skilled at anti tank warfare? Easy pickings.

>>32748307
>if fucking MANPADs are a real threat for the F35

But they aren't? Did you misunderstand me or something? The main cause of destroyed planes in the Gulf War was MANPADS. An F-35 is highly resistant to that sort of weapon. Hence, justified golden toothpick in a war with china or russia.

>>32748318
Being as how its the most heavy armored IFV from its generation, and one of the most armored today, no.

Its history is one of excellence.

All you have is stale, disproven memes.

>>32747614
>Any knick in the paint will render it stealthless. Its very expensive paint.
F-35 RAM is a hard-baked coating that takes panel damage to reduce its effectivity.

File: kolpak.jpg (127KB, 800x387px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 800x387px

>>32748461
>and one of the most armored today, no.
whos the most armoured today?

>>32748735

Namer.

File: F18=F35.png (29KB, 510x439px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 510x439px

>>32733619
>Wonder if Trump will support restarting production
pic related

I think it's best if one of his advisors handles this one.

>>32747616
You're wrong on both counts, and it's mostly because you're treating a win as binary. At altitude an F-15 will eat an F-16 alive, while it's a he'll of a challenge lower down, but not binary. The F-35 is comparable to the offspring of a legacy hornet and an F-16 when it comes to a knife fight.

>>32748214
Kek

>>32748242
Because it was an expensive platform to operate and its main mission ("shooting the archer", destroying maritime bombers before they could fire cruise missiles at the CBG) was rendered moot with the colapse of the USSR. at which point considerations of cost as others have mentioned took over and the fleet was retired.

Can the F-35B operate off of a Burke?

>>32749194
Sure it can, once.

>>32747761
>F15
>the fastest interceptor in the world

Gulf War 1
Half the engagements between F15s and Saddam's MiG25s ended in a tie because the MiGs25s just fired their missiles and turned and ran and the F15s couldn't catch them.

>of course the f15 won the other half

>>32749194
Theoretically, sure, if you're standing by with an aerial refueler and don't need more than internal payload. Or need an emergency landing pad, I guess.

>>32749226
so its not a true vtol then
thats disappointing

>>32733434
Air Superiority fighters are limited by their roles. You don't need many in your air force.

The F-22 is great, but the F-35 has more functionality.

>>32749267
Why isn't it a true VTOL? It can take off and land vertically, just not with a full payload. Even the V-22 can't take off and land vertically at its MTOW.

>>32733718
vtol is a stupid meme especially in a jet with a small engine

>>32749271
>The F-22 is great, but the F-35 has more functionality.
it's moot when the future is drone warfare and you can field 100 drones for ever $150 billion dollar aircraft. not to mention, pilot training costs etc

>>32748574
>hard-baked coating that takes panel damage
And more importantly, can be replaced by replacing a panel.

>>32749308
>drone warfare
F35 will be specced into a drone controller in the future.

Though personally I think they'll need the twin-seater version for that, I can't imagine a pilot trying to control a drone fleet in addition to everything else.

File: Boeing_F-A-XX_2013.jpg (47KB, 480x304px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 480x304px

>>32735101
>Penetrating Counter Air program, previously known as NGAD
pic related is pretty damn sexy

>>32749301

VTOL/STOVL aircraft are only as much a meme as every other piece of military equipment designed for high intensity warfare against an opponent that can hit back.

If you can't see the value for the USA in a highly capable multirole aircraft that doesn't need a full size aircraft carrier or airbase to operate from, in a situation where the USA's most powerful potential enemies have invested heavily in missiles to target aircraft carriers and airbases, you aren't thinking hard enough.

>>32749267
>>32749286
Harriers can't either.

>>32749332
More likely they'll set up the B-21 for that, and let F-35 drivers focus on their own jobs.

>>32749066
How the FUCK does Trump think that an F18 can in anyway compare to an F35?

What would you have to do to an F18 to let it be vaguely comparable?

>>32747616
>The F-35 sucks at dogfighting

Only because we haven't really had a chance to git gud with it. The F4 was shit for a while until we figured out how to fly it and then we were putting warheads on foreheads all day long.

>>32748242

Eveything cool from the cold war was really expensive and basically useless when we no longer had an equal opposition.

That shit's expensive so why keep it around?

>>32749496
>How the FUCK does Trump think that an F18 can in anyway compare to an F35?

Probably by being fucking retarded and having no idea how anything outside of reality tv shows work.

It's even funnier that he thinks the president has literally any say in procurement

>>32748060
>>32748127
>>32748152
>>32748157
>>32748197
just for reference:
F-16 76-1-5
F-15 102-0-0
The 5 losses at the end are SAM loses, and the one aerial F-16 shootdwn was when it was Greek F-16 vs Turkish F-16.

>>32749522
It didn't help that the F-14 was a hangar queen that basically had to be totally dismantled after every flight.

It was even said that if there was nothing leaking, that was sign of something seriously wrong.

>>32749496
trump is a moron, he just regurgitates whatever he thinks people want to hear. he's literally an uneducated imbecile and simply panders to whatever audience is in front of him at the time. nothing he says matters.

>>32749538
>Greek F-16 vs Turkish F-16
>F-16 shot down
>F-16 BTFO will never recover

>>32747716
Internal stores are enough for SEAD missions, and then you can switch to maximum external stores for the rest of the battle.

>>32749377
While it is, it's actually unrelated, there was speculation in the past that NGAD and F/A-XX (what you linked) might be a joint program, but the JSF experience (not the jet, but the lack of having a single service in charge [of which each service would want to be], clear responsibilities, processes, etc) has made them nope out of it.

Furthermore, each service is looking at their program quite differently; the USN is seriously considering a Super Duper Hornet for F/A-XX in order to keep costs low and maintain its desired quantity of aircraft (that may change if the DoD budget does jump up significantly with Trump, etc though). So no that doesn't mean the sexy Stealth Hornet fanart concept, but more like a 4+++++++++++ gen ASH.

The USAF on the other hand isn't even sure if they want an aircraft (it's likely, but they're looking at the need for fighters like how they looked at the need for nuclear bombers and ended up developing ICBMs), but if they do, they're going to want something very stealthy, fairly large / long ranged and very advanced.

>>32749547

Like owning a British car: if it's not leaking oil it's because there is none left

>>32748316
>same goes for a f-16, retard
>"jump into muh guard!!!"

Fact is that more encounters are likely to occur in the F-15s ideal flight envelope than the F-16s.

>>32749622
To be fair, all high performance aircraft are annoying as shit to maintain. And the hangar floor is always covered in nice, slick jet oil.

File: retards.jpg (38KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x400px

>>32747761
>F-15
>Interceptor

>>32749308
The F-35 was designed with this in mind.

>>32747835
MOre like the entire craft disintegrates when the swing wings move.
Also the canard design is retarded.
Also the horizontal stabs do absolutely nothing worthwhile.

>>32748297
>Unless the Raptors are good at SEAD missions there is no point in sending them in the first wave. It's much cheaper to try and SEAD with cruise missiles.
First wave will be cruise missiles hitting fixed installations. After fixed installations are destroyed the F-35 SEAD wings with F-22 cover go in. Cruise missile strikes will also target airfields to take out as many sitting airframes as possible or deny the use of runways. The F-22 cover would be there to hit anything that was already flying or anything they manage to put up after the cruise missile strikes.

>>32750747
>MOre like the entire craft disintegrates when the swing wings move.
Please explain.

t. not an aerospace engineer

>>32751210
So, swing wings are pretty terrible from a structural and stability standpoint for a bunch of reasons. For structures, all the loading of the wings has to go onto a single point, which ends up being heavy and expensive to maintain (IIRC about a 4% weight penalty for conventional swing-wings). For stability, the shifting wings end up shifting the center of pressure, fucking with the stability of the aircraft.

Forward swept wings also have a bunch of problems (and negligible benefits). There's this thing called aeroelastic divergence - pretty much, forces on the wing compound as you speed up until the wing breaks off. At subsonic speeds, there's a twisting moment on all airfoils that causes the airfoil to want to pitch the nose up. For straight and conventional-swept wings, this problem isn't too much of an issue - swept wings end up countering it with the pitch-down moment you end up getting from the lift on the wing, and straight wings usually can alleviate any issues with a minor downward twist as you go down the span. But for a forward swept wing, the moment produced by the lift across the wing and the aerodynamic moments end up pointing in the same direction. In effect, you end up with the moments working together to break your plane. The solution to that has generally been the use of advanced composites configured in such a way that their behavior under loads counters the twisting moments, but that's not possible if your wing is on a swing-wing joint.

>>32749622
That's pretty much the case for all hydraulic systems with a wide range of movement.

>>32749286
>Why isn't it a true VTOL?

VTOL tech is not advanced enough yet. It's guzzling fuel and no matter what Spreyhaters say, physics support him when he says VTOL requires small wings and small wings increase wing loading.

>>32751996
Why does VTOL require small wings? Don't the F35A and B have the same wingspan?
Why wouldn't the F35A and C have the same larger wingspan if the VTOL requirement was what controlled the wing size/area?

>>32748257
What about the Indian Su30 that wiped out 5 American F15s????

>>32752075
Yep, and the F-35A/B has similar wingloading as an F-16 PLUS a purpose-built lifting body.

>>32733434
They bet the farm on the F35 being a messianic "all things too all people" machine and now they're too far down the rabbithole to pull out on every country in on the bet.

>>32751996
Vertical takeoff will always be fuel intensive, dipshit.

>>32753523
But, they succeeded at building a fantastic multi-role.

>>32752111
IIRC counting the lifting body, the F-35 with an internal combat load has nearly the same wing loading as a clean F-16.