/k/ will defend this

CAN'T TURN
CAN'T CLIMB
CAN'T RUN

WORSE THAN WHAT IS WAS MEANT TO REPLACE

IT IS A FUCKING LEMON.

File: 1452752418194.jpg (58KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1280x720px

>fake news
Quite funny, though.

>>32897192
>Lockheed officials have separately downplayed reports that the same F-35, flown by the same pilot, previously lost mock dogfights with the Goodyear Blimp and a beagle on a flying doghouse.
lol

LOW AND SLOW

File: 1456222746404.jpg (182KB, 1024x905px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1024x905px

>>32897192
AND
HERE
WE
GO

>>32897192

BIG DADDY TRUMP IS GOING TO CANCEL THIS DEATH SPIRAL PROJECT

>>32897192
I'm pretty sure everything would lose in a turn fight against a biplane.

>>32899197
>BIG DADDY TRUMP IS GOING TO CANCEL THIS DEATH SPIRAL PROJECT

I WISH
but apparently the orange emperor wants even more now.
They are telling us SHop floor guys we might have to work 6x 12hr shifts to make even more f35 parts

>>32899209
Get fucked. Those nosecones won't make themselves, bitch.

Joking aside, i'm kinda impressed at how many either read or link The Onion and Duffelblog in a non-satirical way. The comment-section on their Facebook-pages work as a who's who of gullible idiots, in the same way that anything NASA-related draws all the loonies out of their basements to talk about pyramids on the moon and shit

>>32897192

Bu-but, muh avionics, F-22 is OLD which makes it automatically inferior REEEEEEEE

>>32899230
>Get fucked. Those nosecones won't make themselves, bitch.

I acually weld and assemble a lot of F35 Tail cones acually.

But they are a bitch because of how stupidly thin the material is

>>32897192
FOR 1 F-35 WE CAN BUILD DOZENS OF F-4

>>32897192
That really was a nice post, anon. Unfortunately, I can’t be bothered to dignify it. Why, you may ask? Well, I must inform you that in the span of glancing at your post, I have ejaculated about five times to a rather enthralling hentai called ‘Emergence’. The way the hentai depicts the gradual process of a virgin becoming a cum dumpster really made me erect. Hell, I haven’t gotten that aroused since Anton Yelchin’s death. Anyways, this girl gets raped by her drunk father and has sex with all the boys at school. Now, these parts were perfectly fappable, but the real fun starts when she gets bullied and ostracised from her class. Her downward spiral of drugs and prostitution eventually leads to her becoming a mere shadow of a human being. In her last dying moments as a pregnant prostitute, she dreams of a future with her (would be) daughter. Instead of getting to live that future, she dies alone in a cold room. I swear that last scene will always bring me to ecstasy. Now, if you really want to get my attention, you must commit yourself to reading such refined works as I do. Only then can I consider you my intellectual equal.

File: 1486038960055.png (97KB, 246x232px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 246x232px

>>32899377

File: Screen Shot 2017-01-18 at 3.37.59 AM.png (320KB, 786x806px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 786x806px

>>32899377
>>32899384

>>32897192
>Huh? Sure, up close, in a knife fight, the Dr.I has machine guns, and an F-35 pilot just has his sidearm.

Because a GAU-22/A that the F35 has is fake?

This is very low tier bait.

File: hYMIItH.png (142KB, 511x564px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 511x564px

>>32897192
Don't you know that this is a F-35 safe space?

>>32897192
>Red Baron
>Died 21st April 1918
>Resurrected <current year>

Well duh. An undead vampire German pilot with feats in combat piloting and max charisma could defeat anyone in dogfights.

File: 1449901003176.jpg (50KB, 640x478px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 640x478px

>>32900102

TRUMP JUST TWEETED THAT HE HAS ASKED FOKKER-FLUGZEUGWERKE TO LOOK INTO MAKING COMPARABLE FOKKER DR-1S

I was going to take the piss but i suddenly remembered we're supposed to be buying 130+ F35's for our shit-tier aircraft carriers.

>>32900188
lel

>>32897255
At least Duffelblog is intentionally parodical, unlike, say, War is Boring.

Anybody else get annoyed when you know a word is right but the browser's spellcheck still underlines it?

>>32899289
Don't worry, they'll find a robot to replace you in a year or two.

>>32899185
F-22 IS better.

>>32902420
At a few things. Mostly irrelevant supermaneuverability and it can carry a couple more missiles.

Meanwhile the F-35 has a better Air to Ground capability, far better sensor suite, far better comms, easier to maintain, and much better stealth materials.

>>32900617
No, because I'm used to being smarter then any spellcheck.

>>32902450
The F22 avionics can be upgraded.

>>32902817
Yeah, but to parity with the F-35. With a major total remodel.

A dire F-35 could do whatever a regular F-35 could while being 200% sexier!

>>32904674
But the Dire template adds +2 CR. That cuts down on the number your enemies will encounter at once.

>>32904674
>>32904804
what's a dire F-35?

>>32904809
They're like F-35's, but they're dire

>>32904809
A /tg/ thing.

>>32904804
An advanced enough dire machine doesn't necessarily need any crew.
>>32904809
http://www.titanatelier.com
Have fun, and remember: not even god will forgive you for your sins now.

>>32904809

>>>/toy/6166476

File: 1305952559052.png (41KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 480x480px

>>32904851
>>32904870
No friends, that's not what I was talking about. Refer to
>>32904861

>>32899209
I guess Lockheed's check cleared.

>>32900188
Someone get CNN on the phone. We got us a verified source here on 4chins.

>>32899202
Triplane, shitlord

>>32903329
Avionics parity, superior airframe. Hmmm....

>>32905352
Better A2A, worse A2G. And A2A is limited at best in a major conflict.

Until CUDA/SACM come into play. Then F-35s will have an A2A edge too.

>>32906455
>And A2A is limited at best in a major conflict.
This is patently false.

>>32906455
>Then F-35s will have an A2A edge too.
This is also false.

>>32906947
>>And A2A is limited at best in a major conflict.
>This is patently false.

Bah, who gives a shit about aerial supremacy, I'm sure the enemy will be friendly enough to let our A2G go about their business unmolested.

>>32906947
>>32907105
When we can curb stomp opposing air of any other nation within a week it tapers off in value.

>>32907430
I think a week is being a bit optimistic, and you bet your ass they retain their value even if the initial air war is short, sharp, and brutal. You NEED to deny the enemy control over your own airspace if you plan on winning the war, otherwise your forces will get interdicted and you will be unable to move your troops. As long as you can at least contest control over your airspace, you greatly limit the effectiveness of the enemy's bombing campaign. Not even just by shooting them down, but by making them have to assign sufficient support to each and every mission.

>>32907105
In terms of sortie rate and damage dealt to the enemy, A2G is far more common / important though. A2A is a precursor, but you can't win the war without A2G as it's the precursor to being able to win the war with boots on the ground.

>>32907533
Name one conflict where NATO/UN Air elements didn't have total freedom of the skies within a week post-Vietnam.

Even Russia/China don't have the inventory to really last that long in a conventional campaign.

>>32907730
The Falklands. Brits were unable to establish air superiority and they paid for it. If the Argie command was only marginally more competent, the UK would have failed in its attempt to retake the Falklands.

Serbia sort of counts, sort of doesn't. I'd be more on the camp of doesn't count for a number of reasons, but they did contest NATO air superiority enough to keep us on our toes. Not enough, however.

And yes, you're vastly understating the difficulty in establishing air superiority. Russia and China have a lot of gear, even if most of it is of lesser quality than the US, and when integrated with the other aspects of the IADS they can make it quite difficult for the US to maintain air superiority. This is, of course, where the advantage of stealth aircraft shows itself.

>>32907998
>The Falklands. Brits were unable to establish air superiority and they paid for it. If the Argie command was only marginally more competent, the UK would have failed in its attempt to retake the Falklands.
Harriers aren't really fighters, either though.

>Serbia sort of counts, sort of doesn't. I'd be more on the camp of doesn't count for a number of reasons, but they did contest NATO air superiority enough to keep us on our toes. Not enough, however.
Not really. We were free to basically do whatever we wanted in the skies, and except for a few lucky shots their ground AA was mostly impotent.

>And yes, you're vastly understating the difficulty in establishing air superiority. Russia and China have a lot of gear, even if most of it is of lesser quality than the US, and when integrated with the other aspects of the IADS they can make it quite difficult for the US to maintain air superiority. This is, of course, where the advantage of stealth aircraft shows itself.
You're saying this as if the US doesn't have both a ton of its own IADS in AEGIS, or hasn't bought Russian gear to train against.

And neither of them can buy to match quantity with the US, either.

File: San-Carlos-FOB-Falkland-Islands-Harrier-GR3-Crash-Landing-04.jpg (182KB, 1024x692px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1024x692px

>>32907998
>The Falklands. Brits were unable to establish air superiority
U wot m8. The British had air superiority the minute they came within Harrier range of the islands - the Argentine Air Force's Mirage IIIs didn't have refueling probes and were limited to earlier generation rear-aspect AIM-9s which meant that they effectively could fly out to the islands and do a single pass before heading home.

The Argentine Kfirs and Skyhawks did manage to inflict a good deal of damage, but British air assets by no means were threatened by the Argentines at any point. In fact, they inflicted heavy enough losses on the Argentines that even the strike aircraft they did have weren't operating in the theater by the end of the war.

>>32909847
>Harriers aren't really fighters, either though.
Harriers had all aspect missiles, though, which made the difference in actual combat. It didn't help that the Argies couldn't maneuver much lest they not have enough fuel for the return trip.

Re:Serbia
It's somewhat more complex than that. Because of the continuing Serbian SAM threat, we were not in fact able to do whatever we wanted in the skies, and had to take a number of precautions lest our hubris get planes shot down. And when we didn't, it happened.

>You're saying this as if the US doesn't have both a ton of its own IADS in AEGIS
The US is SORELY lacking in most aspects of a ground based IADS and makes up for its relative weakness in surface based platforms (not just weapons) with aircraft. However, that's not the point. Regardless of how you want to handwave it away, a proper IADS is a very difficult nut to crack, one which conventional aircraft are very ill suited to doing.

>>32909917
No, they really didn't establish air superiority. Explain to me why British ships continually got hit, despite British efforts. Despite your whitewashing, air superiority wasn't achieved. The Brits could not keep the skies clear of Argie aircraft. They paid for it.

>but British air assets by no means were threatened by the Argentines at any point
That's not what air superiority means. The Brits couldn't prevent the Argies from repeatedly hitting their shipping. Yes, the hits made things very scary for the Brits. A few more hits, or a few more bombs going off, and the Brits wouldn't have been able to retake the islands. They wouldn't have had the material in place. I highly suggest reading the book Logistics in the Falklands War. Personally, I think it's vital to any understanding of the conflict.

If we are to learn any one lesson from the Falklands as to why the British were unable to keep their ships safe, I can point to one key capability gap: Lack of AEW aircraft.

File: Night witches small_plane.jpg (81KB, 461x286px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 461x286px

>>32897192
Still not the most embarrassing.
>The Po-2 is also the only biplane credited with a documented jet-kill, as one Lockheed F-94 Starfire was lost while slowing down to 110 mph – below its stall speed – during an intercept in order to engage the low flying Po-2.

>>32909917
If the British really had complete air superiority, they wouldn't have had to worry 24/7 about Argie jets bombing their ships. Even the officers on the ships were pretty nervous about it - they had anti-air missile systems, but numerous things went wrong and in the end, 4 ships sunk for it.

>>32910162
>The US is SORELY lacking in most aspects of a ground based IADS
No, we just don't invest in that aspect because it's fucking worthless. AEGIS is probably superior to anything the Russians have, and not vulnerable due to having to stop and set up anything.

File: 1476152082700.png (375KB, 763x960px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 763x960px

>>32904861
>this is a thing
What is wrong with you people?

>>32902450
>better comms
Thats like saying better buy a porsche cuz my honda's stereo is trash

>>32905269
Plus mini-plane betwen landing gear, Anon.

>>32912579
Here's your (you)

>>32911757
>No, we just don't invest in that aspect because it's fucking worthless
It most certainly is not.

And AEGIS is not a fucking ground based system, so stop trying to pretend it is. It's on a ship. That's completely different. Now fuck off, adults are talking.

File: images.jpg (5KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 275x183px

>>32897270
original footage from after the fight

>>32914113
Ground-based IADS HAS proven completely fucking worthless in every major conflict with a competent western air force once it was understood that dismantling it was a key element of the war in general.

>And AEGIS is not a fucking ground based system, so stop trying to pretend it is. It's on a ship.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/aegis/aegis-ashore.html

It was developed as a defensive shield for Carrier Battle Groups because the open ocean is where IADS is actually effective, as there are no fixed sites or terrain barriers/masking. Ground systems are slow to move, if at all, extremely vulnerable to pretty much every kind of fires, and can be easily evaded and bypassed by modern, especiallystealth fighters.


>Now fuck off, adults are talking.
Kek, you have to be right to use this.

File: 1477539615703.gif (249KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 500x375px

Gen 5 triplane when?

>>32915042
This is blatantly incorrect.

>AEGIS Ashore
>trying to claim that a platform solely for firing SM-3s in the ABM role constitutes a realistic IADS.
Anon, quit proving your retardation.

>>Ground systems are slow to move, if at all,
This is false. Modern systems are quite mobile and can be packed and unpacked very quickly. In fact, that's one significant aspect of why they're good. When you pull a Syria or Iraq and keep them in static positions, they tend not to survive.

>and can be easily evaded and bypassed by modern,
Oh no they can't. Conventional aircraft have a VERY tough time of penetrating an IADS. That is, after all, why stealth aircraft were created in the first place: because it would be too dangerous and take too long for conventional aircraft to slowly peel back the IADS.

Anon, I'm well aware of what the capabilities of USN vessels. However, you somehow think that land based platforms are useless yet when they're on ships they work perfectly. Quit being retarded.

>>32902420
irrelevant when they serve different roles. I don't see you crying about the F-16 not being trashed when the F-15 is a better plane.

>>32915316
>I'm wrong about everything I'm saying but I'm really confident about it!

>>32897223
CANT CROW

>>32899377
This guy knows whats up. Excellent taste anon!