Hey /k/, a buddy and I are having a pretty heated debate. He

>>32922574
Well, currently, I think the F-22 would win simply because it's actually functional.

>>32922574
They're both shit! They cannot climb, cannot turn... they are lemons! A MiG-19 could take them out without any problem. The F-16A is the best fighter ever made!

>>32922642
> OP's friend.

>>32922574
Gun dogfighting? The F-22 is more agile in just about (if not every) way.

WVR missile fighting? The F-35 has helmet mounted cueing and DAS, but the F-35 can't internally carry Sidewinders (at least for the near future), unlike the F-22. AMRAAMs are HOBS missiles though.

BVR fighting? The F-35 doesn't carry as many missiles, and will generally be launching missiles at lower airspeeds, but it'll detect, track and be able to engage an F-22 before the F-22 can detect it.

There's also the matter of the F-22 being twice as expensive to acquire and operate; the F-35's should (and in real life will) have numerical superiority.

>>32922574

Considering unfriending Pierre Sprey.

22 beats 35 easily. It has a smaller radar cross section, more mobility, much more speed and more missiles.

The F-35 is pretty shit all around, thanks to it's slow speed, low range, and poor capacity.

>>32922625
The F35 has superior technology and better targeting systems, which counts for a lot.

>>32922629
Bruh, citation needed.

>>32922792
However, it is barely operational.

It can have all the fancy gadgets in the world, but if they fail at any given moment, that is worthless.

One of them was designed as a fighter

The other one was designed as a multirole

Theyre roughly the same generationally. Give it to the F-22

File: Pierre-Sprey-is-an-aircraft-designer-defense-analyst.jpg (14KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 640x360px

>>32922798
They are shit! We should invest in light and agile fighters, with as few electronics as possible.

Those modern jets are too expensive. Pilots have to do most of their training in simulators instead of flying for real. How do those guys expect to become aces if all they can do is press some buttons and let the plane fly?

I said it, and I will say it agains, they are lemons!

>>32922574
Dogfight performance hasn't been relevant for decades.

>>32922922
I agree, it wouldn't even get to a dog fight, the F35 would blow the F22 out of the air before the F22 even knew it was there.

File: l15332-tie-fighter-94029.jpg (38KB, 620x465px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 620x465px

>>32922574

This right here.....this is the best star-fighter. No useless shields. No over-complicated hyperdrive. Just a nice, simple, cheap, maneuverable fighter. Those X-wing turkeys won't know what hit em'. The rebellion is in a death spiral.

File: 14619025540401.jpg (778KB, 2100x1397px) Image search: [Google]

778KB, 2100x1397px

>>32922574
>Gun dogfighting? The F-22 is more agile in just about (if not every) way.

Here's the thing.... and I'm about to throw down on some knowledge here....

The F-22 Raptor is an Air Superiority fighter. It is designed from the get-go to be so. So, in the Air Superiority role, it would win. If the F-22 is put into ANY other mission, F-35 wins.

Same with the argument with F-35 vs A-10. The A-10 is a Close Air Support aircraft purely. In the CAS role, the A-10 will dominate, in any other mission besides CAS, F-35 wins against the A-10. There's also a belief that every CAS mission is done by A-10's or that other aircraft have never been used in the CAS mission. That's simply not the case.

This goes on and on...

NOW: The problem is that having 15 different types of aircraft, including the support structure, parts inventory for replacement, technical support, etc for all 15 aircraft gets prohibitively expensive in today's world.

Imagine you're a smaller country, would you rather have 2 F-22's, 6 F-16's, 4 A-10's, etc... OR would you prefer 2 squadrons of F-35's for the same price that can do just about every mission out there?

Development cost aside, (which it's now beginning to become a lot cheaper), the F-35 does some really amazing things, most of which are still classified. Having sat in the simulator, and seen what it's capable of, I have to say I'm amazed by it. I hope the tech that has been developed for it can be moved to every other aircraft that we see from this point forward, and that's probably what's going to happen.

>>32922983
I'm sorry anon

But the retardation is terminal

>>32923013
My sentiment agrees with the statement that F-35 vs F-22 in air superiority role, F-22 wins.

The information I also gave is something that is agreed to by the various pilots flying it, and the engineers (including myself) who have experience with the system that is the F-35.

You may not like it, but it's not wrong.

Also, my condolences on your retardation.

>>32922574
>dog fight

There's a simple way to get an idea of a plane's turn rate - divide the plane's weight by its wing area.

>>32922805
F-35 has a newer radar and EOTS, as well as the ability to employ AIM-9X HOBS, which the F-22 currently lacks.

>>32923071
Smaller number would have a tighter turn radius?

>>32923040
Given the F-22s higher capacity for internally stored missiles, and the fact that it has already completed successful bombing missions in the middle east, I'd say that the F-22 can out do the F-35 in the strike bomber role. Particularly in contested airspace, where the F-22 can carry more missiles internally, as well as fly further and faster than the F-35.

>>32923123
>>32922574

It's a moot point, because it is very likely that there will be no more F-22's, ever. The ones in service will be continually upgraded, but no more will be produced. Blame George W. Bush and his desert warfare fetish. Thankfully, we're finally past that and we can start spending money on aviation again.

>>32923153
>It's a moot point

It's a hypothetical senario, actually. We are comparing the F-35 and F-22. Lets not get side tracked.

File: 1471829399972.jpg (946KB, 6545x4368px) Image search: [Google]

946KB, 6545x4368px

>>32923123

Although that is true, the F-22 can drop bombs and do so successfully, I have to agree with >>32923153

It's not about physical capabilities purely as it has been in the past. The amount of information, and information sharing between fighters is changing the way we do fighter combat. We shouldn't forget the lessons of the past (ala the Phantom and it's initial lack of a gun during Vietnam), but we also can't remain stagnant in our technology and abilities.

Also given the lower operational costs (cost per hr to operate, etc) of the F-35 over the F-22. Even though the Raptor is an amazing machine, the likelihood of producing more with how much it costs vs a multi-roll platform like the F-35 will limit it's impact on any operational theatre.

There were whispers of the F-22 going back into production, but they seem to have fallen away again. Like it or not, the F-35 is here to stay, at least until a 6th gen fighter emerges.


>PROPOSITION
Let's say you had a fighter that had eyes on a ground target somewhere in a non-permissive environment, but lets also say it can share that tracking data with 5 other aircraft, and several satellites and bombers. Now let's also say that the aircraft that has that target eye's on, is out of ammo (because that was one of your criticisms of the F-35). What's the likelihood that another aircraft having that targeting info relayed to them can go ahead and engage because they may not be out of missiles/bombs? Answer: Pretty damn high.

Also link the longer legs of the F-35 to comparable 4th gen fighters, and you have a pretty awesome winning package.

>>32923244
>ala the Phantom and it's initial lack of a gun during Vietnam
Just want to point out that this is an urban legend. The US Navy Phantoms kept really good K:D throughout the war, and they never had guns. Just turned out that they had pilots who actually knew how to figh

>>32923244
This guy knows what's up

>>32922965
True but the interceptor is better

>>32923270
I never said the Navy didn't keep a good K/D, but rather that it was a problem that was encountered by pilots who were flying them, and the gun pod was added as a result. Phantoms were great for what they were, but also had some design flaws.

For instance, the prototype F-4's were very aerodynamically unstable. As a result, the tips of the wings were angled up by 15 degrees and that solved the problem. I'm glad I got to see them fly one last time at AirVenture though.

Not an urban legend if it's true.

>>32923071
>>32923111
So an F-4 out turns an F-16, right?

>>32922965
How do Star Wars ships maneuver?
Do they have some fuckity control surfaces influencing gravity or something?

>>32923327
I believe the term you are looking for is "Movie Physics". But probably some sci-fi tech that does as you said.

>>32923312
It's not true though; at first, no Phantom had an internal gun. They tried gun pods, but they were inaccurate and shitty.

The USAF developed the F-4E that had an internal gun, but the USN couldn't afford to buy a new Phantom variant, so they trained their pilots and maintainers how to properly use missiles (while the USAF maintained the same shitty training program / architecture).

The USAF's kill:loss ratio didn't change and even decayed a bit.

The US Navy's kill:loss ratio skyrocketed and became more than 6x that of the USAF's, again with no gun and very sparse use of gun pods.

>>32923327
Thrust vectoring

>>32923096
Newer doesn't automatically mean better in every way. The F-22's radar has more targeting elements and can readily share the F-35's targeting avionics if it doesn't already. Those parts are pretty easy to swap out.

>>32923071
>>32923111
>>32923315

Wing loading isn't the only metric that determines an aircraft's ability to maneuver.

Turning is basically climbing in a circle around a point, and you're trying to get the smallest radius. For that you need the most lift you can get, but also the most thrust. Limits on structural forces, and limits to the pilots body also applies.

An F-15 has relatively light empty wing loading, but an F-16 can out perform it in turn radius because it has a higher thrust to weight ratio, and has relatively similar wing loading. (I can't remember which is bigger but it isn't by much either way)

>>32923244
Idealistic talk avoiding of technological stagnation in the future is not particularly irrelevant when we are comparing two planes here and now in their current states. With regards to your hypothetical proposition, first of all the F-22 isn't going to be out of munitions when the F-35 is. Secondly, sharing target locations, particularly static ground targets, is not a magical ability that only the F-35 is capable of. Target co-ordinates can be relayed to another plane through several means. I maintain that the F-22 can arguably find itself more suited to several types of bombing missions than the F-35. In those missions, where three f-35s would be good, three f-22s would still be better.

>>32923280
Posts like that appear more akin to one replying to himself than genuine votes of support on an anonymous forum, FYI.

>>32923419
Tighter turns have more to do with structural limits and the control authority of the flight surfaces than thrust. Thrust lets you make up for lost speed from drag inducing maneuvers, such as turns, or maintain an airspeed while performing a draggy maneuver.

>>32923393
I'm talking from a technical perspective, not a training or financial one. Because of the events that transpired with the F-4, future aircraft all had internal guns. This is also why it was important to the USAF, USN, and USMC that the F-35 retained it's cannon. Although with the USMC variant some things are different.

>>32923451
Neither the F35B nor F35C retain the internal gun.

>>32923451
The F-35B and F-35C retain their guns in external pods primarily for A2G, much like the Navy F-4 did.

The guy you're arguing with is right, that "F-4's needed guns" point is a meme.

>>32923421
Well first, that wasn't me, but I am an aerospace engineer and a pilot.

But, to counter your argument, I agree with much of what you've said and never stated that other aircraft couldn't share information. I'm simply stating that the F-35 is able to do that particular part of the mission better.

Yes, the F-22 has more storage, yes, the F-22 can do some things better, but the F-35 can do MORE things better. I think at this point the argument is getting a bit too pedantic. For most on this forum, experience with the systems that we are talking about is for sure at a premium. I'm saying what I can, but have to be careful what I admit. I'll leave it at that.

>>32923441
You are correct, but just try to maintain a maneuver without the amount of alpha you need. This was a key point in Col. John Boyd's EM theory.

I think you'll find the F-35 does not lack in thrust or control authority. It's all a system, and isolating a particular component when evaluating an ability of an aircraft to accomplish a particular objective makes it quite difficult to determine fairly. The only thing the F-35 doesn't have that the F-22 does, is a second engine and vectored thrust. The vectored thrust although cool and flashy, only works in a handful of situations effectively and was warranted not worth the cost and weight on the airframe.

>>32923554
I'm fairly sure the F-22 dramatically out-turns and out-accelerates the F-35. Honestly, if they'd continued production of the aircraft, they'd probably have given it helmet cued targeting and HOBS capability by now. Given time and development budget, the only thing the F-22 isn't going to do that the F-35 will is information fusing with the onboard cameras.

>>32923544
My point was more that the pilots wanted them, not that they needed them per say. Again, we're getting pedantic, and taking one thing said and detracting from the rest of what my post was about.

>>32923569
The helmet mounted systems are currently being upgraded for the F-22, although some of the other sensor systems are currently incompatible. They were proposed to be added to a second generation of F-22, but when the talk of restarting the line subsided, so did those proposals.

Honestly I'd love to see an F-22 with the cockpit, systems, sensors and abilities of the F-35.

>>32923569
At subsonic / dogfighting speeds the F-35 apparently accelerates about the same as an F-22: http://www.livescience.com/3032-fighter-jet-controversial-future-fleet.html

>>32922574
as both stand today, my money's on the F22.
F35 is high tech and thats great but if it craps out like it wants to a lot, you're fucked. at least the F22 is decently reliable.

>>32923617
>if it craps out like it wants to a lot
Are you talking about the "radar restarts", etc?

If so they fixed that nearly a year ago; at Red Flag they haven't had a single case of that happening (even though it sometimes still happens in F-16s, etc).

>>32922574
It's such an asinine question because the two are designed to complement each other

>>32922574
If the F-22 is not better then the F-35 at being an air-superiority fighter then the entire program was a waste of money.

>>32922574
How can he hate something he has never had any sort of contact whatsoever with.

>>32922983
>In the CAS role, the A-10 will dominate

Anon, I don't know how to break this to you, but the A-10 is not viable in nonpermissive environments.

>>32923602
TIL. Thanks for the link. Being that close to matching a clean Block 50 F-16 and an F-22 is pretty impressive. That still leaves the earlier block F-16s the kings of ultra fast interception, though.

>>32922629
Hey pal don't you know that jet engines and supersonic flight were just made up by the military industrial complex to make more money? A Sopwith Camel with an AIM-9 will run rings around the TURKEY MiG-19 through manouverability alone

>>32922983
Your description of the F35 let suppose that it's good at nothing or mediocre at everything.

Some US politicians once said that a second best airforce is like a second best hand at poker. It wins nothing and only ends up costing you a lot of dough.

>>32922574

The F-35 is not a dogfighter, no shit an F-22 would outperform it. Maybe you could get into a debate about whether a dragster could beat a Ferrari off the line next?

>>32923726
Multiroles being the vast, vast majority of the AF has been the case for fucking decades you cretin

>>32923327
Etheric rudders

>>32924193
Butthurt multi-role faggot detected

>>32923931

>The F-35 is not a dogfighter

Wrong. The F-35 can dogfight very well, actually.

>>32924359
That's like saying a F-4 could dogfight well back in the day "under the right circumstances". It's bullshit. The 40 year old F-16 has skunked it repeatedly.

>>32924906
> The 40 year old F-16 has skunked it repeatedly

How do you even manage to get through the captcha?

>>32925173
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-beat-the-plane-its-replacing-in-a-dogfigh-1714712248

File: 1387678979853.jpg (24KB, 317x330px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 317x330px

>>32925293

>foxtrotalpha

>>32924272
If anyone is butthurt it seems to be you. He is right you know

Number of current, active jets in the US airforce:
F-15 eagle = 192
F-15E strike eagle (multirole version) = 257
F-16 = 957
F-22 = 195
F-35 = 71

And the Navy and Marines operate almost exclusively multiroles (F-18s) Go look at the numbers for yourself.

>>32925300
what are references for $500 please?

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16-vs-f-35-in-a-dogfight-jpo-air-force-weigh-in-on-whos-best/

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/what-the-f-35-v-f-16-dogfight-really-means-think-pilots/

>>32925311
Fuck you, im using alternative numbers.

>>32922574
>F22 has smaller radar cross section

I'm sorry anon that is in correct

>>32925417
Yes it most certainly is. The F-22 has a smaller radar cross section and is harder to detect due to it not compromising some aspects of stealth in order to be combat ready.

>>32925458
1. Yes it fucking does. The YF-23 was the one that made no sacrifices in LO features.
2. The Raptors RAM is an entire generation in materials tech behind the F-35.

File: Screenshot_20170208-172713.png (906KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

906KB, 1440x2560px

>>32925458
Not according to Gen. Mike Hostage of air combat command, but hey, what does he know right?

>>32925661
>Hostage Actuall
If he didnt hav this callsign then he missed out

>>32922574
F35 would win becuse the f22 couldent see it. That being said the f22 is more useful for everything else

>>32925661
>8 f35s to do what 2 f22s can
F35 fanboys btfo

File: Tieinter2.jpg (149KB, 1020x735px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1020x735px

>>32923327
OK do you know the bid black grid things on The wings? Those are like veins of ion particles, giving you lateral thrust, with the intercepter and Darth Vader's personal ride haveing better manoverabilty becuse of the top and bottom veins gaining vertical trust. The two little dots on the back are there forward ion engies. Xwings have four enignes that act like rockets, it's not as well 'tought up', but the wings do a similar thing.

>Force awakens fucks up HUGE by putting in atmosphere, ion engines don't work in air. Ion engines are super weak in general, it's about 'blowing' ions like a wind. Electric wind.

>>32922574
F-22 is now capable of firing AIM-9X.
So probably yes

>>32927802
In regards to air superiority Yeah, but it vice versa in other aspects.

>>32922574
>Arguing about systems with top secret components.

This is autism, please rethink your life.

>>32922911
>My entire filename is a lie
>Post is pure bullshit

>>32924243
>yfw this is the actual, canon answer

>>32922983
>hesrightyouknow.jpg

>>32923658
This

In terms of pure dakka obviously the A-10, but the F-35 has more linger time, more carry capacity, more fuel, better sensors and targeting, and won't get merked by a hadji with a 1970's strella on a hill.

>>32928000
TIEs worked just fine on Bespin in Empire

>>32928000
What about the x-wing in dagobah, or yavin IV?

22 is a fighter 35 is a bomber.

>>32934029
They're both fighters. The F-35 just happens to be a lot more useful once air superiority is established.

File: Northrop_YF-23_DFRC.jpg (447KB, 1280x943px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 1280x943px

>>32922574
Everyone knows YF 23 was the best fighter ever made and for that I will always look down on Lockmart shills.

>>32922922
Right. Visual ID isn't a thing.
t. IranAir

>>32923554
>it's all a system
Nice sales brochure quoting, LM/ Fort Fumble shill.
I also am an AE and a pilot. I designed the ashtrays for the EA-6B.

>>32922574
CANNOT DIRECTLY COMPARE. EACH PLANE SERVES A DIFFERENT ROLE.

>>32925311
Naval Aviation operates a multirole aircraft because the A-12 was cancelled and the F-14 was retired witj no replacement. The F/A-18 was shoehorned into both roles because there was no other choice, not because it was a preferred choice.

>>32925313
Pilots who know upon what side their bread is buttered.
Get off the record info. Or look at the cost and time overruns. Shit, with the development money spent by now, there ought to be a squadron or two of aircraft added for free.

>the F-35 is better because it has newer technology on it

because the F-22 won't get a tech refresh to have the exact same radar/sensor suite once the test platform (f-35) shows them to be operationally ready.

only, the larger F-22 has more physical space for even more of the newer and even more stupidly overpriced electronics.

>>32936639
>I have no idea what I'm talking about

They're all being used to bomb people in caves. It doesn't matter. Why hasn't the US military just designed a plane totally around bombing people in caves yet?

>>32936662
We have. Several times.

>>32936662
A-10

>>32936697
Busting sheet metal tanks, not bombing people in caves. That's drone work.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (73KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1200x800px

>>32936697
The A-10 wasn't purpose-built to be bombing people in caves.

>>32930004
lurk more you fucking faggot

the skinny is that modern 44th gen fighters, whether mulitrole or air superiority, are going to end up being overpriced and taking way too long to sort out. Actually, pretty much everything from DoD procurement ends up over budget and over time, but the trials process usually irons out most of the worst things. Even your """lemons""" usually get turned around into competent gear from bug fucked pieces of shit. However, like everything else, we should be able to see that 4th gen fighters are clearly mostly a boon to defense industry. We can argue as to whether this boon is necessary to keep our strategic edge or not, but given how little 3rd gen fighters were deployed, especially as anything other than CAS and for installation strikes, I do question a big multi-trillion dollar MIC project which then allows Lockheed to go and pimp that product around the world... After the enormous R&D costs were footed almost entirely by American taxpayers.

Stats like wing loading, radar cross section, wing area, top speed, max range, sensors, and so on are cool, but I think a lot of yous are getting bogged down throwing shit at other fags.

>>32936774
>Pierre-Sprey-is-an-aircraft-designer-defense-analyst.jpg
Never an aircraft designer, and his career as a defense analyst was over 47 years ago.

>They are shit! We should invest in light and agile fighters, with as few electronics as possible.
No matter how much it gets proven wrong, then?

>Those modern jets are too expensive.
F-35s are less expensive than modernized Gen 4s.

> Pilots have to do most of their training in simulators instead of flying for real. How do those guys expect to become aces if all they can do is press some buttons and let the plane fly?
Pure ignorance.

>I said it, and I will say it agains, they are lemons!
No, Mr. Sprey, you are the turkey.

>>32936606
>F-14 was retired witj no replacement
The US Navy is well funded and has a long history of successful combat aircraft development projects.
If the F-14 was so necessary and great, why did they retire it?
If the F-14's role was so necessary, why did they not replace it?

>>32936929
>why did they retire it?
Extreme maintenance hour to flight hour ratio, soaring operational costs.

>why did they not replace it?
The originally planned threat, strategic bombers with long-range anti-ship missiles, never materialized, and Hornets/Super Hornets could do everything else generally better.

>>32936834
I meant fifth gen desu, 4th gen stuff is pretty much proven. So basically what I meant to say was "However, like everything else, we should be able to see that FIFTH gen fighters are clearly mostly a boon to defense industry. We can argue as to whether this boon is necessary to keep our strategic edge or not, but given how [relatively] little FOURTH gen fighters..." If you haven't caught on, Sprey is a meme you dip

>F-35s are less expensive than modernized Gen 4s.
Are they? Maybe. I don't know if I believe Lockheed marketing reps. If a third-party group of actuaries and accountants came to the same conclusion, then the F-35 program might be worth it so long as the no-bid clause was pulled and it was opened to competition. I'm not denying that it's perfectly reasonable to try to keep on the bleeding edge of war tech across the board insomuch as one can, and to keep a substantial stock so that one can face any plausible threats. But what I am saying, and what you failed to address, is that this whole thing where the MIC corps get to wine and dine senators, congressmen, and secretaries, make themselves indispensable in ways XYZ (by providing jobs in congressional districts, ensuring steady throughput for military kit, and kickbacks by various means) - all the while the hook noses and fat fucks get exorbitantly rich at the top of Raytheon and Lockheed. That shit's got to go. Get rid of that and I guarantee you can maintain the quality of MIC kit while drastically cutting costs.

>>32937142
F-35As are already far below the most recent F-15K and F-16E/F buys, and less than EF-2000 T3 and Rafale price.

>>32937491
>F-15K
Made in Korea price bloat

>F-16E/F buys
Sand nigger premium

>EF-2000 T3 and Rafale
Made in France price bloat

Just because gooks and frogs are paying too much for similar stuff doesn't mean the F-35 isn't also overpriced.

>>32922574
He's right
> F35 isn't even combat ready.
> Most air combat is won by the pilots with more experience. So the F22 pilot will out fight a F35 pilot based on that even IF the F35 was ready
> F35 cant turn as quickly, cant accelerate as hard or travel as fast. cant detect targets as well.
There is a reason people call the F35 a lemon.

>>32937953
>cant detect targets as well.
the fuck are you on? it has 360 degree IR coverage

>>32937953
>>32938008
It's also been combat ready for almost 2 years.

>>32933067
> F35
> more linger time
Wrong
> More carry capacity
Are you retard or trolling?
> more fuel
Also wrong.
> more sensors
Weeeelllllll maybe, but you can put HTK nodes on one of the pylons on an A-10. You cant add shit in terms of hardware to the F35
> wont get hit due its stealth transdimontonal invisibility shielding and deflector array.
Oh shit, I just wasted my time on some dumbass with zero idea what he's talking about didn't I? Shit.
> also, don't forget that the A-10 has flown home with one engine, after taking 2 hits from AA missiles, and a good 70% of its frame can be shot out without certain death.
Can the F35 fly with one engine down? oh, oh that's right........ It will just hover on its anti-gravity plates all the way to the moonbase for a 10 minute $5 repair.

File: 2366.png (21KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x300px

>>32922629
Oh look, a buttblasted lockmart shill.

The F-22 flies rings around the F-16.

The F-16 flys rings around the F-35.

You may not like that, but these are facts.

>>32937644
>Significantly better aircraft for lower price
>Still overpriced
Eat a dick, Spreyfag.

What's the budget again? 350 billion or something?

I don't whether it's better than the other jets, but you could have sent 3 ISS's into space for that price.

>>32938075
>Wrong
2.5x the range and, with SDBs, a 65nmi Instant shot coverage radius.
>Are you retard or trolling?
He isn't, but you are. The F-35 can haul 2000lbs more in the same airspace the A-10 can fly, and can put weapons on every single pylon instead of needing tanks and pods.
>Also wrong.
Making the retard run, huh?
>Weeeelllllll maybe, but you can put HTK nodes on one of the pylons on an A-10. You cant add shit in terms of hardware to the F35
The F-35 already has everything it needs built in, and since everything is modular, upgrades are easy. Also, nice try, the pod you're referring to is built into the F-35's nose.
>Oh shit, I just wasted my time on some dumbass with zero idea what he's talking about didn't I? Shit.
Look in the mirror.

>Can the F35 fly with one engine down? oh, oh that's right........ It will just hover on its anti-gravity plates all the way to the moonbase for a 10 minute $5 repair.
>hurr muh twin engine meme
F-15s and F-16s have managed to glide in missing an entire wing, and the F-35 is tougher and has a better design.

>>32938108
>You may not like that, but these are facts.
No they aren't. More recent pilot interviews say the F-35 is overall a better handling plane than the F-16.
https://theaviationist.com/2016/07/11/f-35-pilot-explains-how-he-dominated-dogfights-against-multiple-a-4-aggressors-every-time/
https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

>>32938262
Instead we got ~250 5th gen fighters.

>>32938311
> Recently asked pilots said
Do you honestly believe the "99 out of the 100 dentists we bribed said that our product is the best on the market!" Ads bullshit?

>>32938311
>More recent pilot interviews

so, after they tightened down on which pilots are allowed to speak with the press, the narrative suddenly does a 180 degree turn.

and changing the definition of "dog fight" from shooting down the enemy in close-range arial combat to "stay out of their sensor range and hover until they run out of fuel" makes for a conclusive dogfight victory for the F-35.

>>32938399
>>32938608
>I'm retarded, fixed in my stupid opinion, and nothing can change it!

File: george soros.png (771KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

771KB, 720x480px

>>32922714
>>32922574
>>32922625
>>32922722

F-35 is a pork barrel project to line defense contractor pockets and weaken the united states military.

It may serve a specific purpose but come on, the '35 is practically a Drone with a cockpit.

>>32922983
>>32923040

Yeah but here's the problem son...

Jack of All Trades cannot be a King in any of them.

This is why we bother with having 15 different types of aircraft. We can cater-purpose them to the task they're designed for.

This might be 1960s logic but its eternal.

It takes a true over the board tech leap in order to invalidate entire tiers of specially built-to-task equipment. Such as
>>32928000

And even then applying the same tech you would see emerging purpose-built designs.

This is why Destroyers didnt replace battleships, nor did they replace PT boats and coast guard patrol vessels.

And its also why Submarines didnt replace almost every frikkin surface vessel even though you can do most of the shit a surface vessel does from underwater.

> 1 Carrier, and a shit ton of submarines which can launch all manner of missiles

File: fb23.jpg (39KB, 710x532px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 710x532px

>>32935616
>>32939075

In fact under trump I hope they bring back the FB-23, the even bigger cousin to the F-22

It needs to be modernized, but I doubt that would be a problem.

>>32939075
And here we see the Spreyfag openly flaunting his ignorance and hostility towards facts, reality, and even having the slightest shred of intellectual honesty.

>>32928241
>>32923096

>>32922574
Dog fights are a stupid thing to argue about.

>>32938075
Im genuinly impressed that you managed to fit so much wrong into one post