Improve it

>>33287007
Give it some rockets so it can fly to the moon and back.

>>33287007
Give it two engines. Double the power, double the efficiency (probably).

File: dodge.jpg (2MB, 1200x1077px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x1077px

>truck gun

File: IMG_0393.jpg (4MB, 2736x1822px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2736x1822px

Done

2 person crew
able to carry full payload internally

File: IMG_2543.jpg (31KB, 612x380px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 612x380px

>>33287007
You can't improve on perfection.

>>33287219
I was not expecting this, but it's the most correct answer I've ever seen in my life.

>>33287007
What do you want it to do? The role you're looking for changes the answer massively.

File: Boeing X-32 7.jpg (332KB, 950x1006px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 950x1006px

>>33287007

make it qt

>>33287311
This is the plane that is built to do everything. What it needs to do is be the best multirole jet it can be.

>>33287007

Get rid of the unnecessary gun.

>>33287365
It needs that for CAS.

File: cddr_mda-ngc-bae_010.jpg (396KB, 2656x1970px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 2656x1970px

>>33287334
>This is the plane that is built to do everything
No. The JSF was supposed to
>Replace F-16, F-18, AV-8B with three separate variants with a relatively high level of commonality
>Provide affordable complement to the F-22
>Mature technologies with the program to save money in the long run

It'd be (comparatively) easy to make it the best multirole there is if we didn't care about cost. But cost is a major part of the program. Same goes for the parts commonality.

Just keeping within the same general specifications as called for by the JSF program, you wouldn't be able to get much improvement in any area without tradeoffs in other areas. Lockheed's not retarded - they made countless decisions on tradeoffs to meet requirements just like every aerospace contractor does, and their studies converged on the current design as the best solution.

Something like MDD's proposal (with Lockheed's lift system) might offer benefits for things like stealth, but it'd likely suffer in other areas such as agility.

>>33287397

No it doesn't, the gun is only there to placate the "must have gun for CAS" crowd.

A single SDB or hellfire/brimstone is vastly more effective than any strafing run. With the high cost of operating 5th gen aircraft, the money you save from shooting a few hundred bullets vs a guided munition is outweighed by the operating cost of the platform.

Delete the gun from the A, use that space for a ram air cooling system that keeps weapons bay temperature lower.

no more B version

File: much better.png (397KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 1600x1000px

>>33287007
Fixed.

>>33287325
GOOMBA!

File: 1487383609226m.jpg (44KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1024x683px

>>33287007
Remove the gun
Stop using cast components to cut costs
Ditch Pratt Whitney engines
Use a variable bypass engine

Other than that the F35 is basically finished
They have gotten through all the software bugs at this point

>>33287219
The F35 was designed to do everything the f22 sucked at.
The f22 is not an improvement in a lot of aspects.

>>33287007
Depress fuselage of F-35A&C since they don't need stovl fan.

done

File: vf-1s-strike-gerwalk.gif (118KB, 800x613px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 800x613px

>>33287007

Gerwalk mode and old Tomcat tail decoration.

>>33287926
>With the high cost of operating 5th gen aircraft

The whole point of the F-35 is that it has affordable per-sortie and per-hour operating costs. Do you even logistics?

File: F-35 absolution.jpg (52KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x360px

>>33287007
>Redesign it with bigger weapons bays and WAY more internal fuel
Done.

>>33287161
>double the efficiency
Lolno, more like double the fuel burn.

>>33287219
>Turn it into a worthless show-pony that sucks benis at A2G
No

>>33289518
>Ditch Pratt Whitney engines
>Use a variable bypass engine
Okay, also these.

File: wallpaper-886877.jpg (617KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

617KB, 1920x1080px

>>33287007

>>33287007
Paint flames on it and add a Monster energy drink decal.

>>33289786
really vectors my thrust

>>33289664
It has twice the flight hour cost of legacy aircraft.

>>33289817
Fuck off, F-35 is 100% Red Bull

File: 1456283598446.jpg (32KB, 288x339px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 288x339px

I really wish I had my own f-35b that would rest on a helipad on top of my house. I'd love to fly it to work every day. The load out would be nothing but external fuel tanks since I hear the B can only fly for an hour on internal fuel.

>>33289633
They already use the extra space on the A&C to have a bigger fuel tank.

>>33287007
Different fusalage for the B and the A & C (I believe A and C could have been a bit less draggy if not for the shared fuselage). A bit larger internal bays. Otherwise I think we're good to go by now

>>33290447
>helipad
The F-35B won't take off vertically unless you take off with near-empty fuel tanks. It'd basically be stuck there until someone can haul it away to a proper airfield with a truck.

>>33290517
Seriously? All that thrust and it can't lift it's own weight plus some fuel tanks?

>>33290517
>>33290584

It produces enough raw thrust to lift off with ~50% fuel load and 2 x AIM-9x

Stop perpetuating memes

>>33290730
That's pretty pathetic.

>>33290738
Not really

Operationally it was never intended to take off vertically to contact, but would theoretically maintain a ~450km combat radius. Not that it would ever actually do that, because you'd have to be braindead to actually employ it like that.

Saying its pathetic just goes to show how little you actually understand. Its a STOVL jet, not a helicopter.

>>33290764

>having a longer operational circle than an Apache
>able to VTOL
>stealth

Why not use it to replace the apache?

>>33290784
Are you retarded or just pretending

File: 2600828784823721818.jpg (44KB, 750x468px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 750x468px

>>33290784
Because it's based from a Yak41(141) and not a Harrier.
Strangely enough the yak could just about get its gear ground interface apart with missiles and a whif of gas..

>>33289786

DAYUM

SHE THICC

>>33290851
Plain wrong, anon

File: Rockwell_XFV-12A_on_gantry.jpg (11KB, 333x185px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 333x185px

>>33290860
In what way?
The US based one on the other and ended up with something slightly less awful than this.

>>33290894
You should look up Convair model 200.

You should also look up what a fucking lift fan is, if you think the Yak41 and F-35B use the same systems. They're not related at all other than a swivel nozzle, which is hardly unique to either.

>>33287397
The Navy and Marines don't think having a gun full time is necessary.

File: mig21pd_5.jpg (56KB, 987x590px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 987x590px

>>33290946
That was fairly awful.
Not melting your carrier deck is an issue is it not ?

>>33290338
>It has twice the flight hour cost of legacy aircraft.
*While being swarmed with post-flight contractors to examine flight data and adjust future LRIP designs.

File: MonsterImportcap[1].jpg (340KB, 730x547px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 730x547px

>>33290344
Red Bull is nasty. Best energy drink pictured.

>>33289633

Why? it would just end up being fitted with CFTs and EFTs. Having greater commonality between variants and more internal fuel than the F-22 on the F-35A & F-35C seems pretty good.

>>33287397

It can be fitted with a gun pod for the rare occasions it "needs" a gun. However, later builds of the F-35A should remove it from the design (maybe past 2025).

Less weight, less maintenance costs, more internal fuel. Much more useful than a gun in most situations.

File: convair_200_1[1].jpg (95KB, 800x549px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 800x549px

>>33290851
Nope, the Yak141 and its predecessors were based on the Convair 200, a design LM owns. They just bought test data off Yakovlev.

>>33291022
That's what they said about the phantoms, and look at how that turned out. Planes need guns.

File: convair-200.jpg (150KB, 1024x756px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1024x756px

>>33291023
Of course they are ;)
There are some really beautiful pictures of that pos out there.

>>33291043
>Convair designs concept that somehow Yakovlev copies exactly
>Implying Yak VTOLs aren't based on it

>>33291039
The F4 is a perfect example of guns making no difference to a kill ratio, cretin

use python coding of fly-by-wire
protips : NASA use python.

File: yakovlev-yak-38-vto.jpg (20KB, 600x470px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 600x470px

>>33291054
Show me a flying example then claim prior art.

File: VAK 191.jpg (31KB, 650x467px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 650x467px

>>33291071
Yak-38 is closer to the VAK-191B in its lift system than the Convair 200.

File: p1127.jpg (42KB, 800x332px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 800x332px

>>33291091
Flying.

>>33291039

No they don't. The moral of the Phantom in Vietnam was that proper fighter training was necessary for pilots.

Not only that, but missile and aircraft sensor technology has vastly improved since then. This year will be 50 years since the Tet offensive. Fifty years before then was rotary-engine powered biplanes over the western front. Reliable all-aspect, high off-bore sight WVR missiles are widely in service, and the emphasis is now firmly on BVR combat.

>>33291122
>BVR
ROE.
Not American.
:(

>>33291071
>Make an original claim that makes no sense
>Don't back it up at all
>Someone makes a claim that makes sense
>PROOFS?!?!

>>33291134
That wasn't quite true either, though. The meme that US fighters couldn't ID and engage BVR was intentionally created because the Combat Tree non-cooperative IFF system on F-4Es was classified long after Vietnam and through most of 4th Gen's development and production, making public debunking impossible.

>>33291122
Then why did the A-10 get a gun? Was it not effective for CAS? Really now, if it wasn't needed, it wouldn't be in the F-35.

>>33287007
Dump another trillion dollars into it

>>33291176
>Then why did the A-10 get a gun?
Because it was designed around Vietnam-era ground attack concepts. Which were completely gone in US doctrine only a few years after it entered service.

>Was it not effective for CAS?
Not really, no. PGMs have proven far more effective, with less friendly fire incidents/deaths and most other aircraft have far superior on-station times.

>Really now, if it wasn't needed, it wouldn't be in the F-35.
More that backwards idiots like you forced the Air Force to integrate it, which the Navy and Marines resisted in favor of an as-needed gun pod instead.

>>33291200
>Hurr durr trillion dollurs bin spunt

>>33291147
It's not that it didn't exist, it's that it was just as unreliable as every other radioelectronic system of the day. Even in Desert Storm BVR ID was unreliable as hell. There were more than a handful of false positives and false hostiles. If everybody in your flight gets a red dot on that contact just outside of visual range except for one guy in the flight who reads it as a friendly aircraft, well, you've got a problem you need eyes on target to solve without the very real issue of fratricide. That shit happened constantly in 'nam.

>>33291176
>Then why did the A-10 get a gun?
Doctrine of the time saw it useful against soft targets. The A-10 was developed during a time when PGMs were just starting to become a thing and the USAF didn't fully understand just how significant the impact of distributed low-level AA systems was. Though the early stages of the current doctrine of medium-level penetration were apparent in Vietnam, the USAF still held the belief that exposure to low level threats was preferable to being exposed to radar-guided SAMs that threatened higher altitudes.

However, operational experience quickly showed that it was comparatively easy to disable threats at medium altitudes and above but next to impossible to eliminate low-level threats. Plus, with the massive expansion in the use of PGMs, it became more feasible to provide accurate support from standoff distances.

Even on the A-10, the gun was never its primary weapon, and even when it was used, it's generally been no more effective than an unguided rocket pod.

>Really now, if it wasn't needed, it wouldn't be in the F-35.
Not necessarily. Doctrinal inertia is a huge factor in procurement. Note how the Navy and USMC both decided against an integral gun.

>>33291039
>memes

>>33291176

Against a peer opponent, the A-10 making low and slow gun runs is obsolete. American SEAD isn't effective against MANPADS, and SHORAD. Not only that, the A-10 was designed with the Warsaw pact 23mm guns in mind, then the Warsaw Pact moved over to the combined 30mm gun and missile combination as seen on the Tunguska and Pantsir.

Against an inferior opponent, podded guns that reduce stealth are sufficient, if they are absolutely required.

>>33291275
Not to mention the fact that APKWS and SDB exists.

File: 70uF5mM[1].jpg (84KB, 960x500px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 960x500px

RED

RED WUNZ GO FASTAH

File: gulf.jpg (14KB, 556x207px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 556x207px

>>33291231
One of these is not like the other.
Patriot missile batteries took one of these out in that era because it was an incoming SCUD.

>>33291283
AN' GIVE IT SUM SPEED HOLES TOO YEA

It's time to get rid of manned CAS platforms and spend on more UAS instead. No expensive and bloody CSAR debacles, ground fire can't scare or distract the operators, cheap to field and cheap to lose. No ejection seat or life support systems is a huge plus.

Meatsacks in cockpits add nothing to CAS. Human vision a shit.

Other robust cheap option is more organic firepower for ground units like self-propelled mortars. Puma modular systems include AMOS which would bring ample firepower to da tip of the spear.

>>33291359
Give infantry laser designators which talk directly to an overhead UAV bomb truck floating carefree
Laser, hold, press the red button, and UAV dispenses at 500lb delivery

>>33290851
This piece of shit doesn't even use a lift fan. The only thing it has in common is the swivel nozzle and that isn't unique to the YAK-141 nor was the Yak the first to use it.

>>33290946
Lockheed quite literally invested in Yak for the tech transfer.

> hur hur lift fan
Of course they changed how the plane works. What the fuck is wrong with you.

You really think because the planes are 100% the same that one isn't based off the other? Even though ALL evidence shows that it is?

If you are gonna be mad about it, be mad that the x-32 never stood a chance due to Lockheed knowing about the competition in advance.

>>33287007

Canards. Lots of them!

>>33291410
And LM holds the three-bearing swivel patent from Convair.

>>33291430
>Lockheed quite literally invested in Yak for the tech transfer.
They got test data on how the lift forces work, they didn't need actual technologies.

>>33291410
>hur hur lift fan.
Everything else about the general basic design is the same but "MUH LIFTFAN".

Lockheed dumped money into Yak for the tech transfer before the upcoming JSF comp but "MUH LIFTFAN".

File: f35.jpg (92KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1200x675px

>>33291410
When you're setting a blowtorch to the place you need to land at things like fuel and ammo supply are fairly trivial.

>>33291463
Yet they took everything.

Also it's cute that you think you know what they took.

>>33291430
>A plane can still be based on another plane even if it works entirely differently

thinker

>>33291481
>Jet exhaust is hot, more at 11

Thats not even the lift fan you stupid fuck

File: 9-7-2004-12-46-yak_36_(freehand)_(15)_landing.jpg (71KB, 750x433px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 750x433px

>>33291463
Physical aircraft or no prior art.
Landing.

>>33291495
Sweary now. Melting deck at eleven. :)

>>33291498
>gorilla nostrils

>>33291489
>>33291498
>Russiaboos with overinflated sense of the importance of their crash-tastic Yak series

File: cddr_mda-ngc-bae_006.jpg (368KB, 702x500px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 702x500px

>>33291430
>If you are gonna be mad about it, be mad that the x-32 never stood a chance due to Lockheed knowing about the competition in advance.
IIRC, everyone did - Lockheed just held the patent on the lift fan. Most major contractors had been working with the DoD and the BAe in the late 80's to develop new lift systems.

MDD had their own proposal that used a system that the British had been working on for a while - remote augmented lift. It was pretty much venting the bypass air to another port and then burning fuel at that port. It allowed for the same general layout that the F-35 used while being more effective than the X-32/Harrier's system. Granted, Lockheed had an unbeatable advantage because they held the patent on the lift fan, but the competition would have been more fair had MDD been chosen over Boeing.

File: Hawker-Siddeley-P-1127.jpg (188KB, 1024x695px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1024x695px

>>33291498
What are you getting at? The Yak-36 used two engines in a lift system almost identical to the Pegasus's layout.

>>33291477
Literally nothing about it is the same. What are you talking about?

File: alraigo-con-el-sea-harrier-a-bordo.jpg (84KB, 620x446px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 620x446px

>>33291539
Pegasus is only one engine. Also does not need a specially prepared, heat resistant, surface to fly from.

Why are you guys replying to a very obvious Vatnik?

>>33291430
>x-32
>ever having a chance
>when they flat out said during the competition they were going to have to completely redesign the wings and tail, meaning that the vehicle they showed off had little performance characteristics in common with what they said would be the final design

Boeing fucking blew it big time and they have only themselves to blame.

>>33287177
>optic on minigun
y

File: VJ-101.jpg (16KB, 394x203px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 394x203px

Wing tips fall off if you put missiles on them, apparently.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/f-35c-getting-redesigned-wing-tips-that.html
don't fall off.
Which is nice.

I would redesign the EODAS so it can be swapped out "easier". Also improve software architecture to make it more acceptable of contemporary/future tageting devices. Sensors are key to efficiency and the way the EODAS is implemented is too restrictive for future upgrades.

>>33291703
and how the fuck would you know how its implemented?

>>33291214
>PGMs have proven far more effective, with less friendly fire incidents/deaths and most other aircraft have far superior on-station times.

Source or get stuffed. You are wrong.

>you forced the Air Force to integrate it

I would have done a lot more than that if I had authority over them. If the Navy and Marines didn't want it, they wouldn't have kept it in their versions, too. Did you ever think of that?

File: Lockheed-Short CL-704.jpg (74KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 640x480px

>>33291592
The Yak-36 used the same four-post kind of system the Pegasus used, just that the Russians didn't have a strong enough engine for a single-engined system at the time and thus had to use two engines.

Do you actually have a point or are you seriously arguing that shit Russian engines forcing a different layout is a good thing?

>>33291692
>Only the C version
>Just excess vibration when Sidewinders mounted
>Wingtips are hinge-attached anyways, easy fix for smallest-count model

File: B-1B-Lancer-carrying-the-Sniper-pod-1024x572.jpg (93KB, 1024x572px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1024x572px

>>33291727

>Source or get stuffed. You are wrong.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/sen-mccain-b-1s-really-do-cas/

A single B-1B can carry an enormous number of PGM's, remain on station all day, and respond quickly thanks to supersonic capability.

>>33291727
>Source or get stuffed. You are wrong.
A-10 has 4 incidents with ten deaths. Next up is the B-1B with 1/5. Just because you're wrong and hung up on outdated concepts 4 decades old doesn't mean the A-10 is any good at CAS.

File: moller.jpg (1MB, 2400x1800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2400x1800px

>>33291745
Now that's silly.
F.35 is just bad.

>>33291703
The layout of the EODAS was made with ability to accept upgrades. Quit being retarded.

>>33291881
B has a larger order count than the navy ?

>>33291931
with international orders

>>33291930
Only those of similar size my mouthbreathing friend.

>>33291931

The F-35C is only useful to countries with CVN. Which is basically just the USA and France.

>>33289518
>f22 sucked at

What did the F22 suck at? Besides cost?

>>33291931
The US is buying the same count of B and C, but there's another ~150 Bs going to UK and Italy.

>>33291988
>Equipment specifically designed for modular unit swaps
>Implying it's bad that you can install newer equipment with the same footprint

>>33292039
No IR systems.
Only A2G capability is via Synthetic-Aperture Radar.
Internal bays restricted to 1k class munitions.

>>33291136
>Id mages zenze cs muriga iz da beesssddd!!

>>33291489
>Also it's cute that you think you know what they took


>Yet they took everything.

You are not seeing the irony in this, are you?

File: F-16-Santa-Hat.jpg (382KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1024x682px

>>33292274
It can carry 8 SDBs which is the same as what an F-16 can carry. That said, the F-16 can carry 4 AAMs in that configuration, whilst the F-22 can only carry 2.

>>33291650
The way the contest was held Lockheed had a huge advantage of taking the Yak and slapping the lift fan system into it.

It was MUCH easier than starting from scratch. Their plane was already proven aerodynamically.

File: 1480534933782.jpg (32KB, 600x349px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x349px

>>33287007
At the visible level I'd start by removing all this VTOL crap. Once that's done the fuselage can be slimmed in places, allowing for a desperately needed redesign of the cockpit, and you could probably still squeeze a couple more internal bays out even after that.

At the less visible level, the software has devolved to the level of commercial turd polishing and that really has to be ripped out and done right for this thing to ever really fulfill its promise.

>>33287219
>Make it absolute shit at A2G

But then what's the point anon.

>>33292371
Someone will actually believe this.

>>33292547
Here's your (((u)))

>>33292371
>they had an advantage
So? Where exactly does it say that the competitions have to give each competitor the same technologies?

It drives innovation you fuck

>>33287007
Just finish producing it and ironing out any issues. It's fine.

>>33287219
Naw. F-22=F-15. F-35=F-16 or F-18

>>33287250
It can already carry the same payload as an F-16 all internally. It's fine.

Making its giant 2-man plane would be a joke.

>>33290338
>Twice cost of legacy fighters

K. I bet a freaking biplane has a lower operational cost than modern fighters too.

Cuz they're freaking old and obsolete.

>>33290738
Do you realize what it takes to take off vertically for a jet fighter?

Lol compare it to the harrier some day.

>>33287007
>>33287219
Anyone else want to see those planes in ventablack? Would look awesome as hell.

>>33290946
This.

They're only similar in the way the swivel nozzle looks. It's cosmetic.

>>33291039
Let this meme die.

Phantoms performing bad in dogfights was due to poor pilot training, and the air Force shoehorning in cargo and bomber pilots into fighter jets.

The Navy F-4s did just fine without guns. And once they started training the air Force guys better, they did fine too.

The LRSB is probably already flying at Groom Lake.

Ain't that weird?

>>33287926
Is the A variant the only one with weapons bay heat issues?

>>33290730
>Excess thrust margin of 0%
Lol have fun with that

File: yak14101.jpg (42KB, 610x323px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 610x323px

>>33292774
Similar in only paying Yak for ALL their information as to how that thing did its stuff then making a legally dissimilar thing to do the same job.
Right.

>>33291134
North Vietnamese SAMs shot down American aircraft from BVR all the time. The difference was that North Vietnamese MiG pilots used their IFF, while undisciplined USAF pilots turned it off because they kept getting chewed out every time an EC-121 saw them accidentally cross the border into China or Laos.

>>33292825
>Lol have fun with that

Its actually more than 50% if you want zero thrust margin. I was leaving wiggle room.

>>33292857
L-M patent from Convair for the 3 bearing swivel don't real.

They just paid Yak for some test data. Calm ur shit.

Stop it vatnik.

>>33291650
USN changed the requirements.

>>33291890
haha
the Chair Force using a B-1B for close air support
Get real.

>>33293005
>it's another episode of "retard doesn't understand what the close in close air support means"

i wish they'd stop this rerun desu

File: CloseAirSupport_chart2B.jpg (331KB, 595x1382px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 595x1382px

>>33293005
>I'm a huge faggot please rape my face

File: Dassault_Mirage_IIIV.jpg (342KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 900x600px

>>33291745
>just that the Russians didn't have a strong enough engine for a single-engined system at the time and thus had to use two engines.

dedicated lift engines were a very popular idea for a time because they seemed to be the best option

>>33292885
The diference was, NV could assume any target was enemy.
And if not, too bad, tovarish.

File: F-35.jpg (174KB, 497x710px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 497x710px

Improvements complete.

>>33293013
Fuck you. You know the USAF wants to keep the B-1B fleet for more important (strategic), less dangerous tasks.

>>33293013
IT MEANS YOU HAVE TO FLY LOW AND SLOW RIGHT CLOSE TO THE SOLDIERS RIGHT

>>33293063
Are you reading your own pic?

File: Dornier Do 31.webm (2MB, 726x400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 726x400px

Make way for Do-31

>>33293118
The one that has B-1s doing significant amount of CAS sorties?

Yep

>>33293070
The Brits were using the same fucking doctrine back in WWII. Use IFF to keep track of friendlies, so you don't hit your own dudes with flak. It's really not that difficult, but it only works if your pilots cooperate.

File: Captain Isumi infodump.png (639KB, 1023x595px) Image search: [Google]

639KB, 1023x595px

>>33293096
I though it was odd at first how it's called the Peregrine in Alternative, though as I just learned it's because Alternative was released before the name Lightning II was given to the F-35.

File: UK2_XG905_Short_C1_2.jpg (124KB, 1024x637px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1024x637px

Four for lift and one for all other duties.

>>33293102
The B-1B is no longer nuclear capable, so it is not involved in any strategic role.

>>33287007
It already can receive data from 3rd-party platforms such as drones. I propose, integrate the ability to actively manage said drones, a la AH-64E.

They don't even have to be traditional subsonic optical surveillance drones. I think a 5th gen strike package could benefit from something like a bigger, stealthier MALD with more endurance, plus the ability to locate emitters and transmit that data back to the F-35 flight and all other interested "customers" of the data. You could have four of them flying some tens of miles ahead of the F-35s, sending back info for the Lightnings to drop HARMs on.

Longer term: develop this networked manned-unmanned team to where the unmanned elements might be semi-autonomous UCAVs

File: IMG_6721.jpg (52KB, 736x383px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 736x383px

Why don't we have shit like this

>>33293064
Nah the Yak-36 had no dedicated lift engines. It used two parallel lift/cruise engines. Imagine two Pegasus engines but with nozzles only on one side.

>>33293356
Because it would suck ass at atmospheric flight and there's no space-sandniggers to shoot yet.
>discovery of Tattooine when?

File: ryan vertifan2.webm (749KB, 468x348px) Image search: [Google]

749KB, 468x348px

>>33293125

File: ryan vertifan1.webm (1MB, 523x348px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 523x348px

>>33293415

File: x22a.jpg (43KB, 500x414px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x414px

>>33293415
:)
Stowable lift fans earn it a bunch of cool.
Something a little chubbier.

File: 12b875a9a10e8740475a0c602953979a--mmf250x250.jpg (11KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 250x250px

>>33290994
Lets make the energy drink military related

File: 2010-06-04-Strip_40_Rip_It_web[1].jpg (160KB, 700x355px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 700x355px

>>33293950
>Implying those are military related

File: rlQgyzO.jpg (181KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 2048x1365px

>>33293063
>tffw your planefu doesnt do CAS anymore

>>33291283
>>33291338

MOR


DAKKA

File: F-16_Accuracy.jpg (158KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 640x480px

>>33294083
qq

All fighters should have a gun for the same reason they needed to add one in Vietnam. Missiles have a min range and a certain failure rate. Guns have no min range.

>>33294163
Meme.

The F4 phantoms in Vietnam did fine without guns when they were flown by Navy pilots who had air-to-air training, and the air Force F4s had issues because they were flown by cargo and bomber pilots. Once they got proper training, they did just fine.

And missile and sensor tech is far, far beyond what they were 50 years ago. The need for guns is less than Vietnam, and they weren't even that necessary back then.

>>33294163
Also, guns absolutely have a minimum range, especially when you're talking fighter jets with high closing speeds, even in a dogfights.

Also, modern WVR all aspect missiles barely have a min range

I don't think there's room for a second engine.

File: Falcons runway.jpg (623KB, 1500x714px) Image search: [Google]

623KB, 1500x714px

>>33294083
>>33293063
Why isn't it being used for CAS anymore? AF hate the little bird now or something?

>>33292474
to buy a couple hundred/thousand super tucanos and a10's.
Why bother with 5.5th gen when everyone else is still at 3rd gen?

>>33294921
F-16 has really short legs and not a huge payload. Not the best CAS fighter really.

File: download.jpg (6KB, 251x201px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 251x201px

>>33287007
wa~la!

>>33293232
You should probably read up on what strategic targets are, you're not even close.

>>33289736
>Turn it into a worthless show-pony that sucks benis at A2G

The F-22 is an air superiority fighter, not a joint strike fighter. Saying something is worthless because it doesn't fill a role it was never meant to fill is fucking stupid.

>>33296189
You missed his point that the F-22 is extremely poorly suited at F-35's optimal task sets.

Prevent the F-35B from ever being a Thing. Tell the Muhreens that if they want their STOVL jet, they need to make one from the ground up.

Also, give the carrier version a built in gun too. I don't know about you guys, but I'm not too keen on another Vietnam situation cropping up in the F-35's lifespan.

>>33297735
>Prevent the F-35B from ever being a Thing. Tell the Muhreens that if they want their STOVL jet, they need to make one from the ground up.
Stupid. The B is a modified A design, and the lift system only really disrupts fuel space.

>Also, give the carrier version a built in gun too.
No, it's pointless.

> I don't know about you guys, but I'm not too keen on another Vietnam situation cropping up in the F-35's lifespan.
I don't think we have to worry about the Air Force rushing cargo and bomber pilots into fighter rotations with a crappy crash course ever again.

>>33292723
>Making its giant 2-man plane would be a joke.
2 man plane doesn't mean much bigger than 1 man plane.
These are 100 million dollar vehicles, its insanity to have only one crew for them.
How often do perfectly good planes sit on the tarmac while pilots get rest? How often do mistakes happen because they are awake too long for missions?

2 should be the minimum crew.

>>33287007
Cancel it

Use the leftover budget to design several independent aircraft that all specialize in their own roles instead of trying to build a swiss army jet that can do everything, but excel at nothing.

>>33291915
Did that thing ever get out of ground effect?

>>33294921
It is getting used, it just falls under the "other" category for the Iraq & Syria 2014+ categories:

https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/air-force-f-16s-fly-the-most-sorties-against-isis-b-1s-drop-most-bombs

>>33300476
>Oh man I'm so good at A2G... oh shit, a 1960s-era enemy fighter, what do I do?

>>33300922
I know all the different fighters, but none of the bombers.

>>33300940
a '60s fighter armed with '80s missiles will give any modern aircraft a run for its money

>>33287007
Equip with CUDA to double or triple internal capacity and to give additional capabilities.

>>33301203

I'm going to have to doubt that, if only because old radars are going to be useless going up against modern aircraft EW capabilities.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 2018x1454px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2018x1454px

>>33287007
What are the odds Mitsubishi unironically does improve it, the same way they did the F-16.

>>33301296
The F-2 isn't an improvement, its a cash injection to Japan's domestic aviation industry

>>33301306
>the first operational military aircraft in the world to feature an AESA radar
>not an improvement

>>33301310
>equipped with an AESA so immature twisted-cassegrain radars outperform it, and at an obscene cost
>an improvement

File: RazgrizRaptor-01.jpg (17KB, 637x259px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 637x259px

>>33292767

File: 160817-F-LP948-025[1].jpg (721KB, 6247x4465px) Image search: [Google]

721KB, 6247x4465px

>>33301203
>MiG-21 with AIM-7 tries to go up against an F-35
>Flying along, using its superi-
>MiG-21 dead

>>33301195
B-52 = conventional style bomber
B-1B = swing-wing
B-2 = stealthy flying wing

From best / biggest to worst / smallest:
Payload: B-1B (75-125klb), B-52 (70klb), B-2 (40klb)
Range: B-52 (8700nmi), B-2 (6000nmi). B-1B (5100nmi)
Speed: B-1B (Mach 1.25), B-2 (Mach 0.95), B-52 (Mach 0.85)
RCS (est): B-2 (0.001m^2), B-1B (1m^2), B-52 (~100m^2)
Wingspan: B-52 (56.4m), B-2 (52.4m), B-1B (42m)
First produced: B-2 (1987), B-1B (1984), B-52 (1952)
Cost per flight hour*: B-1B ($62,300), B-52 ($68,200), B-2 ($144,600)

*Averaged from 2008 to 2012

Note that the original B-1A was much faster, clocking in at Mach 2.22. They decided to trade speed for stealth though; its engine intakes in particular had mild S-ducts and radar blockers installed, which limited its ability to control its intake air and dropped its top speed. The B-2 has only undergone avionics / probably stealth upgrades and the B-52 has gone through tons of upgrades / variants, but aside from the loss of a tail turret, it's mainly just been avionics, engine upgrades and range improvements.

>>33301324
MiG-21 was introduced in the 50s, not the 60s. :^)

File: GBU-39 SDB hangar penetration test.jpg (64KB, 440x664px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 440x664px

>>33296189
Air superiority is a pointless role these days. It's been dying ever since Korea. Even in Vietnam it only mattered because of bullshit ROE that forbade the bombing of Communist airfields. Mark my words, when the next shooting war comes, the F-22 is gonna get cucked hard by F-35s and B-21s obliterating all the enemy fighters before they even have a chance to take off, and 15 years from now the F-22 will be retired an A2A virgin, just like the F-106.

>WORTHLESS
>SHOW
>PONY

>>33294163
Good point. They never need to add one in Vietnam, and they don't need one now.

>>33301383
You're aware that they put guns back into F-4s for a reason, right?

>>33301653
Yes, the Air Force thought it would help them. It didn't.

>>33301653
USAF put them on, USN didn't.

USAF saw their 2:1 ratio stay about about 2:1, USN saw their 2:1 ratio jump to 13:1, just by teaching their pilots how to use missiles properly (and ground crew how to not damage missiles).

>>33300385
You do know that in two seaters the second man isn't a pilot, right? He's a systems operator, like the EWO officer in the Growler.

And planes need maintenance anyways between every flight.

And finally, fighters aren't assigned to any specific pilot.

tl;dr: you're retarded.