Memes aside, what specificlly is wrong with the F-35?

>>33314447
Horribly management made worse by people on the internet

File: 500 million dollars in one picture.jpg (347KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 1600x1067px

>>33314447
The problem that the JSF program ran into was that the DoD decided to start piling on extra requirements without adjusting the budget and schedule accordingly.

The idea was that they'd mature a bunch of technologies with the F-35, spreading development costs across 3,000 aircraft and saving money in the long term by developing things in such a way that they could be applied across a wide range of aircraft (like the F-22 or B-21). That, in and of itself, was actually a great idea. The work done on the RAM coating on the F-35 can be applied to most of the other stealth aircraft we have as well as those in development, and the B-21 is already planning to draw heavily from the F-35 for avionics and engines.

The problem was that there was no adjustment of budget and schedule to account for this. The DoD kept to the same schedule they set back in the mid '90s when the JSF program started in spite of the massive changes to the program. Rather than incrementally adjust the budget and schedule as new requirements and features were added, they waited until the originally planned IOC - in 2010 - to do any significant program reorganization.

>>33314447
LEMON

>>33314447
An issue was the information made public to an audience that doesn't know what to do with it. This allowed every retard to think his uneducated opinion about the project.

Most commonly I've encountered people who can't grasp the fact that the F-35 having issues in prototype and early production phases isn't something abnormal, even in large amounts, but rather the standard of the industry. This leads to them thinking that the issues are highly critical and massively impact the F-35, yet they don't, and mostly were fixed years ago.

The problem is Lockheed monopoly on fighter jets. The military is forced to buy the worst pile of dogshit in the history of military aviation because there is no other alternative.

File: USAF_X32B_250.jpg (146KB, 1750x1250px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1750x1250px

>>33314729
>the worst pile of dogshit in the history of military aviation
But anon, Boeing lost the JSF contract.

>>33314447
It'll replace too many other aircraft.

>tfw still hoping political interference kills it because even though it's technically competent, it'll advance the death of my interest in aviation by at least 10 years.

TSR2 the F-35..

>>33314729
>The problem is aviation companies' monopoly on the entire military.

fixed. the entire fucking military is in the pocket of defense companies.

>>33314729
>t. ass hurt Boeing rep

It's a waste of money just like the F22 especially when there's no use for it.

File: 1468945966342.gif (13KB, 399x365px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 399x365px

>>33314447
This guy got a very good start.

>>33314663

Good points. But it wasn't just done afterwards, the original specs were really overloaded even before they started adding stuff to them. The VTOL requirement in particular was ill-considered.

So the program went overtime and overbudget like nothing ever before. And as they could see that coming up, they started cutting corners as well. That computer system is vitally important and it's not nearly as stable as it should be.

Also from a higher level, more strategic point of view, we've paid a tremendous amount of money for an aircraft that we don't really have a use for. It's designed to destroy technologically advanced 'peer' enemies that simply don't exist. Realistically, the Russians are the most advanced enemy we could conceivably fight anytime soon, and they just aren't good enough to need this. The same money could have bought a metric shitton of Superhornets and wild weasels with billions left over.

>>33314754

>It'll replace too many other aircraft.

Not really, it is a pretty good replacement for the; F-16C/D, F/A-18A/B/C/D, and AV-8B.

The F-15C should have been replaced by the F-22A, so any shortage of dedicated air superiority fighters is because of problems with that program. The A-10 is obsolete in its original role, and is being retired and its current mission divided between other aircraft (some of which are F-35).

>>33314826
Even that's 3-4 planes down, 1 plane up. (My complaint isn't that it couldn't do the job, I mean, it's a simple matter of how much variety is in the sky.)

It's a very distant hope that it'll get sniped, so it doesn't really take much detailed thought or weighing up the decision as an armchair enthusiast.

>>33314814
>The VTOL requirement in particular was ill-considered.
Only if you know nothing about all the STOVL research DARPA and the Brits had been doing all through the '80s. Literally the only reason that the STOVL requirements were thrown in with the F-35B was that Lockheed's research on the lift fan system proved that they could incorporate a STOVL variant without detracting from the other variants.

>The same money could have bought a metric shitton of Superhornets and wild weasels with billions left over.
Except it couldn't. Projected costs for literally just keeping current strength of legacy aircraft over the same timeframe was $3-4 trillion vs the F-35's projected $1.5 trillion.

>>33314754
It's replacing three aircraft with almost identical roles. The F-16 and F-18 are effectively identical in role, and the Harrier pretty much just drops the air superiority role of the F-16 and F-18.

>>33314865
I didn't say replacing too many roles though, I said replacing too many aircraft.
Having the F-16 and F-18 perform the same basic task is, by the general measurement I'm using, ideal. Indeed, I'd argue that we should've also had the F-20 for exporting to other countries to bump the numbers up.
(But don't draw me too far into this, because the natural end conclusion is that every single aircraft should be unique.)

>>33314877
There's no real reason to operate more types of aircraft beyond having a greater variety of cool shit to look at though.

>>33314896
My one reason for hoping it gets TSR2'd is because I want more cool shit to look at, though. I've admitted as much.

>>33314852
>Only if you know nothing about all the STOVL research

Oh bullshit.

Laws of physics trump wishful thinking from researchers seeking funding, every day of the week.

>>33314852
>Except it couldn't. Projected costs

And here's how business works lad. The seller, when in a near-monopoly position (as these guys were and are) projects higher costs for the option he doesn't want you to choose, and lower costs for the one he prefers. This is as old as commerce.

And for that matter, why would 'merely' maintaining current levels be bad, when the Soviets are gone and there are no likely enemies that wouldn't be more than good enough against?

(Because that would not allow the defense contractors to eat the peace dividend, of course.)

>>33314814

>Also from a higher level, more strategic point of view, we've paid a tremendous amount of money for an aircraft that we don't really have a use for. It's designed to destroy technologically advanced 'peer' enemies that simply don't exist. Realistically, the Russians are the most advanced enemy we could conceivably fight anytime soon, and they just aren't good enough to need this.

Isn't that the point, that advanced SAMs like modernised S-300 systems (and their Chinese knock-offs) are proliferating, so that 4th gen aircraft can be deterred by more countries. Hence the need to develop an aircraft that can more credibly operate in a non-permissive environment.

>>33314814
this is retarded.

why is two engines objectively better? please explain.

why is two air crew objectively better? please explain.

the F-35 has a gun in one version, and the others have a gun pod. irrelevant.

buddy refuel, F-35 has longer range on internal fuel anyways.

cost, the F-35 costs less than any other modern 4th+ gen fighter, and has more capability

networking/sensors/ECM/etc. are all better in the F-35 than the hornet, by far.

Also much better at recon.

"battle damage"??? How fucking retarded are you?

maneuvering? pilots say the F-35 handles like a hornet, but with better acceleration and even better high AoA performance

combat radius? as mentioned above, F-35 has better range.

GTFO

>>33314976
what laws of physics?

>>33315014
>"battle damage"??? How fucking retarded are you?
The F-35 should be better at sustaining incidental damage too since it's control surface actuator hydraulics are isolated from eachother vs legacy aircraft.

>>33315080
irrelevant anyways. fucking tards think that real air combat is like Ace Combat and different planes have different health bars or something.

F-35 will be better at not getting hit because it's harder to detect, harder to track, and harder to lock on to. That guy is a tard

>>33314976
>MUH MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

Seriously, fuck off. Boeing had their chance and it turned out they couldn't make a design that could match Lockheed's.

And we do need more advanced fighters. Just because we're not likely to get into war with Russia doesn't mean Russia won't be sellling high end SAMs to third world countries the US may actually go into conflict with. Better you have the capability and never end up using it than being caught without it.

File: airplane-flying-with-one-wing-image10.jpg (3KB, 330x222px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 330x222px

>>33315121
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M359poNjvVA

implying survivability isnt a thing

this f-15 landed with wing damage just like star fox
>do a barrel roll

>>33315171
You do realize the F-35 uses the same lifting body design principle the F15 does, right?

File: LiftThrust-small1.png (25KB, 758x638px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 758x638px

>>33314976
>Oh bullshit.
Surely you have some evidence to support your claims.

>>33315171
what's your point? you got any sources proving that the F/A-18 has more "survivability" than an F-35? Also, that famous F-15 example is one example. It's still not statistics.

>>33315171
PS the fact is that the F-35 will be more survivable because of it's stealth and sensors package.

not getting hit is the best way for a plane to keep flying.

File: a-10.jpg (61KB, 1000x318px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1000x318px

>>33315188
>>33315249
>>33315262
my point was that combat survivability or even just reliability was a thing.. i wasnt saying anything particular about the f-35

but anon >>33315121 basically said that once a plane is shot that its shot and my argument was that different planes DO handle damage differently

the a-10 for example was made to eat a manpad because of the way the horizontal stabs and engines were designed

im not sure about the f-35 but there is arguments for and against twin engine set ups and certainly some pilots prefer two engines

File: f35 bingo.jpg (435KB, 1154x1020px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 1154x1020px

>>33314447

>memes aside
>wheredoyouthinkweare.png

Anybody got the Jurassic Park edit with Sprey calling the F-35 a turkey?

>>33315576
>im not sure about the f-35 but there is arguments for and against twin engine set ups and certainly some pilots prefer two engines

Depends on the role of the craft, its its an air superiority/interceptor type, then yeah twin-engines are good because of increased thrust and supersonic capabilities. Also if one engine flames out or gets damaged in some manner, there's still another one to get the craft and pilot back to base. In regards to the F-35, single-engine is good, its whole premise is on universality of the parts and maintenance, which is objectively cheaper if your fleet is single-engine. Another factor to consider is that it uses less fuel, increasing loiter time, which for the role of CAS/COIN operations that the F-35 will be apart of, is absolutely vital. Now I know the B variant has both less of a payload and loiter time than the other two, but keep in mind that its meant to engage at much shorter distances anyways.

>>33315576
>the a-10 for example was made to eat a manpad

One was literally downed by the smallest manpad in russian inventory, and was "eating" MANPADs so well they got withdrawn from the frontline due to them you mouthbreather

B version

>>33314447
Stealth design.
Who's the genius who thought this concept could not be outdated by technology within a decade?

>>33315744
Helicopters are completely inferior to A-10. Why still use them and scrap A-10?

>>33315681
that's the thing, it's not fair to compare the STOVL F-35 with the F-16 or F/A-18 or whatever. It's gotta be compared to shitbags like the AV-8 or the Yak-38 or whatever other STOVL fighters are even out there.

It's truly scary that the US will suddenly be able to have pretty awesome 5th-gen capability with a fighter that's equal or better than anything else it will face, and operate them from their 8 Wasp carriers. It's a huge force multiplier.

>>33315799
explain exactly why stealth is "obsolete"

File: 1488877038670.gif (899KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 600x600px

>>33315804

>>33315804
helicopters and a ground-attack plane are totally different capabilities and roles.

helicopters can use cover, can operate from hasty FOBs, etc.

It's trying to replace 6 different aircraft.

>>33315835
Name the 6 its replacing, anon.

>>33315835
It's only replacing three - the F-16, Legacy Hornets, and the Harrier.

>>33315766
And what about the F-35B is a problem, exactly?

File: ng_downselect_pptslide_1600x1200_full_0.jpg (131KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1600x1200px

>>33315681
hmm yeah.. i think you are correct about everything but from my understanding you can always produce a single engine that is more efficient than a dual engine setup.

the f-35's single engine is damn near as powerful as both the f-15's engines on the C/D models.. or at least that is what it says on wikipedia

i think its the same reason why a twin engine airliner is almost always going to be more efficient than a 4 engine airliner even though they have similar combined thrust ratings and actually twin engines airliners actually have higher thrust ratings than quad engine set ups because of engine out requirements

although that is a function of their fan width and the efficiency gains may be less in a low bypass turbofan setup such as those found in a fighter

in the future they are going to have different modes of combustion for engines to make them more efficient throughout the envelope of performance for low bypass jets.. there was a really good article about it from NASA i believe but i cant find it right now but it had something to do with composite ceramic matrices

>>33315851
technically, each version is only replacing one plane.

>>33315588
top kek

>>33315864
it exists and the design changes needed to accommodate the lift fan.

>>33314447
The Price just the price of the Project.

>>33315993
What design changes?

>>33315805
>explain exactly why stealth is "obsolete"
I said "could be", but it's probably already obsolete. A design can't evolve, the technology does (hello IR sensors). You can bet it was a politician or a not-so-smart general who imposed this. Such a compromise was obviously not worth it.

>>33314447
lots of stuff too many to even start to count them..

and it gets worse when the americans release red flags scores claiming that the f35 did all of the kills while conviniently letting out that the f35s was being covered by the f22s..

seriously they are trying SO hard to sell a good image for it that is having the opposite result.. and they fucking know it

>>33316122
I'd both like a source for that and for you to realize thats perfectly fine.

File: 15078344_68f49efb2a_o.jpg (394KB, 2160x1440px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 2160x1440px

>>33315744
>Intention of design =/= Performance of design.
Also are you referring to this A-10?

>>33316193
No, because the one I'm referring to was shot down and the pilot captured.

Who gives a shit either way. They've proven themselves incapable of operating outside of COIN in a modern environment.

>>33316106
I said explain why it's obsolete (or will be, whatever). Don't throw out crap about "oh it's obsolete" and "oh stupid generals and politicians shoving things down the throats of fighter designers, I know better".

Be specific. Do you think IR sensors make stealth obsolete???

>>33316193
you idiot. we're talking statistics, not anecdotes. yeah, congrats, I'm sure there was this one time an A-10 survived a MANPADS hit. Cool. too bad the statistics show that A-10's took higher casualties than other planes and had to be withdrawn from certain areas of the frontlines because they couldn't handle it.

>>33316170
not anon but he has a point they never actually talked about the roles of the f22s on the scenarios

>>33315993
And what exactly were those changes? How would the A and C variants be any different without a B variant?

>>33316265
>not anon but he has a point they never actually talked about the roles of the f22s on the scenarios

Even if F-22s were doing top cover, what makes you think that it wouldn't work like that in real life..?

>>33316283
against what enemy?

if we are talking about an enemy of the size of russia then its a very complicated situation on which we can dive into and see how dangerously behind usa really is (and no its not what you think...)

if we are talking about an army that doesnt have any capabilities to see them or even being able to use EW against them them there is no point really

>>33316254
>Do you think IR sensors make stealth obsolete?
Stealth DESIGN, yes of course it is, IR sensors don't care about it. But you missed my point: the DESIGN (that can't evolve) is supposed to give the same stealth level for the next 40 years, implying the radar tech won't evolve... That's a joke at the cost of poor aerodynamics and limited internal payload.

Massive cost over run.
The most expensive government project to ever exist.

>>33314976
>DON'T GIVE ME FACTS, THEY DISAGREE AND ARE THUS MADE UP
>WHY IMPROVE YOUR MILITARY, YOU SHOULD USE OUTDATED EQUIPMENT! YOU'RE NOT AFRAAAAID, ARE YOU???

Fuck off and never come back.

>>33316343
What the fuck are you blabbering on about

>>33316369
>limited internal payload
As opposed to the amazing internal payload of all those F-16s it's replacing?

>>33314663

What additional requirements were made after agreeing to the original JSF specification?

Can you list a few examples?

>>33316459
Off the top of my head, the big thing was the fancy avionics suite it's got - things like the EODAS, the magic helmet, and a lot of the sensor fusion.

>>33316343
heh i wondered who will actually being realistic enough to bring it up here..

>>33316369
see>>33316343

you guys are arguing about things that will probably wont matter at all if a war brakes up with an enemy that has stealth technology also..

the f22s and the f35s are lacking on RANGE both from their aircraft carriers and from the aerial tankers..

usa currently has no plan what so ever to fund any "stealth" tanker and the current ones are just giving away the position of the aircrafts itselfs...

there is a reason as why russia and china is going down the road of long range stealth bombers instead of pure AA or multirole stealth aircrafts

File: 1463506417126.jpg (64KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1280x720px

>>33315010
The point to the military is supposed to be to serve the national interest. What national interest, precisely, is harmed by deterrence?

>>33315014
>why is two engines objectively better? please explain.

q: When are two engines better than one?
a: When one quits.

Twin engines is simply more reliable, particularly important in a combat airplane that might be expected to take damage. It can easily make the difference between limping home with a damaged but repairable aircraft and ditching out over hostile territory.

>>33315014
>why is two air crew objectively better? please explain.

Again, you're making the unit more reliable with redundancy. Should one of the crew be incapacitated it's still possible for the other to bring them both home safely.

But that's not all of it. It's more efficient and effective in combat too. Instead of the pilot trying to split his attention between flying in the moment and watching his instruments and readouts and planning ahead, the pilot can focus on flying the plane and let the navigator watch the instruments and stay aware of the larger situation.

>>33315804
Can't agree with that. I love the A-10 but given that it's going away and there aren't any planes that can replace it, the Apache is the best successor. Apache's are really quite good at low altitude ground attack, and they're not exactly incapable of AtoA either.

>>33316220

Except that never happened. You're probably thinking of the one that got smacked real hard and had to limp back to base.

>>33317326
>Twin engines is simply more reliable
Not anymore actually. Turbine reliability has hit the point where you're more likely to have a failure due to maintenance error rather than a fault of the engine itself, meaning that having more engines would actually increase your chances of failure (more maintenance time means more time for someone to fuck up).

In terms of battle damage, it's mostly a moot point. On pretty much every combat aircraft nowadays, engines are close enough that any damage to one engine is likely to affect the other as well. Unless you have the engines spaced as far apart as they are on an airliner, your plane isn't going to be any less susceptible to damage with two engines.

>Two crew
Same with that - if something's hitting the plane hard enough to incapacitate one of the crew, the other guy is almost certainly fucked too.

In terms of workload, that's more of an issue in ultra-long endurance aircraft like strategic bombers and more specialized aircraft using less automated systems.

Sure, back in the days where a guy on the plane had to guide a missile until impact with a joystick, having a backseater manage things was pretty important. But avoinics and weapons are being increasingly automated and streamlined to reduce workload to the point that a single crewman can generally handle it for all but the most specialized of roles.

File: 1477275694554.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>33315588
Got you senpai

File: 1486999587106.jpg (732KB, 3000x1994px) Image search: [Google]

732KB, 3000x1994px

>>33317449
>Turbine reliability has hit the point where you're more likely to have a failure due to maintenance error rather than a fault of the engine itself, meaning that having more engines would actually increase your chances of failure (more maintenance time means more time for someone to fuck up).

Way to completely miss the point. If you have a twin engine you need *two* failures, on the same flight, to be left powerless. On a single-engine you only need one.

>>33317449
>In terms of battle damage, it's mostly a moot point.

No, it really isn't.

Did you miss the pic in >>33315576

>>33317449
>Same with that - if something's hitting the plane hard enough to incapacitate one of the crew, the other guy is almost certainly fucked too.

Maybe, maybe not. Combat damage has a way of being crazy and not what you'd expect. And what if it wasn't combat damage? High G forces and artificial air have caused all kinds of strange effects on pilots in the past, and no if one guy passes out that doesn't mean the other one will, having two crewmen in planes have saved many lives on many different occasions.

>>33317449
>Sure, back in the days where a guy on the plane had to guide a missile until impact with a joystick, having a backseater manage things was pretty important. But avoinics and weapons are being increasingly automated and streamlined to reduce workload to the point that a single crewman can generally handle it for all but the most specialized of roles.

One person 'can generally handle it' but two allows them to do more, to handle it consistently and with a high level of confidence.

File: 1486393190212m.jpg (33KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1024x576px

>>33314447
The F35 is basically a f117 replacement

It's like a f117 with extreme UAV capability.

Picks off high value ground targets
Marks air targets for F22s or any other jet to destroy
Provides an insane level of Information and situational awareness.

>>33314447
There's so many retards that don't know shit about planes and the F-35 that it almost seems like a disinfo campaign by the US gov't or something to play down how good it is. The F-35 will be a fucking flying I win button (when it finally works 100%). Its avionics and sensors are just completely unsurpassed in every way.

>>33317645
>>33317695
The question was "what is wrong", not "how much you can fanboy"...

File: House.jpg (558KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 2560x1440px

>>33314447

What's wrong with the F35?

The aircraft doesn't fit the standard neckbeared definition of what a fighter aircraft should be.

>>33317860

>The aircraft doesn't fit the standard neckbeared definition of what a fighter aircraft should be.

It actually does though. There was once a time when you could have said "yeah, it's not that maneuverable at least it is really good at BVR." But now we know it actually is really maneuverable AND good at BVR. So it is unlikely to end up in a dogfight, but if it does it would still be decent.

>>33317645
The F-35A is basically an F-16 replacement.

>>33316369
> the DESIGN (that can't evolve) is supposed to give the same stealth level for the next 40 years

what's the "stealth design"??? Do you mean the shape of the aircraft designed to minimize radar cross section? Or do you mean the RAM coating on the surface that absorbs radar?

Why can't it evolve? It can evolve as much as any other fighter designed with a 40-50 year service life, no? I mean, if you wanna talk about how in 40 years the F-35 might be a bit outdated, that's cool, as long as you realize that every fighter is outdated after that long in service.

> implying the radar tech won't evolve

if radar tech evolves, and F-35 will still be harder to detect than any other fighter. 'stealth' isn't a binary feature, that a fighter either has or doesn't, and that a radar can either detect or can't. It's all about radar cross section and detection range. Even if radar technology sees a huge breakthrough 30 years from now, an F-35 will still be 10x harder to detect than any other fighter (other than the F-22 of course).

Just using arbitrary numbers, imagine that a radar can detect an F-35 today at 100km, but can detect an Su-27 at 300km, well in 40 years if that radar can detect an F-35 at 200km, it will be detecting Su-27's at 500-600km. Because science.

>That's a joke at the cost of poor aerodynamics and limited internal payload.

oh? That's news to me. What poor aerodynamics? Since when does "stealth design" compromise aerodynamics? Is the F-22 not aerodynamic??? The F-35 performs just fine. Test pilots say it handles like an F/A-18 with more acceleration and even more high AoA performance. And limited internal payload? Compared to what, exactly? Because it can carry the same payload as an F-16, all internally (which means stealthy and no compromising aerodynamics), and even more, it can fly further on internal fuel than that F-16 can even with external fuel tanks (which massively limit the F-16's performance). SO, how is the internal payload limited?

File: 1485196548347.jpg (374KB, 1024x761px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 1024x761px

>>33317645
>The F35 is basically a f117 replacement
Yeah, no it's not, that's not even close to correct.

The F117 is a very stealthy subsonic ground attack craft. The F35 is a moderately stealthy subsonic mult-role fighter.

>>33314447
Jack of all trades
Master of none
Cost overruns

File: image.jpg (90KB, 625x535px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 625x535px

>>33318030
>F-35 is subsonic
Nigger what

>>33314447
Lift fan/ VTOL

>>33314705
Shut up, tou poser elitist shilling faggot.

>>33317326
>Except that never happened. You're probably thinking of the one that got smacked real hard and had to limp back to base.

Serial of the aircraft is 80-0248

Are you in this much fucking denial?

>>33318053
Lol typo. That should be 'multi' instead of 'mult' too. Some days I work too hard.

>>33317326

> The point to the military is supposed to be to serve the national interest. What national interest, precisely, is harmed by deterrence?

Whether or not it is a good thing, the USA and its allies get into conflicts with other countries. Casualties in these conflicts have thus far been minimal in large part because of the large technological lead that US military aircraft have over any enemy's aircraft and air defenses.

This technological lead is being eroded, and without new aerospace programs, will shrink further.

Consider Syria.Now consider that Syria supports groups including Hezbollah in Lebanon (who have attacked US personnel), supported Sunni rebels in Iraq (during the US occupation), and at one point probably had a nuclear reactor ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard ). Russia has now deployed S-300 and S-400 systems to there as a deterrent to Western aircraft since Turkey shot down a Russian aircraft. If Russia permanently transfers these advanced air defense systems, and the USA (and its regional allies Turkey & Israel) only have 4th gen strike aircraft, it changes the situation radically due to the risks involved.

>>33316371
oh come now. total program cost (from R&D to every ounce of fuel they think it will use 50 years from now) is 1 trillion. A single government infrastructure or education plan is way bigger than that.

>>33316497
>the f22s and the f35s are lacking on RANGE >both from their aircraft carriers and from the >aerial tankers..

absurdly stupid. the F-35 has more range on internal fuel only than an F-16 does with external fuel tanks. Where does this idea come from that it has poor range???

>currently has no plan what so ever to fund any "stealth" tanker and the current ones are just giving away the position of the aircrafts itselfs...

that's retarded and shows you have no idea how air warfare is even conducted. Let me illustrate something for you: F-22 takes off from operating airbase, flies 1000 nautical miles, meets up with tanker, refuels, and then flies another 1000 nautical miles, completes mission, returns to tanker, then returns to base. You know what that means? The tanker is 1000 miles behind the front lines. So stop being stupid, there's no need, EVER, for a "stealth tanker", and that's not a "flaw" in the F-22 or F-35. You're an idiot.

>>33317326
>Twin engines is simply more reliable

that was true 50 years ago, maybe. It just doesn't line up with modern statistics.
1) modern jet engines have extremely low mechanical failure rates. the vast majority of failures today come from human errors in maintenance. Which means 2 engines = more chances of human error resulting in an engine failure that possibly makes the plane a mission loss.
2) with modern jet engines, generally, a failure of a single engine results in the loss of the aircraft anyways. There are scant few cases of twin-engine fighters making it back to base on a single engine. Generally, when they fail, they fail catastrophically, and usually destroy the other engine.
3) comparing the F-15 using 2x F100 engines and the F-16 using 1x F100 engine, the F-16 sees less losses from engine failure.

File: 1473713525193.jpg (67KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 640x480px

>>33318088
>80-0248
Finally coughed up, not actual citation, but at least enough to let someone check you. Good job anon.

So I'm adding that to my database. 1 Verified shot down. Listed as 'by AAA' and I cant confirm your claim it was shot down 'by the smallest MANPAD in the soviet arsenal' or even that it was hit by a MANPAD at all but it was shot down 2/2/91 and the pilot later sued the government.

Ok, no one said they can't be shot down though. Balance Dale Store and Kim Campbell, take into account the sheer volume of fire they were facing, it still looks like a damn tough plane to me.

>>33318164
If you want more you can have 78-0722, 79-0130, 77-0197 and 76-0543 too.

All within the same month.

>>33318164
>take into account the sheer volume of fire they were facing

Indeed they were, and were pulled out of it in favour of F-16s, because the latter had better survivability against actual AA threats.

>>33314729
The X-32 was trash tho

File: 1460849846450 (1).jpg (2MB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2100x1500px

>>33318030
>>33318004

You do know the f16 has spent like the last decade bombing ground targets right?
F16s attack the ground, f15s take care of air targets.

That's exactly what the F35 is for.
The f22 and F35 are complementary aircraft the same way the f16/15 are.

File: 1486907040199.png (60KB, 703x431px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 703x431px

>>33318124
>absurdly stupid. the F-35 has more range on internal fuel only than an F-16 does with external fuel tanks.

Why is it that F-35 fags always want to compare it with the F-16 with regards to range?

A. Because the F-16 was designed to be a short range craft.

Jesus christ people come up with new fallacies some day.

Next point - it has reasonable range with drop tanks!

Yes but drop tanks means you're not stealthy anymore.

And I didn't even bring up range. It's true that the range is disappointing but it's not one of the big problems.

Anyway keep jacking off to your F-35 poster, everyone has to have something.

File: 1449120059195.jpg (76KB, 829x645px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 829x645px

>>33318292
>Why is it that F-35 fags always want to compare it with the F-16 with regards to range?

...because thats one of the aircraft its replacing

>>33317326
>Again, you're making the unit more reliable with redundancy. Should one of the crew be incapacitated it's still possible for the other to bring them both home safely.

silly. Almost never happens. older fighters had a second crewman to help operate the avionics and sensors. These days, the computers are advanced enough that a single pilot can handle the information because it's displayed easier and he can manipulate it easier. Your idea of a pilot being able to focus on flying while a navigator watches instruments, that's 1960's thinking. It was true back then, it's not true now. There's a reason why pretty much no modern multirole or air superiority fighters have two crewmen. Only planes that bother with that are electronic warfare planes (F/A-18 Growler comes to mind), or dedicated ground attack planes (like the Su-34). A modern multirole fighter doesn't need two crewmen. All two crew does is make the plane much bigger and heavier, much more expensive, and increase the manpower needed to operate them.

>>33318164
Jesus christ your head is so far up your ass it's coming out your own mouth.

File: 1486521271215.jpg (62KB, 550x597px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 550x597px

>>33318292
>Why is it that F-35 fags always want to compare it with the F-16
Idk, maybe because that's what the F35 is set to replace.

>>33318292

The reason why we compare the F-35A to the F-16C, the F-35B to the AV-8B, and the F-35C to the F/A-18C/D is because those are the exact aircraft that they are replacing.

>>33317573
>Way to completely miss the point. If you have a twin engine you need *two* failures, on the same flight, to be left powerless. On a single-engine you only need one.

or you can acknowledge the reality of the statistics that show that single engine fighters are more reliable than twin engine fighters using the same engine. See: losses due to engine problems in the F-15 and the F-16, both using the F100 jet engine.

>Maybe, maybe not. Combat damage has a way of being crazy and not what you'd expect.

>One person 'can generally handle it' but two allows them to do more, to handle it consistently and with a high level of confidence.

still a stupid argument. Like, no other modern multirole fighter has two crewmen. Why the hell do you think it's somehow a flaw in the F-35's design? Does the Su-35 have two crew? Does the Rafale or Typhoon have two? Do any of them???

you neckbeards already complain about how the F-35 is "fat" and "not aerodynamic". But then you want a second crew member? fucks sake the thing would be a massive fat beast of a plane like the F-111.

File: 1487066453953.jpg (20KB, 517x354px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 517x354px

>>33318328
>These days, the computers are advanced enough
You're talking about the computer system that sometimes has to be rebooted repeatedly in order to interface with the radar system right?

>>33314447

it's new tech that needs lots of bugs worked out. dev times and budget ran over and people went ape shit even though it's the norm when developing new military tech. once all the bugs are shook out it will be the top fighter the world over, just like the F-15/14/16 etc. all were when they first arrived.

>>33317645
considering the level of a2a capability, calling it comparable to the F-117 is selling it short. But basically, yeah, it will be a massive force multiplier.

>>33316484
wasn't that all already on the table from the start of the raptor program back in the 90's

>>33318292

>Yes but drop tanks means you're not stealthy anymore.

Hmmmm, I wonder if this problem could ever be solved..... Oh wait it totally already has been on the F-22.

https://theaviationist.com/2014/08/08/f-22-fuel-tanks-jettison/

>>33318292
lol the other guy brought it up. He claimed the F-35 was lacking in range. I pointed out that it has way better range than the fighter it's replacing.

>And I didn't even bring up range

I was responding to someone who did. Why are you autistic???

>It's true that the range is disappointing

really? because it can carry the same payload as an F-16, all internally, and on internal fuel will still have greater range than the F-16 with external tanks. In what way is that "disappointing"??

>>33318403
yeah, fuck technology, let's go back to radars that use vacuum tube screens and are alcohol-cooled and require a second crewman to operate because it's a finicky piece of analog crap machinery that requires a full-time job to keep it working! yeah fuck all those new-fangled computer things!

>>33318021
>Do you mean the shape?
Yup.
I don't know much about coating except it's expensive and fragile.

>imagine that a radar can detect [...]
Imagine that a radar can detect EVERYTHING at X00 km (and it's the path science takes), F-35 or Su-27, it doesn't matter anymore...
Not to mention other means of detection.

>Since when does "stealth design" compromise aerodynamics?
Since fluids don't like straight lines and angles.

>The F-35 performs just fine
Thanks to its excellent engine, not its aerodynamics.

>it can carry lot of payload/fuel internally
Once again, at the cost of its poor aerodynamics. It has a big volume, thus displaces as much air as a normal jet fully loaded, but permanently while the normal jet can (and will) drop its loads.

>>33318582
I hear less bro psuedoscience in the gym, and I occasionally go to a crossfit place.

Is it cold atop mt. stupid?

File: 1474215278610.jpg (47KB, 1047x424px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1047x424px

>>33318461
>lol the other guy brought it up. He claimed the F-35 was lacking in range. I pointed out that it has way better range than the fighter it's replacing.
Ok but you're still being a bit disingenuous - it's not actually replacing the F-16 (though that was indeed the original plan, to replace them *among many others*.) As time has gone on the price tag has increased and the utility has decreased.

It's not the F-35s fault but it's also coming on the heels of a lot of ad-hoc simplification and reclassification. The F-16 was never supposed to be a ground attack plane. Got pressed and bended into that role nonetheless. It's a good plane and it can do a lot, but it was designed as a short range air superiority fighter and it's optimized for that.

The F-18 is another one that the F35 might be supposed to replace, or to complement, depend on who you ask or why. It's our current de facto long range naval fighter, but it's not a long range naval fighter, at least, again, not by design. It was designed as a lightweight, short range multirole fighter to complement the F-14 and A-6, the serious long range fighter and strike aircraft in our arsenal respectively.

But over time, the other aircraft went away, and the Hornets were updated and upgraded and pressed into replacing both of them!

They're great airplanes, but they're still improvisations in those roles. They weren't designed to do either of them, let alone both at once. And their range sucks, sure we have a ton of ways to compensate but it still sucks. Why feel the need to deny the obvious?

Anyway like I said I'm not the one that brought up range as a big point anyway, I just find it hilarious how over the top the responses to that were.

F-35 is the super-ultimate! Better in every way than anything that came before!! Drop to your knees and worship infidels!!!

:D

>>33318423

Lets use EODAS as an example.

It started out as a missile warning system, which is an array of IR sensors around the plane that detects missile through their heat signature.

That concept isn't new, the F-22 has it, and the JSF was planned with that capability to begin with.

In the meantime. the technology got better. With higher thermal camera resolution, you could get high res thermal images instead of a blob shape of heat from the missile. EODAS got "mission creeped" into now providing high resolution 360 degree thermal imaging for the pilots instead of just being a missile warning system.

Then they realized that to better make use of this amount of information from the DAS, they needed a better way of displaying the information to the pilot, so we got the HMD that could display live video.

The JSF simply called for a missile warning system and a helmet mounted cueing system. When that capability was upgraded into what we know as the EODAS and HMD now, the budget projections weren't changed to match.

The one F-22 capability that wasn't implemented was the side-facing AESA arrays, which were cut to save money. I believe the bays to mount them are still structurally there thou.

>>33318582

>Imagine that a radar can detect EVERYTHING at X00 km (and it's the path science takes), F-35 or Su-27, it doesn't matter anymore

The real magic of stealth comes when you mix it with electronic warfare. Stealth makes all your electronic countermeasures far more effective.

>>33318582
>Yup. I don't know much

>Imagine that a radar can detect EVERYTHING at X00 km (and it's the path science takes)

you have ZERO understanding of how radar detection works. Go read a book or something.

>Since fluids don't like straight lines and angles.

lol what? I mean sure, say that about the angular-design F-117. But are we talking about the same F-35? It's all smooth and rounded. Fucks sake you're clueless about aerodynamics if you judge aerodynamics just by a cursory glance at the shape of the fighter.

>Thanks to its excellent engine, not its aerodynamics.

oh, so cool, it performs fine, AND is stealthy. awesome.

>Once again, at the cost of its poor aerodynamics. It has a big volume, thus displaces as much air as a normal jet fully loaded, but permanently while the normal jet can (and will) drop its loads.

stupid. stop being stupid. seriously, the F-35 has a similar cross sectional size to other single-seat multirole fighters. It has better range because it has a ton of internal fuel tank space, not because it's some giant fighter. It does not "displace as much air as a normal jet fully loaded". fucks sake.

>>33318668
>Ok but you're still being a bit disingenuous - it's not actually replacing the F-16

no, it absolutely is. The F-35A is replacing the F-16 in the air force, the F-35B is replacing the marine corps Harriers, and the F-35C is replacing the F/A-18 C and D.

>F-35 is the super-ultimate! Better in every way than anything that came before!

but it is better than the aircrafts it's replacing.

>They're great airplanes, but they're still improvisations in those roles. They weren't designed to do either of them, let alone both at once. And their range sucks, sure we have a ton of ways to compensate but it still sucks. Why feel the need to deny the obvious?

k. lucky the F-35 was designed to replace them and fill the roles, right from the start, and isn't being "improvised".

>>33318739
sounds to me like they are just advancing a technology along it's natural progression from mld. why build an inferior system from the 90's when you can build a modern system then transplant that tech to others on the cheap(relative) when you figure it all out

>>33318668
kinda off point there m8. while the lightweightfighter autists might have originally intended her as a shor range agile radarless heatseeker flinger. By the time red bird was finished blue bird had already been settled upon and the high-low concept had already been solidified.

>>33318993

It's a natural progression, but they didn't put that money into the budgeting for the F-35.

The $40 million flyaway number from the early 90's was for a jet that would basically be an F-16 Block 50/52 with all the usually mission pods and external fuel tanks integrated into a stealthy platform.

>>33319086
but then the iraq war happened and more modern wars happened and full spectrum and information warfare became the meta

>>33319086
lol pretty sure nobody has ever claimed the current F-35 has a 40mil price tag. Not sure what you're arguing.

>>33315799
>Who's the genius who thought this concept could not be outdated by technology within a decade?

Anyone with even a layman's knowledge of how radar works.

>>33318866
You sound like you're taking it seriously. But you're still missing a little.

>>33318866
>you have ZERO understanding of how radar detection works. Go read a book or something.
You're right, he's nuts.

However I'm not and I have some doubts this thing is as great as those making money from it tell me.

One issue is that 'stealth' isn't monolithic, even after we say it's just vs radar and we aren't considering IR etc. Radar isn't monolithic either, oh, and neither is anti-radar stealth. The F-22 stealth is very expensive but it's also very broadband. The F-35 stealth, on the other hand, a little less expensive, is optimized against short wavelengths only.

Which isn't really that bad an idea, really, targeting radars are invariably short wave and those are the ones you really want to mess up.

But since the 90s at least, the Russians and others have been working on using long wave to defeat stealth. Theoretically it's very doable (I wont bore you with a reprint of my dissertation on the subject) and they've been working on it for decades.

So I'm not going to say it's worthless, it's neat technology, but I'm honestly not sure that if push ever comes to shove it will prove worth the cost.

>>33318866
>stupid. stop being stupid. seriously, the F-35 has a similar cross sectional size to other single-seat multirole fighters. It has better range because it has a ton of internal fuel tank space, not because it's some giant fighter. It does not "displace as much air as a normal jet fully loaded". fucks sake.

It has tons of internal fuel space only if you are talking about the F-35A. The F-35B has fuck-all usable internal fuel space. The reason the A and C have the internal fuel space is because they're stuck in an airframe that had to make space for all the VTOL crap in the B. But it gets partial credit for making lemonade out of the lemon.

>>33319280
no matter what technology is developed, a plane with stealth features will STILL be less easy to detect than one without. Even if long wave radar is improved, it will also be able to detect non-stealth planes better, which means you're still better off with stealth than without.

there's no scenario in which a stealthy plane will be worse off than a non-stealth plane.

>It has tons of internal fuel space only if you are talking about the F-35A. The F-35B has fuck-all usable internal fuel space. The reason the A and C have the internal fuel space is because they're stuck in an airframe that had to make space for all the VTOL crap in the B. But it gets partial credit for making lemonade out of the lemon.

the airframe wasn't really compromised that much by the STOVL stuff. Only reason why they even included the STOVL version was because the design with the 3 bearing swivel nozzle and the lift fan meant that they didn't need to compromise the other versions.

sure, the F-35B has less internal fuel, but that's fine, the bar of "better than a Harrier" is pretty fucking low

>>33319280
>I wont bore you with a reprint of my dissertation on the subject

Jesus fucking christ please kill yourself.

>>33319280
The point isn't just the physical stealth, which is excellent. It's that it also has the sensors to evade or counterattack better.

And low-band being kryptonite to stealth is a desperate meme manufactured by nations dependent on ground IADS systems because they can't keep up with air superiority.

>>33318866
>no, it absolutely is. The F-35A is replacing the F-16 in the air force, the F-35B is replacing the marine corps Harriers, and the F-35C is replacing the F/A-18 C and D.
Which exact planes it's to replace seems to change every few months. I've posted clips from earlier years over and over only to be pointed to new, updated information. It was going to replace the A10. No, it was going to complement the A10. No, the A10 is retiring without replacement and its duties will be spun off to several craft. It's to replace the F-16. Well, no, not anytime soon at least. Now we're being told how well it will complement the F-16 instead. I guess you missed that last memo.

The constantly changing positions just show that people are scrambling to defend their chosen position, rather than having an honest discussion.

In bulk, no implication against you personally, this one post seems pretty damn reasonable really.

>>33319072
>kinda off point there m8. while the lightweightfighter autists might have originally intended her as a shor range agile radarless heatseeker flinger. By the time red bird was finished blue bird had already been settled upon and the high-low concept had already been solidified.
No. First flight 74, entered service 78, didn't become what you are talking about until 84.

>>33319396
>Which exact planes it's to replace seems to change every few months.

Its literally been that way since the beginning, and the A-10 never came into it.

A-10 doesn't have a direct replacement because its role as "outdated shit" isn't something we're hot on filling

>>33319396
>1984
I think you are looking for 1985 when the first order was completed my kid

>>33319396
Technically, the A-10 has basically just been shoehorned into roles as they keep forcing it to stay in service, to the point where the fleet's wings had to be rebuilt a couple years ago.

File: 1458720409101.jpg (1MB, 2238x1548px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2238x1548px

>>33319342
>there's no scenario in which a stealthy plane will be worse off than a non-stealth plane.
There are many, many scenarios in which a stealthy plane will be worse off than a non-stealth plane. Stealth is not free. It costs money and it costs design tradeoffs. If stealth were no object this plane could carry twice the weapons load half again as far and cost less... roughly speaking of course.

It's never a benefit to have twice the weapons load? It's never a benefit to have two or three times as many planes in the air at once? Never, inconceivable?

>>33319342
>the bar of "better than a Harrier" is pretty fucking low
The Harrier is an expensive cock extension for the marines brass, and an expensive suicide machine for the marine aviators. So you're absolutely right about that.

>>33319374
>It's that it also has the sensors to evade or counterattack better.

>what is a wild weasel.

>>33314447
Lockheed-Martin

File: 1461689427736.jpg (246KB, 1219x819px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1219x819px

>>33319442
>Its literally been that way since the beginning, and the A-10 never came into it.

I was just waiting for one of you retards to say this, it never fails.

>>33319396
>Which exact planes it's to replace seems to change every few months.I've posted clips from earlier years over and over only to be pointed to new, updated information. It was going to replace the A10. No, it was going to complement the A10. No, the A10 is retiring without replacement and its duties will be spun off to several craft. It's to replace the F-16. Well, no, not anytime soon at least. Now we're being told how well it will complement the F-16 instead. I guess you missed that last memo.

lol no. It's been that way from the very beginning of design. The A was to replace the air force F-16, the B the Harrier, and the C the super hornet. It's been that way since the design of the JSF.

this shit with the A-10 is misleading. It wasn't intended to replace the A-10. The A-10 is being retired because it's old and the role it was designed for is obsolete, and the missions it's been doing for the past 20 years are done better by multiroles and drones. The units that were flying A-10's before will switch to the F-35.

>The constantly changing positions just show that people are scrambling to defend their chosen position, rather than having an honest discussion.

there's been no change. It's always been to replace the F-16 and F/A-18, and the B replacing the Harrier.

>>33314447
Our government is compromised and Russians have countermeasures for all our tech. When the shit hits youre safer on the ground (dodging mini UAVs that will be falling out of the sky like hail)

>>33319396
i'm confused as to what you think happened in 1984

>>33318292
Nice reading comprehension. He said that the f35 had morr range on internal fuel than an f16 with drop tanks. The f35 would be flying clean and still have a minimal RCS while having greater range.

>>33319503
georgia

>>33319473
>There are many, many scenarios in which a stealthy plane will be worse off than a non-stealth plane.
Do actually name one.
>Stealth is not free. It costs money and it costs design tradeoffs.
The F-35's generally better than the planes it replaces, so what are you on about?
> If stealth were no object this plane could carry twice the weapons load half again as far and cost less... roughly speaking of course.
Better load than an F-16 in full stealth, and only out loaded by the F-15E in permissive environments. What more do you want?

>It's never a benefit to have twice the weapons load? It's never a benefit to have two or three times as many planes in the air at once? Never, inconceivable?
The fuck are you on about?

>The Harrier is an expensive cock extension for the marines brass, and an expensive suicide machine for the marine aviators. So you're absolutely right about that.
Near-par performance with the A and C and still better range and payload than a Hornet is bad how?

>what is a wild weasel.
Something an F-35 excels at without a bunch of pods.

>>33319491
k

Completely flying in the face of dozens of interviews about the A-10 replacement and how there isn't any, but I'm sure that website is 100% accurate.

>>33319473
>There are many, many scenarios in which a stealthy plane will be worse off than a non-stealth plane. Stealth is not free. It costs money and it costs design tradeoffs. If stealth were no object this plane could carry twice the weapons load half again as far and cost less... roughly speaking of course.

>It's never a benefit to have twice the weapons load? It's never a benefit to have two or three times as many planes in the air at once? Never, inconceivable?

good thing that if they don't need stealthiness for that mission, they can just use the external pylons to more than double the mission payload. No problem.

And specifically what design compromises do you think were made to make it stealthy?

And as for cost, good thing the unit cost is comparable to 4.5th gen multirole fighters like the Rafale or Typhoon.

>>33319491
or you could look at the actual design specs and documents of the JSF program, not the sales propaganda by L-M.

and you know what, technically it is replacing the A-10 in the air force. But it's replacing it in terms of "the A-10 is shit and getting retired, those pilots will switch to the F-35" not in terms of the F-35 replacing its capability and design purpose 1-to-1.

File: 1478422927062.png (213KB, 900x955px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 900x955px

uinvolved third party here f-35 carries like 200lb's more ord than the a-10 and 25mm apex is superior at killing gay retards compaired to 30mm gau8shitbox which can't even kill tanks nomore.

>>33319491
It replaces the A-10 on a unit-by-unit basis, but it will not directly take all missions that previously have been allocated to A-10s.

nigger

File: 1479305664927.jpg (395KB, 2000x1312px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 2000x1312px

>>33319506
see
>>33319443
F-16c entered production 84, service in 85 sounds about right.

This introduced many changes, including improved radar and displays that contemplated ground attack roles. The first or second update after that, I forget which, but it wasn't long after that, took advantage of the updated systems and added the capability to carry serious ground attack munitions for the first time.

<_<Related

>>33319584
yeah the things I've heard about the ground-attack abilities of the gun on the F-35 sound pretty neato.

I can't wait to see in 10 years that the F-35 will be even better at BBRRRRRTTTing than the A-10 was

:^)

>>33319596
what like the loiter around and get shot by gaymanpads mish lol

>>33319184

There are plenty people who claim F-35 is 300% over budget per airframe.

The point of reference they use is a $35-40 million goal in the JSF criteria document. What's ignored is that F-35 is vastly more capable than what was outlined in the JSF document.

>>33319396

The most complete list of replacements is.

F-35 A
> F-16 C/D
> F-16 CJ (eventually)
> A-10

F-35B
> AV-8
> Marine F-18's

F-35C
> A-6
> F-18C/D

Ideally, it should leave each service with the following light airframes

Air Force
> F-15C
> F-15E
> F-22A
> F-35A

Marines
> F-35B

Navy
> F-18E/F
> EA-18G
> F-35C

>>33319613
yeah it was niggers like Sprey that wanted the F-16 to stay a guns and IR missiles only little shitbox for his meme dogfights.

All the "extra crap" that was "added on later" made the F-16 what it is today. The retards that talk about it being a bad thing when extra capabilities are added, are fucking clueless.

>>33319613
I was taking about 1985 being when the first order of f-16a/b's were finished. they already had ground capability. not as good as other more dedicated shit but still multirole

>>33319647
> Marine F-18's
Nope, they're buying 80 Cs for that.

>>33319615

The GAU-22/A will never be able to match the performance of the GAU-8, but it honestly doesn't matter. The F-35 arguably shouldn't have a gun at all. It doesn't need one to achieve any of its mission profiles.

>>33319669
>tfw the marines will have carriers operating F-35Bs and F-35Cs

>marine corp suddenly has almost the same strike capability as the navy

>>33319679
it depends on what aspects of performance you mean.

and I agree on it not needing a gun. It's those Sprey-tier idiots who insisted the A model get a gun. Others have a gunpod, as it should be.

File: 1471355094227.jpg (61KB, 605x400px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 605x400px

>>33319654
>The retards that talk about it being a bad thing when extra capabilities are added, are fucking clueless.
Adding capabilities is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes a bad thing. The devil is in the details. Anyone incapable of seeing that nuance, anyone that argues that it is only a bad thing, or that it is only a good thing, is a fucking moron.

But thank you for your opinion.

>>33319664

The only version of the F-16 that lacked radar and A2G capabilities was the YF-16 prototype which Sprey regarded as being the perfect fighter jet.

File: APEXworkingsAMMO.gif (17KB, 710x214px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 710x214px

>>33319679
why would it want to match 130mm's of penetration. shitty chain guns in the 40's could do that aiedy. lightskinned vehicles buildings and gayhomo's are prettymuch the only shit that gets shot at with guns these days. apex doesn't waste time with a wasted plug of du alloy

>>33319715
yes......and I'm talking about the idiots who think it's automatically a bad thing if features are added.

>>33319722
yep

>>33319723
well that's the thing. It won't match the gau8 in terms of tank busting, but the gau8 was shit at killing tanks anyways.

and it will likely be better at BBRRTTing farmers and trucks and shit.

>>33319755

>and it will likely be better at BBRRTTing farmers and trucks and shit

No airborne cannon will ever be able to match the raw firepower of the GAU-8, besides the 105mm howitzer you'd find on an AC-130. The 25mm won't be better, but it doesn't really need to be better in that regard.

>>33319808
>match the raw firepower of the GAU-8

meh. if it's more accurate and has longer range, it could be more effective without needing more raw firepower.

File: Screenshot_2015-04-22-18-34-10-2.jpg (52KB, 710x493px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 710x493px

>>33319808
>No airborne cannon will ever be able to match

And just like that it's already done

>>33319664
Yes, sure, they already had ground capability.

The wright brothers already had ground capability. Nothing stopping you from carrying some grenades and throwing them at the right moment.

The F16C could carry serious ground attack munitions. The original A model could drop big grenades if it had to.

>>33319843
>The wright brothers already had ground capability.
wait what that wasn't in my book

>>33319834

I'm not sure why you keep posting this. 30mm is always going to be more powerful than 25mm. Otherwise more APC/IFV's would be using 25mm instead of 30mm. 30mm is simply a larger, heavier round. Even if you develop a super-effective 25mm, you could take the same techniques to develop a 30mm version that would be even more effective.

>>33319843
>The original A model could drop big grenades if it had to.
It actually had the most accurate dumb bomb capability of the time with its radar.

File: Bradley-A3.jpg (2MB, 3200x1800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3200x1800px

>>33319886
OwO

File: 1910_Model_A.jpg (58KB, 800x505px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 800x505px

>>33319900
????

>>33319912
Stop being a facetious ass.

>>33319900
>dumb bomb capability
>substitute for AGM-45, AGM-48...

No. Just no. Go back.

File: 40mmtelescopic.jpg (101KB, 1060x800px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1060x800px

>>33319886
fweep

File: IMG_6087-1-e1477593562519-1024x654.jpg (96KB, 1024x654px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1024x654px

>>33319905

If 25mm is better than 30mm, then why did the Army pick 30mm for the Skyker Dragoon? The only reason the Bradley still uses 25mm is because it is an older design. The next IFV will have a gun of 30mm or larger.

File: 40mmbofors.jpg (24KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x300px

>>33319946
because it needs to kill lightskinned vehicles with new applique from the front. meanwhile aircraft can fly and stuff ;3

>>33319937
>Anti-radiation missile
>11,000lbs ballistic nuke
You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?

>>33319967
>>33319941

>Argues that 25mm is better than 30mm
>Posts pictures of 40mm ammunition

????????????????

>>33320012
>>Shit that wasn't in service yet
>Fucking children.
AGM-45 developed in 1963, entered service in 1965.
>not in service yet in 1984.

Jesus man do you actually get paid to shitpost?

File: MBDA-Brimstone-Cutaway.jpg (172KB, 1120x485px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1120x485px

>>33320041
I don't understand. do you not get that more powerful shells currently exist to kill other ifv's from the front while aircraft could give 2 shits about 35mm of aluminum roof armor. I mean if you see a shitty t-90 or t-72 termie just fling a brimstone at it

>>33320088

Yeah, but 30mm is still more powerful than 25mm. Trying to claim otherwise is silly.

>>33320118
nobody has denied that.

the point was made that it's possible for a higher-tech 25mm Apex could be more EFFECTIVE than the 30mm gau8.

>>33320132

>the point was made that it's possible for a higher-tech 25mm Apex could be more EFFECTIVE than the 30mm gau8

No, it isn't. Because even if you develop high-tech ammunition for the 25mm, it doesn't change the fact that you could apply the same technology to the 30mm and it would still be more effective. It's simply a bigger, more powerful round with kinetic energy behind it and more space for explosive filler inside. The GAU-22/A is perfectly adequate to meet the needs of the F-35, but it can't be compared against the GAU-8.

>>33320203
> it doesn't change the fact that you could apply the same technology to the 30mm

except they aren't doing that for the A-10.

fucks sake we're not comparing the F-35's gun to some hypothetical upgrade to the A-10. We're comparing it to what the A-10 actually has, and yeah, this fancy-ass new 25mm could be more effective than the A-10's 30mm. Who gives a fuck about it being possible to upgrade and make a 30mm with the same tech as the F-35.

>>33314743
why

>>33314447
It wasn't designed with negative stability in mind.

>>33319946
>If 25mm is better than 30mm, then why did the Army pick 30mm for the Skyker Dragoon?

Because 30mm is about as small as you can go with airburst rounds and still have a viable amount of HE filler. Also aircraft with forward facing guns cannot use APFSDS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHGU0_bXUeY

>>33320275
And you're still clearly saying or at least implying that the F35 with that silly little gunpod is a replacement for the A10. It isn't, anyone with half a brain knows it isn't, you just make yourself look silly and encourage more autistic rants telling you how silly you are.

>>33320050
>Replies to the deleted post instead of the one based on correct info
>Missiles F-16s have never used

>>33320825

The F-35's gun isn't as powerful as the A-10's gun. That's very obvious. But it hardly matters because SBD II will fill the role of a gun for the F-35 in most A2G situations, allowing it to engage targets from much further away than a gun would be able to.

File: 1473598930999.jpg (109KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 500x375px

>>33320844
>>Replies to the deleted post instead of the one based on correct info
Wasn't deleted when I replied.

>>33320844
>>Missiles F-16s have never used

fucking moron

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfQe82q8ANA

File: Such is life with the MIC.jpg (53KB, 410x640px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 410x640px

>>33314663
That almost never happens. Right?

Be it DOD as an organization, Congress, budget-oversight of/in Congress, some power-mad field officer that is too bored not stick his nose deep in (depending on program, upper-enlisted qualify), general human incompetence, actual industrial espionage, bitter "defense analysts" influencing unduly, and the never too be forgotten general retardation practice through the officer corps of our respective branches.

The more surprising question, is how we have turned out the occasional "successful" R&D project here and there over the last three decades of spending hundreds of billions on failed projects?

File: 1489350005101.jpg (100KB, 1080x1086px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1080x1086px

>>33314743
>this fucking unsexy jet

>>33319647
It's like you ignore rhe point that the much higher dollar cost equals fewer aircraft.
And do you not recognize that stealth means performance tradeoffs? Sure, you can compensate, but that means you could have better performance.
It's a tradeoff. Stop pretending stealth is free.

File: you-went-full-retard-never-go-full-retard.jpg (63KB, 554x376px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 554x376px

>>33320908
>AGM-64
>You referred to the AGM-45 and -48

File: F-FIFTHGEN_table.jpg (518KB, 1024x1156px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 1024x1156px

>>33321231

>And do you not recognize that stealth means performance tradeoffs?

The F-22 already proved that this wasn't the case. And while the F-35 isn't nearly as powerful as the F-22 (in terms of kinematic performance) it is still very intimidating in some ways, especially in terms of low-speed acceleration and high-AoA maneuvering.

>>33321273
AGM-45 series includes the 64.

>>33321292
Not at all. The F-22 is great! But if you don't think that the same amount of money spent on an air superiority platform with no stealth wouldn't have resulted in a plane that was stronger aside from the lack of stealth, you're as full-retard as the last guy.

>>33321316
>AGM-45 series includes the 64.
Nice try moving the goalpost there, buddy. You're wrong, but hey, you're trying.

>The weapon began life in the early 1960s. North American produced a missile design for the U.S. Air Force's Anti-Tank Guided Aircraft Rocket (ATGAR) project. The ATGAR was ultimately not produced, but the Air Force was impressed enough that in 1963 it awarded North American a development contract for the ZAGM-64A Hornet missile. The Hornet planned as a battlefield missile for use against armoured vehicles which would mount an electro-optical guidance system.
>The Air Force ultimately stopped development of the AGM-64, judging that the similar AGM-65 Maverick had more potential. Although not produced as a weapon, the Hornet became a testbed for various guidance systems including different varieties of electro-optical systems and a magnetic guidance system. The program was terminated in 1968.

>>33314447
It was conceived in an era when no one thought that China would be our main adversary. If we knew then, the F-35 (and F-22 for that matter) would have been designed with greater range befitting the Pacific theatre, and a bigger missile capacity.

>>33321347
Adding to this, lax cyber security for the F-35 is the biggest problem of all imo. The Chinese hugely benefited and are much further along now as a result.

>>33321347
>If we knew then, the F-35 (and F-22 for that matter) would have been designed with greater range befitting the Pacific theatre, and a bigger missile capacity.

>750NMI A2A intercept radius
>CUDA/SACM will bring 12 internal BVR missiles

Got any more bad opinions?

>>33321574
The CUDA was developed EXACTLY because of the missile load out concern, faggot.

>>33320118
120mm sabot perpetrator is only 22mm in diameter.

30mm BTFO
0
m
m
B
T
F
O

>>33321631
Adding to this, even CUDA isn't fully sufficient for the 2030 era and beyond. That's why there is so much chatter about arsenal planes, lasers with essentially unlimited magazine depth accelerating and even stealthy aerial refueling tankers.

I'm a big fan of the F-35 and think we need more faster, but that doesn't mean there are not issues that need to be confronted.

>>33321631
It can already haul 4 AIM-120Ds, so why are you getting your panties in a knot?

>>33315014
>why is two engines objectively better?
So when one dies/gets shot, you can still get home.
>why is two air crew objectively better?
Split tasks, 50% less shit to do.
>the F-35 has a gun in one version
One sorta-working gun, sure.
>buddy refuel, F-35 has longer range on internal fuel anyways.
Moving goalposts.
>cost, the F-35 costs less than any other modern 4th+ gen fighter, and has more capability
[Citation Needed]. We're pretty much destroying that argument right now.
>networking/sensors/ECM/etc. are all better in the F-35 than the hornet, by far.
Not at launch they weren't.
>Also much better at recon.
Define "recon"?
>"battle damage"??? How fucking retarded are you?
Needs to get hit and still get home. We're not the nips, we don't send our guys out on suicide missions.
>maneuvering?
It constantly gets shit on by F22s and F18s.
>combat radius?
Can't comment since I have no clue what you or the other dude are asking.

>>33318318
You don't compare an Abrahms to a fucking Bradley you mouthbreather

>>33321740

Your knee jerk reactions are embarrassing. The F-35 is amazing. We need more of them in addition to workaround for their limitations.


http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2017/April%202017/Saving-Air-Superiority.aspx

In the words of Air Combat Command (ACC) chief Gen. Herbert J. “Hawk” Carlisle,

>The F-22 and F-35 will certainly be part of the mix. The Air Force intends to have the F-22 well into the 2040s; the F-35 considerably longer. Asked in a previous interview what he would most want in the way of a near-term improvement in the fighter force, Carlisle’s simple answer was “more shots.”

>>33321742
>So when one dies/gets shot, you can still get home.
This has rarely ever been true. Twins simply double the risk of a crash due to maintenance error and other faults.

>Split tasks, 50% less shit to do.
What is "Sensor Fusion" for 500 Alex?

>One sorta-working gun, sure.
It'll be working just fine when needed, it's low priority because it's not that important.

>Moving goalposts.
How? It outlegs everything else but the Strike Eagle by a massive margin.

>[Citation Needed]. We're pretty much destroying that argument right now.
It already costs several million less than the Rafale M and Eurofighter T3.

>Needs to get hit and still get home. We're not the nips, we don't send our guys out on suicide missions.
Tougher materials, modular components isolating damage, no hydraulic loop to lose, I'd say it's a tougher bird than you giver it credit for.

>It constantly gets shit on by F22s and F18s.
[Citation Desperately needed]

>>33321806
>You don't compare an Abrahms to a fucking Bradley you mouthbreather
Since when did either of them replace the other? The F-35 IS replacing the F-16.

>>33321836
I don't see your point here. They have a good internal-only missile count near-term (4), better mid-term (6), and really good once CUDA comes about.

>>33314447
Niet memes, very bad plains burger boy!

>>33321574
>>33321740

Read all four parts. Maybe you'll learn something.

https://warontherocks.com/2017/01/the-future-of-air-superiority-part-i-the-imperative/

https://warontherocks.com/2017/01/the-future-of-air-superiority-part-ii-the-2030-problem/

https://warontherocks.com/2017/01/the-future-of-air-superiority-part-iii-defeating-a2ad/

https://warontherocks.com/2017/01/the-future-of-air-superiority-part-iv-autonomy-survivability-and-getting-to-2030/

>>33321898
I'm not seeing how this counters anything I said. Perhaps the Spreyfags have your turned in circles?

>>33321878
The main problem is that countermeasures are advancing to the point where you'd need two or more to ensure a kill. That basically halves your fighter force.


>>33321736
I cut of mid sentence. We are also accelerating FGAD (Now called PCA, penetrating counter air) because of this very problem. We would prefer not to rush what was supposed to be a 2040+ capability, but that is the unfortunate situation we are in.

>>33321867
Remember what they ask about twins: "How far will it fly on one motor" answer: "all the way to the crash site"

>>33321933
*facepalm* I'm pro F-35. And you're making F-35 advocates look like idiots.

>>33321933
I'll spoonfeed you then. Again, from Gen. Herbert J. Carlisle:

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2017/April%202017/Saving-Air-Superiority.aspx


Though “I’d take the F-22 over J-20 any day, … the question isn’t ‘one vs. one,’” Carlisle observed. In the South China Sea, he said, the threat might be “10 squadrons of J-20s, plus Su-35s—which they just picked up from Russia—and Su-30s and J-10s and J-11s,” as well as J-15s flying from the Liaoning, the Russian-built aircraft carrier China bought and reworked for its own use.

Meanwhile, the US would initially be limited to the relative handful of aircraft forward deployed to the Western Pacific.

“It’s an ‘away game’ for us; it’s a ‘home game’ for them,” Carlisle said, “and an away game has some serious limitations in terms of how we operate and where we operate from.”

China, or really any adversary, can put up its whole air force at the scene of battle and turn aircraft more quickly than the US, which operates with just a portion of its fleet at the end of a very long supply chain.

>>33321292
>no AIM-9
Pretty sure the F-35 can stick them in the side bays.

>>33322030
F-35 doesn't have side bays. The chart's confusing in how it explains it though - as configured right now, you can only carry 4 missiles total, so if you've got 2 Sidewinders, you're only carrying 2 AMRAAMs

>>33322024
We'll still outnumber them with fighters of far superior capabilities, lower maintenance downtimes, and far better pilots.

Yes, we should plan for the worst, but the reality is that what China can bring to bear is kind of pathetic.

>>33322030
Nope, AIM-9X is rail-launched, so it can only be on the external pylons. Internal bays can only use drop-launch missiles.

File: file[1].jpg (111KB, 710x476px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 710x476px

>>33322044
Internally.

>>33322061
I'd like to think so. It was true in the past, maybe true today, but the trend lines for the near, mid and far future are not good at all.

Many analysts much smarter than I am have come to the same conclusion. The consensus view is reflected in the kinds of things DARPA and the Air Force Rapid Capability Office is funding.

That itself speaks volumes about the seriousness with which the issue is being taken.

>>33321292
>angle of attack limit
>none

F-22 confirmed for UFO

>>33322061
>Finally develop a LOAL-capable heatseeker
>Still rail-launched and unsuitable for internal carriage
Raytheon is fucking retarded.

>>33318124
i dont think you grasp the reality of the situation

perhaps this can give you a better picture of the reality
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/7012/the-air-force-desperately-needs-a-stealth-tanker

he is actually using the very sane argument of what will happen if usa goes against an enemy with the same stealth capabilities...

>>33324087

Honestly, they should use the B-21 program to do this. They are already designing a; stealthy, long range, large payload, and subsonic aircraft, why not create a version of the B-21 that functions as a tanker? It would be cheaper than two separate programs, and would share most of the logistics.

There is a precedent for this, the UK's Victor bombers were converted into tankers, and used alongside Vulcans in the Operation Black Buck raids during the Falklands war.

File: 1475048587106.jpg (102KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1024x683px

>>33318866
>the F-35 has a similar cross sectional size to other single-seat multirole fighters.

>It has better range because it has a ton of internal fuel tank space, not because it's some giant fighter. It does not "displace as much air as a normal jet fully loaded"

Magical volumes I guess?

>>33323943
The F-22's side bays have rail trapezes. It's just not that important on the F-35.

>>33314447
The problem is that my taxes are paying for it.

>>33324404
>Magical volumes I guess?
Smaller components, less space taken up by shit like hydraulic loops.

>>33321076
>>33314743

I want to rub its tummy

>>33324643
Yeah, that $500 a year you pay in is really going towards F-35s.

>>33324643

>muh taxes

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/11/among-developed-nations-americans-tax-bills-are-below-average/

>>33324309
That's not a bad idea but I wonder if it has enough internal payload volume to carry a meaningful amount of fuel. Just because it can carry the weight doesn't mean it has tbe space to carry that weight in liquid which is lower density.

>>33324309

>why not create a version of the B-21 that functions as a tanker?

If they can make the A-6 into a tanker then surely you could make a B-21 function has a tanker.

>>33325277
>Giant external buddy tanks work for everything

File: Su PAK-FA (T-50).jpg (294KB, 1200x813px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1200x813px

>>33325470

File: RAF_Eurofighter_EF-2000_Typhoon_FGR4_Lofting-1[1].jpg (665KB, 1280x897px) Image search: [Google]

665KB, 1280x897px

>>33325470
>>33325480
Here, have the Western equivalent.

>>33325277
No dummy, put it in the bomb bay

>>33325237
>>33324850
>over 50% US allocation of spending to military

>somehow my taxes AREN'T going to the f35

yeah ok, you keep taking that big bureaucratic cock for me.

File: 1472191230132.png (290KB, 339x378px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 339x378px

>>33326272
You think more than half of the federal budget goes to the military?

File: total_spending_pie,__2015_enacted[1].png (146KB, 1003x915px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1003x915px

>>33326272
It's 54% of the DISCRETIONARY budget and 16% of the total.

File: discretionary_spending_pie,_2015_enacted.png (145KB, 1003x915px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1003x915px

>>33326423
y-yeah? We are a wartime economy that's lasted for 70 years or so.


>https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

>>33326554
Well then I'm (>>33326557) wrong.

That doesn't mean I should support the fighter.

>>33319647
>The point of reference they use is a $35-40 million goal in the JSF criteria document
Which was written in the mid-90s. Now, adjust for inflation...
Oh, look. 40m dollars in 1994 is 65.14m dollars today. Furthermore, I challenge you to find a SINGLE competitive 4.5 gen multirole fighter which costs 65m dollars, much less a 5th gen aircraft. F-16E, Gripen E, F-18E, Rafale, Typhoon, Su-35 - not a single one is that inexpensive flyaway cost. You can't even buy an F-16C Blk 50/52 for 40m these days.

Compare actual LRIP 10 per-unit costs to 4.5 gen fighters (because let's be unfair and not even try to compare it to projected 5th gen competition), and you'll find that the F-35 is actually cheaper per unit than the Rafale or Typhoon, and likely the Su-35 (if they ever gave solid, reliable public numbers). Tell me again about how it's so expensive. Tell me with a straight face that the value we receive for that cost isn't extraordinary.

File: MilitarySpending_Apr2016.png (472KB, 1574x1210px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 1574x1210px

>>33326557
We don't even spend that much by GDP, we're just that rich.

>>33326573
>That doesn't mean I should support the fighter.

Nobody cares about the opinion of a moron

>>33314743
This was the better jet too.

File: 1488900678067.jpg (35KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 640x640px

>>33327466

>>33323692
it basically is.

>>33326557
DISCRETIONARY is different than TOTAL.

discretionary is approved, yearly, by Congress.

things like Social Security have a built-in clause to self-renew indefinitely until shut down.

>>33327466
u wot m8

>>33320825
lol the A-10 doesn't need replacing. All it was doing was BRRTing farmers and pickup trucks for the past 20 years.

>>33321292
that chart you posted seems out of date too. F-35 can definitely reach higher AoA than 50 degrees....

but basically, yeah. It's no F-22, but no other planes are the F-22 in terms of kinetic performance. If the F-35 ends up similar to an F/A-18 with a bit better acceleration and high AoA performance, it'll be just fine.

>>33321631
so....what exactly is the problem? yay new technology that allows a small, cheap, high-tech fighter to carry more missiles in an internal bay. How is this a flaw in the F-35???

>>33321742
go home, you're drunk.

the two engine thing has been debunked repeatedly in this thread. the two aircrew thing has been debunked. the F-35's gun works just fine. F-35 has plenty of range. the F-35 unit cost is comparable to the Typhoon, Rafale, etc. recon: reconnaissance is the exploration outside an area occupied by friendly forces to gain information about natural features and enemy presence. "not at launch they weren't" is a stupid statement. So what? They are now. F-35 will have better survivability than anything short of an F-22 because of its stealth and sensor package. Of course it gets shit on by the F-22, nobody is shocked by this. The F-18 absolutely does not out-fly the F-35, according to actual pilots who have flown both.

>>33327466
Haha no

>>33324404
what exactly are you having an issue with?

it's a combination of factors. more efficient engine, more internal space dedicated to fuel rather than other crap, less space taken up by other shit like hydraulics, etc.

It's not magical, it's called "modern fighter design".

>>33325277
or in the interim, just make an ad-hoc external tank with refueling capability so they can use an F-35 as a buddy tanker.

>>33326775
lol people always bitch about US military spending, ERMERGERD we spend so much more than anybody else!!!

fuck that. The USA is fucking rich beyond belief more than pretty much every country in the world. Know what else the US spends more on? everything else too.

File: Goomba6.jpg (49KB, 736x679px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 736x679px

>>33314743
>>33321076
GOOMBA

>>33327363
>he doesn't know where he is

I like how this thread is fucking horrendously retarded, but good at the same time.

And people need to fucking lighten up on the F-35B shitting. Fucking moronic comments about the range.

>>33324609
Couldn't they bolt a trapeze onto the 2000 lb 4/8 station? There's lots of space. I bet they could even squeeze a dual rail adapter in there.

Even still, the seeker's probably not going to be able to see the target from an extended rail under the belly unless the target happens to be below or directly in front of the jet so LOAL is still a necessity.

>>33318030
>The F117 is a very stealthy subsonic ground attack craft.
F117 has a larger radar cross section than the B2, F22 and F35.
>The F35 is a moderately stealthy subsonic mult-role fighter.
The F35 is a supersonic fighter that has a smaller radar cross section than any plane in the sky but the F22 at specific angles.

>>33331078
AIM-120Ds can do the job too, they're HOBS/LOAL, and one of the core elements of the CUDA is an array of microrocket engines around the area forward of the fins for that kind of maneuvering.

>>33331529
Plus the F-117 has no RWR or other means of detecting potential RF threats.

>>33331529

>a smaller radar cross section than any plane in the sky but the F22 at specific angles

Well technically, isn't the B-2 supposed to be the most stealth of stealth?

>>33321806
>You don't compare an Abrahms to a fucking Bradley you mouthbreather

I mean, if one was designed to replace the other...

And you would compare the Abrams or Bradley to the M60 or M113 respectively.

>>33328901
>so....what exactly is the problem? yay new technology that allows a small, cheap, high-tech fighter to carry more missiles in an internal bay. How is this a flaw in the F-35???

This is getting really annoying. I'm pro F-35, we're on the same side.

EVERYTHING, every single military platform that has ever been designed has problems. That's the nature of engineering, and NOT necessarily bad.

What you're not understanding is that the nature of the enemy has evolved in ways not foreseen when the F-35's requirements were written. What was sufficient in 1995 will not be so in 2035.

CUDA was conceived to help the F-35 keep up with the threat. That in no way detracts from the F-35.

>>33331947
Not in X-band, it's just assumed to have the advantage against lower frequency radars because it's bigger, and so its shaping still works.

>>33331947
The F-22 is actually lower RCS.

The B-2 is great, but it's also old.

>>33331078
They were making trapeze launchers for the door hardpoints for ASRAAM, but it was dropped or postponed out of Block 3F.

File: impossible.gif (473KB, 500x342px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 500x342px

>>33314447
>Memes aside

Thats IMPOSSIBLE

>>33332036
Adding on to this.

CUDA would not be developed if there isn't an existing deficiency or an anticipated one. R&D $ are tight, and there is simply not enough to fund everything. Only absolute essentials are being funded.

It would be highly irresponsible if CUDA were developed without the NEED to do so.

File: Cz03r3YVIAAmQGR.jpg (503KB, 2048x1363px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 2048x1363px

>>33331973
Bradley's are going to replace M113's in the sense that a vehicle derived from the Bradley is going to replace M113's.

>>33324782
>>33329608

But no really. Sexy aircraft fly just as sexily. If it isn't fucking beautiful, it's literally a pile of shit

>>33332487
>CUDA would not be developed if there isn't an existing deficiency or an anticipated one.
I'll remind you that since Gen. Creech a big part of our doctrine has been using advanced tech as a way to maintain overwhelming superiority (alongside advanced, realistic training starting with Red Flag), and the CUDA is an example of one of those "big leap" advances like the Sparrow to AMRAAM upgrade. Specifically, giving AMRAAM-like performance to a missile small enough the F-35 can carry 3x its current A2A payload.

>>33332420

I really feel like you fuckers are missing the significance of this sagat post,

File: Lockheed-Martin Cuda missiles.jpg (301KB, 1681x1080px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1681x1080px

>>33332487
>CUDA would not be developed if there isn't an existing deficiency or an anticipated one.
The main deficiency driving the development of CUDA is the restricted missile quantity of VLO internal weapons bays. Same driver behind the development of SDB.

File: first-e1488492254374.jpg (88KB, 687x310px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 687x310px

In the near future both stealth & radar shall be rendered moot by next-generation sensors & jammers; the result will be a shift in air combat paradigm back to visual-range gunfights with manually aimed canon, returning to the good olde fashioned "dogfight."

>>33334104
That's what I'm saying already.

>>33321667
... why not just make a 22.01mm internal diameter barrel then to fire the darts at the same velocity?

Skip the middle man.

What the fuck are we going to do about the JASSM>?!?

it;s too big for f35 intenal bays

Its only the most fearsome standoff weapon in the US arsenal.

Even the extnded range doesnt have enough power to reach ground targets beyond detection range for the Lightning.

I sure as fuck hope they are working on a super duper secret tiny little nuclear capable super duper extended long range air to surface lo observable cruise missle.

Im a f35 geek, but shit like this bothers me. Navy strike and air force interdiction. Air superiority is a marshmallow purple rainbow hering. Look over here everyone.... never mind the strike capabilities... lelesorz

>>33323692
>>33327789
Thanks to the 2D thrust vectoring nozzles, and it's very powerful engines.

>F-35A/C, why you no have 3DTVN???

File: aim120_2.jpg (37KB, 713x561px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 713x561px

>>33334104
>>33334184
Or the simple observation that doubling or tripling missile loadouts with the same number of hard points (internal or external) is probably a good thing, coupled with the fact that the technology is finally mature enough for hard kill vehicles.

But, no, let's go with the dark conspiracy that 5th gen aircraft secretly suck and they're panicking.

CUDA effectively doubles the maximum and nominal BVR missile loadout of EVERY combat aircraft in inventory. Think about that for a minute. It ain't about need, it's about cost vs benefit. When you can send even a legacy F-16C out with two JDAMs, two sidewinders, two bags and FOUR BVR missiles, it's a fucking no brainer. Then there's the fact that you could fit two sidewinders, two AMRAAMs and SIXTEEN CUDAs on a legacy F-18, much less a superbug - pic related. This with no significant mass or drag penalty?

Fucking yes please every day of the week and twice on sunday.

>>33334104
So, if we were to give a B-1B an AESA X-band radar in the nose, S-band radars in the wing leading edges, a kick ass FCS that can cue targets up sanic fast, and loaded the entire bomb bays with CUDA AAM's, how many AtA targets could it take out?

>>33334294
>Ace Combat Tier Missile Loadout.png
>Ace Combat Missile Spam.gif

>>33334294
>So, if we were to give a B-1B an AESA X-band radar in the nose, S-band radars in the wing leading edges, a kick ass FCS that can cue targets up sanic fast, and loaded the entire bomb bays with CUDA AAM's, how many AtA targets could it take out?
You wouldn't even need all that. Take the entire B-1B fleet and in the next block upgrade simply add A2A launch authority and datalinking capability with MADL and Link-16. Then the equal pain in the ass of modifying the rotary launchers for CUDA rails. They haul the spears, the F-35, F-22, F-16, F-15, AWACS, etc. tells the spears when to launch and at what. The B-1B needs exactly fuckall by way of A2A sensors to be a missile truck, only excellent datalink and good situational awareness displays for remote AWACS and TACAIR data. It would never operate alone in an air superiority role even if they did load it down with the best A2A sensors.

That's what a 5th gen sensor-shooter is. It doesn't matter who's actually carrying the weapons, as long as the targets are getting seen and fired upon before the sensors get seen and fired upon. The most important thing in the fight will always be the best LPI comms, LPI sensors and VLO features on the front line aircraft.

>>33334357
CUDA wouldn't work well on a B-1B. You'd want extra long range stand off missiles.

>>33334376
>CUDA wouldn't work well on a B-1B. You'd want extra long range stand off missiles.
Yup. Something like an AMRAAM-sized CUDA, with all that extra mass for delta-V. It's not like it doesn't have the volume or payload for it. It'd still carry, what, four to six dozen of them?

these threads is why I browse /k/

>>33334255
>F-35A/C, why you no have 3DTVN???
Expensive, no real advantage.

>>33334294
They're already planning to put 96 SDB's in the B-1B. And eventually 144.

File: oprah-free-car[1].gif (717KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

717KB, 500x375px

>>33335553
>YOU GET AN SDB!
>AND YOU GET AN SDB!
>AND YOU GET AN SDB!
>EVERYBODY'S GETTING SDBs!

>>33334210
Larger bore > lower pressure to reach the same acceleration > lighter barrel and longer barrel life

Also, you need some clearance for the fins anyways

>>33335553

That's fucking scary.

File: giphy[1].gif (363KB, 250x186px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 250x186px

>>33335553

Now fly, FLY!