What's the point of the F-35? Couldn't we have just

File: f-35-production-5-728.jpg (152KB, 942x728px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 942x728px

>>33377994

>Couldn't we have just made 3 purpose built aircraft instead? Would've probably been cheaper.

"Yeah because relatively high commonality is too expensive, lets have zero commonality.
That will surely cut cost compared to having common parts!"

Sounds pretty retarded, doesnt it?

How many of these threads do we need to have?

>>33377994
Stop buying into the meme that the F-35 is so ultra expensive. Even with the R&D budget issues, when all is said and done and the F-35 is retiring it will have been one of the cheapest jets ever. Production costs are now coming in line, repair, maintenance and fueling costs will be amazing.

TL;DR
Don't get your plane information from know nothing faggots.

>>33378177

Thread done in one.

Logistics win wars.

>>33377994
Why 3? Murriens don't need aircraft.

Exactly what kind of technology has matured on the F-35 project?

>>33378233

The STOVL variant is an important capability.

A peer enemy will do whatever they can to deter and destroy super-carriers and airbases, so if the USA can operate a highly capable 5th gen aircraft from amphibious carriers or small distributed air strips, that makes US air-power far more resilient in an actual war.

Secondly, as well as gaining more US carriers (including the amphibious warships), it also gains more allied carriers. Mainly the UK, but Italy is also operating a STOVL carrier with the F-35B, and both Spain & Australia have the option of doing so in future. More effective allies can take the burden off the US military.

>>33378270
>amphibious carriers or small distributed air strips are morsurivaible that carrier battle groups and defended airbases 1000 miles away from Iskanders
>this is what Murriens believe
FOBs are for fighting sandngiers. They are just big juicy defenseless targets for peer opposition.

>it also gains more allied carriers.
>implying you can't operate F-35C from small carriers

In spite of the cost overrun for the F-35, having to develop three different aircrafts would be retarded. There's a reason why every relevant military reuses an airframe for different branches. Just look at Russians who use the Flanker and Fulcrum airframe for carrier operation.

>>33378460
>implying you can't operate F-35C from small carriers

I'm not surprised you can't read, but step your game up

>>33378460
>implying you can operate F-35Cs from non-CATOBAR carriers
The only Allie we have that could operate the F-35C from their carrier is France and they're not willing to buy a foreign fighter because muh Rafale. Spain and Britain both have have carriers without catapults so they need the F-35B.

F-35 commonality is actually its greatest weakness. One disease and half the population is wiped out before the harvest.

>>33378522
>F-35 commonality is actually its greatest weakness. One disease and half the population is wiped out before the harvest.

This.

That commonality means possibly grounding the whole fleet and not just A-Z variants

>>33378522
>Flanker commonality is actually its greatest weakness
>One disease and half the population is wiped out before the harvest.
You are aware that all aircrafts are built in blocks and tweaked over the years?

File: 1415990307387.jpg (146KB, 1274x1024px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1274x1024px

>>33378545
>>33378580
You are aware I am making a joke?

>>33378177
>the navy version has its own set of uprated tires

>>33377994
Wait, this isn't just a plane for export?

>>33378599
US is getting like 3 thousand.

>>33378600
Shit, I thought that the issue was we could not export F-22 stealth tech, so they made the F-35 to keep market hegemony for planes sold to allies in american hands.

>>33378189
All of them

>>33378254
All of it

>>33377994
>Three completely separate dev programs, procurement lines, and logistics lines would be cheaper
I'm, sorry son but..well...you have Extra Chromosome.

>>33378519
>Spain and Britain
Italy and Britain. Spain isn't buying them.

>>33378460
>implying you can't operate F-35C from small carriers

You are one dumb nigger. Don't reply to this thread again.

>>33377994
Anon, literally just procuring and operating the same legacy aircraft over the same timeframe would have cost us two or three times more. What makes you think that three separate development programs for a state of the art aircraft would be cheaper?

The actual advantage you would have had from three separate aircraft would have been that they could be more tailored to their roles, but even then the benefits would be incredibly minor compared to the costs. The three variants of the F-35 already have incredibly similar roles.

>>33378460

The F-35B carries nearly double the internal fuel of an F-16. What the fuck are you talking about FOBs for?

>>33379051
If planes without liftfans can fly from Ramp carriers

Then why can't the F-35C?

>>33379282

It's a question of payload. The combination of; ramp + thrust vectoring + lift fan, allows the B variant to take off with a lot of weapons and fuel. Whereas an ordinary aircraft going for STOBAR take-off would have significant payload limitations.

Also, the Kuznetsov is very long (300m), compared to the UK's QE carriers (280m), the Italian Cavour (244m), and the Spanish/Australian Juan Carlos/Canberra (230m)

One of the main complaints of the Kuznetsov's operations in Syria was the low payloads of the aircraft. Without either catapults, or a lift fan & highly angled thrust vectoring, what an aircraft can carry is limited to what is dictated by the flight deck length, thrust/weight ratio, and wing lift.

>>33378177
>F-111

>>33378196
t. LM employee

File: tmp_22695-screenshot_7991251044647.png (70KB, 2024x1432px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 2024x1432px

>>33379282

Because carrier operations are far more complex than you are making it out to be. You are the one that is required to prove you can make a capable CATBAR carrier under 25 000 tons with all the same or better traits at support it as its STVOL equivalents.

>>33378196
No it wont be cheap.

That`s why everyone is mad about the project.
I dont take the merit of the plane, in fact i think it will be the best plane in world for at least 20 years, but the money they dump on it is too much.

>>33379448
>It's a question of payload.

Not just that.

Smaller carriers are extremely restricted by space and by adding equipment that takes up room that could go to other things.

Add EMALS? Need to add in crew to look after it, meaning more crew facilities. Need to add additional power generation for that as well, which on them needs more crew. You'll also need more room for spares.

More crew you need the harder it is to surge.

etc etc

You'll start to eat into hanger space, munitions and fuel before you know it.

>>33379572
Continuing from
>>33379572

Which of course eats into your budget for other things like logistics ships, escorts, training and the actual aircraft themselves.

Honestly I could write more, but I'm on mobile.

Tl:dr shit is complex and your "better" capability is worthless if you don't have the supporting assets and key enablers for it.

>>33379572

I was assuming that the guy I was replying to was asking why you would operate a STOVL carrier instead of a STOBAR one

>>33377994
>What's the point of the F-35?

Replacing obsolete 4th gen aircraft with something viable in peer to peer combat for the next 40+ years..

>Couldn't we have just made 3 purpose built aircraft instead?

The A, B and C models are three different purpose built aircraft.

>Would've probably been cheaper.

No.

>>33379693

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as correcting you. More like expanding on your point. Because you are right, but I felt you were leaving an important aspect to STVOL vs conventional out.

>>33378619
The F-22 wasn't exported for political reasons.

>>33379464
An aircraft that has tried to do things with contradictory design requirements?

File: 1473602105428.gif (2MB, 295x218px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 295x218px

>>33379282
>If a plane with an engine that gives it the capability to launch off short runways can take off a ramp, why can't a plane designed around a catapult

I wonder how you manage to dress yourself

>>33379788
Yes

>>33380149
What does that have to do with the F-35?

>>33379010
Well it is international downs day after all

>>33378177
CATO disagrees

>>33379500
>the money they dump on it is too much
It's less than it would be if F-15/16/18s were built instead. So you're saying the US should just reduce the size of its aircraft fleet ?

>>33379448
Hurr durr:
http://cppcms.com/files/skijump/
>It was clearly shown that F-18E/F at maximal allowed gross weight can takeoff from an STOBAR carrier within reasonable Wind Over Deck (WOD) requirements. Thus STOBAR carrier layout does not impose severe limitations on the maximal takeoff weight.
>Total Takeoff Strip (m): 180
>Invincible-class aircraft carrier Length: 209 m
B T F O
T
F
O

File: 57350476.jpg (166KB, 1000x700px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1000x700px

>>33379448
>Also, the Kuznetsov is very long (300m)
I hope you aware that run away strips length of Kuznetsov are 90 m and 180 m (yellow lines).

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

899KB, 600x600px

>>33380922
>some random chucklefuck made a simulation that shows it's possible and yet no western military with a ramp carrier has adopted it

>>33381078
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a237265.pdf
>muh Harrier

>>33381122
You'd have to completely redesign the deck to have an offset landing area like the Russians or suffer from a very dhitty sortie rate so that you don't crash into parked aircraft.

File: CVF-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carrier.jpg (39KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x375px

>>33381777
>You'd have to completely redesign the deck to have an offset landing area like the Russians
>t. person with disability

>>33377994
>>33378177
The avionics were worth having in common.
The commonalities in the airframes ended up being more trouble than they were worth. The control laws ended up being different for each variant.

>>33382324
Which isn't that big of a problem. Avionics are where the majority of aircraft costs come from nowadays.

>>33382147
>or you'll get a low sortie rate

I really enjoy the fact that you think you're smarting than every single person in the USMC, RN, Italian Navy, Spanish Navy, and Royal Thai Navy, and Indian Navy who all decided to procure AV-8s instead of getting Hornets.

>>33382370
The C variant is a bit of a waste since it doesn't really do what the Navy wants, which seems to be the F-35's avionics package in a plane with a pair of F404s for streamlined logistics.

>>33382455
Nevermind how the USN has explicitly stated the importance of the F-35C.

>>33382483
Or the fact that the C variant is also being bought by the USMC to replace their decrepit legacy hornets.

>>33380922
>takeoff length impedes normal deck operations

Enjoy your molasses sortie rate.

>>33382396
Well when brits started pushing Harrier on the deck Soviets didn't invent sci-jump yet so West had nothing to copy and stuck with ugly duck :^)

>>33382483
The F-35 is important because of what it is, not because it's exactly what they want it to be. If it was the ideal plane for the Navy they'd be solidifying plans to phase out Super Hornets, with less interest in F/A-XX.

>>33382513
Same happens on STVOL carriers when they do roll out take offs.

>>33382455
The F-35C is a convenient stopgap for the Navy to get rid of their legacy Hornets and getting in on the 5th Gen game at the same time while they wait for F/A-XX to take off.

>>33382521

What are you even trying to say

>>33382521
>they stuck with the ugly duck
I like you're reasoning on why nobody has changed.

>Everyone just doesn't want to adopt it even though it's clearly the better solution because reasons

Clearly you're the most intelligent person on earth, you'd have to be in order to come up with such an amazing solution that nobody has thought of before.

Why aren't they getting F-35Cs for the HMS QE if they work fine on them? They were planning on getting F-35Cs when the QE was still planned to have a catapult but changed their minds when they switched to a ramp.

Why is that?

>>33382526
The USN is supplementing F-35C's with existing Super Hornets because it has too many expensive necessities on its plate that are even more important.

>>33382634
>Why aren't they getting F-35Cs for the HMS QE if they work fine on them? They were planning on getting F-35Cs when the QE was still planned to have a catapult but changed their minds when they switched to a ramp.

Not him, but I can provide you an answer if you so wish it. Does require a significant compression of history though.

>>33382698
do it

File: cva-01-image1.jpg (77KB, 715x483px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 715x483px

>>33382713

We start our story all the way back in the mid-1960s. The Royal Navy was looking at options to modernised its carrier fleet and the cost of modernising already existing carriers was deemed uneconomical as it was almost the same as building new ones, so of course the admiralty favourited a new build. Several designs were considered, some VTOL and others CATABAR. The plan orginally asked for five new large carriers, however it was later highlited in studies that more carriers would be need by at least 1980 to manage East of Suez style scenarios. This would enable the RN to have three to four carrier battle groups. This plan was then rejected by the Chief of Staffs, primarily the Cheif of the Air Staff (the top dog for the air force) for being too pro-navy. The first of many battles between the RAF and RN in the backrooms of Whitehall.

*time skip*

The designs for CVA-01 started emerging around 1962. Marking the carrier design to be around 50,000 to 58,000, 920ft long and able to carrier 35 jets and five helicopters. The project was increasingly coming under pressure from the RAF who didn't like the costs or the navy owning carriers since "the air is supposed to be the RAF domain".

>>33378492
Three? Maybe, but I doubt it with just two. If you ask me, high commonality should have been attempted for the A and C, but the B should have been allowed to run off as its own thing. It's the B that has been holding the others back. Both in terms of design compromises and overall delays.

>>33379214
>Carries double the fuel
>Has half the range

Something ain't right here.

>>33383328
>internal

File: fucked lemon.jpg (222KB, 652x886px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 652x886px

People who think the f-35 is cheap mostly browse here and were convinced by memes that it's good without knowing why. They'll say it's cheap, but they really don't know what they're talking about.

Meanwhile, people who think the f-35 is bad formed their opinion after browsing countless articles on it's development and noticing how badly it was developed.

I am very impressed by how deluded a lot of people on here are about the f-35. I realised the truth as soon as I started researching the f-35 myself, after hearing people here sing praise for it.

Let me spell this out for everyone. The F-35 aircraft is not capable of unsupported combat against any serious threat. The Pentagon has declared it can't fight against any serious enemy without support from legacy aircraft. You can't get much more to the point than that. It's official. The F-35 is a fucked lemon and we're all getting fucked by it.

>>33383584
>countless "articles" from amazing bastions of impartiality and understanding of military procurement such as WiB, RT, FoxtrotAlpha, and Business Insider
Amazing, I'm assuming you're Australian with how hot these shitposts are


>He thinks that the majority of /k/ always liked the F-35
Maybe you're just a newfag that's too stupid to understand the actual scope of the issues and instead relies on buzzword ridden articles written by retards that were created with the sole purpose of generating ad revenue by telling a bullshit story that isn't as big as it's made out to be. (see:that picture you posted which lists a bunch of minor issues)

>Can't fight enemy with legacy aircraft according to the pentagon.
I want you to find the exact source on that so that I can read it and laugh at how much you're butchering the message.

>>33383584
>The F-35 aircraft is not capable of unsupported combat against any serious threat. The Pentagon has declared it can't fight against any serious enemy without support from legacy aircraft.

SHIT TALKING ALERT WEE WOO WOO WEE WOO

https://theaviationist.com/2017/02/28/red-flag-confirmed-f-35-dominance-with-a-201-kill-ratio-u-s-air-force-says/

File: ski-jump-news__main[1].jpg (160KB, 700x510px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 700x510px

>>33383721
I never said "Can't fight enemy with legacy aircraft according to the pentagon." I said it can't fight any jets without being backed up by legacy fighters, which is much worse.

Nonetheless, the source was Michael Gilmore's report for the pentagon on the f-35.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3035572-DOT-amp-E-AF-IOC-Memo.html#document/p1/a316083

I love how he says "outstanding performance deficiencies", to state just how bad it is. It's not just bad, but outstandingly so.

File: F-35-DOTE[1].jpg (323KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1024x683px

>>33383784
The contest was rigged to give the f-35 positive light.

>>33384064

You are seriously dumb. That was a criticism level at the software block, NOT THE PLATFORM.

>>33384079

Can you substantiate this?

File: d35money[1].jpg (100KB, 935x718px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 935x718px

>>33384096
>the software

"If used in combat, the f-35 will need support to do anything due to outstanding performance deficiencies and limited weapons carriage available, ie two bombs and two missiles."

What does software have to do with having no payload and no performance?

>>33384064
>block 3i capability is lacking
WOW ITS LITERALLY FUCKING NOTHING.

ALIS is the only notable problem with the aircraft of all the things highlighted, everything else was either minor issues or teething problems that every aircraft experiences. DOT&E are suppose to be extremely critical, their goal is to show the worse case scenario for every issue the jet has. Are you familiar with the issues the F-16 had at this stage?


Gilmore has been over critical, if anything. They've performed well in every exercise they've participated in so far.

>>33384064
>>33384224
Meanwhile 3i is what it raped face with at Red Flag 2017.

>>33384106
It's pretty obvious when you think about it. The f-35 needed some good press and so that even was set up just for that purpose.No plane can have a k:d ratio where the K is higher than the number of missiles the plane can carry. When a plane run out of missiles, it has no defense and it gets killed when running away.

Aside from that, no plane can have a k:d ratio where the K is higher than the number of missiles the plane can carry. When a plane run out of missiles, it has no defense and it gets killed when running away. The 200 to 1 ratio clearly has a few two many zeros in the number.

>>33384197
>limited weapons carrying ability isn't software related
>he doesn't know that the payload of the aircraft is currently very limited by Block 3i software and that Block 3F will expand it by a fuckton. (gives different munitions, future blocks will allow more munitions to be carried.)

lol


I'm glad we have you here to inform us of the truth, anon.

File: EjectionSeatTesting[1].jpg (125KB, 1199x709px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1199x709px

>>33384106
No, I can't. But you just know that it's true.

>>33384197
nice selective quoting
>If used in combat, the F-35 *****in the Block 3i configuration, which is equivalent in capabilities to Block 2B*****, will need support to locate and avoid modem threats, acquire targets, and engage formations of enemy fighter aircraft due to outstanding performance deficiencies and limited weapons carriage available (i.e., two bombs and two air-to-air missiles)."

>What does software have to do with having no payload and no performance?

Because the software controls the aircraft and what you can fit on it.

>no plane can have a k:d ratio where the K is higher than the number of missiles the plane can carry. When a plane run out of missiles, it has no defense and it gets killed when running away. The 200 to 1 ratio clearly has a few two many zeros in the number.

Wrong.

But I know you aren't serious at this point and just trolling for replies because you posted that image.

File: hngq1flbmceczncxaogm[1].jpg (44KB, 800x486px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 800x486px

>>33384281
The f-35 can only carry a limited amount of ordinance because the weapons bay to small for anything more. Software has nothing to do with it.

>>33384299
>nice selective quoting

It's called paraphrasing. I already established what I wanted you to see in the source.

>>33384262
>No plane can have a K:D higher than the number of missiles it can carry.

What?
>8 F-35's flying together.
>Each carrying 4 AMRAAMs
>They all shoot down 2 or three aircraft and only one F-35 gets shot down.

Are you actually retarded? I mean the example I gave isn't exactly what happened but it's pretty damn close. You understand that aircraft are capable of rearming right?

File: 1483758771960.jpg (106KB, 800x584px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 800x584px

>>33384282
>muh narrative
>muh feels
Get the fuck out of here.

File: SKSuldO.png (140KB, 1270x954px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1270x954px

>>33384304
>You can't expand internal carriage
Bottom right of my picture, future upgrades plan on doing exactly that my nigger.

>>33384304
>picture of 2 AIM-120 and 2 2000lb bombs
>this is just the internal carriage

>>33384317
>You understand that aircraft are capable of rearming right?

You know what I meant when I said those planes would be destroyed while trying to rearm. Also, a squad of fucking 8 f-35s flying together? Not going to happen. They will fly in squads of 3, most of the time. Often it will just be one lone f-35 doing a bombing run.

>>33384317
The anon doesn't seem to understand that is the score for the entire exercise.

And it is not even mentioning the SAM kills and comparisons for previous exercises.

>>33384314

No, you removed the part that didn't suit your argument. That's playing foul.

>>33379500
>It won't be cheap
>Priced in the same range as gen 4.5 air craft that it is competing in the market against
OK

>>33384373
>They'll be destroyed while trying to rearm
But they weren't. I was being arbitrary with the number of F-35s.

>squads of 3
well I'm done, you got me good. 8/10 I need to write this philosophy paper now.

File: 1438586718756.jpg (59KB, 1200x757px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1200x757px

>>33384304
>2 x 2000 lb class bombs internally mounted
>2 x AMRAAM
>limited

That alone is a hefty strike package for any legacy fighter if it had to haul it any appreciable distance. Are we forgetting external munitions capability? Or are we just going to meme on about stealth being an on/off switch and ignore the flexibility in loading externally on it?

>>33384373
That dunning kruger in full effect.

>>33384392
Anything to say about >>33384235

>>33384392
You are being disingenuous. I simply didn't want to type out all that shit because the article wouldn't let me copy and paste. The point being made was that the f-35's inadequacy against modern threats and for doing fighter jet duties was due to its low payload and low aerodynamic performance. Gilmore stated as such.

>>33384413
The tards don't even realize that this is basically the payload of the F-16 that the F-35 is meant to replace. An F-16 won't be able to carry more than that realistically because of having to carry drop tanks, and with those drop tanks it still has a shorter combat radius than an F-35 with all internal fuel.

File: 1440968856673.jpg (50KB, 636x477px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 636x477px

>>33384451

>>33384433

Yes, that even in a much weakened state it offered miles above what current gen platforms can.

>>33384433
He said it was rigged and that we just have to believe him.

File: 1456637714256.jpg (13KB, 500x426px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 500x426px

>>33384373
There is so much published USAF combat doctrine and philosophy available via google, and yet you manage to spew this shit.

>>33384447

Now that's being called a lying fuck. You took a quote and removed the content from it. You knew exactly what you were doing.

You cannot select quotes like that.

>>33384451
The f-35 won't be able to carry more than it either without compromising stealth. We know that the f-35 doesn't have good odds against other planes when it loses that advantage, as seen in every war game where it is fitted with a radar beacon. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the f-35 is always going to be in a a stealth configuration when it is expected to be used for contesting air dominance.

>>33384567
>stealth is a on/off state
Ah, every trick and meme on the F-35 bingo sheet is going to be filled out at this rate.

>>33384536
No, I was simply paraphrasing. I was saving time for both myself and others by only posting relevant information. The person who responded to me after I sourced clearly didn't read the thing at all and just assumed it was all up to software, when weapon loadout clearly was the reason for Gilmore saying the f-35 is unprepared for A2A. I had to quote it to show the uneducated person what he needed to see.

>>33384567
>compromising stealth
>as seen in every war game where it is fitted with a radar beacon
This is fun, it feels like I traveled back in time to 2014 when we had complete retards post in these threads much more often than we do now.

>>33378460
>FOBs are for fighting sandngiers. They are just big juicy defenseless targets for peer opposition.

Pray tell me what would really be different in a conventional war?

FOBs are juicy targets, but I would not go as far to say they are defenseless. I'd say they provide vulnerabilities, but that could be said for any logistical base, fire base, and even infantry COPs.

I won't speak on the F35, as I have no experience in aviation.

>>33384599
We literally know that when the stealth is gone (and it is when you put those shiny, reflective sidewinders under the wings), the f-35 is no better than any f-16.

File: cce7d591.jpg (148KB, 555x381px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 555x381px

>>33384607
>still won't admit that interior carriage space can be improved. See >>33384350

You paraphrased it and left out the most critical parts.

File: F-35 High Alpha.webm (693KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

693KB, 1280x720px

>>33384567
>stealth is binary
>it only has its stealth to rely on
>only good for deep interdiction
Like fucking clockwork. First off, Raptors are meant to be the real hunter killers in an air battle, Lightnings are there as some kind of QRF or defensive counter air threat. Secondly, you assume that there will not be opportunities for slick and loaded fighters to work together to haul large strike packages deep into enemy territory, or act as if the intense EW environment of modern air war suddenly disappeared.

>stealth is its only advantage
>flies like a turkey
Pic fucking related. under equal loads, the Lightning has better acceleration and alpha than a Viper, these things matter more so now than ever before in a WVR fight.

The true question is where are the navy's F-22?

>>33384620
Conventional war is over, anyway. Rule one of combat (there's like 500 "rule 1s" but whatever) is that you never pick a fight with something equal or better at fighting than you. Always pick fights in which you have every advantage if you want to win. China, USA and Russia can never fight each other because they are all equal when you consider home advantages.

>>33377994
>this thread again
just kill yourself already, for the sake of this board

>>33384652
>That inverted AoA of like 50 degrees
nutty

>>33384642
The image you quoted shows new weapons that will be developed for the f-35 software to use. It says nothing at all about weapon bays being enlarged.

>>33384673
>USA RUS CHIN are all equal
>USA wouldn't curbstomp the shit out of either countries
>USA doesn't have bases all along both of those countries

You're definitely Australian m8.

>>33384652
I never said it was binary, I said it was lost when you use external weapons.

>Raptors are meant to be the real hunter killers

Then every country without raptors has every logical right to cancel their orders. Nice webm of the f-35 stalling and putting itself in "please shove a missile up my tailpipe" positions, by the way.

>>33384652
Right now it seems that a clean F-16 can annihilate a clean F-35 in a 1vs1 dogfight and even with both carrying air to air missiles. The difference is the amount of situational awareness going into a 2v1 (F-35s killing off someone in the formation BVR) or even 2v2+ (straight up ACM.) An F-35 is going to be able to see everyone going into the merge, even without fighter to fighter datalink, due to DAS and how good the helmet mounted display is. There aren't any real 1v1 in actual combat so the better a formation can work together to see and ID everyone in a furball, the better.

>>33384697
The bays do not have to be enlarged to hold 6 AIM-120 internally.

>>33384697
>6 AMRAAMs
>Expanded Internal AA Carriage
>Gaining the ability to carry a fuckton of SDBs when the original complaint was that it could only carry "two bombs and two missiles"
That's an increase in capacity you fruit.

>>33384628
?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1-FpH4l2ys

Good thing it'll see those other planes over 100 miles away.

>radar beacon
You mean a Luneburg lens? It's used because it's too stealthy in war games, even in short range ones.

>>33384373
You know what a 4 ship package is right?

>>33384628
sidewinders are carried internally

>>33384756
Sidewinders aren't carried internally; they could be, and the ASRAAM was going to be until the UK flip-flopped between the B and C, delaying integration of a trapeze launcher.

Sidewinders have a tiny RCS however, and the F-35's wingtip pylons are specifically designed to have a reduced RCS.

Otherwise you're right about everything else; an F-35 will rarely fly alone.

>>33384469
How 4x2000 pounders, 2x500 and 4xAIM120 make 18000lb? It is 10200 lb.

>>33384720
In the case of fighting China while close to it (eg, south china sea), which is literally on the other side of the world from America, the US military has a disadvantage. I don't even know how to say that in a shitposty way. I mean it's just a fact. The supply lines are huge for America and China has the home advantage of being able to get bodies and shit from its factories into the theater faster.

File: F35+payload+data+2012[1].jpg (109KB, 1097x781px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1097x781px

>>33384783
It can carry more than is shown in that photo.

>>33384796
They'll have *a* disadvantage, but China will also have the disadvantage of being outnumbered in 5th gens, major naval assets, etc.

>>33384782
How could Sidewinders be carried internally, trapeze? Are there any illustrations on what this would look like?

>>33384782
Hey Dragon,
are they going to give them the ability to carry them internally?

File: InternalStores[1].jpg (17KB, 303x340px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 303x340px

>>33384864
Here's a pic from an official sim - basically the trapeze launcher kicks out the missile parallel to the door.

>>33384867
Probably not (external carriage isn't that big an issue to stealth if it's just wingtip ASRAAMs or AIM-9X - the F-35 might just go from having a frontal RCS of ~0.0001m^2 to ~0.01m^2 or whatever).

Things could change though, so who knows - they've at least done part of the work required already.

>>33384915
Do you have an HDD full of nothing but F-35 information or something? You pulled up that picture really fast.

>>33384796
Good thing the Chinese have no way of threatening the long supply lines because they have no ability to project their forces and a mostly littoral Navy.

Meanwhile the USN can sink any Chinese ship at their leisure and then sit back and starve China through blockade until they decide to surrender.

>>33384938
I have a fair bit of F-35 data on it, but that photo was just from Google Image Search - you just have to know what you're looking for.

File: F35.jpg (88KB, 1447x1085px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1447x1085px

What's the point of the F-35? Couldn't we have just made 3 purpose built aircraft instead?

But that's exactly what they did?

>>33384915

>external carriage isn't that big an issue to stealth if it's just wingtip ASRAAMs or AIM-9X - the F-35 might just go from having a frontal RCS of ~0.0001m^2 to ~0.01m^2 or whatever

Sir, we're being attacked by what appears to be a pair of sidewinder missiles carrying a foil-wrapped baked potato between them

>>33384947
Certainly not, but pulling off those sort of moves would be very risky. Every mile they come out to fight is one mile less they have in terms of coverage from shore based aircraft and missiles. Not to mention they would need to be really cautious, they only have 40 odd destroyers of various capability.

>>33382634
>I like you're reasoning on why nobody has changed.
Because it was great investment to rebuild carriers (with arresting gear) and supply Navies with new aircraft's when they already have working Harriers. And very soon after Soviets showed the new way USSR collapsed and any new military expenses became no-no.

>Why aren't they getting F-35Cs for the HMS QE if they work fine on them?
Brit are strange creatures and like obscure ways. Like outdated rifled tank guns with 2 piece ammunition or IFVs with not ATGM, manual crank vertical gun traverse and manual clips feed for auto-cannon in the year 1980, 5.56 bullpups weighting more than 7.62 battle rifles etc

>>33384824
>It can carry more than is shown in that photo.
What bomb does weight 5000lbs?
>inb4 two
Can it actual carry 2x2000 pounders on single station?

>>33385045
A full 600 gallon drop tank is something like 4000lb in fuel alone.

>>33379500
Cheaper per unit than a Typhoon or Rafal, cunt.

File: f-35_VRC-droptest[1].jpg (273KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1600x1067px

>>33385045
>What bomb does weight 5000lbs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28
The F-35 isn't cleared to use it though and the GBU-28 is to be replaced with the next-gen 2000lb HVPW (which uses a rocket to punch into the ground). Also fuel as >>33385128 mentions.

>Can it actual carry 2x2000 pounders on single station?
It hasn't been cleared for twin-ejector racks, but they do fit and the jet can handle the weight (see pic). It's just a matter of having the time and resources to do the integration testing / stores separation certification.

Once Universal Armament Interface is introduced in the 2020s, weapons integration should speed up.

File: 12341234.jpg (22KB, 648x348px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 648x348px

>>33385128
>ordnance

Dragon, what do you think of the plan to start training lolis as F-35 pilots?

File: f-35-eots.jpg (276KB, 2078x1080px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 2078x1080px

>>33385144
>5000lb GBU from an F-15E
Jesus fucking Christ that's awesome.

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

44KB, 1024x683px

>>33377994
BeEcause the F35 was designed to complement the f22.

When paired together, they are everything you want for modern combat.

If you think the F35 costed a lot, imagine how much 3 different jets would have ended up being.

File: 14199946915061.jpg (397KB, 2197x1465px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 2197x1465px

>>33385001
>Brit are strange creatures and like obscure ways. Like outdated rifled tank guns with 2 piece ammunition or IFVs with not ATGM, manual crank vertical gun traverse and manual clips feed for auto-cannon in the year 1980, 5.56 bullpups weighting more than 7.62 battle rifles etc

>>33385142
Cost per flight hour:

>Eurofighter Typhoon - $14,000 USD
>Rafale - $16,000 USD
>F-35 - $30000 USD

All you lemon lovers have actually convinced yourselves that a new plane is cheaper than an old plane. It's amazing. Please note that the f-35 also requires 50 hours of maintenance for every flight, more than any other plane.

Say it with me now. LEMON.

>>33386215
>50hr maintenance per flight hour
Wut

>$30k per flight hour
Yep, costs similar to the F-15C and outperforms every single aircraft you listed. Every new generation of aircraft has been more expensive since the beginning of aviation. It's nothing new.

>>33386294
>Wut

Read it again, because you have no reading comprehension. Seriously dude, just read things word for word instead of changing the words in your head. You'll be understanding things at a 6th grade level in no time.

>>33386464
Yeah my bad, point still stands though. When has a successive aircraft generation ever been cheaper?

What were you expecting?


The maintenance issue is mainly due to the aircraft still being in flight testing, it'll be much better when the jet hits FOC. Not a single Red Flag 17-1 F-35 sortie was cancelled due to issues with maintenance or readiness.

>>33386294
The f-15c has no replacement as an interceptor. The f-35 is replacing the f-16, though. The f-16 costs $7000 per flight hour, which is only a couple thousand higher than a decent drone.

Truly, the f-16 was one of the greatest work horses of our time.

>>33386586
I'm simply hoping the person who said the f-35 was cheaper than the rafale and typhoon to realise he made a mistake.

>>33386617
>F-15C is an interceptor
>F-16 costs $7000 per flight hour
I still can't tell if you're a troll or just retarded.


The F-15C's replacement is the F-22, the F-16's replacement is the F-35. Let's compare the increase in cost per flight hour:

>F-15C - $42,000
>F-22 - $68,000
>rough increase of 50%

>F-16C - $21,000
>F-35A - $30,000
>rough increase of 50%

Great.

File: image[1].png (177KB, 1200x1563px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1200x1563px

>>33386713
Your numbers are not all using the same calculation methods and up to date sources. I could claim the f-35 to have a cost per flight hour of $64000 if I wanted to.

>>33386795
>>33386795
Why don't we just buy 9001 F22's and call it a fucking day? Seriously are they that bad they dont wanna get a bunch?

>>33386795
Asking before I google it: What is an E-4 Nightwatch and why does it cost so much?

>>33386829
It's air force one on steroids. It's what Trump flies in when the US goes to war and the president needs to be mobile.

>>33386829
Its a big guy that watches the sky

>>33386825
The F-22 is super expensive to make and the cost can't be mitigated like with the f-35 because there is a congressional law on exporting the f-22.

>>33386795
How so?
What are the up to date costs?

>>33386876
Why the hell cant we sell the f22? We're going to be selling the F35 to Israel who will undoubtly give it to china so what fucking difference does it make?

>>33386879
$7000 and $30000 for the f-16 (admittedly that is the low end of the estimates) and the f-35, which has come down to that lately because its supply chain got more efficient last year.

File: BEST[1].jpg (142KB, 1500x1005px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1500x1005px

>>33386895
China already has the f-35 data. What it really needs to steal is engine technology.

File: main-qimg-b3f0eeddcd44f99b5e1fa83b309cb19e-c.jpg (18KB, 320x127px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 320x127px

>>33386965
>You're using incorrect numbers!
>F-16 cost per flight hour is $7k!
lol no nigga.

Keep in mind the fact that the F-35 costs in this picture are higher because this is from FY15, they're down to $30k now. Where are you getting $7k from?

>>33384796

The US has Alaska in the north, Japan in the west, Australia to the south and New Zealand to the southwest. And both Hawaii and Midway in the center. Logistically speaking, America has the upper hand.

Meanwhile, China can't even mount a navy capable of invading Japan.

>>33378177
Honestly I look at this and think, well it looks like we could get two jets for the price of their one super jet. Maybe they told us we needed three to make a single superjet look more practical in comparison. We should have got two jets priced aggressively instead of one expensive one.

>>33387142
They don't really have NZ. The kiwis would let any ship with a nuclear reactor enter their ports.

>>33387332
*wouldn't

>>33387142
You fucking moron. Bases mean nothing next to having your whole country adjacent to a region.

File: F35-vs-F16-Support-Costs-Sourced.jpg (47KB, 576x426px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 576x426px

>>33386713
>>33386795
Using outdated cost per flight hour is a common tactic to try and make other aircraft look cheaper in comparison to the F-35.

>>33387006
China has some unclassified data about the airframe from a subcontractor that is around a decade old at this point.

>>33387609
That graph makes it look like the f-16 is about to level out its costs.

>>33387734
No it doesn't.

If the F-35 can only carry 4 missiles.. why the FUCK don't we have tiny drones that carry 4 amraams instead for a fraction of the cost??

>>33387843
really made me think

>>33384262
>When a plane run out of missiles, it has no defense and it gets killed when running away.

holy kek

>what is stealth
>what is BVR

this anon is retarded

>F-35 sees enemy aircraft but enemy doesn't see F-35
>F-35 fires all its missiles and goes back to base
>enemy aircraft still can't detect F-35 (maybe an idea of where it is from IR) but have to deal with incoming missiles

>>33387843
4 missiles internally; 14 internal and external. A drone would almost certainly have a lower operating cost, but there's no reason it'd be tiny or be a fraction of the acquisition cost. Then there's also the host of issues regarding ROE and comms.

>>33387734
It also looked like it was going to level out in 2001, 2006 and 2009 - there's zero reason the cost would level out now.

>>33387609
>>33386795
>>33386713
Here's the most up-to-date cost estimate for the F-35A's cost per flight hour at maturity: https://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf#page=91
F-16C/D = $25,541 per hour
F-35A = $29,806 per hour

Also note that different services, militaries and companies measure cost-per-flight hour differently. SAAB would tell you that a Gripen costs something like $4,000 per hour, but when you find apples-to-apples comparisons to other platforms, you find that they put an F-16C at $7,000 per hour (eg: http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes) Scale those two together and you have a Gripen costing $18k/hr by USAF standards.

>>33386895
F-22's software isn't secured / designed for export, the F-35's is.

>>33386644
How is an F-35A more expensive than a Rafale or Typhoon? Again, unless you honestly believe that an F-16C costs nearly 2x that of a Typhoon to operate, those CPFH figures mentioned earlier are apples to oranges.

>>33384730
Holy fuck anon, do you not understand anything about how planes fly?

>>33384740
Except a clean F-16 doesn't exist in combat, nor would it be able to detect an F-35 well enough to close the WVR unless the F-35 wanted it.

>>33377994
Man, these F35 threds aren't even entertaining anymore. We have Sprayfags, Wheelerfags and Koppfags on one side and Fail-35 fags on the other.

One is quoting outdated views of old timers stuck in the past the other is quouting doctored up statistics published by LM.

Come up with something new, plz.

>>33384972

I don't understand why the F35A cant have the C model's wingspan, it would lessen the wing loading which is always good.

>>33384730

>Then every country without raptors has every logical right to cancel their orders.

Are....are you really this retarded?

We've already established that the F-35 is a superior multirole aircraft to the F-16 and F/A-18. Did you know that the vast majority of export customers for those two legacy aircraft don't have a separate air superiority fighter? Should those F-16 and F/A-18 customers have never bought those aircraft?

File: Carrier replenishment.jpg (3MB, 3881x2587px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3881x2587px

>>33381078
>>33380922
You can perform STOBAR launches with high payload, but it requires much more deck space than a catapult. Overall, CATOBAR carriers offer significantly greater sortie rates because there's more space to spot aircraft on deck for each cycle (both during launch AND recovery, since you can't park aircraft on the bow ramp during recovery).

>>33388860
in an emergency, how long would it take to scramble and launch all those jets from that clusterfuck?

File: 1448362134925.jpg (46KB, 640x347px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 640x347px

>>33380498
Fuck off cunt...
...oh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Down_Syndrome_Day

>>33388887
>>33388887
ALL of them? Over an hour. You'd have to break it up into two events.
Depending on how much fueling and arming there is to be done, you could probably have SOME jets airborne within half an hour though.

>>33388395
Cost, structural loading. The F-35A meets requirements with the current wing, and, while the F-35C's larger wing isn't the only contributor to its significantly higher cost, it is a factor.

>>33377994
>Couldn't we have just made 3 purpose built aircraft instead? Would've probably been cheaper.
This is wrong, and why the F-35 exists

>>33386617
>The f-15c has no replacement as an interceptor
I didn't know the F-22 was THIS stealthy.

>>33386895
>Give things to israel who gives it to chang
For real?

>>33389707
A larger wing would also lead to bleeding more energy during turns due to the increase in induced drag.

>>33389926
>due to the increase in induced drag
No. Induced drag is a function of lift coefficient and aspect ratio. Even if the wing was just scaled up with no change to aspect ratio (it's not), you'd get a lower lift coefficient from the larger wing, producing a lower induced drag coefficient.

>>33389970
Yeah you're right, for some reason I thought that the C had a much lower aspect ratio than the A, it's actually the opposite.

>>33382526
>Buddy Fueling
>Growlers

>>33383315
>It's the B that has been holding the others back. Both in terms of design compromises and overall delays.
Still parroting this? With the X-35 they literally just took an A model and rebuilt it with a lift system. It compromises nothing in the A and C.

>>33384079
>Actual details show that Red Flag had to be rigged against the F-35 extensively just to give the pilots any sense of a challenge

>>33384064
>outstanding performance deficiencies
You realize that means problems that require fixes, not "hurr bad fureber!", right?

>>33384197
>similar payload to an F-16's max on just internal
>Only beaten by F-15E in permissible airspace loads
Sod off, ya fookin' wanker!

>>33384262
>It's pretty obvious when you think about it. The f-35 needed some good press and so that even was set up just for that purpose.
t. Retard

>>33384607
>when weapon loadout clearly was the reason for Gilmore saying the f-35 is unprepared for A2A.
Gilmore's entire job description is to nitpick and make doom and gloom predictions. Just because test result 2016-106-B says X is true now doesn't mean it can't be fixed you fucking idiot.

>>33384742
I think the main problem right now is fitting a proper trapeze into the bay that allows clean release for both missiles.

File: 1464043864945[1].jpg (111KB, 710x476px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 710x476px

>>33384824

>>33386215
>Fighter still not in FOC, still undergoing LRIP testing and iterative adjustment, and getting swarmed by contractors

Man. There's a lot of autism in this thread. At least I got some good F-35 pictures out of it.

File: 1483542583568.png (341KB, 800x430px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 800x430px

>>33389796
Yes. The Jews will do anything for money.
>>33387376
>Having well established, large bases in allied nations next door to an adversary means nothing

File: f352.jpg (81KB, 1200x875px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1200x875px

>>33378177

I'm pretty sure the 70-90% of commonality between the three air frames has recently been down graded to 40-50%. Don't have a source on hand, but I read that about a month ago. Still, the F-35 is inevitably cheaper than three autonomous 5th gen procurement programs.

>>33391190
Roughly 1/3rd is exact commonality components, another third are "sister" parts that are similar enough to roll off the same production lines.

>>33384197
Do you also think the F-16 doesn't have enough payload?

>>33384262
Lol stop basing your knowledge on video games.

>4 F-35s take off w/ 4 missiles each
>Kill 12 enemies (assume some missiles miss)
>No F-35 losses
>Return to base to rearm/refuel
>12:0 Kill Ratio

>Do this for several days, end up with 200:1 kill ratio

>Implying a fighter just dies as soon as it runs out of missiles

>>33384567
>Implying slightly bigger RCS from an external missile is the same as a freaking literal radar BEACON

>>33390311
You're so full of it. The B is why the planes are slow and can't manoeuvre well. Every delay (and there has been 8 years of delays) is because the f-35 wanted to spend 15 years in collage, "finding itself".

>>33389733
The f-22 is slow as a turtle because its S ducts inhibit the engines.

>>33390311
This. Only reason the B even exists is because they found a way to make it with the 3 bearing swivel and lift fan without fucking up the design.

>>33391698
>Implying external missiles don't significantly raise RCS

>>33391837
Didn't imply that. Nice try.

>>33391853
>Implying you didn't imply that

>>33392006
Not implying. Explicitly saying.

>>33392082
Well you're wrong anyway.

>>33391715
>I have no clue about these things, but that Pierre Sprey sure is confident!

>>33391715
Surely you have some evidence to back up your claim.

>>33391742
>The F-22 is slow

File: f35b[1].jpg (1MB, 4560x3141px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4560x3141px

>>33391835
Well, that and the 3-swivel design fits in a normal engine bay space with a split-hatch underneath to clear the rotation, and the lift fan only displaces a fuel tank.

>>33389970
Drag coefficient =/= net drag force however. Besides though, the extra wingspan limits the jet's max G rating, increases empty weight by thousands of pounds and considerably increases transonic / supersonic drag.

>>33392542
And the extra wingspan is mainly there for low-speed lift for CATOBAR. Air Force planes don't exactly need that.

>>33378254
Sensor fusion

>>33379282
It might could, with a reduced payload.

Then, how would it land?

>>33389970
>No. Induced drag is a function of lift coefficient and aspect ratio.
Or, more relevantly, a function of lift and span. Changing chord length alone (which changes aspect ratio) will have no net impact on induced drag.
>>33392542
>Besides though, the extra wingspan limits the jet's max G rating
Very true.

>>33384304
>What is SDB-2, the post

>>33392202
The F-35B was given a redesigned fuel tank ullage inerting system for the fuel systems simulator. This is the part of the plane that prevents explosive interactions of oxygen and gasses in the aircraft’s fuel tanks and intake. Tests showed that the redesigned system had problems in integration that would require further hardware and software modifications.

The F-35B did not maintain “residual inerting after flight for the required interval of 12 hours, which is a lightning protection requirement.” The plane would be vulnerable to lightning strike if it were forced to fly twice in a 12-hour span, unless the fuel tanks were frequently purged with external nitrogen. That’s an unacceptable additional layer of maintenance. If a solution is not found, F-35Bs will require the development of alternate lightning protection methods.

The F-35B was in danger of missing performance requirements in 2004 because it weighed too much; reportedly by 1000kg, or 8%. In response, LockMart added engine thrust and thinned airframe members; reduced the size of the common weapons bay and vertical stabilizers; re-routed some thrust from the roll-post outlets to the main nozzle; and redesigned the wing-mate joint, parts of the electrical system, and the portion of the aircraft behind the cockpit. Many of the changes were applied to all three variants to maintain high levels of commonality. By Sep 2004, the weight reduction effort had reduced the aircraft's design weight by 1200kg, but the redesign cost $6.2 billion and delayed the project by 18 months.

In Jan 2011, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the 2012 budget would call for a two-year pause in F-35B production during which the aircraft faced redesign, or cancellation if unsuccessful. In 2011, Lockheed Martin executive vice president Tom Burbage and former Pentagon director of operational testing Tom Christie stated that most program delays were due to the F-35B, which forced massive redesigns of other versions.

>>33393187
>Very true.

You mean untrue, dumbass. The f-35c has a higher sustained G turn rate than the A and B.

>>33392224
Slow as fuck.

>>33377994

If you have 3 purpose built aircraft, you lack the situational preparedness that you get from having a multirole fighter in theatre. All your planes can engage any given threat.

>>33393380
>news articles from 2004 and 2011
All that shit you copy and pasted doesn't say a single thing about the F-35B negatively effecting the performance of the F-35A or F-35C like you claimed.

>but muh delays
That's not what you originally complained about, fuckstick

>>33393252
>The F-35 can actually hold over a million pieces of ordinance, as long as they're microbial in size

His point was that in terms of volume, its small. Any argument that the SDB would be sufficient doesn't really combat that.

>>33388264
Dragon, are you following the story about the prototype solid rocket ramjet motor?

>>33393589
>Long-range glide bombs that can knock down doors
You're seriously reaching here if you think the SDB series isn't a critical development. 2k bombs are neat "clobber the fuck out of them" weapons, but exacting precision and limited collateral are what we can do now.

Also, F-117s could only carry a pair of 2Ks and had no A2A weaponry or sensors.

>>33393668
Whats the lethal / danger range of an SDB II?

>>33393541
>news articles from 2004 and 2011 that cite the delays that were being caused by the F-35b in 2004 and 2011

Yes, and? This meme behavour is what I have come to expect from 4chan. You have no idea why the f-35 is bad because you have been memed into thinking it. A simple look at facts should cure you, but you've also been memed into thinking the date of articles can be used to dismiss things that they logically cannot dismiss. I am surrounded by simple minded fools. It's an empirical miracle that I'm smart enough to realise it.

>>33393589
Internally. Externally, it's much larger than everything fighter sized that isn't an F-15E.

>>33393747
Under the assumption that he or I meant that it was small compared to other aircraft

Obviously some internal carriage is better than none, but its small in a vacuum.

I'd also love to know if there are any figures on how detectable those VLO carriage pods that were shown off on the F-15SE are.

>>33393729
You claimed that the F-35B negatively impacted the speed and maneuverability of the F-35A and F-35C in this post>>33391715


How the fuck does a single thing said in >>33393380 back up that claim?


The plane had some big issues from the 2000's to the early 2010's but it's already shaping up to be a great replacement for our legacy aircraft. Quit crying over spilled milk, the planes fine now.

>>33393447

>>If you have 3 purpose built aircraft, you lack the situational preparedness that you get from having a multirole fighter in theatre. All your planes can engage any given threat.

Sure, but multirole aircraft have proven themselves repeatedly to not excel at any given task when compared to role-specific aircraft such as dedicated interceptors and ground attack craft - focusing on a single set of requirements allows for more flexibility during the design phase.

Conversely, one can argue that a MRCA's average effectiveness in a variety of mission scenarios would counteract a SRCA's superior perfomance in a singluar role, because a MRCA would never be grossly incapable of performing a certain mission task.

The biggest advantage I see with F35's is the VSTOL/VTOL capability. Reducing a carrier combat group's vulnerability by decentralizing its air units and counteracting the carrier's innate vulnerabilities, or extending an air unit's combat effectiveness by allowing it to literally ambush ground forces or other aircraft is a great thing.

>>33393696
-I is publicly rated as 65+ NMI, -II for 45+.

-I is GPS-guided with a CEP of ~10m, with Air Burst, Impact, and Bunker Buster fusing.

-II is a ground-scanning anti-vehicle weapon intended for moving targets with a two-way datalink. One method of use is dropping several at once and they can ID optimum targets and hit the highest value ones.

>>33393821
>Sure, but multirole aircraft have proven themselves repeatedly to not excel at any given task when compared to role-specific aircraft such as dedicated interceptors and ground attack craft - focusing on a single set of requirements allows for more flexibility during the design phase.
Uh, no, that's not true at all. In fact, one of the findings of the Air Force has been that Fighter Pilots tend to be the best Air to Ground operators because they have a far better level of experience in handling their craft.

>>33393843
Congratulations for writing three lines, none of which actually answer the one thing that was asked

>>33393873
The fuck are you on about?

>>33393811
>F-35B negatively impacted the speed and maneuverability of the F-35A and F-35C

It did. I don't have to prove this. My claim was that the f-35b is the reason the whole development program was a cluster fuck.

>>33393902
What are you on about?

Someone asked how big of an explosion it produces and you tell them that its got an anti-convoy feature like a bad used car salesman

>>33393910
>I don't have to back up my claims
>i choose not to, even though I just backed up a different one of my claims.

Or maybe you're just fucking retarded and know you can't back up your claim because it's bullshit. The F-35A is not any more "slow and poorly maneuverable" due to it's naval brethren any more than the A-7D was slower and less maneuverable due to its naval counterparts.

It's a stupid fucking argument to make

>>33393902
I think what he wanted to know was the kill radius of the explosives, but he didn't know the right words to use and doesn't understand that he used the wrong words.

>>33393985
Yes clearly "lethal range" means how far you can fling it

>>33393982
It is, though. The f-35b made the air frame big and chunky, increasing its cross section and decreasing the maneuverability of the other variants.

>>33393985
I've found mentions that the SDB-I has a 26' blast radius, but the exact numbers are going to be very hard to come by.

The -I has a 206lb warhead, the -II 105, but it's still 5.67x the warhead weight of a Javelin, which wrecks tanks already, and the -II's primary purpose is anti-vehicle.

>>33394003
>Implying the S-ducted engine and internal carriage requirements weren't what did that
>Implying the F-35 is chunky compared to the anorexic F-16 that has to haul a ton of equipment and fuel externally to still not match the F-35 on all-internal

File: F-16 flight envelope sustained and transient.jpg (51KB, 866x386px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 866x386px

>>33393391
Sustained G isn't the same thing as max G. Max G is purely a function of wing strength and aircraft weight. How hard you can pull without bending the wings. The A variant is stressed for 9 Gs, B and C are stressed for only 7.5 Gs.

Sustained G is something else entirely. An instantaneous max-G pull will produce lots of induced drag and bleed off airspeed, even at full thrust in most cases. As the aircraft bleeds airspeed it's unable to produce as much lift, and the G loading declines (as does induced drag). Eventually you reach a point where thrust balances total drag. The amount of G you're pulling at this point is the max sustained G for that altitude.

>>33393843
>-II is a ground-scanning anti-vehicle weapon intended for moving targets with a two-way datalink.
Sounds expensive

>>33394003

The main reason the F-35 looks so chunky compared to other 5th gen aircraft is because it is so small (length and wingspan). The; F-22A, PAK-FA, and J-20 are all far bigger aircraft overall, so even though they are taller, they look flatter.

You can't easily fit; large internal weapon bays, low radar reflecting air intakes, and a large internal fuel capacity on a flat aircraft with a large single engine. The lift fan barely even enters into it.

>>33394368
More than 3x as much as the $40k SDB-I.

>>33393380
And how do fuel tank and weight issues with the F-35B impact performance and agility like you claimed?

The -A and -C are still rated to +9Gs. If anything, those weight savings applied to all models mean that the F-35B was a net positive on the performance of the other variants.

>>33388395
>it would lessen the wing loading which is always good.
It's not always good. More wing area means more parasite drag, which can cost you quite a bit of range at low altitudes.

Remember, the F-35 is a VLO strike aircraft first and foremost. The ability to penetrate deep into hostile airspace at medium to low altitude is central to the mission the F-35 was designed for.

>>33394544
Why the fuck wouldn't they just develop a laser-guided variant instead? It'd probably be even cheaper than the GPS variant and would have the ability to hit moving targets when dropped from an F-35.

File: 1490191692755.jpg (15KB, 525x390px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 525x390px

>>33393910
>I don't have to prove this
You sure as shit do have to prove this. The "F-35B ruined the plane" meme is thrown around all the time by faggots like you without any evidence that actually supports their argument beyond "common sense."

So let's do this again - what about the F-35B negatively impacted the performance of the other two variants?

>>33394602
It reduced the size of the common weapons bay across all variants to get itself underweight.

>>33394585
The f-35 can't actually track moving targets with laser guiding. It's software doesn't allow for target leading.

>>33391715
>collage
College might have done YOU some good, anon.

>>33394683
Oh, just plain making shit up now, I see.

Guess it's better than the other tired old arguments.

>>33394691
Yet. And the pilot can do it manually.

>>33377994
Government contracts are a bitch. Lockheed could shit on a paper airplane and our government leaders would praise it.

>>33393589
And my point is that the size limitation isn't much of a limitation when we develop smaller weapons that can achieve similar effects, in effect replacing HE mass and volume with improved guidance and fusing to put fragments or blast effects in the places we want them (targets), rather than places where they do little good (surrounding sky and terrain against an armored point target, straight into the ground against an area target, plus needing exponentially more HE per CEP increase).

>>33394719
Actually I said this in my original post. You must have missed it because you didn't read it and therefore were wrong about everything else you said. Stop clinging to it in some inane attempt to shift the goal posts. The fact of the matter is that the B is the problem with the program. Without the B, the program would have been on schedule, cheap and effective. The B is why the f-35 is such a useless lemon.

>>33393696
That's problematic; it depends on the target and the fuse setting, and I don't think they've been very forthcoming about it.

For example, an AP-optimized airburst might have a lethal/dange radius of 150'/300', but a short-delay impact setting might be more like 25'/50', with a lot of the fragments and blast effects "wasted" into the ground (which can be a *good* thing at times, such as when friendlies or civilians are close).

>>33394735
Nope, it's not a feature that the f-35 will ever have. Calibrating the targeting laser to lead moving targets is not a feature of any future software block upgrades.

>>33394691
>The f-35 can't actually track moving targets with laser guiding.
You're telling me there's NO WAY to slave EOTS to the radar's MTI?

>>33394811
Only the F-35B has a smaller payload, it can't carry 2k lb bombs like the A and C. It can still carry more AtG munitions than any other stealth fighter.

>>33394876
Not him but the issue isn't with tracking, it's with the laser not leading the target I believe.

File: 1024px-US_Air_Force_B-2_Spirit[1].jpg (111KB, 1024x629px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1024x629px

>>33394886
Except for the B-2, which can carry 8 conventional 230kg jdams.

>>33394942
remind my again how many fighter designations start with a B ?
It's alos a lot more than 8

>>33394585
Because then you need somebody with direct line of sight on the target.

>>33394585
At least look it up on Wikipedia first.

SDB-2 has 5-mode guidance.

1) INS/GPS (-1 has this)
2) datalink (which I believe operates by adjusting the aim point used by the INS/GPS, rather than by issuing direct steering commands)
3) SALH (semi-active laser homing, e.g., Paveway)
4) MMW (millimeter-wave active radar, e.g., Longbow)
5 IIR (imaging infrared, e.g., Javelin--it locks onto a blob of pixels, not the 1950s-style "hottest spot in view")

Combined, these 5 modes cover just about every possible engagement scenario that you could come up with, from man-in-the-loop, to attacking fixed coordinates, to fully autonomous "fly over to these coordinates and hunt for things that look like AFVs", as well as fully-passive options (IIR).

Oh, and weapon INS these days is good enough to get it close enough to detect targets autonomously even if GPS is down.

Until we have a pressing need for passive sonar as a bomb sensor, I'd say we're covered; it's just a matter of incremental improvements to each sensor, as well as to the bomb's logic (particularly targeting and fusing).

>>33394942
>fighter
ok

>>33394978
Meant to say 80.

>>33394898
This. Once a vehicle exceeds a certain speed, you have to "lead" it with the laser.

So, you're not targeting the vehicle anymore, you're targeting a patch of ground X' in front of it, based on what your on-board computer determines its ground speed and direction to be.

It's pretty much just a software thing, therefore, and if it became an important issue, it would get scheduled for coding sooner. In the meantime, autonomous seekers (e.g., SDB-2, Brimstone) can hit fast-moving ground targets. I'm not sure about GPS+datalink munitions; I haven't heard how readily they could be "steered", but you'd have the same problem that the guiding aircraft would have to be able to calculate the target's ground speed and direction.

>>33394898
>>33394876
>>33394691
>>33394847
The F-35 and the laser in the EOTS can and does track moving targets; what it lacks (because it wasn't a requirement and nobody thought to change that in the past decade) is lead computing, where it works out the speed of the target and aims the laser in front of the vehicle to compensate for bombs like the GBU-12 being fairly dumb and not very agile.

Today, a pilot can manually adjust the laser aimpoint so that it shines in front of the target (the 2016 F-35 DOT&E report states so), but the pilot has to do this based on their experience and training alone - if a fresh B-course F-35 pilot jumps in the cockpit and has to do this, chances are they're going to over- or underestimate the lead distance.

To solve this issue, the USAF has put out an RFI for a company to integrate (for Block 3F) a bomb that has lead laser functionality built in (ie, the bomb will see the laser on the target, and automatically aim in front of the laser). The bomb has to be integrated without any meaningful impact on the Block 3F schedule however.

Fortunately there's a few bombs that meet the spec - the front-runner appears to be Raytheon's GBU-49, which is just the modernised / not-archaic version of the GBU-12. Lockheed's DMLGB (which they've recently rebranded to be called the "Paragon" bomb) and even things like the Laser SDB (GBU-39/B or GBU-39A/B; I forget which) all have the functionality.

>>33393696
>>33394028
>>33394840
For what it's worth, here's an official list of danger-close distances (where the PI or probability of incapacitation is 0.1%): https://info.publicintelligence.net/MTTP-JFIRE.pdf#page=120

For the GBU-39 it's 135m/443' (contact fuse), 160m/525' with a 7' (above the ground) airburst fuse or 180m/591' with a 14' airburst fuse.

A GAU-8 / GAU-12 is 65 / 55m, but if you accept a 10% PI risk, the GBU-39 (contact) can be used 35m from friendlies, while the GAU-8 / GAU-12 stay at 40 / 30m respectively.

>>33395109
> and if it became an important issue, it would get scheduled for coding sooner.

As someone who does similar stuff. It's probably already sitting on somebody's computer somewhere. It just didn't make it to the 1.xxx-B release.

>>33394683
The B variant had no impact on the weapon bays of the A or C variants.

>>33394585
The GBU-39 does have a laser variant, it's just not as popular, plus the GBU-53 will come down in price as production ramps up.

>>33394554
The A is rated to +9G, the C is rated to +7.5G.
>>33394343
B is rated for +7G.

>>33393632
Kinda; they've looked at a motor like the Meteor's for a notional AIM-120E years ago, as well as for other missile concepts, but I haven't heard about anything new.

>>33393380
The fuel tank inerting issues affected all 3 variants; the weight decrease did have changes applied to all 3 variants, but most of the ones you mention in that paragraph (weapons bay changes, vertical stabilisers, thinning of airframe members, redesigning the area behind the cockpit, wing-mate joints, etc) are F-35B-specific. The F-35B did indeed lead to program delays, but the program overall is 5-7 years (depending on the measurement point) behind the original schedule, not 18 months as attributed to the F-35B redesigns. Most of those delays are also associated with the avionics and software, which are independent of variant-specific issues.

>>33392095
Depends on what you consider a "significantly raise [in] RCS". Put a couple of Sidewinders or ASRAAMs on the wingtips of an F-35 and it'll still be stealthier than a clean Super Hornet and even likely stealthier than a PAK-FA.

>>33390287
MQ-25 is going to take over naval refueling (which takes up 25-30% of all carrier Super Hornet sorties); Growler could have been taken over by the F-35, but those in charge have chosen not too, probably to preserve the F-35's SDD schedule. I'm not sure how much longer the Growler will exist if the F-35 gets NGJ integration in the late 2020s, etc.

>>33395542
How do you know all this stuff? What do you do?

>>33395818
If I remember correctly he assembles/makes(not sure which, I think makes) engines for f-35

>>33395542
http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodlive.mil/2017/03/14/ramjet-new-threats-call-for-old-tech/

>>33378492
>Just look at Russians who use the Flanker and Fulcrum airframe for carrier operation.
Or how the PVO and the VVS operated service-specific Flanker variants instead of running entirely different airframes like they used to

(PVO and VSS have since merged)

File: tumblr_na8ltsAsQX1r6mcwfo1_1280[1].jpg (71KB, 550x420px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 550x420px

>>33396092
Unlikely that he does either, considering how he lives in Australia. Nothing he says is something that isn't publicly accessible knowledge. He's just well informed. Possibly too well informed. He might be working for a group with the motive of improving public perceptions of the f-35. So maybe he is employed by LM after all.

File: 13P00290_10.jpg (3MB, 2400x3000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2400x3000px

>>33395542
>I'm not sure how much longer the Growler will exist if the F-35 gets NGJ integration in the late 2020s, etc
>F-35's laden with NGJ pods and HARMs coming SOON
My dick is fucking diamonds.

>>33396551
He said it a while back that he was at some point associated with the mil, or is still in, probably as a maintainer. If the latter, it's not all that unlikely that he's just a turbo autist who likes to read up on new equipment, and keep up with it.

>>33377994
It can fly
Making an EndWar Computer system that can project the AO in real-time and be manipulated by a commander in a CIC ,produced from no more than a handful of overflying F-35's however, is not cheap

File: 7018677375_9887c56014_k.jpg (1MB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1365px

>>33396572
What a boring picture of the f-35.

>>33396092
Nah, that's an anon, not Dragon.

File: 1456430082045.webm (454KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1280x720px

>>33396833
>no cute flare hatch visible
I lost an awesome gif of an F-35B or C refueling at night, with the light on the probe looking cool.

>>33395109
>>33394898
>Leading the target with a guided bomb
Do you mean to tell me that an LGB can't do proportional navigation? Something they had on even the earliest, cheapest Sidewinders over half a century ago?

>>33398674
Most LGBs just look for an IR designator and try to track towards it, it's more of an issue with the designator not being able to provide proper lead for the target. Sidewinders are made to hit moving targets at all pretty much all times, it's a less critical ability for LGBs so it isn't always integrated. Pilots just have to calculate lead themselvesz

>>33398674
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-12_Paveway_II
>Paveway II laser-guided bombs use what is known as "bang bang" guidance. This means the bomb's fins deflect fully, rather than proportionally when it is attempting to guide to the laser spot. For example, if it sees the laser spot and determines that it should make a change it deflects its fins until it has over-corrected and then it deflects back the opposite direction, creating a sinusoidal type of flight path. This type of guidance may be less efficient at times.

>>33398799
Proportional controls and proportional navigation aren't the same thing. You can have proportional navigation with bang-bang controls... though I dunno if anyone's ever done it before.

Anyways, Paveway II isn't all LGBs, nor is it even all Paveways. Several LGBs (including LJDAM, which the Laser SDB's seeker is evidently based off of) are capable of tracking a moving dot and figuring out all the lead shit on their own. No need for the designator to pick a point ahead of the target like these other posters are suggesting - just keep the target itself painted and the bomb handles the rest.
>>33395306
>To solve this issue, the USAF has put out an RFI for a company to integrate (for Block 3F) a bomb that has lead laser functionality built in (ie, the bomb will see the laser on the target, and automatically aim in front of the laser).
Yeah, that's called proportional navigation and it's actually surprisingly simple. All it really requires is that the bomb steer to whatever course stops the absolute bearing to the target from drifting over time. This alone is enough to put it on a constant-bearing, decreasing-range collision course with the target.

>>33377994
Knowing the US government, all three of them would have been just as expensive as the F35.

>>33378177
Government powerpoint slides make me want to die.

>stovl means no brrrtt and no fatapult

why even live

>>33399652
>Hey Steve, this shitty powerpoint that Dave whipped up in 10 minutes needs a full security review and paperwork before we show it to the public. Mind taking care of that? Should only take 3 hours.

>>33399706
>this presentation on the new multi billion dollar fighter jet could use more shitty word art and poorly composited low res jpegs.
>Don't forget at least two pieces of clipart.

>>33395818
Ex-RAAF (won't go any more specific than that, it's a small world), currently back in academia; everything I talk about is public knowledge, I just keep tabs on things.

>>33396551
As for why, I found the jet to be interesting from a tech standpoint, I appreciate its combat / design philosophy and I found that a lot of people on the internet were genuinely interested / not just trolls, but who were sitting at the left side of the Dunning-Kruger effect graph, and actually changed their minds once you injected a bit of up-to-date information or (more importantly) a bit of context into arguments - your average civilian really does think (but might not admit) that (at least the aerial scenes of) Top Gun, etc is representative of actual air combat.

Basically I've been annoyed at how brass / Lockheed PR will either talk on their own level, speaking in nothing but buzzwords, or they'll go super simplistic and screw up the message. They'll talk about how z-axis sensor fusion and network centric warfare define 5th generation CONOPS, but they'll almost never talk about how 5% of pilots have made 95% of all air-to-air kills, or how 80-90% of aircrew never see an attack coming.

>>33397652
Yeah I have nothing to do with the F135 augmenter guy.

>>33397677
pic

>>33399652
It's because (at least in my experience) they're made on restricted / secure computers (just because that's what's at the office and it's easier than emailing sufficiently small files to yourself), which therefore generally have nothing more than an outdated copy of Office, Microsoft Paint and limited access to Google Image Search (relying primarily on media on the intranet). That's still no excuse for how noisy some of them are though.

>>33394602
It widens the cross-section of the plane thus compromising aerodynamics (bye-bye area-rule).

Also, in order to take-off vertically, the wings must be small, thus reducing agility. This is the reason why an F16 beats the crap out of an F35 in a visual dogfight (which is a quite common occurence given ROE, etc).

>>33401545
>I don't know about lifting bodies and complex aerodynamic surfaces
>I think the shape is because of the STOVL system and not the stealth and internal carriage requirements
>I don't know the B is a modified A with mostly just fuel space displaces
>I actually believe the myth that the F-35 lost a "dogfight test"

File: 1392364135440.jpg (40KB, 275x275px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 275x275px

>>33401545
>It widens the cross-section of the plane
Does the fan? Or is it the fact that the plane has to accommodate S-ducts, internal weapons bays, and large internal fuel tanks on a comparatively small platform? All the changes to the frontal profile made by the fan on the -B variant aren't carried over to the other two variants. And even if area ruling was a huge issue with the F-35 (it's not - it's got more than enough thrust to break the sound barrier), the space the occupies would be untouched by changes to reduce wave drag.

>in order to take-off vertically, the wings must be small
Says who? The only limitation for VTOL jets is weight, not wing loading. And the wing loading numbers on the F-35 are deceptive, because those numbers never take into account lift produced by the body of the aircraft.

>The F-16 meme again
The incident you're referencing was not a "dogfight test" but an F-16 flying as a chase plane for an F-35 when they were working on control laws. There was no such flyoff like you're claiming, and all the complaints from that test were about the overly conservative control laws on the F-35's flight control system.

And no, visual dogfights are not a common occurrence, at least not in the manner that you're thinking. Since all-aspect missiles became a thing in the '70s, WVR combat has typically consisted of a single head-on pass by both aircraft in which missiles are fired before both sides egress. With the current generation of missiles with high off-boresight capabilities, WVR agility is almost useless. That's not to say that the F-35 isn't agile, though. Pilots are saying that while it lacks the particular type sustained turn rate clean F-16s are famous for, it's got the instantaneous turn rate of the F-18 (meaning the pilots can easily point the nose where they want), and, more importantly, it's significantly more agile than the F-16 with an actual combat load.

>>33400900
>5% of pilots have made 95% of all air-to-air kills
This really has more to do with the fact that air superiority is an increasingly diminutive role with ever fewer engagements and ever fewer aircraft and pilots assigned to it, while strike and other roles just keep growing and growing.

File: how wing area is calculated.png (56KB, 1653x1215px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1653x1215px

>>33401742
>And the wing loading numbers on the F-35 are deceptive, because those numbers never take into account lift produced by the body of the aircraft.
Not exactly. Wing area calculation nominally also includes the portion of wing "contained" within the fuselage, to represent lift carryover... while it is POSSIBLE for body lift to exceed the amount of lift that would be produced by this equivalent section of wing, it's generally undesirable to do so since it yields an unfavorable lift distribution and obscene amounts of vortex drag.

>>33401881
Which might have been true in 4th gen, but in 5th they had much better computers to calculate this stuff.

>>33401889
>they had much better computers to calculate this stuff.
It's not that simple. Vortex lift is very difficult to predict, especially at high angles of attack. That's not to say that there isn't some CFD method that could help get a better understanding of how much body lift you're getting, but those models tend to only hold over very small regions.

It's actually pretty surprising how little CFD can do. Vortex lattice methods can't do anything at all with analysis of vorticies coming off the wing, and there still is no consistently effective way to predict transonic drag.

>>33401889
>but in 5th they had much better computers to calculate this stuff.
Computers don't change the laws of fluid mechanics and momentum theory. An elliptical lift distribution is still ideal and putting a big fackin spike in the middle of the distribution curve is going to add a shitload of needless circulation and drag, computers or otherwise.
>>33402087
>Vortex lift is very difficult to predict, especially at high angles of attack.
Wat
No, it isn't. Even lifting line theory done by hand can get you fairly close, and as far as CFD goes, basic inviscid analysis will give you a near-exact solution.
>Vortex lattice methods can't do anything at all with analysis of vorticies coming off the wing
That's literally EXACTLY what it does, though...

>>33402177
>Computers don't change the laws of fluid mechanics and momentum theory. An elliptical lift distribution is still ideal and putting a big fackin spike in the middle of the distribution curve is going to add a shitload of needless circulation and drag, computers or otherwise.
>doesn't know that the F-35 has a lot of surface elements to break or control those vortices

File: US_Navy_110606-N-DR144-314_An_F-A-18E_Super_Hornet_assigned_to_Strike_Fighter_Squadron_(VFA)_81_maneuvers_over_the_Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier_US.jpg (537KB, 2256x1564px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 2256x1564px

>>33402177
Vorticies coming off the wing as in the kinds you see coming off strakes at high angles of attack. VLM methods predict the behavior of vorticies close to the wing - effectively in the boundary layer. Once you start getting separation, or you're trying to look at vortexes coming off the surface and interacting with other elements downstream of the wing, VLM methods break down.

So for steady, level flight, VLM tends to be fine, but for things like deep-stall analysis for a T-tail aircraft or looking at loading on the vertical tails of something like the F-18 at high angles of attack, VLM breaks down.

Also
>An elliptical lift distribution is still ideal
With conventional wing theory, yes, but it's possible with some wildly unconventional layouts to get an efficiency greater than 1.