legally required hourly F-35 thread

>There are people on this board RIGHT NOW who actually like this fatass plane

>>33451372
I like being fat as part of the design rather than feeding planes conformal fuel tanks and acne (additional computer or navigational equipment)

File: F-35 Thread Bingo.png (1MB, 1430x1356px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1430x1356px

>>33450554
>>33450554

>>33452912
well yeah, an F-16 does out-fly it and it does cost 1.5 trillion dollars, is this image ironic?

>>33452912
Is that legit, it can't run on hot fuel? What does it do then? Are you supposed to air-cool the fuel?

>>33452958
That bingo board exists because they're common complaints or scenarios which have been proven false or irrelevant.

>>33451372
>fatass

>>33453476
for you

>>33452939
>an F-16 does out-fly it
No it doesn't.

> it does cost 1.5 trillion dollars
No, that's the high end of a 50 year estimate of all program costs, not money spent.

>>33450554
The ejection seat doesn't work. It will kill pilots.

>>33455013
Seat's fixed with the restriction being lifted in April.

>>33455088
Yeah, but it doesn't matter because stealth is obsolete anyway.

File: sour_grapes_by_mittymandi-d5csb0u[1].jpg (191KB, 900x644px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 900x644px

>>33455114
In what way, exactly? Because there isn't any radar out there that, even if it can pick up stealth at decent ranges, can't pick up non-stealth at much further distances.

Any nation claiming otherwise is just pic related.

>>33455190
That's beside the point, for CAS the A-10 is better anyway.

>>33455727
>Carries less
>Has far worse sensors
>Has no way to see ground situational awareness system data

How, exactly, is it better?

I want to like the F-35, but seriously? Only 4 internal hard points? Radar cross section greater than the F22? 1m squared detection range of only 150km?

>>33455808
It can carry as much A2G payload as an F-117 or a fully combat loaded F-16 in full stealth.

And it's been stated as having a comparable RCS to the F-22.

>>33455833
Sauce?

>>33455874
For what, hard facts?

>>33455874
>The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war.
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/

>"I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/December%202014/The-F-35-on-Final-Approach.aspx

>Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.
>With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”
www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/August/06/F35-Lightning-public-debut-shows-the-right-stuff

>Drill down to legacy stealth aircraft and Lockheed’s F-117 Nighthawk would show up as a golf ball while an F-22 Raptor might appear as a pea. With the F-35, Lockheed is getting down to pebble size, according to Robert Wallace, senior manager for F-35 flight operations.
>Pilots will see a more advanced low-observable signature on the F-35 versus the F-22, but it’s the maintainers who see the greatest leap in durability.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-lasers-and-scanners-illuminate-f-35-ramp-u-432983/

>>33451372
>doesn't like thicc airplanes
fuck outta here

File: f-35bingo.png (2MB, 1430x1356px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1430x1356px

>>33452939
>>33455013
>>33455727

>>33450554
it cant run on hot fuel, kek

File: f-35bingo.png (2MB, 1430x1356px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1430x1356px

>>33452939
how could I not see that F-16 outflies it bit
>>33456931

>>33456914
You missed the square for F-16 dogfight reference.

>>33456965
He didn't reference a particular dogfight, just shat out an assertion

Even if 360deg EODAS still cannot outrun T-50 chasing down. T-50 get GCI Beering and see with IRST.

>>33457118
If this fat bird decides to show up in Baltics, it will be Turkey shoot for SU-35

File: 14y7a0[1].jpg (20KB, 301x278px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 301x278px

>>33457118
>>33457153
>GCI
>Seeing the F-35 first

>>33457176
Easy! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronezh_radar

>>33457153
>>33457204
Two more checks on the bingo

File: f-35bingo.png (2MB, 1430x1356px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1430x1356px

>>33457226
on it

>>33457248
actually nah, wikipedia isn't shit tier, that's a rank reserved for sputniknews
I'll just go with this

File: 170px-Рус–2.jpg (9KB, 170x278px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 170x278px

>>33457204
Sorry I did not know it was stealth

File: f-35bingo.png (2MB, 1430x1356px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1430x1356px

>>33457299
the picture didn't send for some reason

>>33457301
>Radar that can't get any kind of useful ID or track
>Makes stealth useless
Pick 0.

>>33457312
You can add the WWII radar meme now.

File: f-35bingo.png (2MB, 1430x1356px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1430x1356px

>>33457317
Hooray, we're just 2 away from bingo in 2 lines now!

File: 1487339413569.jpg (22KB, 351x351px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 351x351px

>>33457328
kek

File: P-47 thunderbolt.jpg (86KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1024x681px

>>33451372
T H I C C

File: nato_versus_eurasian_union.png (57KB, 1478x703px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1478x703px

>>33457153

>If this fat bird decides to show up in Baltics, it will be Turkey shoot for SU-35

I doubt Russia wants to go to war against the biggest military alliance ever formed.

>>33455733
The A10 at least has a gun. F35 doesn't even have a gun, and the pod doesn't work.

File: f-35bingo.png (2MB, 1430x1356px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1430x1356px

>>33457405
2 away in 3 rows now

>>33457405
>Implying the gun has any relevance in modern conflicts
>Implying the A's internal gun doesn't work
>Implying the pod just isn't low-priority because the Navy and Marines rightly think it's not that valuable

https://warisboring.com/how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost-21f95d239398
$337 Million per F-35C

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/20/china-buys-24-russian-su-35s-confront-lockheed-f-35s/
$400 million per F-35 including parts

vs

$83 million per SU-35 including parts, weapons, fuel, training.

If you put 1 SU-35 with GCI against 1 F-35 with AWAC, SU-35 win 70% of the time from IRST, Faster plane means farther missiles. And has super-maneuverability for beam dodging AMRAAM.

But at price 4 SU-35 vs 1 F-35 is not fair! Burgers are delusional about this turkey that cannot turn, run, climb, fight, and is sucking their country dry of money.

>>33457405

>F35 doesn't even have a gun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEAhFZG022M

>and the pod doesn't work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUcln7StaEw

>>33457427
>The Lot 10 contract represents a $728 million reduction in total price when compared to Lot 9. The approximate per variant unit prices, including jet, engine and fee are as follows:

>F-35A: $94.6 million (7.3% reduction from Lot 9)

>F-35B: $122.8 million (6.7% reduction from Lot 9)

>F-35C $121.8 million (7.9% reduction from Lot 9)

>>33457424
Got another for ya!

File: f-35bingo.png (2MB, 1430x1356px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1430x1356px

>>33457427
1 AWAY

>>33455833
But it has to carry external stores to get its maximum combat load, making stealth useless. It would have been better to have seperate optimized planes for each role than trying to do have a single plane that can do everything.

>>33457427
Also: War is Boring and Breitbart as sources? Are you really that stupid?

File: f-35bingo.png (2MB, 1430x1356px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1430x1356px

>>33457446
>>33457449
hold on, missed one
so close

>>33457427

>warisboring.com
>breitbart.com

You must be baiting.

>>33457455
>Stealth is an on-off switch
>Implying the F-35 won't switch to externals once full-stealth config isn't necessary and non-stealths can fly again

File: f-35bingo.png (2MB, 1430x1356px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1430x1356px

>>33457455
>>33457460
AAAAAAAAAAAA

File: f-35bingo.png (1MB, 1430x1356px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1430x1356px

>>33457476

>>33457506
where is the shitpost that doesn't fit into any of these categories?

>>33457511
Free Space.

>>33457513
ah okay
that's kind of a cheap way to get bingo though
let's try to get it without the free space

>>33457511
This whole thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_up7IHd3LDs

Could you imagine if we spent $1.5 trillion on a space program? We would have long been to Mars and back several times by now. Not trying to make a political point here, but I would have rather had a monumental space program. Our current arsenal is enough for the foreseeable future. Besides, we might have gotten some interesting tech out of a space program that would make developing our newer generation fighter easier. Of course, the reverse is also a possibility.

>>33457555
what level of fuckmuppetry is this guy on

>>33457555
...We haven't spent $1.5t on the F-35, though.

>>33457589
We spent a lot of money to get a faulty product though. Key technologies don't perform up to standard. The helmet display still isn't working, and the ejection seat kills the pilot.

>>33457584
I just love space travel and am sad at the current state of affairs where we don't even have a means of delivering astronauts into space without relying on Russian Soyuz launchers. I want to return to a time when audacious projects like the Apollo program are taken seriously and the public has a vested interest in space.

All I'm saying is that money seems to get thrown around willy nilly when its a military project, but no one wants to squeeze a penny for space projects.

Why does any of that sound crazy?

File: f-35bingo.png (2MB, 1430x1356px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1430x1356px

>>33457607

>>33457589
I know, I know. But we will, wont we? Maybe not quite that high a figure, but its going to cost a pretty penny in the end. I'm saying it would be interesting to see what NASA could do with that kind of funding.

>>33457619
>actively working on mars mission
>test flights for crew capsule soon

>>33457635
Yes, it's good they're working on it, but progress is extremely slow. Simply put, NASA gets an annual budget of something like $19 billion. It's a drop in the bucket compared to most military projects. Besides, I want to see other space projects besides Mars, like sending a probe to drill beneath the ice of Europa.

>>33457619

>I want to return to a time when audacious projects like the Apollo program are taken seriously and the public has a vested interest in space.

The biggest reason for the lack of interest in space travel is the fact that the USSR collapsed. The race to the moon was born out of a desire to put the commies in their place (the garbage) for all time.

>>33457683
I understand that was the reason, which is why I'm actually kind of sad we don't have a competing superpower like the USSR anymore. China is still far away from reaching that status. If we had that kind of competition right now. People can have their politics. If its an excuse to see more space projects, I'm all for it. I don't personally care about putting anyone in their place. I admire the accomplishments of the Soviet Space program as well. But if that's what it takes to convince the government to fund space, I'll sing whatever song they want.

>>33457555
the military is a neccessary expense that you can't simply toss aside. unlike nasa, its essential for politcal capital, the economy, and national infrastructure.

>>33457631
We'd spend ~$4t on current fighters if we had to stretch them out past 2065.

>>33457716
Not saying we should toss it aside. Hell, I enjoy a shiny new plane too, being a huge aviation fanatic, but people forget that we also stimulate the growth of high tech jobs and new technologies through space projects as well as military projects.

>>33457675
And the 1.5 trillion price tag for the F-35 is the entire total project cost of the airframe over 50 years. Including spare parts, training, fuel and ammo, research and design, etc. Over the entire life of the plane which is 50 years.

So even just that 19 billion over 50 years comes out to almost 1 trillion. And that's just NASA

>>33457822
I didn't know that estimate spanned 50 years. I actually did do the calculation on that, but just kind of assumed we'd spend that much in 10 years. Don't know why.

>>33457822
Plus that number is scaling all costs with inflation to projected 2050 dollars.

>>33457803
you're right, but the main underlying point i'm making is that the military is necessary while nasa isn't. nasa is in all honesty a pet project, i'd even go to argue that there are better investments made elsewhere if it was for the betterment of people.

>>33454938
>No it doesn't

Yes it does. The f-35 cannot turn.

>>33458015
>The f-35 cannot turn.
This is pure bullshit.

>>33456630
A pebble is bigger than a pea. Furthermore, the f-35 has to be less stealthy than the f-22 by design or America wouldn't export it.

>>33455891
Yeah, hard facts kind of have supporting evidence that proves them true. It's a part of the definition of a fact.

>>33458017
Don't lie or be a fool. The f35 "turns" in the sense that a truck moving at 800mph can "turn" while on wet ice. The f-16 turns like a formula one car on slick tires and brand new tarmac. What else are you going to spew out? That stealth isn't compromised by external missiles? Go on, tell me it isn't an on-off switch.

>>33458149
Surely you have some evidence to back up your claims.

>>33458157
He doesn't, he just believes Pierre Sprey and David Axe.

>>33458149
>That stealth isn't compromised by external missiles? Go on, tell me it isn't an on-off switch.
Because A: it isn't, and B: at the point they equip externals it won't matter anyways.

>>33451372
It's ugly but I appreciate its capabilities.
Kinda like the Panavia Tornado.

>>33458240
>ugly
what kind of crack are you smoking anon

>>33458157

You know what I refered to. The F-35 hit a snag after losing a dogfight to an F-16 fighter jet at Edwards Air Force Base. It was a straight turning contest and the f-35 lost because it didn't have stealth. Without stealth (in other words, with external missiles), the f-35 becomes a ninja fighting a samurai in a straight up fight. It loses every advantage.

>>33458373
What on earth are you going on about?

>>33458282
The pak-fa looks more impressive.

>>33458384
The notion that the f-35 has inferior agility to legacy fighters.

File: f-35bingo.png (2MB, 1430x1356px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1430x1356px

>>33458373

>>33457405
The F35A has an internal cannon.

>>33458373
Ah yes, the old "control laws tests count as a flyoff" argument. Classic.

File: bg-f35a-overview-chart-1-825.gif (90KB, 825x1057px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 825x1057px

>>33458373
>>33458416
What you're referring to was in no way a "dogfight" or "contest" and there was no "losing" condition.

The F-35's truck-like performance is the reason pilots who've flown both rate it as superior or equivalent to an F-16C other than in sustained turn rate, right?

File: f-35bingo.png (2MB, 1430x1356px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1430x1356px

>>33458507

>>33458439
You use that image as an excuse for not facing an extremely valid point that has no counter.

File: f-35bingo.png (2MB, 1430x1356px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1430x1356px

>>33458494
how did I miss you
>>33458554
I'm just filling out the card my man

>>33458507
I know that image is wrong because it says the f-35 recovers air speed faster than the f-16. This is false to an embarrassing degree. The f-35 takes 43 more seconds than an f-16 does to accelerate from mach 0.8 to mach 1.2.

>>33458579
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw

File: f-35bingo.png (2MB, 1430x1356px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1430x1356px

>>33458629
I don't feel right including such an obvious troll
I'll include it for a blackout, but not for bingo

>>33458611

I get the feeling that isn't taking into account parasitic drag bur I would have to see a source.

File: F-16vsF-35.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>33458611
Source?
The Norwegian assessment seems to indicate otherwise.

>>33458015
Source please.

F-35 test pilots say it handles like an F-18 with better acceleration and even better high angle of attack performance.

>>33458809
They get paid to say that. Test pilots are a bunch of yes-men.

>>33458373
Or you could go listen to interviews with the pilot who did the test and listen to how they were just testing the high angle of attack control laws and just doing some basic fighter maneuvers in a non-competitive test.

In recent competitive tests like Red Flag it has achieved amazing kill ratios over F-16 aggressors.

>>33458439
Going for the full card now lol

>>33458837
Does this count as the "Lockheed Martin shill" square on the bingo card?

>>33458149
>Go on, tell me it isn't an on-off switch.

Its not, you are dumb.

Attaching a missile to the outside of the plane will increase the RCS by...the size of the fucking missile/pylon (if both are non stealth).

>>33458842
Because it had stealth and because those numbers were artificially inflated by the rules of the war games. They never actually fired missiles at each other. The weapon bays never opened. The chaff never deployed.

File: f-35bingo.png (2MB, 1430x1356px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1430x1356px

>>33458875
yes
I love how it was 1 of the 2 squares left that wouldn't give bingo

>>33458875
"Lockheeb" ought to be the free space.

>>33458924
we're doing this on hard mode, free space doesn't count

>>33458717
>>33458733

It is taking drag into account.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-performance-specifications-may-have-significant-operational-impact-381683/

>Acceleration times from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 were extended by eight seconds, 16 seconds and 43 seconds for the A, B and C-models respectively. The baseline standard used for the comparison was a clean Lockheed F-16 Block 50 with two wingtip Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAMs

And the engine was never upgraded since the article so you know it's true.

>>33457380
I actually wonder what US defense spending would look like without maintenance/troop and admin salaries factored in.
How much do we actually spend on R&D?

>>33458611

What payload is this F-16 carrying? A full set of pylons loaded with A2AMs, CFTs and EFTs, compared to the F-35 carrying a similar load of weapons and fuel internally.

I'm sure an F-16C with no pylons or CFTs will have fantastic acceleration and manoeuvrability, but it will have very little range and weapons load to show for it.

>>33458953
Pretty sure that "recovers airspeed" refers to the aircraft's ability to maintain/recover a high energy state in BFM, not its acceleration.

Also
>comparison is to an F-16 with only AMRAAMs on outer pylons.

>>33458903
>Because it had stealth

Uh huh. But I thought stealth was obsolete and irrelevant and external stores nullify it?

>>33458903
>Look mom! I can pull unsourced claims straight out of my anus!
Very nice

>>33458953
>>33459084
That article also doesn't give the numbers for what the baseline F-16 time was, nor where the F-35 was by comparison, only the amount by which the F-35 requirements were relaxed.

It doesn't seem to have references so that we can see the numbers/context either.

>>33459126
It's also from January of 2013.

>>33459126
The article states how much slower the f35 is than an f-16.

>>33458953

>clean Lockheed F-16 Block 50 with two wingtip Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAMs

So, no pylons, no weapons (beyond the wingtip missiles acting as winglets) no CFTs, and no EFTs. Basically, this comparison is meaningless as an F-16 Vs F-35 comparison, it is simply a measurement for F-35 program targets (from early 2013).

>>33459094
If it had external stores, it would have been nullified. The fact is that the f-35 can only carry 2 missiles in stealth configuration. Therefore a kill/death ratio greater than 2:1 is impossible.

>>33459253

>The fact is that the f-35 can only carry 2 missiles in stealth configuration.

4 A2AM internally, with plans to increase this to 6 in a future update. Also, you are assuming that it dies. If over 10 exercises with a four kills per exercise the F-35 "died" twice it would have 20:1 kill/loss ratio.

>>33459253
Oh fuck you can't be this stupid.

First of all, external stores doesn't "nullify" stealth. Stop being uneducated and go read about how stealth works.

Second, it can carry up to 4 missiles internally in an A2A loadout.

Third, let me explain how this works.

F-35 group of 4 takes off. total 16 missiles. Flies mission, they shoot down 10 enemy fighters, they don't lose any. They return to base to rearm and refuel. They take off again, this time they shoot down another 10 fighters, but one of them gets shot down. They return to base.

Training exercise concludes. F-35 has 20:1 kill ratio for the exercise.

A kill ratio doesn't mean one plane shot down that many enemies all at once before being killed. Fuck's sake.

>>33459226
No it doesn't, it states that the requirements for the F-35 were changed by that amount and that an F-16 was used as a baseline for comparison, not that that configuration F-16 performance represents exactly what the original F-35 requirements were.

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.ca/2015/02/the-f-35-and-infamous-transonic_22.html

>>33458373
>The F-35 hit a snag after losing a dogfight to an F-16
No, it didn't. That was a control law test for the software in an outdated version in airframe AF-02, which has no combat avionics. And the F-16 was there as a reference target to maneuver against.

File: 1344982008608.jpg (120KB, 600x902px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 600x902px

>>33458629
>Unironically using Pierre "I've never designed a single plane and have been producing Jazz for 40 years" Sprey as a source

>>33458611
An F-35 can have a full combat load and fly clean. And F-16 cannot. And the F135 engine is an insane beast that give the F-35 as much dry thrust as an F-16 can afterburn with.

>>33459455
Hey that means we can check off that box on the bingo!

>>33458903
>Massive disadvantages placed on the F-35s just so the training would be worthwhile
>Hurr durr dey cheated da war games to make it easy on F-35!

>>33458054
>The f-35 has to be less stealthy than the f-22 by design or America wouldn't export it.
The F-35 is a little stealthier with RAM coatings that are at least a generation better than the RAM on the F-22. If they get the go ahead for the F-22 modernization, the F-22 will likely overtake the F-35.

>>33459319
>>33459253
>>33459094
>>33458213
>>33458149
>>33457475
Stealth is NOT an on-off switch, but external stores DO instantly annihilate almost every advantage stealth offers.

You see, it takes a MASSIVE reduction of RCS in order to effect any significant reduction in detection range. VLO stealth aircraft have RCS that is literally thousands of times smaller than that of non-stealth aircraft, or even of the missiles themselves. And even with this enormous difference, they generally only reduce absolute detection range by one order of magnitude.

If you strap an external missile or tank to a VLO airframe, you have INSTANTLY multiplied that aircraft's RCS by a thousand or so. Your RCS advantage is virtually GONE. Arguing that stealth isn't binary is misleading and largely irrelevant to this issue, because at the end of the day your stealthy jet still has a very non-stealthy external weapon hanging off of it (not to mention, in all likelihood, a reflection of said weapon off the bottom of the wing or other airframe parts), which hostile radars will see. You've effectively taken 10^4 of your advantage and thrown it out the window; the last 10^1 or so left is practically irrelevant by comparison.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (156KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1920x1080px

>>33459253
>Therefore a kill/death ratio greater than 2:1 is impossible.

>>33459537
Also

>F-35 isnt as stealthy as the stealthiest fighter ever designed but is the next best

>This is somehow a flaw in the F-35 and means it's shit

>>33459550
Massive reduction in stealth, but still more stealthy than an F-16.

Like what's your point? Of course external stores affect it. Nobody said otherwise. But portraying that as a disadvantage is just retarded. It can be stealthy and still carry the same payload as an F-16 but longer range, or it has the option to become a less stealthy (but still stealthier than any 4th gen) bomb truck that is only exceeded in payload by the F-15E

>>33459350
That's not right. The f-16 was the baseline against which acceleration was measured and the f-35s were falling behind that baseline by tens of seconds.

File: F-22 inspection time.jpg (67KB, 1006x629px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1006x629px

>>33459537
RF-wise there shouldn't be any significant difference between the F-35's RAM and the F-22's or even a well-maintained F-117's. They're all virtually 100% effective at killing running waves (which is all RAM really does). RAM improvements relate mainly to maintenance and wear-and-tear, not electromagnetic performance.

Any RCS difference between the F-22 and F-35 will be a result of shaping, panel lines, antennas, radome and inlet/nozzle internal reflections and so forth. Specular scattering.

>>33459455
Pierre co-designed the f-16 and Osprey.

>>33459646
No, he didn't. He didn't co-design anything.

Also, he wanted the F-16 to stay a fighter without radar, only using guns and IR missiles, and no ground attack/multirole ability.

So literally all the things that made the F-16 successful, he opposed them.

Also, he called the F-15 a fat turkey.

>>33459550
>Multiplied RCS by a thousand or so.

If you put a missile on the outside of a stealth aircraft, the range at which the aircraft is detected will still be magnitudes lower than the range at which a non-stealth aircraft would be detected.

That's what's known as an "advantage."

>>33459637
No, it doesn't. Here is the DOT&E report:
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2012/pdf/dod/2012f35jsf.pdf

There are 0 mentions of F-16 in there.

>>33457427

F-35 SEAD multirole vs. SU-35 air superiority multirole is not a fair comparison. Even then, the F-35 would shit all over the Sukhoi.

>>33459646
He designed nothing. He was in the group of malcontents who put together the requirements list called Red Bird that eventually became the Lightweight Fighter program, and helped in the requirements list for the A-X program. That's it.

>>33459646
>f-16
And how old is the F-16 now?
>Osprey
No.

>>33459646
>Pierre co-designed the f-16 and Osprey.

Pierre designed nothing, and was never once consulted on procurement or design of a military aircraft. Never ever ever.

He and some goonish friends relayed their unfounded concerns through friends of friends and promptly were ignored.

Like a moon landing denier, or a alien enocounter fag level credibility

>>33459550
>If you strap an external missile or tank to a VLO airframe, you have INSTANTLY multiplied that aircraft's RCS by a thousand or so.
That's not how it works bru.
It depends entirely on the pylons and munitions you're mounting on the bird. A 1000 time increase in RCS is very unlikely unless it's loaded in full bomb truck load with 500lb GBU's on each station.

F-35 Lightning II

Advantage on the battlefield is fucking astonishing. Going in Stealth with radar off.... are you kidding, it's almost unfair.

Ivan is tracking a single blip, meanwhile the whole squadron is networking from blip and awacs.

Suddenly 3 HARMS blow out ground radar and the 'blip' goes cold.


"Sergei, you are seeing no more radars?" "Copy Ivan, no more Radars"

"Shit, sergie, I am seink radars... is bomb"
"da Ivan, was always bomb"

missiles from BVR, all day long

>>33459900
>That's not how it works bru.
Not EXACTLY, since interference effects are very complicated. But it'll get you in the ballpark, and in all likelihood the actual combined result will be higher, not lower.
>It depends entirely on the pylons and munitions you're mounting on the bird.
A Sidewinder-sized missile with cruciform fins, BY ITSELF, already has 1000 times stronger RCS than the F-22. So unless your "pylon" is a magical Mary Poppins handbag/TARDIS fuckin thing that can contain the store internally and has a VLO exterior (when mounted, not just by itself), external stores WILL virtually nullify your stealth.

>>33459948
F-35 can't carry HARMs internally... but switch HARMs for SDBs or (in the future) JDRADM/T3 and that's a bit more accurate.

And I bet they could shoot AMRAAMs at SAMs in HOJ in a pinch.

>>33460207
>F-35 can't carry HARMs internally... but switch HARMs for SDBs or (in the future) JDRADM/T3 and that's a bit more accurate.


Well I'll be damned. I guess they're going to do the same old wild weasel type shit where they send a last gen fighter in. I know F-16 does some weasel shit right now.

Would it be overkill to send in F-15E strike fighters in?

My favorite fighter action EVER was the F-4 making a mockery of Iraq SAM sights in Desert Storm.

>>33455190

It's slightly unsettling to me to think about the amount of people that have jacked off to this image

>>33460335
Part of the issue is that for ARMs to lock reliably at long range, the threat radar needs to have its beam pointed at the missile - which is generally achieved by baiting the radar to lock onto the launching aircraft. Almost everything about the F-35 is designed to KEEP such radars from attaining lock.

F-35s can still perform DEAD, but in a dramatically different manner. Instead of the classic Wild Weasel approach, an F-35 will more likely cruise at medium altitude ahead of other aircraft, and use its RWR/ESM and EOTS to locate threats and drop glide bombs (SDBs) on them.

>>33458149
>truck moving at 800mph ... while on wet ice
Literately impossible, It would start generating enough lift for a (short, uncontrolled, destructive) flight long before it got to 800mph.

>>33458054
A pebble in a fish tank is smaller than a pea.

>>33460608
There is the issue of SDBs being shot down. Glide bombs are vulnerable to SAM systems that can shoot down missiles.

SDBs are awesome, don't get me wrong, but I'd like to see some SEAD weapons for the F-35.

Then again, it's possible that SEAD will change from the "wild weasel" approach to something new. Maybe just using stealth to avoid SAMs, maybe using stealth to achieve SAM kills with other weapons, idk.

File: 1.%20Overview%20Fig%201[1].png (29KB, 577x431px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 577x431px

>>33460608
>>33460335
>>33460207
The F-35 is also meant to be getting AARGM-ER internally.

>>33460000
It's not 1000x larger, not unless you're starting to get towards the missile's side aspects.

>>33458980
See pic - it's normally $70-80B

>>33458733
>>33458953
You guys are comparing different things - subsonic acceleration vs transonic. The F-35 is excellent as subsonic acceleration, not as great at transonic, particularly for the B and C variants.

>>33461775
SDBs will arrive in far greater numbers than HARMs however - an F-35 can carry 8 SDBs internally, a fighter performing SEAD generally won't carry or be able to carry more than 2 HARMs.

>maybe using stealth to achieve SAM kills with other weapons
That is how it's being performed today; at Red Flag the F-35's were killing S-300s with 2000lb JDAMs from ~10 miles away.

Funnily enough, the pilots say that those GBU-31s are more effective than HARMs (when being stealthily delivered) because they wipe out or critically damage multiple TELs, command vehicles, radars, etc.

>>33461912
Sounds legit to me. And yeah no kidding, a 2000lb bomb will fuck up a SAM site lot more than a HARM

Do you have a source I can read talking about that at red flag?

>>33456951
>didn't mark free space

>>33462001
>Lt Col DeAngelis echoed that sentiment: “We’re able to use our sensors to find the location and use our synthetic aperture radar mode to map the general area and determine where the surface-to-air missile site is. We carry two internal GBU-31(V)3 JDAMs, so we’re able to put a 2,000lb bomb on the threat. As a former F-16 pilot, we used to shoot HARMs [AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles], which have much smaller warheads and are not as capable. With the F-35 we’re able to find the site and put a 2,000lb bomb on it, which is much more effective against an integrated air defence system.”
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=24258

>>33459676
>If you put a missile on the outside of a stealth aircraft, the range at which the aircraft is detected will still be magnitudes lower than the range at which a non-stealth aircraft would be detected.
No, it isn't. Unless you're nitpicking over "hurr it's the missile being detected, not the plane itself," which is frankly irrelevant.

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-28 at 8.16.09 PM.png (285KB, 854x608px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 854x608px

>>33461815
>It's not 1000x larger, not unless you're starting to get towards the missile's side aspects.
Pic related. Even frontal RCS is still approximately -10 dbsm (i.e. 1000 times larger than the F-22).

>>33462665
1. That was an RCS test of parts of an MAA-1 Piranha missile, not an AIM-9X.

2. The test was conducted at 6GHz, which is below X-band.

3. The test / simulation was also conducted without a dome on the missile seeker.

Some have said (tried finding a source, but failed, so take this as you will) that the AIM-9X has metallic coatings on its seeker dome for both RCS reduction and to help shield the internal electronics from microwaves; *if* that's true, then it's RCS will be smaller yet.

>>33462614
As the RCS of the aircraft is so low, the missile is what will make the aircraft actually detectable.

RCS of an AIM-9X < RCS of an F-16


A stealth aircraft with two external Sidewinders will have an RCS of the frontal aspect of two sidewinders, which is still magnitudes smaller than the frontal aspect of an F-16.

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-28 at 8.53.07 PM.png (172KB, 671x627px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 671x627px

>>33462942
So basically, you're ACTUALLY splitting hairs as if it somehow negates the point (which it doesn't).

>>33463106
>stop pointing out my apples to oranges comparison

>>33462984
>A stealth aircraft with two external Sidewinders will have an RCS of the frontal aspect of two sidewinders, which is still magnitudes smaller than the frontal aspect of an F-16.
One (1) magnitude. Detection range isn't even halved vs. a legacy fighter. For all intents and purposes, you ain't stealth no' mo'.

>>33463116
>Apples to oranges
You're right, I'm using the RCS of just a single SMALL missile, by itself... silly me. Of course we all know that multiple larger (i.e. AMRAAM) missiles and bombs and other stores mounted to pylons and other external adapters are going to magically have thousands of times smaller than a single missile flying all by itself.

>>33459712
>2012

Wrong report. The article didn't pull the f-16 reference from thin air, you know.

>>33463146
>Implying it even matters when standard load will always be at least a pair of AIM-120C on the bay doors

File: 1327627679386.jpg (69KB, 447x453px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 447x453px

>>33459253
>The fact is that the f-35 can only carry 2 missiles in stealth configuration. Therefore a kill/death ratio greater than 2:1 is impossible.

>>33463207
>You're right, I'm using the RCS of just a single SMALL missile, with an exposed seeker, in a wavelength other than X band... silly me.

Fixed that for you.

>>33458387
>an ounce of style is a pound of performance
t. russian design ideology

File: 1489458860656.png (411KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 640x480px

>>33453813
The lock shill isn't true then?

>>33463364
I addressed both of those with the image here: >>33463106
http://www.jatm.com.br/papers/vol3_n3/JATMv3n3_p287-294_Numerical_evaluation_of_an_air_to_air_missile_rcs_signature_at_x_band.pdf

>>33463325
No argument there. There's still plenty the F-35 can get done with internal stores only. But people who think you can hang shit on the outside of a stealth aircraft and still preserve an even remotely comparable RCS are delusional.

>>33463627
>But people who think you can hang shit on the outside of a stealth aircraft and still preserve an even remotely comparable RCS are delusional.
The point is that it doesn't matter, because you aren't caring about it as much when you get to that point.

>>33459253
You are either a really, and i mean really! good troll, or one of the dumbest, most paranoid idiots ever to grace this board. I dont know if i should applaud you or send you some crayons at this point

File: SWAT_s1e01_17-38.jpg (29KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x480px

>>33463581
While we're here what aircraft is the turbokat most similar to?

>>33459643
I'm not into vore, but that's hot.

>>33455013
Same seat we've used for ages. The difference is, we're now allowing pilots in who are too light.

I have a question that doesn't really matter, but how will updates and variants be designated for the F-35? Will they just designate them as the F-35AA, F-35BA, F-35CA? Or will they do it in a different way?

>>33464926
Blocks, like the F-16. They MIGHT bring in new designations for specialized variants, or if there's a MAJOR modernization down the road.

>>33457619
We're spending billions a year on SLS, which is unlikely to ever go anywhere.

Meanwhile, SpaceX is eating everybody's lunch, and Blue Origin is finally starting to close the gap.

First launch of a "used" first stage this week.

>>33464926
Well the isreali F-35 is called the F-35I.

>>33464967
>SLS

What's that?

>>33464983
Space Launch System. Big rocket.

File: Saturn_V-Shuttle-Ares_I-Ares_V-Ares_IV-SLS_Block_I&II.png (283KB, 1310x637px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1310x637px

>>33464983
The new Moon rocket built from Shuttle parts. The one Obama canceled and then revived a few years later under a different name so that Bush wouldn't get credit for it. (Betcha can guess what Trump's gonna do.)

>>33464922
Its more related to the weight of the new helmets

>>33464983
>>33465109
Or, as you might call it, Senate Lunch System

>>33465171
Sure, but the weight of the helmets only affect pilots in a low weight range that never existed before.

File: YANKEE extraction system.jpg (150KB, 800x658px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 800x658px

>>33465171
Solution:
>put little rockets on the helmet to lift it's massive weight and keep it from crushing the pilot's spine under 15-G acceleration

>>33464922
>>33465195
Pretty sure that's wrong. The ejector seat is custom designed for the f-35 and it creates a whiplash effect as the parachute opens. It's definitely a problem caused by the design of the ejector seat and new helmet. I've never read anything about "a weight range that never existed before".

>>33465198
It had nothing to do with crushing the spine, but more to do with yanking the head back when the parachute opened, after ejection.

>>33465240
Isnt it the same seat that has been in use for the last 20 years as well? Or did they introduce something new there as well?

>>33465252
>attach mini parachute to helmet

>>33465255
It's a new seat, the Mk16, not the ACES or NACES; it is a somewhat new weight range (NACES doesn't support <138lb for example, but ACES II does) though and it's about the rearward whiplash effect, not spinal crush.

The fix was making the helmet lighter (a miniscule amount lighter than the JHMCS even), adding a fabric panel between the parachute risers, preventing the head from going rearward, and a switch to the seat where <136lb pilots will toggle it and it'll delay the parachute release by like a fraction of a second to better align the neck. Should be an excessively safe seat with these things added.

>>33465128
>Betcha can guess what Trump's gonna do
Revive X-33?

>>33465281

I think it'd ridiculous that anytime the F35 has a problem it's immediately causes outcry and pandemonium, but when you point out that other planes had similar, most often worse, problems out gets completely ignored.

File: goteem.jpg (30KB, 400x221px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x221px

>>33464549
it has f-117 compact look, su 27 engines, and the wings of a b1-b looks like.

>>33463215
From the 2012 report:
"• The program announced an intention to change
performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn
performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s and extending
the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by
8 seconds. These changes were due to the results of air
vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations. "

>>33466686
>2012
Well, there's your problem right there.

>>33466849
The article is from 2013, and is definitely referencing the 2012 report for its headline:
"The US Department of Defense's decision to relax the sustained turn performance of all three variants of the F-35 was revealed earlier this month in the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 2012 report."

I have no idea where the F-16 reference came from, but it sure looks like thin air unless someone can come up with the source.

>>33463215
>>33466874
So I already posted this earlier in the thread
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.ca/2015/02/the-f-35-and-infamous-transonic_22.html

And it actually has the source for the F-16 claim in it
http://2011 uploaded fresh co il/2011/05/18/36290792.pdf

And if you'd read the rest of the analysis, yeah, it basically comes down to the differences in loadout.

>>33465515
If a program like the F-14 or F-16 where made today, with the same transparancy as the JSF program, can you imagine the outcry in blogs and shitty opinion pieces?

File: 765432.jpg (105KB, 1199x799px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1199x799px

>>33450554
Many mothers will weep.
Russians will do everything to complain the U.S. shouldn't have it.

>>33466954
ENGINE EXHAUST FLAMEOUT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>33466954
>>33467443

>on all levels but physical my fly-by-wire works
>*lawn darts*

>>33455114
Top level bait

>>33459253
Does that mean a F-15 carries 104 missiles?
Cause the kill count is 104:0.

>>33467804
Didn't you hear? The F-15 is actually a flying Arleigh-Burke class destroyer.

>>33467712
Kek