German air force interested in F35

Fantastic idea, why not have another good plane sit in the hangar and go to waste.

>>33988181
>f-35
>a good plane

>>33988201
Yes. Why wouldn't it be?

I hope the Germans are smart enough to stay away from this piece of shit. They should invest their resources in the development of a new fighter.

>>33988235

>Germany
>Making a fighter on their own

>>33988056
Whatever happened to that "Airbus" 6th gen fighter idea? Why bother with American 5th gen when you have 6th gen in the works Germany?

>>33988056
There's this disgusting smell of cold war behind those shitty politics...

File: 10204870288703964vt-1-696x493.jpg (48KB, 696x493px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 696x493px

>>33988249
I mean in european cooperation.

File: 1419802692862.jpg (294KB, 2000x1295px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 2000x1295px

they look just like plump, metal birds
planes are neat

>>33988264
>Whatever happened to that "Airbus" 6th gen fighter idea?
The 6th gen is a long term project, but I have to agree with you. It's stupid to purchase a shitty 5th gen when you can use the resources for a planned 6th gen.

>>33988268
Wow yeah because that went well last time and we're in the perfect political climate for it. No risk of fuck ups here, especially with Airbus!

>>33988297
;_;

I hope that Russia gets more agressive... I can't wait for more cold war like rearming of the west.

>>33988296
Especially when the USAF will have F-35A's sitting in Ram, and in Italy / UK / Romania.. just pull a Canada and spend the money on other things (but just less retarded than Canada).

>>33988296

>Better save up money for an upgrade that is 20 years away while the relative capabilities of our already dated air force continue to degrade!
Sure, sure.

Anyway, here's an article that's not in chemistryspeak: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/10362/germany-might-join-the-f-35-program

>>33988056
The F-35 is the perfect Tornado replacement.

Anglos should have called it Tonka 2.

>>33988264
More than 20 years away????

>>33988056
Excellent. This pretty much chains the whole EU military to American suppliers, they will never be able to act independently of the USA.

>>33988495
The whole point of this is to have a new bomber for the american nukes in Germany. The Netherlands, Italy and Turkey all have american nukes too and they all choose the F-35.

>>33988296

Without even experience of designing aircraft on par with current ones, let alone designing aircraft on par with 5th gen, getting "into" the industry is becoming exponentially harder.

>>33988181
>>33988201
>>33988205

It's not a good plane, it's the best plane.

>People still doubt the F-35
I thought /k/ was smarter than the average mouth breathing civilian retard.

>>33989001
That's why people on /k/ doubt the F-35

>>33988201
It's literally the best and most advanced fighter aircraft in the world, and in all likelihood if WW3 started tomorrow it would be years before one was lost.

Sorry you are still mad about memes.

File: tmp_15136-TF-X'in_üç_kavramsal_tasarımı-397305767.jpg (68KB, 800x550px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 800x550px

>>33988056
> Germany buys f-35s from the US instead of building their own fighter
> Turkey and the UK are building the tfx (fifth generation air superiority fighter)

I never thought I'd see the day when Turkey has a better fighter jet industry than Germany.

>>33988386
It isn't like Germany even needs an air force.

They aren't going to war and they have the US and the rest of the EU obligated to defend them.

>>33989068
German defence budget is utter trash.
I'm even surprised they're considering replacement for Tornados, and not sticking with Typhoons

>>33989552
The budget is pretty good, but the efficiency of the budget distribution is trash.

File: Screenshot_2017-04-18-08-14-40-1.png (1MB, 1080x1579px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1080x1579px

>>33988056
>But the f35 is a LEMON!
>Noone wants that turkey!

When will that meme die?
Is multiple countries want f35s, they can't be as bad as the liberal media says they are.
Sure we overspent, but other countries get to benefit from that.

>Germany developing a fighter jet
>European cooperations working as intended
Not gonna happen. Buying the F35 is the right thing to do.

>>33989068
> Turkey building a competitive modern fighter
I'll believe it when I see it.
>>33989084
It's to support eastern europe against russia and stuff. Alliance obligations you know.

>>33989068
>Implying Turkey's project will even get anywhere.

File: IMG_9263.jpg (891KB, 3600x2518px) Image search: [Google]

891KB, 3600x2518px

>>33988056

Poor little F-35 haters, they're narratives are collapsing faster than the Trump presidency.

In any case, Belgium and Spain will also order the F-35. Finland and Poland possibly.

>>33990064

*their

>>33989068
I feverishly anticipate the new Turkish F-314.

File: 1494511854950.jpg (652KB, 1451x2048px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 1451x2048px

>>33988056
bad idea, letting the krauts get our plane.
in 15 years germany will be a province of the caliphate and our technology will fall into the hands of ISIS

>>33990302
F-35 has kill-switch.

File: JAS39 Gripen with Meteor.jpg (133KB, 1280x857px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1280x857px

>>33990064
I could see the Finns going with the Gripen. Lower operational costs than F35 and commonality with the Swedes.

>>33990426
But the gripen is vastly inferior when it comes to modern combat.

>>33990302
Do burgers really believe this shit?

>>33988268
>Get an F-35 within 5-8 years
>Wait 15+ years to get the first of a still theoretical program's planes

File: F35A Lighting II quad.jpg (625KB, 3192x2124px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 3192x2124px

>>33990461
Clearly the F35 is the superior combat system, but the Gripen w/ AESA and Meteor will likely be enough to deter anything the Russians can throw at them in short to medium term.

>>33989715
>Sure we overspent
By what metric?

>>33989064
Betcha the marines would get a couple f-35b's shot down doing something stupid

>>33989909
>>33989934

The slight difference with Turkey is they've enlisted the UK to do some of the more complex designwork, especially on engines. So they do have a chance to create something real.

However, giving a retard good components and advice from an excellent teacher doesn't change that it's still going to be a retard in the end, so I expect a real plane to emerge, but for it to be all components and no cohesion.

>>33990510
>gripen against Su35s that will have ground based radar guidance and possibly S300/S400 support

Lol good luck to the gripen

>>33990302
Have you ever been to Europe?

>>33988201
oh boy here we go

someone post the bingo

>>33989068
>implying that just "building your own" means your fighter industry is 'better'

>implying turkey, or iran, or china, or russia don't have craptacular prototypes of 5th gen fighters while the US is churning out a 5th gen currently and already working on 6th gen

>>33990505
>theoretical program

you know that the F-35 is already entering service, right?

>>33988205
If everyone has one plane, then you only need to make one other plane that can beat it and every country in the west is defeated.

Let's get this shit straight. The f-35:

>Has pitiful range
>Slow speed
>Poor cornering ability
>Already has its stealth cracked by China
>Very low payload
>Double the flight hour cost of existing planes

And we are praising it. The thing is a lemon. People only like it because lockheed has shills brainwashing people around the clock.

File: 1407586158114.png (122KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 625x626px

>>33991030

>>33990991
The Airbus, you fucking twat.

>>33991030
(You)

File: 1438047148468.jpg (73KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 400x300px

>>33991030

File: 1 trillion dollar lemon.png (383KB, 837x617px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 837x617px

>>33989715
Nice screenshot you got there. Here's one that shows the real truth.

>>33991088
indeed, it seems I'm a twat. my bad.
>>33991030
lelelel this is bait. nice try. too obvious there fella

>>33991030
This is pretty bad bait

>>33991115
Fake news

>>33990991
> F-35 is already entering service

In theory.

>>33991115
nice try. been debunked long ago. It wasn't a competitive dogfight with an F-16, it was a non-competitive test of the high AoA control laws. Nobody "lost"

>>33991030
But both Eagle and Hornet have inferior range?

File: APe_01-52-1.jpg (909KB, 3508x2339px) Image search: [Google]

909KB, 3508x2339px

>Meanwhile, in France

Germany says that a strong European army must happen. They buy American hardware.

The contradiction is hard with the krauts, they can buy any eurocanard, who'll do at least a decent job, but no, they must go for the F-35, the vassal's choice for anyone who don't man the much needed F-22 for linking and protection purpose.

File: what bullshit.jpg (256KB, 1000x980px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1000x980px

>>33990064
>shill STILL trying to turn F-35 supporters against Trump

>>33991137
Real news. The event where the f-15 jobbed to the f-35 was just that. A well orchestrated show designed to portray the f-35 as having some measure of competence. The government planned for it to go down that way.

>>33991145

It also does not need to beat the F-16. the F-35 is a multirole plane, intended to be a stealth bomb truck linked to the much more efficient F-22 when it comes to actual fighting. And those planes specialise in BVR targeting, while the F-16 needed a good close air capability to keep with soviet airplanes. Time changes, warfare tactics changes, planes adapt themselves.

>>33991148
don't take the bait anon. we all know his post is totally nonfactual.

>>33991169

>F-35 testing high AoA control laws with F-16 partner

>OMG LE F-35 LOST DOGFIGHT LOL TURKEY

>F-35 actually engages in competitive training battles and wins

>LOL OMG GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY IT'S FAKE

fucks sake.

>>33991186
>stealth bomb truck

>Only carries two bombs in stealth mode with no room for improvement.

>>33991210
You think your shithole can handle even one bomb falling through its roof?

>>33991191
>totally nonfactual

That shit about double the flight hour costs and China cracking the stealth is totally true. The f-35 has also been in development for so long that the Russians and Chinese have effectively caught up the west and are able to challenge our air superiority crown with their own fighters.

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

222KB, 652x886px

>>33991228
I'll tell you what I think. What I think is that the f-35 is a lemon.

>>33991210
and what other fighters can carry more bombs while being stealthy?

>>33991235

bullshit. What planes do the russians or chinese have that can compete? They have barely-functional prototypes of 5th gens. The US has already built almost 200 F-22's, and over 200 F-35's.

>>33991210

>2 internal bays, with two hardpoints each.

Learn to properly shill. It can carry 4 missiles in full stealth while linked to the F-22, meaning a full squadron can rape about every airforce in the world, minus the french, english, chinese or russian ones, while unnoticed. And USAF alone wants 1700 of them.

>>33991276
You are way too easy to bait

>>33991186
>while the F-16 needed a good close air capability to keep with soviet airplanes.
The fuck? The F-16 has BVR capabilities just like the F-15.

>>33991280
>Bomb truck
>two bombs

Okay?

>>33991280
While I agree with you saying it can rape every airforce in the world less the ones that actually matter isn't a very impressive argument

>>33991276
Russia has the t-50, while China has the j-20 and j-31.

>>33991281
meh. not really. I'm just posting easy rebuttals. I know it's all bait.

>>33991308
mhm how many do they have?

lol

File: baited.webm (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>33991281
>Giving good arguments that show why the f-35 is bad is bait

You are the baiter.

>>33991308
The T-50 doesn't even have its proper engines and isn't in full production. No clue about the J-20.

>>33991333
J20 has already reached low rate IOC

File: 1454978671215.jpg (115KB, 725x497px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 725x497px

>>33991210
>stealth bomb truck
That's called the B-2, and soon the B-21, but this ignores the fact that it's still more payload than an equivalent legacy fighter in the same situation. F-35 is a strike fighter first and foremost, meaning deep interdiction into key enemy systems.

>>33991186
>while the F-16 needed a good close air capability to keep with soviet airplanes. Time changes, warfare tactics changes, planes adapt themselves.
Old doctrine required more raw kinematic performance from their fighters than current generation hardware, it does not however mean you can compromise these aspects entirely, or ignore them in a combat scenario. You still need good kinematics for a good missile shot, that will never not be important.

The F-35 might be a good choice for the germans if their FCAS program takes longer than 2025 / 2030.

>>33991371
The "NGWS" is planned for 2040+ (expected delay of 10 years).

>>33991325
Russia was going to make a whole bunch of t-50s, but economic sanctions on them have stalled production. China is China, so they can make nearly infinite amounts of anything as well as do anything and nobody ever sanctions them.

>>33991287

As of today, yes. I was speaking back then in the 70's, when BVR wasn't the norm at all (If <I recall, the first BVR capability was with the Tomcat). The AMRAMM came in the 90's, and the F-16 was retrofitted accordingly.

>>33991301

Look muy post closely. I said a squadron wasn't capable of killing the most impressive airforces in the world. That's 12-24 planes. USAF wants 1700 of them. Which means that when the F-35 will be fully deployed, it will also bone those airforces. That's basically the idea behind the F-35: stealth swarming. And even if it lost the stealth factor (rader tech is progressing too), it can carries the finest US missiles on board.

>>33991293

4 in full stealth. British navy tries to fit a smaller missile to go as far as 8 of them in their F-35 B. With their external hardpoints, the number goes of, at the cost of furtivity.

>>33991419
>Russia was going to make a whole bunch of t-50s, but economic sanctions on them have stalled production.

oh boo hoo.

>China is China, so they can make nearly infinite amounts of anything as well as do anything and nobody ever sanctions them.

lol slavshit fanboy detected. don't worry Ivan, China's 5th gen stuff is crappy too.


This is all gonna be just like the 70's-90's.

Americans and allies will have F-35's and F-22's in warzones, eventually they will face enemy Su-27++++++'s, Su-35's, and maybe even J-20's or whatever, and they will absolutely rape them, then all the Ivan's and Chang's will complain about monkey model this and inferior pilots that. It'll be the F-15/F-16/F-18 vs MiG-MiG-25/MiG-29/etc. all over again.

>>33991453

The chinese planes are ripoffs of the US ones, with maybe the leak to help them produce a not too crappy plane. It's actually intended to be a PR move, and an export plane for those countries too poor/dangerous for the F-35, but still wants the shiny "5th generation" bullshit on their airforce CV. America may be jobbing hard at contining the cost of the F-35, but it will be a good plane, someday. The chinese, not so sure about it, and I won't bet on the customer's service.

What's the unit cost of the F-35 and how many Tornados are still in service in the Luftwaffe?

>>33991293
2 2000/1000 clas, 4 500s, or 8 SDBs.

Retard.

>>33990882
Not him, but I have. There were a shit ton of Arabs and Armenians in Munich in 2009, I don't want to know how bad it's gotten in the last 8 years.

>>33991518
68 IDS
21 ECR

>>33991579
lol my parents talk about how Rome was full of Moroccans and Libyans and shit, and that was their honeymoon like 30 years ago

>>33991478
F-35 is getting to be very cheap now.

Less than 100 mill per plane.

>>33991518
Last I heard, last fall, Merkel had 4 combat aircraft that were Mission Capable

>>33991518
I don't expect that we will get more than 50 F-35.

>>33991592
yup. mass production is awesome.

turns out, making a half-dozen different fighters as part of a generation isn't as efficient as just making one really good one

File: 1429854477878.jpg (47KB, 330x319px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 330x319px

>>33991453
>Su-27++++++'s

File: 1480731886820.jpg (108KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1280x720px

>>33991591
oh yeah, north africans in a mediterranean country, what a big surprise.

>>33991592
Same price as the Typhoon. I'd rather buy additional Typhoons then...

Imagine if Trump allows us to purchase the F22.
Israel, Japan, Australia BTFO :^)

>>33991666
lol good thing you're not in charge of military spending then. You'd be stupid to buy Typhoons over F-35's.

>>33991666
>They're the same price
>I'd rather buy Typhoons then....
>666
Nice try Satan

>>33991449
>If <I recall, the first BVR capability was with the Tomcat
You don't recall well. This meme was actually born from the fact that Vietnam-era radar non-cooperative target ID systems like Combat Tree were still super classified until well into the 80s. Which the Critics used to diss the concept of BVR combat.

>>33991579
It's really not that bad, maybe if you went outside of the capital cities (where people congregate) you'd see more Germans

>>33988056
And right after they were boasting the planning of their 7564 gen super duper stealth fighter too. It's obvious why they want it, the fucking nig nogs.

>>33991666
>Same price as the Typhoon
sauce

>>33992331
The Internet

File: pepere.jpg (31KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x600px

>>33992530
so you're full of shit, got it

>>33991449
>4 in full stealth

It's two. Note the red bombs. They are too big to fit more than one in each bay.

File: wpid-img_21156667134215[1].jpg (41KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x600px

>>33993150

>>33991703

>Israel, Japan, Australia BTFO :^)
Guess which of these three is the reason why the other two haven't gotten F-22s?

>>33993326
Honestly it could be Japan. They're really close to China, geographically.

>>33992227
Oh I did. I went all over Bavaria, Northern Austria, and a little bit into Switzerland. It was a great trip.

File: F-35 vs. A-10.jpg (264KB, 1076x722px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1076x722px

>>33993150
>>33993178
2 2000/1000lbs class OR
4 500lbs OR
8 SDBs.

Idiot.

>>33993372

>no HARM/JAASM in internal stores :(
Is that an planned future capability?

>>33988056
Fuck Germany. We should charge them twice for the F-35 what the F-35 costs.

>>33993372
>Carrying 4 bombs in full stealth.

That would leave the f-35 completely defenceless and will never happen.

>>33993429
>for the F-35 what the F-35 costs.

Bad english. Bad!

>>33993423
How are you supposed to get yourself painted by enemy radar in the first place if you're in a low-vis configuration?

You don't want a stealth fixed wing to carry HARMs, defeats the purpose.

>>33993461
>What are anti radar bombing missions

>>33993445
No, it would not. That's 500lbs class weapons, which do not impede the door mounting point for AMRAAMs.

>>33993355

I don't entirely disagree (bear in mind that hasn't stopped us from deploying sophisticated radar systems there), but it's Israel that people were worried about.

File: F35+weapon+bay[1].jpg (70KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 640x480px

>>33993534
That's wrong. There are only 2 attachment points each in the f-35's two weapon bays. You cannot fit more than two bombs and two A2A missiles into a stealth configuration f-35.

>>33993521
It's called SEAD. Search for Enemy Aid Defenses. In order to find them and destroy them, they need to acquire you and sometimes launch before you're able to engage them.

That's why they call it wild weasel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Weasel#Mission_tactics

>>33993645
Yet it's able to fit 4 SDBs in each bay.

File: 573raytheon-sdb-ii-pic-1[1].jpg (371KB, 2050x1404px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 2050x1404px

>>33993645
The inner bay section can, again, hold 1 GBU-10/31/32/AGM-154, two GBU-12/38, or 4 SDBs.

Stop thinking all bombs are the same size, idiot.

>>33990470
Europe is only about ~15% white now though, that is fact

File: f35best.png (377KB, 1198x800px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1198x800px

>>33993423
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile
JSM in development, not sure what else will fit.

>>33993461
>>33993648

But WW/SEAD can also involve using bait targets such as bombers to attract radar illumination. In that context, HARM-carrying F-35s would benefit from concealment.

>>33988264
Airbus has no experience in stealth planes.
There is no corpus of built up industrial knowledge either. Northrop didn't start their on stealth projects with zero information.

>>33993757
The F-35 still isn't going to stand out on radar anywhere near as much as an F-15/F-16 even with HARMs mounted externally.

>>33993764

That's true.

>>33993732

Ah, I didn't realize JAASM was too big.

>>33990510
>>33990426
Gripen E isn't even cheap to acquire
Simming can replace a lot of flight hours these days to offset the operational costs.

>>33993648
>SEAD
>SEARCH for....

It's Suppression of Enemy Air Defense

>>33993763
Youth brings innovation.

File: 8TOZMxx[1].jpg (41KB, 564x447px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 564x447px

>>33993648
>The F-35 Lightning II is slated to gradually replace these aircraft for various air-to-ground roles, including SEAD, beginning with its introduction in 2016. Its stealth capabilities promise a significant increase in effectiveness against air-defense radars, though to maintain its lowest radar signature, its payload capacity would be limited to the internal weapons bays

This sentence was literally just a scroll up from where you linked to, genius. Anti radar missions are easier if the radar can't see you. Obviously. Hurr durr, dude.

>>33994067
Yeah but when youth lacks all kinds of experience in that field, their ability to be innovative aint worth a damn.

Airbus is a market leader for civi planes. Which means they only can use their knowledge in modern production techniques.

It may sound hard, but designing a military state of the art plane is actually harder than designing a full size tourist bomber that wont have to deal with all kinds of enemy defenses.

File: OwO_whats_this.jpg (117KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1200x675px

>According to certain sources, the Barracuda offers precise geolocation and targeting of potential hostile emitters, without the need for triangulation and thus other networked aircraft.

People are forgetting that the F-35 can geolocate radars using it's integrated EW suite (which is also sensor fused to the IRST/DAS/SAR/other F-35s to improve accuracy), in that sense it might not actually need a dedicated SEAD missile.

Using the SDB for SEAD has it's it's advantages too, it's small signature, when coupled to the F-35's VLO means that enemy radars may get much less reaction time to a launch.

>>33993372
That's a fanmade diagram; the F-35 doesn't do 4x 500lb; it's either 2x 500-2000lb or 8x SDB. I don't know why the 4x 500lb thing keeps propagating.

>>33993423
The new variant of HARM, the AARGM-ER is designed to fit internally.

>>33993732
JSOW-ER will be the same size as a JSOW yet incorporate a jet engine.

>>33994519
Another good thing about SDBs is that you can spam them to overcome SAM defences or force them to expend all their missiles.

File: 1476199262819.jpg (107KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1024x683px

>>33994893
Fuck yeah Dragon showed up. I was waiting for you

So I have a question about the F-35 that actually revolves around it actually being used in combat and not its procurement

Im just finishing up Dan Hampton's Viper Pilot. I'm sure you read it but it talks about SEAD/WW missions in the first and second gulf war.

Now for the most part the typical engamgment of SAMS Were (without checking the book) usually around 20-30 miles away, for he was able to ID the plumes of smoke coming from the SA-2/3s.

Now obviously the high end IADs threat have matured very much so since then, and also have ways of countering them

So my question is how exactly does the F-35 plan on suppressing, let's say a S-300P battery for sake of argument. Now from what I read in the book a 4 ship flight of F-16CJs carying 2 Harms each would come in a pincer movement from the perceived threats location from roughly 13 miles apart from each respective 2 ship flight, once one got locked on, whatever flight that got locked would go defensive until the other flight was able to get a shot off (be it a HARM, JDAM or dumb bomb)

Now this is fairly in what i would call knife fighting range and is incredibly dangerous

if you can, could you help explain how a 4 ship F-35A flight with 3F software tackle this threat, if you can?

I know they can't fit HARMs internally and wouldn't necessarily have to fly at the nap of the earth for obvious reasons.

and also, do you plan on ever discussing just how the F-35 will fight in the future regarding your F-35 videos. I live for them

>>33991713

For Germany, it makes sense. They aren't going to intervene abroad, and would only ever fight as part of an alliance, so they don't need to have the F-35 themselves to benefit from its presence in Europe. Considering that they don't get any of the benefits from F-35 development & manufacture, it would be better for Germany long term to make more Typhoons and continue to upgrade them to sustain German military aviation industry until the Typhoon replacement is developed and fielded. Even if the Typhoon is more expensive per unit than the F-35A, operating only one type of aircraft has significant cost savings.

>>33989680
t.I have no idea what am I talking

>>33995185
;_;

>>33994967
>how exactly does the F-35 plan on suppressing, let's say a S-300P battery for sake of argument.
Obviously keep in mind that I'm not a fighter pilot, but it'll be a lot less exciting and dangerous than with the F-16CJs. Based on what I've read and know, it'd be something like this:

Assuming the only intel they have is that nation X has S-300Ps and ELINT picked up emissions from nearby hours ago:

The flight of 4 would spread out (ie some formation with around 100km between each jet) and make their approach at medium or high altitude. While they're doing this, they're using their AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda to look for enemy radar and comms emissions. DAS and EOTS will also be scanning, but I don't think they'd have much luck unless the S-300 is staying silent and the F-35s fly within like 50km of it.

Anyway, if the S-300 is searching for aircraft, the Barracuda will fairly quickly triangulate an approximate position (having the jets spread out makes the geolocation quicker and more accurate).

From there they'll likely move in closer, where one of them will use its radar to generate a synthetic aperture radar map to get an exact 3D coordinate.

With it, they probably just send in half the flight to engage - because this is an S-300P, they should have pretty much impunity; Red Flag simulates S-300s (at least based on Greece's S-300PMU1's) and they were sim-killed with non-gliding JDAMs / LGBs (those are the only A2G weapons available with today's Block 3i). That said, to be safe, they might employ JSOWs or SDBs from further away.
1/2

>>33995232
>>33994967
Before weapons are dropped, it's also possible they might employ some form of EW / cyber attack intended to make their sensors look the other way, etc (supposedly Suter could do that a decade ago against some IADS). If at any time they do believe they've been spotted, the F-35s will certainly employ jamming and either make the strike or reposition.

If the S-300 is able to detect the incoming weapons and successfully defend itself, the F-35s will also try to jam it and simply fire a salvo of weapons like SDBs.

Also, forgot to include it with my post before yourself, but this: >>33994519 is the AARGM-ER; the HARM that will be internally carried (just not any time soon unfortunately).

>do you plan on ever discussing just how the F-35 will fight in the future regarding your F-35 videos
I've really wanted to, using CMANO to visualise it, but CMANO's F-35's aren't all that well modelled (their radar range is half of what it should be, the human eye can somehow spot a jet at 40 miles (with no contrails) more frequently than DAS, MADL doesn't really exist because all units in the game are data linked with an invisible, infinitely fast and infinitely ranged data link, etc. Also its stealth is weirdly modelled to be equal front and back, but be 10dbm higher than what's been claimed, etc.

I've submitted suggestions to the guys that maintain the database, but it'll be a while before they get around to adding them in.

File: 5bf.gif (54KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 625x626px

>>33991030

File: 1470883281556.jpg (31KB, 534x401px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 534x401px

>>33995232
I feel my scenario was a shitty one and did not stand. I was thinking more along the lines of an engament happening in 2022ish, when the F-35 is actually a fairly mature platform, but Jesus Christ the F-35 truly is fucking scary

If I may go a little further, how do you think an 8 ship flight, with AWACs,ELINT, and EW(Growlers) support would fair against a full S-400 battery and its respective escorts (BUKS/Pantsirs/TORS)

Essentially the cream of the crop from each nations respective doctrines going at eachother.

>With it, they probably just send in half the flight to engage - because this is an S-300P, they should have pretty much impunity;

Fuck F-35s are terrifying, not even talking in the force multiplier sense.

>Red Flag simulates S-300s (at least based on Greece's S-300PMU1's)

I actually knew we trained against real life S-300s, i just dont know how the P compares to the PMU1s. Was trying to be conservative with the scenario.

>Before weapons are dropped, it's also possible they might employ some form of EW / cyber attack intended to make their sensors look the other way, etc (supposedly Suter could do that a decade ago against some IADS).

Weren't the Israelis making a virus (Nitro Zues irrc) that could infect Syrian IADs and detonate the warheads in their tubes? I feel the F-35 would be a perfect platform for spoopy shit like that

>Also, forgot to include it with my post before yourself, but this: >>33994519 # is the AARGM-ER; the HARM that will be internally carried (just not any time soon unfortunately).

oh okay so we are making a HARM equivalent for the JSF, gonna dig into that

1/2

>>33995337
>>33995253

>I've really wanted to, using CMANO to visualise it, but CMANO's F-35's aren't all that well modelled (their radar range is half of what it should be, the human eye can somehow spot a jet at 40 miles (with no contrails) more frequently than DAS, MADL doesn't really exist because all units in the game are data linked with an invisible, infinitely fast and infinitely ranged data link, etc. Also its stealth is weirdly modelled to be equal front and back, but be 10dbm higher than what's been claimed, etc.

Im currently in the process of building a monster computer to run Sims like DCS, Il-2 series, wargame (not Sim), ect perfectly And definitely plan on getting CMANO.

im dumping damn near 2600 into the actual computer alone. so I would be more than happy in trying to help you run more complex scenarios to help you once I get past the *steep* learning curve. I'm actually contemplating making a YouTube channel that blends your content and military history visualized content together to help realistically elaborate on scenarios similar to this. Since YouTube is overfuckingsaturated with idiots who have no idea what their talking about

without trying to sound like I'm sucking you off, you are by far one of the best trips on this board hands down, and have personally reinspired me to try and do something in the field of strategic studies, but you're so far out of my caliber its demoralizing a little lol

Keep up the great work dragon, I'll be stalking you on here

>>33995337
>how do you think an 8 ship flight, with AWACs,ELINT, and EW(Growlers) support would fair against a full S-400 battery and its respective escorts (BUKS/Pantsirs/TORS)

Frankly I have no idea - there's too many classified unknowns for that newer stuff. I feel confident enough to say that the S-400 and escorts wouldn't be able to protect a strategic target for too long against attacks by F-35s and friends, but I'm not sure a single 8 ship sortie would be able to kill it - in 2022 they will have the SDB-II and some other new weapons though, so who knows.

>i just dont know how the P compares to the PMU1s

The P is the original version and predates the PMU1 by around 15 years.

>Weren't the Israelis making a virus (Nitro Zues irrc) that could infect Syrian IADs and detonate the warheads in their tubes?

Operation Nitro Zeus was / is a US program intended to take down Iran's IADS, power grid, comms networks, etc. Israel is believed to have used a cyber attack against Syria to attack their nuclear facilities, but I haven't read anything about missiles exploding in their launchers.

>so we are making a HARM equivalent for the JSF, gonna dig into that
Yep, though to be clear this is a HARM, not a separate program - the AGM-88 is the HARM and it's had a few upgrades over the years; the AGM-88E was called the AARGM because it has a big boost in electronics, etc. AARGM-ER is the one the F-35 will carry, and it's just an extended range AARGM that just so happens to have a considerably different look.

>>33995343
I've just started getting into DCS myself - CMANO can struggle when you go for serious numbers of units (eg, simulating all of NK, SK and Japan's radars / SAMs, with some naval assets and a few dozen aircraft thrown in).

I heard that a Mig-21 could defeat an F-35. Is that true?

>>33995337
>Weren't the Israelis making a virus (Nitro Zues irrc) that could infect Syrian IADs and detonate the warheads in their tubes? I feel the F-35 would be a perfect platform for spoopy shit like that

Suter I/II/III/Senior. It reached warhead override capability in version 3, in the mid 00s. Supposedly it's up to version 5 now.

File: JSF-Issues+Problems-2011-Master.png (697KB, 1024x853px) Image search: [Google]

697KB, 1024x853px

>>33995648
yep:

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

File: 1475776142244.jpg (453KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 2048x1152px

>>33991160
they already have a Eurocanard with superior air to air performance than the Rafmeme, Benoit. It's just that they're planning ahead.

>>33991160
>Germany says that a strong European army must happen. They buy American hardware.

Germany will never but French equipment, the whole "EU army" thing is just a ploy to get EU states to spend more money on their armies so Germany can sell more equipment.

>>33995678
>all sources dated 2002-2007

thanks for that WONDERFUL contribution, airpoweraustralia.biz

>>33995711
It's all still true, and theres dozens of new problems right on top of them. F-35 is a fucking turkey.

>>33995767
>Complete bullshit even then
>Hurr still troo!

>>33988056
What is the eternal Teuton playing at?

Hoping for some samples before starting WW3?

>>33995648

The F-35 is designed to win air combat through having an information advantage. If a solitary unsupported F-35 had its position, heading, and ground speed identified by an enemy (perhaps through a combination of ground based visual means, HUMINT, SIGINT and early warning radar), they could theoretically direct a fast interceptor like the Mig-21 behind the F-35 and shoot it down WVR with IR missiles. However, this wouldn't be a failure of the F-35 itself, but of the air force using it to put it in the position where it could happen.

File: pierre_sprey.jpg (84KB, 547x800px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 547x800px

>>33995767

>F-35
>Turkey
Pick one.

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

Stick to making jazz albums, pierre.

File: Sprey-myrrh.jpg (71KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 640x480px

>>33995820
Is WM on BF still called coal burning?

>>33995850

/pol/ would call that "oil drilling".

>>33995253
>because all units in the game are data linked with an invisible, infinitely fast and infinitely ranged data link, etc.
Not anymore as of today.
Chains of War DLC just came out.

>>33995568
>CMANO can struggle when you go for serious numbers of units
Maybe you should buy a better computer.

>>33995811
F-35s DAS would spot the 21 before it got close enough.

You can't really sneak into WVR against a f-35 unless you terrain mask

>>33996560
But I'm running a 4GHz i5 + 16GB + 2x HD7970 + SSD :(

>>33996557
I know there's communication disruptions, etc in it, but does it actually decently simulate data links, or does it still assume they're magic when not being disrupted? (Also, any idea how it works unit-to-unit?)

>>33995678
I love this argument of "1950s design will blow the F-35 out of the sky"
I still think he mostly just made this shit up to gather some attention. Dude isn't retarded, no way he isn't fucking around or someone is paying him to act like a dumbfuck.

>>33988056
I though they weren't done burning cash on immigrants lol.
This would set them back at least few billion.

>>33988056
>eine fickende Zitrone

>>33996594
That's going to be tough against IR cameras.

>>33995693
>superior air to air performance
And that's it... It fails at everything else.

>>33996612
I was able to run Oppenheimers nuclear war scenario with no issues at all. All the DEW and BMEWS radars and missiles, MIRVs and bombers. Only issues I found were traced back to Oppens shitty Lua scripting.

> but does it actually decently simulate data links, or does it still assume they're magic when not being disrupted? (Also, any idea how it works unit-to-unit?)

Not that guy, but they are not magic.
http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=4454

>>33994893
Is there any evidence that SAMs are intended for use against glide bombs (i.e. SDBs)? I've never heard of this being a thing, even theoretically.

>>33998010
Theoretically short range systems like Pantsir are capable of it.

>>33998010
Syria shot down an Israeli bomb around a year ago.

Both the bomb and the SAM were older systems but its definitely possible.

>>33991030
You're only mostly wrong. The point of stealth on a platform like the F-35 is to reduce your enemies' weapons' effective range. Mostly. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the F-35 isn't meant for recon. Remember the F-117s bombing Iraqi infrastructure? I'm pretty sure they were detected, it's just that radar guided weapons weren't able to track them properly. There are different types of radar you know.

>>33999723
>I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the F-35 isn't meant for recon.
You are completely wrong. Both the ASQ-239 Barracuda and EO-DAS/TS provide autonomous reconnaissance of RF and IR spectrums.

>I'm pretty sure they were detected, it's just that radar guided weapons weren't able to track them properly.
Nope, it was a complete surprise when the F-117 destroyed the central control of the IADS networks.

>>33997902
Haven't played Opp's scenarios, but in my case I had imported all of the IADS and airports of NK, SK, Japan and some US facilities like Hawaii and Guam - I don't know if it was just a matter of my computer struggling to run the radars, etc, or if it was partly due to all the sub-units / facilities that get imported with each airfield, but it was pretty poor.

>http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=4454
Awesome, I'm gonna have to pick it up next week.

>>33998010
Definitely possible; the double digit SAMs that we're talking about are supposedly capable of defending an area against cruise missiles - the crews will need to be quick to react, but standoff weapons give them time and things like SDBs aren't particularly stealthy.

>>33997130
seriously, is he jewish? because hes acting like it

>>33997130
Sprey designed the f-16. I don't agree with him either, but he deserves a lot of respect for what he's done.

>>34000381
Sprey never designed anything. He and a group of other analysts basically wrote down criteria for what they thought a lightweight fighter should have, and the aerospace companies took those numbers and ran with it.

And the F-16 that Sprey wanted was a faaaar different (as in, really shitty) beast than the F-16 we have now.

>>34000381
He didn't design it, he put down the idea of a cheap, light fighter that relied on maneuverability. What he wanted didn't use avionics, definitely no fly by wire, no missiles, and had no air to surface capability.

>>33995648
Yes, assuming the F-35 is on the ground.

>>33994893

>The new variant of HARM, the AARGM-ER is designed to fit internally.
>JSOW-ER will be the same size as a JSOW yet incorporate a jet engine.
Ah, very good.

>>33989064
srly? f22 is better than f35 but more expensive
also pak fa t-50
basicly f22 but t50 can go as fast as f22 on afterburners for 1500 km
and pak fa is WAY cheaper

>>33990064
dumbo if poland gona buy any jets it will be su27/su35
becaouse they are cheaper and pl pilots are more familiar with rusian family jets

>>33993708
sauce: ur ass

>>33991641
I still don't understand people going into big cities and expecting to know everything about a country after that.
>Eww New York is full of black people
>Eww Munich is full of arabs
>Eww Rome is full of black people

>>34001071
There are currently 9 T-50s and they are all incomplete prototypes.

>>34001115
This has to be bait

Poland is in NATO, their primary fighter aircraft is the F-16.

>>34001234

the t50 prototype puts the f35 to shame

now because the russians didn't randomly start clipping unfinished planes together (something that the USSR probably would have done) they are still flying prototypes and since they are NOT in any plans for large scale wars against the west (only the usual proxywar stuff, where asymmetrical para/arty divisions are 100000 times more useful than stealth memes)

but I guess when you're war-profiteering non-stop, creating hundreds of shitpiles that is the f35 and THEN spending decades meme'ing about, is justifiable

>>34002193
>the t50 prototype puts the f35 to shame

See, /k/ can make a good joke once and a while.

File: typical-vatnik.jpg (71KB, 475x604px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 475x604px

>>34002193

File: 1485054956225.gif (415KB, 480x238px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 480x238px

>>33991030

fact: no radar exists on this earth that can see the F-35

>>34004944
Oi, quit that shit. Any radar could see the F-35. Where stealth applies is how close they have to be before they can notice it. Very Low Observability, not Invisibility.

>>34004944
I find this hard to believe

>>33997902
>>34000198
Opp made a video game of some sort ?

As long as the F-35 will be able to carry all our ordonnances the Typhoon and Tornado can it's a far better way than waiting for a 6th Gen Airbus or a new Eurofighter/Panavia plane especially without Britain.
And if other European nations also buy it, it would be perfect for maintenance and supply

>>34004999
He made a nuclear war scenario in CMANO.

>>33988056
>Sorry only nazispeak

its called german

but i like your description

>>34004986
>Where stealth applies is how close they have to be before they can notice it. Very Low Observability, not Invisibility.
And with the Barracuda the F-35 has a huge advantage over older stealth in that it can actively provide the pilot with data on radar threat ranges. Unlike the F-117, for instance, that needed months of surveillance and planning to build a safe route to hit the target sites in Iraq.

Same story as when Germany were evaluating F/A-18 and F-15 aircraft back at the time of the Jäger 90 developement.

>>34006365

The difference being, that there isn't a plausible European Tornado replacement project that will be ready in time. it's either the F-35A, or more Eurofighters

>>34005041
How accurate/realistic is it?

>>33997902

Where is that scenario posted? Link?

>>34006791

CMANO? Quite a bit.

>>33996612

Grab there hotfix: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4287380

Givez da speeeeeeeeed

File: germany buys the starfighter.png (266KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 600x900px

Are we going to need an update of this?

>>34006951
>German F-105 crashes were mostly the fault of how they were used

>F-35 basically has a perfect safety record far better than any prior plane

>>34006951
F-104s didn't have a particularly worse safety record than other fighters of the time.

Itsa meme.

File: GTNW op scenario.png (700KB, 1123x535px) Image search: [Google]

700KB, 1123x535px

>>34006791
Pretty realistic.

>>34006916
The Mega link is dead. Sorry.

>>34007034
>F-35 basically has a perfect safety record far better than any prior plane

-It doesn't
-It would be irrelevant if it did, considering the miniscule number of flight hours

>>34007065
No, they did crash more often in German service. Mostly because they were trying to use a high-speed interceptor as a bomb truck and everything else. In US service they were fine, but we just used them as an interceptor.

>>34007081
It's close enough. Three fires, none of which were total losses, and zero injuries. No other plane can claim that good of a record.

>>34007081

>-It doesn't

If there was an F-35 crash or fatality, we would know by now.

>-It would be irrelevant if it did, considering the miniscule number of flight hours

It is literally approaching 100,000 flight hours across a fleet of over 200 aircraft.

>>33991115
Rogoway is a good writer (ditched FTA for Warzone a year ago) but his hate boner for the F-35 and concurrency is strong and clouds his judgement

Thing is as with >>33989715 stealth is technology plus doctrine. When the platform is young expect some loses while training against the older, more experienced platform initially.

>>34007361
>When the platform is young expect some loses while training against the older, more experienced platform initially.
It must be noted that the F-35 hasn't lost against any older platform though. The constantly memed "dogfight" test was no such thing.

File: 03 Starfighter_26+70 F-104G MFG 2 1985_Stefan Petersen.jpg (204KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1600x1067px

>>34006951
The funny thing is that you never hear one of the remaining Starfighter pilots say anything bad about it. The all still got a ragging hard one for this sexy beast

>>34007329
>If there was an F-35 crash or fatality, we would know by now.

Thats a very narrow scope for defining a "safey" record. Several have had class A incidents.

>It is literally approaching 100,000 flight hours across a fleet of over 200 aircraft.

So 500 hours an aircraft? Yeah, I should fucking hope these brand new airframes wouldn't have issues. Like I said, miniscule.

>>34007093
The German need for divebombers never and I mean NEVER ends. Expect massive airbrakes on the F-35 and having it named the "schnellbomberzerstorerinterceptorflugzeugkraft" or something

>>34007744
>Several have had class A incidents.
3. Not "several." 3. Which is a rate far below that of other fleets at the same flight hour count. And still at a zero injury, zero death count, which is unprecedented.

File: 1489609946195.gif (3MB, 520x292px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 520x292px

>>34007767
>Schnellbomberzerstörerabfangkraftjagdflugzeug

I think it's mostly a political warning shot for airbus. They fucked up the A400M, the Tiger and the NH 90 aren't doing great either.
It's all about telling Tom Enders to get his shit together.
Still the second most retarded decision right after opening the borders for third worlders...

>>33989001
>/k/
>smarter than the average mouth breathing civilian retard.

wew lad

>>34007921
The problem is that Enders (just like Lürsen, Burmester, Pappenberger or Haun) knows that the MOD will always make shitty contracts without delay fees and that they can ask for any amount of money they want.

>>34007856
>3. Not "several." 3.

Clappers in charge of understanding english

In because of NATO strategic interests germany must own an aircraft with good air to ground fight posibilities.
The Eurofighter is made for air to air combat and the Tornados are getting to old these days.
But instat of burning money for these flying peace of bullshit we should maybe buy the Saab Gripen or, if thinks may getting better with rusia, the Su 34

File: 1454301354257.jpg (16KB, 275x279px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 275x279px

>>34008119
>this post

>>34008119
>not burning money
>buying the Gripen
What is Switzerland?

>if thinks getting better with rusia, the Su 34
This sentence. Just.

may be a stupid question but why does it always take 20years to build a new type of aircraft?

>>34008048
"A few" is the term you're looking for, not "several."

>>34008240

It doesn't. That's a post-Cold War problem.

>>34008240
>>34009726
Because fighters are extremely complex systems of systems with the added risks due to them being up in the air.

That said, 15 years is a more accurate range for most planes to go from prototype first flight to entering service.

>>34008240
Because you have
>initial request for information sent out to industry
>final definition of requirements based off of responses, RFP issued
>wait for responses from industry
>process proposals, put out contracts for further development
>more waiting while contracted companies flesh out designs
>final decision process for production
>finalize design
>prototyping and testing
>IOC

And that's literally just airframes. You have to remember that there's usually a bunch of separate contracts that go out simultaneously - everything from the engines to radars to basic avionics. So it's not just as simple as having people design out every structural component of the aircraft - you're also waiting on engine development and avionics and often times even weapons.