F-35 Slamming

>>34269207

There is literally nothing wrong with the F-35. We are quite privileged to have such an impressive machine defending our airspace.

>>34269207
Protip: its not.

>>34269207
It isn't even a fiscal disaster; maintaining/restarting production of legacy craft out to the expected end-of-service of the F-35 would have cost ludicrously more. It's a "fiscal terror" because for once the bean-counters put up the entire 50-year cost, including all the personnel, their salaries/benefits/christmas bonuses, the flight hours, maintenance, training, etc., etc.

Over 50 years, one and a half trillion for all those fighters is frankly quite reasonable for what we are getting.

File: 1647814.jpg (392KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 1280x853px

>>34269207
It is neither a fiscal disaster or a technical disaster, you are suffering from clickbait that uses ignorance to create the appearance of scandal.

>>34269438
And again, $4t to keep the planes it replaces in service that long.

>>34269438
OK Lockheed

Nobody can really have a fully informed opinion about it, because it is technologically a black box for everyone except those at the top of the programme. The "5th gen" of fighters is about information, obtaining & sharing it with allies, and denying & spoofing it to enemies. This kind of technology will always be secretive, which leaves a vacuum for those opposed or supportive of the aircraft to make up all sorts of bullshit clickbait. Add in the fact that you should not consider it in isolation, but how it networks with other F-35s, other aircraft, and even other non-aviation systems, the potential gets very exciting.

>>34269207
Kremlin and PRC shills piggy backing on anti government / luddite sentiment to undermine confidence in America and NATO
or do you want a fake answer

>>34271823
I assume this guy is a Kremlin shill too

https://soundcloud.com/war_college/how-the-pentagons-wasteful

File: 1493785105247m.jpg (19KB, 1024x577px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 1024x577px

>>34269207
Because it's the first jet to be born in the internet age.
Any moron can make an article saying the f35 doesn't work.
Then share it on Facebook.

CNN made a claim that the f35s gun wouldn't until 2019
Then Lockheed released a video of the f35a using that gun upside down.
Fake fucking news
Just look up the f16s development
If you wanting see a jet that straight up didn't work.

>>34269207
Issue was it was going to replace something that it wouldnt fill the roll of.

The a10.

The a10 needs an full blownoverhaul not a replacement that costs over 4x the price

>>34271846
>How this bullshit affects this other bullshit and la dee da
Just more greedy mother fuckers trying to suck their own from the DOD tit.
They don't give a fuck about the institution.
They don't give a fuck about America.
They don't perceive maintaining national unity and national morale as "their problem".

They are just
trying to suck
every
single
drop
from the tax payer
as they possibly can.

There is a lot of defense money floating around. If people actually cared about the War College, the War College would get a lot more of that money. The idea that a school isn't getting as much money as they might because money is getting spent inefficiently/on fighters is absolutely absurd.

Absolutely out of touch with how defense money is allocated in the US. Absolutely clueless.

>>34271850
>Because it's the first jet to be born in the internet age.
>Any moron can make an article saying the f35 doesn't work.
Fucking this, everyone is an expert on everything these days and is obliged to share their retarded opinion. Military projects are an extra easy target for "journalists" to attack and thus you get hundreds of faggots parroting six trillion dollars down the train pierre sprey tier bullshit.
And no, the project itself is not perfect but it absolutely does not deserve the criticism it receives, and backing out from the project now or five years ago would've been an absolutely retarded decision that would've crippled western airforces in the long run

>>34271852

The only thing that has given the A-10 a reprieve is that it has been pressed into COIN, and has influential senators backing it up. The A-10 is not fit for purpose.

>>34271852
>muh A-10

>>34269252
>privileged
ahahahaha fuggin great

File: maxresdefault.jpg (108KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1600x900px

>>34271918
>it was my privilege, muh-muhreen

>>34269252
>impressive
Hahaha

Good Joke, it is not even a Chinese.

>>34269207
It's not a fiscal disaster, money is arbitrary and useless, especially for a country that's 20 trillion in debt.

A state-of-the-art jet is actually worth something, the research and tech that was developed for it is worth something and that money went into American Jobs which means it just circulates in the economy.

I'm convinced the F-35 does not exist and is simply a front that the government uses to funnel money into black projects

File: image.jpg (85KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 960x540px

>>34271852
The Swedes had the right idea.
>A-10 "aesthetics"
>smaller airframe
>a more dedicated COIN platform

>>34269207
Just look at it, it's a flying brick.

>>34269207
It's an aircraft version of MBT-70.

>>34272898
>the US will only fight COIN wars

I think to assume the above is a dangerous gamble. Russia may be out of the game, but China sure is flexing its dick in the Pacific. The most important aspect of the F35 is the network integrations allowing it to play a big part in the distributed lethality doctrine of the US navy.

>>34272655
>>34273386
>>34273495
>Summer day/k/are

>>34271732
Maybe being flyable should be a criterion.

>>34273780
And how easy it it to jam radio comms?

>>34273959
Regular open air civilian radio waves? Pretty simple.

Highly encrypted military datalinks that can jump multiple frequencies simultaneously? Not so much.

>>34273986
Decrypting is another question. Jamming radio waves is not that complex. It can requires heavy means though.

>>34273948

2/3 variants are in operational service, and well over 200 have been built, more than the; F-22A, Su-35S, or the Rafale, and nearly as many as the Gripen or J-11.

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

3MB, 1280x720px

Paris Air Show in 1 week - a pair of F-35As have arrived and done a practice run - these jets are still 7G limited because they're operational jets being borrowed from Hill, but they're being flown by Lockheed test pilots (including a Canadian), so they're a bit less restricted by OSHA.

>>34274399
Expect intense shilling by anti F-35 trying to downplay the maneuverability displayed.

>>34274399
That thing is so slow, even a SOBER serbian could shoot it down!

>>34269438
>over 50 years.
But those fighters will be obsolete within 30 years, let alone 50.

>>34274724
Now think of how obsolete 4th gen aircraft will be in 30 years.

>>34274616
>Blue sky filming with no reference point or knowledge of what they're specifically doing
>Hurr slow durr!

File: SU-35.webm (148KB, 444x230px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 444x230px

>>34274762
>video of plane slowly turning
>WOW F-35 IS SO BASED, AMIRITE GUYS

>>34274783
>manuevers using ballistics instead of control surfaces

>>34274783
That's sped up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nm_y3DNPaY

>>34271918
>>34272027
Great arguments.

>>34274399
Looks nice, wonder when we're going to see some F35s in high visibility USN markings

>>34269438
Christmas bonuses? I joined the wrong branch.

>>34274399
sure to see some crazy maneuvers with the pilot turning blue blowing off the canopy from defective oxygen system

locmart must have sucked alot of french faa cocks to get a air worthiness waiver

File: SU-35-doing-things.webm (864KB, 718x404px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 718x404px

>>34274832
Nope, that's a different video. The clouds are different.

>>34274820
>d-doesn't count because reasons! SU-35 CHEAATED!!!

>>34274783
>>34275182
>Garbage Airshow-only maneuvers that erase your energy count in combat

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3000x1990px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x1990px

>>34273780
There's nothing wrong with saying the US should accept into service a actual COIN aircraft. A modern day OV-10 or similar aircraft would be much more affordable, and OV-10s aren't new to carrier ops.

>>34274745
Indeed, the future of aerial warfare is with drones and missiles.

>financial disaster
Meme.
LRIP-10 cost of an F-35A: $93m
The "One Trillion Dollars!!11!!!!1" figure includes literally everything related to the aircraft, including aircrew and maintenance crew salaries, until about 2050. It's a stupid number.

>>34275295
But anon, what about advancements in jamming? Obviously the real future is in analog.

In all seriousness though, we do know at least the russians and probably others have been working on better jamming tech, so it's only a matter of time until a fancy drone gets memed.

>>34275359
Jamming is useless if you have genuinely effective AI piloting the drone for you.

>>34275359
That's what the AN/APG-81 is for, burning a line-of-sight data link through almost any conditions. The radar on the F-35 is nothing short of black magic.

>>34269207
In my opinion the f-35 would make a terrible dog fighter, BUT it isn't for dog fighting. There's a reason why its called a JSF. Its designed to be able to carry more missile types than say the raptor, but still maintain stealth. In air to air combat, it's strength is based on electronics and missile range compared to most other jets whose strengths are built off of manueverability.

File: image.jpg (255KB, 960x1440px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 960x1440px

>>34275384
D-don't do it!

>>34275359
Damnit, Donald!

>>34275398
During the last red flag, a strike force of Raptors and JSFs (the intended Hi-Lo mix) went 15-0 against their legacy opponents and destroyed all targets unimpeded.
Anything that strike group goes after in anger is gonna burn.

>>34275182
Yes, it is a different video, the reason I posted it is because the speed at which it does those maneuvers is much slower than in your webm. Also, it's not even going to get chance to do those things in actual combat.

>>34275401
Hey, im all down for some Hall9000 shit if it leads to Jamie Fox dead and Jessica Biel in a bikini and/or bodysuit

>>34275182

>Russia builds its entire airforce out of a one-trick-pony that haemorrhages all its energy to point its nose in another direction.
>USA builds a fighter with 360 degree spherical situational awareness, and puts the thrust vectoring on its HOBS missiles instead.

Vatniks are eternally rectally ravaged.

File: usa.gif (2MB, 390x220px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 390x220px

>>34275221
>when the F-35 does airshow shit, we're all supposed to be amazed and impressed
>when the SU-35 does airshow shit, it means the plane is shit
Never change fellow Amerikuns

>>34274724
Same with the skilled pilots who just want to retire and go commercial.

>>34275501
Well for one, the F-35 isn't doing useless parlour tricks that make it fall out of the sky.

>>34275518
Its an airshow, planes do that.

>>34275527
>>34275518
Just wait for the blue angels to pick up the F-35. It'll be doing the same sort of shit sooner or later.

>>34275182
>ballistic maneuvers
>literally cannot do them slower because the engines are throttled down and the plane will stall otherwise

>>34275501
>I will pretend I never argued the F-35 was a unmaneuverable turkey

>>34275501
I dont know where ur from bud, but we have more aircraft carriers.

nothing wrong with it.
other than that it will be pretty much obsolete the second another gen 5 aircraft comes out because we hurried our development so we could say we were first, instead of developing it properly.
also saying dogfights will still happen is a meme. fighters are pretty much gonna turn into light air support craft for missions when it comes to strategy. dogfights just don't happen.

>>34275694
>other than that it will be pretty much obsolete the second another gen 5 aircraft comes out because we hurried our development so we could say we were first, instead of developing it properly.

Considering the next two closest countries to a true 5th gen aren't anywhere near finishing them, this is a really stupid thing to say. A lot of air forces are STILL trying to play catch up to the F-15.

Getting your 5th gen out first means you get more experience flying it and setting up the logistics to support it. Not to mention a headstart on future block improvements.

>>34274231
Jamming requires emitting, which makes you vulnerable to attack, so it's hardly as simple as saying 'durr hurr, we'll just jam all their radios!' Part of the purpose of making the F35 low observable is so that it can be positioned to take advanatge of this.

>>34275662
>the F-35 is better at acrobatics because we have good ships
lol wat

>>34275715
>Getting your 5th gen out first means you get more experience flying it and setting up the logistics to support it. Not to mention a headstart on future block improvements.
fair enough.
>A lot of air forces are STILL trying to play catch up to the F-15.
I think you mean "countries that have an air force for matters of national pride"
>Considering the next two closest countries to a true 5th gen aren't anywhere near finishing them, this is a really stupid thing to say.
not really. when you are the first to adopt a new kind of technology, you suffer problems that people don't think of as a result of it. look at the ME262. great plane, but it couldn't perform at it's peak because rockets were awful back then and was a shitshow to maintain them at first, and they cost a bazillion dollars. look at the phantom. it was supposed to revolutionize air battles because "hurr durr we don't need guns because muh missles". are you implying that the very first 5th generation strike aircraft won't have serious problems?

>>34275779
>ME262

Developed by a country that was notorious for overengineering their vehicles and had a very poor logistics system to support them.

>F-4

There was literally nothing wrong with the Phantom other than the USAF never trained most of their pilots in how to properly fight in them. The Navy used them with no problems at all, with or without the gun.

>Serious problems

What do you think the decade long development cycles for the F-22 and F-35 were for? To find and stamp out all of those problems before they hit mass production. I guarantee you that Russia and China are trying to work out the kinks in their respective projects behind closed doors.

>>34275527
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTI5etjTniU

>>34275896
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EadeAldeX8

>>34275722
>Jamming requires emitting
Yes.

>which makes you vulnerable to attack,
Not mandatory. The source can be anything, anywhere, and not necessarily a target. A cheap device on the ground, a nuclear bomb in the atmosphere, radio waves can be disturbed in many ways.

>>34275896
It did that on purpose to impress the children.

>>34275978
>A cheap device on the ground, a nuclear bomb in the atmosphere, radio waves can be disturbed in many ways.

Yes, because none of these possibilities were considered by the guys who designed Link 16 and MADL.

>>34275880
>Me 262 had problems because how2jet
>F-4 has problems because how2missile
>F-117 had problems because how2stealth

I'm not saying we have it all completely figured out, but the F-35 isn't really doing NEW things on the same level as any of those.

>>34275978
>F-35 cannot be jammed because we'll detonate high atmosphere nuclear weapons
Who could possibly be this dumb....

Kissinger? Is that you?

>>34269207

They could have been honest from the beginning but the marketing around Washington wouldn't have worked as well.

The plane is designed to fly in with a small flight of other F35s, attack a target inside of AA/AD defenses, hit the target and then fly home. The flight has the ability to attack, at range, any enemy aircraft in their path that it NEEDS to, and possibly fight their way out.

It is not an Air Dominance fighter like the F15 and F22 were built to be, it is a strike fighter; the primary mission is to use front quarter stealth to attack an surprised enemy target.

The problem is, the Pentagon had to sell it as a swiss army knife in order to get the funding that the jet needed.

That being said, if the Marines were told to just fuck off with their midget carriers and STOVL requirements, the plane would have been a better air to air fighter. Lower wing loading and a higher power loading, but the primary mission would have still been the same.

>>34276126
>marines and their midget carriers
>implying it's not the RN and their midget carriers

>>34276126
>if the Marines were told to just fuck off with their midget carriers and STOVL requirements, the plane would have been a better air to air fighter.

We call those the F-35A and F-35C.

>>34275988
>>34275997
>reading comprehension
Try again.

>>34275995
The sensor fusion, data linking and raw sensory input are all 'new'.

>>34276126

The F-35 program actually evolved out of the program the Marines started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Affordable_Lightweight_Fighter

>>34276126
You cannot actually quantify how the F-35B hinders the A or C.

>>34276158

The Marines are buying more than twice and many as the Brits. The RN could have had the QE II built as a CATOBAR and gotten a cheaper plane that has more range, more wing, lower weight and higher weapons load. The British as building 2 QE carriers and the Marines are building 12 America LHA ships.

>>34276176
Still limited by the sunken canopy, single engine and the A model doesn't have enough wing.

>>34273780

Aspects of China's Army are composed of cavalrymen and soldiers armed with 50s era surplus which the A-10 can BRRRRRRT just as fine as it can sand people.

File: IMG_1680.jpg (108KB, 500x528px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 500x528px

>>34269207
>88 replies

When will they ever learn?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WlyL2r2j7VQ

>>34276667
OY VEY

>>34276346

>sunken canopy

If you are referring to rearward visibility, doesn't DAS & the new helmet give far better 360 degree situational awareness than an F-16 pilot with his bubble canopy.

>single engine

How is this a disadvantage? The F-16 is also a single engine aircraft. Being able to get the performance you need out of a single engine saves a fortune on manufacturing and maintenance.

>A model doesn't have enough wing

If it needed more wing they would have given it common wings with the C variant.

Even without the B variant, the F-35 would have needed a massive fuselage to get those deep weapon bays, able to carry bigger internal weapons than the F-22A despite being a smaller aircraft, and to carry more internal fuel than a F-16 fully decked out in CFTs & EFTs. Also, I don't understand this fixation with the idea that the B variant is only for use off small carriers. STOVL aircraft can operate from just about anywhere; this is useful for forward basing, this is useful for dispersion against strikes, and yes this is useful for operating from small carriers. The second use is particularly underrated.

File: IMG_3125.jpg (17KB, 128x212px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 128x212px

>>34276667
KIKES GET OUT

File: IMG_1621.png (444KB, 733x881px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 733x881px

>>34276804

The only recent downside of the F-35 that is recent news, is that it doesn't get much flight time. In flight school right now, and the admiral in charge of Naval aviation came and spoke to us a few months back. He had a Q&A session at the end, and one of of the questions was "how much flight time do F35 pilots actually get?"

Apparently, very little. It's almost all simulators. One reason being, it's expensive. The other, is apparently the airspace needed to do stuff for the F35 is exponentially larger than for the f18 (but in a kinda good way). Basically, they need a lot more airspace when practicing actual combat conditions or something. It was a really interesting brief.

>>34277130
>The other, is apparently the airspace needed to do stuff for the F35 is exponentially larger than for the f18
Probably because it's so bad at turning.

>>34277825
Or, you know, the much further range of its sensors and needing to practice their use.

>>34277866
Dude, even the SR-71 cornered better than the F-35.

>>34269252
>.005 has been deposited into you lockmart accout

I don't disagree with you, but you sound like one of those commie chinese shills.

>>34271732
fuck off with your reasonable statement

>>34277906
>Watch me show how retarded I am!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF96BRc3rPw

>>34271846
the shill depends on what side of the argument you're on.

>>34277997
My honda civic can do that.

>>34278011
Dude, just stop digging already. You're already too deep to climb out.

>>34277825
It was along the lines of what
>>34277866 said, except much more complicated and cooler.

>>34278077
Can F-35 even drift?

>>34269207
It has the exact same problems as the F-16, the Bradley, and the M16 had before it and the same problems the Ford-class will have in the next decade.

>>34278721
>Not crashing regularly like the F-16
>In fact the first ever to not have any crashes in development

>Bradley turned out OK

>M16's problems were exactly the opposite: cost-cutting measures that made it worse, not a broad suite of advancements that slowed and increased expense

Fucking Summer.

>>34280070
Says the baiting summerfag, failing to understand the Bradley's combat record, forgetting about F16 test and eval crashes.

Take two steps back from the computer, leave the room, and go to a public library, now.

>>34280094
Eat shit retard, the F-35 is an excellent fighter, and had had no issues similar to those three programs.

>it can't do this or that
>XX can do XX better that f35

You shouldn't ask what the F35 can do but rather what it can achieve. That's all that matters.

>>34269438
there is no threat that this will help solve.

It's not like 1.5t of investment into an economy ever did anything productive...

>>34275436
Nigga the Russians had HOBS thrust befitting missiles like 20 years before the US did.

Shame all the work Russians put into making their planes out turn everybody means jack shit in 99% of modern air combat

>>34275634
>Su-35
>stalling

No. It's Thrust to Weight does not allow it to stall basically.

>>34281505

>Nigga the Russians had HOBS thrust befitting missiles like 20 years before the US did.

I never said the US was first, I was pointing out the combination of the latest AIM-9X with; DAS, sensor fusion, the F-35 helmet, and the extensive work on reducing pilot workload (and so OODA speed) in combat. Russian investment in combat jet super-manoeuvrability is an evolutionary dead end for air combat, and they're too proud or stupid to admit it.

>>34281505
>It's Thrust to Weight does not allow it to stall basically.

That selective reading.

>>34271932
>BF-03
Damn, just two numbers off.

>>34275535
If it doesn't suffocate them first.

>>34274783
>be russian
>use crazy maneuvers to attack F-35 and waste all energy and altitude
>meanwhile F-35 which excels in high angle of attack is doing his high angle of attack thing
>"Why is it raining missiles?" the russian wonders and then dies

File: F35_JSF_Issues_Lemon_Turkey.png (697KB, 1024x853px) Image search: [Google]

697KB, 1024x853px

>>34269207

>>34284272
>be russian
>buzz American ship 50 meters away
>Americans reduced to weeping messes and sue for peace

>>34284308
>be russian
>try to take of from carrier
>crash into the sea
>carrier reduced to smoking mess and sail home

>>34284308
>be US Navy
>see single Russian aircraft on radar
>approaching at high speeds
>realize the Russians aren't stupid enough to strike a naval vessel with just one aircraft, let alone from point blank range
>nor are they stupid enough to start a global thermonuclear war for no reason
>Russian flies by thumbing his nose at the ship
>continue sipping coffee and browsing facebook

>>34280094
The Bradley's combat record is fine, I think they killed more stuff in the Gulf War than M1s did.
As for crashes, the F-35 has had two small fires in it's development history.

>>34284341
>be russian
>take off from russian airfield because russians aren't aggressors against America
>fly close to American ship that's menacing the motherland
>Americans think themselves victims and cry about how irresponsible russian pilots are for not following OSHA regulations

>>34269207
I'm in a fighter squadron with some f-15E dual seat pilots, we had some F-35 pilots run by and we ran simulations against them and all of the F-15 pilots died before even getting sight on the F-35s.
I think it was a fourship against a two ship so our guys even had the numbers advantage.
Compared to the planes we're using now they're so far and beyond it's not even funny.

File: FDtLZ.jpg (91KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1280x853px

>>34269207

F-35
>Slow
>Not combat proven
>Small gun
>No SPECTRA system
>Less range than pic related
>Rely on bodystealth only

Pic related should US Navy buy

>>34275416
This

>>34284568
hon hon baguette

File: e9d[1].jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>34284291
>2011
>Air Power Austrailia

>>34284568
>I'M COMPLETELY FULL OF SHIT NOW GIB BAGUETTE!

>>34284568

Memes aside, I'm so looking forward to the increasingly deluded Frenchfag posting as the Rafale gets more and more left behind in development compared to its contemporaries, and more and more expensive to fly because of the lack of airframes produced to support a large supply chain.

>A-a-a-any day now, India is going to order another hundred, just you wait!

Is it true that the US-version has premium stealth while the partners only get a second-rate stealth?

>>34275512
The commercial pilot market is so shit you might not get so many jumping out of the AF as fast.

>>34284429
It's called Freedom of Navigation, of course you wouldn't know that as the Russian Navy is not capable of sustaining operations far from their coast.

>>34285331

No every customer will get the same stealth, but it is true that to most customers it will be a black box they don't get to take apart and fiddle with to see how it works.

One way in which it will probably be better for the USA than export customers is in MADL integration to other platforms. MADL is a low probability of Intercept (LPI) communication system which has superior bandwidth and is harder to detect than the NATO standard Link 16. MADL will be integrated between all USAF stealth aircraft and USN Aegis warships, and I believe that no export customers as yet are able to use MADL to communicate with platforms apart from other F-35s

What other jet has a touchscreen in it?

You could probably shitpost on 4chan with one of those things.

>>34285366
>American ships can go wherever they want
>Russian planes aren't allowed to though
Right.

>>34285428
>You could probably shitpost on 4chan with one of those things.
Where do you think I am right fucking now?

>>34285593
>American ships buzz Russian planes

vatnik logic

File: 1486013519249.jpg (104KB, 680x1209px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 680x1209px

>>34271850
>F-35 in white

File: IMG_1626.jpg (136KB, 1632x920px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1632x920px

>>34285428
Still impressed some dude is shit posting from work with a printer

The only problem with the F-35 is that we're giving them to Turkey

>>34280094
Bradley's have an excellent combat record and the F-16 killed a lot of pilots in its early life.

>>34284368
>is fine
Aluminum armor.
ALUMINUM ARMOR
Is fine for fighting shitskins, I guess.

>>34269252
fpbp

>>34284568
Hmm, what was the last time the USA bought aircraft, ships, or wepons from outside the US?
>SPAD
>Chauchat
FN M4 not what I mean

>>34276321
but they're not so essential that the plane will be unable to shoot or will fall out of the sky like the other examples given.

>>34271850
>Then Lockheed released a video of the f35a using that gun upside down.
Do they normally not work upside down?

>>34280070
My apologies, allow me to further explain.

All of them are completely fine and functional pieces of equipment. But people bitched and moaned about perceived failures because people need to bitch and moan about shit.

>>34284345
You forgot:

>media and politicians react like they just learned that Dantooine is far too remote for an effective demonstration.

>>34288579
Pentagon wars?

>>34288614
>SPAD
A fine aircraft, not sure why you are bring that up.

>Chauchat
It was the US produced guns that were shit, the French ones worked fine.

>>34288675
All of them became completely fine and functional eventually. The F-16 was called the lawn dart for a reason and the start of the M16 program was a complete clusterfuck, rifles being sent to Vietnam without any cleaning supplies whatsoever, the wrong ammo and shitty QC.

They've been having problems with the software lately but other than that it's fine

The only reason why people really criticize it is because some people prefer aircraft that specializes in certain tasks like attacking or fighting or bombing whereas the f-35 is kind of a jack of all trades. It's all personal preference if you think it sucks or it's great.

>>34288662

Sure they should, the point is that upside-down firing is not one of the first tests you would do while certifying the gun for use, implying it has been working for some time.

>>34288614
Carl Gustav and AT-4 comes to mind. CROWS RWS as well, along with Penguin missiles and NSM in small numbers

>>34285279

Its already ahead. F-35 has no SPECTRA system. Rafale is only combat aircraft in world with an active stealth SPECTRA system that stops missiles and forces planes to come to gun range if they want kill Dassault Rafale. F-22 lost this way.

F-35 only have AM-RAAAM. Rafale has MICA, which is better in ranges forced to fight Rafale.

>>34288614
I know you're memeing, but still:
RR Merlin
RR Avon
EE Canberra

>>34290509

THIS IS WHAT FRENCHFAGS ACTUALLY BELIEVE

>>34290571
Can someone take that "vatnik drunken dreams = stronk!" picture and make it relate to Rafalefag? Like, make the vodka into wine, a beret on its head and so on?

>>34290571

The difference is Rafale has already done it. Why do you think the US asked the French to go in first in Lybya so their planes could be safe after Rafale cleared the way? Its fought in Africa.

F-35 hasnt done any of of.

Just because France doesnt use American stealth and does it in other way with SPECTRA that noone else can make yet as no plans to put a SPECTRA system on the F-35.

>>34269207
technically it doesn't smile

>>34275978
>he source can be anything, anywhere, and not necessarily a target. A cheap device on the ground, a nuclear bomb in the atmosphere, radio waves can be disturbed in many ways.
Disturbed radio =/= jammed radio
Jamming the radar or radio links of the F-35 at any appreciable range would require massive amount of power being shunted through very high power transmitters/antennas. We're talking kilowatts of transmission power. You're not gonna be able to transmit that much power through any everyday antenna array.

>>34290614
Got a finite elements report to make for tonight, might do it tomorrow if it's still relevant.
>>34290509

"...2 lance paillettes Spirale (qui coupent des paillettes à la demande en fonction de la longueur d'onde des radars à leurrer) en bord de fuite de l'aile."

>tfw frenchfags literally use glitter in warfare

jack of all trades master of none

>>34290509
>F-35 has no SPECTRA system.
No, it has the EO-DAS and Barracuda. SPECTRA is nothing special compared the the F-35's equipment.

>that stops missiles and forces planes to come to gun range if they want kill Dassault Rafale
>This is what frogs actually believe

>>34290630
>Hurr plane just entering cerbix huddn't bun in rull cumbutt yut
I can't wait for the Air Force to get them into Syria and start shutting these retards up.

Sure is summer here

>>34290509
>F-35 only have AM-RAAAM. Rafale has MICA, which is better in ranges forced to fight Rafale.
>we have no BVR missile but that is ok because we wouldn't be able to pick up an F-35 at BVR ranges

wew

>>34291675
And it ignores that SPECTRA has no way to deal with something like the AIM-120D, which can be fired and guided into terminal range with no active targeting emissions by either the F-35 or the missile.

>>34292339
To be fair, ignoring things is pretty much the basis of how Rafalefag spends his time

>>34288614
>Hmm, what was the last time the USA bought aircraft, ships, or wepons from outside the US?
Every single one of their tank guns?
>Rheinmetall

>>34291367
>wanting USAF pilots to make guest appearances in ISIS films
plz no

>>34292442

The M256 is not the same as the Rheinmetall L/44.

File: 1496191278658.gif (115KB, 326x208px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 326x208px

>>34275997
>detonating nuclear weapons in a A2A engagement.
BONER/10

>>34269207
It does too many jobs at once.
What we need is a carrier-based air superiority specialist and a distinct, land/carrier-based ground attack specialist.

>>34292442
>Licensed clone is the same as being made by that company

>>34292457
>Implying ISIS has anything that could down an F-16, much less an F-35

>>34292740
How's life in 1960?

The F-35 program has probably never been in as much danger as it is now. With the F-16 and F-18 officially entering massive SLEP and upgrade programs money has to be siphoned out from something and the F-35 program is the biggest ticket in the book.

From here, one of a few things is probably going to happen. The first option is the President actually trying to live up to his promises and boosting budgets to the point where we can afford both generations of fighter. But this probably can't happen until a second term.

The second option is having F-35 orders cut or delayed. Lockheed has had serious trouble trying to get their F-35 orders fulfilled due to a combination of design flaws, bad management, and cascading delays.

If you just cut orders that will look seriously bad for Lockheed and the program could enter a death spiral thanks to a higher fly away price tag.

If they just delay orders like they've done before the program might continue as is, with Lockheed understanding that they screwed the pooch on one of the best sales in history. This would basically be a promise to cut orders at a later date when technology has progressed beyond the F-35, which will affect maintenance costs and cement the planes reputation as a hanger queen.

>>34292955
At this point there's no way they could justify orders cuts. Just the fact that it would weaken NATO and make it harder to do what part of their participation they already do would be unacceptable. And the Air Force is going to fight tooth and nail for every single one planned.

>>34292955
2018 budget's already practically been signed off on and the LRIP 12+13+14 block buy is already essentially signed off on by the partner nations (the US already wasn't participating in the block buy due to the need to complete IOT&E first).

In other words, it'd take about a cut of more than 30 US jets per year, from 2019 to at least 2021 to cause anything close to a death spiral. I'm not saying it can't happen, but it'd make the F-22 production cancellation look like the works of Einstein.

>>34291028
Looking forward to it!

>>34292895
It isn't a clone.

>>34293348
Potay-to, po-tah-to. There's some differences, but for all functional purposes it's a licensed production duplicate of the Rheinmetall L44.

>>34290630
France went in first in Libya because they (and the Italians) were the major proponents of intervention.

>>34291207
...is still better than a master of one

>>34291207
>Redditors still don't understand the concept of multirole fighters

>>34293570
France went into Libya first because Obama wanted to let someone else do all the hard work only to swoop in at the end and boast on the campaign trail about how he saved Libya.

>>34291028
>"...2 lance paillettes Spirale (qui coupent des paillettes à la demande en fonction de la longueur d'onde des radars à leurrer) en bord de fuite de l'aile."
Haute couture mon ami. This is art.

>>34269207
The fancy HUD is causing pilots to crash, and too many are getting sensory overload.

It sounds good on paper, but they're trying to hard to make it automated with a pilot as well.

>>34294524
But none have crashed yet anon

What the fuck are you talking about. It doesn't even have a HUD

>>34294524
1/10 bait

>>34292955
IIRC, Trump was originally against the F-35, but after seeing them in Japan, now likes them.

>>34294922
The problem's that he's a combination of ignorance with knee-jerk reactionary proclamations he can't back up, and he does that before he can be properly briefed.

>>34295031
Nah man, he's totally going to stealth the superbugs

>>34292901
>engine failure
>lightning
>hypoxia

>>34293750
No, he actually wanted to not intervene. He and most Democrats were majorly against it, saying that it would destabilize the entire region. How do you know remember this. The Republicans were all over him and his purported weakness by not showing resolve towards dictators. The whole situation flipped when Syria happened though.

>>34296868
>None of which has caused a crash or total loss
>Only the fires have caused any trouble
>At a rate far lower than prior planes

The fact you have to dig that far is telling.

>>34296868
>things that prevent other aircraft from flying
you really showed that guy

>>34297219
>garbage subjective chart
>Extremely outdated pricing
>No actually numbers compared
F, see me after class.

>>34297219
hahahahahahahahahahaha

You're almost worse than armatafag

>>34272898
Dat is a sexy little jet. Sauce?
>>34271850
Everyone forgets the f-16 development teething issues. Now it's got over 4500 examples and is one of the most used western fighter.
>>34271732
This man knows
>>34271893
How is the a-10 not fit for coin? Great louiting, can carry a fuck ton of munitions and has high survival for the pilot.

>>34297219
>this debunked thing yet again

y tho?

>>34297313
>How is the a-10 not fit for coin? Great louiting, can carry a fuck ton of munitions and has high survival for the pilot.
Expensive as fuck for the role, gun is worse than PGMs for precision and effectiveness, "survival" is relative - no aircraft can withstand much fire.

>>34297259
>>34297314
>one anon posts info
>no sources given
>other anons denounce it
>still no sources
I dunno who is correct here.

>>34297348
Are you seriously demanding we provide sources when shooting down a source-less, subjective garbage chart?

>>34297348
The retarded frenchman is pretty notorious in these threads for appearing out of no where and jerking off over made up capabilities of the Rafale. If you see "SPECTRA" and "Stealth" in the same post it's probably this retard.

>F-35 isn't VLO
>F-35 has bad transonic agility
>F-35 has a worse missile loadout than the Dassault "HONHON WHO NEEDS BVR MISSILES" Rafale
>They have equal sensor fusion
>neither are VLO
>F-35 has worse IR missiles even though it has literally the greatest IR missile ever put on an aircraft along with the greatest IR sensors.
He has no idea what he's talking about.

>>34269207

There is no PDF out there with any technical details about the f35 from a .mil domain

so we don't really know anything

>>34297429
That's part of the standards of debating, otherwise its just two anons autistically screeching at each other with nothing really coming of it.

>>34297516
If you can't present a baseline with actual facts, you are dismissed, not argued with.

>>34297465
Sorry for bothering you, but in that case, could you possibly upload a correct version of
>>34297219
so that one can stick it up in response every single time the bullshit image gets tossed out there?

>>34297672
There is no "correct" version, it's a subjective, fundamentally bad form of presenting data, especially as a "comparative."

No sources, no hard numbers, not even lines with valid comparatives.

What happened to the F-22 Raptor?

>>34297749

its just waiting in a hangar and wishing a nigga would

>>34297749
OIF/OEF critical need for MRAPS diverted funding and ended the acquisition budget.

>>34297749
Serves a completely different role, anon.

Asking what happened to the F-22 when discussion the F-35 is like saying
>We're having issues with the new M16 variant? What happened to the M240s that we had?

Completely different purposes, completely different requirements.

>>34297313
>How is the a-10 not fit for coin?

It can fly places and drop bombs fine, the issue is that they need to part planes out to keep them flyable and they are hitting the point where they don't have enough wings available for them

>>34298159
>they are hitting the point where they don't have enough wings available for them
Solution: build more wings.

>>34295031
I agree, but at least he seems to turn around once he has been properly briefed. Well, one can hope that's what he does anyways.

>>34298159
The real issue is that it's costing more and more these days to keep them going. Even if production was restarted, it's still more economical to let the F-16 or similar do the job, since it's still good enough. 'Perfect' is seriously overrated when war is all about economy and logistics.

>>34290554
>RR Merlin
>Parts are systems/ platforms/ aircraft
W E W
You do realize most of our rockets have Russian engines on them, right?

>>34290509
>American stealth aircraft don't have EW suites to match and beat SPECTRA
How fucking retarded can you be?

>>34297219
>Agility
>Missile loadouts
Are Rafale fags ever going to stop fighting yesterdays wars
>Visibility
FUCKING KEK
>Ignoring STEALTH and LINK
This isn't even trying

>>34297313

>How is the a-10 not fit for coin? Great louiting, can carry a fuck ton of munitions and has high survival for the pilot.

Not fit for purpose as a front line combat jet, what it was constructed for. Due to COIN requirements it has been pressed into this role, but would be better served in this role by a UCAV.

>>34299547
>>Missile loadouts
>Are Rafale fags ever going to stop fighting yesterdays wars
How is that part of old obsolete paradigms?

>>34299607
>Hurr durr what are drones?

>>34297313
>Great louiting
Pretty mediocre loiter time, particularly when compared to the B-1.

>can carry a fuck ton of munitions
Pretty poor payload capacity, thanks to the weight of the armored bathtub and GAU-8

>and has high survival for the pilot.
Nothing will survive low and slow against modern anti-air weapons.

The A-10, while one of the coolest aircraft around, has been obsolete for over a decade at this point.

File: F35%20Paris%20Ribbon%20card[1].png (201KB, 800x616px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 800x616px

About 3 hours until the F-35's Paris performance - they only get 6 minutes (practice runs have last ~10 minutes).

>>34299864
Disregard, they went and did it early, or I got my schedule times mixed up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeqryYh_yw0&feature=youtu.be

>>34299864
step 21-23 is gonna have some pucher-factor
do you know what altitude they do the flat spin at?

>>34299880

That short takeoff and vertical ascent were pretty sweet. Nice to show what it can do when you compare like with like, when it is only carrying a fraction e of its internal fuel, comparable to other jets.

I don't get it. Why can't we all just go "Wow, that's a pretty cool plane."? What's the point of going "Your plane sucks, my plane is so much better.", especially when we have next to zero factual knowledge about those planes?

>>34299864
>>34299880
Any crashes?

the plane is only there because the fucking marines kept whining - they knew they aren't getting both strike planes and fighters, no chance in fucking hell of that ever happening so they came up with the harebrained JSF idea and here we are

>>34301428
t. Pierre Sprey.

>>34269252
Jesus i hope you bating us..Please be this, if not at least they pay you well?

>>34301477
>Spreyfags getting desperate as the F-35 keeps proving itself

>>34301242
Fortunately not, because I'd probably never hear the end of it. Just the hypoxia thing at Luke AFB is already acting like nitrous for some detractors.

File: F-35_suffocates_pilots.jpg (93KB, 750x701px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 750x701px

>>34269207

wow when did 4chan get this sudden influx of aerospace engineers and air force generals?

>>34301627
How many more lies do you think he can pack into that picture?

>>34299587
I agreee it's a better UCAV but not meant for front line duty? The A-10 was meant to troll over the battle and knock out income I get tanks. Right at the front.
>>34299647
Good points.

>>34301627
What amazes me is how satirical cartoonists suck at everything, including drawing. It's like the only art position you can hold if you suck at absolutely everything including art.

>>34301644
And it can't do that because unit-level air defense curb stomps it.

>>34301670
You calling the P-51 shit mate? I'll bust your fookin' 'ead in!

>>34299518
>You do realize most of our rockets have Russian engines on them, right?
Define 'rockets'. Because by most definitions (rocket ordnance in US arsenals, ballistic missiles, and so forth) you are absolutely wrong.

>>34301695
>super hornet costs more for worse capabilities
>jsf proceeding as planned

>>34301696
To be fair, it's fodder in modern paradigms. It sure as fuck ain't shit in terms of historical context though.
Extremist fuckleheads on both sides, it seems.

>>34301698
I think he is refering to the RD-180's used by Atlas, but thats about it

>>34301695
>Physically impossible to make a "comparable" Super Hornet
>Much less at a better price

>>34301755
>All the losers who have to face it: "Cancel it."
>Everybody in on buying it: Hurry up and gib me dat!

>>34299880
Looks like it performs as well as a F15 or F/A18

>>34301831
>2012
>Current figures put F-35 flight hour costs only five thousand above current F-16 costs, and may end up costing the same or less once in tri-service FOC and broad international deplyment

>>34301722
>>34301696
>On no, a bullet hit my radiator!
>Engine dies

>>34301974
"OH NO SOMEONE SHOT OUT MY ONE SINGLE ENGINE"
>F-35 crashes

>bird flies into engine intake
>modern aircraft crashes

>>34301847
>or F/A18
so... modernize the F/A-18 with the supposedly advanced F-35 program tech and scrap the rest?

>>34301986
You've got a lot more problems and fuckups built up if anybody's gotten in a position to kill your engine ion an F-35.

File: giphy[1].gif (480KB, 493x342px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 493x342px

>>34301996

>>34302006
if bullets go into the engine intakes it's the same result as with the p-51

>>34301996
He means in BFM you fucking retard, BVR the F-35 is worlds ahead of any legacy aircraft.

Stop posting

>>34302021
>P-51 slow prop plane that has to be close to targets to hit it
>F-35 literal jet fighter that can attack at BVR
Why is this even a conversation?

>>34302024
and if you run out of missiles while there are still targets...?

>>34302042
The B-1B or B-21 starts launching AMRAAMs for you.

>>34302042
The same thing you'd do in any other aircraft?

What are you even trying to say

>>34297219
i haven't seen this shit in years. that is some pierre sprey level of delusion right there.

>>34269207
>>34269252
>>34269259
>>34269438
>>34269727
>>34271493
>>34271619
>>34271732
>>34271823
>>34271846
>>34271850
>>34271852
>>34271875
>>34271886
>>34271893
>>34271918
>>34271932
>>34272027
>>34272583
>>34272655
Just run all the radars in flood mode all the time. There will be no "contact", "tracking" and "launch." There will only be "Off" and "launched"

>>34302439
>Constant blast of all radars
Great way to have your IADS dismantled in minutes.

File: Dale1.gif (393KB, 311x264px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 311x264px

>>34302465
I don't see the problem. It's a war. People get cancer in war. Besides, if your own RADAR can't tell whether you've actually launched or not, there's no way the enemy can. Missiles these days barely even leave vapor trails anymore.

>>34301915
>2017
>f35 pilots still have to train on simulator because The Precious is a maintenance nightmare

The A-10 is useless in the age of modern AA

I get it, it has a concrete ass, very durable but a MANPADS rocket WILL take it down. Even well guided 23mm fire WILL take it down.

Its just too slow of a thing to survive real war nowadays. F-35 has less payload but it can slink through undetected, drop its shit and get out alive

I love BRRRRRT as much as the next guy but its age is over. Russian SU-25's got clobbered a lot in Afghanistan 30 years ago and they have comparable protection and are a more agile plane.

Its over, deal with it, A-10 needs to go into retirement

>>34303054
>maintenance nightmare
>Implying that's ever been true

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/absolute-youngest-marine-in-the-f-35-test-force-shares-1716981177
“Next-generation is an understatement when applied to F-35. Keep in mind that this is the perspective of a maintainer, because they never would let me fly the darn thing. There was not a moment when I wasn’t infatuated with some detail of its construction, mission, or engineering. The maintainability factor is absolutely huge in comparison to platforms such as the F/A-18 or the AV-8B. In many cases, the aircraft seems as though it was designed with end-user practicality in mind, as opposed to the Hornet’s “need to replace a hydraulic pump? Great, remove all other things first” and the Harrier’s “engine replacement? That’s two wings coming off, baby!” Gone are the days of awful hi-torque fasteners that strip themselves out every time you look at them wrong. Behold, hex tips!"

"Maintainability is just a huge improvement, hands down, and its going to offset the cost in a way that some may have not yet considered. Now I’m a totally biased party, I can’t really think of many drawbacks in the design, at least none that are immediately evident to me as a mechanic. Sure, we had a few issues, but all were resolved without major incident during my tenure. There was a concern at one point regarding the C variant’s arresting gear possibly over-stressing the airframe during a carrier landing or field arrestment, but that’s been cleared up to my knowledge."

2 year old fucking article.

>>34277866
Not to mention the need to maintain the secrecy around the true operational range of its sensors. Say the F-35 can detect something at twice the range of the F-18. If they merely double the size of the practice area, it's fairly easy for Russian and Chinese intel assets to deduce the upper bounds for the true operational range is twice that of the F-18.

If they triple or quadruple the practice area and obfuscate the range of objects being detected (by flying multiple drone/red force aircraft at different ranges beyond the true maximum) then foreign military planners have to consider the possibility that the F-35 may actually see that far as there's no evidence to the contrary.

>>34303242
>then foreign military planners have to consider the possibility that the F-35 may actually see that far as there's no evidence to the contrary.

And if they design jammers that extend that far?

>>34269207
>tries to be good at everything.
You can't be the best at everything. It's at best the second best at everything it does.

The thing to remember is it's designed as an integrated part of a more advanced system.

>>34302478
your radar sites get absolutely fucked by ARMs and cruise missiles, that's what.

>>34303349
ARMs are mass launched
Radar sites go dark
ARMs go wide
Radars turn on
attacking force no longer has radar-seekers

>>34303081
>F-35 has less payload
The F-35 has a larger payload than the A-10.

File: 1302511902323.png (97KB, 511x998px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 511x998px

>>34303484
>muh flood so much microwaves nobody can see anything.
>lulz just turn them off when we see the ARMs coming.

>>34303336
But it's better than anything else At literally everything else

>>34303484
You realize the missiles remember where those sites are right? If you attempt to jam them they can home in on the jamming signal.

>>34303538
And it can carry more weapons, the A-10 can't carry standoff weapons like the JSOW or HARMs. the F-35 is reportedly getting a HARM variant that is capable of 100+ mile range.

>>34303484
>ARMs go wide
>2010+7

Are you genuinely retarded? HARMs have INS, a mm-wave seeker, and a datalink.

>>34303617
>the missiles remember where those sites are
It depends how far away they are. ARMs are less likely to hit the radar if the radar is turned off shortly after the missile is launched, as the longer the radar is off (and assuming it never turns back on), the more error is introduced into the missile's course

>>34303305
then the US will design sensors that extend even further
welcome to the arms race

>>34303617
>>34303642
and if the radars are mobile...?

>>34303484
>>34303642
>>34303674
Don't forget weapons like the SDB-I. The F-35 can just get target locations from the blasting radars, release from 65+nmi out set to airburst and completely fuck up the sites.

Or get the target data for a B-1B to release 144 of them in rapid succession.

>>34303742
They still take time to power down, fold up, and get moving.

>>34303742
Then they initiate search and home in on them with the mm-wave at Mach 2 after following the initial INS path as designed.

Like I said. Are you retarded? It's open source that HARMs have successfully been tested versus mobile targets. In fact the most recent was vs a ship, so you know it's got a wide target library.

>>34303777
Or it can be updated via datalink with info from the F35's AN/APG-81 and EODAS.

>>34303674
Do you understand how INS works? The missile remembers to the meter where the contact was and will head there, once there it will go active and look for any other sources to hit. Unless, you shut everything down and move (which means your not contributing to the battle) the likelihood of you being hit is very high.

>>34303742
Then they aren't doing their job (that is area surveillance and target acquisition and are thus not effecting the outcome of the battle). If they are mobile and they do radiate, they're still dead, as a HARM traveling at 2500mph will outrun a truck moving at 25mph.
Also, this >>34303774
Ground based SAM and radar sites have never prevented an aerial campaign from working. The side with the air force always wins (now how effective the bombing is or what the targets are sometimes leaves something to be desired, wars don't exist in vacuums, domestic and international politics effect them)

>>34301755
>the world demands it
You mean Iran, China, Russia, Serbia, Syria Zimbabwe, Venezuela and DKPR?

File: DSC00000.jpg (81KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 640x480px

>>34303094
Yes, human factors for maintenance is baked right into the F-35.
>No safety wire on anything field serviceable.
>Captive bolts everywhere.
>Parts that need to be removed to get to other parts are minimized.
>The engine rolls right out the back for quick changes.
>Jet squawks what's wrong with it before it even lands so spares can be readied.

I've met some of the salty old chiefs who cuffed the designers over the back of the head and told them how to design for human maintainers. Bless them.

>OC pic slightly related

File: 1491610302778.jpg (113KB, 960x1200px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 960x1200px

I work in the mil aviation industry and the plane is loved, but the project was the butt of many jokes for mismanagement.The amount of horror stories of engineering mismanagement between the military branches and differ contractors are insane