>the f-35 can't manuev---- https://www.youtube.com/

>>34305945
>that angle
-re

>>34305945
Ah yes, because low altitude aerobatics and stall speed maneuvering is so useful in modern air combat.
Oh, wait i forgot. It's not 1918 anymore.

>>34306127

the f-35 haters claimed it can't manuever.

whats your problem with it now? you've gotta find something new to bitch about.

>>34305945
Pilot testimonials comparing other aircraft and F-35 when?

>>34306238
I don't care either way. Just saying that stall speed maneuvers is completely useless as any sort of measurement on a aircraft's maneuverability in actual air combat.

that pilot was pulling some high g's for quite a while, that shit is crazy

>>34305945
Clear how terrible the aerodynamic lift contribution is from the way its almost constantly pointed upwards. What is loiter?

>>34306127
you must be great fun at air shows.

>>34306296

And right now its software limited to 7Gs. That will be lifted to 9Gs later this year.

>>34306269

Actual pilots say its more maneuverable than the F-16 and even F-18 in the real world, because the entire craft is a lifting body. It looks "fat" which makes armchair pilots assume it can't manuever. but if you understand aerodynamics you can see that the entire body of the aircraft is a sort of blended wing. the body itself provides lift which reduces wing loading and makes it incredibly maneuverable. you can see some of its high altitude AOA vids on youtube. If you know anything about aircraft you can from the original video how responsive it is and how large the and responsive the elevators are

>>34306433

>loiter

its not a helicopter

>>34306269
give it a rest, pierre, its flying.

>>34306127
>Ah yes, because low altitude aerobatics and stall speed maneuvering is so useful in modern air combat.

Precisely. Now if only Miggers and Sukhbois would understand this

>>34306453
Sure it is great fun to watch it.
It's just not a good representation of the aircraft's capabilities in combat.
Some people seem to have trouble understanding this and will point at a Su-27 performing the cobra and think that this is something that would be useful in modern air combat.

>>34306458
>Actual pilots say its more maneuverable than the F-16 and even F-18 in the real world
It very well could be i have no way of knowing one way or the other.
But the only other US plane i have seen performing similar high angle aerobatics is the F-18 so i don't doubt that there could be some truth to this.

>>34306570
>>34306127
Defeating missiles of any sort still requires a degree of maneuverability my man.

>>34306611
By the time a modern AA missile is closing in, i really dont think that any amount of aerial dancing will save your ass.

>Defeating missiles

Again, if it's reached a point where you have to defeat a missile by using maneuvers, something has gone extremely wrong. This isn't the 50s

>>34306611

Mostly requires countermeasures since a missile should be able to outmanuever and aircraft....

B-52s even back in vietnam were able to defeat the vast majority of missiles fired on them by jamming. The F-35 has god tier systems to defeat that shit (if they even detect it first)

Being able to maneuver is a last ditch option, but it can do it well.

>>34306679
This. Unless you're going up against shitty, antiquated Russian/Euro/Chinese missiles which can actually be defeated by aerobatics.

>>34306709

Missiles only have a short burn time and their ability to keep turning is very limited after they've depleted their fuel.

>>34306709
>>34306679
Uh, except the fact that draining the energy of the missile is a very real thing? Now, no one is ignoring countermeasures but it's not just that they can fail but also the fact that you can't assume to be the only one with working stealth capabilities.
Are you seriously assuming pilots are just going to sit back and say something along the lines of "Oh well, max range anyways so might as well continue as normal"?
It not being as important due to countermeasures does not mean deafeating missiles through draining of their energy is somehow completely irrelevant.

>>34306780
>Again, if it's reached a point where you have to defeat a missile by using maneuvers, something has gone extremely wrong. This isn't the 50s
>being able to maneuver is a last ditch option

you didn't read this part

>>34306824
I did, which is why I said
>Now, no one is ignoring countermeasures but it's not just that they can fail but also the fact that you can't assume to be the only one with working stealth capabilities.
Or are you assuming that everything will "always go right"?

>>34306127

>Spend years shit-posting about how the F-35 can't turn
>Turns out it can turn
>I-it doesn't matter you guys!

>>34306679
Effect of using missile countermeasures like flare, chaff diminishes when a fighter has poor maneuverability.

File: bg-f35a-overview-chart-2.gif (61KB, 400x1020px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 400x1020px

>>34306249
Now.

But retards will start tearing down subject matter experts because "MUH Lockheed shill testpilots!11!!

>>34306893
>>34306847
>flare
>chaff

are you people still stuck in the 80s?

>>34306433
You're retarded, the point is that the F-35 can reach higher levels of AoA without losing as much airspeed, similar to the F/A-18 family of aircraft. The performance was based around its controllability at lower speeds because it's more impressive, it also demonstrated the above point.

>>34306893
>diminishes when a fighter has poor maneuverability
Which the F-35 does not have.

Both are still useful against legacy missiles you cunt

>>34306930

Somebody post the webm of the an F-35 dropping flares to educate this moron.

>>34306930
>dumb know that current military use flare and chaff in 50s

Spear and shield both evole faggot kun

File: FutureCostanza4.png (542KB, 639x640px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 639x640px

>>34306967
Jesus christ, that was for a non-engagement demonstration.

The WHOLE WISDOM behind the design and doctrine of F35 use was that it would never ever need to use passive countermeasures during engagements, only in the most dire of situations.

>>34306906
oh look its locke shit and Schekels bombarding every one with there fake shit to justify the billions wasted in to a shit project.

>>34307016
>expecting anyone here to understand modern air force doctrines & tactics
Dude, 80% of faggots here think that modern day air battles will look exactly like Top Gun and Ace Combat.

>>34307016

So then you admit that you were wrong, good.

>>34305945
ah yes doing useles stuff extremely slowly and sluggish.

I saw Mig 29 with more grace and power then this lame duck.

>>34307058
off coarse lock shit and sheckels nobody understands modern air combat like a jew company wanting to make money, lets remove guns on the new phantoms, nobody needs them anyways.

File: lol_idi_amin.gif (4MB, 298x224px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 298x224px

>>34307074
No you chode specialist. My scenario (which still stands) is that the F35 should not at fucking all be in a position where it has to use aerobatic maneuvers to dodge a current-gen missile right behind unless someone has made the most retarded of mistakes.

Let's not even gets started on the issue of SAMs

File: 1483329767763.jpg (500KB, 728x640px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 728x640px

>>34307058
>80% of faggots here think that modern day air battles will look exactly like Top Gun and Ace Combat.

>>34306679
>This isn't the 50s
Here's an F-16 maneuvering and successfully dodging S-300s in Desert Storm
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6ee_1328291061
And remember: S-300s are sill in wide service.

>>34307125

>I-its only a last resort
>T-they'd never actually use it!

>>34307159
>Here's an F-16 maneuvering and successfully dodging S-300s in Desert Storm
Not the other guy, but the entire idea is to not get into that situation, but to kill them from standoff range.

>S-300s are sill in wide service.
It's also fairly compromised, as both the US and Greece have working later version S-300s.

>>34307283

Yeah cause the other side is just going to follow whatever playbook you give them. No need to have any back-up plans in case a fight doesn't follow your script to the letter.

>>34307016
It's called enhancing survivability you idiot.

>>34307283
>not to get into the situation

Yeah, but situations did happen

Do you think Lockheed engineers are too retarded to understand BVR doctrines and so they installed towed decoy and flare dispenser on F-35?

"Situations" always can happen.

And again survivability is #1 doctrine.

>>34307305
>Yeah cause the other side is just going to follow whatever playbook you give them. No need to have any back-up plans in case a fight doesn't follow your script to the letter.
True, but the fact is is it is now much harder for them to play on the field when they know tech like this exists. Even breaking even would be hard.

>>34306948
I understand a part of the display was intentionally demonstrating high AOA. But what about the rest of the time? What about when it was turning and sideslipping with about 10 degrees of point? Wings should hold the plane up, not the engine. Also you can see how early the stall pop is, and - porky plane need I say more?

>>34306748
The no-escape zone on most modern missiles to too large to even bother.

If a Meteor is one yo and counter measures/jamming fail, you better eject.

>>34307483
>guise what is so impressive about doing maneuvers through your control surfaces that used to require thrust vectoring

If I was a Russian/Chinese pilot and saw the F-35's ability to yaw and point its nose I would not be very happy.

>>34307498

>Implying the F-35 wouldn't be the plane shooting the meteor

>>34307105
They didn't stupid faggot. The af added guns to their phantoms and continued getting swatted while the navy kept the gunless phantoms but started training them better and started getting shot down way less relative to their shootdowns.

>>34307574
Who cares who fires it, the point is that modern missiles can't be outmaneuvered.

>>34305945
*pilot passes out and crashes due to lack of oxygen*

File: goal-posts-moving.jpg (151KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 640x426px

>>34306127

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

>>34307630
>Air Power Australia
>virulent and demented F-35 haters since it was first fucking announced

k

>>34307932

This is very relevant for you:

>>34308029

File: 1495771900002.png (602KB, 565x720px) Image search: [Google]

602KB, 565x720px

If only the F-35 had some of the best avionics and signature reduction in the world. Oh wait.

>>34308047
Says the f-35 fanboy who refuses to see the flaws of the f-35.

>>34308687

And what "flaws" would those be?

>>34308687
Not him but most of those things listed have been disproved since 2014-16

>>34308687
If you said this in 2007 we may not have called you a complete fucking retard but unfortunately for you that was 10 years ago.

>>34307544
Pointing in question is compensation for sideslipping not an "ability". Air is falling sideways off the lift surfaces, everything just mushing and not working anymore. The roll rate and other aero response, is gone. Hold everything together with "muh thrust cubes". Very Amerifat approach.

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

222KB, 652x886px

>>34308708
ACCEPT THEM.

>>34308932
>more 2013 shit

>>34308932
>154 million price tag

Could this "Info"graphic get any worse?

>>34306127

What a sad little man you are. Proven wrong and you just find something else to whine about. Get fucked you autistic cunt..

>>34309063
>RAAF F-35A
>A

Time to throw this one out too.

>>34309080
Still haven't sourced anything there.

>>34309080
How is it that the anti-F35 crowds find a new aircraft to compare it to every few years and the quality (and expense) of the aircraft it's compared to only grows with time? You can't even get a Rafale for less than ~$200 million.

>>34309080
God tier bait... Just kidding It's trash.

>>34306238

I believe the claim was that it sucks at maneuvering in a dogfight, compared to contemporary aircraft.

You're being obtuse and pretending tricks at an airshow is the same thing.

Prove him wrong with data from a dogfight, if you're going to be smug.

>>34309752
>minimum radius turn
>trick at an airshow

Considering the whole point of a stealth fighter is to strike an opponent from afar while unseen and then bug out, I do not think the F-35 needs to be god tier at a regular dog fight, since ya know, old fashioned dogfights don't happen very often, if at all.

>>34305945
Doesn't really look that maneuverable. Everything it does is slow and lazy

>>34309881
Talking in 3rd person is kind of wierd, anon

>>34309890
Might be time to re-familiarize yourself with how 1st, 2nd and 3rd person perspectives work. Unless you were just pretending to be retarded?

>>34309905
The joke.
Your head.

>Shitty plane does some awkward maneuvering in an airshow
>muh flein! worth it! Throw muh mohney on shkreen!
>Russian plane made to maneuver in an airshow does impressive maneuvering
>heh heh Russins can't into good plane only good for airshows

Fucking hypocrites, If the British did not put the brown man down, India would've been the world superpower.

>>34309921
Ah so just pretending to be retarded, go it.

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

201KB, 800x616px

>>34305945
>F-35 Demo Pilot: Paris Performance Will ‘Crush Years Of Misinformation'

>>34309941
>Shitty Russian shitpile does some aerobatics
>XAXAXA FATNIKS BTFO Su-35 IS BEST 35, F-35 IS LEMON, CAN'T TURN CAN'T CLIMB

>F35 does the exact same routine
>Lol whatever, manoeuvrability is worthless anyhow

>>34306238
>the f-35 haters claimed it can't manuever
Are you idiot? The "flight" means "manuevering" by the definition.
"F-35 haters" claimed that F-35 can manuevering badly, because its thrust/weight ratio, wing area etc. That's it.

>>34310084
>>F35 does the exact same routine
Go fuck yourself, visionary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jmZaP1FeHM
I saw Su-30SM live over myself. And F-35 still looks faded. It isn't because F-35 is "bad", it's because F-35 is bad dogfighter. High level of maneuverability was not priority for dat machine.

>>34306127
Blablabla.
Google interview of brit test pilot John Farley bout Mig-29 and Su-27. He told some basic and important words about "circus aerobatics" and what maneuverability means in real airbattle.
And he was sitting on some things quite different to sofa in living room.

>>34310147
>Google interview of brit test pilot John Farley bout Mig-29 and Su-27.
The film name is "Display Aircaft Series MiG-29 Fulcrum", but its short parts could be googled on Youtube.

>>34306906
>those A-10 pilots asked about BVR

>>34306748
you're wrong.

>>34306738
>antiquated Russian/Euro/Chinese missiles
Retard.

Wow that's a short fucking takeoff

But does this, after years of developmental failures and overblown budgets, justify the cost?

Is 1 F35 worth like 10 comparable aircraft?

>inb4 amerifats seething with rage

>>34307159
>https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6ee_1328291061
Probably one of my favourite air combat videos

The way he screams SAM! basically conveys the terror of the moment

>>34310190
>Wow that's a short fucking takeoff
Emm... that's not big achievement.
Soviet built Polish Mig-29 done Nesterov loop just after take off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzwL_6NuEls
Short takeoff is not a problem if your trust to weight is over 1 (because machine is almost empty).

>>34310175

Great argument. You really convinced me.

File: what-the-fuck-am-i-reading.jpg (62KB, 540x739px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 540x739px

>>34307159
>Desert Storm
>S-300
Wow, so experd.

>>34310215
>Short takeoff is not a problem if your trust to weight is over 1 (because machine is almost empty).
Well, no shit

>>34310190

That's not the point. Its manoeuvrability isn't a selling point in the slightest, the air-show just demonstrates that it is at least competitive in that aspect. The F-35's value is in the new technologies and capabilities it brings which could not be retrofitted to existing aircraft. It literally has capabilities that the aircraft it replaces cannot do. Though yes, at Red Flag it did recently have a ~20:1 kill to loss ratio.

>>34310268
>Though yes, at Red Flag it did recently have a ~20:1 kill to loss ratio.
Some fairy tale marketing.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (130KB, 1280x798px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1280x798px

>>34310226
Yep, S-300 is anti american democraty insurance.
There are no bombed state that was armed with S-300.
PS I love S-300V. It's awesome.

>>34306238
The question is and always has been, can it do these things better than the planes it is replacing or whose role it is filling? Why should we be happy to see a massively expensive aircraft be only marginally better or not better at all than an aircraft that was designed in the 60s or 70s, say?

People at one point claimed the F-35 would replace the A-10 in a CAS role. Can it actually out-manoeuvre an A-10 at those low speeds? Does it have the same resilience as an A-10? Unlikely, for obvious reasons.

What about air superiority? Can it out-perform an F-15?
Both the A-10 and F-15 were designed in the late 60s and introduced in the 70s. Should we really be happy that one of the most expensive air-force projects in US history has produced a multi-role aircraft that is decent everywhere but excels nowhere?

Then you've got the question of stealth capabilities, which to date have still never been seriously put to the test against an adversary with sophisticated radar arrays like say the Russians or the Chinese would have.

I mean FFS, in the second half of the 20th century we saw MASSIVE progress. Leaps and bounds in aviation technology. And the F-35? Only last week more F-35s were again grounded for yet another technical issue. This is 1 year after the F-35A was finally declared ready for deployment, and a full decade after its first flight. Sorry, but this isn't very impressive.

>>34310355

>can it do these things better than the planes it is replacing or whose role it is filling?

The answer is unequivocally yes.

File: whut?.jpg (27KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 400x300px

>>34305945
Motherfucking kek! You call that manoeuvrability? The pilot doesn't even try...

Same airshow, decent pilot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzC9sLVomHA

>>34310118
Fucking hell vatnik, you could at least try using proper English

>all these retards saying that it isn't better than X plane
>not understanding that this video simply demonstrates that the F-35 can reasonably match legacy aircraft WVR
>BVR the F-35 will ass rape any other fighter on the planet, so this is just a bonus.

Keep in mind that AIM-9X also drastically improves short range survivability.

>>34310479

>F-35 can reasonably match legacy aircraft WVR

Wrong. The F-35 is far superior to legacy aircraft at both WVR and BVR. No matter the circumstances the F-35 will prove victorious!

>>34310505
I meant BFM

>>34310281

A whole bunch of generals were happy to make falsifiable claims about this to a congressional committee. You're welcome not to believe them, but this isn't just coming out of LM marketing material.

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

>>34305945
I don't think I'll ever get over how cool the F-35 looks.

>>34310075
i believe the sequence from 17 to 28 is called "Eternal Rage of Sprey"

>>34310336
>There are no bombed state that was armed with S-300.

Syria.

>>34310705
Nope. Syrian Armed Forces hasn't S-300.

>>34310556
Well yeah, anyone flying, maintaining or otherwise involved in the F-35 program are obviously paid liars, shills and lockmart thugs. And they would have gotten away with it as well, if it wasn't for the constant meddling by guys in basements making badly formatted and un-sourced inforgraphics!

/end saracasm

>>34310406
Khokhol, please.

>>34310556
So you could believe in results Red Flags, where USAF were totally fucked by indian Su-30MKI.
In fact score in competitions is just score in competitions.

>>34310735
>http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/19143

>>34310767
>So you could believe
So you must believe

>>34310767
>USAF fucked by Indians
Why are you referencing things that never happened?

>>34310776
What the fuck is this shit?

>>34310784
You're welcome to not believe club.

>>34310767
Wrong. Su-30s got fucked in red flag.

What you are referring to is cope India, which is meant to be a learning exercise for both countries. Indian pilots wanted some BFM at the end of the exercise , Americans agreed. 3:1 odds in the Indians favor and no bvrs, everyone had a good time, learned a lot (Indians picked up on US tactics very fast) result was obvious.

Then the Indian media got ahold of it, and embarrassed both countries. The next red flag in 04 (I believe, the next red flag after cope India, might have e been early 05), the same F-15 squadron came looking for blood, and found it.

Indian su-30s could not only keep up with the tempo, they lost every engagement.

>>34310054
He's calling you slow and lazy. The joke is that you are referring to yourself in your first post. I wouldn't expect an anti-f35 moron to understand such an advanced concept anyway.

>>34310556
>US generals praising US material
Imagine my shock...
Don't be so naive, be the plane bad or good these guys certainly won't say otherwise.

>>34310790
Video taped interview where putin directly states back in 13 that they sold the s-300 system to Syria.

>>34306906
That's not a testimonial

>>34310822

>Only my unsourced infographics are good sources of intel!

>>34310850
>everybody else is a paid shill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>34310811
Cute response from a guy who can't even get the exercise right.

>>34310839
S-300PMUs were purchased by Syria but not delivered because of war. Contract was canceled (some other land weapons was boutght on that mobey).
Canceled systems was sold to Iran.
The're no S-300 in Syrian Armed Forces.

>>34310876
Oh, reality don't fit to your inner world, so cute.
>Actually, this wasn’t the first time the Indian Air Force publicly claimed a resounding (and debated) victory: during Cope India 04, Indian Su-30 were able to achieve a 9:1 kill ratio against U.S. Air Force F-15C jets from 3rd Wing based at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska.
https://theaviationist.com/2015/08/08/have-indian-su-30s-really-dominated-raf-typhoons-in-aerial-combat-with-a-12-0-scoreline-most-probably-not/

>>34310881
>they were never delivered

Wrong

>He was referring to the delivery of the advanced S-300 long-range air defense systems, which Russia is carrying out under a contract signed with Syria several years ago.

https://www.rt.com/news/eu-arms-syria-embargo-russia-870/

>>34310876
There is a good chance that he's either poo-in-loo, some kind of slav or just slow, from the way he structures his sentences. Or its just rafalefag doing some kind of 4D shitposting chess

>>34310910
>cope India is redflag

Kek, you are a moron. See >>34310813

>>34310813
USAF also sends operational squadrons to foreign exercises while the Indians were using their very best pilots.

Somebody post that video of that guy talking about the Indians participation in Red Flag

>>34310911
>Wrong
So proove it.

>>34310910
>his linked article is about how Indians exaggerate their claims of exercise results
Nice job fucktard

>>34306906
N=31

next.

>>34310928
I just did. The delivery happened in '13

>>34310939
Consider the fact that there's only a couple hundred F-35 pilots. These guys also know what they're talking about and I doubt that the pilots were cherrypicked based on how much they liked the aircraft. It's the best info we have on what pilots of legacy aircraft think of the F-35 compared to their old jets.

>>34310921
>Actually, this wasn’t the first time the Indian Air Force publicly claimed a resounding (and debated) victory: during Cope India 04, Indian Su-30 were able to achieve a 9:1 kill ratio against U.S. Air Force F-15C jets from 3rd Wing based at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska.
So you deny this citation or you deny that this is means "fucked"? In fact USAF has no vagina, i guess.

>>34310932
Okay, get the disproof.
"I don't believe" is not argumentation, it's denial.

>>34310967
Do you think cope India is Redflag? Does 3:1 odds no BVR sound like anything resembling realistic?

>>34310928
What do you want, a picture of a Syrian air defense officer standing in front of an s-300 launcher in an article saying the system has been delivered?

>>34310978
https://youtu.be/6KBmv6HBltM

>>34310850
I never provided any infographics of any kind, I only said you're naive to believe the word of the main actors of the business. The plane may be good, I don't know, but obviously these guys are the worst source possible.

>>34310940
>I just did.
No, you did'nt.
Purchased S-300PMU never been delivered in Syria and later was sold to Iran.
There was reports of Asad (in 2013), that systems were delivered (one division), but it was just misinformation and bluffing. Jews was deny this delivery (by ministry of defence). In 2013 syrian personel was not trained and ready to use system.
There are not even one photo of this systems.
But there are a lot of photos of iranian PMUs.
In fact S-300PMU not produced since 2011.
Iranian two divisions of S-300PMU - systems produced for syrian contract.

>>34311055
>The plane may be good, I don't know, but obviously these guys are the worst source possible.
compared to people saying things that they have no way of knowing?

>>34311099
In a sense yes, because I don't suspect them to be paid for that, but this is rhetorical, in the end I only stick to serious facts and they're very few.
OP's vid for example is a fact: the plane flies and operates decent manoeuvres without a hitch, I'm ok with that.
Until real fight reports I'd say everything else is just fanboy wanking.

>>34311208
>real flight reports
You're never going to hear anything then, you'll just continue to shift your definition of what constitutes as "real."

>>34306269

where are all you fags whenever they post some slavshit aerobatics webms?

File: Screenshot_20170620-093505.png (806KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

806KB, 1440x2560px

>>34311074
>>34311074
>Purchased S-300PMU never been delivered in Syria
>There was reports of Asad (in 2013), that systems were delivered (one division), but it was just misinformation and bluffing.
>There are not even one photo of this systems.

https://rg.ru/2013/05/30/siriya-anons.html

Get fucked anon

>>34311208
Fascinating

File: spreytard.jpg (13KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 640x360px

>tfw you realize the F-35 achieved the maneuvers with a full combat load including dud missiles and full fuel

>>34311055

Okay, so you have no sources but still expect us to take your hot opinions seriously. You can move along now.

File: best plane coming through.jpg (42KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x334px

>>34305945
While F-35 is best plane, an aerobatics display doesn't necessarily translate to combat effectiveness (not that the F-35 isn't already terrifyingly good at that, if this year's Red Flag is anything to go by)

>>34310355
>People at one point claimed the F-35 would replace the A-10 in a CAS role
Wrong. The F-35 was intended to replace the F-16 in a CAS role; The A-10's CAS role was to be phased out completely, and was already on the way out by then. Look at 1991; far more Iraqi tanks were plinked by F-16s using Mavericks or F-111s with night GBU attacks than by A-10s.

>>34311332
kek

>>34311255
Both Greece and the USA have a working S-300 though, later versions too

F-35 scares China and Russia. Of course Vatniks are constantly butthurt about it.

>>34307949
Which it didn't happened

>>34311763
This was basically just showing off for all the people who were afraid it was another BVR-only pigwhale like the early versions of the F-4.

>>34311853
Russia/China don't like that a 5th gen fighter is being massed produced, affordable and being sold to literally any stable democracy.

>>34312035
They especially don't like the locations of some of the customers.
>Germany
>Turkey (but I repeat myself)
>Japan
Having mass produced stealth multiroles permanently based within striking range of their capital cities and carrier ports makes chinks and slavs incredibly butthurt.

>>34310190
>after years of developmental failures

Which would be?

>Is 1 F35 worth like 10 comparable aircraft?

An F-35 has the battlefield presence of 10 legacy aircraft at a comperable cost to a gen 4.5 aircraft.

>>34312135
Fuck dude, I'm an American and I object to selling this shit to Turkey. It's the fucking Iranian F-14s all over again desu

>>34312283
The difference is that Turkey is a NATO member nation and has been for decades without anything going that sour.

>>34309941

POO

>>34312283
you're retarded

>>34312135
Calling Turkey a stable democracy these days is pushing it a bit though

>>34312308
Turkey has been kinda iffy lately

>>34310981
USAF radar is jammed planes have to close to visual range to engage run into PLAN air wing

>>34311221
>You're never going to hear anything then
why because the plane will never see combat

File: bg-f35a-overview-appendix-table-1-825.gif (37KB, 825x371px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 825x371px

>>34310939
>31 incredibly experienced pilots with an average of over a thousand hours in each of their airframes.

Next?

>>34306127
Interestingly enough F-35 show program concentrate on demonstrating useful capabilities in the limits of airshow speed and space. Unlike many other planes aerobatics for teh sake of aerobatics flights.

>>34310165
You know that A-10 pilots train to be on teh receiving end of the fighters attack and how to deal with them?

The project was badly operated, but the plane is provong itself. I don't think tthe F-35 was a necessity, but I won't deny it's ability.

You double niggers complaining that the F35 isn't agile enough to dogfight are ridiculous. Do you also complain that a Ferrari doesn't do well offroading?

It's not 1985 anymore Maverick.

>>34312005
Honestly, even the gunless version of the F-4 was ok. During 'Nam, our Air Force was basically as backwards as it could get because its top officers were all from bomber command and knew diddly about fighters. Meanwhile, the Navy was doing just fine with their F-4s, with and without guns, since they actually put effort into training people.

>>34306748
Meteor and China Lake's new solid-fuel ramrocket are changing this.

>>34310118
will admit that things is pretty fucking graceful

>>34310355
>the US doesn't have sophisticated radars
Okay anon

>>34311255
Kek, I atleast hope you know what S-300 TEL or TELARs look like because that photo of yours show a different system.

>>34319954
No, you completely missed the point there. I was talking about the effectiveness of stealth tech. It doesn't matter if the US has good radars or not. So far, their stealth planes have been used overwhelmingly in the Middle-East against adversaries without proper anti-air capabilities, let alone good radar arrays. If the US sent B-2s or F-22s into Russian airspace they wouldn't last very long.

>>34320092
>Russians could easily kill F-22s
Interesting info! Source? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

>>34320475
We'll just have to wait and see until US stealth planes finally come face to face with a worthy opponent, now won't we?

>>34320511

There is no worthy opponent for the USAF. That's the downside of being number 1.

>>34320092
The US is the only country that can realistically train in anti-stealth strategies. No other country can do real live war games with there 4th Gen platforms versus actual 5th Gen systems. They are the only country to be able to train like that. Or train there radar operators on how to do anti stealth work.

>>34312308
>Turkey is a NATO member
Not for long, hopefully

>>34321864
No matter how petty and shitty they can be, they get a lot of slack due to the immense strategic value of the Bosporus. Plus they've shot down a Russian plane recently so they're in no hurry to leave NATO.

>>34322358
Plus those S-400s that Russia is selling to them would be a nice new ornament at China Lake.

you are comparing its maneuverability to what? the j20?

>>34306238
>whats your problem with it now? you've gotta find something new to bitch about.
Oh they'll find something new.

>>34322387

I don't see how that deal can go ahead. The reason the Patriot and Aster deals failed is because of insufficient technology transfer of the full specification system. The idea that Russia would be more willing to transfer not only several full specification S-400 systems, but the technology behind it is laughable. Even arguing that it is more capable doesn't hold water, because it cannot be integrated into the rest of the NATO air defense network, as the other options could.

>>34320652
yeah somehow i doubt usa will go remotely close to russia or china given that both pretty capable a/a and with a big ass range to shot down all of their precious air tankers

>>34322684
It's getting late there isn't it? Time to hit the hay don't you think?

>>34322715
or you could actually say something about it

but /k/ doesnt like to answer when it comes to the real thing

>>34322684
>pretty capable
>59 Tomahawk missiles blew right by state of the art Russian SAMs while making "meep meep" noises in Syria

>>34322762
i dont think you know what russia has brought down to syria if you think they would have used the s 400 for them...

there was 2 situations actually played given what murica provided
1) somehow 59 tomahawks passed through and only 21 craters where found on the airport on which the failure rate of those went pretty high
2)oh russia activated the krashuka 4..turkey knows quite well if its effective or not since they were flying inside that 300 km bubble for 3 months despite the fact that they even brought 2 KORAL system on TFSA area to battle it and failed..

>>34322815
Are you still harping the "23 of 59 hmmmmmmm" line? Even sputnik and rt confirmed 50+ hits on the airfield

>>34322837
rt claimed a source from him https://www.instagram.com/alex_pushin/
on which he said that usa launched 59 tomahawks

there is a difference claiming something

>>34322815
Russia already admitted all but 2 made it to their targets.
I'd be mad too if someone ignored my air defenses

>>34310396
desu I liked more the other Rafale display pilot that incorporates those 10g+ turns into his regular routine

>>34323862
The f35A is limited to 7g turns right now.
I heard it will be upped the 10g with the new block software.

I would also like to point out the Rafale was designed from start to finish without any compromise to high speed agility.
Stealth designs sacrifice a lot to keep that low RCS.

>>34322837
>>34323005
Stop lying you sack of shit, Russia's MoD statement has always been that only 23 made it, and the only references RT/sputnik have to "all but 2 made it" and such are when they quote what US officials are saying about their "great success"

File: 1491772513586.jpg (22KB, 604x483px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 604x483px

>>34324680
Russian SAMs are so fucking outdated
Fail to shoot down a single tomahawk
S-300 systems are so shitty the f35 filters them it because they aren't a threat.

>>34309027
Worse is using that price tag and then accepting the J-20's price tag at face value.