F 35 HATERS ON SUICIDE WATCH!!!! https://www.youtube.com/w

File: 1487927729812.jpg (62KB, 604x539px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 604x539px

>>34319750
How is 3:30 even possible without thrust vectoring?

>>34319750
Pff... parody.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wNGJbUCfv0

>>34319764
>10 prototypes
>1 salvaged to fix the other 9

how can russia compete with a non-stealth jet?

>>34319759
What's the problem? If you have speed you have forces on the flight control surfaces. Trust vectoring needed for very low speed or/and very high angles of attack. In both cases F-35 can only fall on the ground.

>>34319772
>10 prototypes
X-35 (first flight 17 years ago) is about10 years older than PAK FA (first flight 7 years ago). PAK FA programm progress is faster.
>T-50
>non-stealth jet?
Imbecile.

>>34319788
Sir that plane was going slower than most high end cars

>>34319750
I never said it was a bad plane, I said it was an expensive and unnecessary plane.

File: 1308189768001.jpg (21KB, 408x360px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 408x360px

>>34319821
Cool story.

File: IMG_2847.jpg (45KB, 443x332px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 443x332px

Big whoop, it's like you've never seen an f16 do fancy shit.

>>34319831
>I said it was an expensive and unnecessary plane
Bulshit. It's cost about last blocks of F-18, F-16 or eurocanards.
And it's necessary. F-22 not a multirole fighter in fact.
F-22 - unnecessary plane (so its not producing anymore).

>HAHA Russin planes only good for airshow!
>F-35 fly in airshow
>HAHA F-35 very good in airshow!

>>34319859
The difference is that the F-35 isn't only good in airshows.
>>34319843
The F-16 wouldn't be able to do this with 3 full 600 gallon droptanks and missiles. Well the F-35 was carrying an equivalent payload during the demonstration.
>>34319808
>program progress is faster
Hurr durr they can build something much more simple in 20% less time. The T-50 would be relevant if vatniks weren't struggling to make an aircraft that competes with the F-22 well over a decade late.

F-35 looks so bad in those shows even compare to the 4gn fighters.

>>34320232
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sf1H94FEME

>>34320232
>>34320931
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0fw13Pc7G0

>>34320211
Source on F-35s payload during the routine? I've heard people say this but haven't seen a proofs.

>>34319750
>F 35 HATERS ON SUICIDE WATCH!!!!
Because it flies?? Wow...

>>34320993
Because it flys well, the main slam against the f-35.

In fact, based on all available evidence, it is MORE maneuverable than the j-20 or pak-fa

>>34321015
>it is MORE maneuverable than the j-20 or pak-fa
Man, they must be really slow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzC9sLVomHA

>>34320970
The F-35 was in at "combat configured weights" according to this interview, and they claim it could do it with full fuel tanks, but supposedly don't due to the 6-8 minute display time limit (I'm not sure what the landing weight limit is on the F-35A is): https://youtu.be/0On-GMTSWvc?t=657

http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show-2017/f-35-demo-pilot-paris-performance-will-crush-years-misinformation
In that article they state:
>The F-35’s maneuverability is all the more impressive because, unlike the F-16s that perform at air shows, the Joint Strike Fighter flying the demonstration this week is fully combat-ready. Flynn’s F-35A will move easily through complex aerial maneuvers loaded with everything it needs to go to war.

During one of the rehearsal demos they opened the weapon bay doors to the crowd (or where they'd be) and the bays were empty. The jet is designed to pull 9G with full internal weapons though, and carrying even inert weapons can introduce regulatory / safety issues (you need pyrotechnics supervisors, etc - not sure flying an armed jet overseas with civilian pilots works either), so I would assume they're just emulating the weight of the weapons with additional fuel (though I wonder how that factors in with those time limits?).

>>34321064
Why did you post the validation flight?

And yes, they are damn slow. The j-20 reminds me of an attack plane. Hell, not just me, some reporters are saying it's a strike fighter.

>>34321064
What the hell happened at 2:23?

Also lol at some of those jump cuts.

>>34320931
>>34320935
>speed up video with f-35 and make slower with su-27

Return back when american jets will be capable something close to this:

Start from 50sec.
https://youtu.be/Ai7eaDeRlDs

Or this
https://youtu.be/D-mQQrkPYFg

>>34321163
>i....its sped up!!!

Kek, this terrible damage control.

Its clear that weapons bays are empty. No one would let americans in sane mind to load a real rockets into airplane on a fucking airshow

>>34319759
thrust vectoring is the most overrated shit of the last 30 years. It's literally worthless in combat and a good jet can do the same maneuvers without it.

>>34319759
The F-35 has a ton of aerodynamic shaping that was impossible to model even in the F-22's era that gives it insane controllability.

>>34321090
>Why did you post the validation flight?
There are different kind of flights at these airshows?

>>34321155
>What the hell happened at 2:23?
That's what happens when you eat too much chili...
Also no cut here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9HlBuYjbCg

>>34319859

>HAHA F-35 cannot maneuver!
>F-35 fly in airshow
>HAHA airshow means nothing!

>>34321690
There's validation flights before the actual air show begins, where the jets fly a longer (10+ min) demo to show the organisers that they can perform the specified manoeuvres safely. Once the show actually starts they only have 6-8 minutes and so the routine is quicker and more dense.

>>34319750
For only $6 billion dollars you could own one of these!!!

File: when its not a turkey.jpg (14KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 640x360px

>>34319750

File: IMG_2279.jpg (67KB, 750x566px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 750x566px

We should make more threads about this.

File: Even furry fags laughing at you!.jpg (322KB, 1200x1110px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1200x1110px

>>34319750
Really nice slow motion video

>>34322487
>How idiots who don't know what they're looking at interpret the footage

File: 1496812732616.png (246KB, 566x424px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 566x424px

>>34319859
>HAHA Russian key does something fancy at air show! Pig disgusting American F-35 cannot do this!
>Air show maneuvering is irrelevant, but here's an F-35 doing something fancy to show you're wrong
>F-fucking hypocrites

So this basically confirms the f35 isn't a turkey right?

>>34322576
>Russians show off pointless, low-energy maneuvers
>F-35 shows off tight, great energy-retaining maneuvers
>Same thing

>>34322357
Well its a shitpost, but at least the number is new

The F-35 does now what the Su-27 did 20 years ago. For the price tag I hope it has an integrated espresso machine.

>>34322766
see >>34322576

>>34319750
It's as elegant as when 150 pounds woman falls down the stairs

>>34321836
ok thanks
This must be the "real" flight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXFPuFj9SY

And here is a better video of the F35 flight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKKpUv_qlC0

>>34322766

Another Slavboo who doesn't realise that making ever more manoeuvrable aircraft is an evolutionary dead end. First Look, First Shot, First Kill is the name of the game, and Russia is losing hard.

File: tfw crying.jpg (63KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 633x758px

>>34323740
B-but I c-can dodge your m-missile!

W-who cares if the Gs needed to do that would turn a pilot into a puddle of blood and flattened organs!

>>34322766
Su-27s are not even a match for F16s

>>34319750
what a pile of shit.

>>34324403
Could be remote control?

>>34319759
Because thrust vectoring was always a patch-work solution to shitty handling characteristics.

It makes nothing possible which isn't already possible with conventional flight controls.

To be fair, fighter-bombers have a wide range of payloads, so modelling for every situation is difficult.

>>34324403
>>34324712
Drones are the future.

>>34324734
It gives better post stall maneuvering

>>34319750
>F 35 HATERS ON SUICIDE WATCH!!!!

they are mostly suicidal vatniks anyway

>>34319764
lada vaporware

>>34324745
>Drones are the future.

Yup which the f35 can carry and network into

>F-35 flies
>this is somehow an achievement worth boasting about

>>34324860
vatniks thought so when their turkey flapped

>>34324860

Much of the F-35 criticism is claims that it has given up too much flight performance characteristics for its; low observable characteristics, large internal payload, lift-fan variant commonality, and large quantity of advanced avionics.

It turns out that actually it hasn't...

>>34325069
>it has given up too much flight performance characteristics ...
And that's true. It's a decent plane thanks to its insane engine but that's it. Of course what matters is the armament and the means to deliver it, and I think it's ok in that range, but it's still a poor (and ugly imo) plane.

>>34325343
Now lets see you quantify you claim.

>>34321408
>a good jet can do the same maneuvers without it
Contender for most uninformed/buttmad slav post of the day

>>34325419
Use your eyes ffs...
Watch OP's video and compare the performance to this one >>34319764 or this one >>34322898
or any airshow of the past 20 years, the F35 is "difficult" to say the least.
Once again it's not a big deal in 2017, there's no need of a sky ballerina nowadays. But it's visibly a poor plane.

>>34325580
>>Use your eyes
>F-35 does a 50° aoa powerloop and pedal turn

The Rafale can do neither of these things, all it does is show it's peak roll rate at low AOA (ie: not that important compared to time to bank at high AOA) and High G instantaneous turns that the F-35 cant do yet due to 3I software limitations.

Pak Fa does TVC stuff, woo.

>>34325456
He's talking shit about thrust vectoring, so no.

Afaik the Russians are the only ones who bothered to properly invest in that meme.

>>34324745

There won't be extreme high G manoeuvring UCAVs, structural limitations are just a big a problem as pilot ones.

>>34326298
>F-35 does a 50° aoa powerloop and pedal turn
lol what? Powerloop? Pedal turn when? I said "use your eyes"...

>all the Rafale does is ... that the F-35 cant do yet due to 3I software limitations.
Yeah the key word is "can't do".

Don't confuse plane and weapon, F35 is a good weapon, not a good plane.

>>34319750
awww its like an F-22 and an F-16 had a baby

>>34321015
>In fact, based on all available evidence, it is MORE maneuverable than the j-20 or pak-fa
Look at dat retard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wNGJbUCfv0

>>34322766
>The F-35 does now what the Su-27 did 20 years ago.
No, it doesn't.

>>34324734
>It makes nothing possible which isn't already possible with conventional flight controls.
Look at dat experd. You're an idiot.
> Trust vectoring needed for very low speed or/and very high angles of attack. In both cases F-35 can only fall on the ground.

>>34326364
The pilot is surely the greater limitation... You have a lot more flexibility as an aerospace designer when you don't have to reserve a bigass section of the plane for lifesupport and occupancy.

>>34327779
>[citation]
Most of those things you're complaining about are the result of a 3-4 way optimization. Of course the stealth is optimized for X band, that is what you use to track and actually shoot something tardo.

>>34322766
F-35 more than likely can't cobra.

>>34319759
This mystical thing called an elevator.

>>34326635
What does the Rafale do that the F-35 can't?

>>34328535
show up on radar

File: 1497149352065.jpg (38KB, 500x311px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x311px

>>34328831

>>34319750
Lockmart shills so desperate

>>34325580
>PAK FA

Maneuvers using thrust vectoring instead of control surfaces.

>Rafale

10 minutes of rolls and turns, no yaw or high AoA work at all.

>>34329148
>Maneuvers using thrust vectoring instead of control surfaces.
imbecile.

>>34329148
>Maneuvers using thrust vectoring instead of control surfaces

Wrong

>>34319759
Easily. You can watch what the input was.
>>34321408
>a good jet can do the same maneuvers without it.
No they can't.

>>34329433
To quote anon, use your eyes ffs.

oh shit f35 can do turns?

how AWESOME
meanwhile in china
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_CK3N8mOXs

>>34327732
Biggest advantages are in RCS reduction and endurance i would imagine.

Making an aircraft structurally strong enough for high Gs is expensive and it adds weight and therefore compromise. why add lots of weight lots of weight making an aircraft sustain marginally higher G to attempt to defeat missiles (that have tiny control surfaces and only ever have to fly once, making it relatively easy to allow them to perform high G maneuvers) when you can instead use that weight for sensors or fuel for endurance.

Navy aircraft aren't operationally limited to lower Gs because Navy pilots are weaklings.

>>34329912
And a ching chong to you too, young lady.

>>34329912
LMAO @ that polluted sky.

File: z2.jpg (103KB, 789x523px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 789x523px

Even the F-35 still can't fucking defeat a Foo Fighter.

>>34327672
>shallow take-off
>A lot of showy, low-energy turns
>Tailstands

>>34327779
>Sprey-tier bullshit

>>34327891
Who cares? I'm sure it can, but the only thing it's good for is wowing Air Show attendees.

>israel has these
>already gave the chicoms more info then the hack ever could.

>>34331185
Yep; if you do happen to see one, your best bet is to just https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojmoqwFvfJU

>>34329136
SHILLS? No you've got it all wrong, I've been put on this personally as the USMC contract is contingent on the express approval of /k/.

>>34321408
I didn't know Special Ed had access to 4chan.

Good on you that you can type in the web address.

>>34331161
you cant detect a stealth inside the smog

chinese are smart

>>34327779
>source: ausairpower.net, 2011

>>34331499
Based Foo's

>>34324734
Is there a VTOL jet plane that doesnt use thrust vectoring?

>>34332284
simple thrust vectoring of full 3d one?

>>34330052
>Navy aircraft aren't operationally limited to lower Gs because Navy pilots are weaklings.
Did you miss something here?

>>34332284
Mirage III v , iirc

>>34332284
off the top of my head:
>VJ 101C - tiltjets and dedicated lift jets
>Mirage IIIV - eight lift jets

>>34329912
notice how unstable that plane is, it wobbles.