What does /k/ think of this plane? It can't really

>>35057100
/k/ has a high opinion of the F-35, it is an amazing aircraft

>>35057100

Shit program, great aircraft!

A bad ass jet that pisses off chinks and vatniks in youtube comment sections everywhere.

File: 103467660.jpg (70KB, 700x691px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 700x691px

>>35057100
china copied a fair amount of it, can't be that bad

i think people will still keep their older F-series though, desu part of me does'nt get why the USA did'nt just make a more capable plane than the F-22 and sell the F-22 as a JSF

>>35057408
F-22 is a super expensive (150 M per unit) air superiority fighter while the F-35 is a cheaper (85 M per unit) multi purpose fighter.

>>35057435
A series seems to be that price, but B and C are only 30 M less than the F22

>>35057444
Try $50m.

Not that its fair to compare the two, and theres no point in doing so.

>>35057444
>only 30 M less

Shit adds up, you know?

>>35057480

unless the wiki is wrong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor

>>35057486
Japan was interested in procuring the F-22 despite the price

>>35057444
An F-22 that could launch off carriers or perform STOVL would be even more expensive than it is now.

Nobody is saying that its a bad aircraft, its just waaaaaaayyyyy overpriced.

>>35057512
t. retard who thinks 1998 F-16 prices on wikipedia are up to date

>>35057507
you raise a good point, but its not like any other force in the world aside from the USA needs STOVL:

Japan only has LHDs, IIRC their decks arn't suited to the F-35's engine output or something

The UK at most would only need to use them if they wanted to mire themselves in some conflict in asia, Against russia land based aircraft is enough.

>>35057512
No one who is actually informed on the subject thinks the F-35 is overpriced.

>>35057502
2009->2017 inflation puts the F-22 at >170m/unit.

But like I said, pointless to compare aircraft variants that are expensive because of the environment they operate in/from to an aircraft that can't operate in those environments.

File: 1504361036822.jpg (285KB, 826x630px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 826x630px

>>35057502
Sadly Japan can't have Raptors due to export laws specifically for them. Same thing happened to Aussie Land despite their interest as well.

>There will never be a pan Pacific raptor fleet

>>35057529
ah yeah, that makes sense damn
still, how did the F-35 program balloon into the 1 trillon ~ ?with your inflation the F-22 program might hit 100 billion tops

>>35057561
>still, how did the F-35 program balloon into the 1 trillon
It didn't, that's a 50 year all-costs estimate.

>>35057560
>Sadly Japan can't have Raptors due to export laws specifically for (((them.))) Same thing happened to Aussie Land despite their interest as well.
ftfy

>>35057561
The 1.5 Trillion number thrown around is for the entire program, including >2000 aircraft, maintaining and fuelling them over the next 50 years.

Its a lot of money but military aviation is expensive

>>35057568
israelis have F-22s?

>>35057566
yeah i guess over 50 years 800~ billion isn't too bad

>>35057527
>but its not like any other force in the world aside from the USA needs STOVL:

What about Italy or Spain? To name those that are already part of the program to replace their harriers.

File: 1502582647188.png (162KB, 476x391px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 476x391px

>>35057585
to do what? invade africa again?

>>35057579
>In 1997, the United States government determined that the Raptor, America’s most advanced air superiority fighter, could not be exported to any foreign government, even those of close allies. The unstated reason for this ban was suspicion that Israel would, if it gained access to the F-22, transfer technology associated with the aircraft to Russia or China. The United States cannot, as a political matter of course, single out Israel for a ban on the sale of advanced technology, and so the F-22 export ban covered all potential buyers.

>>35057585
Spain actually isn't in the program yet and hasn't made a decision, but it's pretty inevitable. It's not like there's another Harrier replacement out there.

>>35057589

Flippancy isn't an answer to a legitimate question.

>>35057568
I'm pretty sure the raptor ban was only instituted after Japan's request, but sure anon.

>>35057561
>how did the F-35 program balloon into the 1 trillon

The estimated cost of everything F-35 related, from operations to ground facilities to pilots to 2k+ aircraft, 50 years from now?

File: 1492910602419.jpg (418KB, 689x960px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 689x960px

>>35057100
>T-Totally guys
>Trudeau will definitely finalize those 70 Lightning II's this time.

>>35057610
Fuck Canada honestly.

I am curious if Germany will join the program as rumored though. Their Tornadoes are falling apart, and their joint aircraft program with the French won't bear fruit until the 40s.

>>35057635

Unlikely. Typhoon will provide a stopgap until the program fruits.

>>35057602
I mean, those two worked perfectly well with their current aircraft and do not border russian territory

>>35057592
why not get an even better aircraft? but the F-35 is a good plane

>>35057610
Remind us what happened to weedman's Super Hornet buy.

>>35057672
>I mean, those two worked perfectly well with their current aircraft and do not border russian territory

That's you're own opinion and you're welcome to research why they wish to replace their current aircraft fleets.

>>35057656
Germany's Typhoons are not capable of significant A2G capability

>>35058055

I am aware.

Hence why they'll probably be an upgrade program for them or they'll buy a new tranche to replace the oldest in the fleet.

>>35057100
The problem is not the aircraft itself, it's the development. It took too long, and too much money.

File: f35-af1-af2-lm.jpg (110KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1600x1000px

>>35057100
>It can't really be *that* bad, right?
It never really was bad. It's a (relatively) common airframe across three variants that meet the needs of all three services and many US allies. The best way to look at it is by comparing it to what it's supposed to replace:
>F-35A replaces USAF F-16s
>F-35B replaces USMC AV-8B
>F-35C replaces USN Legacy Hornets

And for each of those, the F-35 is a massive step up. It offers better range, higher effective payloads, a low-observable platform, and significant advances in sensors all in a package that's got significantly more room for improvement and is actually cheaper in the long term than just continuing to fly legacy aircraft. While everyone loves to throw the $1.5 Trillion number around, similar estimates for literally just continuing to fly legacy aircraft over the same timeframe called for 3 to 4 times that number. Most other criticisms don't hold water either. The much-criticised agility of the F-35 isn't an issue - it's demonstrated excellent agility, and, while it still can't match the ridiculous agility of a clean F-16, it offers more practical performance in that it's more agile with an actual useful load. The "compromises" of adding the STOVL variant are also a non-issue, as those requirements were only added after Lockheed had demonstrated that it wouldn't compromise the rest of the program.

The only real problem the F-35 ever had was in program management. The DoD kept the same schedule they set in the mid '90s when the JSF program began up until the original IOC date of 2010. The problem there was that so much of the program had changed by then. In that time, the DoD had made the decision to mature a bunch of technologies with the F-35 to spread out their costs and save money long term on technologies that could be applied to many other aircraft. While this worked, the DoD fucked up in that they didn't adjust the program until the planned 2010 IOC came around.

>>35057527
>but its not like any other force in the world aside from the USA needs STOVL:
Not really. The Gulf War demonstrated how useful STOVL can be in a warzone. STOVL lets you deploy your aircraft from smaller distributed foward bases, giving them better reaction times to things happening on the front, longer effective range and loiter times, and making it harder for the enemy to stop your air operations by targeting airfields.

Remember that STOVL aircraft came about for fighting land-based warfare, and it wasn't until the Brits decided they couldn't afford a real carrier that maritime STOVL fighters became a thing.

>>35058391

"The "compromises" of adding the STOVL variant are also a non-issue, as those requirements were only added after Lockheed had demonstrated that it wouldn't compromise the rest of the program."

The lack of area ruling is almost solely to blame for the poor transonic acceleration of the plane.

>>35058497
>The lack of area ruling is almost solely to blame for the poor transonic acceleration of the plane.
Area ruling really hasn't been an issue for supersonic aircraft since the '60s. The XB-70 was poorly laid out for area ruling (it's very skewed aft), but it worked fine. As long as you have enough thrust to power through the transonic envelope - which the F-35 definitely has - it's fine.

Also, do you have any source for the poor transonic acceleration? I remember hearing about it occasionally, but I'd like to know what it's being compared to.

>>35057444
I don't think you appreciate how big "a million" of something is, much less thirty million.

>>35058180
>About the same amount of time as other modern programs, faster than Russia's in fact, and less than the F-22's
This meme needs to die.

>>35058429
One time in Iraq during a sandstorm a dickhead set up a mortar just outside the wire near the compound I was on at Balad.

A Harrier dropped a 500 pounder on his head.

Shit plane, Just buy new F-15, F-16, and F-18's.

F-35 program apologists are literally the worst. All they do is glaze over the absolutely terrible price and performance deficits of the F-25 while harping on ultimately meaningless quality like it's """stealth""".

>inb4 another autism rant about how awesome the F-35 is that is completely detached from reality.

>>35061414
>F-25
F-35

File: 1504037780032.png (74KB, 1069x558px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1069x558px

>>35061414
>while harping on ultimately meaningless quality like it's """stealth""".

>>35061463
Dawwww

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/inventions/chinas-claim-it-has-quantum-radar-may-leave-17-billion-f35-naked/news-story/207ac01ff3107d21a9f36e54b6f0fbab

>>35061480
China claims it can do a lot of things.

>>35061480
IIRC, A big part of low-observability works by minimizing signature returns, which is not going to be principally affected by entangling the outgoing photons. What quantum radar theoretically does is make it impossible to spoof radar returns, weakening the electronic warfare element of the system.

>>35057100
Good bomb truck. EXTREMELY good. And in the ends that's what it's gonna be used for more than anything. Probably pretty deadly as a BVR interceptor too, but I have very strong doubts about it's BFM kinematics. Hopefully it won't ever matter.

File: F35 carrier ops.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

I don't want it to replace my favorite bird, even if the F-16 is getting on in years and has a home with many other air forces.

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

201KB, 800x616px

>>35061528
>but I have very strong doubts about it's BFM kinematics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93NdwZAeXhI

>>35061929
looks sluggish and tedious,

>>35061929
That is listeraly worse than every F-16, F-22, and F-165 air demonstration ever.

It's so lumbering it makes an SU-27 look lithe and agile.

I want to see a B launch off an LPD

>>35061975
>>35061995
>Idiots who don't know what they're looking at
It literally pulls maneuvers impossible for older planes, but OK there kids.

File: lpd-17-new_fp.jpg (136KB, 800x697px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 800x697px

>>35062217
forgot pic - it's an LPD

>>35061929
>>35062223

>literally pulls maneuvers impossible for older planes
Maybe for a P-47 or some shit.

It didn't do anything an F-15, F-16, or F-22 can't also do.

File: 1200px-US_Navy_110609-N-VL218-336_The_amphibious_transport_dock_ships_USS_San_Antonio_(LPD_17)_and_USS_New_York_(LPD_21)_are_underway_together_in_the_Atla.jpg (239KB, 1200x857px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1200x857px

>>35062233
/offtopic, but can anyone tell me why the San Antonios have a 30mm? What the fuck is that supposed to be used for on a high value asset that isn't supposed to engage in direct combat? They already have RAM for self defence in a war zone and .50s for self-defence in an "allied" port full of hostile muslims.

>>35062262
>F-15, F-16
Go to 3:30. other 4th gen planes can't do that.

The Russians have planes that can do that, but only because they designed their planes to be super maneuverable from the start, meaning they must compromise in certain areas. The US decided to build a computer that could pull harder maneuvers than Russian aircraft while not compromising the stealth or the characteristics they wanted to have in the F-35 from the get go.

>>35062395
>muh cobra and muh deep stall

I'm sorry. I should have said this

>The F-35 didn't do anything USEFUL that an F-15, F-16, or F-22 couldn't also do.

Doing those retarded maneuvers is only airshow fodder. In actual BFM, doing a maneuver that kills your energy like only ensures you lose the fight.

Also, I'm pretty sure an F-15 could do that, especially in the vert approaching stall speed. The F-14 could do it in level flight.

Only reason the F-16 can't do it is because of 25* AoA limitations in FBW.

>>35062266
>isn't supposed to engage in direct combat
>regularly participates in anti-pirate operations

Pick one. 30mm will chew up anything some raggedy ass Somali pirates manage to wrangle up.

>>35062444
>Doing those retarded maneuvers is only airshow fodder. In actual BFM, doing a maneuver that kills your energy like only ensures you lose the fight.
Yeah, i know.

>Also, I'm pretty sure an F-15 could do that, especially in the vert approaching stall speed. The F-14 could do it in level flight.
If you want to crash then sure, go for it.

>>35062475
Three seamen with some 5.56 rifles will chew up anything some raggedy ass Somali pirate manage to wrangle up.

>>35062533
>Put three seamen in danger of direct fire (from 7.62, RPG, etc) from a hostile vessel, Somali pirate or not.
>Unload 500 rounds of 30mm safely behind armored walls.

Pick one.

>>35062623
>Somali pirates on sheet metal dinghy directly attacking a US Navy ship.

In what universe anon?

>>35062654
Rationality doesn't figure into Somali pirates thinking, or they wouldn't "WE WUZ CAPTAINZ N SHIET"

Perhaps you're right. It's my fault for thinking that anyone would shoot back at anyone shooting at them, regardless of platform.

>>35062686
Somali pirates universally turn tail and run at the first sight of a military vessel. There is no attacking.

Regardless, my initial comment about three Seamen with rifles was tongue in cheek. Commentary on how pathetically equipped the Somali pirates are. Don't sperg out about it too much.

>>35062654
>In what universe anon?

In the far off magical world of right fucking here on the planet Earth you stupid cunt

http://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2017/04/27/somali-pirate-gets-life-in-prison-for-attack-on-us-navy-ship/

>>35062729
see:
>>35062706
>my initial comment about three Seamen with rifles was tongue in cheek. Commentary on how pathetically equipped the Somali pirates are. Don't sperg out about it too much.
>Don't sperg out about it too much.
>Don't
>sperg
>out
>about
>it
>too
>much.

too late.

File: db0.jpg (40KB, 349x642px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 349x642px

>>35062748

>>35062765
Don't worry anon. Maybe next time you'll actually get the joke before you go into full retard rage sperg mode.

>>35062266
Most naval warships have some sort of large caliber autocannon to allow defense against small surface craft. Even Phalanx is being pushed into this role, with a new radar upgrade being rolled out allowing it to track surface targets.

>>35062980
Okay. But what pushes in the direction of the remote 30mm instead of the local 25mm or the remote(automatic???) 20mm?

>>35063041
Larger caliber equals larger effective range.

>>35057100
its very good the drone king

>>35062784
>maximum damage control

>>35063041
The Mk44 Bushmaster II is a relatively cheap and powerful weapon with plenty of ammunition options already in service. It's about the same size as a 25mm chaingun with a considerable increase in firepower. (square cube law means a 30mm shell holds a lot more explosives then a 25mm).

>>35063147
It's not damage control sperglet. I even explained the comment for you before you even posted.

You literally sperged so hard you couldn't even finish reading the thread because you just had to post.

It's okay anon, I understand. Basic understanding is the first thing to go when your autism hits.

File: 1489888219752.png (394KB, 641x425px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 641x425px

>>35057100

>>35063087
Kind of. It means more propellant, but the longest range rounds for 30x173mm are sub caliber saboted.

>>35063087
>>35063174
>>35063208
thank you for the responses, this was something that was bugging me about the San Antone

>>35062444
>Extreme AoA maneuvers like the squared loop and hard rudder turns
>High AoA cruise straight into vertical climb
>Implying the F-35 can't snapshot harder than a Hornet and sustain a turn almost as well as a Viper
>Implying an F-35 doesn't have the best energy recovery of any plane in service now
I know you're ignorant, but you don't have to try so hard to prove it.

>>35062444
Show us a video of a 4th gen fighter freely doing controlled yaw turns. Bonus points if it isn't using thrust vectoring.

>>35063540
>Extreme AoA maneuvers
You mean energy killing maneuvers that are useless in actual combat? Neat.

>High AoA cruise straight into vertical climb
F-16's and F-15's have literally been doing this for years.

Eat your words at 1:08
https://youtu.be/zd8rMabZKOI?t=1m8s

>>Implying the F-35 can't snapshot harder than a Hornet
>internet claims
Citation fucking needed

>>Implying an F-35 doesn't have the best energy recovery of any plane in service now
AHAHAHA citation fucking needed.

>I know you're ignorant
I know you have no idea what you're talking about but you dont have to try so hard to prove it.

>>35063713
I'll take useless airshow maneuvers for 800 Alex.

File: 1476055688804.webm (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>35063195
>WHY RWR OF THE SILENT?

my fucking sides

>>35063950
>You mean energy killing maneuvers that are useless in actual combat? Neat.
Derping

>F-16's and F-15's have literally been doing this for years.
Derping harder.

>Eat your words at 1:08
A lower speed, lower AoA glide with a slower, far more heavily curved climb.

I hope you have some Crow cooked up and ready:
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/06/pilots-say-f-35-superior-within-visual-range-dogfight-criticisms-laid-to-rest/

>>35064146
>How to move the goal posts: The Post

>>35064157
>derrrrppppp
Moving goalposts? In what way? The video you posted showed a weak AoA glide and a really long, slow transition to climb vs the F-35's nearly instant transition.

>>35064146
>A lower speed, lower AoA glide with a slower, far more heavily curved climb.
What a bunch fo apologist bullshit.

The F-16 can easily pull into a verticle climb from low speed and has a greater power to weight so it can susteain that verticle climb for longer than the F-35.

Go make shit up elsewhere.

>>35063955
>yaw turns
>airshow maneuver

This is how we know you are completely out of your league.

>>35064176
If you're slow enough to make yaw turns matter, you've lost the fight.

>>35064174
The F-16 has a lower t/w ratio than the F-35.

>>35064185
>yaw turns require slow speeds

Thank you for once again showing you are completely out of your league in this discussion.

>>35064174
>Watches same videos
>Still trying to claim the F-35 is worse
The fucking haters are desperate now.

File: thr.jpg (321KB, 1850x690px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1850x690px

>>35064191
Like I said.
Go make shit up somewhere else.

>>35064191
Sure, if both are completely empty. The F-16 has so much parasitic drag at max load, which the F-35 can match internally, that it's well below the F-35 by any real-world measure.

>>35064245
Wrong. Retard said the F-25 was doing things that other fighters couldn't.

I posted a video of an F-16 doing literally what he said other fighters couldn't do.

he tried to move the goal posts claiming it was "as good" as what the F-25 did despite the F-16 literally haveing a significant thrust to weight advantage which would only help it perform the maneuver.

Go shill somewhere else.

>>35064266
>F-25
F-35

>>35064253
>Wikipedia

>>35064266
>I posted a video of an F-16 doing literally what he said other fighters couldn't do.
You posted a video of it doing a weak, lame version that wasn't a hard transition straight to vertical.

You're the dipshit trying to make things up here to pretend the F-35 isn't good.

>>35064253
>intentionally avoiding mentioning what weights those fuel % mean

>>35064272
>You posted a video of it doing a weak, lame version that wasn't a hard transition straight to vertical.
No true Scottsman fallacy.

Try again.

>>35064278
>F-16 literally has a better power to weight at full fuel than the F-35 does at half fuel
>He doesn't know that thrust to weight is not calculated on empty aircraft.

>>35064284
...are you just tossing random fallacies out hoping one will stick?

>>35064271
Wikipedia has citations. Go check them out.

Or better yet, provide a citation showing the F-35 has a better thrust to weight.

File: IMG_1491.jpg (39KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 657x527px

>>35064284
Wat

>>35064284
>claim the F-16 can do the same maneuvers an F-35 can
>post video of an F-16 not doing the same maneuvers an F-35 can
>NO TRUE SCOTSMAN REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

>>35064292
>Implying outside of airshows an F-16 ever flies without at least drop tanks, taking the T/W way below that
>Implying the F-35 doesn't carry more fuel than that at 50%

>>35064296
>F-35 is doing and XXX can't
>show F-26 literally doing what was claimed it cannot
>THATS A WEAK ONE IT DOESNT COUNT

Textbook No true Scottsman.

Try again.

>>35064304
>Anon said F-35 was doing a low speed high AoA pass into a vertical that other planes can't.

>Video was posted of an F-16 doing low speed high AoA pass into a vertical climb

>THAT"S NOT A GOOD ONE IT DOESNT COUNT.

That is literally what a No true Scottsman fallacy is.

>>35064292
Try again with an equal weight in fuel.

>>35064312
Wow, you're a fucking idiot. No True Scotsman is an implication that a PERSON isn't a true member of a group because they do or don't do something.

Also, what the fuck is an F-26? If you meant F-16, no it was not doing the same maneuver, not even close.

>>35064328
>Doubling down on the idiocy
Shouldn't you be in bed by now kid?

>>35064310
>doesn't know what a DROPtank is
>still doesnt udnerstand that T:W is not calculated on empty aircraft.

The apologetics is real.

>>35064329
That's not how T:W is calculated. Try again, this time without trying to give a handicap to your bloated shillery.

>>35064334
>HUrr durr Vipers still drop external tanks
You're an idiot.

>>35064334
Also, your ignorance is showing:

a·pol·o·get·ics
əˌpäləˈjediks/
noun
plural noun: apologetics

reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.
"free market apologetics"

>>35064328
Your video is an F-16 accelerating horizontally before going vertical, not going straight from a low speed high AoA pass to vertical.

>>35064330
>No True Scotsman is an implication that a PERSON isn't a true member of a group

You've just demonstrated you dont even know what a No true Scottsman fallacy is.

Bravo. Let me help you.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman
>In this form of faulty reasoning one's belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn't apply to a supposedly 'true' example. This kind of post-rationalization is a way of avoiding valid criticisms of one's argument.

>>35064341
>claim an F-16 has better t/w at 100% fuel than an F-35 at 50% fuel
>desperately tries to ignore an F-35 at 50% fuel is carrying more weight in fuel than an F-16 at 100%

>>35064332
You're the one trying to pass a fallacious argument off as somethign compelling. I provided a video of an F-16 doing exactly what you claimed planes other than the F-25 couldn't do.

You are now fallaciously denying it's validity by some goal-post moving and post-argument validations.

>>35064384
>Still can't prove I'm actually wrong or that his attempt at proofs is even showing the same maneuver
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

>>35064343
>>HUrr durr Vipers still drop external tanks
>You're an idiot.
If the need arises to increase WVR performance absofuckinglutely.

Do you really not understand what a drop tank is for?

>>35064391
>I provided a video of an F-16 doing exactly what you claimed planes other than the F-25 couldn't do.
No, you did not. Your video wasn't even close to the same maneuver. Game over, go to bed.

>>35064391
>I provided a video of an F-16 doing exactly what you claimed planes other than the F-25 couldn't do.

No you didn't, and fix your 3 key.

>>35064375
False.

>>35064402
I don't think we've needed to drop tanks since Vietnam. In modern combat the vast majority of kills are BVR, and in 80% of them the target was unaware until it was too late.

Using a clean F-16 as an example is massively dishonest.

>>35064388
>still trying to inject fuel fraction into T:W argument when this literally has never been the case.

>>35064413
True. The F-35 goes straight from the high angle cruise (at a much steeper stable angle than the F-16) and directly transitions to vertical. The F-16 example takes forever to CURVE into vertical flight.

>>35064417
>use fuel fraction to claim the F-16 has a better t/w
>when fuel fraction proves you wrong, try to walk back your original stance

>>35064330
I don't know enough about planes to meddle in that part of a discussion but a No True Scotsman is a fallacy in which the definition of something is changed ad hoc to exclude an example given that would undermine the original statement. It's applicable to more than the typical example in which a person is excluded because "a true scotsman" doesn't do X.

>>35064403
>F-35 in high AoA low speed pass into vertical climb
>F-16 in high AoA low speed pass into vertical climb

THATS NOT THE SAME

lmao you kids are hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtq31fj_2OU

>>35064416
>I don't think we've needed to drop tanks since Vietnam. In modern combat the vast majority of kills are BVR, and in 80% of them the target was unaware until it was too late.

But we're talking about WVR BFM combat. In which an F-16 would surely drop it's tanks to win an engagement.

>>35064253
Not the anon you're bitching with however this doesn't compare the same amount of fuel.

F35 holds 18.5 thousand pounds of fuel while the viper holds 7 thousand. Even at half weight the F35 holds more fuel.

Put them both at let's say 6,000 pounds and do a comparison. Combat radius between the two should have been a huge give away before you posted this. F35A has a 670NMi radius compared to a 340 NMi viper.


And I'm a viper fanboy, served in a squadron known for it's vipers before we swapped to MQ9s.

>>35064430
>Still trying to claim the F-16's low alpha cruise and long, slow curved climb is the same as the F-35's steep alpha cruise and near-instant transition to vertical

File: F-16 with less capability than F-35.jpg (986KB, 2100x2424px) Image search: [Google]

986KB, 2100x2424px

>>35064440
>But we're talking about WVR BFM combat. In which an F-16 would surely drop it's tanks to win an engagement.
An F-16 isn't looking to get into such a fight in the first place, but even if it did dropping tanks doesn't affect the parasitic drag of all the pods, pylons, and weapons still on it.

>>35064427
Except the F-16 has better T:W at full fuel than the F-25 even at half it's fuel fraction.

Thrust to weights are only compared on a fraction to fraction basis and the F-16 has a better thrust to weight at 50% fuel and 100% fuel.

Only when attempts are made to apply some ridiculous handicap does the F-35 even come close to being competitive in T:W.

The original assertion that the F-35 has a better T:W is factually false.

>>35064430
>F-35 in high AoA low speed pass transitions directly into vertical climb
>F-16 in high AoA low speed pass accelerates horizontally into vertical climb

>>35064467
>Thinks the T:W ratios on Wikipedia are current or accurate

>>35064441
>F35 holds 18.5 thousand pounds of fuel while the viper holds 7 thousand. Even at half weight the F35 holds more fuel.
I understand what you're saying but it's still wrong.

No one claims the F-115 has a better thrust to weight than the F-16 because it holds more fuel and then tries to compare it o a pound of fuel to pound of fuel basis.

This has literally never been the argument until F-35 apologists are trying to make up excuses for the F-35's poor thrust to weight.

>>35064467
>still ignoring what those % mean in fuel weight

What is an F-35's t/w at an equal weight of fuel to an F-16 at 100%? Here is a hint, it's less than 50% fuel on the F-35.

>>35064447
>25 degrees is low alpha now

Found the retard.

>>35064485
Compared to the F-35? Yes it is.

>>35064482
>>still ignoring what those % mean in fuel weight
>What is an F-35's t/w at an equal weight of fuel to an F-16 at 100%?
When in the history of fighters have they ever been compared to equal poundage in the tanks?

Literally never.

This is purely F-35 apologetics.

>>35064493
You're comparing one jet with enough fuel to do a mission 300nmi away to a jet with enough fuel to do a mission 700nmi away. What happens when the F-16 has been loaded with EFTs and/or CFTs, and also topped up from a tanker so that it can fly the same distance?

>>35064491
>performance relativism

found the retard.

Show me any aviation authority that doesn't consider 25 degrees high alpha. I'll wait.

>>35064493
Do you have any actual arguments against it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0
>Energy-Maneuverability doesn't even matter any more in 5th Gen, yet the F-22 and F-35 manage to be the best anyways

>apologetics
You do realize that that means "reasoned arguments in justification of something", not apologizing, right?

>>35064509
>found the retard
Why are you looking anywhere but the mirror?

>>35061929
What's your point? It flies like a goddamn F-4. At least the F-16 comes out of afterburner every once in a while when it does a demo.

>>35064522
>I have no idea what I'm watching

>>35064502
Thrust to weight is not calculated based on any given mission range or fuel poundage. That's the point.

Thrust to weight is calcualted and always has been calculated on a fuel fraction to fuel fraction basis.

Calculating it any other way is just an attempt for F-35 shills to stat handicap other aircraft to make the F-35 seem like it's better than it is.

>>35064515
Still waiting on that citation that 25* isn't high AoA

>>35064440
The F-16 has to be loaded down with external pods and equipment to be effective in ground attack roles. Literally gutting it's performance.

Morons don't realize the F-35 doesn't have this problem.

>>35064528
>Calculating it any other way is just an attempt for F-35 shills to stat handicap other aircraft to make the F-35 seem like it's better than it is.
>durr F-35 is bad and I have nothing to prove it but it is!

>>35064536
Day 1 the F-16A was a multi-role, and even then tanks and bombs made it less capable once combat-equipped.

>>35064493
>claim fuel fraction as proof the F-16 has a better t/w
>when proven wrong, try to disclaim fuel fraction as a comparison of t/w

>>35064535
Compared to 50 degrees? Yes it is.

>>35064550
>Misquoting opposition

>>35064528
>Thrust to weight is not calculated based on any given mission range or fuel poundage.
Yes it is; it's based 100% off of the jet's "loaded" weight, where the load consists of fuel and weapons that differ based on mission.

>>35064556
Just because 50* AoA is high alpha doesn't mean 25* AoA is not high alpha.

>50* alpha is low compared to 90* alpha.
>thus F-35 is low alpha plane

>>35064536
>ground attack
>bomb truck configuration
>BFM mattering for a bomb truck anyway

>>35064528
>being forced to account for fuel weight is a handicap

This just in, the F-16 actually flies on fairy farts and gnome dreams.

>>35064537
>literally have to abandon the widely accepted means for measuring T:W in use for 60+ years in order for the F-35 to be competitive in T:W

SAD!

>>35064579
When does the F-16 fly clean? Ever?

>>35064573
It's not, it's just fairly average.

>>35064588
>Still ignoring the critical "Weight" side of "Thrust to Weight Ratio"

>>35064562
You cited wiki fuel fraction based t/w ratios.

>>35064567
Thrust to weight of a clean plane for comparison purposes retard.

You don't compare Plane A with 30% fuel fraction and Plane B with a 90% fuel fraction to get an accurate comparison of relative T:W.

That's not the way it works, or ever has worked.

>>35064598
Air shows. It gets stripped down to skeletal levels too.

The Demo F-35 at Paris could've gone into combat with a weapons load that day.

>>35064588
>literally have to abandon the widely accepted means for measuring T:W in use for 60+ years

You can stop the lie any time, no one knows who you really are.

>>35064604
>Still thinks Wiki T:W ratios are accurate

>>35064580
>suddenly trying to change the widely accepted way comparative T:W is calculated just because the aircraft you are shilling for has a poor T:W ratio in the commonly accepted means of calculating it.

>>35064481
Sure, from a pure percentage standpoint it is less. I will concede that, however that's not a poor thrust to weight ratio like you're referring to.

You're talking about a .04 difference for almost TWICE the range. Top speed for when it needs to turn and burn is max 1.6 which is slower to the crotch rocket viper(2.0).

Another major difference is the flight ceiling, F35 has an extra 15k to work with.

It does have a slower climb to reach there.


In regards to turn rate the f35 is absurd with a 8 second 180 degree time.

https://youtu.be/5KBsA1IkoTA?t=156

I won't get into weapons or engagements, I'm just going to strictly talk about performance.

>>35064605
You left out the 'period' at the end of your post.

>>35064598
F-16 doesn't have to be clean to outperform the F-35.

CAP configuration and drop tanks and it's ready to go.

>>35064602
>doesn't understand that weight is an intrinsic quality of the aircraft, not some variable you adjust at your convenience in order to tip the scales in whichever direction you are shilling for.

>>35064620
>Top speed for when it needs to turn and burn is max 1.6 which is slower to the crotch rocket viper(2.0).
Vipers basically never exceeds that anyways, especially with a combat load, so designing for faster is pointless when you can direct that effort elsewhere.

>>35064615
And yet you cited them.

>>35064611
>>35064611
>Air shows. It gets stripped down to skeletal levels too.

Citation needed.

The Shill is Rill.

>>35064620
>F-16
>mach 2 with a combat load

>>35064631
>weapons, fuel, and other equipment don't change the weight
Are you done being stupid? The difference in an F-35's Empty and loaded weight is more than an F-16's Empty weight, and it's max take-off is 1.6 times that of the Viper, yet it maintains a comparable (publicly available) T:W ratio.

>>35064638
How many pylons are on that F-16 in the video you posted.

>>35064633
yeah no doubt my man, again strictly talking performance. A viper pilot is never going 1.6 or above unless they have the fuel and the absolute dire need to.

>>35064645
Not depicting combat load, I'm defending the f35a. Clean vs clean which is worst case scenario for the f35a as it shines while loaded.


Please read this: I won't get into weapons or engagements, I'm just going to strictly talk about performance.

>>35064634
>>35064638
>Idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about but is trying to argue with those who do

>>35064645
Light air to air it's possible.

Not with tanks and full load.

Just like an F-15.

F-15 with a full load will need tanks to even get to mach 2.0 and then when it's there it has minutes of fuel to empty.

>>35064653
That's not how T:W is calculated.

You don't get to arbitrarily set loaded weights before comparing T:W for different aircraft.

You usually compare in clean configuration with equal fuel fraction, usually 50% fraction or 100% for both aircraft.

In both configurations the F-16 has a substantially higher T:W.

Deviating from this comparative baseline is not typical or accepted as the correct way to compare thrust:weight performance for aircraft, and ever has been.

Using the methods you are trying to it could easily be argued that the F-15 has a higher T:W ratio than the F-16. And literally no one argues this to be true.

>>35064654
Taking pylons off an aircraft is "stripping to a skeletal level"?

lol

>>35064662
you quoted two different people and didn't put north any argument at all.

Thus it can be reasoned that you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>35064691
>Still thinks publicly available figures are accurate
>Still trying to claim that it's the most important factor
The pilots are admitting they can't hang with the F-35 up close anymore with 3i and better and the F-35 pilots getting more stick time to really learn the plane.

Not that it matters. F-22/35 pilots decide every single engagement in realistic scenarios.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ7MwfcjCa0
Take this, and add far more advanced passive RF sensors and the EO-DAS/EO-TS into the mix, plus the MADL so every F-35 is silently sharing everything it sees with the others up in the sky.

>>35064691
Your personal opinion of how t/w is calculated is fascinating and yet irrelevant.

It is also intellectually dishonest to insist an 11,500 lb difference in fuel load has to be ignored.

>>35064697
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-demo-pilot-paris-performance-will-crush-years-misinformation
>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.
>“All of those airplanes that do air shows—the Hornet, Viper—they are all slicked off without all the external stores,” Flynn said. “They are a party trick at an air show, versus a combat-configured F-22 or F-35.”

>>35064723
Are you arguing then that the F-14 has a better T:W than the F-16?

>>35064724
>they removed the pylons
>PLANE COMPLETELY NOT COMBAT READY AND STRIPPED TO THE BONE

lel @ u

>>35064735
>Implying an F-16 can be put into combat same day with the pylons off

>>35064741
>implying it takes days to fit pylons to an F-16

>>35064735
>can't carry munitions
>LEL ITS COMBAT READY GUISE!!!

>>35064605
>Thrust to weight of a clean plane for comparison purposes
Where the comparison is based on an artificial and unrealistic scenario? If an F-16C and an F-35A are tasked with guarding airspace 300nmi from an airbase, the F-35A's going to carry less fuel.

Also, with those thrust-to-weight ratio figures, the F-35A has a fuel fraction about 10% higher in both cases and also carries an internal weapons payload, whereas the F-16 carries nothing.

>That's not the way it works, or ever has worked.

It is the way that actual combat works.

>>35064746
It can carry munitions. Put pylons back on when you fit the munitions.

>>35064748
That's not the say T:W is calculated and compared.

If it was then the F-14 has a better thrust to weight ratio than the F-16. Literally no one argues this because it is ridiculous.

>>35064730
Even when accounting for the fuel load the F-14 has a terrible t/w.

>>35064764
>If it was then the F-14 has a better thrust to weight ratio than the F-16.

It does have a better t/w ratio than the F-16 with an equal weight of fuel.

>>35064766
The F-14D had 1.0 T:W at 50% fuel fraction.

At 50% fuel fraction the F-14D still had 1100lbs more fuel than a 100% fuel fraction F-16.

At 100% fuel fraction an F-16 has a 1.09 T:W

Are you not arguing that the F-14 has a better thrust to weight than the F-16 based on the same argument you are making for the F-35 having a better thrust to weight?

>>35064764
If both jets are tasked to 300nmi and the F-14 does actually have a higher T:W (I haven't compiled data on it, so I can't say if that's the case - I get the gist that >>35064766 is correct though), then it's perfectly valid to argue this.

What actually is the purpose of comparing thrust-to-weight ratios in your eyes if they're configured for very different scenarios?

>>35064790
>with an equal weight of fuel.
And there goes the qualification of the statement.

Nobody argues T:W with that qualification. Nobody argues the F-14 has a better T:W than the F-16.

>>35064795
f35 shills btfo

>>35064824
>f14 shills btfo

>>35064824
>WAAAAAHHHHH NOBODY IS TELLING ME I WON!

>>35064804
See >>35064795, try to be consistent.

>>35064795
F-14 was a hot mess whenever it wasn't in the air.

>>35064848
That's beside the point.

The argument that the F-35 has a better T:W ratio than an F-16 based on poundage in the tank falls flat on it's face the minute you apply it to other aircraft.

Apply the same logic to an F-14 vs F-16 and you are arguing the F-14 has a better pwoer to weight than the F-16. Same us said fir the F-15.

>>35064848
Before the F110s it was a hot mess in the air, too.

>F-16 with 7000lb fuel (100%)
20,300lb empty weight
29,000lb thrust
t/w of 1.06

>F-14 with 7000lb fuel
43,735lb empty weight
28,200lb thrust x2
t/w of 1.11

>F-35 with 7000lb fuel
29,000lb empty weight
43,000lb thrust
t/w of 1.13

>>35064906
I read through this thread and I'm still so confused why people are arguing about the definition and semantics of T/W whilst ignoring the actual question, which is comparing the significance and context of T/W between The 16 and 35 (with possible special guest appearances by 15 and 18).

I mean, yes, comparing the same numbers to another batch of same numbers is apples to apples, but that's not really the point. What should matter is why and/or how the numbers are significant and what makes them meaningful.

A F-16 with a higher T/W but a significantly lower and shorter operational envelope cannot mean as much as a F-35 with a (very comparable but still) lower T/W but much expanded combat envelope.

>>35064865
>The argument that the F-35 has a better T:W ratio than an F-16 based on poundage in the tank falls flat on it's face the minute you apply it to other aircraft.
>based on poundage in the tank

To be clear, my argument is that the F-35 has a superior T:W if both jets are doing a long range mission (which is typical if you're not Poland fighting off Ruskies at your border or whatever).

Even if you drop your tanks and bombs, you still have pylons stuck to your wings, targeting pods stuck to hardpoints and depending on the loadout, you might have non-jettisonable 600 gal tanks stuck to your wings as well. Plus, if you're ejecting bombs, you're immediately failing at what was likely your primary objective. Plus if you're ejecting EFTs, you're potentially giving up your ability to get home without ejecting and being rescued.

Ultimately though >>35064936 is on the money.

>>35064936
>>35064951

So basically you guys are trying to turn a comparison of T:W into some sort of weird meta combat effectiveness amalgamation.

Essentially talking about something that is not T:W ratios and the comparison of.

>>35064951
Though the fact that an F-35A/C can patrol a range nearly twice that of the Viper and Hornet on just internal fuel should also be considered when talking about this stuff.

>>35064975
yes, that's called muddying the waters.

F-35 shills don't like what the numbers actually say about the F-35's T:W so they muddy the waters until the discussion has lost all meaning.

>>35064975
The point of comparing T:W ratios is to compare combat performance (albeit within the limited region of ACM). You wouldn't load up an F-16 for a bombing mission and think that it's T:W is valid to compare to that of an F-15C's would you? Then why do the same with the F-35 vs F-16?

>>35065002
>>35064996
case in point here:
>>35064996

F-35 has inferior T:W so this anon tries to bring CAP range into a T:W discussion where it has no place in order to muddy the waters and distract from the actual T:W discussion.

>>35065002
>>35065014
>I can't actually prove the F-35 is bad so I'm going to nitpick at unimportant things while shooting down what actually matters in a combat aircraft

>>35065014
What is the actual T:W discussion, that an F-35A loaded with bombs, missiles and fuel to fly twice as far has less T:W than an F-16 loaded with nothing? Well duh, now explain to me why that matters.

>>35065008
>You wouldn't load up an F-16 for a bombing mission and think that it's T:W is valid to compare to that of an F-15C's would you?
That's not an equivalent argument.

T:W is just taking a clean example of each aircraft and filling them to some pre-determined fuel fraction, usually 50% or 100%.

Combat range, or bomb load, or patrol range, or ferry range or whatever else has absolutly nothing to do with this. Throwing those points into the discussion is muddying the waters.

You can argue that the F-35 has a longer range or better XYZ in whatever other criteria but that flatly has nothing to do with T:W ratios or comparative T:W performance.

File: 1487271185238.png (175KB, 3767x2019px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 3767x2019px

>>35065014
Being shown your ignorance is not muddying the waters.

>>35065027
>T:W is unimportant
lel ok.

>>35065032
>an F-35A loaded with bombs, missiles and fuel to fly twice as far
adding distance into a T:W discussion is muddying the waters. Distance literally has nothing to do with T:W and is an entirely different conversation.

You are trying to hide one of the F-35's perceived weaknesses by trying to focus on one of it's strengths instead of just admitting that it has weaknesses in some areas and strengths in others.

Clear cut shill behavior.

>>35065041
>T:W is just taking a clean example of each aircraft and filling them to some pre-determined fuel fraction, usually 50% or 100%.

The F-16's Wikipedia entry is one of the only ones I've seen where it's clean. The F-35's T:W ratio includes weapons.

>>35064975
Do you think an aircraft sitting on the runway with no fuel is an accurate measure of t/w?
Do you think comparing an aircraft loaded with enough fuel to fly 600 miles to an aircraft loaded with enough fuel to fly 1,200 miles is accurate?

>>35065032
>an F-35A loaded with bombs, missiles and fuel to fly twice as far has less T:W than an F-16 loaded with nothing?

We're not talking about bombs or anything. We are talking about clean aircraft with internal fuel. What are you talking about?

>>35065054
>the F-35 has a bad t/w if I compare it to an aircraft with no munitions or fuel

>>35065088
The thrust-to-weight ratios given in that screenshot of Wikipedia way up in this thread includes a full internal payload. That's what a "loaded weight" is (if you don't believe that for whatever reason, just do the maths with loaded weight - empty weight - internal fuel capacity).

>>35065054
In this context? In the least likely air to air scenario where other factors like High Off BoreSight missiles like the AIM-9X and it has a fairly extreme Angle of Attack capability are also involved? It is absolutely nitpicking to ignore actually important details to whine about a fairly small T:W delta.

>>35065014
>the actual T:W discussion

Yes, you're right. This discussion isn't strictly about T/W to T/W, it's about the relevance of T/W when compared to complete performance packages.

Consider the following: Lineman A and Lineman B are both trying out at the NFL combine. Both run the 40; Lineman A runs a 4.8 and Lineman B runs a 4.6. Lineman B runs a faster 40 than Lineman A, no doubt about it.

Which Lineman wins Rookie of the Year?

Which is kind of the point, T/W and 40 yard times aren't really the end-all of discussion, and comparing one specific point of performance is ignoring the fact that aircraft performance is the sum of its qualities, not one quality compared at a time.

The F-35 does have a lower T/W, but not by a lot, and it compensates for this by having a much expanded performance envelope than the F-16.

>>35065113
>The F-35 does have a lower T/W, but not by a lot, and it compensates for this by having a much expanded performance envelope than the F-16.
And the F-16 can't spot it while the F-35 has all week to decide tactics. Probably with an AIM-120D from BVR.

>>35065122
I didn't intend for anything that specific, but definitely, that's one huge benefit over the F-35 platform than the F-16/Viper platform.

>>35065143
5th vs 4th Gen has been described as "seal clubbing" with good reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ7MwfcjCa0

>>35065094
>>35065103
Loaded weight is listed as:
>49,441 lb
Empty weight as:
>28,999
Fuel weight as:
>18,498

If you take loaded weight minus empty weight and fuel weight you're left with 1944lbs.

Internal capacity is listed as 5,700lbs.

If you just go based on fuel and empty weight on the F-16 you come out with a T:W of 1.1:1 @ 100% fuel fraction and 1.29:1 at 50% fraction.

File: Thrust to weight ratio F-35 vs Super Hornet vs F-16C.png (931KB, 4153x2241px) Image search: [Google]

931KB, 4153x2241px

>>35065043
>>35065269
Here's an updated version of that chart with the Super Hornet and F-16C (using the F110-GE-129) included:

Here's the spreadsheet - numbers are from the F-16C Block 50/52 flight manual supplement and Wikipedia for the F110-GE-129 thrust figures: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B153uz04GCxTdjUxRGtOT1lBdUk

>>35065514
I can maek spraedsheets too

>>35057100
Gay

>>35065269
>If you just go based on fuel and empty weight on the F-16 you come out with a T:W of 1.1:1 @ 100% fuel fraction

Nope, do your math again.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f16.html

>>35065806
On the other hand you can't type 'ea'.

>>35058391

>The only real problem the F-35 ever had was in program management.

I fear that our lack of serious threats to our nation is causing us to lose our ability to get effective weapons built. The Zumwalt is another example, we spent billions on a destroyer that is barely even seaworthy.

>>35067513
Zumwalt is another Sea Wolf. Few built and extremely expensive, but will provide insights and technology improvements/understanding that lead the way to a new class like the Ohio that's as or more capable for a much lower price.
Also they should have got a clue and started fitting the gun system for the Zum to other ship classes so they can afford the good ammo. A Burke with that gun would be tits, and it could have made the LCS program worth a shit.

It's like an accuracy international rifle. Top of the line, absolutely amazing, and you're gonna pay like a motherfucker.

>>35068079
Except it costs less than most current 4.5 gens and upgraded 4ths.

>>35067513
>to lose our ability to get effective weapons built

You are now aware that the Spitfire originally had a fuel injection system that was designed for an engine that would constantly remain relatively horizontal. Basically it would stall during maneuvers until that issue was fix. All that to say that even more simple systems had retarded shit going on. It's part of the process.

>>35067513
>on a destroyer that is barely even seaworthy.

Why do critics of military equipment know the least about them?