So does this mean the F35 isn't shit?
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/05/f-35-wins-denmark-competition-trounces-super-hornet-eurofighter/
>>30040000
>dem quads
The whole F35 is shit thing came from troubling information that is now years old. If you had asked me five years ago if the F35 was shit, I'd have said "Yeah, it's shaping up to be."
Then we learned more about the program, about it's capabilities and how a lot of the problems were testing safe guards. Now, I think they F35 is going to be a worthy, but maybe not quite great, plane. At least not as great as it could have been if they hadn't tried to make one airframe for three services but that's just me.
>>30040104
>At least not as great as it could have been if they hadn't tried to make one airframe for three services but that's just me.
Congratulations on entirely missing the point of the program and why its actually so beneficial.
>>30040124
let the shitpost begin.
>>30040124
I was thinking more about the compromises made to include the B variant.
>>30040000
well i have always liked it and i think the f22 needs some upgrades
>>30040137
Would one model be less comprising? Your premise is illogical.
>>30040000
Russian shills took to the internet to try to kill the F-35 because all of NATO benefits from it.
Please don't be foolish enough to think the F-35 is actually a "lemon".
Also, someone should update Trump on the matter.
>>30040148
Without having to factor in a STOVL capability that A and C don't share? Yes.
>>30040176
Explain how Bs STOVL capability causes compromises in the other variant?
>>30040000
It's shit but politicians take money so it won
>>30040192
What part of "but that's just me." did you not understand? I literally think "It's worth it but maybe it could have been better."
>>30040194
>It's shit but politicians take money so it won
When your theory relies upon conspiracy, its time to get another theory.
>>30040220
When you blatantly defend a lemon, you know where is shill
>>30040220
So it other words, "muh feelings", because you can't actually articulate or even know of any actual comprimises.
>>30040391
>>30040000
So they put 1 solitary F-22 Raptor up against 4 F-16s in one mock battle, and 5 F-15s in another. The Raptor went through all of them like an vengeful angel.
When the F-35 Lightning does similar I will be convinced totally.
>>30040192
He can't
>>30040192
>Explain how Bs STOVL capability causes compromises in the other variant?
It creates less optimal for them layout.
>>30041012
>It creates less optimal for them layout.
Wot
>>30041012
what makes the f35 layout less optimal?
>>30041012
but what about money for them programs?
>>30041022
Frontal area.
>>30041149
The frontal area is dictated by the engine and internal weapon bays; drop the lift fan and it won't get any thinner.
>>30041149
what about the frontal area?
>>30040137
>I was thinking more about the compromises made to include the B variant.
You mean the original design that, when the STOVL was removed in the A/C variants gave it a massive fuel tank? Most of the design is built around the stealth and internal carriage, not the STOVL system. The lift fan literally just takes up what is fuel space on the others, and the engine just has a different nozzle and the drive shaft differentiating it from the standard model.
>>30040000
Honestly, there isn't any reason to NOT pick the F-35 at this point. The aircraft doesn't reach full-rate production until 2019. If the F-35 is still having serious problems at that point, all they have to do is not buy it. There is no penalty to for cancelling orders. This was covered during the Australian Senate Inquiry. The Generals they brought in seemed pretty confident that the F-35 would be ready in time, but they also said that if it turned out that it wasn't ready in time, all they have to do is not buy it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hV8W4EzXRU&nohtml5=False
The Australian Senator in the video is from the Green Party, who initiated the inquiry.
>>30040000
What is really the difference between F-22 and F-35? Is it only the twin engine thing and thrust vectoring? If so, what is the basis for making F-22 holy while criticizing F-35?
>>30040000
No.
>>30040192
They were trying to make common parts, and so the B design changes had some overlap with the A and C which lead to minor design changes in them as well.
>>30040391
>super hornet unit prices are more expensive than F-35's
Where did they get this information?
>>30042066
You should read the article. It's takes into account the number of replacement aircraft to sustain a fleet for 40 years. That's why each of them have different numbers of airframes.
>>30041988
The F-22 is a lot bigger, and its bays are optimized for Air to Air. It maxes at 1000lbs weapons. Its only ground sensor is the radar, and it has no means of self-cuing laser-guided munitions. It only has 4 external pylon points to the F-35's 6. Its sensor suite is outdated compared to the F-35. It has no Helmet-Mounted Display yet. The F-35 is a multirole built to be excellent at ground attack, and because of its sensor suite can be devastating at air to air, both in the aggressor role and as a mini-AWACS guiding Air Superiority fighters onto target.
>>30042232
So why does F-22 get praised when F-35 is buried in the ground? I'm not very up to date on this discussion.
>>30042424
Cool factor mostly. And the F-22 attracted a decent amount of shitposting a few years ago too.
>>30040000
Russian shills are already buttmad about it, you know it's a good plane.
How badly did Denmark fuck up by trying to make this transparent?
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/19/boeing-disputes-denmarks-f-35-evaluation/84613000/
>>30042607
Boeing can't do shit about it.
LiveFeed presentation by a LockMart rep on the F-35 presentation by the Dutch MOD. Landing of two F-35s in about 40 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wACWvCTkb-g
>>30041988
>>30042424
You are comparing a Corvette to a F-150.
>>30042980
What is the technical specification causing that difference? I'm genuinely asking, I'm not very up to date on these stuff.
The F-35 is shit because it's way over budget and behind schedule.
>>30042937
Shit, this is a ton of great flying footage. I wish I could understand what he is saying.
>>30043013
intended roles, which heavily influences the initial design of the aircraft. The F-22 was built to be a air superiority fighter, the F-35 a multi-role aircraft.
>>30043013
The simplest way to explain it is that the F-35 was meant to be to the F-22 what the F-16 was to the F-15.
Hopefully Finland won't go full retard and picks Rafale.
>>30043083
I like this explanation.
>>30042937
can you imagine the ramifications if one of them pancakes into the field during landing?
>>30043209
I can, those bird flocks make me nervous. Can't imagine there were many like that in Cali.
Though possible with its dual intakes it is better able to munch.
>>30040104
>At least not as great as it could have been if they hadn't tried to make one airframe for three services but that's just me.
I am so sick and fucking tired of this fucking meme. Please fucking stop it. All three services have very similar fucking requirements. They all need a sneaky multirole fighter to blow shit up on land, sea or air. That's pretty fucking simple.
The only variant that's had real problems was the VTOL variant, and that's because it's fucking hard to make a supersonic capable fighter that also can land in VTOL mode, because of all the extra weight required to make it work. So it has lower payload and range with the same performance, compared to an airstrip/CATOBAR carrier only one. However the B model (the VTOL) is also the one most of our allies pinned their hopes on because it is a vast force multiplier for them. Without an F-35B, the best you can do with the "helicopter carriers" and/or ski-jump carriers most of our allies use is operate a squadron of Harriers. At the very best, the Sea Harrier. And even the Sea Harrier, the most capable Harrier ever made, is old, obsolete and subsonic. The F-35B transforms helo carriers into fucking light attack carriers. That's a huge fucking deal. And our allies have already based entire procurement programs around having the F-35B available. That's why so many shitstorms center on it. Hell, the Aussies got the manufacturer to shell out a fuckton to modify their new carriers when the F-35B didn't hit the performance benchmarks they'd promised, meaning the carriers weren't built with decks strong enough to take the actual heat/blast from the ducted engine. The contract forced the manufacturer to pay for the modifications to the ships, since they'd failed to do what they'd promised to do.
THAT is where the real shitstorms are cropping up. The A and C variants do just fucking fine, and nobody really bitches about them.
>>30040137
Also what >>30040148 and >>30041433 said. The F-35 implements VTOL in a very different way than something like the Harrier. The Harrier had all those rotating ducts all over the place; the VTOL was an integral part of the design. The F-35B just has an engine with a huge hinge in it to point the end of it downward when needed, effectively. It can't perform the VIFF maneuver, it can't do a lot of things a Harrier can do - it's meant strictly for takeoff and landing.
They did not make a VTOL plane first, and then base the Air Force/Navy conventional take-off versions off that. They made the conventional airframe first, and then figured out how to get a VTOL arrangement into that.
The compromises on the aircraft all come down to stealth. The F-22 is stealthy as hell but every time it came down to a compromise they could not engineer around, performance won out over stealth. The F-35 goes the other way around. Thats why its performance is a bit under a pure 5th gen. Can it vector thrust? Yes, but not enough to be considered "supermaneuverable." Can it supercruise (cruise at supersonic?) No, because it cruises at Mach 0.9... just barely subsonic. (And it can sprint for about 150 miles at supersonic without using afterburners.) Obviously the performance is still very good and far ahead of the last generation of fighters... but when you compare the stated RCS of an F-35 to an F-22, it's clear where the priority was. Stealth.
>>30041988
>What is really the difference between F-22 and F-35? Is it only the twin engine thing and thrust vectoring? If so, what is the basis for making F-22 holy while criticizing F-35?
See this post: >>30043601 Now to add to that, the F-22 prioritized air-to-air because it was built for one singular purpose - fucking up fighters. Air superiority. (Ironically it's proven to be decent at ground attack, because the stealth + supersonic cruise means it can lob a PGM glide-bomb a lot further - a B-2 can get a lot closer to enemy radars, but the F-22s high speed means it doesn't have to get that close; the extra energy lets the glide bombs glide a lot further.) Stealth on the F-22 is useful for not being found, sure, but the stealth is also there to enhance its direct combat capability. Almost every BVR missile in the world is radar-guided; so the much lower RCS of the F-22 makes it a lot easier for it to dodge missiles fired at it. The stealth on the F-22 isn't just to evade detection outright (though that's nice, when you can.) The very high performance of the aircraft - PLUS the added stealth - makes it a lot more effective at dodging incoming missiles.
Basically the stealth helps it stand and deliver. The F-35 prioritizes stealth to such a degree that its far more likely never to be found or fired upon at all. The F-22 is your go-to choice when the enemy defense network is just too strong and comprehensive to penetrate without taking fire.
>>30043601
>However the B model (the VTOL) is also the one most of our allies pinned their hopes on because it is a vast force multiplier for them.
It's only the UK purely buying Bs, Italy wants 30 Bs and 60 As.
>>30040000
>tfw aerospace engineering student with two courses left
>the only one out of people in my program that I know of who thinks the f35 is cool
I guess there's a reason I'll be a super senior for two courses.
>>30040445
But the F35 isn't designed for the same role as the F22. It's a multirole aircraft. Of course a 22 would outperform in air-to-air combat. It also costs more, and doesn't perform ground strike roles.
>>30043718
>It's only the UK purely buying Bs, Italy wants 30 Bs and 60 As.
Of course they do, they'e got a ski-ramp carrier that can handle C models, and the rest of their airpower is based off land bases. Considering the range of the F-35 compared to the Mediterranean, and the fact that their military is mostly defensive-oriented, they have no need for B models.
Strictly speaking the Bongs could operate C models off their new carriers as well. I rather wonder why they went with an all-B model fleet, aside from decreasing fleet maintenance costs and such. Maybe the Falklands are in their mind; they want the ability to disperse their assets more and keep their fighters in the fight even if one or both of their carriers are mission-killed.
>>30041669
why do the leaders of the Australian military act like such pussies. They clearly have the domain knowledge to make the senator look dumb but they dont bring it up. One general should say "hey man, here is the situation, it looks good, I think America will fix all issues because America always has, and we don't have much to lose if the thing goes under"
>>30043785
If they'd gone for the C, they'd only have gotten one carrier, due to the added expense of the modifications.
Going for the B ensured they got two carriers, which is VASTLY more practical and sensible. They've seen how badly the French fucked up to end up with only a single one due to dumping too much budget and had no wish to repeat the same mistake.
Besides, as others above said, the F-35B is still vastly superior to any other carrier aircraft in the world other than the C anyway. So it's not like they had to worry about picking it.
>>30043795
They're talking to them like the politicians are five years old. Because they are, mentally. It takes a gentle touch.
>>30043601
>>30043655
The B variant is just completely pointless, and everything would have been simpler and less expensive without it.
The F-35 has lower RCS versus X-Ray because it is optimized solely to evade short range radars. That's a gamble that could go either way. The F-22 is as good or better versus most other technologies, and should therefore be harder to gain initial detections against (long range radar is not x-band.)
The biggest problem in my mind with the F-35 is simply that after all this time and money it's still not a clear and convincing improvement over what it's replacing in many ways. The F-18 carries a better selection of weapons, and more of them. The F-16 is a LOT cheaper and can hold it's own in the role it's designed for, at least. Stealth is nice but it's not clearly proven how much of an advantage that will be in real world terms. Carrying better missiles and more of them is a clear win for the F-18 though, and it seems very hard to justify the expense involved for such a questionable upgrade.
>>30043870
>added expense of the modifications.
Oh. No shit? Okay, I guess that makes sense. Without VTOL vectoring it all comes down to that ski-ramp, and the ski-ramp's angle and length and such would have to be customized to the F-35C's requirements for whatever the desired payload is - and I suppose the ships were already halfway done with a design catered to some other aircraft? Know anything more about that?
>Going for the B ensured they got two carriers, which is VASTLY more practical and sensible.
That's a fucking game-changer, for sure. Typically half your force at any given time will be in the yard for maintenance and other issues, so two carriers are vastly superior to one. Plus, two carriers are vastly superior to one when you "surge" them in an emergency. Just having one can be problematic (as the French discovered, just like you said.)
>>30043912
>The F-35 has lower RCS versus X-Ray because it is optimized solely to evade short range radars.
X-ray radars are not used just for short-range detection. Remember the "Sea-based X-band radar" that was to be used for fire-control against incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles? Low-frequency radars are great for "early warning," but their resolution is not nearly good enough to guide a weapon - and that's the real sticking point. The F-35 is designed to be a righteous fucking whore to actually target and kill.
>The biggest problem in my mind with the F-35 is simply that after all this time and money it's still not a clear and convincing improvement over what it's replacing in many ways.
It's fucking lightyears ahead m8. I shall explain.
>The F-18 carries a better selection of weapons, and more of them.... Carrying better missiles and more of them is a clear win for the F-18 though, and it seems very hard to justify the expense involved for such a questionable upgrade.
None of that matters if you can't get close enough to employ them. Plus, it is a hell of a lot harder to kill enemies when they know missiles are inbound on them. Even in WWI and WWII, the vast majority of defeated pilots never saw the attacker that blew them away. The element of surprise (and thus the Situational Awareness needed to counter it) was fucking vital even back when we were whacking away at each other with freaking machine guns aimed with primitive optical sights.
>>30043923
Well I was just being fairly simplistic. The real reasons on why it woulda cost more are mired in politics, bad left hanging decisions and stupidly agreed to contracts before anyone sensible got involved.
Fuck Labour, basically. It's a miracle they turned out as they did with the ACA proving they truly are god tier constructors up in Rosyth. I have never heard of a CARRIER being almost half a year ahead of schedule.
Having two is all about the year around cover. The last thing you want is to need it while your only vessel is in a 1.5 year refit/refuel (As CdG is about to go into). If that happens, you are screwed beyond compare.
>>30043912
>chart that completely ignores lifting body
>Implies the F-16 needed the performance
>Ignores that the F-35 is designed around the real-world failure points of the F-16 as a multi-role
>>30043912
Now when it comes to "stealth" you really have to remember that the F-35 is essentially fucking invisible when compared to an F-18. It's so far ahead it's fucking insane. It can't defy the laws of physics, or anything - when it gets close enough to a hostile radar, they'll detect it, and even if they can't target it they can at least vector fighters towards it - but those detection ranges are fucking *short.* By contrast, an F-18 will be detected almost right out to maximum range.
Now the F-18 is a good fucking fighter. It's one of the best multi-roles ever made, esp. the superbug. But it has a few weaknesses. The US compensates for the visibility by using Growlers, which are hideously effective at jamming down air defense radars. They even work good against enemy fighters using their own radars, in fact. The other major problem is their fucking range. They are seriously short-ranged fucking planes. (VERY problematic for carrier aircraft.) But the US has a massive fleet of tanker aircraft and bases all over the world to put them on, so they can compensate.
Denmark has neither of these. This is... a problem, when you consider how the Russians (the most likely adversary) do things. It's also a problem when you consider Denmark's chances in using their aircraft offensively anywhere else in the world to defend the few overseas territories they still have.
>>30044027
>Well I was just being fairly simplistic. The real reasons on why it woulda cost more are mired in politics, bad left hanging decisions and stupidly agreed to contracts before anyone sensible got involved.
Ahrgh, fuck. Well, it's still not a bad way to go. The ability to disperse such advanced fighters to forward fields with nothing more than a concrete pad to land on has a lot of benefits.
>>30044004
>X-ray radars are not used just for short-range detection. Remember the "Sea-based X-band radar" that was to be used for fire-control against incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles? Low-frequency radars are great for "early warning," but their resolution is not nearly good enough to guide a weapon - and that's the real sticking point. The F-35 is designed to be a righteous fucking whore to actually target and kill.
Which is why I view that design feature as a gamble. Yes, against current technology, it's probably a pretty good choice. On the other hand potential opponents may well find ways around it before it's really used much. We just don't know yet how that will go.
>>30044004
>None of that matters if you can't get close enough to employ them. Plus, it is a hell of a lot harder to kill enemies when they know missiles are inbound on them. Even in WWI and WWII, the vast majority of defeated pilots never saw the attacker that blew them away. The element of surprise (and thus the Situational Awareness needed to counter it) was fucking vital even back when we were whacking away at each other with freaking machine guns aimed with primitive optical sights.
But wait up 'm8' - this is the F-35, not the F-22. The latter is supposed to be about air superiority. The F-35 is supposed to be about ground attack. And it carries a smaller and more restricted load than the F-18 for that. IIRC the F-35 maxes out at 6 JSOWs while the F-18 can do 9, 50% more missiles per plane, and the F-18 has other choices (HARMs in particular) that are not available to the F-35.
>>30043912
>>30044004
>X-ray
>X-band
>Same thing
X--rays are at the highest-freq end of the spectrum, from about 30 petahertz to 30 exahertz.
X-band is 7-11.2 Gigahertz and 3.5-2.75 CM wavelength.
In theory, lower radar bands could detect stealth, but the resolution is far too low for ID and track purposes.
>>30044117
>but the resolution is far too low for ID and track purposes.
Is it possible that future computers could be smart enough to clean up the image and use it for targeting?
>>30044057
Now to expand on this, the Russians have always prioritized SAMs to compensate for weaknesses in their aircraft. In the post-soviet Era they've taken this to new heights; it's actually being called/compared to "A2/D2," aerial denial strategy. This is why the American primer SAM, the Patriot, shoots about 40nm or so, and the latest S400 system from the Russians can shoot 200+nm and has three different missiles for different ranges and jobs. 200nm is a long fucking way. Remember the hubub about one of those systems being deployed at the airbase in Syria the Russians are operating from? The range is so long it can damn near kill aircraft taking off from the British airbase on Cyprus as soon as they've taken off.
Now extrapolate this to a possible attack on Denmark by Russian forces - or even Denmark aiding Romania or whatever against invading Russians. The Russians would place their S-400s as close to the border as possible, to extend their airspace denial a long way. There's not a lot of standoff weapons that can reach further than the S400 can shoot, and most of those are cruise missiles you may as well launch from a ground/ship based launcher anyways. Denmark can't afford the assets the US uses to compensate for these issues. They don't have electronic attack aircraft. To enter that airspace is to take fire almost immediately from those big, long-ranged SAMs. To enter that airspace to do anything - like ground-attack in support of friendly troops - is to incur losses.
The F-35 can operate within most of an S-400s range without being engaged.
>>30044117
Interesting. Are there any "X-ray" band military radars, and what is their range and use?
>>30044141
Nope. You can't get around the wavelength size limitations. That's like trying to get a 20MP picture out of the noise in a 1MP camera's picture.
>>30044148
Now add to this the F-18s short range. The Danes don't have anywhere near the tanker fleet required to maintain steady high-intensity ops with a bunch of F-18s. The F-35 has a much better range, plus near-supercruise, which means it goes a lot further, a lot *faster.* It's simply much higher performance.
Then there's sensor support. Far as I know Denmark doesn't actually have any AEW aircraft at all; they rely on allies during joint operations or ground-based radars (easily found and killed.) The F-35 incorporates an AESA radar (which is very hard to jam and also very hard to pinpoint the location of when its broadcasting,) but it also has an extremely fancy new FLIR system with EOTS (electro-optical targeting system.) This is important. Instead of a FLIR just serving as a camera to find targets and show you where to point the radar to find that sneaky stealthy fucker, an EOTS can actually serve as guidance itself for launched missiles; like AMRAAMs being vectored towards a target with mid-course datalinks. Plus the system is designed to be very good at picking out targets on the ground from high altitude; basically every F-35 has the equivalent of a high-performance FLIR recon pod on it. And then there's the sensor fusion tech which is just fucking nuts - like that whole "see through the plane" thing. If you've ever played a flight sim, you might know of the "invisible cockpit" button where the cockpit around you vanishes, and you can see in 360 degrees, up and down, with no Plane to obscure your vision. Its a lot harder to "bounce" an F-35 with that kind of shit on it; they're a LOT more likely to see shit coming, and a lot harder for the enemy to see coming.
Basically the F-35 is a plane designed to fucking cheat. This plane doesn't "fight." It fucking ambushes your ass. It's going to do a lot more, go a lot further, without help - and it does it for only 25% more than an F-18? No fucking wonder they want it.
>>30044158
No, because X-rays go through pretty much everything. X-Rays diffuse/scatter on hitting denser materials, but you have to have the target between the source and the detector.
>>30044228
If you're seal-clubbing a bunch of assholes who can't really fight back effectively than sure, an F-18 is better. But then again so is a C-130 just pushing PGMs out the back door en-masse. The F-16 and/or the F-18 are just going to take casualties in a fight with any near-peer opponent. That's simply inevitable. Even the US loses aircraft when they launch a big fight against the likes of the last Iraqi regime or whatever. The F-35 is basically designed to counter the area denial weapons/strategies of Russia; to go where no other plane can go, and to make killing it a righteous mother-fucking whore.
When you are a small nation with a limited budget, you really, really have to consider how even a few losses will impact your ability to operate. Being able to deliver more munitions in the first few attacks doesn't mean much if your airpower has been denuded by expensive losses too much to matter later on.
>>30044239
Pretty much what I figured. I'll assome that anon was talking about X-band, then.
>>30044117
Correct, I was sloppy/didnt proofread.
In my defense this tiny little typing box doesn't encourage it :(
>>30044141
>>30044218
No, actually it kind of is, and that's kind of how they're already working on it (they being Russians and others.) Yes there's a physical resolution limitation but it can be overcome by using multiple radars from different angles and letting a computer do the math.
>>30044266
Okay, last point. The F-35 is just continuing a trend that's been going on since WWII - quality over quantity.
In WWII... well, a P-51 Mustang, in inflation-adjusted dollars, costs less than a single air-to-air missile does today. Plus, with the tech of the day, engines wore out fucking fast. (you'd get 40-some engine-hours out of an engine - far less if it was pushed to combat speeds for any length of time - and then it needed to be torn down and extensively rebuilt. It was effectively worn out.) Aircraft were manufactured and expended at an incredible rate. They were far more disposable. In fact they were so disposable that the resource chokepoint for them tended to be pilots more than airframes or engines - the Germans still managed to produce significant numbers of fighters in fucking underground factories, but they had a hell of a time getting decently trained pilots to fly them.
The cost of combat aircraft - accounting for inflation, obviously - has increased by multiple orders of magnitude since then, and every generation of aircraft pushes it even further. Tactically and strategically it's because quality always beats the fuck out of quantity. It's not like an RTS game where Advanced Unit is worth three times its number in Cheap Units, so if economies of scale favor Cheap Unit enough it makes more sense to churn out fucktons of the cheap unit to swamp enemy defenses. No. When the qualitative differences are steep enough, the better aircraft just cannot be fucking touched. It can go wherever it wants, kill whatever it wants, and generally just style on your ass without you being able to do fuck-all about it. That's how big a difference it makes.
That's why anyone promoting older aircraft in the context of attrition needs to fucking sit down and think a bit.
>>30044386
>No, actually it kind of is, and that's kind of how they're already working on it (they being Russians and others.) Yes there's a physical resolution limitation but it can be overcome by using multiple radars from different angles and letting a computer do the math.
This would explain why I've been reading about Russians investigating a method of x-ray production where the process is pumped by a laser in some fashion. And the constant cycle of countermeasure/counter-countermeasure continues!
>f-117_canopy.jpg
I'm usually sick and fucking tired of this meme but you have your head on straight so carry on
>>30044386
>No, actually it kind of is, and that's kind of how they're already working on it (they being Russians and others.) Yes there's a physical resolution limitation but it can be overcome by using multiple radars from different angles and letting a computer do the math.
That's the thing though, A: you're just creating crosstalk interference, and B: you're just feeding more targets the more active radars you have blasting away.
>>30044408
>Okay, last point. The F-35 is just continuing a trend that's been going on since WWII - quality over quantity.
The funny thing about that is that nobody else can afford a fleet of 2400 fighters. US builds for both and has for a long time.
>>30044440
>This would explain why I've been reading about Russians investigating a method of x-ray production where the process is pumped by a laser in some fashion.
Again, X-band not X-ray, I apologize for the confusion as I appear to have started it.
>And the constant cycle of countermeasure/counter-countermeasure continues!
Accurate.
>>30044540
>That's the thing though, A: you're just creating crosstalk interference, and B: you're just feeding more targets the more active radars you have blasting away.
A. can be overcome by using a variety of wavelengths, and B. is just part of the overall balance of measure/countermeasure I think. Defenders will find more and more clever ways to protect their radars - attackers at the moment look really weak to me because the F-35 can't carry the HARM or anything comparable. Give it 6 years it almost certainly will, but how much will the countermeasures have improved by that time?
>>30040000
Denmark was an original partner on the program, so it isn't surprising at all that they ended up choosing it.
>>30044386
> F-117 meme
Stop.
>>30044636
The thing is, the F-35 doesn't even NEED to carry HARMs to be an effective SEAD asset. The USAF an USN have fleets of electronic attack and support assets, and with its stealth and sensors, the F-35 can fly right up to enemy defensive lines and designate targets for planes and assets sitting safely outside of SAM range.
![55Zh6M_Nebo-M_mobile_multiband_radar_system_-01[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/wnfTNtu.jpg "55Zh6M_Nebo-M_mobile_multiband_radar_system_-01[1].jpg")
>>30044636
The thing is, you don't have to improve the anti-ADA systems that much in comparison. Ground-generated radar is easy for aircraft to detect, especially with the advanced RF detection suite in the F-35. And low-band means huge freaking antennas, which take forever to deploy and retract.
So, you basically have a huge, immobile unit screaming "HEY, LOOK AT ME!" at a passive EWO system that can do live triangulation and drop an airburst bomb in your lap from too far out for your systems to react.
>>30044713
Or just drop SDBs in airburst mode onto transmitters.
>>30044713
In theory, yes, but again we can only expect countermeasures to improve over time, and we can't really be sure it will work so well as we think even today.
HARMs are proven technology available today, and F-18s can deploy them from far enough away they don't need to be stealthed.
>>30044734
>And low-band means huge freaking antennas, which take forever to deploy and retract.
And x-rays are high-band, very high frequency, so they don't need those big antennas. Which means you could conceivably get them into aircraft, and thus mount them in aircraft - which makes their unique requirements much, much easier to handle, and much easier to protect, given the mobility.
I wonder if that's the strategy the Russians are moving towards.
>>30044763
>and F-18s can deploy them from far enough away they don't need to be stealthed.
Are you fucking serious? The range of a HARM-88E is about 80 to 90nm. The S-400s can shoot out past 200nm. That's the whole point of the S-400, to have a dominant standoff advantage.
You can penetrate deeply enough into an S-400s range if you have Growler support to jam the radars; effectively shrinking their engagement range. But you need Growlers for that.
>>30044763
Mind you, they CAN fire stuff like the JASSM-ER which have much greater range, but a subsonic cruise missile; even an LO one like the JASSM are much, much easier to target, engage and shoot down. The closer you can get to the target, the more survivable the munitions you can launch.
>>30044826
X-ray? Who the fuck thinks this is a good idea?
>>30044899
>X-ray? Who the fuck thinks this is a good idea?
Russians who have no other real good option for countering American stealth technology, that's who.
>>30044911
Wouldn't x-rays just pass straight the fuck through aircraft?
>>30044845
Well yeah, Growlers are part of the same package. A flight of FA-18s with the obligatory EA-18 for support, carrying 9 HARMs each to within 80nm at low level is doable with proven technology, no stealth.
A flight of F-35s with 6 JSOWs each is obviously an inferior option in a scenario where you have serious opposition, on several levels, even assuming stealth works as it should.
>>30044915
Yeah, clearly there's a moron who just can't get that X-band and X-ray are two very different things.
>>30044952
>A flight of F-35's with JSOW's would obviously be inferior
>Doesn't give a single reason why
>>30040000
>>30040000
after reading about how inside individuals sabotage the fuck out of american arms development programs regularly
I'm fucking skeptical as fuck.
This looks sketchy as shit
The Dutch are far from a non-biased source, they're buying the fucking things
They gave it top marks across the board.
Better fake it till we make it fellas!
To be straight I never really thought the plane was shit from the get go, but this doesn't really sway me in any particular direction.
Looks suspect as fuck fellas.
>>30045048
Because anyone that's familiar with the munitions would understand.
Look, aside from the 6 vs 9 issue, which is obviously HUGE, HARMs are relatively small and extremely fast (hard to counter) while JSOWs are relatively large, and they are not just slow they are GLIDERS for the majority of their flight. To get the best range you need to take them as high as possible and get going as fast as possible before dropping them. They are relatively easy to shoot down, especially since the F-35 can't go so fast before launching them.
The HARM is designed to take out radar. The JSOW is designed to mop up other targets after.
>>30045186
But what about the stealth of the JSOW? Speed is nice, but non-stealthy Mach 2 targets aren't that hard to shoot down.
>>30045186
>>30044952
>A flight of FA-18s with the obligatory EA-18 for support, carrying 9 HARMs each
Hold up, since when could Super Hornets carry 9 HARMs each? HARMs are big missiles and Super Hornets can only carry 4.
>>30045323
That lists weapons that aren't part of Block 3F; half of those aren't coming until Block 4 or later.
>>30045323
>>30045323
>External Gatling Pod
>Everytime I see an F35 and it's Gunpod I keep thinking of Weaboo shit.
>My main reason for loving Aeronautics so much, besides Top Gun.
>>30045052
>I cannot accept the fact the F-35 might actually be a decent plane.
>>30045354
This still doesn't really change the fact that Super Hornets have much shorter range, so they have a harder time achieving the deep penetration F-35s can. Also their sensors aren't nearly as advanced so they would have a harder time discriminating targets.
>>30045529
>>30045529
No I -want- it to be a decent fucking plane. I want it to be a great airframe.
Murrica' making one plane for 3 fucking purposes and outskilling everyone in the process.
Still doesn't change how sketchy that shit comes off.
>>30045323
Scheduled to be available one day, in small quantities (since they won't fit in the internal bays) but not actually available till, what was it? Block 5 IIRC, that's like 2022 anon.
>>30045354
Possible that I got the numbers wrong, do you have a source? I couldnt find a good one quickly today, a month or two ago when I hunted down a source the 18 was definitely carrying significantly more of them than the 35 was planned to ever be able to do.
>>30044763
Stations 3, 5, and 7 can also handle B61-7s and 11s and IIRC B83s.
>>30045354
>>30045687
Woops, I should have said 6 HARMs; got mixed up with the Harpoon. As for authoritative sources, you can see on page 40 of the flight manual supplement: https://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-200.pdf
That it says that it only provides options for carriage inboard / midboard / outboard. Alternatively, just google image search "Super Hornet loadout" and you'll see multiple charts say the same thing.
Still, it's not more than the F-35.
>>30045762
Not sure if the 8x HARM carriage is correct on that image, but I suppose its possible.
>>30044915
>Wouldn't x-rays just pass straight the fuck through aircraft?
This was discussed above. X-rays work on planes just like they do on your bones; they bounce off the real dense elements - like engine blocks and shit - and not the exterior skin of the aircraft (which is what scatters and misdirects regular radio waves on stealth aircraft.)
Problem is, it's a fucking bitch to actually pick up the signals because, just like an x-ray machine, the detector needs to be on the far side of whatever you're detecting.
>>30044952
>even assuming stealth works as it should.
Until you can provide some actual fucking evidence that it won't, I'm going to assume that it does. Because it's fucking retarded to think that a weapon produced by the most sophisticated military/industrial complex on Earth would make stealth that DOESN'T work.
Besides, you cockfucker, a HARM fits in an F-35s weapons bay just fucking fine. It's a matter of a single fucking software update.
>>30045186
>Look, aside from the 6 vs 9 issue, which is obviously HUGE,
No it isn't you fucking cockgobbler. Besides, the F-35 will have the HARM by the time the Danes make them operational, and the JSOW is TOO FUCKING BIG TO BE CARRIED INTERNALLY ON THE F-35. The HARM is actually a better weapon for it.
But keep fucking pretending that a single software upgrade is a huge deal. Fuck you.
>>30045803
>Not sure if the 8x HARM carriage is correct on that image, but I suppose its possible.
Maybe. The typical "short-range" load-out is six HARMs and a single drop tank, and the "long range" one is four HARMs and two drop tanks, IIRC.
>>30045803
>>30046155
This >>30046155 is consistent with what I remember, having a bitch of a time finding good solid sources though.
At any rate >>30046139 is obviously nuts. The HARMs will be accommodated in external slots only (stealth severely compromised until after launch) and won't be available till 2022 or later (that's not a single software upgrade, it's several steps down the roadmap, and the software for this project has probably been the most serious fuckup of the whole project so far so it's not crazy to think it may slip again.
Even if the F18 doesn't carry more HARMs than the F-35 is supposed to carry, one day, it carries them now. And it's a less expensive aircraft available in greater numbers.
>>30046155
Nope. Long range is THREE drop tanks and two HARMS.
>>30040137
Such as?
>>30043781
...but it does. Just like the F-15C, it was not hard to upgrade it to carry GPS munitions, and the sensors it has are plenty accurate for bombing. Factor in TAC P C/Cs and its not too hard.
>>30046125
>esides, you cockfucker, a HARM fits in an F-35s weapons bay just fucking fine. It's a matter of a single fucking software update.
The HARM actually doesn't due to its large fins; there is talk of a new variant however which would have clipped fins to meet that.
>>30046155
The F-35 doesn't currently have any drop tanks certified for use (though it will in due time; the two inner wing hardpoints are piped for fuel and Israel + Lockheed did the design studies for a 426 gal tank.
If you were talking about the Super Hornet, it only carries 6 HARMs max; the hardpoints are too close together to put dual missile racks on all 3 hardpoints and the other wing hardpoint doesn't have the carriage capacity for a dual rack of HARMs.
>>30046621
A-10Cs operate with AIM-9s, doesn't make them particularly useful in air to air.
Is the F-22 capable of extremely limited ground strike capablility? Yes. Is it even on the same level as a multirole or F-35? no.
>>30046383
>Even if the F18 doesn't carry more HARMs than the F-35 is supposed to carry, one day, it carries them now. And it's a less expensive aircraft available in greater numbers.
You know what's cheaper than an F-18? A Surface to Air missile.
>>30046743
>The HARM actually doesn't due to its large fins; there is talk of a new variant however which would have clipped fins to meet that.
They'd just equip it with spring-loaded fins; that's not terribly difficult to do.
>>30046744
>Is it even on the same level as a multirole or F-35? no.
And this is because the F-35 directly integrates a next-gen FLIR camera and shit designed to find ground targets on its own. Without needing to sling a pod on a pylon that will compromise its stealth, too.
The F-22's bays aren't nearly as wide (they've done some clever things to get bigger bombs thinner to fit in there, but, still, the payload is limited,) and they basically require buddy illumination. If they sling a FLIR pod it compromises the stealth to the point you may as well send in a Strike Eagle which can do the same thing much better.
>>30046743
>The HARM actually doesn't due to its large fins; there is talk of a new variant however which would have clipped fins to meet that.
Correct.
>If you were talking about the Super Hornet, it only carries 6 HARMs max; the hardpoints are too close together to put dual missile racks on all 3 hardpoints and the other wing hardpoint doesn't have the carriage capacity for a dual rack of HARMs.
You sound like you know of what you speak but a decent link I could save would be great too. This comes up over and over and I stupidly didn't save all my sources last month.
>>30046880
Yes, and you know what HARMs are designed to do? Destroy the radars on which those SAMs rely for targeting.
>>30046896
Nonetheless the official roadmap says HARMS external only - 2022.
>>30047583
The RAM coatings on the F22 are vastly inferior to the new F35 coatings.
Ur picture is incorrect
Source: I fucking deal with both F119 and F135 RAM coated parts.
>>30046896
Clipping them is just easier; fins are one of the more prone-to-failure systems on a missile, so you don't want to make them more complex than necessary (I am aware though that other missiles have folding fins). Also, as the HARM is a supersonic missile, clipping the fins should assist in extending its range.
>>30047772
>The RAM coatings on the F22 are vastly inferior to the new F35 coatings.
In regards to x-band specifically?
S-400s shoot out past 200 nm. Do tell me how that S-400 is going to actually do that?
You do know the earth is actually round right & that radar horizons are an actual thing right?
>>30044386
>Yes there's a physical resolution limitation but it can be overcome by using multiple radars from different angles and letting a computer do the math.
Image unrelated.
>>30048308
The radar horizon against a threat at ~40,000ft is a few hundred nautical miles.
>>30042066
>reading comprehension
>>30042424
You obviously don't remember a decade ago. Public opinion towards the F-22 was EXTREMELY negative. However, in the intervening years it has proven itself as the greatest fighter on the planet bar none. The F-35 hasn't had enough of a chance to do that yet, however you can see public opinion turning, thanks to the herculean efforts of a few good men who held the torch in the darkness, and basically convinced everyone else that they were right through sheer stubbornness. They stuck in there, and eventually they got others to learn more, which has led to where we are today. Whoever those people were, cheers to them.
>>30043718
Don't forget that Spain has expressed interest in them as well for their carrier. The Taiwanese desperately want them to have distributed operations so they don't all die in the massive opening SSM strikes that would hit them at the outbreak of any conflict. Then you have Australia.
>>30044148
Oi Greek.
>>30044845
>You can penetrate deeply enough into an S-400s range if you have Growler support to jam the radars; effectively shrinking their engagement range. But you need Growlers for that.
Or you could just terrain mask like a normal person.
>>30045762
This chart is meaningless, A-10 loadouts are currently almost always 4 guided bombs, 2 Mavericks, ECM pod, targeting pod, smoke rockets and Sidewinders.
>>30043682
Question
> is the active seeker on a BVR missile actually powerful enough to get a useable return off of a stealth fighter?
>>30044845
I'd be impressed if an S-400 could reliably hit a rapidly maneuverable target beyond 50NM, especially if it was changing altitude like crazy.
>>30049300
That's the big question. I'd say that probably SHOULD be possible from a certain distance. Exactly how close that is, and whether that distance makes it operationally useful, is unknown. Well, I'd wager it IS known, but we ain't ever going to find out.
>>30049300
Certainly, but as >>30049373 says, it'll need to get very close to work. It's part of why they optimise these jets against the X-band; that's what the seekers on radar-guided missiles use. Even if a VHF radar or whatever can detect an F-35 and get enough info to launch a missile at it, it's still up to the X-band seeker on the missile to make the kill.
Of course, missiles with IR seekers are another matter, though fortunately they're not as common on long range missiles, simply because their sensors need cooling during flight to remain effective and so having a seeker at the front of a Mach 4 missile for several minutes requires more volume in the missile for things like liquid nitrogen bottles or batteries (which are generally bulky thermal batteries to give the missiles a long shelf life) to run heat exchangers.
>>30047772
what parts on the F119 and F135 has RAM? I know RAM-covered compressor blades gets meme'd to hell and back in those PAKFA/S-duck treads, but is it really a thing?
>>30050165
I'm not him, but perhaps the nozzle; the compressor blades (or at least the stators) might have RAM too though; the engines were designed from the ground up to be stealthy; there's turbine radar blockers in the rear, as well as hidden annular afterburner fuel spray nozzles (an engine goes fan->compressor->combustion chambers->turbine->afterburner)
>>30044952
Thats assuming F-35's wont be flying with superbugs.
At least with the US. By the time the superbug is out of service theyll have come up with something else.
>>30043766
those people will fool themselves out of a job
>>30043795
Because pissing off the guys who hold your pursestrings is never a good idea.
>>30048539
And proceede to get your shit kicked in by the prodigious amounts of SHORAD anyone capable of fielding S-400 will also be able to bring to the field.
>>30052184
Terrain masking works against them as well. Besides, how will they know where to look? Their whole deal is that they generally have an air search radar to help them find targets. So what you do is ingress NoE, pop up, launch HARMs and possibly other weapons for DEAD, turn around, and egress NoE.
>>30052283
What about enemy AWACS? They'll see you zooming along the ground
>>30052361
That's the advantage of AWACS. This is countered by offensive jamming and the fact it's a stealth aircraft. And then AWACS gets popped, because stealth fighters are good at getting closer to radars than other things.
>>30052361
g r o u nd
c l u t t e r
>>30052408
Fair point
>>30052426
Against a non-stealthy jet it's not too hard with modern avionics.
>>30052477
>Against a non-stealthy jet it's not too hard with modern avionics.
But with stealth aircraft, you figure that it'd be possible to get lost in the ground clutter again
so much stupidity and lacking knowledge in these threads:
1) combat range is of the utmost importance. More range is extremely valuable. A superbug being able to carry 6 or 8 or fucking 20 HARMs doesn't mean shit if it can't reach the combat zone. Hence why most combat loadouts include several fuel tanks and less bombs/missiles/etc than the maximum possible loadout. The F-35 has a huge advantage in range against pretty much every other fighter in the world. It's common for people to just compare the maximum loadouts for two aircraft without any consideration for the fact that 99% of the time they won't be carrying that max loadout.
2) acting like low-band radar is some magical new technology that the people who design stealth aircraft are totally ignorant of. No, everyone is aware of the capabilities of these radar types that can detect stealth aircraft.
3) radar detection, jamming, stealth, etc. are not a binary thing. It's not a matter of "detected or not". It's a matter of detection range. ANY radar CAN detect even an F-35. It's a matter of range. An F-35 will only be detected by an enemy fighter at close range, long after the F-35 has detected the enemy fighter. This idea also applies to weapon ranges. Saying that a HARM has a max range of 80nm or an S400 having a range of 200+nm is meaningless because it's not a matter of "if the enemy is within this distance, you hit them". An S400 fired at an enemy fighter 200nm is pretty much guaranteed to not hit. The pk on that shot will be close to 0% because the fighter can literally just turn a bit, increase altitude, or turn around, and the missile won't have enough energy to hit it. An S400 fired at 100nm will still have a hard time hitting an enemy fighter because it has so long to turn and burn, pop countermeasures, etc.
Go play DCS or Falcon BMS for a bit, learn about modern air combat, and you'll eventually realize just how fucking amazing the F-35 will be.
>>30040192
>Explain how Bs STOVL capability causes compromises in the other variant?
engine position, body cross-section, wing loading, all was dictated by the STOVL requirements.
if they dropped B they could have had more efficient lifting body design instead of a brick with wings
>>30052723
>engine position
you mean in the fuselage, in the centerline, towards the back? like every other single-engine fighter?
>body cross-section
you mean like pic-related? how the F-35 isn't significantly "fatter" and it's just a Pierre Sprey meme?
>wing loading
you mean like how wing loading totally ignores lifting body designs and is a very limited way at looking at aircraft maneuverability?
Since you seem to know so much about aerodynamics and stealth fighter design, show me a design for an improved F-35 design. And then prove how it's better. And then show me how the F-35B is somehow restricting that design.
in other words, GTFO
>>30052723
Here's the funny thing- Senator McCain is pissed because the F-35 variants aren't as alike as he wanted them to be.
And the thickness has to do with internal stores, not the engine.
>>30052870
seriously, this idea of the F-35 being "fat" was 100% pure bullshit made up by Pierre Sprey a couple years ago. He just started calling it "fat" in interviews, and nobody every questioned him on what he meant, and he never gave any substantive reasons for that, he just kept calling it "fat" and it stuck. Now you have retards repeating that meme without even knowing why they're calling this fighter jet "fat". Sometimes they try and say it's the weight, sometimes they try and say it's the frontal cross-section area, sometimes they try and say it's the fuselage, etc. etc.
>>30052892
I mean, if you just compare it visually to the early F-16, his baby, it does look a good bit thicker.
I'm gonna speak some heresy here, but I never liked how the F-16 looked. The air intake just kills the design for me.
>>30043601
>And even the Sea Harrier, the most capable Harrier ever made, is old, obsolete and subsonic.
Nope. Try AV-8B+.
>>30052946
well sure, but the F-16 is an outlier in terms of size. it's abnormally tiny and light. comparing the F-35 to it and calling it fat means every other fighter is also fat
>>30052853
>you mean in the fuselage, in the centerline, towards the back
more or less, but in f-35 engine position was dictated by thrust from lift fan and nozzle relative to COG more than anything else.
>you mean like pic-related?
very deceiving picture. why don't you show a comparison from the side?
>you mean like how wing loading totally ignores lifting body designs
yeah because f-35 is such a great lifting body
>and is a very limited way at looking at aircraft maneuverability?
f-35 is not known for exceptional maneuverability. it can point it's nose fast, but cannot retain energy.
>Since you seem to know so much about aerodynamics and stealth fighter design, show me a design for an improved F-35 design.
two engines set far apart. longitudinal cross-section forms a wing shape wherever possible. weapon bays between engines.
or, if you had to keep the single engine, a blended-wing-body delta, with elevons and canards. intakes at the bottom, for extra compression lift.
>>30052870
>And the thickness has to do with internal stores, not the engine.
with a different body layout you could place the stores and fuel tanks differently
>>30053440
>more or less, but in f-35 engine position was dictated by thrust from lift fan and nozzle relative to COG more than anything else.
so show me how YOU would design it without those considerations
>very deceiving picture. why don't you show a comparison from the side?
I used that picture because you mentioned cross-section and pretty much the only cross-section that's relevant for planes is frontal. Once again, show me how you'd design it differently without considering the STOVL B version.
>yeah because f-35 is such a great lifting body
it's decent. And wing loading is still a limited way to compare fighters
>f-35 is not known for exceptional maneuverability. it can point it's nose fast, but cannot retain energy.
no plane can operate at high AoA and retain energy, but the F-35 does it better than most fighters. It has exceptional AoA performance. And it was never designed to be exceptionally agile or maneuverable.
>two engines set far apart. longitudinal cross-section forms a wing shape wherever possible. weapon bays between engines.
lol you're an idiot. Two engines would make the thing fucking enormous and actually fat. You're worried about the cross section now, go ahead, add a second engine. Completely retarded. You'd have to make it the same size as the F-22 to even be feasible.
> if you had to keep the single engine, a blended-wing-body delta, with elevons and canards. intakes at the bottom, for extra compression lift.
Note that I said "show me a design". Not rattle off a list of features you think would make it better. Show me how adding elevons and canards to the F-35 would make it better. Show me how you'd give it a blended-wing-body delta and how it would be better.
Seriously, this is the game that you anti-F-35 idiots always play. You all like to play stealth fighter aerospace engineer when you don't know shit. You spout out a bunch of vague ideas that you think would make the F-35 better, but you don't provide any actual designs or evidence.
>>30052723
>if they dropped B they could have had more efficient lifting body design instead of a brick with wings
>Implying it isn't designed as a lifting body that takes a lot of the lift-load off the wings, reducing effective wing loading tremendously
>Implying there aren't extensive subtle aerodynamic elements to optimize airflow
>>30052946
The F-16 is also taller, wider, longer, and in general a lot bigger than the YF-16, too, though, and Sprey loathed those changes, but the F-35 is his current interview paycheck target.
>>30053688
because Sprey is a retard. All the changes made to the YF-16 turned it into one of the best cheap multirole fighters in the world that is used in tons of countries by the thousands to great success.
The crazy old bat wanted it to just have a gun and two IR missiles......no radar, no long range missiles, no air-to-ground capability, etc.
>>30053708
No ability to fly at night...
>>30053708
so like a good old F-5?
>>30050436
>Thats assuming F-35's wont be flying with superbugs.
I hope they will not be. As long as the roadmap says they will be, I have concern.
>>30052682
>so much stupidity and lacking knowledge in these threads:
true
>1) combat range is of the utmost importance. More range is extremely valuable.
Well, sort of. It all depends on particulars like where the base is and where the target is, but fine, as a general rule, range is good, and the large internal tanks of the F-35 are an asset.
>2) acting like low-band radar is some magical new technology that the people who design stealth aircraft are totally ignorant of. No, everyone is aware of the capabilities of these radar types that can detect stealth aircraft.
Of course they are aware of it. The hurr-durr-murica F-35 fanbois that show up here sometimes are not, so it makes sense to mention it. For every measure there is a countermeasure.
>3) radar detection, jamming, stealth, etc. are not a binary thing.
Absolutely right.
>Saying that a HARM has a max range of 80nm or an S400 having a range of 200+nm is meaningless because it's not a matter of "if the enemy is within this distance, you hit them".
Only partly right and deceptive, particularly since you cited an exception (the HARM,)
You can launch that thing 80nm away from the locus of your target system and expect it to find and destroy whatever elements of that system make themselves vulnerable to it as it goes. Beautiful weapons, specialized to do one job and do it well.
>An S400 fired at an enemy fighter 200nm is pretty much guaranteed to not hit.
Correct, if nothing else if the fighter detects the launch at that range it can reverse course and let the missile run out of fuel.
Ground radar doesn't move fast enough for that to be real practical on their end though.
>>30053801
>I hope they will not be. As long as the roadmap says they will be, I have concern.
Super Hornets are staying in service until F/A-XX enters service to relieve it. It's the legacy A-D models being relieved by the F-35C.
>>30053776
Yes. Sprey was part of a group that actually petitioned the government to stop buying F-15's and buy F-5's instead at one point.
>>30053623
I'm not that anon but I'll bite a little anyway.
Before I could say how I'd redesign it I'd have to establish how I could change the design goals, because a big part of what is disliked here is not necessarily bad design given the goals, but a set of goals that kind of forced bad design.
The design goal was to replace the F18, F-16, A-10, and AV-8 all in one plane. This is too ambitious.
I would propose alternatively to discontinue the AV-8B without replacement as such. Existing helicopters and shipborn systems can cover it. Boom, no B variant.
Now, we have remaining a goal to replace the F18, F16, and A10. Still a lofty goal but a little easier.
Now at this point, I'd ask, can we split this into two designs? It's worth evaluating, because we still have conflicting goals. The A10 is slow and heavy for a reason, it's great at ground attack but it sucks at A2A, and the F16 is almost the opposite, with the F18 being good at both roles but at a price.
And it's frustrating to be talking about the F35 needing F18 support to operate, when logically that's the plane it should have been designed to most quickly replace. But I'm rambling.
If I designed a plane to replace the A10 and the F-16 while keeping the F18 in service, it would probably look something like this:
<_<
>>30053957
>The design goal was to replace the F18, F-16, A-10, and AV-8 all in one plane.
Incorrect. The A-10 is not being replaced by the F-35. It's getting axed entirely. Or was, until Congress started believing memes.
>I would propose alternatively to discontinue the AV-8B without replacement as such. Existing helicopters and shipborn systems can cover it. Boom, no B variant.
Daily reminder that the Harrier more than proved its worth in Desert Storm, carrying the same average payload as the A-6 and doing as many as 3 sorties a day.
>>30053957
There's quite a bit wrong with this plane, mainly the fact that there's no real way to carry weapons internally. The complete lack of air intakes might also be a cause for concern.
>>30053957
...This is probably one of the most doctrine, aerodynamic, and stealth-ignorant posts ever. And I'll tell you this: those canards and single vert stab completely fucked the stealth design, and now there's no room for internal munitions carriage or fuel.
>The design goal was to replace the F18, F-16, A-10, and AV-8 all in one plane. This is too ambitious.
Yet they pulled it off fantastically. The F-35 massively outranges and out payloads all of those without sacrificing performance.
>I would propose alternatively to discontinue the AV-8B without replacement as such. Existing helicopters and shipborn systems can cover it. Boom, no B variant.
Harriers have done amazing work despite their limitations. And the F-35B is a major upgrade.
>Now at this point, I'd ask, can we split this into two designs? It's worth evaluating, because we still have conflicting goals.
And you are clearly retarded.
>The A10 is slow and heavy for a reason, it's great at ground attack but it sucks at A2A
The A-10 isn't that great at it, it's slow, has a pitiful range, and is easily shot down compared to faster aircraft.
>and the F16 is almost the opposite, with the F18 being good at both roles but at a price.
The F-16 and -18 are basically exactly on par as multiroles.
>And it's frustrating to be talking about the F35 needing F18 support to operate, when logically that's the plane it should have been designed to most quickly replace. But I'm rambling.
There are two very different models of Hornet, you idiot, and the Super Hornets can still do stuff like mid-air refueling. The Super Hornet is getting a completely different upgrade program.
>If I designed a plane to replace the A10 and the F-16 while keeping the F18 in service, it would probably look something like this:
A derp plane.
>>30053982
>Incorrect.
This particular falsehood gets posted here so frequently I saved this.
>>30053993
Air intakes are hidden behind the canards in this view. It has 4 internal bays, 2 small front bays 2 larger rear bays, plus an internal cannon.
>>30054029
Where? A dimensional pocket? No fucking way you're fitting 2000lbs JDAMs inside that thing.
>>30053801
Oh boy, F35s can detect S400 launches now.
Simply ebin, what a dream plane
>>30054029
>Air intakes behind canards
There is so much wrong with this I don't even want to begin.
There's no fucking room for internal bays. You could fit little tiny ones for maybe a pair of sidwinders, but that's about it. There's no way you could replace the F-16 with that thing, as it couldn't do strikes at all.
>>30054050
>Oh boy, F35s can detect S400 launches now.
I mean, that's half the point of DAS, a missile warning system. Not to mention the possibility of seeing the missile on radar, or noting the radar.
>>30054044
>>30053957
>The design goal was to replace the F18, F-16, A-10, and AV-8 all in one plane. This is too ambitious.
You realize that the F-35 is actually three different aircraft at this point, right? Each service in the US military will have their own specialized variant that fits their needs.
>>30054021
>And I'll tell you this: those canards and single vert stab completely fucked the stealth design, and now there's no room for internal munitions carriage or fuel.
On the tail you're right. I said it was off the cuff. This is probably a better variation on the concept.
It would be less expensive to own and operate, be a much better replacement for the F16 as it's more maneuverable than the F35 both in normal flight and low AoA flight.
>>30054131
Look like someone crossed an Arrow with a Gripen
Its even uglier than the F-3huehuehue
>>30044112
>...and the F-18 has other choices (HARMs in particular) that are not available to the F-35.
Yet.
The F-35 will be updated / retrofit to be able to use last generation weapon stockpiles in due time.
They're of course going to focus on the modern / upcoming weapon systems first however.
>>30054076
I'm not seeing how that's relevant to the derp plane in >>30053957
>>30054131
>On the tail you're right.
I'm right on the canards, too.
>It would be less expensive to own and operate, be a much better replacement for the F16 as it's more maneuverable than the F35 both in normal flight and low AoA flight.
The F-35 is already cheaper than eurocanards, how would that monstrosity be cheaper IN COMBINATION with the now separate programs you're forcing the Navy and USMC to have.
>>30054145
It's a NG Gripen concept. Conformal fuel tanks, internal bays, same extreme STOL, high and low speed maneuverability, it's got a lot of potential but who knows if we'll ever see it done?
>>30044845
>>30044952
>>30045186
Don't forget, the S-400 is never alone.
Around it you have more radars and IRSTs of the Buks, Pantsirs, and other various IAD systems.
Unless it's a poor nation that just bought the S-300/400 alone.. idiots.
>>30049359
>changing altitudes like crazy
And thus bleeding energy like a motherfucker making the targeting computer have an easier time and ruining the attackers stand off range.
If your countermeasures don't spoof it and barring mechanical failure, the missile wins.
>>30050165
>>30050199
The only RAM coating on the engine itself is the service panels around the engine housing.
The stuff is too fragile (flakes from stress) to use on the moving parts.
This is why the RAM is built into the F-35 body/skin panels, to solve the flaking from the B-2 / F-22.
>>30053957
>The design goal was to replace the F18, F-16, A-10, and AV-8 all in one plane. This is too ambitious.
not precisely correct. It was originally designed to replace the F/A-18C and F-16. The USMC Harrier replacement was then rolled into the project in the form of the B model when LM figured out the lift fan and 3-bearing nozzle thing.
It was never intended to directly replace the A-10.
the rest of your post is dependent on the idea of the F-35 being designed to replace the A-10, which it wasn't, at all.
Also, you need to differentiate between the F/A-18C and the F/A-18E/F versions. The F-35 is only replacing the C, the "legacy hornet". The plan all along was to still use the capable super hornets alongside the F-35. The fact that they are keeping the E/F Hornet is not some flaw in the F-35.
also, this >>30053982
The Harrier is a piece of shit fighter, but the STOVL capability and operating from small carriers have made it perform very well in conflicts.
>>30054029
ok, now we need to get into some details. Yes, as development continued on the F-35, and decision to retire the A-10 was made, it was decided that those squadrons flying the A-10 would switch over to the F-35. So yes, you could technically say that it's replacing the A-10. But that's a big difference from it being DESIGNED to replace the A-10, which is what was originally claimed.
>>30054050
you know, it might be able to. The capabilities of the EODAS haven't been fully released or tested yet. There are cases of it detecting rockets being launched 800 miles away. It's quite plausible that it could eventually be able to detect S-400 launches. Also, Barracuda.
>>30054291
And the US is never going to send a lone plane against an entire IADS. They have MALD-J, dedicated SEAD squadrons, Growlers, EC-130s, AWACS, JSTARS and a whole lot of other shit designed specifically to break holes in air defenses.
>>30055122
Plus F-35s on deep strike/SEAD would be actively collecting all that delicious IADS position data to more easily explosively deconstruct the system.
>>30054320
A fighter has a lot more delta V than a missile. Especially if the fighter dives for the deck and then zoom climbs.
>>30048504
I was just sampling the combination of facts, CMANO data, and vitriol, and came up with the same answer.
I'm new to all of this. But it just seems like the T-50 would shit on the F-35. Am I wrong?
>>30057388
Who knows, the pak-fa is to much of a mystery. Most likely somewhat equal.
>>30057388
>>30057440
Everything we know about the PAK-FA so far points to a Eurocanard tier 4.5 Gen project that's likely to be impossible for Russia to fund properly.
>>30054131
so a YF-23 with canards?
disgusting
>>30057388
Unless it got in a magical guns only dogfight using teleportation magic, it basically has no chance. I think most Eurocanards could probably parity of not superiority.
>>30052283
Except it doesn't work nearly as well. Terrain masking or not, low altitude has consistently been the most risky and dangerous approach in an air defence zone for the last 30+ years. This ain't the 70's anymore, when you had wory about nothing bigger than a Shilka, Gaskin or Strela.
Going that low means you're flying straight through the engagement ranges of any IR SAM, MANPADS and SPAAG you might come across - all systems quite a lot more numerous than heavy theatre-level SAMs, and commonly deployed along those routes most likely to be used for a NoE approach.
>>30057388
T-50 is still 100% vaporware, so no. When it's finally real, who knows how good it will be?
>>30057989
>Except it doesn't work nearly as well. Terrain masking or not, low altitude has consistently been the most risky and dangerous approach in an air defence zone for the last 30+ years. This ain't the 70's anymore, when you had wory about nothing bigger than a Shilka, Gaskin or Strela.
Right, so I've got a book right here by probably the most combat experienced Wild Weasel of the past 30 years. You know what he says? NoE uber alles.
And seriously, you want to try and litter everywhere with SHORAD? Good fucking luck. Assuming you somehow manage to propagate them throughout the entire battlespace, a sheer impossibility, you still need to target the plane, something which is a bit difficult when you have no clue where it is because you don't have a radar.
And guess what? YOU FLY NoE AGAINST THOSE THREATS TOO. Putting a solid wall of earth between you and a threat is rather effective.
![pak_fa_front_899[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/6w9mSJA.jpg "pak_fa_front_899[1].jpg")
>>30057388
The PAK FA is a gen 4.5 fighter at best. The Russians still haven't figured out how to properly s-duct their turbines which should tell you a lot about the tech state of their air force.
>>30057440
>>30057491
>>30058035
>>30058329
Thanks. Any books to recommend on military aircraft? I am interested in knowing more.
>>30040000
It never really was. In most of the actual fighting scenarios it would be better than most of the alternatives. It is seriously overbudget and late though.
>>30058329
>Russians still haven't figured out how to properly s-duct their turbines
firstly, the turbine is at the rear of the engine, not at the front.
secondly, russians designed many fighter aircraft with s-ducts, earliest being Mig-15.
there are good reasons why they chose straight intakes for pak-fa, and they have been discussed to death.
>>30058930
don't ask /k/ about planes and expect useful information.
if you're interested in aircraft, start here: http://airvectors.net/
>>30059869
>there are good reasons why they chose straight intakes for pak-fa
Because they cant into effective sducts at all speeds.
Thats just the damn truth anon.
>>30059869
>there are good reasons why they chose straight intakes for pak-fa, and they have been discussed to death.
There are many 'reasons', but I've yet hear any good ones.
>>30058930
https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf
>>30060348
>I've yet hear any good ones
how about "it's more cost effective"?
Russians need an aircraft for airspace policing and occasional bullying of satellite states. there's no need for an f-22-killer to do that
>>30058930
ftp://ftp.svk-squadron.com/teddy/Su-27/Famous%20Russian%20Aircraft%20Sukhoi%20Su-27%20%28Yefim%20Gordon%29.pdf
sure is slippery out there for 3f
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lockheed-testing-idUSKCN0YG0AV
>>30041988
the F22 is for killing planes, the F35 is for killing everything (and sometimes planes, if it needs to)
>>30063286
tl:dr working the kinks out of 3i took longer than expected
>>30040000
Is this an accurate representation of F-35 in combat?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtXPQNW2HqE
>>30063173
You don't go 'cost-effective' with your front-line air superiority aircraft, nig nog.
They've got plenty of Su-35s to curb stomp little ex com-bloc states.
Pure reason to even build the PAK-FA in the first place is to contest actual western powers and/or their front line aircraft.
>>30063764
>Goofy WWII-style knifefighting
Fuck no. There aren't even any active drones yet that can outmaneuver a Cessna.
>>30063764
>>30063764
>that prolonged vertical
Even in ace combat this would be a dumb move
But also,
>deliberately risking compressor stall
Fucking never.
>>30048439
This
Worked weapons on the 22 and god help the poor dumb SOB's on the receiving end of it ever actually get let off the chain. Buddy of mine worked it in test at Edwards. He liked it and said it was easier to load and not bad on maintanance. Also apparently they fixed IMIS for it so that's a nice plus for all the knuckle dragging wrenchmonkees.
>>30063286
3F isn't any more delayed than it was a couple of years ago; in 2014 they were saying there'd be a 2-6 month delay; today's it's narrowed to 4 months, putting it in at Nov 2017.
Danish person here, let me just confirm that our government is corrupt and the debate about this plane barely existed in our country, but when it was discussed it was nearly all scientists who said it wasn't a good plane, vs military people in our famous airforce saying it was great, though none of those airforce people were pilots.
>>30068443
>when it was discussed it was nearly all scientists who said it wasn't a good plane
You gave yourself away here.
>>30053982
>Incorrect. The A-10 is not being replaced by the F-35. It's getting axed entirely. Or was, until Congress started believing memes.
Defense related jobs in your own election district isn't a meme.
>>30046621
>Rivets
lol
>>30069380
Are you fucking retarded?
>>30064133
>You don't go 'cost-effective' with your front-line air superiority aircraft, nig nog.
it's better to have 300 average planes on the front line than 3 superior ones
>>30071319
Even if those 3 could handle 1000 of the cheap plane?
>>30048439
>F-22 ... has proven itself as the greatest fighter on the planet
>proven
HAHAHAHA
Please refresh my memory, when was the latest battle where F-22 made a significant contribution?
>>30072103
Mock dogfights throughout the entirety of its service.
>b-but that doesn't count
Fuck off, troll.
>>30072308
no, it does not fucking count.
the purpose of mock combat is to train pilots, not compare aircraft.
>>30072364
F-15: 105.5:0 K/D record.
1 F-22 vs 5 F-15s: absolute curb-stomp victory for the F-22.
It's a pretty good way to see, idiot.
>>30072393
like all trainings, it was a pre-arranged scenario. it proves nothing.
>>30040000
It's basically F-111-2.
What can go wrong?
>>30072502
Considering the USAF now only starts the F-22 with it on the defensive and the Luneberg lens attached, yeah, definitely useless.
>>30072502
>like all trainings, it was a pre-arranged scenario. it proves nothing.
>Prearranged scenario
It was literally "launch and perform search and destroy like in combat, lock wins" and the F-22 pilot's only concern was if he'd run out of simulated missiles before getting all five.
>>30072537
No, it's what the F-16/F/A-18 were needed to be.
>>30072537
B will be cancelled outright , some C will be bought but they'll mostly sit on hangar deck while superbugs do the fighting, A will see some use but will soon be replaced by a simple, cheaper and more capable 6th gen design.
australia will still be flying f-35 in 2050
>>30072602
What would they replace the B with? Right now, its already vastly superior to the harrier.
Use your brain next time.
>>30072593
real-world is combat is nothing like that.
enemies have different equipment, they have support assets, SAMs, AWACS, jamming.
also, they will show up where you don't expect them, in numbers you don't expect.
>>30072750
What do you think happens in Red Flag?
![hqdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/QpXx7hy.jpg "hqdefault[1].jpg")
>>30072759
All the F-XX pilots kill themselves/fly into the ground to make the F-22 look good because it is literally worse than P-51?
>>30072781
Yes, that's exactly what happens. How clever of you.
>>30072781
>p-51
Curtiss Model J*
Fixed.
>>30072613
>What would they replace the B with?
nothing. fuck marines. there's no reason why they need to have their own planes.
> its already vastly superior to the harrier.
currently it's vastly inferior in reliability.
>>30072759
poos in their sukhois win everything, and then they get talked down on youtube by some usaf colonel who wasn't even there.
>>30068443
>it was nearly all scientists
I didn't know scientists did a lot of work on airplanes.
>>30072888
What?
