http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/f-35c-catapults-off-the-deck-of-a-super-carrier-for-the-1654723028
Don't mind me, just doing my first CQ and looking good doing it
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/week-one-of-the-f-35cs-initial-ship-trials-in-stunning-1654529635
>>23541354
how long until the 1st crash?
AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!!!111!!!!
F-35C looking good as allways.
>>23541787
Hopefully, a very, very loooooong time.
>>23541787
Once Canada or Germany starts flying it.
It's going to be the new Starfighter.
>>23541892
Nah mane
>>23541892
>Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
>the German Air Force lost about 30% of aircraft in accidents over its operating career,[57] and Canada lost 46% of its F-104s (110 of 235)
Jesus Christ.
>>23541454
>Stunning imagery
>600x400
Rogoway is a fucking faggot
>>23542035
Yeah I bet there are originals somewhere
>>23541892
>comparing a plane which recovers itself from stall to one with a razor thin margin for error
>shiggydediggitydowop
Go to bed, junior. Grownups are talking.
>>23542011
Yup. This is why we don't fly the planes designed to perform at Mach 1.4 in 400 knot tight turn contests, kids.
>>23542011
Isn't there a similar statistic with the F-14? Like 25% of all that have ever flown have crashed?
Gawker shils
pls
go
and
stay
go
>>23542165
>>23542035
There are better ones on this forum:
>>http://indiandefence.com/threads/f-35-lightning-ii-news-discussions.21525/page-94
http://indiandefence.com/threads/f-35-lightning-ii-news-discussions.21525/page-94
>>23542205
712 built, and I'm seeing about 60-70 lost by bureau number. Scan through the years here to check. Site looks goofy but the data is good - confirmed.
http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/sites/mats/f14-history-crash-date01.htm
So, no. At worst it would be less than 10% over 30 years of carrier ops.
>>23542308
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-serial-date.htm
Here's the better organized version. Looks like about 140 lost, so that's about 20%
Clicked on this thread after reading the Chinese F-35 thread.
I have to say the Chinese one wins.
>>23542398
Um... prototype flying at an airshow without most of it's proposed systems or engines or final airframe VS almost completed weapons system performing carrier (which the Chinese don't have) landings? Yup, the Chicoms sure showed the US.
>>23542440
China doesn't have a carrier?
>>23542454
They have an ex-soviet used one.
>>23542454
kek. sure, if you count a floating rust bucket the Russians couldn't even be fucked to fix up which currently can't even perform flight ops. Yeah, the chinese have a carrier all right.
>>23541354
>foxtrotalpha
>>23542479
Then don't spread misinformation.
>>23541354
Speaking of all this carrier and lookheed goodness
Doesn't the F-22 have a emergency tailhook?
God forbid trying to land a F-22 on a carrier
>>23542498
Sure, then I'll just go ahead and say the US has 23 carriers instead of the 20 operational Nimitz, Ford, America and Wasp class decks it has plus the two fords and an America building. That's cool with you, right?
>>23542507
First I've heard of that. Seems unlikely, considering the structural enhancement carrier ops requires. Just extra mass on a USAF fighter.
>>23542507
Many Air Force Aircraft have tail looks but those are for emergency arrested landings at land based airstrips. Like if your brakes stopped working
Those aircraft could never land on the carrier however. Their landing gear would snap off
>>23542454
Can it really be called a carrier when it's barely bigger than the US wasp/America class amphibious assault ships? I mean, shit, you say carrier, I think Big E, Nimitz, can't cross the canal, etc. The Liaoning just looks like a slightly fat helicopter deck.
>>23541534
aviation bos'n m8
>>23542636
Does it carry aircraft?
>>23542754
Yup. So do arleigh burkes. your point?
>>23542778
Does it carry aircraft and launch them as its primary mission?
>>23542754
Right now it's basically a transport ship.
Not a fan of the f35. But it does look damn good on a ship
>>23542867
Yup. So does the Wasp class amphibious assault ships. We don't call them carriers. Again, your point?
>>23542903
Yes... yes it do.
>>23542869
Stop being obtuse
>>23542937
But that's just the point. Obviously China has something they designate an aircraft carrier, and that is indeed what it does. But they've had it for 16 years now, and still seemingly haven't cracked the code. They're being trained in carrier ops by the Brazillians, and in very limited testing so far have managed to kill two of their pilots and lost two of their planes. To date, they've managed a handful of touch-and-gos with less than a handful of actual traps.
So I ask again: does China have a carrier? Is it still a carrier if they can't get it to do carrier ops?
>>23543026
Source for aircraft accidents?
>>23543138
http://news.usni.org/2014/09/05/two-pla-pilots-died-testing-planes-chinese-carrier
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140906/DEFREG03/309060018/China-reveals-2-aircraft-carrier-test-pilots-killed
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1586578/china-says-2-pilots-died-aircraft-carrier-tests
Fucking learn to google, you lazy shit
>>23542937
But it is. It's sole purpose is for training, the vast majority of which does not involve the launch or recovery of aircraft.
>>23543168
On my phone
Dick
>>23543311
You're telling me it's harder to type "two dead pla pilots carrier" into a search bar than to post "Source for aircraft accidents?" Nope, you're still a lazy shit.
>>23543311
>google doesnt work on phones
retard
>>23543429
Congratulations. You are the laziest, dumbest pile of shit not only on /k/ but all of 4chan. Your father would be proud if he knew you existed.
>>23542291
Holy fuck those bigger wings make the F-35 look gorgeous! I think I have a new planefu. That thing is sex.
>>23542454
If it has to be towed around, its not a carrier. They have a barge.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-troubled-air-craft-carriers-2014-10
>>23542910
So they're carriers. What you choose to call them is irrelevant.
>>23543480
>he's lazy for spoonfeeding you
That is retard logic.
>>23543631
Wasp class ships also carry Marines, so they're Assault Ships, not carriers
>>23543739
They carry marine aviators.
>>23542485
> Gawker
how disappointing
>>23543739
>>23543763
Assault carriers you double niggers.
>>23544091
Ban assault carriers!
>>23544803
Oh well, battle carriers are still allowed, no fucks given.
>>23542561
Their landing gear MIGHT snap off, but would probably be damaged.
They could not take off using catapults. They certainly could not operate regularly off carriers, only maybe once in an extreme emergency.
>>23544892
I give it a loud as fucking shit/10
It does look really nice and sleek and it's probably got the most advanced avionics and systems for the years to come.
But the flight characteristics are on the 3rd gen fighters level and in some aspects even worse from what I've gathered, which is really disappointing seeing how it will replace basically all us fighters and fill the roles where it can't compete.
It's also can only hold 4 missiles in it's internal bay and has half the range of the new slav shit.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-030907-1.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html
>>23544942
NO
>one lone chicom tries to shit up the thread
>completely and utterly blown the fuck out
Fun chicom fact #23: did you know the J-20, clean, has less than a 1.0 T/W?
2015- Year of the F-35
>>23545395
No one cares about chink airplanes.
Pak-fa will have around 1.4 thrust to wight ratio with the second stage engines, which are in development right now. 39,600lbf each.
>>23545022
>But the flight characteristics are on the 3rd gen fighters level and in some aspects even worse from what I've gathered
No, you clearly need to "gather" more
>>23545450
>the fabeled pak-fa engines
Honestly, they were supposed to be the production engines, then got pushed back, then pushed back farther.
Dont hold your breath
>>23545450
The F-35s engine is putting out 42,000 ftlbs.
Imagine that in an f-22...
>>23545477
Then point me where I should look for the right info.
Everywhere I looked it stated it had max speed of only m 1.6, couldn't supercruise, couldn't accelerate and turn.
>>23545509
>couldn't supercruise, couldn't accelerate and turn.
So you have read only kopp huh?
>>23545450
The problem with the PAK-FA is that even if it performs to Russia's claims, Russia still hasn't got the money to buy them.
>>23545508
>Imagine that in an f-22
It's probably classified, but the info that is available says it's 35000lbf.
>>23545537
>Then point me where I should look for the right info.
>>23545509
From what i remember the m 1.6 is a hard design limitation that stems from the inlet design where stealthiness took priority
>>23545559
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110516/DEFSECT01/105160302/F-35-Tests-Proceed-Revealing-F-18-Like-Performance
Or you know, actually compare Wikipedia tier numbers.
Reminder that you need 8 F-35 to match the capabilities of 2 F-22 in AA
>>23545620
>>23545620
This article doesn't disprove that it can only do m.1.6, can't supercruise and can't turn against su-35s fitted with 3d vector thrust nozzles.
Well, at least it's not worse than an f-18.
Also, I've read somewhere it was limited to 4.5g and couldn't carry close range missiles in it's internal store. Is that true?
>>23545636
>you need more multiroles to be as good as a dedicated air sup platform for AA missons
Stop the fucking presses.
>>23545729
But f-35 is intended to replace all us fighters including air superiority.
>>23545729
Agreed. But don't tell me that the ratio is anywhere that skewed with 4th gen aircraft.
>>23545723
The claim was it had 3rd gen flight characteristics. Asinine goalpost moving.
Then, the claim was "can't turn", now its "cant turn against 4++"
More asinine goalpost moving.
>I've read somewhere it was
>was
Im sure it was during testing, its 9.0 like everything else.
>carry close range missiles in it's internal store
Im done. Read the fucking wiki article. Just do that tiny, no effort thing before ever posting about the F-35 again.
>>23545737
No, this will replace air sep fighters.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Air_Dominance
Air force has a similar program.
Dont be stupid.
>anywhere that skewed
Look at early F-16s vs F-14/15's.
It was
>>23545767
Missed link, 2nd part for
>>23545749
>>23545751
>Then, the claim was "can't turn", now its "cant turn against 4++"
Can it turn against 80's su-27?
>>23545767
>Look at early F-16s vs F-14/15's.
So it isn't that bad in later blocks? It is hard to see later updates improving the energy performance of JSF.
>>23545799
80's you say?
Sure, they only had the AL-31F, no thrust vecturing.
>>23545802
So your saying the F-135 will never mature?
Whao, are you like, a wizard or something?
>>23542479
>Russians
Ukrainians. Not Russians, if True Ukrainians heard you they'll be very angry.
Ukrainains have developed better things than Russian, they are currently selling Oplots to Thailand, they are currently trying to sell the Ukrainia Slava Class Cruiser to Russia, they sold the ex-Varyag carrier to China, they sold the Su-33 prototype to China, they let China hire Ukrainian Rocket Scientists for Chinese ICBM instead of them going to Russia, during the Novoroosiya conflict, Ukraine sold Satan ICBM blueprints to China.
>>23541354
I thought everyone said this was a failed project?
>>23545837
>believing slavboo and chicom shitposters
What if I told you, anon, that the F-35 is damn good plane?
>>23545836
>they sold the ex-Varyag carrier to China, they sold the Su-33 prototype to China, they let China hire Ukrainian Rocket Scientists for Chinese ICBM instead of them going to Russia, during the Novoroosiya conflict, Ukraine sold Satan ICBM blueprints to China.
So what you are telling me is that the Ukrainians are even worse than the jews? I'm kind of glad Russia is annexing Ukraine now.
>>23545820
Avionics can be improved with upgrades.
Kinetic performance is harder. You can incubate it as long as you like. Those are design limited.
>>23545846
So damn good that everyone is cancelling/reducing the orders and Lockheed Martin is having to invest several hundred million dollars to fix the plane!
T-50 is the best planefu that will outperform every 5gen fighter in terms of flight characteristics, amerifats are just jealous because their only competent fighter got canceled.
>>23545857
>everyone is cancelling/reducing the orders
Odd, we keep adding partners every year.
>Lockheed Martin is having to invest several hundred million dollars to fix the plane!
Oh no! A plane has issues during testing! Wanna know how I know you are from a lesser nation?
>100 million
>alot for MIC company fixing an airframe
Top kek
>>23545855
You said kinematics improving would be "hard to see". Thats retarded, sir.
>>23545878
Odd, we have a fuckton of active squadrons for a cancelled plane.
>>23543565
It's already shown to be capable of sailing uner its own power. It only needs towing when exiting ports, because thats how big ships leave ports you fucking retard.
>boiler breakdown
>doesn't cite any sources
Yeah just another piece of shit rumour mongering journalism like every pro gun control article
>>23545892
Lel, you calling BI anti chinese? Fine.by me, chicoms have been linking their pro China article's for years
>>23545910
No I'm calling that one particular journalist retarded, and the US official who said the ship had boiler problems full of shit, if he can't back his claims up.
>>23545923
but anon, that journalist is hired by the same company as the "good ones". Why should we believe any of BIs pro china shilling? A negligent company who would hire a clearly biased anti Chinese man, would hire the same for pro chinese!
>I believe pro china bullshit from the same company that puts out anti Chinese stuff that I dont believe!
The double think is real.
>>23545923
>demanding a news company give up their source
Do you even free press? Of course you dont.
God damn Chinese shitting up the site.
>>23542507
All us fighters have aresting hooks. There are emergency aresting cables at the end of all our runways incase their brakes fail.
>>23545315
Glory too Mig-31
>>23546209
>mig 31....
Shit ment yak-41
>>23546209
>>23546212
>implying same method of vtol
>>23545494
>pushbacks
I wonder what that reminds me of
>>23541495
the funny thing is those two planes parked on the carrier cost as much as the carrier
>>23542561
>Those aircraft could never land on the carrier however.
Wouldnt that be ok under last resort circumstances? or bailing the fuck out would be preferable?
>>23541415
It looks so weird from that angle...
>>23547353
Definitely ditching over water. Attempting an emergency landing would at the very least disrupt flight operations, and potentially damage the deck/superstructure if something went completely fucking wrong--which is very possible since air force pilots aren't trained for carrier landings.
>>23542554
F-15 has a tailhook too.
They're for emergencies and often can only be lowered once before having to be manualy fixed and shit by the ground crew. Naval tailhooks can be raised and lowered many times.
>>23547071
i KNOW you are trolling, but
>2 planes
>1 billion dollars
>>23548013
Freedom aint free Nigga.
>>23546472
They are the same. F-35 is cousin to Yak-41
>>23548302
No, you fucking moron.
Yak-41 uses turbojets. F-35 uses lift fans.
>BUT DEY KINDA LOOK DA SAEM
Kill yourself.
>>23548302
Except for the fact that the yak was shit and only two were built. Yeah exactly the same.
They use a similar technology but when broken down are vastly different.
>>23548345
They dont even use similar tech.
Yak used turbojets, i.e. mini jet engines.
F-35 uses a fucking lift fan, i.e. mini helicopter roter driven via a driveshaft from its ONE, FUCKING, ENGINE
>>23545857
>So damn good that everyone is cancelling/reducing the orders
F-35 detractors show how disconnected from reality they are.
>>23545450
>which are in propaganda myth.
