Why do people on this board get so salty over this plane?
>>27905490
Because it is American and thus naturally inspires envy.
>>27905515
>Because it is American, Americans are the largest posting demographic on 4chan, and therefore the trolls/shitposters lavish most of their attention on Americans
FTFY
>>27905538
>shitposters consider demographics in order to create maximum butthurt
you're thinking too hard senpai, go take your meds.
>>27905490
Way over budget
>not uncommon with military R&D
Internal cannon only on the A version
>muh dogfighting capabilities
Slower than F-22
Limited payload
"Stealth features"
Designed as a bloated catch all fighter that doesn't meet operational standards for many combat scenarios
That being said, I still think it's cool, bit cool doesnt win wars. But I still think they should have kept manufacturing the F-22
>>27905547
>Way over budget
Pray tell, what do you believe the current cost is?
>>27905490
Because people constantly say stupid bullshit about it:
>YOU CAN'T HAVE ONE PLANE FILL SO MANY ROLES!
The F-35 fills the same number of roles as the Super Hornet! The concept is no different!
>>27905546
When 75% of the site is one nationality, they generally do.
>>27905565
Well, actually, nobody is operating a STOVL Super Bug.
>>27905589
That's only the F-35B.
>>27905559
Last thing I read in avation week they said it was somewhere to the tune of just shy of 3 billion total.
But then again if you look at any new aircraft they always have cost overruns. When the B17 came out back in the late 30's it was way over budget too. Which is why I green texted that it's not uncommon with any new R&D project. I mean shit, look at anything the Navy puts out
>>27905490
because it's the worst thing that happened to the US armed forces since the Iraq invasion.
It's the incarnation of everything that is mad with the military-industrial complex.
It's a lobbyists aircraft, and yanksfags that like the pipe dream of american superiority can't swallow the red pill that the F-35 is an obsolete lemon of an early-access lockmart cashgrab.
>>27905490
Because it's an unreliable POS.
Hopefully it will exit it's teething phase soon.
>>27905664
[Citation Required]
>>27905664
David Axe please, take your meds and put your pants back on
>>27905490
see
>>27905547
Lies propagated by those with a desire for the F-35 to fail.
>>27905664
>>27905680
just look at international sale, the plane is not selling, foreign analysts/procurers aren't under lockmart lobby influence (NATO beta bitches such as Norway excluded) and therefore avoid the F-35 because it's basically a worse aircraft than a F-35 and it costs more.
>>27905755
>and therefore avoid the F-35 because it's basically a worse aircraft than a F-35 and it costs more.
Yes.
>>27905755
worse than F-16*
>>27905695
>The MiG-31 can track your missile paths back to you.
I've never seen this one. What's so special about the MiG-31, you know, besides being the fastest fighter in the world? (Other than the Foxbat)
>>27905755
>South Korea buying it
>Israel buying it
>Norway buying it
>UK buying it
>USA buying it (Obviously)
>Netherlands buying it
>Australia buying it
That's just from memory. I'm sure there is more. Canada would be buying it too if not for Justin "DUDE WEED" Trudeau.
>>27905755
>nobody is buying it!
>except the people who are buying it!
Kekkums
>worse than an f16
Cool, comparing clean config air show kinematic performance on a plane with no internal stores and pitiful fuel to an information fighter with better loaded performance, VLO, large internal stores and fantastic stores.
You're old, you're late and you'll lose.
>>27905810
>fantastic stores
Meant range.
>>27905531
The F-35 is terrible. First of all: Stealth is obsolete because it can be detected by Russian and Chinese WW2 radars (Source: Pierre Sprey) This means that the Pentagon is wasting $1.5 trillion per plane (Which has already been spent, btw) on a plane that's a lemon. It's a turkey that can't turn, can't climb, and can't run. There's also so much wrong with the jet. The helmet doesn't work and is useless anyway, and it doesn't have a gun/it's gun doesn't work. It also can't fly through rain or run on hot fuel, it's not stealthy with external stores, and its engine catches fire. It can't even beat what it's meant to replace, because it's a jack of all trades and a master of none. The F-16 beat it in a dog fight and it can't flow low-and-slow to perform CAS like the A-10, which will always be better at CAS (Source: http://warisboring.com/articles/in-a-contest-the-u-s-air-force-knows-the-f-35-will-lose-to-the-a-10/ and also there are some RT articles if you google). I'm Russian and Chinese and our plane is better because it has artificial intelligence and can fly at the speed of light. Anyone who disagrees with this is a Jewish Lockheed shill. This comic basically sums it all up: http://imgur.com/a/0I00D#28
>>27905829
I love this delicious lemon and turkey flavoured pasta.
>>27905859
You're welcome
>>27905805
>That's just from memory. I'm sure there is more.
Turkey
Japan
>>27905805
>I've never seen this one.
Someone kept raving about the MiG-31 a while ago, only stopped when an anon did some CMANO scenarios.
>>27905805
>>South Korea buying it
>>Israel buying it
>>Norway buying it
>>UK buying it
>>USA buying it (Obviously)
>>Netherlands buying it
>>Australia buying it
well, there were some ceremonies maybe 10 years ago with suits signing papers and cutting ribbons, political stuff mostly relating to foreign affairs, joining the F-35 project to keep good relations with Washington. Buying military aircraft has alot to do with politics, it's a bit like paying tribute to a king really.
Well, its not 2005 anymore, and many nations whose politicians got to feel important flying to the Pentagon and eating dinner with Condi is not in office anymore, and as physical evidence has given facts about the F-35 some more independent nations doesn't want anything to do with the F-35.
And your list of countries:
>South Korea buying it
Depends on the US for handling the Norks
>Israel buying it
Depends on the US for billions in support every year.
>Norway buying it
NATO bitch.
>UK buying it
USAs most important ally, anything but buying them would be a spit on the face.
>USA buying it (Obviously)
Target No1 for lobbyists.
>Netherlands buying it
NATO bitch.
>Australia buying it
Need good relations with the US to feel safe from the yellow menace.
>>27905914
>MiG-31
>Out-turning anything ever
Oh my.
>>27905947
MAXIMUM
A
X
I
M
U
M
DAMAGE
A
M
A
G
E
CONTROL
O
N
T
R
O
L
>>27905947
I have no doubt that politics places a large role in weapons procurement. However, the same factors influence every acquisition. Your claim that nobody is gonna buy the plane is very, very hollow considering that South Korea, Israel, Norway, United States, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Japan, Turkey, and Australia are all buying the plane.
>>27905984
No see clearly any and all orders for the F-35 are nothing but Lockheed bribing and totally not the fact that it's
>cheaper
>stealthier
>more advanced
Than everything else on the market.
>>27905490
Because it's a glorified F-16 that's mediocre at everything but good at nothing and costs a gazillion fucking dollars
>>27905589
And? No major design sacrifices were made to accommodate the F-35B.
>Thank you based Beliquava
>>27906026
>good at nothing
>Good at air-to-air
>Good at air-to-ground
>Good range
>Excellent stealth
>Good radar
>Excellent sensors
>Excellent avionics
>F-35B has best V/STOL system ever devised
What exactly do you want? The F-35 is good in many areas, excellent in a few, and the absolute best in one.
>>27905490
I like how you know it's the same guy posting this same shitty bait thread over and over because he's so fucking lazy he uses the same pic every time
>>27906022
Gripen is selling like a motherfucker, that's because is what the F-35 wanted to be.
Modern, Cheap, balanced design when it comes to low RCS.
And no one is buying the Gripen for foreign political reasons, they are choosing Gripen because of the aircraft itself.
>>27906067
Don't forget the most important part:
>Cheaper than every other competitor
test
>>27906067
The only real "bad" thing that you can say about the F-35 is that it isn't quite as fast or maneuverable as its competitors. It can't reach or exceed Mach 2.0. And it doesn't have canards, so it probably can't turn as well at slower speeds. But really, that's it. And even there, it is just mediocre, not terrible. The plane's other characteristics more than make up for it.
>>27906094
Pretty sure less Gripen have been sold than F-35s, despite being over 20 years older.
>>27906094
>Gripen
>Selling like a motherfucker
The F-35 has more foreign orders than the Gripen.
Turns out a plane that's more expensive and less capable than the F-16 (and almost as expensive as the F-35 if you count the E/F) isn't going to do too well on the export market.
>>27905490
Because people can't seem to understand that we've come to the age of software-defined aircraft and battle-ready networks. Kinematic performance is nowhere near as important as being able to integrate easily into existing systems.
They also seem to think that simply because a plane already exists, it can keep working forever without maintenance and replacement parts.
>>27907292
>American farmland
>>27905829
Even with the bingo, you've convinced me...
>>27905947
>UK buying it
>USAs most important ally, anything but buying them would be a spit on the face.
Considering we had a direct hand in developing the fucking thing, I'd say it was more a matter that the F-35 is the aircraft we want than being worried about pissing off daddy US
>>27905680
why is proofs maymay a chiken
>>27905490
> Asks a rhetorical question about getting salty knowing that it will make people salty
That's some next level trolling OP
>>27907292
>They also seem to think that simply because a plane already exists, it can keep working forever without maintenance and replacement parts.
spare parts is where the profit is, newfriend.
>>27908013
destroying all the tooling & existing parts, forcing people to buy a new plane, is where the profit is
Burning flight hours on expensive jets/bombers for no practical reason at all, is also a very profitable thing.
>>27905531
But advancing passive radar tech will make stealth obsolete?
>>27905575
its about 50% faggot check ur numbers
>>27907991
In Russia, the word for rooster is also the name of the lowest prison caste that always takes it up the ass, thus playing on the vatniks closeted homosexuality and fear of sexual domination.
It's why the other country flags and animals asking for proofs doesn't work if you actually get the insult of the original.
>>27905947
>that damage control
>>27905947
/thread
>>27906299
There's been 250 built, all models and types, export and domestic.
There are like 150 F-35 now and they haven't even started full scale production yet. The planned product run is around 2700.
>>27905490
Lack of understanding of modern fighter tactics/strategy or a functioning pair of eyes to realize that while more functional than older aircraft this one is incredibly boring to look at.
That's the F-35s worst sin: It is not interesting.
>>27908123
>trying to /thread your own post after getting BTFO
help a non native english speaker.
why do detractors call the F-35 a lemon?
what is the comparison? that they both have a sour taste??
i dont get it...
>>27905490
>Why do people on this board get so salty over this plane?
Because the /k/ mentality and the mentality of a surprising amount of other people, some even respected, is that wars are won with "boots on the ground" in a cloud of dust and blood. Anything that challenges that notion is immediately met with mockery and derision.
>>27908058
>destroying all the tooling & existing parts, forcing people to buy a new plane, is where the profit is
LM never "destroyed the tooling" for the F-16. They're still upgrading it and selling it. If the Pentagon genuinely wanted more F-16s, there is nothing to stop them from buying them. But that's not what they want. They want something stealthy, with greater range.
>>27908451
Who was talking about F-16's?
I just wished America spent more money on developing anti ship missiles and SAMs. I love our military hardware but it hurts to see russiaboos and chinaboos brag about their missiles.
>>27905947
UK helped in developing it and has the longest history of VTOL fighter operation, why would we support the program then not buy it you pleb
Also
>No one's buying it other than several large air forces that I can dismiss offhand because reasons
>>27908058
Other than there being a legal block on them selling the F-22 and mandating secrecy on the project.
The orders for the F-22 where slashed, prices went up from it and there were no signs the US wanted or wants to buy more.
So your costs are up, sales are down, have no more orders for the Raptor and you now have a choice.
Do you
A. Destroy the tooling
B. Pay for the tooling to be stored under constant high security in case of espionage in the hope that one day MAYBE if you're lucky they order more
>>27905490
They want to seem smarter than the people who built it, so they look for any goddamned reason it might suck like "it's not A-10"
>>27908560
America doesn't really need SAMs because it rules the skies to begin with. America doesn't really need anti-ship missiles because American rules the seas.
>>27908605
Except they didn't destroy the tooling for the F-22. They stored it specifically so we could restart production at any time should the need arise.
>>27906299
Well, Sweden doesn't have the global reach as the US does, where buying expensive US equipment puts you on the good side of the current big daddy.
Also, where the Gripen is sold as a cheap and simple plane with low upkeep costs, the F-35 is pretty much the opposite. It means that the Gripen will mainly be interesting with non-nato countries with smaller air forces, and as such will be sold in smaller quantities.
Not to mention that the F-35 and the Gripen are completely different aircrafts, in most cases, polar opposites.
>>27910421
The issue with the Gripen is that it's still full of US and UK equipment, meaning they're subject to American and British arms export restrictions (see the Argentine attempts to procure the Gripen).
Performance and payload wise, they're less capable than the F-16, and the per-unit cost is higher than a comparable F-16. If we'ere looking at the Gripen E/F, unit costs are approaching ~$90 million last I checked, putting it on par with the Eurofighter and F-35 while being significantly less capable.
Ultimately it seems like the only appeal of the Gripen is having absurdly low operating costs. Unit costs may be high, but last I checked there's not much that can compete with its per-flight-hour costs.
>>27908560
That's what LRASM and the SM series are for.
>>27910447
That's not really the issue, Sweden could easily use domestic products in their gripens should they choose to. The argentine deal was blown up by newspapers, and would never have happened.
The point where Gripen differs from US aircraft is how they are built to be used. In US built aircraft, pilots are meant to go to point x at y speed, fire missile at target a at b altitude, etc etc. The pilot and plane is meant to work as a machine and as such, performance and payload will increase its efficiency. Because of this they are built that way.
The gripen is much more old-school where it's built to give the pilot all the necessary information to make his own decisions (still recieving assistance and commands from the ground of course). And at this, integrating the pilot with the aircraft, Gripen is miles ahead of its competitors. Specifications gets a backseat in favor of combat efficiency.
Both have pros and cons, and neither is better than the other. They are different aircrafts built for different users and uses. But never confuse specifications with capability.
As far as cost is concerned, its easy to stare at the numbers though high-level fighter sales are never just "i buy a for cost b". Sweden generally offers better deals in terms of buyback promises, tech and industry transfer and so on. Not to mention the CPFH.
>>27905490
I'm really grateful for this plane, I don't like it very much but I can enjoy that hours of bullshit I can throw around because of it.
>>27910583
>And at this, integrating the pilot with the aircraft, Gripen is miles ahead of its competitors
Maybe ahead of Legacy aircraft, but literally every Gen 4+/5 fighter on the market does exactly that just as well or better than the Gripen.
As for costs, does anyone have numbers on how the cost-per-hour of the Gripen compares to everything else? That seems to be its biggest selling point.
>>27905547
wow literal moronic retard
kill yourself
>>27910583
That's funny, considering just how ridiculously superior the F-35 is to the Grippen in terms of information gathering, collating and efficient pilot presentation. You make it out as if the F-35 is somehow deficient in data fusion, whereas it is exactly the opposite. The Grippen does not gather and present data from all other platforms in the AO to the pilot seamlessly with confidence levels and sensor indicators. The F-35 receives information from AWACS, JSTARs, Aegis, other tactical aircraft, etc. Automatically, and on the same display. What you are describing is in fact the greatest asset of the F-35, not the Grippen.
>>27905490
F-35 was meant to be to F-22 what F-16 is to F-15.
but since F-22 was cancelled it'll have to do it's job as well, and it's inadequate for that.
the jack-of-all trades argument is valid. this approach failed with F-111, and now it failed again with F-35. commonality between the versions was meant to save money, but it never did that, now the B is almost a different airplane but the basic layout of A and C is compromised because of it.
had they went with a twin engine flying wing design like ruskies or a delta layout like eurofags the plane would turn better, have better range and more power.
the STOVL plane should have been a separate project.
>>27910796
In what quality is is the F-35 lacking?
>>27910796
>F-35 was meant to be to F-22 what F-16 is to F-15.
It is exactly that.
Furthermore, the F-22 was never cancelled, good job showing how retarded you are. There are 14 squadrons as we speak, and it has been flying as such for over 10 years.
The truth is, the world at large decided it did not need a 5th gen fighter until about now. Thats fine, because the US DoD is working on 6th gen, right now.
The number of 5th gen fighters the US has is completely sufficient, because the number of 5th gen fighters the rest of the world has is ZERO.
>>27910796
>bait: the post
Claiming a 40-year-old interdictor hastily repurposed as a fleet-defense interceptor is somehow proof that a multirole won't work is retarded. The F-35 does have a great deal of commonality between variants, despite the constant claims of detractors, no major design sacrifices were made to accommodate the STOVL variant. In fact, detractors can't even produce any solid evidence of any compromise - they just claim that it must not be perfect for whatever reason.
>>27910802
stealth, kinematic performance, air-to-air internal loadout, all worse than F-22
>>27910835
>the F-22 was never cancelled
>The Air Force originally envisaged a production run of 750 F-22s. The figure was reduced to 648
in 1991. DOD’s 1993 Bottom-Up Review reduced the planned number of production F-22s to
438 (plus 4 pre-production versions, later reduced to 2), which was enough to support 4 F-22
fighter wings in a total Air Force force structure of 20 wings (13 active; 7 Reserve/National
Guard). The 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) reduced the planned number of
production F-22s to 339, which was enough to support three F-22 fighter wings in a 20-wing
force structure (12 active; 8 Reserve/National Guard).
>>27910869
>stealth
Yes, but it has an estimated RCS equal to the B-2
>kinematic performance
Similar to the F-18 from details released. While not as good the F-22, it is hardly bad.
>air-to-air internal
At last, a criticism which does not rely on blowing shit out of proportion.
Ultimately, you are correct. However, you present the information in a misleading fashion
>>27910869
Thank you for proving the F-22 was not cancled.
If you wish to keep insisting it was, you might want to tell the 27th, the 94th, the 43rd, and the 90th Fighter squadrons that they are flying a cancelled plane and to stop at once. (keep in mind, thats not all the squadrons, i figure you can start there)
>>27910857
the idea of F-111 (TFX) program was to make a common aircraft for both air force and navy. after a lot of money was spent, the navy version was abandoned. air force variant went into service but with mediocre performance.
>>27910917
there were at least 600 F-22 needed to replace current F-15's.
play with words as you like, but what will replace those old planes once they fall apart?
>>27910967
Considering the fact that the fleet of F-15Es are designed to serve until 2035 and the beginning of the F-22 replacement project, I'd say the USAF has it covered.
>>27910911
>Yes, but it has an estimated RCS equal to the B-2
only from certain angles and in certain bands
>Similar to the F-18 from details released
sorry, i didn't know it was that bad
>>27910943
The common aircraft was supposed to be both a fleet-defense interceptor and long-range interdictor - both of which were roles that the F-35 isn't filling. Furthermore, technology's changed a shit ton since then, meaning many of the limiting factors that caused issues in the F-111 are no longer relevant.
The F-111B was a catastrophe, but the rest of the F-111 series was hardly mediocre. They're arguably the best strike aircraft the USAF had ever fielded.
>>27910967
>there were at least 600 F-22 needed to replace current F-15's.
No, not at all.
The reason there were that many F-15's was because there were that many advisory aircraft of a similar generation and abilities.
Right now, there are zero advisory aircraft that can match the F-22. ZERO.
>>27911013
it's not about technical issues or the specific roles of the aircraft.
trying to achieve commonality when you have so many different roles to fill, with constantly changing requirements, is a recipe for disaster.
>>27910583
i'm not sure you understand airpower doctrine.
actually i'm pretty sure you don't.
>>27911011
>only from certain angles and in certain bands
that's true of stealth across the board. look, if any pilot gives you an answer other than "it depends" to a generic question, your BS flag should be going off.
and the Hornet is a pretty damn good jet. the low speed Alpha command is legendary. and i fly AF jets so you know i'm not blowing smoke up your ass when i say that.
I just wonder.
Regarding the F-117 downing over Serbia, does the F-35 have the same tendency to increase its RCS with bomb bay open?
>>27911087
>So many roles to fill
You realize every single service wanted a multirole, right? This is less an F-111 and more a LWF/VFX, which, if you remember, only resulted in a separate airframe because the Navy got all pissy about flying "an Air Force" plane.
>constantly changing requirements
Which were? They've stayed relatively stagnant for some time now.
>>27911135
Any plane does. The only way to get around that it to minimize the time the bomb bay is open.
>>27911135
>bomb bay door was open.
that's just a speculation.
yes, it was a lucky shot, but stealth is way overrated. it does not make a plane invisible, it reduces the detection range by radar. by how much the range is reduced depends on many variables.
russians now have a plenty of ways to detect stealth aircraft. all of them have limitations in one way or another, but they still pose a credible threat.
so the new fighter should be more stealthy than F-22, not less.
>>27911500
Until somebody figures out how to actually get one of those massive anti-stealth radars and put it inside a fighter plane, no, stealth isn't "overrated."
>>27911530
SAM kills a plane just as good as a fighter does.
>>27911607
So then your entire air force gets destroyed, but hey, at least you got a few SAM kills.
Good for you.
>>27911673
>a few SAM kills.
And that's if you're lucky enough to be illuminating the right portion of the sky at the right time.
The F-117 only got downed because they were flying the same predictable path for days on end and the Serbs set up a battery in its path.
meanwhile, no ASF-14.
>>27911135
>does the F-35 have the same tendency to increase its RCS with bomb bay open?
Yes.
The F-22 has ejectors that fling AMRAAMs out of the bay so the doors can be closed quickly, but I don't believe the F-35 does.
>>27911530
What he said was perfectly reasonable. He didn't say that it was useless.
>Until somebody figures out how to actually get one of those massive anti-stealth radars and put it inside a fighter plane
Any ordinary radar can detect a stealth aircraft. It just has to be close enough.
>>27911690
>The F-117 only got downed because they were flying the same predictable path for days on end and the Serbs set up a battery in its path.
And even then it nearly got away. They had to shoot 3 or 4 missiles at it, which was actually against their current ROE because if a SEAD plane had been in the area like it was supposed to be, that SAM site would have been toast for keeping its radar on for so long.
>>27911759
>It just has to be close enough.
The issue is that the stealth aircraft is going to be firing missiles while you're still trying to find it.
>>27911530
MiG-31 radar is powerful as fuck. Probably enough to get past the stealth. Also it's missiles have longer range.
>>27905490
because it's cost a bajillion dollars so far, has been neutered from doing anything well by being required to do EVERYTHING, and we're not even finished with it yet
>>27911851
Power just means the radar has a longer range so it can actually use those long range missiles. It doesn't necessarily have any better way of detecting a stealth plane.
>>27911866
>Power just means the radar has a longer range
>just
increasing power increases detection range for all targets, stealthy or not
>>27905531
can you guys pls post some kind of source you consider good for F35, i hears many of these bingo squares and i really lack a reliable source.
>>27905490
because it is a siege weapon and not a battle weapon. I you don't know what SIEGE and BATTLE actually meant in the military terms, then pick up a fucking book and read about them.
>>27905490
Program cost US$1.3 trillion (Overall including inflation), US$59.2B for development, $261B for procurement, $590B for operations & sustainment in 2012[10]
Unit cost
F-35A: $98M (low rate initial production and not including the engine, full production in 2018 to be $85M)[11][12]
F-35B: US$104M (low rate initial production and not including the engine)[11][12]
F-35C: US$116M (low rate initial production and not including the engine)[11][12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
The U.S. government thought it was a good idea to buy something that was still being worked out and not the final product.
>>27912455
Fuck you. You have no idea how procurement works, you stupid little fuck running your mouth like some sort of expert
>>27912479
Luther threw so much shade it was glorious.
>>27912489
This one is especially applicable to 4chan
>>27911938
Power does not change wavelength, which is the main factor that determines how far out a radar can see a VLO plane.
>>27912455
That's incredibly misleading. Most of that 1 trillion is actually set aside for maintenance and support costs for the lifetime of the entire fleet.
>>27912646
wavelength is yet another, sepearate factor that affects detection range.
Zaslon radar operates at both X and L bands. F-22 and F-35 are mostly optimize for low RCS in X band.
>>27905490
Honestly I think it's fear more than anything. It makes a lot of people feel better to believe the thing is junk. The F-35 is basically a supersonic apache that can't be seen but can see everything. Coupled with the new systems it will be integrated into, the F-35 will represent a force that no one is sure they can contend with. It may indicate the advent of complete american military dominance over the globe. You can imagine why some people don't like that thought.
I personally find it fantastic.
>>27908302
Can anyone enlighten me?
>>27913390
"Lemon" is slang for a defective car, especially if it's new.
>>27913390
Something usually brand new, usually cars, but defective in some way shape or form or not exceeding expectations. Not just cars can be lemons, anything that really is a letdown can be a lemon really. Synonym: Disappointment
>>27910992
F-15Es are not F-15Cs. Strike Eagles are their own creature entirely.
>>27913973
True. Tell me, are you going to argue they there is more than a slightly marginal drop off in air superiority mission performance between the two?
>>27914038
Nope. I'm going to argue that the F-15E was never intended to be replaced by the F-22. That would be the F-15C that was. The F-15C that's going to be in service for far longer than expected, without a replacement in sight. Don't try and obfuscate the issue.
>>27914038
it depends.
i will say this: a C model guy does nothing but ACM and BVR, while a E model has to do that plus all the bomb dropping stuff.
>>27914054
But that's the point. The USAF has been dumping the F-15C in bits and pieces for the last couple years. It's not going to serve for more than another 10 years. Once the F-35As start filling out squadrons and taking tactical strike duty workload off the Mudhen fleet a little, I guarantee you will see Mudhen airframes being shuffled into squadrons that currently fly the F-15C, as those aging -15Cs get retired. Mudhens will still be flying strike missions, but the necessity for them to do so will be lessened by the presence of the F-35A.
Save this post. You'll start seeing it happen in 5 years.
>>27914127
you do realize there's only like 2 active duty C model squadrons, and the entire Mudhen fleet is based at 3 bases and flying daily, right?
>>27907998
I heard it was almost 4-5 years behind schedule but that could be dated news. Its also hell on taxes and better be worth it.
>>27915570
That's about half right.
It was originally slated to enter service in 2010, but as that date approached, it became clear that such a goal wasn't realistic. This wasn't entirely Lockheed's fault, as the program itself was very optimistic with its projections considering all the advanced avionics that were being developed.
They ended up doing a major program reorganization around 2010, creating new deadlines which have all been met without incident.
An US and Russian soldier are hunting for each other in a dark forest, the US soldier wears black clothing, the Russian soldier brings a big flash light.
>>27913274
Complete American military dominance?
I think it's becoming more and more evident that america has crippling logistics issues preventing them from fighting any real war overseas.
And the ability of high altitude high speed fighters to hit actual targets on the ground was really called into question in the kosovo war.
Not to mention the fact that 13 years later, the US has lost in afghanistan.
>>27915570
>Hell on taxes
>several times the annual DoD F-35 budget is spend on procurement
top kek
>>27916260
not procurement, I meant payroll.
>>27916240
>Complete bullshit: The post
There is no other military in the world that has the same force projection as the USA. There is no question about it.
>>27916301
Running months of bombing runs isn't "force projection"
How many YEARS of build up would it take for the US to invade a real country?
>>27916366
At least they have the capability to mount an invasion, even if it does take a while to prepare for.
>>27916366
>the capacity of a state to apply all or some of its elements of national power - political, economic, informational, or military - to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to enhance regional stability
How is it not force projection?
>>27905673
>Because it's an unreliable POS.
>No crashes
>One fire caused entirely by P&W cutting corners
>Even the F-22 had several crashes during development
>>27916366
>Running months of bombing runs isn't "force projection"
You're right. Running months of bombing runs on the other side of the world from the USA is force projection. And guess what? The USA does that all the time.
>>27905769
>Better than F-16 in every spec except raw energy maneuvering
>worse than F-16
>>27916240
>I think it's becoming more and more evident that america has crippling logistics issues preventing them from fighting any real war overseas.
This is fairly stupid statement even for a Russofile/Chink trolls.
>>27916406
>>27916409
>outspend everyone 10 to 1
>have 2 million person standing army
>Can't even invade shitholes like Iraq with 6 months of build up
>>27916425
Iraq was beaten in 3 weeks. What are you talking about?
>>27916425
I don't put this level of stupidity past /pol/, but this is not suppose to be /pol/.
>>27916425
Name a country with better force projection than the USA. I'll wait.
>>27916434
You think the troops of the US just magically appear in saudi arabia and didn't take months to arrive?
If the US doesn't have a deep water port in a neighboring country, then you'd be looking at YEARS needed before you could invade.
>tfw everyone's arguing about planes and im still amazed humans even figured out how to fly
>>27916470
And? That's still better than any other country.
>>27916476
>>27916442
It's shameful the lack of capability, despite the amount of money spent & amount of men invested in it.
>>27916470
>>27916493
Your stupidity is shameful. Learn some geography, and stay of RT for a while.
>>27916493
>Better than anybody else
>Shameful
>>27916500
So what, they should be able to invade a country from the East Coast or something?
>>27916504
>>27916500
Could america even invade CUBA?
>>27916523
Well, they could turn Cuba into glass several hundred times over if they really wanted to.
>>27916554
More like it would be another kosovo war, where the US spends a year bombing them until cuba gives up, and then we discover actual military targets hit is basically zero
But i'll be ok because 100,000 civilians died for a moderate cost of hundreds of billions.
>>27916523
>Could america even invade CUBA?
Yes. Very easily, actually. The only reason it never did was because it would start WW3.
>>27916523
Just what did they teach you in schools about the Cuban Invasion Ivan? I ask because when I studied in CUBA being a CUBAN myself, they seemed to glance over most of the details and just focused on screaming "big bad imperialist" was beaten big small poor Cuba.
>>27916583
With what?
>>27916597
Tanks. Planes. Men with guns. That sort of thing.
>>27912455
ok, let me ask you this:
let's say you are in the market to buy a new car and the salesman told you that they are running a special, the car you want used to cost $20000, but right now it's just $19000 not including the engine. Would you at that point ask these 3 questions:
1) so does this mean the car will not need an engine to run?
2) if not, how much will it be with an engine
3) what is the point to try and sell me a car that clearly need an engine to work at the end that is going to cost me to put in an engine that would of be over the original price?
>>27916609
how would they get there?
China has far more capability to execute an amphibious invasion than the US
>>27916619
LM makes the F-35. Pratt & Whitney makes the engines. There you go.
>>27916632
>China has far more capability to execute an amphibious invasion than the US
By what metric?
>>27916632
How would China execute an amphibious invasion?
>>27916632
>China has far more capability to execute an amphibious invasion than the US
I think he is trolling.
>>27916632
>China can into amphibious assault
Thats a pretty good joke
>>27916661
You land tanks and troops and supplies for them
Something the US can't actually do.
It doesn't have the current capability.
>>27916655
>By what metric?
By the physically land troops, and tanks and other vehicles?
>>27916699
>China
>Landing troops
>>27916699
Using your metric that tells you the US cannot perform amphibious assaults, who can?
>>27916699
Hilarious.
It is even funnier when you consider this is more than likely a eurofriend saying this.
>>27916699
nigga the US has an entire branch with a massive raging hard on for doing pretty much nothing but amphibious assaults
>>27916699
>You land tanks and troops and supplies for them
Something the US can't actually do.
It doesn't have the current capability.
Wew lad, thats some heavy trolling there.
>>27916721
Countries that have actually built landing ships?
Like china or india?
>>27916727
The branch which has no capability to do amphibious invasions, and haven't done one in 65 years?
>>27916740
>The US Navy/Marines can't do naval landings and or assaults
>>27916740
>India
Just stop. They don't even have a working assault rifle yet.
>>27916740
not having done one in a combat scenario doesn't mean they can't. once again they have a massive raging boner for amphibious ops and constantly practice it.
>>27916740
If the US can't land troops anywhere, how did they get marines into Somalia in the 90s?
>>27908341
>is that wars are won with "boots on the ground" in a cloud of dust and blood. Anything that challenges that notion is immediately met with mockery and derision.
Well, ground troops are what win wars, but total air dominance makes the job way easier.
>>27910869
>stealth, kinematic performance, air-to-air internal loadout, all worse than F-22
And the F-22's internal payload for air to ground is crap, whgat's your point?
>>27916839
At that point though you could argue "whats the point to replace the A-10 then"
>>27916791
>helicoptered into a completely undefended airport
unhuh
>>27916769
As far as I understand no, they don't practice amphibious invasions.
>>27916748
I am saying INVASIONS
Something that happened in WW2, in korea, and should have happened in vietnam.
Something which will always be necessary vs a real opponent because all enemies will be overseas.
>>27916805
>Well, ground troops are what win wars
Air power determines if war even happens to begin with. A country with a sufficiently powerful air force will never be invaded at all, unless its air power is somehow destroyed or it is not used appropriately.
>>27916874
You mean they landed on the beach, right? By ship?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj9Fn3qG-Cw
>As far as I understand no, they don't practice amphibious invasions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuMMjmiSI-0
What are they doing in this, then?
>>27916874
they practiced one last month with the Filipinos.
http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/us-philippines-to-hold-amphibious-landing-exercise/
>>27916917
Theres a whole Vice video about the joint naval invasion training the US was doing with the Aussies.
>>27916917
>driving 5 miles an hour up an undefended beach
Looks like they are just having fun
And some guy waving around glow-sticks for no reason
>>27916740
Poe's law, I cannot tell if this is really poor bait or if this anon really has no idea what a landing ship is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5f-Bt3DXfU
>>27917078
It's probably the former, in a few hours he or someone else will be back to say only pretending ))))))) baited burgers good )))))))
>>27917124
>buncha shitty 40 year old AAV's and hovercrafts that have never been used & never will be used
Looks like a disaster in the making
>>27917281
If they'll never be used, how can it be a disaster in the making?
>>27917295
Because a situation will come up eventually, that'll require some sort of amphibious invasion, like a chinese occupied taiwan.
And the president/US people will be shocked to learn their military is completely incapable of doing anything.
>>27917303
So you're saying they WILL be used then?
And if they've never been used, what are those things in the video?
Should China and Russia just throw away any hope of amphibious assault too because most of their shit is decades old as well?
Bitch please.
>>27917303
>Because a situation will come up eventually, that'll require some sort of amphibious invasion
So you mean they'll be used?
>>27917303
>America will fail an amphibious invasion of China occupied Taiwan after China successfully invades with a less capable force.
Ok, I am with >>27916731
The Joint Strike Fighter was sold as a cheaper, F-16-like stealth alternative to the F-22, then seen as an unneeded and exorbitantly expensive Cold Warrior. A decade of incredible project mismanagement has resulted in an aircraft that's five years late, over budget, and the program only barely pulled out of the tailspin towards cancellation in 2012.
>>27916894
Just look at the 1st Gulf War for what a "real" invasion looks like:
>CSG arrives
>cruise missiles to known AA and command assets
>deploys airwing for SEAD/DEAD
>AF takes out strategic assets
>once air superiority is achieved boots go in and clean up the mess
>this is all done in a few days
No one is EVER going to go through another normandy, because that method is obsolete. Air power at the time did not have the precision, speed, and communication lines to coordinate like it can today. With the proliferation of drone technologies, even a hot beach landing can be handled pretty easily thanks to the leaps we've made in sensor technology.
>>27917450
>I have no knowledge of the JSF programs history but allow me to indulge in memes.
>>27917459
>spend 6+ months building forces up in saudi arabia
>whom Saddam can't attack because even saudi arabia has a bigger/better army than him
That part doesn't count, despite it being an absolutely ESSENTIAL part of the war?
Iraq is the IDEAL climate & terrain for that sort of war, even there the US did no amphibious operations.
Modern amphibious landings have far less capabilities and are far slower than WW2/korea
Despite spending way more money, and having more men, and burning 10 times the oil.
The V-22 is the epitome of that, carries a fraction of what helicopters carry for 5 times the cost, and will kill everyone in it if it came under fire.
>No one is EVER going to go through another normandy, because that method is obsolete.
If you don't have friendly deep water ports to land in, what else are you going to do?
>>27917528
>If you don't have friendly deep water ports to land in, what else are you going to do?
Completely clear the area with bombers and fighters, then land troops after it is safe?
>>27917565
Yea, we saw how that sort of air power worked in serbia
Couldn't find a goddamn thing.
>>27917575
Serbia was land-locked.
>>27917528
>That part doesn't count, despite it being an absolutely ESSENTIAL part of the war?
And where did i discount that? Building your supply chain will always be essential. Complaining that it takes time, and expecting it to be done on the spot is naive. Any other nation would struggle to get what the US did in the gulf war done at the same time table.
>Modern amphibious landings have far less capabilities
I strongly disagree. The evolution of organic air power to amphibious operations has granted some very significant new capabilities, namely precision bombing of hardened targets as they appear.
>If you don't have friendly deep water ports to land in, what else are you going to do?
Get your LHD's and LHA's fueled up, packed up and underway, get a CSG or two underway and blow a hole in the enemy's strategic structure. That opening allows you to send more forces, with fewer casualties, than the way you're describing.
>>27917583
And the friendly country in question, albania, didn't have any deepwater ports
So the US couldn't have invaded serbia even if they wanted to
>>27917585
>get a CSG or two underway and blow a hole in the enemy's strategic structure.
What happens when they just hide, and wait for you to come to them?
>>27917593
>So the US couldn't have invaded serbia even if they wanted to
Why not?
>>27917593
>hiding
There aren't many places to hide conventional military assets, and even if you did you've got satellites, ground searching radars, electro-optical, and all varieties of thermal imaging to pick them out. Secondly, if you're invading someplace, they've either built up and consolidated forces already (this is hard to hide), or they are in their home depots and bases which make for easy strikes.
>>27917616
then how come
> In 2000, a United States Air Force inquiry established that the alliance had actually destroyed 14 tanks, 18 armoured personnel carriers and 20 artillery pieces. Yugoslav officials had reported similar figures in the weeks after the bombing, but these statements had been dismissed as "disinformation" by NATO officials at the time.
stovl came from the russians, it isn't even an american design, lockeed payed 400 million for the tech.
the entire plane is obsolete already, and is 7 years behind schedule. we are supposedly getting portable fusion reactors in 10 years from lockheed martin, which means fusion propulsion drives, their is no way the f35 will remain in service until 2040 if fusion becomes militarily adopted, thus a new type of aircraft will have to be designed to accommodate changes in technology.
>>27917625
>it isn't even an american design
>>27917625
1 beet has been added to your account.
>>27917623
With no intention of inserting ground elements, and with the limited sensor technology of the early 90's, I'm not surprised. You seem to think that the sensor technology, and doctrine has stagnated since Kosovo. Again, modern technology has come a long ways. We can see more, and hit more than we could have 20 years ago.
>>27917641
The Yakovlev Yak-38 (Russian: Якoвлeв Як-38; NATO reporting name: "Forger") was Soviet Naval Aviation's only operational VTOL strike fighter aircraft, in addition to being its first operational carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft. It was developed specifically for and served almost exclusively on the Kiev-class aircraft carriers.
>>27917685
The F-35B uses a completely different system than the Yak.
>>27917641
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-35
Elements of the F-35 design were pioneered by the F-22 Raptor. In June 1994, Lockheed revealed that it had entered into a collaborative relationship with Yakovlev on their bid for the Joint Advanced Strike Technology competition, consisting of the purchase of design data from the Russian company; according to Jane's All the World's Aircraft 2000–2001 this was data from the cancelled Yak-141 program which employed a similar propulsion system.[5][6][7][8] Although helmet-mounted display systems have already been integrated into some fourth-generation fighters such as the JAS 39 Gripen, the F-35 will be the first modern combat aircraft in which helmet-mounted displays will replace a head-up display altogether.[9]
>>27917688
how does that humble pie taste now faggot?
>>27917691
>>27917711
the design came from the russians, the rotating shit was the "invention", until then no one had been dumb enough to attempt it.
it melts the carriers when it takes off, and it audible from miles away, unless the enemy you're fighting happens to be def, then no it isn't stealthy.
>>27917720
I'm not saying lockheed pulled a China and handed the Russians some pennies before robbing them dry of IP rights.
But I'm definitely implying it
>>27917799
the soviets pioneered this shit, the 80s u.s.a was shitting themselves over migs and shit like this.
>>27917691
>>27917720
>>27917799
Lockheed did cooperate with Yakovlev, but the bulk of the design work had long since been finished before the collaboration. What Lockheed most likely got from Yakovlev is their research on the control systems for STOVL flight. Because of the similarity between the systems, it probably would have been easier to start with what Yakovlev had to develop control laws than to start from scratch.
>>27917625
>and now you know why the F35s are being sold without engines
>mfw LM starts selling fusion jet/ramjet hybrid engines that can suck water from the ocean with a straw to refuel
ihavenofaceandImustMFW.mpeg
Lockheed patented their engine design before they ever worked with YaK.
>>27911954
just type f-35 mythbust on youtube and wath the 2 part video on it
>>27917720
>it's not stealthy because it's loud.
You don't really understand what "stealth" means, do you anonski?
>>27905565
Fills super hornet roles.
Fucking so many vtol hornets.
Goddamn morons
>>27919805
Only one of the versions of the F-35 is V/STOL.
>>27919805
There were no major design sacrifices made to accommodate the F-35B, and the vast majority of F-35s aren't STOVL.
>>27911013
>The common aircraft was supposed to be both a fleet-defense interceptor and long-range interdictor - both of which were roles that the F-35 isn't filling.
Really? I've been assuming t hat fleet defense was dependent on a F-35C hitting the decks at some point. Right now fleet defence is being handled by bugs. The superbug sacrifices too much performance to be a credible interceptor, and the legacy bug will be falling out of the skies at some point.
>>27919834
Interception was mostly to handle incoming fast bombers. However, advancing AA missile tech as well as the the degradation/stagnation of Russian bomber capability means dedicated fleet interceptors really aren't needed any more.
>>27919834
Isn't the navy having a contest for some kind of drone that is supposed to be specifically designed for fleet defense? They're trying to build a swarm of drones that will orbit the carrier group with air-to-air missiles.
>>27919875
Don't know about that, but they are definitely interested in using drones as strike craft.
>>27919893
Forget everything I just said, the drones are just another strike platform. They have nothing to do with fleet defense. For some reason, I thought this was supposed to be some sort of automated interceptor that would follow the carrier around. It's not. It's just a mini-B2 that the carrier can bring along with it.
>>27919834
Fleet defense in the near future will be reliant on F-35s and Super Hornets. The F-35C addresses the biggest failings of the Super Hornet - the range - thanks to its larger internal fuel tanks. Compared to the Super Hornet, the F-35C has about 200nmi larger combat radius.
Now we've still lost some of the capabilities of the F-14 (which had a longer loiter time and better dash capabilities), but the improved sensors and longer range of the F-35 coupled with the newest AMRAAM series should narrow the gap. Of course, there's still a need for a fleet-defense interceptor, but the decline of the Russian Air Force since the end of the Cold War means that they threat is greatly reduced, so getting a new interceptor is on lower priority.
>>27905715
Why isn't this full body armoured diaper a thing?
>>27905829
why did you save that as a .gif
I'm so fucking triggered.
>>27920943
Not him, but that image has a very limited colour range, so does gif, so very low file size. PNG would have worked just as well, probably, but not significantly better.
>>27920943
>implying that's not the point
>>27916839
the point is, F-35A is now supposed to replace F-15C and it's not suited for that role.
>>27921363
not it's not and you're an idiot.
>>27921369
you think those ancient planes will fly forever?
>>27921398
no, but the F-35 isn't replacing the F-15C
>>27905947
>>27905805
Finland is considering it as an option amongst Jas 39E Gripen NG, Suhoi PAK FA, Dassault Rafale and Mikojan MiG-35.
>>27921424
You should probably just go ahead and scratch the PAK FA off the list. If India didn't think it was good enough........
>>27921511
Dude, Dassault Rafale and MiG-35 are the only finished planes in that whole list.
The F35 has had even bigger problemst than the PAK FA has, and it's still going to be a good plane.
>>27921419
and what is?
>>27921572
The F-15C is gonna be around for a long time. The replacement is just a theoretical concept right now, now an actual plane. Somewhere in the Pentagon, somebody is creating a list of requirements for a new fighter that will eventually be sent out to various aerospace companies.
>>27921572
F-22
>>27921419
>>27921611
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/sequester-may-force-usaf-to-retire-entire-fleets-of-aircraft-390668/
>The USAF is short on air superiority capability with its small fleet of 184 Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors. The Lockheed F-35 will be able to fill that role when used in conjunction with the Raptor.
>>27921674
The f15 will remain in service until the 6th gen air superiority is in service.
Can anyone tell me (srsly) why it has a gatling gun in this day and age?
>>27921861
in other words, forever.
i doubt the air force will be allowed to spend money on another fighter program, when the the current one is ridiculously overbudget and the previous one resulted in an unaffordable plane.
>>27921873
Because gatling guns, by nature of their design, are the fastest-firing guns available.
