So /k/ educate me on why this aircraft is inadequate?
It's not.
>>28024080
its not inadequate, its just retardedly expensive.
>>28024160
>its just retardedly expensive.
F-35A - $94.8m
F-35B - $102m
F-35C - $115.7m
+Engine
While in LRIP, is not retardedly expensive.
>>28024160
No, not really.
>>28024184
Considering that the incremental cost per F22 in 2009 was estimated at $138m, I'm not convinced. Perhaps the F35 will be a better backbone aircraft given its multi-role capabilities, but we shouldn't have shut the F22 program down if this is all we have in reserve.
>>28024221
Entirely different argument.
the F-22 doesn't have the cability to launch from LHDs, nor operate from CATOBAR carriers, either.
>>28024080
dank memes
>>28024221
I agree we should have built more F-22s (probably at least 400), but that honestly doesn't have much bearing on the F-35 I think, it's a separate argument.
>>28024080
>educate me on why this aircraft is inadequate
It requires a human to sit inside of it and fly it around.
Our time and money would be better spent building more of our many fine aircraft that don't have that particular weakness.
>>28024221
It would have remained there if we hadn't shut down the program. Because of that, the Program costs were spread over too few aircraft.
>>28024261
Seems like an excellent idea.
I heartily recommend that the backbone of US air power be succeptable to something even backwards ass states can do well enough to fuck with it.
>>28024261
We're building plenty. Our edge over everyone else in the area of UCAVs is ridiculous. They can't do everything though.
>>28024221
By your own numbers the F-22 cost 50% more than the expected production price of the F-35.
>but we shouldn't have shut the F22 program down if this is all we have in reserve.
Considering the F-35 is a superior aircraft to the F-22 in most roles? Once the F-22 gets upgraded with F-35 tech that will change.
>>28024080
>>28024239
>>28024239
But now the air force F35s are hampered by design constraints imposed by making the aircraft LHD capable. The frame itself is different because they wanted a one size fits all solution, and no one stopped to think how insane that is. Backbone fighters shouldn't have such design constraints, and now we have a fighter that can't turn and can't climb that will be the basis of our next generation of fighter aircraft. The argument has been that given how rare dogfighting is these days, the stealth and avionics capabilities of the F35 will make it more than a match for any potential adversary. How such an argument can be made by an intelligent person considering that the Russians are developing UHF band radar that may (or admittedly may not) make stealth much less attractive and that the Chinese already have all of our designs and can devise countermeasures with impunity (while making their own cheaper, two engine version from our schematics that need not be weighed down by useless LHD requirements) is beyond me.
It's a fine aircraft, it's just a little disconcerting that we are putting all our eggs in this one basket.
>>28024376
Got about 1/3 of the way before I noticed you were just being a memelord
TL;DR
>>28024334
Just in time>>28024376
>>28024319
>Once the F-22 gets upgraded with F-35 tech that will change.
Thank you for answering your own question.
>>28024405
It simply means the F-22 will be on par for BVR.
>>28024390
Oh my, you've completely disarmed every argument that I've made! I bow down to your remarkable debate skills.
>>28024454
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
:)
>>28024454
In other words, you're a fag. Glad we could agree on this one point.
>>28024080
It's still in acquisitions and development phase.
>>28024474
>Y-y-y-you're a h-h-homo
Tier 1 debating skills, anon.
>>28024550
Don't feed the trolls.
>>28024080
What's that on the center of it? Reminds me of a SNIPER pod.
>>28024553
>posts>>28024376
>calling out literal bait means you're a troll
>>28024568
Cannon pod. Because the piece of shit can't fit a cannon in some of the versions.
>>28024632
>USMC and USN chose to not have a internal cannon in their versions
Your asspain is delicious.
Stealth to laugh at PAK-FA before salvoing CUDA.
EODAS to snap-target Buks and T72s with SDB II.
APG-81 to insert combat cyberware like Suter IV into enemy ADA networks and detonate S400s and Iskanders inside their launchers.
Datalinked combat-cloud sensor fusion to shoot down J20s with Standards or target frigates for VLS-launched LRASM.
You name it, the F35 does it.
It took decades for the motley array of ww1 tanks to converge on a single generalist design that surpassed all predecessors - the MBT. The F35 (and the LRS-B) are the prophets of a new age of air warfare: the main-battle aircraft. Unified sensor-shooter platforms communicating freely at the speed of light to deliver persistent effects from deep magazines.
>>28024080
It's a really good strike aircraft and probably has the best sensor suite of any aircraft on earth.
Its a great replacement for the USMC's F-18s,the USAF's F-16s and A-10s and the USNs F-18s.
>it cost too much
lol cost is literally irrelevant the money we spend on F-35s stays in the western economy and creates jobs.
>>28024080
It'll be great at dropping PGM's on fixed targets, targets we have previous intelligence on. It wont be suitable for anything else, like aiding in an actual spontaneous fluid firefight, i.e., real CAS.
>>28024900
...Scuse me while I go change my shorts.
>>28024979
>Kurdish Villagers
It would be a lot funnier without this.
>>28024979
fucking k*rds
>>28024900
What I really love about the F-35 isn't just the American kit from it. Some of the European buyers, especially the British, are putting some insane shit in there.
The British fully intend to put the Spear Missile into it. It's basically the next gen big brother to Brimstone (and we all know how god tier that is already). It's basically a 160km range networked mini-cruise missile with the same self-targeting tech as Brimstone to permit sub-1 metre accuracy to targets moving aggressively at speeds up to and over 70mph. Furthermore, it's able to network with other missiles that are ripple fired from the same flight, creating swarms of 24 very angry missiles that specifically target things in coordination with each other and prioritise the front and rear of convoys to maximise destruction.
Brimstone already does all this shit out to 60km, but Spear will more than double the range, packs a bigger punch and can fit four per bay, in addition to being faster and more able to turn at speed.
Tag that onto the orgasm inducing thought of a stealthed 5th gen mounting the Meteor two-way datalinked BVRAAM and you have some seriously insane tech going into the F-35Bongs.
>>28024289
you mean get fucking lucky ?
gee damn usa air force is in trouble
>>28024289
>I heartily recommend that the backbone of US air power be succeptable to something even backwards ass states can do well enough to fuck with it.
Equipment failure? There is no way Iran could have jammed or spoofed the INS on the thing.
>>28024155
This man says it is.
>>28024937
>It'll be great at doing gun runs in permissible environments, environments that have already been cleared by other planes performing bombing runs and CAS. It won't be suitable for anything else, like being deployed anywhere with any form of AA, i.e., real warfare.
>>28025511
>I literally dont know what the A-10c is, or anything about weapon systems, avionics, or capabilities of it
>I certainly didnt know it drops PGMs from angels 20, like any other plane
>>28024937
>Has integrated EOTS including FLIR and designator, as well as datalinks and comms out the ass
>Still somehow unsuitable for spontaneous and fluid engagements
With all due respect, you're a fucking dumbass.
>>28025423
He also thinks we'd be better off with 60,000 M48A5s instead of the current >9000 M1A2 tanks we have.
>>28025587
If all you're doing is dropping PGMs from it you're better off using a B-1 due the massive loiter time and payload capacity.
>>28026652
>no sound
oh shit nigger what are you doing.
>>28026652
So is he some old faggot who doesn't understand how far computers/missiles have gone in the last 40 years?
>>28025358
It's kind of funny that European F-35s will be better than american ones.
>>28027105
More or less. He also did not design the F-16 or A-10, he was on a committee that came up with the requirements.
>>28027121
Depends on what you are trying to do.
>>28027052
>learns that A-10 can both fly direct low CAS, and perform the same role as F-16 dropping PGM's from 20,000ft.
>as well as acting as FAC, CSAR, and escorting helicopters in special operations
>gets mad and wants to pigeonhole the A-10 into only one of those, because the B-1 can literally only perform one task itself
>>28027105
The guy's ideas on what the F-16 needed to be were just as wrong back then as he is about the F-35 now.
>>28027129
You can bet MBDA will make a better versions few years later.
>>28027358
Not him, but PGMs outperform unguided munitions in every respect but cost. The only reason to ever go low and slow these days is to save some coin, but doing so with a fucking 15-ton jet is not very economical. The A-10 quite simply has no useful place anymore between fast-movers and attack helicopters or turboprops.
>>28027410
>The only reason to ever go low and slow these days is to save some coin
Show of force is very real and effective.
>>28027410
It's going to be even more useless when next gen compound helicopters start appearing.
>>28027358
>>as well as acting as FAC, CSAR, and escorting helicopters in special operations
So can all the others. You seem to think that only the A-10 can do it. Look. Any aircraft can and has done those roles.
>>28027403
Hit to kill weapons are not one of MBDA's strong points.
>>28027372
The F-16 being designed as a pure a2a fighter is actually what made it be so successful as a multirole later on.
Literally every great 'multirole' fighter, was designed from the get go, to be a fighter first and foremost.
It's the misunderstanding of fighter evolution, and what makes a good multirole, a good multirole, that has lead to the F-35's problems.
>>28027443
>A-10's can only do CAS!
anon lists other roles it does
>WELL OTHER PLANES CAN DO THEM TOO!!!!
>>28027443
>Any aircraft can and has done those roles.
Literally they can't
>>28027451
>not knowing about the A-4, arguably one of the finest attack craft ever made
Get out.
>>28027451
>The F-16 being designed as a pure a2a fighter is actually what made it be so successful as a multirole later on.
The fact that it was designed as a pure a2a fighter hampers it in other roles, particularly with needing to expend a substantial amount of its carrying capacity on conformal and wing tanks.
>Literally every great 'multirole' fighter, was designed from the get go, to be a fighter first and foremost.
You mean every multirole aircraft based on an airframe from before the 80's.
>>28027451
>Literally every great 'multirole' fighter, was designed from the get go, to be a fighter first and foremost.
F-4 Phantom. Your argument is invalid.
>>28027462
Because they're hardly actual ROLES. They're little side jobs that get slotted to aircraft when it needs to be done.
>>28027464
Look. Anything that flies can do those. Trying to say that it makes the A-10 special is bullshit.
>Aerial FAC
Literally done by Piper Cubs in WW2. Done extensively during Vietnam. Even to the present day, you see it occur with far more rarity. As a sidenote, often some aircraft will stick around and "buddy laze", which is essential aerial FAC.
>CSAR
Once again, done by a number of planes. Generally speaking, if they have the fuel, the aircraft's wingmen will assist for as long as they have fuel.
>Escorting helicopters
Literally anything can do this. If it can fly and keep up with the helicopters, it is possible. Generally makes more sense to run a sweep in front of the helicopters, which is what they do if air superiority isn't guaranteed.
>>28027451
>F-35 designed from the ground up to do what the F-16 and -18 have been kludged to do over the years
>Herp has to be a fighter first derp
>>28027451
>The Stuka being designed as a pure a2g dive bomber is actually what made it be so successful as a fighter (against IL2s) later on.
>>28027556
>Look. Anything that flies can do those.
It's really hard to tell who's trolling, and who's just literally retarded these days.
>>28027549
I don't know what primary role, and design process, you think the F-4 had, but here's a hint. Fighter.
>>28027485
>replying to a post about pure fighters and multliroles
>by bringing up an almost pure attack craft
Strange stuff happening here tonight
>>28027727
>It's really hard to tell who's trolling, and who's just literally retarded these days.
It's a bit of an overstament, but not by as much as you think.
>I don't know what primary role, and design process, you think the F-4 had, but here's a hint. Fighter.
Strictly speaking the F-4 evolved from the F-3H Demon, specifically the Super Demon proposal, which was a more multirole aircraft.
>>28027779
What, you didn't know that the A-4 was a capable dogfighter? They used those things at Top Gun for a reason. Extremely maneuverable.
>>28027827
I think everyone here has literally seen Top Gun.
The problem is, you dont seem to actually know anything about the A-4s performance. No afterburner, undesirable bleed rate and energy retention, and no ability to tranverse into the vertical or actually dictate a fight. It was purely a defensive fighter, and was used against F-14s to show Tomcat pilots that turning horizontally isnt everything, and that they have the upper hand against weaker engined aircraft such as the skyhawk, or early mig models.
Against actual fighters the A-4 was dogmeat. But a great training aircraft.
>>28024080
Great, another round of Spreyfags, Koppfags and Wheelerfags VS F35fags...
Just what I need to get my Sunday morning going...
>>28027881
>I think everyone here has literally seen Top Gun.
In the movie they were using F-5s, if I recall.
The thing with the A-4 was that it could turn quite well, but dear lord could it roll. When not weighed down with bombs it had a good degree of lift for its weight, which allowed it to turn well at lower speeds. Its role rate was two full rotations in a single second. At least, before it got too much to handle. But in the meantime you could flick this thing in any direction you'd like in a moment's notice. Like you said, it would bleed a lot of energy. Not the best for a fighter, but it had the ability to perform quite well if the enemy got dragged into its kinda fight, which its contemporary opponents definitely would/did, it could do quite well.
>>28024261
We're not at the point where AI can operate a fighter, and a drone operator is no replacement for a pilot in the aircraft for obvious reasons. Right now the best option is to have pilot in the aircraft with a very good computer assisting him in decision making and controlling the aircraft. Maybe in 20 years time we'll be close to fully autonomous fighters, and no doubt the later generations of the F-35 will have autonomous capability. Still, it's unlikely the F-35 will ever fly a combat mission without a pilot in the cockpit. Whatever replaces the F-35 will certainly not have a human pilot, however.
>>28027727
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II#Origins
The Phantom was multirole from the get-go. The big difference is that it was an unsolicited proposal by MDD, unlike the DOD-orchestrated debacles that were the F-111 and F-35.
>>28024900
How would you insert cyberware without broadcasting?
>>28024319
> F-22 cost 50% more
Bias post is bias.
At its best from the figures that guy posted its 45% and the worst from the same figures is 19%
Now 19% is less then half of your 50% value which was already inflated from his data.
Cherry picking is cherry picking...
>>28028345
Relax, he's just fantasizing about drawing dicks on the enemy's radar screen.
But despite what you've been led to believe, there's a lot more to electronic warfare than just radio silence and the stupid flashlight-tag analogy.
>>28024184
Can you point to at least one customer that is getting it's F-35's at $95m/plane?
>>28027451
>Applying 4th-gen energy fighter standards to a 5th-gen information fighter.
Sprey pls go.
>>28028990
>F-35 has so much code on board the plane weighting it down it literally can't into energy fighter
>>28029035
>This is what Pierre Sprey actually believes.
>>28029076
No, that is what the LM fanboyz are implying when they sprout their nonsensical "information fighter"-term to try to justify why F-35 can't maneuver as well as other modern fighters
The F-35 is adequate for its mission profile and contract specifications. It just so happens that its mission profile and contract specifications are retarded.
>>28025587
>Outing yourself as the DCS faggot by using the same autistic terms again and again
>>28028934
That isn't what he said at all, but that F-35A batch produced units for both Italy and Norway.
>>28029091
>hurr durr its 2heby it cant maneuver
>>28029155
>post stall manouvering
>>28029155
What is high wing loading, bad T/W and bleeding too much energy in turns.
>>28029165
>post stall party tricks
>>28029091
High maneuverability costs money. There's better things for a 5th gen fighter to spend money on.
>>28029149
That however is not what they are paying for per plane, the six planes that Norway gets in 2017 for example cost $363m per plane, and they themselves estimate now that by 2024 when the last of their 52 F-35's has been delivered the total bill is around $7.19b or $138m per plane. I'm not that great at math but that to me seems far higher than the "It'll be only $80m with engines, we promise -LM"
>>28029280
Its highly unlikely that they're paying $363m per airframe, anon. More likely airframe, maintenance and god knows what else.
If you add that on to the price of other aircraft, their price also increases.
Rafales were offered for in excess of $200m/plane recently, and thats an old-ass 4th gen nowhere near LRIP.
>>28029280
>Ejection Seat
Poetry.
>>28024080
The F-35's biggest sin is that it will never as cool as the F-22. No supercruise. No thrust vectoring. No thermal stealth. No Mach 2.0+. Instead, it has sensors and computers and its harder for the layperson who just looks at wikipedia stats to understand why that matters. The F-35 is perfectly adequate for what it was asked to be, but it just doesn't look good when placed next to a real air superiority fighter. It's better to think of the F-35 is being a next gen strike aircraft rather than a fighter.
>>28028321
>the DOD-orchestrated debacles that were the F-111 and F-35.
Why does anybody think that the Aardvark was a bad plane? By all accounts, it worked very well.
>>28029393
>Why does anybody think that the Aardvark was a bad plane? By all accounts, it worked very well.
I think people think of the F-111B specifically when referring to that shitstorm. It's supposed to be a cautionary tale about component commonality and multi-service fighter variants.
>>28029404
The attempt to build a naval variant failed, but the F-111 itself was still a very solid bomber.
I just gonna go ahead and use this as an excuse to post this, okay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCzChbmJ4w4
>>28029331
>implying that hasn't been the case when someone talks about cost of a non-F35 plane
>>28029331
Britian just annouced $138 million per F-35B average procurememt cost 2018-2026.
That's what they say they are paying.
This is not a lifetime cost estimate like the rafale's.
>>28029404
>It's supposed to be a cautionary tale about component commonality and multi-service fighter variants.
Ah, but the DoD did learn from that. The various F-35 variants have a much smaller degree of commonality than you'd think. There is a good amount of overlap, but there is still plenty of wiggle room for each variant to do what it needs to do.
>>28029542
Why is the bottom part of every F-35 generally in common?
Is there only one optimal stealth design for the F-35's shape?
>>28024080
it's basically the military industrial complex incarnated.
it's a jack-of-all-trades spec'd for all branches of the US armed forces but in reality it will only be good as a strike bomber.
the "stealth" is a sales pitch gimmick and would only have worked in 90s when the planes was conceived.
the aircrafts true intentions was making money for lockmart.
>>28029393
>thermal stealth
The f-35 has that. What is LOAN.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article20.html
>>28029621
Yes, the F-35 was developed to make Lockheed Martin money.
Congratulations on your amazing finding, fagtard
>>28029404
>>28029443
So the F-111B failed hard, but I was never entirely clear why.
I thought it was because of weight issues.
>>28029649
>"There isn't enough power in all Christendom to make that airplane what we want!"
>Vice Admiral Thomas F. Connolly
>>28029649
Too heavy and too big. It used too much deck space and had too much trouble taking off and landing. They couldn't cut the weight or size down enough to fix any of these things.
>>28029091
>Implying supermaneuverability matters in the era of stealth, passive sensors, high bandwidth datalinks, and these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ
>>28029393
>No supercruise.
It does 1.2 supercruise.
>>28029443
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpPEdOMSIgQ
>>28029807
>It does 1.2 supercruise*.
Fixed that for you
(*Can accelerate to Mach 1.2 with use of afterburners and coast 150 miles """"supercruising"""" without afterburner while it decelerates back to subsonic speeds)
>>28029649
Even with swing-wings, they simply could not get the minimum take-off distance short enough for the F-111 to be safe for carrier operations.
>>28029807
The F-35 does not have true super-cruise. If you can't maintain supersonic speeds without the afterburner, that's not super-cruise.
>>28029798
>High Bandwidth
>Secure and Reliable
>Over The Air
Pick any two
>>28029621
>>28030086
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multifunction_Advanced_Data_Link
>>28030133
>herp derp muh IADS, muh low-band weather radars
>>28030133
So according to that about 250nmi, is that bad?
>>28030556
For PAK-FA, maybe. B2, F-22, and F-35 play between .01 and .0001.
>>28030556
Learn to read the chart. The Superbug would have a detection threshold for weapons track at about 220nmi with the best Russian FC radars. For the F-35, it would be in between 75 and 40nmi depending on aspect exposed, which puts the radars well within range of standoff munitions.
>>28028429
>F-35 expected production price is $85
>50% more than that is $127.5 mil
So all you have done is shown you cannot read percents.
>>28029182
>high wing loading
Armchair engineer detected. What is a lifting body for $100, Alex? Way to out yourself.
>bad T/W
100% incorrect, way to out yourself again.
>bleeding too much energy in turns
[citation required]
>>28029182
>What is high wing loading, bad T/W and bleeding too much energy in turns.What is high wing loading, bad T/W and bleeding too much energy in turns.
We are talking about the F-35, not the J-31.
>>28030603
I'd love to see a source for that flyaway number for the F-22. The very most optimistic I've read puts it north of 150m in 2009.
>>28030583
.001 and .0001, rather.
>>28030632
Reading. You fail it.
>>28030649
No, I take that back. I fail it.
>>28030583
>>28030593
But that chart is not X-band for which the RCS numbers you two are quoting are for. In lower frequency ranges the tricks used to minimize X-band RCS don't work and the RCS is roughly the cross section of the object
>>28030687
Tell that to the B-2, F-22 and F-35. But especially the B-2.
>>28030618
>bleeding too much energy in turns
>[citation required]
That "muh dogfight"-test, go read what the pilot actually criticized, not what the War is Boring pundits interpreted it to mean or what the damage-control-mode LM response was to twist it to be about dogfighting and muh control logic that didn't allow the plane to bleed even more energy.
>>28030737
That's... not what he said at all. Also:
>believing that incomplete flight control parameter systems would yield top performance characteristics
>>28030703
How do these aircraft reduce their RCS in these bands?
>>28030687
In lower frequency you have shit resolution. Depending on exact frequency the wavelength is between 1 and 10 meters. Enough to say "Dimitry, I think something's might be up there!" "Fuck off Ivan, just another cloud."
>>28030783
For the B-2, by eliminating vertical stabilizers and flight control surfaces. For the F-35 and F-22, by the less effective means of careful management of size, aspect exposure and coincident angles of those surfaces.
>>28030795
Plus there's the fact that we have the sensor/comm advantage that lets our pilots choose how close to potential detection they get.
>>28030754
As I heard it they wanted to lax the flight control parameters so the plane could be pushed to even greater AoA, that control logic change however can't do anything to the fact that the aerodynamic shape of the plane sucks
>>28030817
>the aerodynamic shape of the plane sucks
Yet it is kinematically superior to a clean Hornet or combat loaded F-16. You really need to do a better job at vetting your sources.
>>28030817
Priorities and compromise, every braindead shitposter's trigger words.
>>28030817
>the aerodynamic shape of the plane sucks
According to an anon on /k/. Better call the pentagon, they will want to know this immediately!
>>28030786
"Hey Ivan, fire a missile towards that 1-10m area"
"But Dimitry, that too big area. It miss"
"Don't you worry comrade, we turn missiles own guidance on once it gets close enough to see the capitalist plane"
>>28029331
Stop shilling for the F35 you stupid cunt.
>>28030869
Congrats, you just totally S-400ed the shut out of that cloud.
>>28030891
Cloud was fascist sympathizer and enemy of state.
>>28030865
They've known that for years, go read the older DOT&E reports for example. It however is way past the point where structural changes like this would require can be made without completely screwing the whole project as the plane was already rushed into production
>>28030931
Russia is unmatched in anti-cloud missile systems, with S-400 complex without equivalent in the world. Even fired using only search radar, Pk is ~95%.
>>28030874
>But MOOOOOM, he won't stop SHILLING!!! :'(
>>28030964
What if I send 96 clouds?
Cyka blyat you're fucked now russia
>>28031035
But where are proofs?
>>28030931
m8
are you aware that the soviet union went away 25 years ago
>>28031123
Is sad when lies of decedent west infect mind of noble proletariat. Hand of Lenin still glide mighty Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, do not believe lies of fascist and capitalist pig-dog who claim glorious Motherland is no more.
Gorbachev fake Soviet, really American pig-dog in disguise, his actions not legal. Pravda says this is truth.
>>28030891
>>28030931
>>28030964
>>28031035
>>28031082
>>28031123
>>28031269
Here you can see a burger in its natural habitat utterly devastated by shattering of his beliefs in his kins abilities. Shitposting is a rare but quite normal defense mechanism for this species in these kind of situations where they try to use it to shift the focus from their own failure to anywhere else.
>>28030949
>They've known that for years, go read the older DOT&E reports for example.
translation, it says nothing of the sort but you do not expect anons to actually dig them up
>>28031422
those delicious tears of damage control
>>28029393
>it will never as cool as the F-22
Next you're gonna tell me it doesn't afraid of anything
>>28031934
All I meant was that to somebody who just relies on wikipedia stats (AKA the majority of people attempting to talk about aircraft) the F-35 looks inferior to the F-22.
>>28032001
so you're saying the F-35 doesn't afraid of anything?
>>28032001
Strictly speaking, the F-22 is probably better in the AtA role, and anyone who says otherwise completely underestimates its strengths.
>>28032001
Even just using specs, in direct comparison the F-22 is superior in A2A payload, maneuverability, speed, and stealth.
But the F-35 is significantly better at A2G, sensors, and comms.
The only reason why I don't like the F-35 is just because we are quote and quote: Putting our eggs in one basket. If they split the roles of the F-35 from A2A and A2G into two different aircraft.
>>28032501
?
It's putting all the eggs in 2500 baskets
>>28032396
>>28032264
The F-35 would probably beat the F-22 in an AtA engagement due to its EODAS.
Not that it matters right now. It will be useful when 5th gen aircraft are common in hostile countries.
>>28029133
>A-10C
>A real life aircraft
>for some reason you attack some flight sim...
>>28032519
I just can't explain it properly.
>>28032501
u r retart
>F-22 = AtA
>F-35 = AtG and AtA
lrn 2 Hi-Lo mix
>>28032501
There's nothing wrong with multiroles
The real inadequacy in US military doctrine is the false idea you can fly a helicopter anywhere near a competent semi-modern equipped enemy force
>>28032544
I'm attacking your autism, personally.
Because I recognise your posts, as you seem to use the same fucking lines in every discussion on the A-10.
>>28032586
>autism
>says the guy talking about some flight sim
>because some guy used proper terms for something
>and clearly hates a real life aircraft
>>28032501
Take a look at what's happened to small arms, tanks, body armor, and others. Military technologies always tend to eventually mature into flexible generalists, as the bottom line of the logistical strain and tradeoffs of specialization naturally trend that way. It hasn't killed specialists, as F-22 and LRSB are proving, but it's just how some things develop.
>>28032576
Hi, US Air Force personnel recovery for the last 11 years. What in particular do you think we're not doing right? Your feedback as a civilian taxpayer is HIGHLY valued.
>>28032615
>because some guy used proper terms for something
..No, because you used a line I've seen you use a dozen times.
Are you illiterate?
>>28032651
You should have sold more manpads to muslim terrorists, so they could demonstrate how obsolete helicopters are.
>>28032672
Maybe you spend too much time here.
If everyone uses the same terms, you'll see them over and over again
>>28026652
wtf are you uploading dumbass
>>28032536
I sincerely doubt that. The F-22 has substantial IR reducing measures, and its radar is substantially larger than the F-35's, while being stealthier.
>>28032576
Helicopters aren't strike assets fag, they're used as cavalry. They stay behind the FLOT.
>>28032635
LRS-B is a generalist tho. It's an F35 with long range and a bigger bomb bay.
>>28032756
It's going to have A2A capabilities?
>>28032743
Apache's took out the radar and SAM sites that allowed the window for fixed wing aircraft to fly into during the first Gulf War
>>28032768
It's got an AESA, datalinks, and standard pneumatic ejector racks with standard connectors.
So yeah. It probably won't be certified for AIM120Ds until long after JASSMs or SDBs, but the capacity is there.
>>28032772
Is citing a famous exception supposed to disprove the rule in your mind?
>>28032743
ok?
Still going to be shot out of the sky in their thousands by partisans
>>28032816
>>28032772
And that OP is cited as an example of what not to do. They pulled it off, but ultimately it was a wasteful use of sub-optimal assets just so Army could play in the opening stages. That operation led to a ton of downtime for all the helos involved too.
>>28032816
>is me being wrong supposed to prove something?
>>28032816
>>28032863
I disagree heavily with that statement. For what the task was, Apaches could accomplish it arguably better than fixed wing assets. They can fly lower to the ground than fixed wing, and is more guaranteed of getting a confirmed kill quickly, seeing as if they miss they don't have to go around for another pass.
They NEEDED to knock out radars and communications equipment almost instantly. A normal pop-up attack by a fixed wing asset would not suffice. But a pop up attack by the Apaches, on the other hand, would. They had the ability to make more of their initial attack, and more sure of a guaranteed kill on the target, which needed to be killed first time in order to launch the air war off smoothly.
Now, normally you do not want to fly helicopters into AA assets, but for that particular mission they were well suited. The people who planned that mission weren't stupid. It wasn't just an attempt to get the Army involved. If it was, they wouldn't have given so crucial a mission to the Army. No, it was legitimately deemed the best option.
>>28032674
Sure thing bud. We'll just land a Bronco on top of a mountain next time your innards are shot up and you need a dustoff immediately.
>listening to virgin civilians on /k/ that have never even been to 90's AF bootcamp
I played myself
>>28032501
Realize you just said the two aircraft that make up the bulk of the USAF, USN and USMC's air fleet as needing to be split up into dedicated platforms.
>>28032501
>If they split the roles of the F-35 from A2A and A2G into two different aircraft.
But why? Then you'd have to buy twice as many aircraft.
