weapons
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
what is your guys opinion on the F-35 and weather it will stand up to the russian counterpart the TU50
Even if it's an inferior plane there will be far more of them than there will be TU50s, because unlike Russia, America has money.
>>28030288
>TU50
No such thing. T-50 is a manufacturer's prototype designation and PAK FA is a government designation for the project.
>>28030288
The F-35 is perfectly adequate for what it is being asked to do.
It will bomb+genocide enemies of muslims and jews like there are no tommorow.
>>28030288
No.
F-35 looks ugly. USAF should reject it on that grounds alone.
>>28030288
You should be banned for posting this thread.
>>28030288
T-50 is the counterpart to F-22
F-35 is way worse than F-22
>>28032448
holy shit two memes in one
depends. if F35 being flown by female who got there on obama gender quota, the rusky should prevail.
>>28030288
>weather
>>28031538
have they fixed the airframe on the pak-fa breaking in high g turns yet?
>>28030288
The F-35 is an all-weather aircraft.
Its a disgrace to democracy and freedom
There is currently 150 f35s flying. There are 4 pak-fa.
Why not make a Growler version of the F-35. With more powerful AESA radars? So that it can focus on using them as weapons to fry enemy electronics
>>28036675
It can basically already do that in the forward arc. But the real big deal is the passive system, the ASQ-239 Barracuda.
>>28036675
Because it would take two seats and the program can't survive extra costs right now.
>>28036675
Isreal is getting an EW version of it. Tail No. AF-47 is their 1st one. I was laid off a week, before it would have reached my station.
The real test for the F35 will be a good standoff weapon. The F35 isn't very scary until it can carry something like the JASSM in its stealth configuration.
correct me if I'm wrong, but I think T-50 is the counterpart to F-22 and not F-35.
Also in my opinion it will not be worth it. I think It's too expensive. It's kind of an overkill.
>>28032448
>T-50 is the counterpart to F-22
Only in the sense that they're both designed to be F-35 killers.
>>28039582
>The F35 isn't very scary until it can carry something like the JASSM in its stealth configuration.
but according to /k/ the f35 can hold the weapons payload of a b-1 internally
>>28039727
>too much overkill
>too little firepower
Pick one.
>>28039892
Neither of the them are designed to do that, and both the F-35 and the F-22 far surpass their Russian "counterpart."
>>28039582
SDB II reaches out to 110 km, 72 against moving targets. Four of them plus an AMRAAM fit in each bay.
>>28040343
That's not good enough against advanced SAM systems like the S-300/400. I wouldn't feel safe unless the standoff range is 200 km+.
>>28039582
JASSM is low observable.
You could carry it externally and have negligible increases in RCS, if they decide to actually put those new low RCS pylons into service.
>>28040379
Obviously, but it's enough for a clean configuration, while other aircraft bring the JASSMs, JSOWs, and HARMs.
>>28031538
That camo is shit
>>28041019
Matches its RCS
>>28039727
It's cheaper than a Rafale, Eurofighter or Gripen NG. And it's still in LRIP.
>>28030288
>opinion on the F-35
Very best multurole thing.
>the TU50
Abomination.
>>28040379
>S-300/400
They still have no 400km range missiles, only 240 ones.
>PAK-FAG
>RCS of 1 to .1
>2015
>thinking this is acceptable in any way shape or form
>>28030313
>because unlike Russia, America has printers
Fixed that for ya.
Russia has a fiat currency too though, right?
LOOOOL
>>28041321
>>28041321
>Ruskie talking about fiat currency and inflation.
>got his currency's worth halved in literally a week.
>>28033773
Source? Id like to read about this.
>>28030288
>>28030313
dafuq is a tu50
>>28030288
f-35 is air to ground, it only needs to stand up to the russian buildings
we have the f-22 for russian aircraft, and it works well
>>28046483
F-35 is expected to take on most of the air-to-air burden as well. Which it will do just fine. Contrary to what the basement kids say, it has plenty of lift and thrust. Agility is roughly comparable to an F-18. It has a decent LPI radar and decent A2A weapons.
>>28030288
Cancel the F-35A and F-35C. We should do what the Brits are doing and only buy the F-35B. Imagine a fleet of 2000+ V/STOL strike fighters with cutting-edge technology.
>>28046599
Yes lets rape our range, our armament, our strategy, our wallet, and all the work we've already done for the A and B.
>>28041033
You're actually wrong on all three accounts.
Britain's announced F-35B "procurement" cost 2018-2026 is $138 mil a plane. For an order of 130 or so.
The costs you are looking at are likely "total lifetime costs" for these other airplanes.
>>28046712
The F-35B has a 1600 km ferry range and 700 km combat radius. That's more than enough. And because of V/STOL, it can lurk much closer to the bafflefield anyway.
>>28039582
>The F35 isn't very scary until it can carry something like the JASSM in its stealth configuration
If it can squeeze AGM-154's in.
>>28046741
>because of V/STOL, it can lurk much closer to the bafflefield anyway.
The reality of this is quite different from the fantasy.
>>28046741
>And because of V/STOL, it can lurk much closer to the bafflefield anyway.
well memed
>>28046766
JASSM is like 8 inches longer than JSOW.
>>28049647
I don't think he means that JASSM would fit. I think he's simply proposing JSOW as "something like the JASSM" which the F-35 can carry internally.
>>28046599
B model's kinda shit, fraction of the range of the C variant and no meaningful advantage.
>>28049906
true, but flexibility from forward air bases + LHD's/light carriers.
Not like we'll see the f-35 in forward air bases though. Too pricey of an asset compared to some busted up Daytona harriers.
I think it just gives the Marines their own organic strike packages with ability to provide some CAP without having to rely on another branch... rivalries.
>>28049906
14k lb of fuel vs 20k lb of fuel. 900nm range vs 1200nm range.
Meanwhile B can operate from much smaller ships and airfields. STOVL also generate higher sortie rate.
>>28050021
Don't forget smaller internal bays and downgraded external pylon loads.
>>28049994
They don't even operate Harriers from "forward air bases." The whole concept of a "forward air base" is pretty much a myth.
>>28050072
I think a lot of people have the idea of Camp Bastion and similar locations as 'forward air bases'. Its arguable you could build such a base far faster to support F-35B / STOVL flights than you could aircraft with a longer takeoff run, but eh.
Then there are just pure morons who think the F-35B is going to operate from FARPs, taking off vertically afterwards or some shit
>>28049882
>I think he's simply proposing JSOW as "something like the JASSM" which the F-35 can carry internally.
I am aware of what JSOW is but thing has piss poor range. It's practically a bomb with wings.
>>28049994
>I think it just gives the Marines their own organic strike packages with ability to provide some CAP without having to rely on another branch... rivalries.
>just gives the Marines their own organic strike packages
>organic strike packages
I think you've been watching too many defense contractor exhibitions, anon.
>Making a stovl version solely because marines want "their aircraft" and "their aircraft carrier"
fucking marines
>>28050847
>Implying STOVL isn't the best version
Why do we even need the others?
>>28050855
Largest improvement over the legacy aircraft in particular it is replacing
By far the worst variant
