Why does so many hate the F-35?
All arguments I see are mostly just the same shitty rhetorics or misinformed sensationalistic claims coming from RT or Sprey
>muh lemonturkey slow can't turn climb
>muh 1.5 trillion in development
>muh pricey plane
>muh stealth is useless
>muh BRRRT CAS
>muh F-16 dogfight
I have never seen a single legitimate criticism of this plane.
So why does so many laugh at it and say it will be a failure? All from libtard gibmethats to slavaboos?
>>29286776
The media likes to create outrage where none is needed.
There are also plenty of people who are asshurt over the F-35 like Pierre Sprey that the media will listen to.
While legitimate criticism about the plane's performance is almost nonexistent as it outperforms everything it is replacing in almost every category, some of their complaints about the program itself are valid.
>>29286776
You would understand once you pay taxes.
>>29286878
I pay taxes, and I'm completely okay with the program's progress. Maybe if you read up on prior procurement processes, and understood the scope of the project, as well as what is paid for by tax dollars and what is footed by LM you wouldn't run your mouth so easily.
>>29286878
Get back to us when you become old enough to have to pay them.
>>29286776
Fuck off, LM shill.
>>29287021
We're off to a good start.
>>29287103
You are not expecting normal thread on /k/, aren't you?
>>29286776
Why did they change the gun? It was supposed to be a 27mm revolver cannon. Instead it became a 25mm rotary cannon that creates an unseemly bulge on the left side of the F-35A. I know the gun might be the least useful part of the aircraft, but still, it could have been better.
>>29287114
No, I'm expecting the usual shitposting.
>>29287122
BK27 is an overrated special snowflake that breaks early and often.
>>29287189
It wasn't gonna be the BK27. Boeing was gonna make it. Would've been great.
>>29286776
Because it's a way to destroy the aeronautical industry of involved countries and because these countries will be more dependent of the USA.
It's hard to see from an american point of view, but it's the case.
>>29286776
because we all wanted the f-22 to be good and it wasn't, and fixing the design lowered the cool factor a lot.
>no thrust vectoring
>no revolutionary stealth shit
>basically just looks like a single engine f-15
>>29287122
It was going to be a 25mm revolver autocannon to save weight, then GD came up with the GAU-22 which weighed about the same.
>>29287208
So you are acknowledging the European aeronautical industry is incapable of competing.
>>29286776
because persistent lockmart shills
>>29287424
What did he mean by this?
>>29287208
>destroy
Consolidate or die is the rule in modern Euro Aeronautics for a reason, and it would not change if there were no USA
Because they're easily swayed by the rhetoric.
F35s are better than any other strike aircraft in the world and better than everything except the F22 in A2A. It has kinematics on par with 4th gen multiroles when carrying similar practical payloads. The advantage comes from the sensors, avionics and stealth.
It has stealth that makes it virtually invisible to x band and significantly reduces detection range in other bands.
It has amazing passive and active sensors, so it can pick you up frantically radiating to find it without emitting any signals.
The datalinking makes it into a huge force multiplier, on a tactical and strategic scale.
It has the best EW/countermeasure suite in the world.
It doesn't need any targeting pods or external fuel to complete basic missions like other multiroles, which means that it can make very good use of the payload it has. Using only internal stores, it has a comparable strike package to a fully laden F16.
It's one of the cheaper planes in its class.
It is relatively easy and cheap to maintain and airframes are expected to have a very long service life and be very easy to upgrade.
>>29286776
The design was compromised from the beginning by building all three versions around the lift fan of the Marine model.
>>29287678
The airframe was designed around the internal weapons bays.
>>29286776
Because fighter jets are supposed to be beautiful and from most angles, the F-35 is aggressively ugly.
>>29287939
Steel better then a Boeing abomination or chincom cardboard plane. Uglier then F-22 and PAK FA though.
>>29287678
When will faggots like this guy realize it's wrong and just another false claim spread by sensationalist sources?
>>29287103
Superior version
>I have never seen a single legitimate criticism of this plane.
how about the fact that the f-22 exists? all the features they boast about could have been retrofitted to the f-22, all while utilizing an existing fabrication economy and joint venture. instead they went with a completely new design, untested and unproven, all while boosting expenses for no reason other than to claim it has more stealth due to internal bays. it's stupid as fuck.
they should have just made a better f-22.
>>29288312
F-22 was designed as pure air superiority fighter, any air to ground capability is purely distant afterthought. It's weapons bay is simply too small and badly shaped for pretty much every air to surface weapon in US inventory. Redesigning weapons bay would require massive changes to airframe.
Reality is that F-22's specifications were made in early 80's... since that time threat environment and requirements have changed.
>>29288386
This nigger knows what's up
F-35 will be like F-16/Hornet
F-22 will be like F-15
>>29286776
>So why does so many laugh at it and say it will be a failure? All from libtard gibmethats to slavaboos?
Because people want to feel like they're enlightened by complaining about an "obvious" problem with the military industrial complex. Problem is, all the real problems, like
>VA being so goddamn incompetent that it's taken for granted you're going to need a charity to save you if you're seriously wounded
>Interservice rivalry being so bad that services will procure entirely new equipment because they don't want to use "the other guy's" stuff
>Marines being a bloated, underfunded clusterfuck of an army-within-an-army instead of a small shock force to secure bridgeheads
are really hard to solve.
The F-35 "problem," on the other hand, is easy to misrepresent to get people against it, and it's got a simple "solution" - cancel it.
>>29287541
Except that the datalinking doesnt work. Might work in 2026 if they stay on schedule right?
Oh and this is lovely.
>Using only internal stores, it has a comparable strike package to a fully laden F16.
The F-16 is a short range A2A specialist with very limited ground attack capabilities. So, while true, this makes a very odd boast.
>It's one of the cheaper planes in its class.
Only if you ignore the money spent developing it.
>>29286939
>Why does so many hate the F-35?
I pay taxes too.
Also I have worked for >10 years in the defence industry and I am very much NOT okay with neither the contents nor the procurement nor the process.
For instance the stealth wold have been plausible at the outset of the project. However this edge has been lost to plain development of radar systems as is always the nature of these things. Since the design is now frozen this cannot be remedied any longer. The price, however, will always "evolve".
>>29287541
>science fiction story specs.
You cannot say "it has" when the reality is that "it will one day have" as the software is nowhere near finished. Check up om GAU and see the story there.
And it seems you drank deeply of the LM cool-aid.
>>29289447
Well, FLIR has come much much further than was ever expected atleast during my time in the industry during the 90s and early 00s.
>>29289447
>and I am very much NOT okay with neither the contents nor the procurement nor the process.
Thats what happens when you have endless decades of weak, incompetent, stupid leadership
Donald J Trump will fix it
The edge of stealth has not at all been lost either, in fact its far cheaper & better now.
>>29289510
>The edge of stealth has not at all been lost either, in fact its far cheaper & better now.
That exact logic was used to defend the F117 until some Serb shot it down with modded Stalin-era radar.
>>29289489
Very true. Thermal IR is now a mass market product thanks to FLIR One and Seek Thermal. I guess I will buy one myself one of these days. Even some mobile phones now come with thermal cameras, using FLIR Lepton.
Bistatic radar systems are also commercially available and demonstrated by radio amateurs using equipment costing a few tens of dollars.
Acoustics with beam forming can now also be used for targeting and is used commercially for sports arenas to pick up sound where you want to listen in.
Development simply does not stop and military tech will probably have far better sensors to pick up former stealth fighters.
I have looked but have never seen the F-35 having been checked against the latest radar systems in independent tests.
>>29289523
>this "F-117 shootdown" argument again
WWII radars were mostly low frequency radars, so it shouldn't really come as a surprise that they used an old one
>>29289542
There's no legitimate defense to that argument. Shill all you want - the only testament we have to the F-35s stealth and survivability is from Lockheed, not DoD, propaganda.
Even the Air Force hates the piece of shit, that should tell you something.
>>29289542
>desperately trying to wave away a bothersome fly
Any radar that works is a good radar. Age is immaterial, otherwise B-52 would have been taken out of service decades ago.
Correspondingly a big and expensive X-band radar that is buzzword 2000 compliant that cannot see the target is a bad radar.
How hard can this be?
>>29289523
F-117 was an old piece of shit, without modern electronics, and so had no idea it was being fired at
Even then, it was luck that brought it down.
Thats the single shoot down of a stealth plane ever.
>>29289529
Those kind of tests are practically unheard of. Surely, US researchers are testing it against everything on their book; however, i doubt that the F-16, F-18, eurofighter, gripen, rafale etc has ever been put face to face in a test under realistic circumstances (ie. using wartime tactics and systems). Showing your hand like that just doesnt happen, and as such, the enemy "profile" is done almost completely in theory. Sure, its done by the top men in their field, but theoretical none the less.
>>29286776
>Why does so many hate the F-35?
>One engine.
>>29289572
>had no idea it was being fired at
Did the F-117 really not have a RWR? I would have expected something that advanced to have at least a basic countermeasures suite.
>>29289607
Well maybe it did
>>29289587
The thing is these top experts can only enhance their career by saying what Lockheed wants them to say at this point, and only harm their career by saying otherwise.
All due respect to them, I'd still rather trust *independent* assessment of this use of tax money from someone who doesn't have a vested interest in continuing the program and enhancing his career.
Most of those have been at least somewhat negative.
Also the shootdown of the F-117 hasnt been repeated because stealth planes have almost never been used in combat against anyone with even outdated SAM systems since. We really don't know how well or how poorly it would perform against an S-400 and we can argue about it all day but it will still be unknown tonight.
>>29289523
You do realize how crude radars technology really is, right? A Stalin-era radar modded with a couple of extra watts is still pretty relevant...
>>29286776
>I have never seen a single legitimate criticism of this plane.
LOL
O
L
>>29288386
the task of utilizing various weapons would have been mitigated by bombers. the f-35 acting as both a bomber and interceptor is just silly.
>>29289557
>Can't argue about F-117 shoot down
>implying one aircraft shot down over thousands of sorties isn't good
>implying the aircraft didnt have its Bombay doors open, allowing the SAM to lock on
>imying the Serbs didn't have to spend countless AA assets in order to shoot down ONE aircraft
>implying they SAM crew disobeyed protocol, having to try three times to get a solid lock
The fact that the a military thought it was that amazing that they shot down a single aircraft shows just how amazing that aircraft was. They trumpeted it around like they killed God himself.
>the airforce hates the F-35
That's why they're order 1.2k, right?
>>29289529
>Acoustics with beam forming can now also be used for targeting and is used commercially for sports arenas to pick up sound where you want to listen in.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard
>>29288386
Easy enough to develop small air to ground weaponry that fits in the F-22
>>29290013
Using targeting information from what
>>29290027
radar
>>29290027
>this
CANT LASE
A
N
T
L
A
S
E
>Ah yes, let me just lock onto the ground
>>29290027
are you fucking dumb? it'd be integrated via INS. how else do JDAMs hit their targets? magic?
>>29290090
...GPS
>>29290100
>target acquired
>50 meters off target due to latency
no
>>29290119
>He thinks his car's Garmin works the same as military GPS guidance
fucking lmao
>>29286776
as someone who strongly defends the F-35, I'll list some of the actual flaws:
1) there have been delays and problems with development. No more than any other modern fighter, and for something as complex as the F-35 it's gone impressively smooth, but things like needing to wait until block 3 to get the ability to carry 6 amraams kinda sucks.
2) bad publicity. Honestly, this is the biggest flaw. LM and the military should have spent some more money on promoting it and advertising it. Get more info out there explaining and rebutting all the Pierre Sprey shit.
3) pilot rearward visibility is slightly restricted, particularly in the B model. It's not that bad, as the test pilots say that once they get used to it, it's fine. But especially in the B model, it IS a drawback of the plane. But keep in mind, if we compare the B model to the Harrier which it's replacing, it becomes pretty clear that it doesn't matter much. in fact, it probably has better visibility than the Harrier does.
>>29290119
>50 meters off target due to latency
Jesus it's not 1989 any more. My fucking chinkphone's Google navigation is accurate to 15-20 feet while driving 70mph, what makes you think cutting-edge military hardware will be 3x less accurate?
>>29290136
it literally does you dumbshit. there are only so many available satellites to hijack.
>>29290161
holy shit fucking kill yourself. you're going to compare your car to a FUCKING MISSILE MOVING AT MACH 6? just end your life please PLEEEEEASE.
>>29290166
>Hijack
>"Hijacking" a system for its intended use for its intended operator
nope
and yeah, you're an idiot. Standard JDAMs only have GPS/INS guidance, as do a lot of PGMs. INS merely keeps it on target, doesn't designate a target.
>>29290176
>thinks there's a satellite for every fucking smart bomb platform because muh military budget
confirmed for retarded. also you don't know how INS works at all if you think it's just for keeping on target.
>>29290188
(you)
>>29287678
how was it compromised?
>>29288312
the F-22 is 1990's tech in an air superiority high-capability fighter. It is not suitable to be a multirole plane to replace the F-16 and F/A-18. It's too expensive to do that, and has outdated sensors compared to the F-35.
>>29289358
>F-16 is a short range A2A specialist with very limited ground attack
lolno. The F-16 is a lightweight, cheap, short-range multirole fighter. It was meant from very early on to be a multirole fighter. Besides, all the anti-F-35 people always compare it in performance to the F-16, and considering it is replacing the F-16, that's valid.
So yeah, it can carry INTERNALLY the same payload as the plane it's replacing can carry when fully laden, but with much less kinematic performance reduction, and much greater range.
>>29289523
have you read what happened in that instance? The F-117 flew the same route multiple times, it didn't have an RWR so it didn't know if it was being locked, and the SAM operator got super lucky and pulled some crazy tricks to shoot it down. It was not a failing of the stealth, it was a failing of the tactics of the F-117 strike missions.
>>29289813
Note the lack of examples.
>>29290191
>It's too expensive to do that
in what regard? look at how much the f-35 costs and yet it is inferior at every role the f-22 would perform. its sensors being upgraded would have covered half of its development phase. that 1990s tech is still superior tech mind you, especially the static inlets shape being able to handle supersonic flow rates efficiently. it just makes no sense to make a plane from scratch when they could have refined the f-22, both from an economic standpoint and from a role fitting one. its air-to-surface capabilities are inferior but in no way impossible to improve without going past what the f-35 development infrastructure costs.
>>29288312
>all the features they boast about could have been retrofitted to the f-22
Stopped reading here.
>>29290229
it's true you fuckwit.
>mus lasing
retrofit
>muh radars
retrofit
>muh sensors
re.tro.fit
nothing about the F-35s structural design or powerplant bear any superiority to the F-22 when it comes to raw figures regarding range or payload.
>>29290223
>in what regard?
In every regard?
In terms of per/hour costs, the F-22 is on par with strategic bombers.
> look at how much the f-35 costs and yet it is inferior at every role the f-22 would perform.
Blatant lie, but whatever helps you stay in the land of delusion you're clearly comfortable in.
>>29289447
>. However this edge has been lost
This is as false as the day is long.
Stealth birds will always have a hige advantage in engagements compared to non stealth birds.
Fucking lieing faggot. Inb4 MUH LWR!
Truthfully, I don't like it because it clashes with my own philosophy of maneuverability-first.
>>29290251
>nothing about the F-35s structural design or powerplant bear any superiority to the F-22 when it comes to raw figures regarding range or payload.
F-22 can carry 18,000lb fuel internally while weighing ~43,000lb empty and having to fuel two engines.
F-35A can carry 18,000lb fuel internally while weighing 29,000lb and having to fuel a single engine
This shows when comparing their combat radius.
>>29290223
1) the F-35 will cost (per plane) around half of an F-22 when all is said and done. So yes, it's much cheaper.
2) it's not simple to just upgrade sensors and avionics in a plane. There's software issues, to say the least. The F-35 has like 8 million lines of code, mostly to deal with fusing its sensors. If you wanted to give an F-22 the same sensors capability, you'd have to basically gut the software and avionics, totally reprogram everything, and go through a rigorous phase of testing and fixing. It's not just "install a new update to the operating system and plug in a new camera".
3) You seem so sure that developing a new version of the F-22 to have the same capabilities as the F-35 will be cheaper. Prove it. Show me a detailed cost analysis. Also show me how magically the F-22 will cost half the price it currently does. Show me how they will make a STOVL version. Show me how they will make a CV capable one.
>>29290252
>In terms of per/hour costs, the F-22 is on par with strategic bombers.
blatant lie
>average price per aircraft is 178 million each.
the only one delusional is you buddy.
>>29290276
>plane with two powerplants is twice as heavy
AMAZING AUDIT
>>29289782
>The thing is these top experts can only enhance their career by saying what Lockheed wants them to say at this point
Stupid, and asinine. Assume lockheed is the only game in town.
>I'd still rather trust *independent* assessment
RCS has already been independantly verified.
>Most of those have been at least somewhat negative.
RCS picture analysis psudoscience?
Sprey please leave.
>We really don't know how well or how poorly it would perform against an S-400
Oh yes, im sure "independent sources" can rustle up an s400 system to test it against.
Kill yourself. Acoustic waveforming for targeting, un-fucking-beliveable.
>>29290281
>the F-35 will cost (per plane) around half of an F-22 when all is said and done. So yes, it's much cheaper.
I thought it was more like a quarter. Last I checked the F-22's per-unit cost when adjusted for inflation was something like half a billion dollars a plane.
>>29290295
......the other guy claimed that nothing about the F-35's airframe had any superiority in terms of range or payload.
Having a single engine, and being way smaller, while carrying the same load of fuel, means precisely that there is an inherent advantage in terms of range and payload.
>>29290305
meh. maybe. It's a lot more, either way/
>>29290311
except for the fact that the engine is double the thrust output and in turn fuel draw.
>>29290324
I don't get what you're arguing. The F-35 has much greater range than the F-22. What the hell is your point? Like I said, the F-35's design is inherently longer range than the F-22. Period.
>>29290223
>look at how much the f-35 costs and yet it is inferior at every role the f-22 would perform
The F-35 is significantly cheaper than the F-22 while being competitive in the role the F-22 performs.
>>29290340
inflation and maintenance will likely push it to even ground. it's going to be looked at with the same level of tomfoolery but because it didn't have export bans funding is justified. fuck this world.
>>29290324
Nope, about 1/4th more, and there is only one engine.
Get out faggot, just get the fuck out.
>>29290251
How has none told you how fucking stupid you are. Of course the F-35 has structural advantages. It has a version which can land vertically, and it can actually carry large bombs internally. If you ignore internals its wing hard points are strong enough to hold bombs, while the F-22 could maybe add a few AIM-120s.
>>29290355
>inflation and maintenance will likely push it to even ground
"F22 IS MAINTANCE AND INFLATION FREE HURRRRR DE DURRRR"
>>29290251
Have fun with your STOVL F-22, that'll be easy to retrofit
>W-well the Marines don't need a STOVL aircraft!
That's not what you said you fucking retard. The same can be applied to the CATOBAR F-35, good luck trying to turn the F-22 into a carrier capable multirole for cheap.
>F-22N
Too expensive to be made.
>>29290364
>A version that can land vertically
which is not the version being discussed.
>>29290388
STOVL is a meme.
>>29290390
Are we not talking about the F-35? You never specified which variant, you've only compared it to the F-22.
>>29286776
F35 criticism breakdown:
> 25% legitimate problems with any new aircraft type
> 25% media fuckery
> 25% RT/Chinese bullshit
> 25% lulzy memery
It's a new aircraft. Like, "nevah bin dun befoe"-new. Every new aircraft has problems, but this is some groundbreaking stuff. So, yeah... there will be problems. And the media/RT/internet meme crowds have a ball with that. In the end, the F35 is going to be remembered as one of the most revolutionary aircraft devised and it'll be flying and kicking wholesale ass for 4 decades. But people who profit from or enjoy screaming about the next new government bungle will keep the drama going as long as they can. Remember The Pentagon Wars.
>>29290406
>having 11 mini carriers is a meme
>allowing two of your allies to have carriers is a meme
>I don't like it
>it's a meme
"It's a meme" is a meme tbqh familia
>>29286776
It's performing so bad it could only dream to win a dogfight from a bloody 747, let alone any half-competent fighter pilot in a Stuka, I'm not even going to mention modern opponents.
>>29287122
Creates more American jobs.
>>29290460
I heard it lost a dogfight to a Piper Cub
L E M O N
E
M
O
N
>>29290489
The best pilot would literally have to use the ejection seat to survive an encounter in his F-35 versus a man on the ground with a Glock.
>>29286776
It's a strike bomber. Selling strike bombers as air superiority aircraft is not cool. There are too many version of it also, so the focus in the design is weak. The F-35 will never be anyhing but an expensive mediocre aircraft.
Pic related.
>>29290435
>the F35 is going to be remembered as one of the most revolutionary aircraft devised and it'll be flying and kicking wholesale ass for 4 decades
people said this about the Nighthawk and Spirit. remember those?
>select a salad
>captcha showing a Typhoon
>>29287020
But I have a job.
>>29290406
Define "meme" and explain how STOVL capability is one.
>>29290853
It's as much of a strike bomber as the F/A-18 is.
>>29290908
The Nighthawk got replaced by next-generation shit like the B2 and the F22. The B2 is still flying.
Thanks for making my point for me, though.
>>29290949
meme as in trend that people followed due to buzzwords like "multirole". there are three aspects an aircraft should be looked at for; air superiority, kraut control, and interception. the f35 doesn't need STOVL to excel at these, yet it has it, because memes.
>>29290957
your point was that it'd be remembered and kicking ass, not that it would still exist on a fiscal ventilator. way to move the goalpost lmao.
>>29290981
Short runways and smaller ships are memes, then?
>>29290981
STOVL isn't a buzzword.....it's a capability.
You can't launch an F-15 or an F-22 or an F/A-18 off of a tiny aircraft carrier like the ones the USMC use or several US allied countries. It's not just a buzzword. It means the F-35 is significantly more versatile than any other comparable jet.
And where the hell do you get this idea that only those three tasks are relevant to a fighter jet? You think fighters should only ever do air superiority and interception? It's like you haven't been paying attention to the past decades of air combat development.
>>29291003
they are when you have long runways and catapults.
>>29291012
>why do we need the M4 carbine when we can just fight in wide open spaces
>why do we need 30rd mags when we can just reload and have tons of supplies available
>why have longer range plane when you can just have refueling planes
Holy shit you're retarded if you somehow think that the US almost doubling the number of carriers they have overnight that can launch capable planes isn't a huge benefit.
>>29290996
Pretty sure it is remembered as kicking ass, given its use in propaganda alongside the fact that it has only a single combat loss over the thousands of successful sorties flown over its service.
>>29291012
And what if you don't have them? Say, for example, our heavily invested allies? Nevermind the US' own LHDs.
>>29290981
>multirole is a buzzword
>>29291009
It's a capability but it comes at a very high price and there's no credible evidence the money couldn't be much more effectively spent.
>>29291226
What price is that?
>>29291226
Is there any evidence that money could be more effectively spent? Having 10 more mini, stealth strike fighter spewing super carriers seems pretty effective.
>>29291226
I see that if you think you talk vaguely enough you can appear to know what you're talking about.
It doesn't work like that.
>>29291242
>be pilot landing on carrier
>choppy waters
>software bug causes stabilization to overcorrect with the shifting surface
>crash in the ocean
>>29290355
That is cute that you are using a static price for F-22.
>>29291436
>be pilot landing on carrier
>perfectly smooth waters
>harrier is an old piece of shit
>crash in the ocean
>>29291436
..Are you suggesting this doesn't happen to CATOBAR aircraft?
Or hell, ANY aircraft?
>>29290996
The F117 absolutely raped Iraq without a single loss. Only one was ever even shot down. To this day, it would still be scary as fuck to defend against for any nation.
The B2 is still flying and is still capable of delivering nuclear ordnance pretty much anywhere it wants without being seen.
You are a stupid bastard.
People think being contrarian makes them look refined and cool
>>29291520
The F117 was involved in bombing an arab state that had its IADs demolished to the point they were using AA guns.
The hard part of the job was not carried out by F117s in any capacity.
>>29291540
The fuck are you talking about? F-117s carried out the opening strikes of the war and a lot of the IADS degradation was due to the targets they bombed.
>>29291611
Not really.
AH-64s arguably did more to make the air campaign succeed.
>>29291540
>F-117s kill all the C2 nodes of the IADS
>easy part of SEAD
>>29291661
>AH-64s destroy early warning and detection sites with EF-111s
>Tomahawks destroy military installations
>F-117s fly over Baghdad supported by EF-111s
Clearly the stealth, fund more general))))
>>29291684
Why wouldn't you fly your stealth planes with ECM birds? It's SOP in the AF.
And again, are you implying command and control centers aren't important to IADS?
>>29291704
Why bother with the stealth aircraft if ECM birds don't get shot down?
>>29291684
>Implying every single EF-111 ever built was deployed at the same time in Iraq, and that the entire IADS was dismantled in one sortie.
>>29291718
You're an idiot. ECM, and EW birds lure the IADS elements out, stealthy strike fighters then target and destroy them.
>>29291718
Because ECM birds aren't particularly good at attacking things.
>>29291718
Because the ECM birds act as both bait and to further degrade local sensors. Its not as if the EFs are literally flying side by side with the Nighthawks.
>>29289163
>>Interservice rivalry being so bad that services will procure entirely new equipment because they don't want to use "the other guy's" stuff
The best part is is that the F-35 is in part an attempt to make them cut that shit out when it comes to fighter procurement and now you've got some people complaining that they should just keep to the old way.
>>29290007
>I am out of arguments and do not understand technology.
Even 30 year old books describe this stuff.
>>29292124
>I do not understand that aircraft easily capable of supersonic flight can't be detected acoustically
:^)
Does anyone know the climb rate of the F-35 compared to other Jets?
>>29291009
STOVL is totally a buzzword. For one, why hasn't the civilian market adopted the technology if it was so useful? Literally none of the commercial airliners have STOVL capability. It's only used to appease in demonstrations.
>>29292651
Civilians operate out of airports or runways
They have no real reason to need VTOL/STOVL
>>29292651
There is no requirement for a civilian aircraft to land on an aircraft carrier.
>>29292674
Same applies to naval fleet with catapult runways
>>29292651
You have obviously never heard of general aviation or the Aviat Husky.
In general, if there enough people to fill up a jet, there's enough reason to build a runway. That and STOVL (relatively) commercial aircraft exist.
>>29292679
Well if aircraft carriers were any good then commercial airlines would buy some
>>29292674
>>29292679
Because aircraft carriers are equally dumb. Purely a political weapon, again just for show. Otherwise it shouldn't need three quarters of a fleet to protect it. If they were practical then it would have been commercialized long ago.
>>29292736
>>29292747
Oh, so you were just shitposting. Okay.
>>29292747
Alright, you can go ahead and kill yourself off before you spread your stupid to others.
>>29292758
>>29292807
>"Fuck you. There, your entire argument has now been invalidated."
>"You are now dumb."
Wow, the irony.
>>29291226
You realize it started off as a plane to replace the harrier right?
What "high price" was paid? The only reason the air force and navy got on board for their own version was the special design of the lift fan and engine nozzle that meant the airframe didn't have the same compromises as the harrier did.
You guys always repeat the same meme. That it made compromises to be STOVL. That it paid a "high price". Be specific. What compromises were made?
>>29291520
Yeah Iraq's air defense systems were actually pretty good, especially around Baghdad. And the F-117 absolutely raped them. The Iraqis were reduced to firing AA guns blindly into the air hoping to get lucky
>>29292651
How many commercial planes carry bombs? I mean if commercial planes don't do it, surely it can't be useful right
Fuck you're retarded. Really. Civilian jets don't take off from improvised airfields in a warzone or from LCH's. Fuck.
>>29292489
Tell me you are joking, right? Right?
It is not as if breaking the sound barrier is noise free. Or that jet engines even at sub sonic speed are quiet as whispering.
>>29291611
>F-117s carried out the opening strikes of the war
Really??
Normally this job is left to cruise missiles such as Tomahawks. I'd be interested to hear more about this.
Mind you, such a story would be good to build up the reputation of the aircraft no matter the size of the lie.
>>29293097
>American physics education at work
>>29293007
Because that particular payload isn't profitable. The transportation of payload, however, totally is. The chairforce transports different payload than commercial flights, but both benefit from doing it fast and efficiently.
>>29293251
Ok now explain to me why it would be beneficial to majorly redesign commercial airliners to be STOVL.
>>29293251
Also, you answered your own question.
Commercial planes don't need STOVL because they don't have a pressing need to take off from small aircraft carriers, nor would it be profitable to do so.
STOVL is useful for the military. It's not useful for a 737.
>>29293117
In Gulf War 1, they were part of the opening strikes. While conventional fighters were leading the charge across the regular air defenses and striking things along the front, F-117s flew right into Baghdad - the most heavily defended city short of Moscow - to hit strategic targets.
>>29291226
The Marines like it and that's really all that matters. What they do with their budget is their problem.
>>29293310
>>29293363
It's recursive: they don't use STOVL because they don't have to land on aircraft carriers. They don't have to land on aircraft carriers because they are too impractical to be used as anything else than metaphorical dick flaunting.
>>29293513
Whats impractical is trying to project force from a base in the US or relying on the nearest country that allows you to.
>>29293513
They don't land on aircraft carriers because there isn't any benefit for a passenger plane to land on a carrier. Fighter jets benefit from carrier access because it means that they can get closer to the fight.
>>29293428
meanwhile serbia has a confirmed hit on a f-117 and possibly on a b2
you should read up on all on north koreas AA positions
>>29293563
The fact that the single hit on an F-117 is remembered so vividly is a mark in its favor, not against it.
>>29291009
>Australia builds two new LHDs with ramps (???)
>Doesn't buy F-35B
we blew it
>>29293653
They might buy the F-35B in the future if they end up liking the F-35A enough. Right now, the RAAF seems to be taking a "we'll try it in small numbers and see if the issues get fixed before committing to a large buy" approach.
>>29293563
>incompetent command keeps using the same route
>no RWR
>mechanical issues prevent bay doors from closing spiking RCS
>serbs still have to break protocol and try for a THIRD lock attempt
>fired two missiles
>one of which barely missed but failed to detonate
Took quite a bit to take down that bird, and it remains the only kill on a VLO aircraft.
>>29289990
>Americans are incompetent, therefore the F-117 was a good airplane.
No.
>>29293563
I love how Serbs insist they shot down a B-2 despite the fact that there are so few that it would be impossible to hide a missing one.
>>29286776
Because it is an ugly fat bastard which is a national embarrassment.
America deserves an airplane that looks good, not one that makes us look massively obese by association. The airplane is practically a flying caricature of fat Americans.
>>29293780
Yes.
>>29293864
The F-35 is like a sumo wrestler. He's fat but if you try to fight him you're gonna lose.
>>29293864
Are we still pretending the F-35 is 'fat'?
>>29293954
Are you still pretending it's not?
>>29293936
It may be strong like a sumo wrestler, but also like a sumo wrestler, nobody will fuck it.
>>29293513
ah I see. So your argument goes as follows:
>STOVL is a meme
>why
>because the commercial industry doesn't use it
>the commercial industry doesn't need it because they don't operate carriers
>they only don't operate them because they're useless
wow. So your argument that STOVL is a meme is really that you think aircraft carriers are a meme. Shitposter extraordinaire.
Look retard. Let me make this very simple for you. Carriers are used to be able to have a mobile self-sufficient airbase anywhere in the world to be able to project military force. Civilian airlines don't need to project military force all over the world. Hence, they don't use aircraft carriers. They don't use aircraft carriers, and therefore they don't need STOVL capability.
You're a fucking retard and if this is bait then congrats, you actually pissed me off with your stupidity.
>>29293968
I hope not. She's till underage.
>>29293968
it's not fat. It's around the overall size of an F-16, just with the rounded design and angles of a stealth fighter, and a lifting body design to allow smaller wingspan. Calling it fat is retarded. It's a single-engine plane that has the same kind of lines as an F-22. Of course it doesn't look as sleek as an F-22, because it's way smaller.
>>29293991
I'm not him but you should never write a post longer than 13 words in response to obvious bait. Keep to something simple like: "Wow, you really are retarded."
>>29293997
>the Japanese think American weapons are like little girls
They deserve a third irradiating.
>>29294037
it's a korean webcomic, not nip
and it's hilarious
>>29294034
meh. waiting for water to boil for supper. Nothing better to do than shit on retards online. Also, helps stop the actual idiots from believing this shit and repeating it.
>>29294027
>it's not fat, it's "rounded"
Sure. And Michael Moore is "big boned".
>>29293968
>Are you still pretending it's not?
I don't have to pretend, your lack of legitimate criticism has reduced you to insisting it is 'fat' despite being porportional with its contemporaries.
>>29294047
>Nothing better to do than shit on retards online.
Try playing TF2. It is free 2 play and there is little-to-no pay 2 win. You can be very effective with just the basic starting weapons. Play as soldier for minimal learning curve.
>>29287103
I just came here from /sci/ and it's funny that the NASA Space Launch System is getting the exact same type of hate.
>It's too expensive!
>It's outdated!
>Falcon Heavy is better!
>It has no use!
>It can't make it to Mars!
Jeez just give the thing a chance. Why bash something before it has even finished development? That's 4chan for you.
>>29294051
why is this even a concern
>>29294051
Michael Moore can't fly around at supersonic speeds anon.
>>29294114
naw, if I want that I'd rather play Insurgency.
>>29294051
stop shit-posting.
Anti-F-35 faggots who suck Pierre Spreys cock have literally been reduced to just making subjective comments about its aesthetics
>>29294051
Micheal Moore from Roger and Me perhaps.
>>29293117
>>29291540
>>29291611
>>29291661
I remember from Janes USAF fighters the one historic mission that was an F-117 strike on a air defense CCC building, which occured on the first night of the bombing campaign. SA-2s, SA-5s, shilkas, and IIRC SA-6s. Not to mention the TONS of fixed AAA.
It was one of my favorite missions in the game.
Sidenote: Does anyone have a link to a torrent of the game that works on win 7 ? I used to have a hard copy of the game but its long since gotten scratched to hell and lost.
You just literally named all of the problems with this physical embodiment of autism
>>29294547
It began on 17 January 1991, at 2:10 am, Baghdad time, when Task Force Normandy (eight US Army AH-64 Apache helicopters led by two US Air Force MH-53 Pave Low helicopters) destroyed Iraqi radar sites near the Iraqi-Saudi Arabian border which could have warned Iraq of an upcoming attack.
At 2:43 A.M. two USAF EF-111 Ravens with terrain following radar led 22 USAF F-15E Strike Eagles against assaults on airfields in Western Iraq. Minutes later, one of the EF-111 crews – Captain James Denton and Captain Brent Brandon – destroyed an Iraqi Dassault Mirage F1, when their low altitude maneuvering led the F1 to crash to the ground.
At 3:00 AM, ten USAF F-117 Nighthawk stealth bombers, under the protection of a three-ship formation of EF-111s, bombed Baghdad, the capital. The striking force came under fire from 3,000 anti-aircraft guns firing from rooftops in Baghdad.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/17/military-admits-billion-dollar-war-toy-f-35-is-f-ked.html
:^)
>>29294693
>the daily beast
not even gonna bother reading
>>29293780
Hey, you're not being fair. It wasn't just Americans getting complacent, it was also the Serbs basically pulling out all the stops and then some. Give them some credit here - they worked balls-to-the-wall hard to shoot down that one F-117.
>>29289587
If they *are* done they're done out of sight and off of the record at some testing range in the middle of nowhere. Or modeled on a computer. Eurofighter or Dassault would never fly their products directly against it as it's a competitor.
>>29289607
I don't believe it really has any countermeasures or even passive detection systems. There's nothing in the tailfins except composite, nothing on the wingtips either. Only place it could be would be on the side of the intake ducts but it would be blind to most shots.
Also from what I understand that shoot down was the lucky shot to end all lucky shots. They did use radar to a point but the bigger factor in it was that the Nighthawks were using the same corridor to come in every night and the Serbs knew that and fired a spread of SA-3s when they were pretty sure one was on the route.
>>29289529
>I have looked but have never seen the F-35 having been checked against the latest radar systems in independent tests.
Who can conduct an *independent* test with the latest radar systems? They're not going to send some over to Russia or China.
Otherwise, they've been doing RCS testing since about 2009 and high-end threat training scenarios since either last year or 2014 (the specifics of however are classified).
>>29293780
They performed hundreds or thousands of sorties without incident. It's like saying that the Third Reich was shit at combat because Hitler fucked up the timings of their invasion of Russia.
>>29286776
Read Revolt of the Majors already. The most public-critical part of the "Fighter Mafia" was a reporter named James Fallows who used them as "circular experts" to push a public image of corrupt procurement and the idea that the people in charge didn't know anything about combat.
Of course, the reality at that point was that the only way to really get to the top in the Air Force was to have combat experience, which was why Riccioni (who pretended to be a warrior but actively avoided going to combat) and Boyd's (Who only flew ~1/5 of a Korea combat tour with no air to air engagements in an early, radarless F-86) careers stalled.
Essentially, they intentionally poisoned public discourse on all military procurement, because they couldn't fight experts on fair terms.
>>29289607
Originally it definitely did not as antennas generally aren't stealthy and they couldn't predict what adding a complex RWR system would do to its signature (and you don't want to spend millions developing a tailor-fit system just for it to render the aircraft's stealth shitty).
It could have got one later, but if it did it happened in secret.
>>29290223
>tfw no FB-22
>>29290388
It's almost like it would've been a good idea for the Navy to have it's own ATF program...
>>29295697
1) separate programs just means more cost overall. Separate production lines, separate designs, separate testing, etc.
2) They decided to hop onboard the F-35 program because they saw that it would be a good plane to replace the F/A-18C
>>29286776
Miss me yet?
>>29295745
Nobody misses it, it was a piece of shit that lost fair and square to the X-35.
>>29295697
They're getting one anyway with the F/A-XX program
>>29290908
>F-117
>not one of the most revolutionary aircraft devised
You do realize it went up against some of the most densely defended airspace in the world (Baghdad 1991) and didn't get a scratch? Of course half the people in this thread probably weren't born for the Gulf War.
>B-2A
>Not revolutionary
It's initial mission was to roam over the Soviet Union looking for mobile SS-25s and SS-24 trains. The entirety of the S-300 family (of which the S-400 is an incremental improvement) was designed around the premise of TRYING to shoot this down and in the case of the S-300V (SA-12B Giant) to TRY to shoot down Pershing II IRBMs.
Read some more books. The big, thick, Jane's types.
>>29295697
>people complain that the F-35 is expensive and not capable
>let's make a less versatile, less capable, more expensive aircraft instead.
>also no parts commonality and less economics of scale because "lol no procurement outside USN"
Brilliant.
>>29293653
Dont worry, we will get to hunt boat people with F-35B's and a small CSG of Diesel subs and Frigates soon enough
>>29295885
No, you're talking about the Flying Dorito (which is STILL being paid for). NATF was a separate program. There was to be SOME commonality with ATF but that wasn't the program's overwhelming concern.
>>29296050
Nope, pretty sure I'm talking about the F-22N. It was a shitty idea, good thing everyone realized it would have costed a fuckton and decided to not let it leave the drawing board.
Are you talking about the A-12? Nobody has proof that the thing is actually flying.
>>29296197
F-22N was pants on the head retarded. The NATF program though recognized from an early stage that wasn't going to work and they would have to build a fighter to spec for a carrier.
A-12 may have never flown but that doesn't mean it wasn't a completely boondoggle that STILL has ongoing court cases.
>>29294119
It's a giant pile of shit wasting giant amounts of money and will likely be even more expensive than the Shuttle is
Meanwhile the Falcon heavy is launching this year with a 53 ton payload to LEO, and a reusable first stage
Hopefully Trump cancels the SLS before its first launch.
>>29286776
>I have never seen a single legitimate criticism of this plane.
What constitutes a "legitimate criticism?"
>>29293117
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign
>The initial strikes were composed of Tomahawk cruise missiles[5] launched from warships situated in the Persian Gulf, F-117A Nighthawk stealth bombers[5] with an armament of laser-guided smart bombs,[5] and F-4G Wild Weasel aircraft armed with HARM anti-radar missiles.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache#Gulf_War_and_Balkans
>During Operation Desert Storm on 17 January 1991, eight AH-64As guided by four MH-53 Pave Low IIIs destroyed part of Iraq's radar network in the operation's first attack,[89] allowing aircraft to evade detection.[90]
Even the initial air campaign of symmetric-warfare operations, where airspace is still contested and air defenses are still very active, are largely joint operations employing a wide variety of assets. There is no silver-bullet, and what they use during this phase depends on what's available, what it's capabilities are, what amount of risk is present for the given mission and whether or not that risk is considered acceptable.
>>29297005
Something that is not a straw grasp and stands up to scrutiny.
>>29297005
Something that isn't based on information that's five years out of date?
>>29297005
That's really it in a nutshell. Not that there aren't some retards on both sides. But the fanboys won't accept any criticism of their beloved Lockheed-Martin as legitimate. Ever.
>>29297525
2026 is 10 years in the future, not 5 years in the past.
>>29297786
Are you actually going to offer criticism that has not been refuted, or continue to hide behide a faux moral superiority.
>>29297818
Yeah 2026 is not 2007. Nearly every pro F-35 post in the thread talks about capabilities that the F-35 is planned to have in 2026 as if they were real, proven capabilities today. And that's been true of every reincarnation of this thread for the past few days I've been paying attention. That's not something you can refute, it's true, I've pointed it out in several specific case, and no one cares.
You're just cheerleaders.
>>29297906
>Yeah 2026 is not 2007
Fascinating.
>Nearly every pro F-35 post in the thread talks about capabilities that the F-35 is planned to have in 2026 as if they were real, proven capabilities today.
It will be amusing to see you quantify this.
>>29297906
>Nearly every pro F-35 post in the thread talks about capabilities that the F-35 is planned to have in 2026 as if they were real, proven capabilities today.
Just like that magical Russian stealth busting radar that we're always told is going to be invented tomorrow and render stealth obsolete forever?
>>29298005
Okay, Serious question. Where are you getting the 2026 figure from?
Also, keep in mind that the F16 didn't come fully into its own until the 90s
>>29298115
Why're you asking me? Ask:
>>29297906
What I like about F-35:
-Advanced radar and impressive IR sensors.
-Sensor fusion and new cockpit features reduce pilot workload.
-Stealth makes the f-35 harder to find than other aircraft.
-It looks pretty cool.
-STOVL version could maybe operate from ships other than carriers.
What I think sucks about F-35:
-Questionable rear visibility for pilot.
-Low top speed.
-Abysmal wing loading
-> Poor maneuverablility.**
-> Low climb rate and max altitude.**
-Questionable sortie rate.
-High program cost.
**Probably. No data.
All in all, I think F-35 is a solid strike aircraft.
>>29298192
>High program cost.
For developing three different aircraft at the same time? Not really.
>>29294582
>F-117fags vindicated.
>Slavs BTFO.
>>29298192
>Poor manuverability.
Be fair, it's as manuverable as Super Hornet. Sure, that's not unladen Falcon manuverable, but I'd hardly call it poor.
>>29298192
>Questionable rear visibility for pilot.
To quote that Norwegian pilot, "The cockpit view is not a limitation with regards to being effective in visual combat, and it would be a misunderstanding to present this as a genuine problem with the F-35."
>Low top speed.
Which is comparable to the aircraft it is replacing, whose speeds were based on what aircraft actually fly at in combat.
>Abysmal wing loading
Lifting body.
>Poor maneuverablility.**
>Low climb rate and max altitude.**
>Questionable sortie rate.
Whut x3.
>High program cost.
Due to the required scale of the program.
>>29298430
>Due to the required scale of the program.
Due to hysterical mismanagement. They got it under control, but it was a mess on the verge of cancellation in 2010.
>>29293991
Eh, if commercial airliners can just fly anywhere in the world with just a few stops on airports, US fighters should be able to go anywhere with a few stops at allied airfields. In fact, I'm pretty sure they'd be at their location much faster than a carrier.
>>29298444
>it was a mess on the verge of cancellation in 2010.
[citation needed]
>>29298460
It looks like a lot of the old links about it have since died and I'm having a hard time finding sources again, but IIRC, the program was in dire straits until Lieutenant General Bogdan was put in charge and got the acquisitions and development concurrency efforts back on track.
>>29298418
Super Hornet? Compare it to the eurofghter.
>~25% less weight than F-35
>about same thrust
>something like 35% more wing.
The difference in mobility has got to be huge.
>>29298430
>Lifting body
Kek. Everything has that.
>>29298610
>something like 35% more wing.
I mean 35% less wing loading. doh.
>>29298610
What combat radius does the Eurofighter get with internal fuel only?
>>29298678
Probably shit, but yeah. Can't have it both ways.
here's what they should have done
>take f-22 dual engine design and existing fabrication plants
>modify bays for modern weapons catalogue
>new radars/electronics/etc
>improve engines with new materials but same design, increasing thrust output
>same thrust vectoring nozzles but can point near 90 degrees, with the addition small stabilizing nozzles near the front like a harrier to help with VTOL, all of which can be controlled more effectively with computational resources that the harrier lacked.
would have been way better desu. no need for a dedicated engine pointing downards.
>>29298754
>All that shit
>Existing fabrication plants
>>29298610
>>29298644
>Lifting body
>Kek. Everything has that.
Every guy has a dick, that does not mean they are all equal.
Wing loading by itself is not a good measure of maneuverability.
>>29298850
>implying they didn't plan to upgrade the f-22
they even left empty spots in the frame for shit.
>>29298893
>>29298754
>modify bays for modern weapons catalogue
biggest issue will be drag (especially supersonic wave drag), as you're making the F-22 even thicker
>improve engines with new materials but same design, increasing thrust output
You're not going to be able to do much with that, unless you're willing to go like the F135 and trade top speed performance for fuel economy and extra subsonic thrust.
>same thrust vectoring nozzles but can point near 90 degrees
Completely pointless and it would require far heavier nozzles; the F-22 and F-35's nozzles are already near the max amount of thrust that they can handle.
The other stuff is fine though and will happen in time.
>>29289557
>>29289571
>completely misses the point
I was trying to say that there's no surprise why an old radar was used to detect the F-117, as these old radars were mostly low frequency.
And low frequency radars is not absorbed by the stealth body due to their wavelength, reason why Russia and China deploy VHF-band radars
Sucks for you gaylords to know that you can't accurately guide a missile from long ranges with such radar
Fuck off autistic niggers
>tfw no sweep wings
>>29299059
>VHF or other long wave radars
>good enough resolution for weapons track and lock
Choose one, and only one.
>>29298430
>>Low top speed.
>Which is comparable to the aircraft it is replacing, whose speeds were based on what aircraft actually fly at in combat.
"That top seep was good enough in the 70's, it's good enough now"
>>Abysmal wing loading
>Lifting body.
Every single modern fighter has a lifting body, no excuse for abysmal wing loading
>>29299070
Reread his post
>Sucks for you gaylords to know that you can't accurately guide a missile from long ranges with such radar
>>29299075
Who says that it's not also based on data through the 80s and 90s?
>Every single modern fighter has a lifting body
see >>29298851
>>29298449
>Eh, if commercial airliners can just fly anywhere in the world with just a few stops on airports, US fighters should be able to go anywhere with a few stops at allied airfields. In fact, I'm pretty sure they'd be at their location much faster than a carrier.
Commercial airliners have considerably longer mission radius than the shorter range military planes, e.g. F16s don't have the fuel for that.
A lot of military planes do, however. More than enough to take on anyone we've fought since, oh, WWII.
Having Carriers and being the only nation that has any (sorry russians, french, and britfags -your ski-jumps really don't count) allows us to be obnoxious and aggressive in other peoples backyards without even having suppot from their neighbors. It's a significant ability. Whether it is desirable and worth the cost is another question.
>>29299100
Something to remember too is that once conflict breaks out, carriers can start cruising to the location immediately, while land-based fighters do need to obtain approval first to land in various countries.
>>29299086
>One of they key parameters that dictates climb rate, cruise and turning performance of a plane is irrelevant because F-35's wing loading is bad.
>>29299069
>More expensive per flight hour than the space shuttle
>>29298851
>Wing loading by itself is not a good measure of maneuverability.
Yes it is. It's not a PERFECT measure, but it's by far the most important figure, with Cl-max (at the configuration and flight condition of interest) completing the picture.
>>29299436
Not really.
>>29298610
"Never trust anyone who would rather kick your ass with a slide rule than with a jet."
-Commander Ron "Mugs" McKeown, after Boyd tried to tell Top Gun pilots with F-4 vs Mig-17 kills it was impossible.
>>29299100
>>29299130
We don't bother with all that, we just set up a refueling chain and ferry the fighters to the forward bases.
