Why do we need any plane other than F35? F35 can beat the Eurofighter and PAK FA right?
>>29522608
well for one, a F-35 isn't a very good cargo plane.
F35 can probably beat the Eurofighter for the amount of hours a week spent under maintenance.
>>29522608
Well, why would you retire something that's still overall (taking about Eurofighter) pretty decent? There's solid advantages to using things that are matured in their life cycle.
Just because it isn't the latest and greatest thing, doesn't mean it needs to be binned.
>>29522631
>Fighter still in iterative development has more maintenance time than one in service for 12 years
>>29522608
F35 is:
>a fat VTOL
>unmanouvrable air-superiority fighter
>low capacity ground support
>>29522608
F35 it's shitty atempt merge 3 roles that are kinda similar(but not realy) into one craft.
Army already tried that shit with OICW program and while it did look cool it was total failure
>>29522662
>>29522683
Oh, hey, look, it's uninformed day/k/are!
>fat
No, it's optimally designed for stealth as a single-engine, and uses the lift fan space in the 2/3 variants without it for a massive amount of fuel compared the 4th gens.
>unmanouvrable air-superiority fighter
lolwut? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWji8AcOYGA
>low capacity ground support
Same as an F-16 is full stealth and only beat by the F-15E in total payload is low capacity? wewlad.
F35 is what happens when everyone goes full socialist and doesn't want to spend the fucking money to buy several different kinds of aircraft for different roles because they want to fund social projects instead.
>>29522704
>shills for lockhead
at least i hope they paying you something for your "hard work"
>>29522704
>totally forgets that time when f35 went against f16 and got it's ass kicked
>>29522726
Good point, as F35 is notorious I being cheap to produce.
>>29522756
>maneuverability test designed to test the limits of antispin and stability system is the same as a dogfight
also
>forgetting the F16 needed drop tanks just to be in air long enough for the test to finish
>>29522726
Typical /pol/lack. If it's not the niggers, it's the socialists!!!!1!
>>29522765
>a-10 production cost: $18.8 million per unit
>F35 production cost: $98-116 million per unit
sure, anon
>>29522805
> the joke
>
>
>
> Your head
>>29522805
Wow, a supersonic stealth fighter that's still being actively developed is more expensive than a decades-old, deliberately simplified ground attack aircraft?
>>29522805
Wow, a supersonic stealth fighter that's still being actively developed is more expensive than a decades-old, deliberately-simplified ground attack aircraft?
It's almost as if they're two things that cannot be properly compared by cost alone!
>>29522828
the point is that if the air force wants it for CAS, then why the holy fuck are they getting rid of something that can do it better and cheaper
>>29522865
You know there's plenty of information out there for you to learn that yourself, before you formed your supposition there bud.
>>29522743
Ah, the panicked cry of the "blown the fuck out" who has no valid counterargument.
>>29522865
The Air Force wants it for CAS AND air superiority AND a dozen other things.
Let me phrase this in a way you'll understand.
Sure it's cheaper to buy just a cheeseburger instead of a cheeseburger meal, but the meal comes with a drink and fries, this is why it's more expensive.
>>29522902
don't forget the $1.5 trillion tax!
>>29522865
The A-10 doesn't do CAS better, though. The F-15E, B-1B, Predator/Reaper, and the Super Hornet do way more CAS, and from the same medium-altitude, high precision profile the F-35 and the A-10 do it.
>>29522918
Versus 4 trillion to keep the four separate planes around instead?
>>29522918
I have a feeling I'm being baited, but I have nothing better to do.
The 1.5 trillion figure is the total cost of the entire program for the next several decades. This figure also includes making quite literally thousands of F-35's.
This number is also a lot less than 1% of the GDP of the US for the lifetime of the program. It will also provide a significant portion of our military force projection.
Any other misconceptions you'd like cleared up? After all, I get paid by the post :^)
>>29522726
You hear it here first, lad Part Inter-Compatibility is literally Socialism.
Whenever you make something that doesn't have 100% unique, proprietary, red blooded American parts you're basically being literally Stalin
>>29522865
They want to replace A10 with F35 because multiroles already do the vast majority of CAS anyway. It's not meant to be a direct replacement.
I just wish we'd brought back the Harrier.
Fuck this SOVOTOLO bullshit give me straight VTOL and little Union Flags.
>>29522962
Harrier is a garbage plane that was crashtastic and a complete bitch to fly, and always used the STOVL flight profile anyways because VTOL burns an insane amount of fuel and severely restricts payload.
>>29522986
I don't mean 'bring it back in its original incarnation'. If you're going to spend billions to design and build F35s you might as well spend them on designing a new Harrier instead.
Sure VTOL is inefficient but nothing beats the fear it can place in the hearts of your enemies and, when it comes right down to it, war is all about fear.
Also we should bring back the SLAM project.
>>29523000
This isn't fucking Modern Warfare 2. You only use VTOL to take off and land.
Furthermore, what the hell do you mean by "new Harrier"?
>>29523000
>muh psychowarfare
We already mindfuck the ragheads with drones enough. They're becoming literally afraid of the sky. VTOL can't compete with your family randomly exploding
>>29523000
Fucking why? The F-35B is already massively better at everything the Harrier did, so why waste resources dropping it and starting from zero?
>>29523015
A new one...
As in a fixed-wing V/STOL aircraft powered by a 4-nozzle single plant jet engine designed in the 21st century with the name British Aerospace Harrier III.
>>29523020
Yeah but the ragheads aren't the only threat. You think the red menace is scared of drones?
>>29522704
How is that good maneuverability? Even the Mig-29 has done higher angles of attack, faster turns, better stall recovery - fuck you name it. The F-35 literally looks fucking slow.
>>29523046
This is probably one of the most retarded things ever typed into one of these threads. How does that improve over the Harrier II except in your "muh feels"?
>>29523097
The Mig-29/Flanker series fighters won't even see the F-35 coming, for starters.
>>29523219
What do you mean? Jet engine design and supersonic aerodynamics have come a long way since the 60s.
>>29523228
And those improvements are there in the F-35B, which only slightly sacrifices range and payload from the A/C models, while the Harrier is a fundamentally flawed design.
>>29523255
How so?
>>29523261
Significantly faster (Mach 1.6 to the Harrier's .9)
Twice the payload.
50% greater range.
Far easier to fly, as in, tens if combined sim/flight hours to master STOVL instead of hundreds.
And most importantly, FUCKING COMMONALITY WITH THE NAVY AND AIR FORCE'S PLANES.
>>29523347
>Significantly faster (Mach 1.6 to the Harrier's .9)
>Twice the payload.
>50% greater range.
>Far easier to fly, as in, tens if combined sim/flight hours to master STOVL instead of hundreds.
All problems that could be fixed with modern technology.
>>29523357
All things that have already been fixed with the F-35B, we don't need a Harrier III you god damned troglodyte.
>>29523000
Given the Royal Navy jointed the USMC in ditching a new harrier for the JSF, I'd say they certainly know what they are talking about.
>>29523483
This is the same Royal Navy that can't seem to build an aircraft carrier.
>>29523494
I think you're mistaken, given that they're building two.
>>29523500
Yeah after long deliberations on mothballing them.
>>29523504
There were never going to do that for both, and I wouldn't call them long.
But keep backpedaling.
Bet you'll resort to saying something about the ramps or conventional power, next.
>>29523521
Nah I like the ramps. Fewer points of failure and cheaper, too.
If we had the military budget of the US I would support your slingshot thing but needs must as the devil drives.
F35 is an unreasonable amount of money post cold war. Shit is dumb yo. It's a project designed in the same poor fashion as the Bradley that eats shitloads of money instead of commies.
>>29523553
The ignorance in your post is palpable.
>>29523494
>This is the same Royal Navy that can't seem to build an aircraft carrier.
That's the government's fault retard. Don't blame the navy for the fault of labour and cons.
Labour fucked the contracts, Tories almost fucked the whole thing.
>>29523046
>>29523261
>>29523357
Everytime someone brings this shit up, I have to remind them...
>>29523833
huehuehuehue
>>29523833
But that isn't a British Aerospace aircraft?
That's a Boeing one.
>>29523887
>the Harrier is a fundamentally flawed design.
>>29523833
is the harrier built with >All problems that could be fixed with modern technology.
>>29523919
No it isn't. Why are you memeing so hard?
>>29523000
>bring back the SLAM project
I don't want to fucking spread radiation across the planet because we make some fucking phyco missile that shits hydrogen bombs and a crap ton of radioactive exhaust from the unshielded reactor that flies at tree top level
>>29523968
That's because you're a coward.
Or a deep cover red...
>>29523968
What are you a communist?
>>29522608
f35 is a general utility plane designed to do most tasks in war and not be seen doing them.
F22 is for giving anyone who wants to play in the air superiority game a jolly good time.
>>29523936
They use the same VTOL engine/nozzle configuration. 60 years of jet engine design and supersonic aerodynamics can't solve the gaping shallow intakes, nor hot exhaust ingestion, nor inferior (or nonexistent) supersonic performance.
>>29522726
>>29523833
That thing even looks British. Jesus Christ it's ugly.
>>29522805
Not that simple of a comparison. The last A-10 rolled off the assembly line in 1984, so given that best case scenario.
18.8 million in 1984 is 45 million in 2016. That's only half as much as the price for an F-35A, which is an order of magnitude more capable than the A-10.
Then you have to add on the cost of the upgrade packages for the A-10, which jacks up the price significantly because avionics are expensive, and the 1980's A-10's have awful avionics.
>>29525214
>18.8 million in 1984 is 45 million in 2016
>>29525236
> what is inflation?
>>29525311
Exactly what I am weeping over.
>>29525236
This one'll fuck your skullmeats then: The first F-111s that rolled off the line in the late 60s, were 100 mill apiece then and 600mil in 2015 dollars.
>>29525385
And the cost of the Pluto/SLAM project was $2.3bil in today's money.
>>29525422
Yeah, but the Switchblade Edsel was an actual production aircraft that saw service through Desert Storm.
>>29525712
Sure, but a single SLAM could have destroyed an entire continent.
>>29525720
Go home LeMay, you're drunk.
>>29522626
Underrated post
>>29522942
Ten shekels to you, good sir!
>>29522662
>low capacity ground support
wew lad
>>29524036
>democracy
>brotherhood is genocidal fascists
Yeah........ Noooo...... NCR motherfuckers
>>29525385
That just gave my wallet PTSD
>>29527841
Pretty Impressive! Almost half of what the A-10 and F-16 can carry!
Good thing that one-way stealth kills tanks!
>>29528279
>almost half
>carries 2000lbs more than the A-10
>even more when you consider that the A-10 needs a targeting pod
It's like you're not even trying.
>>29528279
Keep being loudly and proudly ignorant there!
>>29528374
>>29522756
>forgetting that it's situational-awareness systems were not being used.
>forgetting that in a real fight the F-16 wouldnt be able to see the 35
>>29528374
>comparing it to the babby F-15
>people think jets go with full payload
where did this meme start?
>>29529118
>Taking issue with comparing it to the plane it's mainly replacing for the Air Force
Doesn't BRRRRRRT
No titanium bathtub
>>29522933
Fucking rekt
>>29528279
>Almost half of what the A-10 and F-16 can carry!
the F35 carries as much ordnance as two A10's...
>>29522608
Same reason we'll keep flying Hornets and Raptors and Eagles and the such. They're old, but not obsolete.
>>29529509
Super Hornets, not Hornets.
>>29527864
>wanting incompetent bloated bureaucratic republic stretched so thin they can't patrol their own lands
Also
>brotherhood is genocidal fascists
>implying killing machines is genocidal
>>29529315
>doesnt need
>doesnt need
>>29528279
>half
Since when was two more half?
>>29529997
>Thinks F-16 pylons can haul as much weight
>Thinks the centerline ones are useful for anything but pods
>Thinks the F-16s can use their inboards for anything but fuel
>>29529997
2x2 loadout with 4 GBU-12's
>>29527841
2x2 loadout with 4 GBU-12's and 2 more 500 lb bombs with a nose kit i don't recognize
>>29523097
>Even the Mig-29 has done higher angles of attack, faster turns, better stall recovery - fuck you name it.
Its nice to be able to say things you know are not true huh?
>>29528279
>Almost half of what the A-10 and F-16 can carry!
>what the A-10 can carry!
This is a typical A-10 loadout.
