Fighter planes
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
Okay, here's the thing. I'm American. I'm thinking the F35 is a ridiculous disaster to our defense, overall. Can we do better?
My idea: Scrap the F35. Just write it off as a failure and dump it. Maybe some technology developed from the program can be salvaged, but no planes are to be built. Instead, the US will continue to field the F22 and build the F15 for air superiority roles in the short term. The Navy will continue to use/procure the F/A18 Super Hornet for use on carriers. And we'll buy a license to domestically build the Eurofighter Typhoon to replace the F35 program. As Typhoons come online, F16s and F15Es will be retired or moved to reserve units, and eventually the F15 will be retired from the air superiority role in favor of Typhoons replacing it. Continuing spending on the F35 just isnt justified when a "good enough' rival is already in production and battle-tested. The Super Hornet isn't a super-modern fighter, but it's sufficient to deal with any likely threat or mission requirement for the time it'll take to research and build a suitable replacement. So...what's wrong with my thinking, aside from "it's not a US design, therefore it's shit," or "it's not one of those crazy Flanker prototypes flown by a super-talanted/experienced test pilot at an airshow, so it's shit"?
shit, maybe i should report tomorrow, when it's not a school/work night...
>>30226868
Alright, I'm game, well, you need to prove you are right first.
So what studies do you have to back your thinking?
>>30226914
>So what studies do you have to back your thinking?
About...what?
>>30226914
Like, I don't know what I said that you are questioning.
>>30226868
>Lets scrap the best bang-for-buck jet being developed and instead replace it with a bunch of jets that are more expensive, less capable and share no logistic commonalities
>>30226928
>>30226957
>I'm thinking the F35 is a ridiculous disaster to our defense, overall
Mostly that, oh and
> I'm American
because I think that you're both functionally retarded, to such a high degree that it comes before nationality.
>>30226928
>>30226957
You made a claim (the f35 is shit and too expensive)
Anon wants you to back your claim with evidence.
Also, someone post the bingo
>>30226986
>>Lets scrap the best bang-for-buck jet being developed
Really? It's hugely over budget and not ready for deployment yet
>replace it with a bunch of jets that are more expensive, less capable and share no logistic commonalities
More expensive--really? Less capable? Doesn't seem that way. No logistic commonalities? With what, the jet I'm proposing be cancelled? Yeah, big loss there. As far as weapon systems go, it can use JDAMs and AMRAAMs and HARMs....what else are you proposing as critical weapons?
>>30227018
>because I think that you're both functionally retarded,
Opinion: discarded. I thought I was pretty clear in my original post that I was discarding nationality. I mean, proposing the US military go with a non-US design would make that pretty obvious to anyone who isn't a jerk-water dickless European or Australian who's incapable of thinking beyond whatever the local flag is wrapped around.
>>30227020
>You made a claim (the f35 is shit and too expensive)
I did? No, wait--I DIDN'T! Haw haw haw! You so funny!
>>30227036
It's hugely over budget compared to jets produced 40 years ago; the modern versions of those jets are just as, or more expensive than the F-35. Earlier this year two Super Hornets crashed; the average value of each airframe was $86.6 million. An F-35 at full rate production is about $80 million in the same dollars.
It's also already in service with the Marines, goes into service with the USAF later this year and has its first scheduled deployment at the end of next year.
>Less capable? Doesn't seem that way.
Then you seriously underestimate the jet; put some in the sky against F-15s and the F-35s will win 9/10.
>With what, the jet I'm proposing be cancelled?
All the avionics, the ejection seat, things like actuators and some structural components, the engines, etc of the F-35 are common. Nothing is common between the Super Hornet, F-15 and Typhoon.
>what else are you proposing as critical weapons?
I never said anything about critical weapons.
>>30227047
Mate not even us Aussies are that illiterate, more likely he's a clapistani like you, anyone with a brain can tell you are talking about the US military. Get your head out of your ass mate.
>>30226868
>I'm thinking the F35 is a ridiculous disaster to our defense, overall.
Could you state your reasons to why you think the F-35 is a "ridiculous disaster"?
Also, you havent proposed an alternative to the F-35B.
>>30226868
The only problem with the F35 is that it's not initially as cheap as planned. Its niche was supposed to be an affordable way to replace old platforms. It performs fine, the real issue is affordability.
For the USA, that's no big deal, but for smaller countries, many of which helped develop various parts of the program, what was going to be a wing of 12 is now a wing of 5 due to cost.
But this is all smoke up asses as most new platforms have this issue. Takes a couple of years to lower costs.
The dude who is pitching all this misinfo to the media is the same retard that said the F15 was junk and we'd lose the Gulf War because of overreliance upon technology.
>>30227095
>Also, you havent proposed an alternative to the F-35B.
Kinda seems like one of those solutions looking for a problem. The jump-jet thing doesn't seem like that huge an advantage in a platform, especially not given the USMC's ability to capture and/or quickly build airstrips to operate a Super Hornet off of.
With its short nose and fat belly it looks big and ugly as sin. To me it is reason enough to dump that plane.
>>30227198
If that reason alone was enough to kill something off I'm not sure you would have made it to first grade, anon
>>30227206
Only for planes. My mom still loves me anyway so it's okay.
>>30227175
>The jump-jet thing doesn't seem like that huge an advantage in a platform, especially not given the USMC's ability to capture and/or quickly build airstrips to operate a Super Hornet off of.
Well, anyone who is buying the F35B begs to differ.
>>30226868
>As Typhoons come online, F16s and F15Es will be retired or moved to reserve units
>scrap F-15Es for inferior strike platforms
>scrap a program that has already had the majority of the capital invested because you don't like how it looks and don't understand how aircraft development works
Just putting away all effectiveness concerns for a moment, F-35 is obviously the best choice.
>Similar cost to Eurofighter
>Eurofighter can't replace Harrier
>Keeping MIC up to date is very important, military procurement is a form of "soft" warfare
>Muh sunk cost
>Many countries have already placed orders, political clusterfuck and loss of confidence if USA gives up
In reality the F-35 will probably be a decent place, have a little faith in the thousands of people smarter than you trying to figure this shit out.
>>30227175
>The jump-jet thing doesn't seem like that huge an advantage in a platform,
It turns helicopter carriers into aircraft carriers. This in turn means that you can have more fighters in general and it means that the USMC and the USN can be more flexible and dont depend on each other that much.
>especially not given the USMC's ability to capture and/or quickly build airstrips to operate a Super Hornet off of.
1: The F-18 is an inferiour plane compared to the F-35. Will not be competitive in the future.
2: With the F-35B, the USMC can be more flexible in the field. Instead of needing to capture (big) airfields or be forced to create ones, they can operate from parking lots/plaza's and dont have to build long runways (they can be much shorter).
Also, the Italian and British navy are equipped with ramp carriers that dont have a catapult system. The F-35B is vital for them to replace their Harriers.
>>30227353
>they can operate from parking lots/plaza
Not that anon but suggesting you're going to operate F-35Bs from FARPs and they'll operationally perform VTOL takeoff is a joke.
>>30227365
>Not that anon but suggesting you're going to operate F-35Bs from FARPs and they'll operationally perform VTOL takeoff is a joke.
And why is that a "joke"?
Enlighten me.
>>30227376
Its never been described as being able to take off in VTOL with load. While capable ( with very light stores, mind you) its a STOVL jet and designed as such.
Rearming an F-35 isn't the same as rearming an AH-64, either. You can do the latter easily by hand from a single truck.
>>30227382
>Its never been described as being able to take off in VTOL with load.
But it has...?
>>30227397
Yeah?
Show me.
>>30227382
Allright. Thanks for correcting me.
I'll retract my statement:
>they can operate from parking lots/plaza's
>>30227399
Take a little self-reasoning here.
Are you suggesting that an aircraft that can fly VTOL, is utterly incapable of taking off with *any* load?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35b-performs-first-vertical-take-off-385757/
>>30227382
>Rearming an F-35 isn't the same as rearming an AH-64, either. You can do the latter easily by hand from a single truck.
For air to air you can handle everything by hand. For air to ground munitions you just need this special little cart to raise the 500+ lb bombs up safely (other air to ground planes need it too).
>>30227446
No, never said literally NO load. Just that it wouldn't be a significant one.
>>30227453
Loading a >300lb AIM-120D into the belly bay of an F-35 isn't something you're going to want to be doing.
>>30227471
Neither did I.
But I quote
>"Its never been described as being able to take off in VTOL with load"
>>30226868
What an awful thread.
>>30227483
Yeah, and even the video is it just taking off with fuel. Probably not even full tanks, either.
If you can find anything that actually says it can take off with weapon stores, or that it plans to be, feel free to prove me wrong. I'd certainly be interested.
Certainly isn't a part of the testing phases and performance requirements, that purely covers STOVL operation. Why wouldn't they be testing it if they thought they would do it?
>>30227488
Your mom is awfull.
Can it fire its guns yet, senpai, or does it require more software updates?
>>30227522
Been able to since 2015.
>>30227494
It says in the first line of the article I posted.
>The US Marine Corps' short take-off and vertical landing variant had a requirement to perform vertical take-offs right from the outset of the JSF programme. However, the capability is not emphasised because the F-35B would not be able to carry a tactically significant payload in that configuration.
>>30227524
That's a relief
>>30226868
Upvoted. Xpost to /r/circlejerk naw.
>>30227504
Do we really need to bring up how you unironically post Mike Sparks?
>>30227556
That was an issue but has been dealt with.
>>30227494
If you look at the numbers, it can take off with about 40% fuel or around 30% if you carry internal weapons. It's certainly not ideal and hence why it's a STOVL jet instead of VTOL jet, but if you needed to, you could VTO, aerial refuel and then carry out a mission.
>>30227835
Has there ever been reference to it for mission profiles? performance targets? anything at all?
>>30227835
So a FARP resupply AND aerial refuelling?
Sounds logistically questionable
>>30227471
>>30227862
Not publicly, but there'd be some data on such emergency profiles.
>>30227872
The plan is still to have FARPs that have a short runway.
>>30227887
If they have a short runway thats just STOVL then, really.
I would have thought it public if all the other expected mission profiles were.
>>30227055
Underage - get out - read a book
>>30226868
>American. I'm thinking the F35 is a ridiculous disaster to our defense, overall. Can we do better?
Boeing shill detected.
>US sinks it's portion of the F-35 program.
>Lockheed continues on its merry way and provides our allies with a far more effective platform while the US steps backwards and invests and immense amount of capital and time to license and produce an inferior platform which is as, if not more, expensive on a unit by unit basis.
I am so happy people like you arent in charge of acquisitions.
>>30227896
>If they have a short runway thats just STOVL then, really.
That's the point; VTO is technically possible, but it's a STOVL jet and VTO is inefficient, hence why the USMC CONOPS for FARPs involves short runways.
>I would have thought it public if all the other expected mission profiles were.
Only a fraction of the mission profiles are public.
I've seen stupid shit here but the saddest sing about this post is I kinda believe it's not bait.
>>30226868
Yes, because the Typhoon never had a notiriously troubled development cycle and was deemed a massive mistake by everybody in Europe?
I dont why stealth always compensates fire power. Why not have both?
>>30229853
Well, the F-35 has a massive internal payload for its size, and can carry as much internally as a conventionally loaded F-16.
