I'm not very familiar with military aircraft, but I've noticed a lot of concerns about the F-35's performance.
Trolls trolling trolls.
Gashunk!
>>30510885
Because of what some autist said about it.
>>30510885
Dude, it's a flying piano
Fourth-generation war LMAO man
What are you part of the MIC? I bet you're some kind of sodomite; we'd burn you and stake in my novel
>>30510885
it's ugly and useless even in Ace Combat games
do your fucking math
>>30510885
Every inch of that thing is packed with something vital.
>It can't take damage like other ground attack aircraft.
It's a multirole that's intended to be an able fighter.
>It can't climb or turn as well as other aircraft.
It's designed with parts commonality in mind to save costs.
>It's ridiculously over budget and expensive.
At least I think that covers most of the criticism. What people over look is that it's part of an integrated system of coordination. That's a newer way of doing things with field of combat electronic networking that's frankly some scary shit.
The F-22 should have been updated, the F35 was a step backwards.
People believe cucks like David Axe and Trudeau over military experts because reasons.
Meme plane. Not perfect, yet not absolute shite as Pierre Sprey would have you believe.
>>30513016
This. And then there are idiots like >>30513351 who don't understand something as basic as designed aircraft role.
>>30510885
It's become the face of military procurement, which is a lot easier to criticize if it can be perceived as not only over budget and over schedule, but as a product that doesn't even work in the first place.
Army FSO here.
I don't care about any air to air shit. That's my deal I don't pretend to know it. I don't like it because it's a shit tier CAS platform.
In CAS you want a couple of important factors an Air to Air plane doesn't have.
Loiter time: F-16, F-22 almost always you have very little play time. They do one mission, drop ordinance and are out.
Thats what makes the A-10 good it can hang out, re-engage targets with its gun. Also it can be used to do aerial recon and engage other targets ahead of you.
This makes AC-130 fucking awesome.
AC-130 can be on station there for hours. I never got control one but their cool they're reserved for SOF guys.
Ordinance: A-10 has its big gun along with more ordinance than a F-35,
AC-130 has a fucking 105mm howitzer gun on it. Nuff said.
F-35 lacks all of these.
>>30513557
You should fully well know that F35 is replacing F16, F18 and Harriers. Not A10. F35 is better suited for CAS than any planes it is replacing.
>>30513602
Yeah, but you also know USAF is trying to shelf the A-10 for years.
>>30513620
Because its shit for anything but COIN.
The F-35's got a lot more fuel, so you'll have more time on station to boot.
>>30513557
>Ordinance: A-10 has its big gun along with more ordinance than a F-35
This is why nobody gives a shit about the hot opinions of Army personell.
>>30513637
I'm curious about playtime. I haven't found a solid answer on it.
>>30513657
A simple comparison of combat radius would tell you a lot.
If you're putting AC-130s and A-10s in for comparison, they're purely COIN aircraft, so RCS matters less than dick. Can stick bags on an F-35 and fly for days.
>>30513557
t. neverserved that's high as balls on 99% pure ausairpower
>>30510885
No successful supersonic VTOL fighter has yet been made, and while technological advancements have occurred since the last attempt it seems risky to ASSUME it's going to work out, rather than having a non-VTOL "plan B". Not to mention only some actually have VTOL capabilities, but all suffer from design compromises made because of it.
It's intended to replace the A-10, but lacks armor, so any attack missions have to be done from high altitude (this is arguably becoming true even for the A-10 due to the proliferation of anti-aircraft missiles, and while the F-35's stealth gives it some advantage in high-altitude operations, it's not as survivable at low altitudes against light AAA as a traditional attack plane is).
Emphasis on stealth, but to perform many required missions it has to use external stores which ruin stealth capabilities.
Claimed to be capable of supercruise, but lacks "real" supercruise capability (can't maintain supersonic speed indefinitely without using afterburners).
>>30513557
>along with more ordinance than a F-35,
But it doesn't. The A-10 has a smaller payload by 2,000lbs and only one extra pylon (offset by all the extra fuel the F-35 carries internally compared to the A-10).
>Loiter time: F-16, F-22 almost always you have very little play time. They do one mission, drop ordinance and are out.
Not so sure the A-10 has superior loiter time to an F-35. It does have a 625nmi combat radius with a strike load and internal fuel, and 760nmi with an A2A load and internal fuel. The A-10, by contrast has:
>CAS mission: 250 nmi (288 mi, 460 km) at 1.88 hour loiter at 5,000 ft (1,500 m), 10 min combat
>Anti-armor mission: 252 nmi (290 mi, 467 km), 40 nmi (45 mi, 75 km)) sea-level penetration and exit, 30 min combat
We'll see, I guess, but I won't be surprised if they post loiter times for it over the next couple years that are in the same ballpark as the A-10.
>AC-130 has a fucking 105mm howitzer gun on it. Nuff said.
You do realize the AC-130 doesn't operate at all in non-permissive airspace, and if there's any threat at all they operate only at night, right? It's a fantastic platform, but comparing it to the F-35's access which is as close to universally anytime anywhere as it gets is a little silly.
>>30513685
What you want me to see my fucking JFO Cert?
>>30513602
So there is no replacement for the A-10 then? Are we just going to keep using the A-10 for another 30 years?
>>30513712
>replying to an underage b8er
>>30513738
>someone disagrees with me, therefore they must be underage!
>>30513723
Show me your last LES faggot
>>30513705
>No successful supersonic VTOL fighter has yet been made
This meme is retarded.
>It's intended to replace the A-10
This is just factually incorrect.
>but lacks armor
Not really an issue, considering the fact that it's not ever getting with 15,000ft of the ceiling on ground-based AAA.
>which ruin stealth capabilities.
Ah, yes, the "stealth is on or off" meme. Nevermind that VLO characteristics will still make the aircraft much, much harder to see than a 4th gen with the same external stores.
>(can't maintain supersonic speed indefinitely without using afterburners).
I'd say 150mi is more than enough supercruise for any conceivable tactical situation.
I am completely neutral about it's actual abilities. I do have positive things to say about it's manufacturing. I work for a shop that does parts for it and the chemicals used are so much safer the the stuff boeing asks people to use.
>>30513712
Yeah AC-130 platform hinges on air superiority. That is a fact.
Honestly I should care more about the F-35 but I'll be out by then and not give a shit.
>>30513705
You're 100% retarded to the point I wonder if you can dress yourself
>>30513751
I fucking hate 4chan. I just can't let strangers on the internet feel right.
>>30513774
>Yeah AC-130 platform hinges on air superiority.
Not just that, it's also vulnerable to AAA and MANPAADs. In fact, I believe all the AC-130 combat losses in Vietnam before they were restricted to night operations were all due to ground fire.
>>30513865
that could be anyone, show us the name and ssn
>>30513924
Thinking, I'm going to do any of that even though it only shows the last
>>30513924
>show us the name and ssn
Not even that anon, but is you stupid or somethin'?
>>30513953
I think Anon is trying to make me go full retard.
lets say I did? Who says I'm that asshole on the LES? Fucking retard.
Pic related
>>30513791
Not an argument.
>>30514249
Obvious bait, factual fabrication and intellectual dishonesty does not require a logical rebuttal to be revealed as spurious and compromised. Mockery works just fine for that.
>>30513924
>>30513751
TFW you realize the FBI has shitty bait. No wonder you guys couldn't grab Clinton.
>>30513557
There has been zero wars in the last 60 years where the US army actually needed "CAS"
It is their own fault that they won't bring tanks/IFV's to fights
Or that they can't procure vehicles that aren't overweight as fucking hell
>>30513705
A-10 has no armor you clown
>>30516386
I'm no A-10 fan, but surely there isn't anyone this blatantly stupid. Surely.
>>30510885
My dislike is less about the specific aircraft and more about our government spending so much $ on this, and other projects too.
>>30516440
If you want loiter, you bring a tank
>>30516608
That's just retarded. Have you learned fuck all about how the US fights, or why the combined command system is so efficient and effective? Read a book, you dumbass.
>>30516553
I'm more miffed about the money they spent on bombing desert countries that would probably implode eventually anyways.
>>30516666
>or why the combined command system is so efficient and effective?
Which is why the taliban is stronger now than in 2001?
>>30516673
Both are shit.
>>30516689
Nope. I'm out. I just don't have the time or patience. You can't fix willfully stupid when they're convinced they're visionaries on the edge.
>>30516715
Eh made for another mech in japanese porn games.
>>30516431
Yes it does. Obviously it's not much by AFV standards, but as far as aircraft go it is armored. And even if we're to regard its armor as totally ineffective, having two engines gives it some redundancy that the F-35 doesn't have.
>>30516847
no
its a plane
it has no armor at all
The ONLY thing it has is a titanium bathtub to protect the pilot
>>30516869
>titanium bathtub designed to defeat 23mm rounds
>not armor
>>30516386
This is the face of autism
>>30516884
You can't fly a bathtub
>>30516895
You can't drive a box with a turret.
>>30516884
It ain't going to help you keep flying any longer.
>>30516916
ground vehicles are armored on their exterior to protect everything in them
A-10 has an armored bathtub that protects the pilot/cockpit, it is not at all armored anywhere else, such as on all the key things needed to fly like engines or fuel tanks
>>30516938
Ground vehicles don't have armoured threads / wheels and some have next to nothing protecting their engines. An A-10's wings are its wheels, it's turbofans are its engines.
>>30516977
threads are solid steel
and wheels are bullet proof + self inflating/run flat
You don't sink into the earth if your track is destroyed
>>30516994
No tread will resist a 30mm round, nor will a wheel. An A-10's wings are also made out of tough aluminium structures with self sealing fuel tanks.
And if a tank or IFV or whatever loses a track, it's mission killed, likely before being actually killed. An A-10 getting a shredded wing is also mission killed, no doubt about that, but the pilot can eject, or if we're just talking about small arms fire, fly out of harm's way.
>>30513351
>The F-22 should have been updated
Three down and work started on the fourth back in 2013, F-22 Inc 3.2B is planned to enter service in 2019.
>>30517042
>No tread will resist a 30mm round
Most tanks have skirts protecting the tracks, and a 30mm round is not enough to guarentee breaking a track link.
And even if you do break a track link, the tank doesn't plow into the ground at high speed.
>>30517044
Still well behind where it was meant to be; no EOTS, no cheek AESAs, no HMD :(
Because its more difficult to play the F-35 like a bugle than the A-10: https://vid.me/GE84
Has this been posted yet? Too lazy to check.
>>30517692
Side looking radar is a meme.
The APG-77 already has 120 degree FOV.
because shit
>>30518732
It's good for being able to launch a missile, turn away and fly away while still maintaining radar contact though.
![happy-hog_big[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/KiwwSck.jpg "happy-hog_big[1].jpg")
>>30518695
