Military thread? Post nice pictures and news related to your country.
ah well
I don't have anything to contribute but i'll bump for you
>A,B,C
whats the difference?
>>51507808
/k/ is shit
>>51507822
A = conventional fighter-bomber, needs a full length runway to lift off and land
B = short distance take-off, vertical land. Like the Harrier but better.
C = for use on catapult-equipped aircraft carriers, it has strengthened landing gear
>>51507822
A: standard, for normal runways
B: short distance take-off vertical land, the source of 99% of maymays, problems and butthurt
C: carrier, can be launched with the catapult
>>51508093
>the source of 99% of maymays, problems and butthurt
I never understood why
>>51507983
This is international not weapons.
Way too many lies and disinformation are told in these threads to unsuspecting anons.
>>51505519
>blunder of the century
>>51505519
>52
noice
how hard does it btfo russian jets
>>51508299
Sukhois fly circles around the F-35 but that's why it has stealth
>>51508299
It can't fly in stormy weather. It can't turn. It can't carry more than one missile without falling straight to the ground due to stubby wings. Also, it's ugly.
can this not turn into a the daily mail tier thread where everyone acts as an f-35 expert
>>51508381
For stealth to be effective you need to fly at specific angles to radars and even then it doesn't work.
>>51508225
Lets see...
1. Was the whole reason the F-35 was selected in the first place.
2. Delayed the program 3 years because of design problems.
3. The design problems led to a redesign which made the 3 variants have less in common than originally planned.
4. Marines didn't buy as many as they originally promised, raising the average costs.
5. The redesigned engine led to engine delays and extra engine cost.
6. The F-35 killed the F-22. My biggest gripe, but that's politics.
Essentially the Marines fucked the other branches over.
>>51508458
I can only dream. Canada didn't fall for this emu of an airplane.
>>51508423
>Trudeau cancels Canada's purchase of F-35s
>t-t-they were shit anyway
Have fun with your obsolete Hornets though
>>51508513
Yeah i'm sure you'll get some other great gen 5 instead like...
>>51508551
>generation meme
It's as valid as "because it's 2015".
>>51508458
It's /int/. That's why I keep saying
>>>/k/
>>51508299
I wonder if y'all can afford those after oil collapsed so hard.
The 35A is on par with a production T-50. T-50 has better speed, maneuverability, and armament. 35 has better stealth and probably electronics.
Problem is that Russia will only have at most 200 T-50's anyways.
>>51508534
>obsolete
They can fly at least. f35 have a flying range shorter than that of a penguin. Canada is big u u u u and needs planes that fly.
>>51508485
Marines aren't the only ones who wanted a 5th gen STOVL
Anyway, a good STOVL fighter is very hard to make, more people should appreciate that.
>>51508534
He's obviously shilling.
But Canada has no use for the 35. At least not for the next decade. They need to spend money on their navy, not their air force.
>>51508551
Why does a nation need a 5th gen? Why now? Why not in 20 years? Who are we fighting? Do you think America would just abandon Canada?
>>51508638
b-buy our rafales
>>51508654
They were the only ones in 2000 amigo.
Italy, Britain, and our marines are the only expected orders anyways. If we had abandoned the B in 2005 you guys would have a catobar carrier and the C. Which is superior.
>>51508638
Nice meme, the F-35A has a greater combat radius than the Hornet
>>51508706
The typhoon does have a range longer than the super hornet....
>>51508693
By that logic Canada shouldn't even have a military
>>51508777
it doesn't really
>>51508423
>Literally Making Shit Up: The Post
>>51508706
Sell them to China.
Canada is probably just going to delay a decade and then buy the 35.
But a possibility is the super hornet.
>>51508801
It does have stubby wings and it is ugly. Also it can only turn left and its flight path can only be an oval.
>>51508866
this isn't NASCAR
>>51508775
Really? What are the numbers? Google just tells me f35's range is around 33% less than a super hornet.
>>51508777
The military isn't just used to go fuck up other nations...
I'm simply saying that Trudeau made the correct decision by giving the funding to the navy.
>>51508797
If they don't want to be our 51st state they should.
>>51508758
>If we had abandoned the B in 2005 you guys would have a catobar carrier and the C. Which is superior.
You're a bit of an idiot amigo
If you had abandoned the B, the UK would have made its own design, which would just have been less capable than the F-35B (due to lower budget). There were plans to go ahead with our own design until the US government gave us some influence over the design of the F-35B. Then when we got involved with the programme, the research from Britain's own project was contributed to the F-35
>>51508775
It actually doesn't. You're thinking of the F-18C.
>>51508941
Wasn't your original carrier design catobar until the 2010 SDSR?
Why would one do that if you had a B?
>>51508693
That goes for every Western country then. You don't need a 5th gen fighter for bombing sandniggers.
But what is dumb, is that Canada was a partner in the JSF program. They invested time, money, technology into it and now it was for nothing. They could have just gotten less F-35s.
>>51508913
>>51508964
Yeah I was talking about the Hornet Canada currently operates. Is it even sure Canada is getting Super Hornets?
>>51509052
>Wasn't your original carrier design catobar until the 2010 SDSR?
No. It wasn't.
The original design was what we have now, a STOVL design and an order for Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA), which became the F-35B when we joined the programme.
You got it completely backwards. In 2010 the government switched from STOVL to CATOBAR, but because of costs so many contracts that needed cancelling and the F-35C + EMALS development was several years behind when STOVL would be ready, that government did a U-turn a couple of years later and went back to the original plan: two STOVL carriers and a Harrier replacement.
>>51509166
>Is it even sure Canada is getting Super Hornets?
I don't know.
Just a reminder that we are still technically at war with UK.
>>51508485
This post is quite arrogant because you're clearly unaware that the UK had input into the design of the F-35B
>>51509389
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hundred_and_Thirty_Five_Years%27_War
is it going to beat this
>>51509389
over what?
land or fish?
>>51508616
>I wonder if y'all can afford those after oil collapsed so hard.
we're not in trouble _yet_
regardless we have state owned companies making good dosh off the program, if the JSM catches on internationally we'll profit from this
>>51509439
Churchill didn't really like us being allies with the Nazis. I am pretty sure that India declared war on Finland as well during WW2.
>>51509166
Canada is literally touching our border.
Norway is touching Russia.
These are different geopolitical positions.
>>51509183
Hmm okay. That doesn't change the fact that the 35 was selected over the F-34 because of the B variant and the marines. We did not take into account Britain's desires in 2000, at least in a meaningful enough way to influence us away from the 34.
>>51509421
>"I'm a strong independent country who don't need no American planes"
>plans to buy Super Hornets from the Americans
JUST
>>51509423
You had no meaningful effect on our decision to choose a stovl airplane. That was our marines, who the program was developed for.
You seem triggered. Why are Brits on /int/ so butthurt about the fact they've gone downhill since 1914?
>>51509603
>shitty paraphrasing
He was memeing but his point was that the 35 is not needed in Canada, yet.
My opinion is just to wait a decade.
>mfw we're better than Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Canada, Korea, Japan and Jewland
>>51507822
B is the shitty version
>>51509708
>yet
Exactly. All short term thinking. Trudeau only did this for popularity, apart from that it's a plain dumb move. They were a partner in the JSF program and will lose all money they have invested, directly and indirectly. Now they will probably buy twin-engined planes that will be more expensive to maintain, will have no significant improvements in the future, will suffer from metal fatigue and will have no left over value in 15 years.
>>51509955
iirc Turkey has the 2nd biggest army in NATO right after the US.
>>51509955
>literally begged us for our Patriot batteries
top kuk
>>51510086
>t. turk
Will Trump give us a few of those?
He seems wealthy, certainly such present wouldn't hurt his finances would it?
>>51509631
>You had no meaningful effect on our decision to choose a stovl airplane.
Where did I say we had an effect on that decision?
>You seem triggered
You seem stupid. I said the UK had input into the design, not the decision to order STOVL aircraft
>>51510299
His wife is Slovene and an under cover agent. Can't wait till he's the President, the US military will practically be under our control.
Some of you guys are OK, don't be in the EU in 2016.
>>51510415
>>51509631
>Why are Brits on /int/ so butthurt about the fact they've gone downhill since 1914?
To be fair we only went downhill until 1979
>>51510055
No they won't. The production facilities and contracts aren't just vanishing since they aren't buying the planes.
They hadn't bought any before October, yet they had helped produce 150.
The payment they gave to become second level partners helped get them some contracts, and these contracts aren't going away.
>>51510398
Look at my original post. Maybe we've been arguing completely different points this whole time.
Here is my post
>>51508485
I never once mentioned the UK's role in the design process. I only brought up the reason the F-35 was selected, which was for the stovl role.
Once the F-22 looked like it would have less production (2005) the DoD decided to cap 22 orders and go all in with the fledgling A and C designs.
>>51510494
You guys are still downhill relative to the rest of the world.
Economically, financially, population, and human development.
What is this meme that Thatcher and her minions somehow saved the UK? The UK of today is a shadow of its 1960-1980's self. Brown. Old. More impoverished.
The only thing that has done well in the UK since 1979 is London.
>>51510746
Yeah I looked at your original post.
The decision to order the F-35s (for STOVL) was only point 1. The rest of the post is about the design, not the decision to order them. You implied it's only the US Marines' fault and what I'm asking for here is some of the blame.
I like Brazil's AMXs
i dunno why. Maybe its cause i grew up a redsox fan when they were still super shitty, but i'm really rooting for brazil. I want them to emerge as a minor power with homegrown technology and equipment
we could use more huehuehuehue on the international stage
>>51510850
>You guys are still downhill relative to the rest of the world.
Nope. Relative to our competitors, we've been going uphill since around 1979 (some people say '76, others say '82, but whatever)
>Economically, financially, population, and human development.
In all of these areas, and more, we've improved since the 70s.
>The UK of today is a shadow of its 1960-1980's self.
You are so wrong it's like you're trying hard to be as stupid as possible.
>http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/in-malabar-submarine-battle-india-trumps-us/1/533919.html
>>51510746
That Canada bailed out will affect those contracts though. They won't be able to bid on new work either. And I really wouldn't be surprised if some of those contracts would be plain out canceled
>>51510902
>Brazil's AMXs
>Brasil
>>51510854
But the original issue was the Marines demanding the F-35B. That's what started it all.
I'm just going to let this rest.
>>51510902
No we don't.
>>51510996
Your nation is less powerful economically, financially, population wise, and in human development relative to the rest of the world than it was in 1980.
You improved but not as fast as much of the world did. I would say the same for the US by the way.
Britain was far more powerful relative to the rest of the world in 1960-1980. I'm not saying that it was a great time, simply that you guys were more powerful relative to the rest of the world at the time.
>>51511127
Well I don't have information on that. But the assertion you made and that I responded to was wrong.
>>51511157
lol it belongs to both of you!
but Italy has a pretty good history of military aircraft
we need to give the huehuehue a chance. Thanks for helping embraer out spaghettibro
>HMS Defender Set To Support French Carrier Group On IS Mission
Pretty cool desu
>>51511396
The Canadian aerospace industry might still profit for some years, but when those contracts run out, they will be fucked and time will tell if the initial investment costs will be paid back
>>51511320
>You improved but not as fast as much of the world did. I would say the same for the US by the way.
As you noticed, that's the same for every western country because you have emerging markets growing faster in the last few decades. But the metrics you're using are a poor definition of power if taken alone.
>Britain was far more powerful relative to the rest of the world in 1960-1980.
I don't think so. We withdrew from East of Suez in 1971. In 2015 we are now back East of Suez with the opening of HMS Juffair. Queen Elizabeth Class carriers regenerate a capability that was lost in the 1960s. In the 1960s, Charles de Gaulle repeatedly vetoed the UK's requests to join the EEC (now EU). The UK joined the 1973, was a key architect of the Single Market, and then outperformed the other major European countries since (pic related). Please, remember de Gaulle's vetoes when you see the French make concessions in order to keep Britain inside the EU in 2016/17. Relations with China and India are vastly improved, we're taking the space sector seriously for once, back in the 70s "made in Britain" was a badge of shame (even BA removed the union jack from its aircraft) now it's a source of pride. Even the BBC World Service is expanding including into North Korea.
Compared with your period, Britain has today: more influence in Europe, more overseas military bases, better relations with countries outside the West, better power projection, improved soft power.
>>51511887
>remember de Gaulle's vetoes when you see the French make concessions in order to keep Britain inside the EU in 2016/17
I don't think we're going to do that
>>51512157
let the brit live in his fantasy world
>>51512157
Oh yes you will. Hollande will dress it up in order to save face, but you will be supporting some British reforms. It's already been implied by your finance minister Macron
>After all the talk of roadblocks and differences, today's meeting had a rather different feel. Both Mr Osborne and Mr Macron talked about "a win-win approach" on Britain's proposed reforms of the EU.
>We want a Europe that works for all its citizens, said the chancellor, adding that France agreed the interests of non-eurozone countries like Britain should be protected.
>His French host was keen to emphasise the need for reform. The warnings against an "a la carte" Europe were gone. "I think we have the basis of a common agreement," Mr Macron said. "France wants reform that strengthens Europe, not reform that weakens it. But I've heard nothing today that was incompatible with that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33671359
Expect your politicians to talk tough prior to the referendum and issue the UK stern warnings, but at the end of the day France will agree on some concessions to keep Britain in the EU. Deny it all you want, it will only make next year all the more fun.
>>51512359
>eu reforms
>making concessions to the UK
Nice reading comprehension. Though I guess it somehow entertains your delusions
>>51511647
>NATO """"""""Task Force"""""""""
>>51512359
Why do you think Macron's words are about Britain ?
Plus if you knew about French politics (which you clearly aren't), you'd know Macron is a rather dissident minister.
>>51512211
>fantasy world
I'm only posting facts. You can ignore the reality of the situation and how things have utterly changed since the relationship of the 1960s, but it does not change anything.
>>51512440
Yes, EU reforms. Do you think your politicians, or ours, would use the language of "concession"? Come on now. All you need to do when this is all finished is compare what happens to what David Cameron asked for. Compare it with that letter Cameron sent to Tusk.
At the BARE minimum you're going to see an expansion of the Single Market to include more services. You're going to see protections for non-Euro countries against Euro member bloc voting. You're going to see an exemption, especially for the UK, from "ever closer union".
All British demands. Announced as EU reforms. Things that the UK explicitly wants. France will agree to them to keep Britain inside, 50 years after de Gaulle's vetoes.
>>51512648
>Why do you think Macron's words are about Britain ?
Because he was speaking after a meeting with the British Chancellor about Britain's EU negotiations.
>Plus if you knew about French politics (which you clearly aren't), you'd know Macron is a rather dissident minister.
So you think it's not happening? That's fine, events will prove me right.
>>51512792
>Because he was speaking after a meeting with the British Chancellor about Britain's EU negotiations.
Britain is far from the only country in the EU that's asking for reforms
>So you think it's not happening? That's fine, events will prove me right.
Yeah, right.
>>51512944
>Britain is far from the only country in the EU that's asking for reforms
Sure every country wants reforms. The difference is that some of our proposed reforms will be accepted.
>>51513200
>look at us, we're special !
You must be 4 year old
It makes sense too, since all you do if reposting the same stuff over and over again
The US has struck close to 1000 isis targets in Syria, and around 3,500 in Iraq.
The other NATO member who has bombed isis in Syria is France, and it's only a handful. And that was with US supplied intelligence.
>what's the fucking point if no one else tries
>>51513402
Geez, sorry we have 1/20 of your defense budget
>>51513284
Your problem is you're in denial and can't see it yet. The thing about France was just one fact out of a bunch to prove my point to the American anon who thinks we were more powerful in the 60s and 70s. The truth is we were much weaker back then
>>51513402
We are a bit worried that it will end like in libya.
>>51513505
>Your problem is you're in denial and can't see it yet.
Of course you would say that. Accepting you're the one being wrong is hard.
We'll find out eventually won't we.
>>51513450
But Europe combined spends quite a bit on defense.
Europe should have an enormous and combined military force under a unified command. Led by the French.
That way Europe could actually pull it's own weight.
>>51513657
>Led by the French.
That's the tricky part.
If a unified European force was to be created (unlinely), it would be a bureaucratic nightmare and nothing would ever get done
Should I be a pilot for the Navy? What does the NFO guy do? Will I have to fly an f35
>>51513725
>implying you won't end up like this guy
https://youtu.be/eMjjGgRLG8k
>>51508273
>>51513402
you fags should be carpet bombing, but I guess that would save too many shekels
>>51513870
Carpet bombing is incredibly ineffective
>>51508866
>what is a lifting body
It's like you're trying to sound retarded on purpose
>>51513657
When you spread all that money over 20 different militaries, most of it gets eaten by operating budget.
There's probably never going to be a true EU military superpower. The UK and Poland aren't interested. Spain could somewhat replace the UK's role if they started pulling their weight militarily, they have alot of potential.
>>51513657
We really don't, though
Plus, most European countries have their own agenda when it comes to defense spending and aren't really focused on things like expeditionary warfare. Germany for example has about the same defense budget as France, but their army is of zero use to NATO missions.
>>51514023
>Germany for example has about the same defense budget as France
Actually it's lower
>>51509564
>F-34
what?
>>51514059
I know, I meant that it was in the same range, and that Germany spends that money totally different
>>51514115
I think he meant the X-32
>>51511647
>That Hawkeye on the deck
Makes me happy.
>>51514023
Germany has a huge internal problem, they have a bit less than DOUBLE our budget but somehow they are less operational.
It's almost like we infected them with the Cadorna-disease.
>>51514475
>tfw we're stuck with E-2Cs
We're looking into upgrading them tho
>>51514532
Yeah it's kind of funny and worrying at the same time. For their defense budget they have VERY little to show for, I'm really interested in where the money is spent on
>>51514532
It all depends on where the money goes.
Germany spends a lot on soldier's pay.
Hell, they even include beer in their rations.
>>51505519
>mfw the Sea Harrier had a 25:1 kill ratio against RAF Phantoms and USN Tomcats in exercises
>mfw based "Sharky" Ward had 7 kills and no losses against F-15's
BASED
SHAR
>>51514732
Most of ours are still E-2Cs as well desu. Only the Nimitz and the Roosevelt have Ds right now.
>>51514780
Even with the high pay on personnel, it still missing a huge amount.
Also, funfact: in some italian mre there's a thing called cordiale, a shot of 40° liquor.
>>51514985
>daily reminder RAF Cuçkphoons lost 12-0 to Poo-in-Loo Su-30MKIs during an exercise
BASED RAJEETS
>>51515429
>Even with the high pay on personnel, it still missing a huge amount.
Have you considered corruption?
I've heard H&K and it's ties with the german government are notorious for massive money frauds on government contracts.
CV90s used for something unusual. Shooting down airborne targets. In this case a drone.
>>51515798
>Have you considered corruption?
Have you looked at my flag?
>>51515442
>I know nothing about military exercises: the post
>>51513402
USA has not asked others to join anyway. Afaik the US government is fine with doing this alone.
>>51516006
got one lads
>>51516136
>>51516035
>>51516029
Other nations are contributing about as much as they like, which I don't see as an issue.
>>51516254
>>51516312
>>51514985
>>mfw the Finnish F18's had a score of 100 kills and 6 deaths against Eurofighters in exercises back in 2012
>>51508551
Probably some Kitfox aircraft with wing mounted potato cannons and Tim Bits dispensers.
we purchased a couple of these this year from germany
can it remove serbs ?
>>51516558
From 40km with m982, or 80km with vulcano
>>51516558
Noice. We're gonna buy some as well
>>51516558
>>51516979
>not buying French equipment
REEEEEEEEEE
>>51516979
Why don't you buy polish™ krabs Jonas?
>>51517175
Rheinmetall best metall
Russians losing cargo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja_kvsngEFI
>>51517322
>buying krap
No thanks. But you can sell us some Rosomaks with 30mm cannons
>>51517175
>buying french anything
You can't even build good cars
>>51517471
>memes
>>51517471
Bulgaria cannot into space.
>>51508269
Fucking this
>>51507983
>/K/ is shit
Is that because you are noguns?
>>51520223
It's 95% americans tooting their own horn
>>51520223
I'm ex-mil (infantry) and I never visit /k/.
I tried, but the board is infested with cowadoody teenagers and narcissistic, failed-to-launch mental midgets with a hard-on for all things military. There's also some /pol/ overlap which is just repulsive.
>>51513962
>I don't understand the NASCAR vs Formula 1 joke.
It's like you're a pleb.
>>51516029
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/policy/2015/12/01/carter-gulf-allies-jets-turkey-europe-isis/76616400/
Carter's upset, but Carter is eternally upset about something.
https://youtu.be/UOb-BoDL6b8?t=31
>>51510902
Based USA. Best ally
