Which would you rather acquire for your country?
100 F-35s or 1000 F-16s?
>>61980367
in the current state, it would probably be better to go with F-16s seeing that they have been battle tested for ever
Which ones will give us rights to study and develop the aircrafts?
>>61980367
Neither.
f-16 if I had to choose.
F-35 is severely underrated, especially unlike the stereotype, how reliable and easy to maintain it is (for what it is). However, modern F-16 are still very capable and relevant in the modern battlefield. If you can operate them all, 1000 vs 100 is an absurd advantage on simply getting war scale shit done (bombing etc.) so today I will go with that.
>>61980414
Asking the right questions.
>>61980397
Well, you already have thousands of F-16. :--DDD
The cool thing about F-16 (and F-35 in future) (also F-18) is that it is designed to be zerg rushed, yet unlike Russkie and Chink shit, it's also one of the best by itself.
Countries that have only few of F-16/MiG-29 type aircraft and use it as if it's some highest end shit are meme countries and not relevant air powers. Those aircraft supposed to take off by almost a hundred every day of the war.
>>61981240
I want to see a zerg rush air war already
>>61981240
>how reliable and easy to maintain it is (for what it is).
I can spot F-35 shills from miles away after being on /k/ for years.
Gonna need a source. The plane has only existed in an active squadron (F-35B) for 11 months. How could you possibly have statistics on its reliability relative to other planes?
F35's, my country couldn't afford to maintain and pilot 1000 F16's
Neither, if my country did that we would be broke as fuck.
>>61981452
You clearly don't understand the stresses that jet engines undergo. AF maintainers for the F-35 are pleased with how easy the maintenance goes.
With that being said though, I'd still go with 1000 F-16's because F-16's are still better than 99% of jet models belonging to hostile nations.
>>61981481
Oh come on Guatemala, Nicaragua just ordered 50 new armored vehicles. Step up your game.
>>61980367
Either or both. No difference since I presumably get a cut on the kickbacks and comfort women.
>>61980367
F-35s. or whatever choice costs less in maintenance.
I don't think we need either. More of our budget should go to research and future tech, and having a more F-35s to play around with will probably help develop the next generation (more than F-16s at least).
>>61980367
Neither, I choose BRRRRRRRRRTT
>>61981566
Those 50 old russian tanks are much cheaper than 100 F-35s or 1000 F-16s. Besides our vietnam era jets are more than enough for narcos.
>>61980367
we can't even man the f35s or the subs we've ordered, we can't man and maintain 1000 f16s
We already have one.
>>61980367
>F-16s
Duh
sweet
>>61980367
F-16 without a doubt.
The difference isn't that big especially that it all depends on hardware and weapons more than the jet.
>>61981562
>AF maintainers for the F-35 are pleased with how easy the maintenance goes.
Means shit. HOw many hours of maintenance per flight hour? How much does it cost?
>>61981452
The biggest pieces if shit on /k/ are the anti-F-35 shutposters.
>>61980367
For those of us not fighting wars overseas neither, both programs are ridiculously expensive... For my country I would settle for a couple of dozen of pictured to cover the gap until practical drones exist that can cover for basic air space control...Since we remain US allies until at least November the real choice will be whatever Americans choose for their T-X program, whenever they do actually get around to it...
Yes, I'm talking LIFTs, most countries operating supersonic fighters can't actually afford them...
>>61982916
why is our army so fucking small? 55,000 across navy, army and air force isnt it? and they're mostly clerical roles too arent they?
1000 Gripens of course
100 000 WW2 planes zerg rush
>>61983889
>t. lockshill
>>61980367
>F-35
Nice meme
>>61983960
>he fell for the all you need is SF and mechanized battlegroups-meme
>Which would you rather acquire
A Boeing 747 so I can crash dock it into your mother's landing strip
>>61980367
F-16 is the smarter choice.
Also this >>61980414
>>61983960
I think the Army is around 55,000 including reserves and it gets to around 90,000 when you include RAAF and RAN.
Most are clerical and support yeah, but that's how it goes for every military.
100 f-35s. We don' t have enough pilots for the 1000 f-16s.
>>61980367
>>61981452
>>61984025
This.
I guess both. More of a fan of the F/A-18 though.
>>61983687
this senpia
>>61984456
As opposed to wilfully ignorant niggers like you who have no alternative?
You're fucking retarded.
A thousand planes will cost more due to flight hour cost, pilot training, munitions, maintenance, storage etc. 100 planes is enough to police our airspace and since F-35's are much more capable I hope we end up buying them.
>>61985548
Are you retarded? Finland is not buying either, it's a hypothetical. Also, F-35 might be less capable than f-16
>>61980367
100 f35 because our air force is not gonna have the budget or capability to train and employ 1000 pilots, so it'll have to be quality over uantity
I'd take just 10 F-22's desu
>ran dogfight simulations in Defense Academy
>5 F-22's vs 50 SU-27's
>SU-27's fly around in circles getting picked off one by one by out-of-range F-22's until they all disappear or the F-22's run out of missiles
