is this the best weapons platform ever created? is it worth the cost?
Fuck no
>>72244844
Yes
>>72244844
Time will tell.
>>72244983
well your country is ordering 70 of them
>>72244844
>is this the best weapons platform ever created?
No, F15s from the 70s do its job perfectly fine minus the whole STOVL thing. Should've just bought F-15SEs instead. It looks cool though.
>>72244844
Did it surpass Metal Gear?
>>72244844
1.no (but it *might* become that some years down the roadmap.)
2. I am afraid not.
Also your pic is mislabed. The F35 is NOT Air Superiority - that's the F-22.
>>72245596
Nothing surpasses Metal Gear.
Except for a Metal Gear RAY, of course.
>>72244844
It's utter shit.
>>72245743
>utter shit
>Austria uses Eurofighters
>>72245839
Does that make the F35 less shit?
People always compare it plane to plane but they forget we ordered a whole airforce worth of a next-gen multi-role aircraft.
>>72245440
Government pays the price in political flak every time something else goes wrong with the procurement of that shitheap.
>>72244844
Long-range warfare is the future imo, also drones. Manned aircrafts will be eventually replaced entirely by remotely controlled drones or AI.
>>72245589
STOVL a shit anyway. The price paid in complexity, lost capability and weight make it a meme teir feature. All because the MUREEENES cannot into runways.
>>72244844
We hope so.
Out next generation of Aircraft carriers depend on it.
>>72246226
>hostilities break out
>within half an hour, all major strategic airstrips are cratered by cruise missiles and made useless to conventional aircraft
>you finally realize STOVL wasn't just a meme
>>72246009
Yeah people don't realize this is designed to be the aircraft to end all aircraft
>>72245917
the program to get them rolled out is shit but the aircraft itself is not shit
>>72246718
It's pretty shit mate, come on.
I mean """stealth"""? Really? Come on.
STOVL? Really? Just get a helicopter..
One engine? Really? Come on mate.
>>72247004
>s-stealth is useless goyim
>>72244983
First post best post
>>72246401
>thank god we have these STOVL aircraft now that our airstrips are all fucked up
>half cant fly because they need a constant diet of parts just to maintain functionality, which they wont get because we have been bombed to hell
>the rest barely make it to the target area, drop their tiny payload then have to fly right back because they are bingo fuel
Lets make an aircraft complex, heavy then give it a tiny payload, what could possibly go wrong?
We have aircraft for operating in places too hot to lay a strip of asphalt, they are called helicopters.
>>72246718
The rollout is a mess of failure because they are shipping a turd.
>>72246420
Until they get ALIS fixed (lol) it's just an overpriced jack of all trades. It's like the Bradley all over again, way too ambitious.
>>72247354
dat underbelly hnngghh
>>72247121
Stealth is pretty fucking useless.
>>72247168
F-35 is actually very reliable and easy to maintain in combat environment. It is the rigorous maintenance practices of peace time that creates this illusion you are having.
STOVL is the future of manned combat aircraft when two modern armies face off.
Too bad there is not going to be any two modern armies facing off because fucking proxies and global economy.
>>72247671
bait
>>72247830
>F-35 is actually very reliable and easy to maintain in combat environment.
How would you know, they keep shitting the bed in sterile test conditions.
If two modern armies face off no fighter/multi-role will ever fly over hostile territory because of SAM coverage. The precious ikkle fighters are too expensive to risk unless you are already sure you wont get lit up the moment you pop over the horizon.
>>72247168
>>72247004
>Comparing jets to helicopters.
I hope for your iq this is bait.
>>72248915
>wanting jets to fill the hot-zone-no-airstrip-CAS role of helicopters
I wasn't the one that conflated the roles here, Lockheed was.
>>72249233
>wanting slow moving, low flying gun platforms to CAS versus modern day squad level anti-air weaponry
>>72244844
It's second only to the F-22 , I want my autistic Government to buy them so badly but they won't.
No offense to Russians but their aviation industry is a junk factory
/pol/, you're embarassing yourself.
Stop trying to give your stupid opinions on topics you don't know much about.
>>72250210
>wanting finiky, low loiter time, minimal payload budget blowouts providing CAS
>>72244844
We're paying trillions for what ultimately will most likely be a slight improvement over what we have now
We did a TDY to an F35 base and got parked right next to them in our old F15s. They flew just as many sorties as we did every day but had hardly any maintainers working on them during the maintainence shift. We'd see a couple of guys stroll out and fire up their internal power units to check something out every so often but never saw them opening any panels or even rolling out there with replacement parts.
From a maintenance stand point I have no idea where the impression of the F35 being a pig when we were sweating our asses off every day keeping our older jets code 1.
>>72251259
Are you retarded?
>>72251377
are you a lockheed shill?
>>72251480
You're literally paying less to adopt the F-35 than you would be if you wouldn't, and gaining a large amount of capability in the process.
>>72244844
/k/ turned to shit didn't it?
>>72251480
Are you just spouting retard memes you heard from some autist in /k/ on a slavaboo thread
>>72251130
>>72249233
Got to say if you were a pilot going into a hot zone you'd pick a jet. Speed, maneuverability, climb rate, max ceiling etc plus plenty of time to register sams or manpads heading your way.
In a Chopper flying low by the time you've noticed you've been targeted and tried to lumber away the missiles crashed through your cockpit window.
I'd rather spend money on a weapon system a goat herder can't hit with something as shit as an rpg thanks.
It's ugly. And fat. And there's a fucking roach flag on it.
Pls export F-22s we can keep using the F-16s to bomb things.
>>72251873
You could use Cessna 172s for bombing Arabs, anon.
Point is you don't want to be prepping for COIN.
What are these?
>>72244844
that doesn't look like Abu Hajaar...
>>72251869
One F35 costs the same as 20 Hinds.
If you wanna talk about "spending money", 20 Hinds can accomplish a whole lot more than one overpriced whatever the fuck it is.
The F22 looks really pretty
This one is a bit of a fatty but it's still good looking
They will never actually be used so being good looking is a very important quality
>>72252182
>One F35 costs the same as 20 Hinds.
Straight up lie.
>20 Hinds can accomplish a whole lot more than one overpriced whatever the fuck it is.
Arguably yes, but there are a lot of situations that a rotor wing is going to get fucked up that a fast jet isn't. The opposite isn't generally true. Attack helicopters are niche, not something that can form a backbone of an airforce.
>>72251768
>>72251609
name literally one feature the f35 has that justifies the 1.5 trillion price tag
so far we know its:
>over budget
>behind schedule
>riddled with technical issues
we could literally just build more slightly upgraded f-22s for 1/8 the price
>>72252058
Weather baloons.
>>72252367
1.5 trillion dollars is the budget for EVERYTHING over its 50 year lifespan.
It would literally be more expensive to keep F-16s, F-18C/Ds, and AV-8s flying.
It is an upgrade in basically all areas in comparison to every one of those aircraft.
Anything else, faggot?
>>72252058
Stealth bombers
>>72251869
If I was going into a hotzone, I would pick a fighter that didnt go full retard with STOVL nonsense like the F-22.
If I was providing CAS I would pick something with long loiter time and large payload capacity. Then I would maintain that capacity far longer with the dozen other craft I could buy and maintain for the cost of 1 F-35.
Then I would swim in the cash left over like fucking Scrooge McDuck.
>>72249233
CAS has always been a role for fast planes. Helos got adapted later. No ones conflating anything. Both have been used as CAS.
>>72251130
This minimal payload meme needs to stop. a few hellfires and brimstones is more then enough to shit up anyone's day. A couple of 35s will leave a lot of dead armour behind them.
>>72252367
That's literally a lie.
Flyaway cost of the F-22 is roughly $140 million.
Unit cost is $377 million.
Flyaway cost of the F-35 is getting down to $100m, and the unit cost is not much higher.
>>72252367
Seriously. Every time a new issue is discovered with the F-35 I just go - Oh... how surprising.
Then I yawn, and roll my eyes.
The fact that we stopped making the F-22 because hurr durr too expensive is terrible.
Also not to burst anyone elses bubble, but the PAK-FA is superior to the F-35.
The F-35 failed a test biased towards it, and the F-16 passed. That's incredibly fucked up.
But let's talk about America's other failures. Let's see... The Zumwalt LCS? Let's make 3. That'll justify the horrendous development cost, and go with upgrading our Destroyer fleet with a slightly upgraded Arleigh-Burke model.
The upgrade by the way is that it got 4 more VLS tubes. such upgrade so wow.
>>72252909
>If I was providing CAS I would pick something with long loiter time and large payload capacity
So the F-35A.
>>72253012
>F-16 test
We're through the looking glass.
For a board that claims to be redpilled, you guys sure do seem to be willfully retarded to swallow whatever the media likes to shove down your throat.
>>72252367
>name literally one feature the f35 has that justifies the 1.5 trillion price tag
>AN/APG-81 AESA radar
>AAQ-40 E/O Targeting System
>AN/AAQ-37 Missile Warning System
>AN/ASQ-239 (Barracuda) Electronic Warfare Suite
>Northrop Grumman AN/ASQ-242 CNI system
All of these systems are absolutely bleeding edge and in the top of their class. Each of them was developed as part of the F-35 program specifically for use in the JSF, although many of them will find their way into the B-21 bomber as well. This is why the F-35 is the best plane: because it has the best hardware for the job.
>>72252923
>he thinks CAS has been hitting armour in any recent conflict
Armor gets taken out far in advance of ground forces. When Iraq was invaded (both times) ground forces could not roll fast enough to get to the bodies before they were cold.
WW2 was a long time ago gramps.
Also, what happens when the enemy has a few+1 targets.
>>72252609
its only more expensive to keep those planes flying if you're plan was to keep repairing the decrepit old ones we already have infinitely instead of say, building more f-22s with a slightly upgraded radar system.
The original budget for the program was only supposed to be around half a trillion dollars which, we've already exceeded 3 times over and we cant even reliably get that turd off the ground.
Plus, until we fight a war with an actual developed country (which wont happen anytime soon), we could use fucking cessnas because muslisms don't have any anti air capacity anyway.
>>72252361
>Straight up lie.
MI-24s are ~5-6M USD
Mi-28 15-16M USD
F35-A 98M USD
F35-B 104M USD the one that can hover
so yeah one F35 costs as much as ~17 MI 24 and as much as ~7 Mi 28.
>>72253012
>But let's talk about America's other failures. Let's see... The Zumwalt LCS? Let's make 3. That'll justify the horrendous development cost, and go with upgrading our Destroyer fleet with a slightly upgraded Arleigh-Burke model.
The upgraded Arleigh-Burke is ending up almost expensive as the Zumwalt that was reduced to just a handful for being too expensive.
The fucking LCS was so dumb, because rather than pick one winner and stick with it they picked two. Better yet there is now a sub-class coming out, so there are effectively 3 LCS type ships.
The new Ford-class carriers are also delayed and running up huge costs because the fucking idiots decided to go ahead with it before the EMALS system was fully tested and developed. And guess which system they had problems with and was causing the delays?
Meanwhile the US army says it has enough tanks, but Congress is telling them to buy more, because they want to keep the factories running in their states.
Seriously, the US, but really just the West in general has completely forgotten how to do defence research, development and procurement efficiently.
>>72253104
> for a board that claims to be redpill you guys sure swallow whatever media shoves down your throat
> here take some real facts straight from Lockmart
>>72252058
Where real money goes to.
>>72253570
Source the numbers, first.
Secondly, neither of those you can buy 20 of.
Thirdly, thats flyaway. Maintaining 17 rotor wing aircraft is going to cost way more than a single F-35.
You sound like those retards that buy really cheap printers then get jewed on extremely expensive inks like a fool.
>>72253505
Muh dick
>>72244844
YES!
Norway bought it so it has to be true.
Ahhhh.... Norwegian superpower in the making!
>>72253898
thats why you only buy what you need, e.g you can buy 5 and still do more then one of F35s, save70% with the cheapest one you can have maintenance and ordnance for decades and still probably have extra cash.
While the single F35 comes naked.
>>72253898
$ per flight hour is going up significantly for each generation of aircraft.
>>72253898
Lockheed is literally the worst instance of a razor blade company in the defense industry. Look at their LCS. They designed it such a way that they be the only ones able to service it. The navy decided to try to repair it on their own and now its stuck in drydock for the next 6 months while they try to figure out what the fuck went wrong (again).
>>72254257
You aren't going to accomplish a lot of tasks with a half dozen Mi-24s than you could with an F-35.
Like I said at the outset.
The F-22 is worth the extra cost on looks alone.
>>72252058
swamp gas
>>72254513
If you're referring to the LCS that got half destroyed, that was due to someone running the engine without oil/lubricant like a fucking moron.
Any ship would have issue with that.
LCS is still shit, though.
>>72244844
no. Should have just developed a version of the A10 that can vtol, and dumped more money into the 22.
>>72254667
It saddens me that you can vote
>>72254622
Looks like someone pissed all over your plane, pham.
Slavshit has the best looks anyways, everyone knows this.
>>72253104
>>If I was providing CAS I would pick something with long loiter time and large payload capacity
>So the F-35A.
F-35A does not have the payload capacity. Unless you drop stealth. At which point you ask yourself why you paid billions of dollars to develop stealth, and then spent billions to maintain it, only not to use it.
The F-35 should never have been a stealth fighter.
>>72253105
>This is why the F-35 is the best plane: because it has the best hardware for the job.
Except the cost of flying is going to reduce flight hours for pilots. And conflicts time and time again have shown that the better pilot, even when flying an inferior plane, will generally come out on top.
The other thing is of course, quality also has a limit at how much it can compensate for quantity.
That is one of my big worries with the F-35. It's going to result in a lower quality of pilot due to the reduced flight hours they get. The same shit happened with the F-22. But only veteran pilots tend to be put into that plane. The F-35 is supposed to be the backbone, so it doesn't get the luxury of only having veteran pilots.
>>72253570
Those F-35 costs aren't correct. Thanks to the Dutch contact we have an actual cost.
$6.80 billion for 37 planes. That gives us a figure of $183 million per F-35A
Maintenance will also be $8.26 million per yer per plane. And that is before they start accumulating flight hours and requiring more maintenance.
This is why the Netherlands is going to reduce their air force to a third of it's size. Because they can't afford it otherwise.
>>72253505
>brrrrtt.jpg
>Popov36: We're in jail dude
>>72254667
the A10 is slow as fuck and is really only useful against ground targets. the f-35 can fuck up ground targets just as well and engage in dogfights
>>72253721
Aye, sounds like we're on the same page where that's concerned.
Really hate to see the US going on this path. I didn't want to talk about the Ford-class carrier, because I hold a very small spark of hope that someone will get their head out of their ass and fix the problems.
>>72254924
>F-35A does not have the payload capacity. Unless you drop stealth
Stealth isn't an on/off switch.
Even at full pylon load, it has a lower RCS than legacy platforms; it will be detected later than any of them.
If you're worried about an F-35 with external stores being detected, then guess what? Nothing else could fly there either.
>The F-35 should never have been a stealth fighter.
For SEAD/DEAD its a necessity.
For CAP work its a necessity.
>>72255018
>attack craft only good against ground targets
>f35 can dogfight
are you smoking drugs or what
>>72254948
:'( too soon
>>72254924
>That gives us a figure of $183 million per F-35A
jezus
Who /PROP/ here?
>>72244844
It might be the best for now, but wars are not won just by having a few quality toys. Superiority on all levels, from military strategy to individual morale is necessary to be sure of winning. So it's probably not worth it.
>>72255018
> f35 dogfighting
Not with those tiny-wings it isn't.
>>72252058
Its nothing, move along.
>>72255295
money would have been better spent on moon colonization or a space elevator. Instead the "Western" world is spending money to develop a flying tiger tank
>>72255146
top speed of a-10 is 439mph
top speed of F-35 is 1,199mph, with SVTOL
>>72255298
Look at that work of art!
>>72244844
yes
>>72255439
The JSF program is a cost SAVING measure.
So not sure what money you're talking about being spent on a space elevator.
>>72255446
Why would an A-10 need to dog fight?
And F35 has already been shown to blow chunks are dogfights, and the official response is 'it should never have to dogfight'
>>72254924
>Except the cost of flying is going to reduce flight hours for pilots.
Except the F-35 will have lower operating costs than legacy platforms. It'll fly and fight cheaper than an F-16 or Strike Eagle while providing completely new capabilities.
> Not a Lockmart shill
>Based F-35 will be based.
>>72246401
any conflict that had cruse missle going to US airbases would also have nuclear missiles heading to that countries capital city.
>>72255295
I'm sure Russia knows a lot about having quality generals and individual morale
>>72255439
Absolutely true. But even if we speak about winning potential wars, there were probably better ways to spend that money.
>>72255580
The F35 will be able to shoot any 4th gen fighter out of the sky with out ever being noticed.
Two reasons why
Superior Radar
&
Partially invisible in the X band
>>72255580
>And F35 has already been shown to blow chunks are dogfights
Except it hasn't.
>>72255673
I'm sure America knows a lot about pretty much fucking everything.
>>72245762
>filename
>>72255726
railguns will render airpower pointless except in large zergs
>>72255779
nice hypothesis you have there sport, too bad fancy nerd shit never holds up in an actual war.
>>72255779
> """"partially"""" invisible
> using radar and expecting to be invisible
>>72255926
Stfu you communist pig fucker
>>72253104
In a mock dogfight between the F-35 and the F-16 the F-16 won. The F-35 couldn't outturn, or outclimb the F-16.
That's incredibly bad.
The F-35 is 30 years younger. It should be blowing the doors of the F-16, but it doesn't because it's terribly mediocre.
>>72256031
>What is AWACs / AEW
>What is passive radar
>What is EOTS
>What is Datalinking
Try harder
>>72256247
No, it really didn't.
>>72256029
There hasn't been an actual war on equal footing since the 2nd world war.
Fancy nerd shit is the main reason Superpowers leave each other alone
Blowing up towel heads is where its at for the foreseeable future
>>72256247
How well trained was the pilot
>>72250520
>poo
>jets
>>72256247
lol keep quoting a shit article from years ago when the flight software on the F-35 had strict limitations in order to justify your false worldview.
>>72256312
> backpedaling into AWACs
Nice.
>>72256029
>railguns will render airpower pointless except in large zergs
I think there will be a bunch of technologies that will make almost all modern weapon systems as useful as cavalry in WW2. Like railguns, advanced electronic warfare, hypersonic cruise missiles, drones.
>>72256029
We are the only people with Railguns.
You build your weapons to fight your enemy, why waste cash on railgun proof jets when no one is going to use them on us?
>>72256031
You cant be this stupid
In a turning climbing battle the F35 wont be able to beat the F16.
BVR combat which is what combat in real life looks like, the F16 would be shot down without knowing the f35 was ever there
>>72255298
Do you understand how dogfighting works? Whoever gets the lock on first wins. The F-35 can lock onto anything around it. The nose doesn't even need to be pointing at the target.
>>72250520
the MiG 29 is dope though
>>72256499
>backpedaling into AWACs
Going to have to be more clear on what you mean.
AWACs support is standard fare for air combat where air to air engagements are likely to occur. Its how its practiced, its how its most likely to occur, its how its done.
That said, the F-35's AESA functions in an LPI mode, so its not like legacy platforms will be able to detect it radiating that well, either.
>>72256648
Too bad about it's range, avionics and engines.
>>72256566
> talks about dogfighting
> you CANT be this stupid, the F35 would actually be doing BVR OBVIOUSLY
Russia wins at BVR too, try harder.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html
>>72244844
Anyone here know about the "oh shit!" button in the JSF?
>>72254184
For us it's easily the best available choice as money is not an issue.
>>72244844
Rail gun
Yes
And yes the Rail gun is a British invention, we invented one before the Americans, BAE systems built one for America and is building us one as well.
They scare the fuck out of me, can you imagine one of these hitting you? Fucking hell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LMyzjaCdAQ
>>72256648
Complete toss for the last 20 years
>>72244844
No and no.
>>72256689
Yeah, and Russian jets carrying AWACs killers is pretty standard too.
>>72256799
Too bad Russian jets have RCSs so large they can be spotted by NATO aircraft, and engaged, before they can get a target on AWACs.
>>72256713
>Aus Air Power
oh, you're one of THOSE retards.
>Russia wins at BVR too
Whens the last time it did?
>>72256799
Which require the AWACs to be radiating to track.
Lock onto an AWACs and see what happens.
>>72256247
the funny part is that you can fit a f-16 with ecm countermeasures that will keep it relatively safe in air to air combat (as safe as can be expected when getting shot at) and it will still have better mobility than a F-35.
if you can find it, you've destroyed its primary offensive capability. If you can run it down you've destroyed its primary defensive capability.
The best part? F-16's are easy to fly, easy to build, easy to maintain. It wouldn't be hard to build an overwhelming attack force with such an aircraft, even if the casualties are heavy (which they wouldn't be because the f-35 is a reconissance plane) you still spend less money than the other guy.
>>72244844
Yes
>>72255295
>wars are won by a combination of factors so having the best weapons isn't important
t. Montezuma
>>72244844
fuck no not by a long shot.
>>72256713
>http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html
How do you lock on to something which cant be seen in the x band.
You can't
I believe it is you who should 'try harder'
>>72248441
>he doesn't know about the over-the-horizon tech in the F-35
Shameful, actually. But then again, you are just shitposting.
>>72255108
>Stealth isn't an on/off switch.
Put external stores on the fucker and you ruined stealth. Sure it's still a slightly smaller RCS than a legacy plane. But guess what. you can still be detected within weapons range so it doesn't help you.
>>72255108
>For SEAD/DEAD its a necessity.
>For CAP work its a necessity.
And how many of the sorties are SEAD? Very little, so stealth is a huge expense.
For CAP it's only useful if you have AWACS. Without it you need to use radar yourself and then stealth becomes useless.
It's going to work against shitty third world nations that don't have the capability to go after AWACS. But guess what, you don't need stealth to go after them.
>>72256904
Funny thing is, you can cram an F-16 with all that shit and it still doesn't have the range or payload of an F-35. Mobility literally means nothing in the world of BVR and AIM-9X.
>>72256553
america has a habit of telling everybody their secrets. Missile technology, military strategy, etc etc. How do you know that other countries aren't developing railguns?
>>72256767
Also the Brimstone missile, it's very good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo6M1ZQcsh0
>>72256689
>That said, the F-35's AESA functions in an LPI mode, so its not like legacy platforms will be able to detect it radiating that well, either.
Hurray! My $100+ million 5th generation fighter can shoot down legacy crap that's 50 years old!
>>72256870
>>72256892
> russian rcs so large
> missiles still have 40% pk chance
> oh but the AWACs is not going to be radiating in my scenario where it's data-linked to the F35, no sir!
Don't backpedal out of your windows, bongos.
>>72244844
F-35 is actually stealth project for 6th generation fighter-UAV/bomber/whatever
>>72257056
lol You think Russia and China are capable? They can't even build jet engines capable of competing with US built ones from the 1970s.
Beyond the USA, Japan/Korea and Western Europe, there isn't any research centers worth a damn.
>>72257031
So you're gonna fly around without "being seen", and not engage anyone.
Good job, now how exactly how you taken down the Russian fighter?
>>72245839
>>72246718
>>72256923
>>72256476
>mfw a fucking MiG 21 beats it in a dog fight without breaking sweat
>>72251376
Would be interesting to compare with new f15
>>72257220
Oh, Mig-21s can survive a missile spam from jets it can't even lock onto? Got it.
>>72244844
no, yes.
>>72256553
But you're not ;^)
>>72257056
They probably are, Russia showed off a cobalt bomb apparently.
>>72257038
>And how many of the sorties are SEAD? Very little, so stealth is a huge expense.
SEAD/DEAD is extremely important, so the expense isn't really an issue. If you've destroyed your opponents IADs, which is pretty much what everyone outside the west relies on, you've got a massive upper hand.
>>72257109
I never said it wouldn't be radiating.
I said that you would have to lock onto it to launch something like a K-100, at which point you're identified and fucked, and the AWACs can simply stop radiating.
>>72256553
A gigantic railgun battery wall that would turn F22s into swiss cheese before they came over the horizon only requires: electricity, chemical resources, and steel
The three things China has the most of
On the other hand, the F35's radar and X-band baffling means it would take sophisticated sensors in order to land a guided shot
>>72256247
Let's talk about this.
F-16C has slightly better T/W and wingloading but pays for that with more drag, and inferior fuel fraction and lift loading.
Even when carrying a centerline tank, the F-16 has half the fuel capacity that the F-35 uses internally, and the F-16 is much thirstier.
The F-16 has an edge in climb rate, acceleration, and top speed when both are configured for intercept.
However in an intercept, the F-35 can climb to 50,000 feet, while the F-16 must remain at 36,000ft to maintain best forward speed. The higher you are, the better your fuel economy is, the further you can see with your radar, and the more energy you can impart to your missiles, increasing throw range and the range of the no escape zone.
In a dogfight, the F-35 has an advantage in the fact that it can make quicker and sharper turns. the F-16 however, has a better sustained turn rate. The IT turn rate for the F-16 is 16.1, compared to 19.9 degrees/second for the F-35. The IT turn radius is thus ~2400ft for the F-35 and ~3,000ft for the F-16.
For sustained turns, that radius becomes ~4,400 for the F-16 and ~4,900ft for the F-35.
>>72257335
Why would the AWACs stop radiating, the "stealthy" F35s need the data to do anything without "being seen"
>>72244844
I like the f35 but shit scope for the project and no real reason to make (to fight Russia? Kek) it means it's just a waste of money that'll take up hangar space imho. Some of the tech produced from this project is neat tho.
>>72257369
Get back to me when China has a railgun.
And if they had one, they would dick wave it around the world.
>>72244844
f35
the only plane stealthy on x band only on the front lobe
x band..
a band that no enemy radar use
overpriced
half of the f22 weapons cert
less range
literally a ramp carrier fag plane with no purpose at all
>>72253012
>PAK-FA is superior to the F-35
My imaginary jet is also superior to f22.
>>72257335
>SEAD in a plane that can't fucking turn
It's like they never learn.
>>72257369
good luck hitting something you can't lock onto with a stationary, projectile-based weapons platform
FIM 92
>>72257369
> chinese rail-guns
>>72257290
>missile spam
>spam
you confused real life with tom clancy's hawks matey
>>72257501
It's made to be able to operate in environments where SAMs are a real possibility. With Russia selling S-300s and S-400 systems to anyone that wants to buy them, why not have your bread and butter bomb truck be able to have some protection.
>>72257505
>And if they had one, they would dick wave it around the world.
not everyone in the world is USA WE DA BEST
whats the difference between the JSF and F22
>>72257208
you don't seem to understand how the APG-81 radar works.
I'm guessing your just tolling but ill bite.
its best to educate yourself
Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtZNBkKdO5U
Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyHlp7tJrxY
Part 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31oJIo8EVwY
Part 2 covers most of you concerns
>>72257369
One problem, they actually have to learn how to compile all the parts together, so far they've received all their blueprint designs from Israel.
Don't let Israel get it's hands on the design or even allow them to own a Rail gun because the Chinese will have it quicker than you can say "OY VEY!"
>>72257786
> posting the damage control vids some brain-dead fuckboys from /k/ have cooked up
No thanks.
>>72257780
Let's look how Russia operates. They announce military projects that will never even be made to make the Russian people feel stronk. China does the same shit, it's not about actual power, it's about making your people feel like the government is in control.
Like I said, the chinese can't even build jet engines on par with western ones from the 1970s. They aren't building railguns.
>>72244844
It might be the best of its kind, but it will likely be the last of its kind, because the next generation will be pilotless
>>72257477
Not even slightly true.
>>72257601
But it can turn.
>>72257939
The superhornet and F-22/F-15 replacement will be "6th gen" and have a pilot. So probably not.
>>72257911
Hell, you're the one reading AusAirPower.
No position to be calling anyone out for reading absolute drivel.
>>72257929
> russia 2nd military in the world
> they don't have ACTUAL power you guys
>>72257984
About as well as the F-105 :^)
>>72257601
It's turn radius is on par with the F/A-18. One of the jets it's designed to replace.....
>>72257335
>SEAD/DEAD is extremely important, so the expense isn't really an issue. If you've destroyed your opponents IADs, which is pretty much what everyone outside the west relies on, you've got a massive upper hand.
The F-35 can not fit an anti-radiation missile internally. So how exactly is that stealth going to help?
If only the UK restarted their plan to turn the meteor missile into an anti-radiation missile.
>>72257719
yeah and the 3d radars that work on L band while the f35 is stealthy on x is a so much good idea
>>72247830
>>Too bad there is not going to be any two modern armies facing off because fucking proxies and global economy.
If we continue to allow China to surpass the American dollar and improve their cheap knockoffs.... that's exactly what's going to happen!
>>72258076
Russia is a regional power with nukes.
>>72258081
About as well as an F-18, and similar to an F-16 when both have a combat load.
>>72258038
An analyst from ausairpower is 10 times more credible than the butthurt trash that roams /k.
>>72257782
F-22 is a pure air to air fighter for the Air Force. Not allowed to export. 187 built.
F-35 is a multirole strike fighter for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy. The F-35 has integrated electro optical sensors and targeting systems along with integration for more types of bombs (F-22 can only carry GPS guided JDAMs while F-35 can carry laser guided munitions as well as GPS).
That's the basics.
>>72258199
Bet you think Sprey is credible too.
>>72257911
I think you should watch them, I was like you once.
Very anti F35, but all of my arguments against it were addressed in these videos.
If you're unwilling to learn, then I can't help you
>>72258165
Russias neighbouring "regions" make up a 1/4 of the planet.
Lugging about some planes on a ship that could be sunk with a barrage of moderately modern ASM, is only an achievement if your goal is bombing mudhuts for the rest of history.
>>72258165
>biggest bio warfare stockpile on the world
>biggest nuclear arsena on the world
>literally can destroy the world 3 times and 4 times north korea just for fun
>its the biggest country
>being called regional superpower
>kek
>>72244844
>AIR SUPERIORITY
>Literally fighting goatfuckers that have zero planes.
What are they preparing for I wonder?
Taranis will soon replace all of your manned aircraft.
Why send men into the field or fighter jets when we can just send in drones capable of firing nuclear missiles or biological weapons or any fucking weapon.
Hell why the fuck don't we get nano wasps and things like that that can sting our enemy with deadly poisons. Create swarms of them to unleash on the enemy barracks to kill them all or make them sick before the battle starts.
How we doing with EMP technology.. We need new stuff, effective stuff and smaller stuff that gets shit done quickly and quietly, a wasp that floats around or an ant, after the task is complete they have an inbuilt self destruct sequence to stop them being reverse engineer'd.
>>72258104
ARMs aren't the only tool in the box for SEAD/DEAD.
>>72257887
>Don't let Israel get it's hands on the design or even allow them to own a Rail gun because the Chinese will have it quicker than you can say "OY VEY!"
Man, if you think Israel doesn't already have all the weapon blueprints America has ever even heard of, I don't know what to tell you
>>72257435
This is with the F-35A carrying 6 AIM-120D, and the F-16C carrying 1 centerline tank, 4 AIM-120D, and 2 AIM-9X.
Now let's talk about CAP!
Since we need loiter time, the F-16C will be carrying 3 external fuel tanks, the F-35A will be all internal. Same armament as the intercept profile.
Even with all this, the F-16 can only provide a 2hr loiter time at ranges of up to 200nm. The F-35A can loiter for 2hrs at a station that is twice as far at 400nm, still on internal fuel.
What's more, the F-16C now has lost all previous advantages it once had in Thrust/Weight and wing loading, and the drag and lift loading have gotten worse.
Of course, the F-35 is operating in maximum stealth configuration while the F-16 is not.
>>72258360
Russia will never attack NATO. Sorry to spoil your wet dream.
>>72257369
railguns have poor multiple shot capability as the velocities cause the barrels to wear out with only a few shots. Do you expect that to stop an airforce that numbers in the thousands that can come from any direction and altitude?
>>72258222
So we buy shitty planes while you keep the best.... aint right man
>>72258134
>L-band
Shitter resolution and less range. Retard.
>>72258455
This is BAE systems, they wouldn't allow it and then Israel really will be held accountable, it won't be swept under the carpet like the patriot missile batteries they handed over.
I'm sure BAE has a plan to stop a leak of the blueprints.
>>72258517
The F-35 and F-22 don't have the same roles.
>>72258273
> bet you think this accomplished fighter designer whom we've spammed shitty memes about is credible, huh?
Yeah, I do.
He's right about the costs, right about the shit wings, right about the shit speed, right about stealth being a meme when faced with Russian radar, right about the trash payload, etc etc etc
When the fuck has /k/ ever been right about anything.
The F-35 has exactly one thing going for it, and that's the Avatar project. Remote controlling a front of cheap aerial drones carrying load is very valuable.
The multi-role parts is what bit the project; jack of all trades, master of none.
>>72244844
If by, "is it worth the cost?", you mean is effective at hiding half a trillion dollars being spent on a project you know nothing about because they had no other way to hide spending that much money.
Yea I would so.
>>72258679
>Sprey
>Fighter Designer
Poe's Law in full effect, gents
>>72258679
He's been wrong about literally everything. He thought the US airforce should build Mig-21 clones and rely on lots of cheap jets.
>>72258501
> shitpost about "beating" Russia all thread
> ha-ha we're not gonna go to war btw
That's the line of the Russians, right after mentioning their superior nukes, burger.
>>72258517
>F-35
>shitty
The F-35 is easier to maintain. Plus you need the B model for your carriers.
And >>72258615
>>72258679
>accomplished fighter designer
That's a fucking lie. The closest he's ever been to 'designing' a plane is saying 'we want a plane with these capabilities'. And when a plane is built to those capabilities, it turns out that it's shitty at doing anything so the military upgrades it to fix it and then he whines about it.
He thinks the A-10 is trash, and the F-16 is too big and heavy.
>>72258740
The full quote is
" Jack of all trades, master of none,
though oftentimes better than master of one"
Airforces have had a majority of their aircraft as multiroles for DECADES. this is not new.
>>72258811
> implying relying lots on cheap jets wouldn't have been the best course of action and lining the pockets of neo-con jews is somehow helping America
You're chugging Kool-Aid by the gallon, whilst posting, aren't you?
>>72258444
Indeedy. But if you are conducting SEAD with free fall bombs, you are getting too close and get vulnerable to IR missiles.
I know Britain is thinking of sticking a small engine and wings on their bombs so that they have a greater stand-off distance to use them in SEAD. But pretty much everyone says that is not a proper solution like a new ARM is.
>>72258992
You forgot to mention that they traded even losses with the mighty F-4 while being worlds cheaper.
>>72259071
The choice isn't between ARMs and JDAMs, chucklefuck
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-160_MALD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon
>>72258550
>Japan has F-35s
Literally why
Well it must be good because fifth generation?
>>72258992
Relying on lots of cheap jets is a shitty concept that only works defensively.
>Space on a Carrier for 40 airframes
>F-18s or MiG-21s
>HMMMMM
Do you think they'll turn these into weapons at some point?
I know they're supposed to get to space and to refuel and take astronauts up to the ISS but you reckon they'll weaponise the technology to fight fighter jets?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)
>>72258589
lol
L band
the band that was made because it was the best for long range
its shit
not even knowing that their only downside is for very low flying objects on situations of OTH
>>72258992
In a war, the highest cost of replacement and training are the pilots. Not the jets.
ilots are not cannon fodder, and shouldn't be seen as such. Jet p
>>72258885
> b-but he HATES the F-16 and the A-10
He still helped design them.
>>72259101
MiG-21s had less than 40 F-4 kills (of all types of F-4s)
The VPAF admitted (real number is probably higher) to the loss of 60 MiG-21s.
>>72259456
Right, and the military had to spend hundreds of millions to fix the initial designs that were absolute dog shit.
Today's F-16 isn't the plane he helped designed.
>>72259369
Downsides of L-band is extremely low resolution that means you can't use it to pinpoint range, location, or use it for a weapons track.
It also has problems with interference due to sensitivity.
>>72259548
> fix the initial designs
> cram a bunch of shit into the plane
Pick one
>>72252058
Enjoy your visit to a CIA black site anon.
>>72259456
He didn't want any of the features that make the F-16 the workhorse it is today to exist.
he's a mouthbreathing retard, and so are you.
>>72259456
I don't think you understand how to use the word 'designed.'
All that man is a lobbyist, not an engineer or aircraft designer.
>>72259692
What is the F-16 doing aside from bombing mudhuts today?
>>72259610
Right, and the F-35 already has all that shit crammed into it from the start so performance doesn't get compromised based on load out.
>>72259231
They're going to need them when they build a proper aircraft carrier.
>>72257653
>showing your ignorance of modern combat
Modern combat is beyond visual range fighting. Beyond visible range fighting is literally just missile spamming.
>>72259547
>1.5:1 against rice paddy farmers flying tin cans
>thinking that's not even money given the aforementioned costs of the F-4 and the training of their pilots
>>72257220
mig21 will be shot down before it can even notice the f-35
f-35 is not a dogfighting jet, because dogfighting belongs to the 20tieth century
f-35 is a manned drone on steroids
>>72244844
>is this the best weapons platform ever created?
It's multi-role, it will never be the best weapons platform ever.
>is it worth the cost?
Probably not, we'll find out in 5 years for certain.
The only certain positive is that the countries making the planes help R&D for it's replacement, hopefully they'll have the sense to make two seperate airframes rather than fucking it over for MUH VTOL.
>>72259823
Yeah and Flankers have more missiles. Checkmate.
>>72254860
How many of those pic related are in service right now, famz ?
>>72258289
I remember I used to hate the F-35. Now I love it.
Pic related will be the best fighter the U.S. Navy could have asked for.
>>72259814
They're buying A models.
>>72259806
In the last major war?
SEAD, CAS and CAP missions.
In some instances taking over from the A-10 because of how shitty it is.
>>72259938
Russia doesn't need to go to war with NATO anon :^)
>>72259898
Does it matter when the flankers can't even see the F-35s/f-22s, that outnumber them 4:1?
>>72260034
N O
S - D U C T S
>>72259973
Pierre was right about the A-10 being shit?
>>72251737
Raarrrrrrre
>>72258679
He fucking believed that the T-72 was a superior tank to the M1 Abrams.
Gulf War has determined that was a lie.
>>72260108
Sprey opposed the C model upgrade that made it actually do anything worthwhile at all.
He thought the A-model was great.
>>72260084
> flankers can't see us, but we can fire missiles at them XDDD
My favourite delusion.
>>72244844
The software is faulty and it's going to stay grounded until you pay another trillion dollar to LM.
>>72259967
>They're buying A models.
Yeah, I noticed that after I posted. Have a webm as compensation.
>>72244844
it's pretty fucking good
>>72259868
Given that ROE forced the F-4 into engagements that the F-4 was never designed for, and its crew were barely trained for, and the plane wasn't even equipped for, yeah I say that's a pretty good ratio when you give the other plane every possible advantage.
>>72259599
not really russia had culling systems 15 years ago when they started testing the l band by being intergrated into the wings/fuselage (just like f22 did)
tho they didnt gave publlicy the name of the cpu that was culling people say its similiar to the AN/ALR-94 esm only that uses way less power because the planes are able to "get" more aesa components on them thus requiring very little processing(gruman had a 737 flying for years with an L band
>>72260194
What makes you think they can? IRST? That shit is barely even usable unless you're within visual range anyway. Keep dreaming
>>72260147
>Gulf War has determined that was a lie.
Whoa, leafperson. Those were shitty export versions. Just like Abrams tanks ISIS rides these days are.
>>72260147
T72 is a superior tank to the M1 though.
During the Gulf war all you've faced were tanks with no NV, which were firing expired ammunition.
Nice achievement btw.
>>72260182
He thought the A model was too big and slow. It needed to be smaller, with only a single engine, and more maneuverable. That's what he wanted, an F-5 with a 30mm gun, no radar or guided weapons of any kind, and would be based within 50nm of the 'frontline.'
>>72260417
What inspires you to suck Russian cock so much? Do you like feeling unique and special you slavboo faggot?
>>72260403
Saddam wished he had the same type of export models the Saudis have. He was literally running EXPIRED AMMUNITION, whereas the Americans make sure to sell as much as they can to the Saudis.
>>72260403
>>72260417
The only thing Russian tanks do well is blow their turrent right off when hit because of the shitty auto-loader being right there.
>>72260578
Why are you so mad, bro?
>>72258911
Primarily because our nations use airforce in a supporting role with a minimum of bombing mission, not in air superiority.
>multiroles for DECADES. this is not new.
Doesn't mean it's right either. The sensible approach is to develop a bomber that is good at supporting ground-forces, another bomber that is good at carrying tonnage. Against a reasonable flight-cost please.
Neither does it take into account the roles that drones play nowadays. The Avatar project was an afterthought by a strategic genius.
>>72244844
Pic related would like a word with you.
>>72260194
How so? Flankers have a huge RCS and have to spam active radar to have any sort of chance of spotting an F-35 or F-22 on radar.
>>72260147
>Gulf War has determined that was a lie.
All the Gulf War determined was that arabs can't fight. Not only did the Iraqi's make their own T-72s that were I think worse than the export models but they dug them in making them static. It doesn't lend itself well to the nato/american > soviet thing.
It's also worth mentioning that the actual counterpart to the M1 Abrams was the T-80.
Pay engineers and everyone along the chain to maintian their expertise and supply lines or give food stamps. Worth it.
>>72260706
Russian turrets are lighter, and therefore the tank has a lower profile. That's a plus.
Any tank that's actually hit by anything modern will be disabled, except that Russians have been pioneering ERA and Active/Passive defense, whilst Burgers danced around pretending their shit armor is GOAT, because it can hold shots from RPGs made in the 60s.
>>72260901
The cold war ended 20+ years ago. The capabilities of the T-72 are well known. It's shit. Even the Russians are buying western optics to attempt to upgrade it.
>>72260706
thats a good one considering how saudis in audis lost many of their m1a2 because of the kornet e those past months
>>72260375
>Thinking the L-band arrays in the wings are for target aquisition
holy
fuck
>>72244844
There is only 1 European fighter that I respect and that is the Saab 39 Gripen. Why? Because it is single-engine and single-engine bros need to stick together.
>>72260706
Because when my tank is destroyed keeping my turret is what i what care about desu
>>72260770
Flankers aren't pretend "invisible" planes, what is your point about RCS even supposed to mean. The pk chance of the F35 missiles is still about 40% and that's taking into account Russian ECM from the 90s.
>>72260711
Because your claims are baseless you cunt. Where did your fetish for Russians come from?
Whether they're export or not, the only instance of combat has shown the M1 is superior. You can't claim that the T-72 is superior.
>>72260980
>>72261024
>>72261097
These abrams don't have the DU armor that the US uses.
>>72261052
have you seen how they did it on the su 35bm?
the wingtips along with the main aesa are for active targeting
the belly is for jamming along with the tail wings...
but go ahead lol
>>72260770
>he doesn't know about EOS
>>72261264
> expired ammunition
> untrained monkey drivers
> monkey models
> no night vision
These are not baseless claims, my anal-pained friend :^)
>>72261332
merkavas on 2006 had a way more advanced active armor on them
and look how bad it ended for them they literally got murdered by russian stronk missiles
>>72261018
Oh I know. Definitely wouldn't want to be in one myself, especially when all sorts of anti-tank ordnance can go right through it these days. Russians seem to think the b3 upgrade is good enough though.
>>72261357
L band has almost no capability for targeting. At most it will give you a "there's something in this general direction, no idea the range" type of situational awareness.
>>72261420
So you're saying it wasn't as good as the M1?
>>72261332
These abrams also never been fired at by something like an RPG29 that penetrated the front armor of a Challenger2 and took the drivers legs.
>>72260353
Yeah, it was designed to shoot down blips on a radar screen from BVR.
Sound familiar?
>>72261576
No?
>>72245727
Ray was worse than Rex though. It even states so in the lore. They only use Ray more because it's easier to mass produce and cheaper.
>>72261681
Oh, well then. Everything will be a surprise all over again. :^)
>>72261576
So you're admitting that the plane forced into a role it wasn't designed to do was at least as good as the purpose built interceptor?
And that if it had been used in its intended role it would have completely wiped the floor with the MiG-21s before their shitty sapfir radar even knew anything was around?
I'm glad we agree, anon.
>>72261570
>penetrated the front armor of a Challenger2 and took the drivers legs.
It injured his foot.
Make up anything to advance your strange worldview, wontcha
>>72261556
Yeah, I'm saying the T72 is better.
>>72261516
seriously murica had those kinds of radas like 10 years ago do some research they abandoned them because at the time was too expensive to built them in a "logical" size to fit on that time aircrafts
culling the noise with the esm its something air forces around the world is doing like from the 60s
>>72261786
> injured his foot
He lost his leg and the Brits had to run MASSIVE damage control, akin to the shit you're running itt
>>72261789
Wait, sorry, I'm not from Austria so I'm not as smart as you are.
You're saying when two tanks go head to head, the one that loses is the winner?
>>72261879
When did the M1 ever go up against the T72? Are you trying to tell me that time the M1 shot some T72 museum displays was relevant?
>>72259158
It is for Britain
>>72261878
You're thinking of an IED attack in which a soldier lost both legs.
The RPG-29 penetration injured the driver's foot.
>>72261786
>Injured his foot
He was crippled FOR LIFE.
>>72262023
The RAF doesn't operate any ARMs.
>>72261570
That the different between western and eastern armor. eastern armor gets penetrated, it has a huge explosion. Western armor penetrated, one person inside gets injured. I'll try to find the pic of the American M1 that was detracked and wouldn't blow up when a couple of A-10s tried to dispose of it with AGM-65s.
>>72261777
I do indeed admit that the F-4 was forced out of its comfort zone. But instead of learning from history we continue to build aircraft with the assumption that our enemies will allow them to operate entirely within their comfort zone.
After World War I, the dogfight was dead.
After World War 2, the dogfight was dead.
After Korea, the dogfight was dead.
After Vietnam, the dogfight was dead.
5th time is the charm, I suppose.
>>72262029
Holy shit, the damage control worked.
Props to the brits.
I, however, vividly remember stories about brit troops literally crying about thinking they were in the "safest tank in the whole WORLD".
>>72262060
>>72262187
"In August 2006 south east of al-Amarah, southern Iraq, an RPG-29 capable of firing a tandem-charge penetrated the frontal lower underbelly armour of a Challenger 2 commanded by Captain Thomas Williams of The Queens's Royal Hussars. The tank, which had already been hit by 10-15 RPGs, small arms and sniper fire, was attempting to draw fire away from another callsign that had become stricken. Its driver, Trooper Sean Chance, lost part of his foot in the blast; two more of the crew were slightly injured. Chance was able to reverse the vehicle 1.5 mi (2.4 km) to the regimental aid post despite his injuries."
Sure sounds like he exploded into a fine pink mist to me
>>72255219
best plane
>>72262135
Except it wasn't the VPAF that forced the F-4 out of the comfort zone. They didn't use cunning, dastardly tricks to prevent it from plinking with sparrows from outside of the MiG-21s pathetic radar range.
Tell me anon, if you were a trained pilot and you got a sortie order right now, would you rather be climbing into an F-5, or an F-35?
One is a great dogfighter, and the other isn't.
The russians are coming anon, pick wisely.
>>72262265
Sure sounds like he lost his leg, which is what I was saying.
>>72256622
>Whoever gets first lock on wins
True, most of the time.
Do you happen to remember what happened with the F-4's in Vietnam? Turns out being able to dogfight with a cannon is useful after all.
It would be interesting to see 2 "stealth" fighters actually lock on to each other. Again missile technology has come a very far way since the 60's but no matter what you come out with there will always be a tactic to defeat it.
>>72262021
>When did the M1 ever go up against the T72?
You use this as an argument against him for saying M1 is better but yet use it to prove the T-72 is better? What the fuck is your problem?
>people on /pol/ are so fucking retarded and new they're repeating the equivalent of rat tumors, but for the f35
I sure am glad I'm not THAT fucking stupid
>>72262653
> why aren't you taking your time with lost cases such as this idiot???
Why should I? I don't disagree with Sprey for saying the T72 is a better tank.
>>72262418
"Lost part of his foot"
>>72261570
"took the drivers legs."
Now who's backpedalling? :^)
and no, it doesn't sound like he lost his leg at all.
>>72262781
> 1 post by this id
A bit late there, Lockmart.
>>72262475
Shows that you know about nothing that actually happened with F-4s in vietnam.
Let me educate you.
The Navy and USAF used different models of the F-4 (kinda like the F-35). The airforce added a gun to theirs, the Navy trained their pilots in air combat maneuvering. Navy kill ratio went up, AF stayed the same.
>>72260588
>Saddam wished he had the same type of export models the Saudis have. He was literally running EXPIRED AMMUNITION, whereas the Americans make sure to sell as much as they can to the Saudis.
Not just expired ammo. They ran their own home developed steel ammo. Which wasn't even all that hard of a steel. It's no wonder they didn't work.
>>72262832
When someone becomes a cripple, you say he "lost his legs"
> teaching english comprehension to a bong
My sides.
>>72262475
>>72262135
Can we stop this fucking "F-4 needed a gun" meme?
Naval F-4 variants NEVER got the gun and it had a BETTER kill to death ratio than the USAF did. USAF just had shitty tactics back then. Since then, Fighter Weapons School was invented and it has drastically improved every squadron the USAF has.
>>72262960
So when I look at someone in a wheelchair with no fucking shins, I should be thinking he "injured his foot"
kek
just no, faggot.
>>72262869
I just finished reading this shitty thread
>implying anti f35 isn't a huge and apparently successful marketing campaign
Stay retarded in candycaneland fag
>>72259372
the drone fleet is pretty good at keeping a presence without risking pilots, but lets be honest, pilots in the current conflicts aren't at much risk from enemy fire anyway.
For the counter insurgency wars that just keep inexplicably happening *wink* i think the most cost effective platform would be OV-10 Broncos. They can carry a pretty impressive arsenal, they're armored against small arms, they can loiter for a long time and at a longer range than helicopters. And I'm not saying just dust off the old aircraft and put them into service, but do some major retrofitting, better engines for short takeoff, sensor domes, maybe a gun that points where the gunner is looking like the cobra, x-ray helmets, the works. They would also be perfect for hunting helicopters and tanks in a conventional conflict. Hell, they could do new-production and give the marines a whole squadron of close air support planes for the cost of one lightning. Its an idea that's sort of been kicked around for years, from what i've read.
For superpower v. superpower conflicts, weaponizing orbital space is the only real option. rods from god for ground attack, lasers for defense. Biggest problem with space-to-space combat is debris, weapons that push the badguys into reentry are ideal, explosions in orbit would eventually fuck everybody's shit up equally. In the meantime F-22 is a beast, and while the F-35 has a design-by-committee bureaucratic stench about it, it seems like it can hold its own (as long as it doesn't dump its engine mid-flight)
Ground equipment is less important, because who owns the sky owns the ground beneath it. Ships are important for mostly bringing the air support, but there are also missile ships and subs and in the next couple years the hypersonic railgun is supposed to be going into service.
Missile defense is a whole other kettle of fish, and arguably as important now as its ever been. U.S. is leading by a comfy margin in that department if I'm not mistaken.
We will never use the F-35 in combat against anything other than 3rd generation fighters.
Watch and see. Paranoia after the F-117 incident set in badly in the Chair Force.
>>72262897
Glad to see another person who knows what they're talking about.
BFM and ACM have been improved drastically by Navy Top Gun and USAF Fighter Weapons School.
>>72263075
Candycaneland is objectively 20 times better than the United States of Walmart, and the F35 is a neo-con Jew ploy to still tax dollars from your already impoverished household.
I'm not anti F35, I'm not the one who has to pay for it. I just think it's utter shit.
![Tank_T-34[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/FrAdPyE.jpg "Tank T-34[1]")
