It's small, it only has one engine vs. the standard two for all competitors, it is expensive and can't do shit in combat that the F-22 cannot do itself.
>>71745947
thats the carrier variant, it was intentionally made small so we could spam them
The tech in the cockpit alone could make India a superpower in 2017.
>>71745947
Because there's a lot more S-300's/s-400's, other type of SAM systems floating around than comparable airplanes that actually pose a danger to air supremacy silver bullet provided by the F-22. And its unlikely that this balance will be disturbed until we well on our way to conventional airforces becoming obsolete due to energy scarcity which will be a defining phenomenon of this century.
The better question to ask is why the F-35'A' is getting produced when we should be sticking to F-35 B's and C's since any large installation in any high intensity war is going to have a nuclear bomb dropped on it by the adversary.
So we need to scatter the STVOL into the wilderness and carriers are naturally mobile and can move around.
The F-35B and C's is exactly what's needed against a full spectrum of threats.
Besides, it hardly matters since the AMRAAM in its most current form massively outranges the oppositions copy of it
T. armchair tactician.
>>71746112
>people will believe this
>>71745947
Because it makes Russian faggots like you mad
>>71746746
>thinking that bigger is better with Fighter Jets.
>>71746112
Top shitpost 2016
>>71746938
>>thinking that bigger is better with Fighter Jets.
Big is always better, you 4 inch faggot.
>>71746938
But it is?
>>71746938
not what i meant.
there arent two different size airframes for the 35. retarded.
>>71746938
>bigger
>not better
you don't sound very american
>>71747355
Only reason I could see our military accepting an inferior plane is if the industry making them has that much influence.
Which they could.
>>71745947
You realize that's not actually the F-35C right? This is the F-35C. It might not be the perfect fighter, but it is still the best in the world at this point. You get 80% of the F-22's performance at 50% of the price.
So which country has the best plane and why?
>>71745947
>can't do shit in combat that the F-22 cannot do itself
Speaking as someone who's actually talked to people who have worked on them and has a friend who's in para recon and was trained at the base they've been working on them, I can tell you for a fact that there isn't a plane on this planet that can hold a candle to it.
But keep assuming based off what little information you're given about them and your lack of second or even third hand accounts
>>71747244
then why are ahmad and mehmet spitroasting your girl?
>>71747623
Wait what? F35 is "best bang for your buck" instead of cutting edge technology? Also, how much do they actually cost?
>>71745947
The US operates on a high-low mix of aircraft, the F-22 is the dedicated air superiority plane, designed to out do every other aircraft in air to air combat, and the F-35 is a more versatile multi-role aircraft, with ground strike capabilities as well as being a decent fighter.
>>71746938
>>71747355
>>71747446
>>71747623
>>71747647
>>71747789
>americucks blindly defending their tax dollar drain
https://f35baddeal.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um0VCH3Z044
>>71748089
>tax dollar drain
we waste more on things that don't keep world powers on their toes
>>71747377
hell right, can i get a dale yeah?
>>71748089
>pierre sprey
if we listened to him we would still be using M4 Shermans
>>71747962
To be fair, best bang for your buck is worth more for an army with a budget.
But really, is the US army one of them?
Ask /k/ they have had threads about it constantly for months.
>>71747962
The F-35 is to the F-22 what the F-16 is to the F-15.
>>71747647
“The F-35’s performance characteristics also compare unfavorable to already deployed foreign 4th-generation fighters such as the Russian-designed MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker (also produced by China) in service with air forces around the world. These are the kinds of aircraft the F-35 would most likely face in air-to-air engagements against a high-end opponent. Compared to both the Su-27 and the MiG-29, the F-35 is grossly inferior in terms of wing loading (except for the F-35C), transonic acceleration, and thrust-to-weight. All F-35 variants also have significantly lower maximum speeds, Mach 1.6 for the F-35 compared to Mach 2.2 for the Su-27 and Mac 2.3 for the MiG-29.
Air-to-air simulations paint an even grimmer picture. In 2009, U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin analysts indicated that the F-35 could be expected to achieve only a 3-to-1 kill ratio against the decades-old MiG-29 and Su-27 despite its advantages in stealth and avionics. The results of other simulations have been far worse. In one simulation subcontracted by the RAND Corporation, the F-35 incurred a loss exchange ratio of 2.4-1 against Chinese Su-35s. That is, more than two F-35s were lost for each Su-35 shot down. While these simulations take into account a host of other factors and include assumptions about the context in which the engagements take place, they nevertheless underscore the need for skepticism regarding the F-35’s air-to-air capabilities.
Unfortunately, there are insufficient data on foreign 5th-generation fighters to allow for meaningful comparisons. Three such fighters are known to be under development: the Russian PAK FA and the Chinese J-20 and J-31.
>>71748307
>The F-35 is to the F-22 what the F-16 is to the F-15.
Given that the F-35 costs more than the F-22, the answer is "just no".
>>71747355
No, there are differences. The carrier version is slightly larger. It has a longer wingspan that can fold, more suited for carrier ops.
And there are probably some other more minor differences between the three variants.
>>71748433
>Given that the F-35 costs more than the F-22, the answer is "just no".
Assuming procurement doesn't fall in order to stop going over budget, the F-35 will be 50% cheaper than the F-22 per unit.
As far as I've been able to learn the biggest gripe with these planes isn't the performance or abilities, but rather the outrageous cost of development and individual unit cost. So many politicians had their hands in the honey pot for manufacture in their state that it's a logistical nightmare to produce. The development cost was inflated by a massive percent due to waste and inefficient use of funds, but 400 billion dollars later it is actually a good plane.
>>71748433
>Given that the F-35 costs more than the F-22
The F-22 was like $250 million per plane and the F-35 is like $100 million per plane so there is a big price difference. Not that more F-22's wouldn't be cool, but there isn't really a need for them.
>>71748224
Not really, I mean if F22 is the superior aircraft for dogfights, it would made sense to have them if the role of the army is a defensive one. If your army is built as an offensive one, the multi-purposed F35 would make more sense
>>71748668
That's actually a good point.
>>71748668
>yfw there will literally never be dogfights on earth again
so sad. such a cool way to fight and it's 99.9% useless these days.
>eurocucks are jealous
>Your Typhoon will never compete with American/Russian/Korean/Japanese/Chinese planes
>Plus they look cooler
we get it, you can't compete
>>71745947
Because... Norway
>>71748089
>pierre sprey
>>71748613
>The F-22 was like $250 million per plane and the F-35 is like $100 million per plane so there is a big price difference. Not that more F-22's wouldn't be cool, but there isn't really a need for them.
total program costs up until now for the F-22 has been 68 billion. 200 F-22 have been produced
total program costs for the F-35 until the program ends will be 1.5 trillion. 2500 F-35 will be produced.
>>71748946
Enroll in the Hellenic Airforce then, plenty of dogfights every day.
You could also enroll in roachistani Airforce if you like to get your ass handed to you
>>71748605
>Assuming procurement doesn't fall in order to stop going over budget, the F-35 will be 50% cheaper than the F-22 per unit.
total program cost (put everything together) is higher for the F-35 than for the F-22 on a per unit basis. Thank the "do it all, create many variants" mindset.
>>71749110
I'm actually an air force vet.
too old to rejoin.
>>71749063
>More planes are more expensive than fewer planes
Yes?
>>71749246
>>More planes are more expensive than fewer planes
>Yes?
Look at the overall per unit costs.
>>71748738
Well, if you think if of it, if you are defensive you want superiority in your field, not supporting capabilities for ad hoc situations. When you are offensive you are gonna need patching up operations left and right, so all your vehicles boats and aircrafts need to have supporting capabilities
>>71749134
guess why they are dusting of the Bronco again.
its funny that armies are so high tech that it costs a half a million dollar to just kill just one mudskin in a shithole somewhere on this globe.
>>71749197
Nice m8, I always daydreamed of piloting a fighter jet
>>71749285
Lifetime costs are different than unit costs.
>1 engine
engine failures have significantly decreased over the last decade, making it just as safe for a single engine today, as it was a decade ago for twin engines.
>F22
your solution to the cost of an F35 is to replace it with something that costs 3-4 times as much?
>>71748946
Depends how tiny they can get the weapons grade lasers. If missiles can be intercepted reliably with them then the only real alternative would be to start engaging enemy planes with the lasers themselves.
>>71749149
If you're using Wikipedia numbers it's not true.
The program cost of the F-22 shown in the Wikipedia page is the same as the procurement cost you see on the F-35's Wikipedia page... basically the F-22's Wikipedia page is really just showing procurement cost.
If you check the Wiki sources you get this link
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2011/analysis-fiscal-year-2012-pentagon-spending-request/?redirect=cow
>F-22 Fighter
>$354.9 million -- per unit cost
>$66,714.1 million -- total program cost
>F-35 Fighter (JSF)
>$133.6 million -- per unit cost
>$328,252.9 million -- total program cost
There are tons of ways of calculating how much these jets cost, but no matter how you calculate it (Development cost, procurement cost, operational cost, total program cost etc) the F-35 is a cheaper jet.
>>71749364
>its funny that armies are so high tech that it costs a half a million dollar to just kill just one mudskin in a shithole somewhere on this globe.
I know right? If you use that money to support a local militia with rifles and ammo you could do the same damage for half the cost.
>>71749063
They tested them at Lockheed in 2006-7 in Marietta. I went to college across the street. We would eat lunch and watch those green fuckers fly about with F15 escorts.
>>71749569
or you just do fucking nothing, embargo that shipshape and let them kill themself with whatever they have.
>>71749464
I wasn't a pilot. just worked on avionics for the A-10.
>>71749770
Still, you did got to ride, right?
>>71749134
#moreBRRRRRTTTT
bigger does not mean better
although I'm not so sure F35 if worth the money
>le f-16 is better than f35 because its so small and basic
>le pak 50 and j-20 paper planes are better than f35 because they are bigger
pick one
>>71745947
>
>>71749906
no, but i did get to try the simulator a few times.
>>71749558
>>F-35 Fighter (JSF)
>>$133.6 million -- per unit cost
>>$328,252.9 million -- total program cost
Total program cost is estimated to be 1.5 trillion.
You are talking about current costs.
The F-22 has already been produced and production line shut down.
>>71749519
>>>71749285 (You)
>Lifetime costs are different than unit costs.
That is my point.
On a lifetime costs perspective, the F-35 costs more than the F-22... per unit.
>>71750032
Oh well, still you got it better than civvies.
>>71748195
>>71749026
damn at least you guys can read
>>71747623
>You get 80% of the F-22's performance at 50% of the price.
>F-22 is only 10% better than a MiG-29
>but costs like three times more
You burgers should have bought some MiGs and put your shiny rockets and electronics on those.
>>71745947
>F35
WHEN WILL THEY EVER LEAN FOR FUCKS SAKE ITS THE $CURRENT_YEAR
>>71750306
>F-22 is only 10% better than a MiG-29
>>71748359
>muh maneuverability
Have fun dogfighting when you getting BTFO by an amraam launched from an F-35 you can't from 120 mi guided by an E-2D even further. The whole Vietnam missiles debacle really fucked with USAF mindset on what matters in a fighter, even though it's been decades since we shot down anything in visual sight range.
>>71747623
>pay only 50%, dumb goyim
spoken like a true kike.
>>71750363
Shut up and buy our planes.
>>71750306
>F-22 is only 10% better than a MiG-29
If you think all the f35 money went to the f35 your a complete moron.
>>71751185
Good goy.
>>71746746
>MUH BIG HEAVY PLANE
>MUH TWO PILOTS
Jesus
I wish /k/ had flags so we could more easily expose you shitposting slavaboo euroniggers
>>71745947
Because the F-22 is a dedicated air superiority fighter with nothing to kill. Yeah lets send F-22s to hunt down a terrorist with a kite, how dare that kite challenge US dominance of the skies.
