Not an F35-hate/love thread

>bird strike at 40.000ft
Yeah dude, all planes fly at 40k feet all the time.

>It's totally plausibe

It is not, you mong. There are no external tanks for the F-35 yet that would be needed to fly such distances, plus the software, ALIS and mission data files are still not ready for the F-35 to fly actual combat missions

>zerohedge

some vatnik bullshit then?

>being this retarded
can't even keep track of the narratives, shariablue?

As mentioned the story was up yesterday and has been posted by JPost, etc. The original story can be found here: aljarida.com/articles/1522266292204212000/

It's 560 nautical miles between Nevatim and Iran's border; if they got refuelled by a US tanker over Iraq (easy to do low-key) then they could have flown pretty much anywhere in Iran on internal fuel, getting refuelled again when they return into Iraqi airspace (the F-35A has a 760 nautical mile air-to-air combat radius which includes some afterburner usage and assumes a ground start; 760nmi is about the distance from Baghdad to the Strait of Hormuz, or only about half that distance from Baghdad to Tehran).

As for combat capability; Block 3F is fully out for the F-35A, ALIS has been able to support combat operations for a few years now, MDFs for the Middle East are likely ready (given that the USMC are sending F-35Bs there in 3 months) and ultimately Israel planned to and did declare IOC / combat readiness in December of 2017.

Do I think Israel did what these stories are claiming? I have my doubts, especially since there's been so much BS recently around Israel and claims of things being done with or done to their F-35s, but if I was Israel a recon flight of suspected Iranian nuclear facilities wouldn't be that bad a choice for a first real mission.

Attached: 31504857121_a547507c20_o.jpg (6306x4204, 1.11M)

So plausible like the story about that one American destroyer who the entire crew got PTSD because it got jammed by a single Su.

what

USS Donald Cook gets a flyby from an Su-24, Russian propagandists claim it shut down AEGIS instantly and made the "entire crew" of 33 quit the Navy when they pulled into port.

Never mind that the US called it "about as tame a flyby as you can get", that 33 number is just the commissioned officers, and the manufacturer of the Khibiny EWO system said that it can't do that.

But have you heard of the Qaher-313 entering Israel's airspace though?

Zerohedge isn't a bad place for material, even the author is 'Tyler Durden'.

What if Iran already got the nukes?

>the F-35A has a 760 nautical mile air-to-air combat radius which includes some afterburner usage and assumes a ground start;
pure horseshit

Nope. It holds almost as much fuel internally as an F-16's empty weight.

Thanks for that irrelevant factoid, but thats still not its combat radius on internal fuel.

And 760nmi is its A2A Intercept radius on internal fuel, dipshit. Unlike the LWF program output, one of the requirements for JSF was a large fuel fraction.

That 760 nm range is literally the specification for air-to-air range. Would you mind telling us what the "real" range is?

Love to see anything backing this up rather than yet another post from you expecting people to take your word for it, user!

Are you looking at the 670 nm air-to-ground range? Air-to-air loadouts are always more fuel-efficient.

Or are you just proofstering and saying all published specifications are "lies" and "propaganda"?

I'm assuming you mean combat radius and not range, but you're just too ignorant to know the difference between those two distinct terms

But sure! Here you go, from the 2018 F-35 SAR

Attached: Untitled.png (619x653, 75K)

A got 18,000lbs of fuel and single engine
shouldn't be rocket science for you

>Air-to-air loadouts are always more fuel-efficient.
generally speaking this is true, but it has less of an effect when you're storing everything internally and have essentially no effect on parasitic drag.

and sure, they might also want it to be able to do that on the specifications, but so far its been quite a bit shorter than that.

It dissappoints me that people as stupid as you have access to the internet.

>generally speaking this is true, but it has less of an effect when you're storing everything internally and have essentially no effect on parasitic drag.
4 AIM-120Ds weigh a lot less than the minimum 2000lbs of JDAMs.

>It dissappoints me that people as stupid as you have access to the internet.
Says the guy saying blatantly stupid things.

if you think a couple thousand lb of JDAM is going to decrease an aircraft's range by 200nmi I don't know what to tell you. You'll get more with lighter munitions yes, but not that much. Pipe dream.

yet to see anything about this "air to air specification" either

>It dissappoints me that people as stupid as you have access to the internet.

i love it how you managed oxymoron the hell even out of this

Do you know what an oxymoron is? Because you're not using that word right.

oxymoron
ˌɒksJˈmɔːrɒn/
noun
noun: oxymoron; plural noun: oxymorons

a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g. faith unfaithful kept him falsely true ).

Origin

Quoting back google's search result when you looked it up in a panic doesn't somehow prove you know what it means, kek

and oxymoron again, i mean come on

>200
It goes from 670 to 760, that's 90NMI you idiot.

This thread is developing about as well as can be expected, i see

vatniks and Jow Forumsniggers are the worst type of cancer and lowest breed of subhuman

i also heard they can orbit earth at mach 20
they also have ion cannons
plus the fuel capacity of f35 is enough to keep it on air and circle the earth 30 times without needing refuel
plus they can stay on patrol indefinite
and dont forget eots can see a plane at 1500 light years

in reality they can only have such a combat radius on a very specific role of nfz and that assuming that they dont even even use any sort of aft plus assuming that its cold enough on the troposphere for them not to burn fuel like mofos plus without refuel they cant stay on the area for more than 10 mins

>Being this much of a hyperbolic twat
Nothing the guy you replied to said is wrong.

You like to act smart but you’re always biased and often wrong

pretty sure it is

>flew right over an S-400 undetected
o i am laffin

Attached: 1461191305715.gif (800x430, 897K)

>"L-LIES S-400 STRONK!"
ahahahahahahaha

Attached: vatniks.jpg (300x319, 60K)

>Nothing he said is wrong
>Hurr yuu biazed durr
Idiots like you are why we can't have nice things on Jow Forums.

Jow Forums is the military version of Jow Forumsworldnews without the ability to downvote

literally shit tier that explodes to oblivion even the smallest bullshit they can find that will make the vatniks crazy
no actual convo
no proofs of any sort
no rebuttals
only endless spam with idiotic stuff

This

Imagine being Russian right now.
>S-400 can't stop Tomahawks or F-35s, rendering it basically useless against the US
>Lil Kim is offering denuclearization and the ability for US forces to move right up to the Russian border uncontested
>Baltics in NATO
>US exporting fuel to Europe threatens the centerpiece of the Russian economy

Attached: vatniks.jpg (531x640, 61K)

no nukes mean usa is welcome being this delusional
baltics in nato who cares..

us exporting gas to poland after 3 years of their station being inactive is a win guyz..

>I-i-i-iits totally not bad comrades i swear, w-w-w-we will crush tha west
>S-s-s-s-soiuz n-n-n-nerushimyj

>S-400 can't stop Tomahawks or F-35s, rendering it basically useless against the US
Shit tier tomohawk accuracy where more than half miss in destroying a few soviet.(not counting that the russians were already informed of the strike) who needs to use an S-400?

Now imagine 3-4 F-35s swooping in undetected, getting live targeting data, then dumping 24-32 SDBs onto vital assets on that same airfield. Including through the aircraft bunkers.

"F-35s swooping in undetected," That is a very nice assumption user.

>Assumption
The only "assumption" is that the S400 will magically detect stealth fighters able to see where the system's gaps and weak detection zones are.

magically detect stealth by combing low and high frequency radars to work as one.......China can detect and track a target of .01m2 more than 300kms away because of it. The F-22 and F-35 are old designs its not like their developers knew way ahead of time they would be obsolete. But dont worry GaN UHF and VHF jammers in 2020 can help disrupt low frequency radar making sensor fusion with high frequency radar difficult.

>Magic Russian radars beat all!
Nope, try again.

I also included China. Everyone knows low frequency can detect stealth sensor fusion with high frequency allows it to be more easily tracked.
This even allow the Nebo-M to turn a DF-15 a SRBM of .002 rcs to .6m2 in detection than tracking. Science and physics beats all

>science and physics beats all
>he doesn't understand detection radars don't have the res to pass tracks off to target radars

Maybe try opening an EE textbook instead of larping black science man.

Attached: stealth - paint for nubs.jpg (829x503, 67K)

Those are 90s radars where is the Nebo-M?

Also according to physics it is highly unlike stealth starts at .0001m2. They said this was for F-22 than they said .001m2 F-35 is stealthier than F-22......So in other words these numerical values are considered BS. Sorry to burst your bubble user.

Might want to run those numbers over with your own MoD, Dimitri

No need it will still be spotted and tracked faraway.

Eating a HARM because it can't fold up in less than an hour.

How can you be sure the HARM will reach the SAM before the aircraft blows up? 743 of these it took to take out 60s and 70s broken railed SAMs in kosovo with no sensor fusion. Same luxury is not possible with modern SAMs

>Implying a low-band detection radar can provide a good enough track for a targeting radar to find something it can't even see
>Implying this thing is going anywhere fast once erected

Attached: russia-deploys-nebo-m.si[1].jpg (690x388, 87K)

>Implying a low-band detection radar can provide a good enough track for a targeting radar to find something it can't even see

using low frequency is low band read about the Rayleigh scattering effect realize why stealth is useless against low frequency. look at my numerical figures of the DF-15 in X-band and VHF one is good for tracking. other is good for detection. Combine both that stealth is history to work as one regardless of the deficiences each has each would be ignored.

>Implying the AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda isn't actively tracking all of these active radars, sharing data between F-35s, and mapping dead zones for the pilots

low frequency was used to hit the "invisible" F-117. Imagine sensor fusion being implemented.

>I'm going to keep making shit up that Lockheed-Martin and its partners totally couldn't have taken into account when designing it!
We have access to both American and Russian IADS equipment, and a 40+ year lead on stealth, but no, some dipshit armed with an FSB script about how totally worthless stealth is has come up with how to beat it!

Barracuda a jammer. SAMS have those to Except SAM jammers generate more power.....Let the F-35 use it. It will help give its position away by passive sensors.

No, it wasn't. Getting really fucking lucky about complacency in mission planning and open bomb bays at the perfect moment is what allowed that to happen.

>Barracuda a jammer.
No, it isn't, you retard. It's a passive EWO suite. The F-35's jamming capability is all in the APG-81 radar.

using numerical figures from sources are not made up. Whats retarted is thinking one aircraft is a steel marble and the other is more smaller than a steel marble with only `1/4 stealth composites and the rest being titanium and other material........Lets just say it takes a very special kind of stupid for someone to believe this.

Hi, Armatard. When you planning to get on your meds?

>low frequency
>F-117 flying within 8 miles of an SA-3 with bomb bay doors open

to give you an idea, an AMRAAM fired from 10 nautical miles will hit it's target within about 10 seconds

which helped the fire control radar guidance which is high frequency, but it was still aimed with low frequency enabling the high frequency guidance to be a success. If this had sensor fusion imagine that.

How much feces came with this "information" out of your anus?

easy there raging stealthtard

In his defence, his posts are A LOT more coherent than Armatard's

Fuck off, Arma, I'm not the one throwing out complete nonsense like the idea a low-band radar that can't ID or get a good track handing off data to a high-band radar that can't get a good return from the ranges an F-35 will actively avoid entering because it can see and ID all of that RF activity.

Source is some sandnigger bullshit "newspaper".

Lesson of today, high frequency is for tracking but poor detection, low frequency great detection but poor tracking.....Combine these into a single picture stealth is more than likely fucked....F-117 bombay doors opening? Guidance has to be enable to successfully hit a target

Here.

If you can't get a lock with the high band radar, it doesn't fucking matter. And, again, since we're talking about the F-35, not First-gen stealth that didn't even have an RWR, it's completely irrelevant because the F-35 knows exactly where your active transmitters are and can easily evade or destroy them.

>Combine these into a single picture stealth is more than likely fucked
Not how this shit works at all

>If you can't get a lock with the high band radar, it doesn't fucking matter.
it did matter when those bombay doors opened user on a F-117
"F-35 knows exactly where your active transmitters" implying that passive sensor dont on a SAM

read the definition of sensor fusion. Give me an example of it to.

The crew knowing it'd be there and getting lucky that the bays opened when they did doesn't mean they were tracking it with any radar before that you ridiculous cunt.

>A low-resolution radar that can't ID or effectively track a fighter can pass track data to a radar that can't see the fighter at all
Please think about what you're saying.

doesn't mean they were tracking it" You have track in order to hit user.

Seething shitskin damage control. This kvetching. It's another nakba

>Please think about what you're saying.
Tell me what sensor fusion is along with an example.

No, it literally means they were only able to see it on radar when the bays opened and massively increased its RCS.

Go fuck yourself. You aren't asking because you want to know. You aren't asking to test knowledge. You're asking to deflect from the fact that your premise is retarded.

>Low resolution EW radar sees something
>Doesn't know how far away it is, or the exact bearing, or the exact altitude
>Also potentially has multiple false contacts with the same uncertainties

>Passes this information on to an X-Band AESA
>Doesn't see the stealth fighter that is giving a return to the low resolution radar
>Also doesn't see the other contact because its a fucking cloud

Net result of "sensor fusion": nothing more than what you already had from the low resolution EW radar

but you have to track something in order to hit it. I know your not that retarted enough user to believe that all you have to do is shoot a missile randomly and hit it without any guidance.

because you know I am right and that hurts your argument user.