no, seriously. when i look at legacy aircraft like f-15s, eurofighters, sukhois etc. they just look ancient and outdated. i used to hate the look of the f-35, now i 'get' it and appreciate it and find it sexy. but all the aircraft i used to love just look so old and boring... anyone else getting this feel? The f-22 didn't even do this to me.
I always hated the wing proportions, it looks fuckin stubby. The 35C Navy however has the wider carrier wings so it looks proper and actually lets the rest of a pretty good design shine through.
it looks so different because it has a lifting body. the fat body actually provides something like 70% of its lift. Its like a hybrid flying wing/fighter. and of course you also get internal weapons carriage and a massive internal fuel tank from that design as well. wouldn't have been possible without supercomputers. whats crazy is how everyone used to just look at it and think it must be a pig in terms of manueverability, but missed the fact its a giant wing. people who have flown it said it even shocked them. its like an F-16 with the power of an F-15.
yep. can also land on a carrier and do the other things retarded like pierre spey said werent possible. although i dont know when it couldn't fly in the rain actually, what retard brought up that issue?
Christopher Cook
ewww it's lumpy
Anthony Brooks
t. angry old man the A-10 is a welfare plane kept alive by congress. even the air force doesn't want it anymore.
Landon Foster
Painted grey because the dark colors absorb too much heat from the sun, so more attractive for IR missiles
Isaac Wright
F-15 eternal GOAT all other fighters playing for 2nd.
Juan Watson
It's kept alive by keeping guys on the ground alive. The worst fear of the durkas are some JDAM's and a heavy dose of BRRRRRRT
Daniel Hill
wrong. the BRRRT is a liability. CAS needs to be done high and fast, not low and slow. also its more likely to BRRRRT friendly troops than durkas
Carson Turner
Nah, I still enjoy the look of other aircraft. I like the "sharp" look of the 35 and to a lesser extent the 22, but I don't like how the 35's belly looks lumpy or sort of melted, see . I much prefer the smooth belly of the F-22.
I work on an AFB that has F35A stationed on it, they are LOUD. We are quite a ways away from the flight line, and they shake windows taking off.
Benjamin Phillips
No. In fact, I like the lines of the F 104 and the F4 Phantom more.
Isaiah Adams
daddy needs extra room for landing gear, fuel and sensors. if the computers existed like that when they built the f-22 it'd be lumpy too so they could fit more shit. they just didnt have the computer power to know how to stealth like that
Nathan Rogers
the a-10 is ugly as sin but the BRRRRRRRTTTT makes up for it so god damn much.
Isaac Barnes
I'm not saying that the F-22's shape is better from a utility standpoint, simply that it's more aesthetically pleasing to me. I think it's because both the 22 and 35 have very smooth angular upper surfaces, but the 22's belly matches it's top, while the 35's sharply contrasts.
Chase Morgan
I like how I fucking saved this plane in the eyes of the public. Like, all you guys had to do was say "The tests are things which we let you guys see, the real shit is too advanced to talk about. The costs are worth-it."
Hey, please explain to me if the F-22 is invulnerable to SAM systems.
Jayden Williams
even the marketers of f-22s wouldnt say they are invulnerable. they exponentially increase your chance of survival and with correct tactics and training it'd be pretty damn safe. but invulnerable? no one would say that
Connor Butler
The moment someone places a modern enough SAM system, do they pretty much have air superiority in the SAM system's range?
I'm not sure what your question is exactly, but its much easier to overwhelm SAMs, even the most modern ones, than it is something like the F-22. The USAF for example has decoy aircraft, dozens of which can be dropped out of a cargo aircraft with hundreds of miles of range. These can at the least mimic any NATO aircraft by using radar deflectors, but they can also be armed with jammers and explosives (to do suicide missions on SAM radars). Even during Vietnam it took hundreds of SAMs to down a single aircraft. Against a stealth system like the F-22 they wouldn't do much to deter the USAF from gaining air superiority. Even if the US were to launch an attack on Russia they could get Russia to waste their SAMs on decoys and jammed signals before any manned aircraft is actually at risk. Stealth simply makes it safer to operate in that environment.
Gabriel Johnson
That's informative.
Camden Ramirez
Operation "scathe mean".
During Desert Storm they got old glcm crews to launch modified cruise missiles before the air strikes to fuck with the radar network. It was pretty secret when it happened but you can read about and I think there is a video somewhere on youtube.
Serbs actually showed how effective SAM was with just being there in Kosovo.
A single S-400 would need to be offset by assets worth several times more.
Ryan Davis
>massive internal fuel tank Haha
Ian Torres
Under-rated
James Russell
that would be impressive
too bad j20 is already doing it
Adrian Bennett
I used to think the bottom of the F-35 looked futuristic and cool as hell until I read this post and you called it lumpy. Now I can’t unsee that.
Lincoln Kelly
tbf she just had a kid
Jack Gutierrez
?
Luke Cook
>i used to hate the look of the f-35, now i 'get' it Me too, user. For me it's the smooth lines despite knowing it's fully armed. No more ugly draggy pylons for me. The stubbyness compared to the F-22 just makes it cuter.
Cameron Stewart
Water would strip the super duper special paint right off of the plane.
William Gomez
>It's aesthetic
What a dumb meme. If I cared for the zoy meme I would post a zoy boy right now to mock OP for the overt degree of significance he places on something as subjective as appearance.
>although i dont know when it couldn't fly in the rain actually, what retard brought up that issue? Idiots who confused "normal flight restrictions" with "lack of capability."
Adrian Harris
>It looks fat and lumpy We didn't ask you to describe what you see in the mirror, user.
Ethan Sanders
>Serbs actually showed how effective SAM was with just being there in Kosovo. Absolutely no effect on the air campaign while being ground to a thin paste, with only one thing to brag about that was dependent entirely on a perfect alignment of complacency and luck?
Thomas Cooper
>Hard-baked surface treatment that would require damage to the panels themselves to affect >Hurr durr rein wushez eet uff
Massive air assets were bound because of the Serbian air-defence while they weren't doing anything.
>Absolutely no effect on the air campaign while being ground to a thin paste
It's plain wrong. The efficiency of the bombing campaign was ridiculous.
Dylan Lewis
Serbian Air defense basically stopped nothing, while keeping Wild Weasels flying overwatch, pre-launching HARMs to paste any radar that dared go online during an attack run.
Luke Collins
>HARM >effective
It basically went
>radar detected >fire HARM >Serbs detected that HARM was fired pretty much instantly >deactivate radar >HARM misses target
A completely outdated air defence was capable of denying air supremacy.
Cooper Morgan
I bet you're ugly.
Tyler Campbell
>even the air force doesn't want it anymore The Air Force has never wanted it, because they don't want to operate anything that's not a supersonic jet fighter. They try every decade to "replace" the thing with whatever they want more funding for. In the late 80's they were planning to bolt armor on F-16s calling them "A-16s", in Desert Storm they were sticking cut-down GAU-8s on F-16s and saying "See? It does everything the A-10 does, we can retire it now!", and Congress had to force them to keep operating the thing. Now they're trying to do the exact same thing with the F-35.
If it were actually about the age or obsolescence of the aircraft instead of childish indignation over being forced to fly something that isn't supersonic and doesn't even have swept wings, then they'd actually try to replace it with something better that could match its capabilities. The A-10 is far from perfect, for all its meme potential the GAU-8 is the least useful thing on the aircraft despite being built around it, but it's a hell of a lot better than flying a fighter jet in the same role.
Leo Collins
>anything not a supersonic fighter >over half the inventory is heavy lift prop planes
uh....huh.
Luke Rogers
Are you retarded?
Logan Smith
It blows my mind how tiny it is. We went from the big-ass F-22 to the smol F-35.
Cameron Jenkins
i'm not the one claiming the AF hates everything besides fast jets
Ryder Campbell
>A completely outdated air defence was capable of denying air supremacy. >Didn't stop any bombing runs >Didn't actually impede air superiority >Sole claim of success was the F-117 shoot-down
Gavin Wood
Looks muscular
Nathaniel Myers
I guess this is just another butthurt Americano thing.
Brody Howard
Loud is an understatement, heard they make about as much noise as four legacy bugs
Luis Johnson
It's absolutely absurd. The F16's taking off have a nice roar and rumble. The F35 is uncomfortable to hear, even at distance.
Kevin Wilson
10-18dB than a F-15 which is up to three times as loud.
Charles Morales
It's worse in a hover, they had one at my local airshow a couple of years back, with substantial earpro it was about as loud as a viper doing a tailstand without earpro
Nolan Peterson
>f-35 used by israel >shills appear on Jow Forums really makes you think
Charles Howard
Awww, it's Jow Forumsbabbies first troll.
Julian Cruz
Nah, they sound great, way deeper, throatier sound. You can really hear and feel the 43,000 lbf of thrust.
Jack Harris
harriers were also crazy loud in the hover. it would hurt your ears. the f-35 has a fuckhuge engine, so im sure its louder.
If you are forced to turn your radars off then the SEAD packaged achieved their objective. Do you not know how SEAD works?
Kayden Rodriguez
>HARM miss target >radar goes online again >aircraft failed its SEAD mission >bomber can't effectively operate
>Throughout the war; 181 NATO strikes were reported against tanks, 317 against armored personnel vehicles, 800 against other military vehicles, and 857 against artillery and mortars,[115] after a total of 38,000 sorties, or 200 sorties per day at the beginning of the conflict and over 1,000 at the end of the conflict
>When it came to alleged hits, 93 tanks, 153 APCs, 339 other vehicles, and 389 artillery systems were believed to have been disabled or destroyed with certainty.[117] The Department of Defense and Joint Chief of Staff had earlier provided a figure of 120 tanks, 220 APCs, and 450 artillery systems, and a Newsweek piece published around a year later stated that only 14 tanks, 12 self-propelled guns, 18 APCs, and 20 artillery systems had actually been obliterated,[117] not that far from the Serbs’ own estimates of 13 tanks, 6 APCs, and 6 artillery pieces.
The most interesting part is that the well-trained Serbian air-defence was capable of shooting down one F-117, damaging another F-117 with completely outdated assets.
Jace Sullivan
>The most interesting part is that the well-trained Serbian air-defence was capable of shooting down one F-117, damaging another F-117 with completely outdated assets. >Still repeating this meme Getting a shoot-down because the other guys got so complacent you knew the perfect spot to set up, when to try to target, and lucking out on the bomb bays being open while risking eating a HARM on third power-on of the RADAR only means you got super lucky.
Colton Butler
The NATO really fucked up that bombing campaign. Though the Serbs were actually well-trained.
But that every bomber was forced to fly with various types of escorts until the very end of the war, was quite the archivement.
Caleb Phillips
>being that butthurt
oh well
Austin Sanchez
>Butthurt serb apologist trying to project his pain on those who correct his blatantly stupid claims
Adrian Price
>talk about something 20 years ago >there is still that one American who gets butthurt about it