Once and for all

>sprey
why did people ever listen to him anyways?

this has to be the worst ausairpower rant masquerading as a list I've ever seen. implessive

>would rather get rid of the M1A2 in favor of the M48

HOLY FUCK AAAHAHAHAHAH

>A-10 essentially invulnerable to 0.50 cal
and even 20mm
>F-15 easily shot down by 0.22 cal
Every time. Every. Single. Time.

Attached: 1470528153562.jpg (1262x854, 191K)

>IR missiles with almost zero ability to lock-on to camouflaged targets
this has to be a joke. i refuse to believe someone could be this dumb.

Attached: tapestry.png (676x676, 512K)

That guy should be shot on the back of his head with a gag on his mouth

topkek gets me every time

To me it feels like the guy watched a WW2 documentary and now thinks he reached some type of ultimate wisdom because he learned about "quantity beating quality".

thenewsrep.com/114180/early-report-the-f-35-dominated-the-dogfighting-opposition-in-this-years-red-flag-exercises/

>20:1 kill ratio
>shit
People just don't want to accept that the F-35 is good, because killing your enemies with lame things like stealth and "sensor fusion" isn't as sexy as doing a backflip over your opponent with an Su-35 and gunning them down.

Attached: f35.jpg (2048x1152, 228K)

Honestly this.
My old man retired 2 years ago from Lockheed in Ft worth after 35 years.
He goes on and on about constant management fuck ups and wasteful spending.

It's a very ambitious program to develop a plane that can do a bunch of things well. It's difficult enough to design a stealth fighter, VTOL, air to air and air to ground, but one plane that can do it all at ND do it well was a tall order from the get-go.

Predictably the program started expensive, ran into significant setbacks and became ludicrously expensive. It is taking a long time, but it seems as though the work is starting to pay off. Is it worth the insane amount of money spent? We won't know for sure until years later. Perhaps it'll be a mediocre jack of all trades design that's too shitty to keep up with much older aircraft at any one thing. Perhaps it'll really push the envelope and force everyone else to catch up. Most likely it'll never have an opportunity to shoot at anything that isn't already ridiculously outdated, so we'll never really know how much or how little we have accomplished.

Someone actually being reasonable and objective on MY Jow Forums?

Attached: 1547503700096.png (378x592, 295K)

Develop 3 separate planes.
Each model has to go through its own R&D along with testing.

>TFW forward swept wing fighters are prob never coming back
They look so fucking cool.

It's definitely not shit today but software and radars are getting better so fast we really don't know if stealth is going to be effective in 20-30 years.

It's still going to be a great bomb truck though.

>comparing IJN DD and USN CL
>Forgetting the fact that US could make as many cruisers as Japan destroyers
I am in for a fucking ride

It's planned to stay in service with the USA until 2070 and is being exported to 12-15 other countries. I'd say the likelihood of it seeing some action within that time is reasonable, though probably not within the next decade.

Sure each airframe has its own specific testing, however the commonality in powerplant and sensors means that there can be huge commonality in both developing and updating the various systems and software on the plane. That is a huge lifetime saving compared to the separate initial development and upgrade programmes for the F-16, F/A-18, and AV-8.

I actually prefer the F-35C over the rest variants, It's the only one which isn't a winglet.

>we really don't know if stealth is going to be effective in 20-30 years
You're a bit optimistic if you think we'll be able to bypass the laws of physics in the next 20-30 years.

I-It's good guys! Buy F-35!

Meanwhile the government is buying upgraded F-15s.

Lol nice try Lockmart shills but keep it in your containment board >>/f16.net/

Too bad they don't have a say in whose goats they bomb.

Would be nice to see the context of those kills. I'm sure an F-15, using F-35 and F-22 data, that acts as a long range missile truck could rack a high kill ratio too.

youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA&t=453s

Basically the Bradley but an airplane and with three services instead of one.

Because F-35 = F-16 replacement and F-22 production was cut short. So the AF wants to pad out out their inventory of air superiority fighters.

>Taking Pentagon Wars seriously as anything other than a fun movie with Fraser in it

Yes

It still wouldn't have stealth capabilities

The main issues are poor management and being pressed into serial production before all R&D/ testing was complete to recoup cost overruns caused by that shitty management.

In the end it's a decent plane with a price that doesn't match it's capabilities or the high / low air force procurement system.

Electronics are advancing insanely fast. Look how much IRST improved over a decade.

>a price that doesn't match it's capabilities or the high / low air force procurement system.

Does the air force even have a high / low procurement system? It did when the YF-16 was born as the lightweight fighter as a counterpart to the F-15, and before it took on its general role. I would argue that the F-35 is supposed to save money by consolidating the aircraft inventory and reducing the dependence on a large diverse strike package in order to get a mission done.

Look at the amount of aircraft types used in the 1991 Gulf War which have retired without a direct replacement, which have their role in part replaced by an F-35 variant. In the near future USAF fast-jet inventory is more or less going to be just "air superiority / interceptor" and "multirole".

Attached: Gulf_War_US_Aircraft.png (337x941, 47K)

I would say they still have high / low because of the F-22, it's the air superiority fighter while the F-35 is meant to be the multi-role but due to cost it can't be rolled out in F-16 numbers.

They're still limited by fundamental principles that aren't going to change.

Also that will have the opposite effect, and every relevant military today seems to agree on this. Stealth will become mandatory because non-stealth will be tracked and taken out at ridiculously high ranges.

The USAF currently has 791 F-16s of all types currently in service, but is planning to buy 1,763 F-35A. The numbers are going to be fairly comparable. As I said, it is more that due to F-35's capabilities it is able to replace other aircraft types, including arguably air superiority fighters on most missions that do not call for high the sustained speed and altitude that the F-22A is capable of due to the nature of modern: sensor fusion, MADL, and long range all aspect missiles.

And in physics, stealth just reflects more of the radar away from the point of origin. It is not an invisibility cloak. Meanwhile, radar is getting more and more powerful.

And those improvements don't apply to non-stealth aircraft because...?

>1,763 F-35A
I'll believe it when I see it.

All that really matters is does your detection range reach your engagement range, if yes then it's as good as it needs to be.

I never understood this argument. The F-22 is proof that stealth features do not significantly hamper aerodynamic performance (we aren't dealing with faceted airframes anymore), and non-stealth will never ever be preferred over stealth. We don't paint vehicles with clear coat or issue natural white undyed cammies despite the presence of IR sensors on the battlefield. Even as sensors advance, it'll just be that much worse for non-stealth aircraft.

There's always a bigger missile to meet the longest practical detection range, especially when we're talking about facing off against IADS.

>non-stealth will never ever be preferred over stealth
Depends on procurement and maintenance costs, if for example I can run 10 F-16s for the cost of 1 F-22 and I have ground radar capable of find the the F-22 and relaying contact data to the F-16s then I'll take the F-16s every time.
Odds are I'm not going to be fighting F-22s and on the off chance I am I'll probably be able to overwhelm them with numbers.

IADS are all about prioritised defence, you never have enough of your best radar / SAM to have them everywhere so there will always be areas with more radar range than engagement range.

>some action
Well yeah, but likely not against a near-peer air power.

The US is likely not going to ever get to fight modern Russian aircraft crewed by actual Russians, both sides are too heavily entrenched in their proxy wars so the most likely outcome is getting to BTFO some hand me down Migs flown by arabs, or some slightly newer but still outdated and possibly monkey model or stripped down fighters flown by """separatists""" or """contractors""".

Outside of all out war the likelihood of the US engaging current gen Chinese aircraft is also very small. For all their QUANTUM IMPLESSIVE dickwaving any skirmishes are gonna be older aircraft they can afford to both lose and have recovered by western nations.

It is extremely unlikely any owner of F35s will ever fight a western nation, and other than the aforementioned China and Russia nobody else has anything even remotely modern.

If you assume that Meteor missiles will bring the usual air-to-air engagement range to 100+ km, you're looking at detection ranges that are easily 4 to 5 times bigger than what they are now (I'm being nice and talking about detection ranges, not targeting).

You do realize that since radar aren't linear in detection ability, that's a fuckhuge improvement for 20 years?

>plus a new accounting practice for advertising the costs in ways that folks didn't understand

You mean a new way to mask the fact Lockheeb is burning money.

That's the beauty of the F35 though.It facilitates a completely revolutionary form of air combat, who gives a fuck who fired the missile.

Except that the real costs are more like 1.3 superhornets to 1 F-35. And if you only have the airbases/infrastructure/pilots to operate 10 aircraft, would you rather have 10 F-22s or 100 F-16s?

Peacetime is the appropriate time to be developing and procuring high technology, long development, 'best of breed' equipment so that we have them in inventory for if/when we don't have the time and resources to faff about with anymore.

I don't see engagement ranges remotely close to
100km anywhere but over water. If you know the enemy has that capability you play the terrain masking game and stay behind hills while your ground stations track until it's time for you to pop up.

>17 years into a two front war
>peacetime

That aside yes, if I can only support 10 planes I would like the best 10 planes but if I can only support 10 I probably can't afford the best.

If that's so great, why not just have a B-2 carrying 50 AMRAAM-ERs on rotary racks?

The USA will always be fighting an expeditionary war away from the CONUS. Logistical footprint is a major consideration because the amount of manpower and heavy equipment you can support in theatre is limited.

Even if you can pull it off, the amount of situations where you can use terrain masking against an enemy with AEW are few and far between, especially if you want to go on the offensive as the USAF does.

Because a B2 isnt as good at infiltrating contested airspace. The same concept is being applied with bomb trucks like B1-B's though.

>Weapons melt
I didn't know HK had a hand in the F35

I thought getting int to contested airspace was exactly what the B-2 was for, so it can take out high value targets or help weasels suppress air defences.

That's not how procurement works though. You decide the number of planes you are getting first, based on how you intend to wage war, after that you start comparing options in your politically set price range.

it's just a Yak-43 tribute plane.

Attached: 1537487055260.png (1600x1600, 309K)

Hasn't the US been working on 6th gen fighters since 2013? Have they learned from their mistakes so that the next rounds of contracts aren't as much of a mess as the JSF's development was? I'm not talking about aircraft performance, I'm talking about keeping things relatively on time and within budget.

you do realise that the RCS of a b-2 is tiny, right? The RCS of a B-21 is orders of magnitute smaller than an F-22...

Sure, but it is otherwise defenseless. Once in hostile airspace it is possible for enemy GCI and AEW to direct interceptors to it and for enemy air defenses to focus their efforts until they get lucky. As far as I am aware that is the role of the proposed Penetrating Counter Air, to accompany the B-21 providing protection as an air superiority fighter and perhaps also SEAD.

Attached: convair model 200 .jpg (2200x1074, 438K)

Fpbp

Unrelated but I like flying slavshit planes in Ace Combat 7.

Man who made this list and what are their sources, if they even have any? They also try to bring up "pilot ejected safely and is being looked at by medical personnel" as some kind of contradiction, but that's literally standard procedure. Any ejection event will result in the pilot being grounded until he gets medically cleared to fly again by the flight doc, even if it was just a couple bruises.

Most of that list is made up of pure bullshit. The only thing I know that actually happened was the tailpipe fire at Mountain Home AFB. That was caused by dumb maintainers, not the aircraft.
>dumb F-35 maintainer here

Why would you use "top secret tech" from your biggest enemy at the time?

I think it's decent, but I also think it (like most other new military developments in the west) are way overpriced and too far in between

It's been falsely advertised as a PsyOp and because it's real role isn't sexy.

Several F-35s working together are basically a massive ELINT and AWACS network for the B-21 which took up the B-1R missile truck role too. It's meant for passive triangulation of emissions and GMTI, they can send up a load of them and form a semi circle for ELINT and do better than 1-2 ELINT planes.

It's for the XR (extreme range) concept. JASSM-XRs: AARGM-XR (carries multiple ARMs that do crazy formation terminal maneuvers), AMRAAM-XR (a pack of AIM-120Ds carried in a JASSM-XR, loiter-capable and can ambush massive formations of enemy aircraft, can just circle in an inlet behind a bunch of rocks awaiting a massive fighter sweep launched from a chinese carrier) and the CHAMP EMP package also carried in the JASSM-XR. The F-35s are for JTDIS to give course corrections to all the JASSMs to either avoid SAMs/interceptors or get a small enough resolution to get the ARM-equipped JASSM to lock onto the radar.

Fuckload of F-35s in the air > JSTARS/E-3 in terms of ESM range ambiguity and GMTI coverage.

>Hasn't the US been working on 6th gen fighters since 2013?
Earlier
>Have they learned from their mistakes so that the next rounds of contracts aren't as much of a mess as the JSF's development was?
hahahaha no
>I'm not talking about aircraft performance, I'm talking about keeping things relatively on time and within budget.
it's worse.

Big wing
Best wing

Attached: 1424889991219.jpg (1058x1080, 210K)

They're buying 2,000~ish F-35A/B/Cs

They're also buying a couple F-15X just to keep Boeings fighter department alive since they fucked up the F/A-18 ASH sale to Canada.

Attached: ASH with Stealth pod..png (1024x733, 422K)

assblasted commie nigger detected
please get in the helicopter for your free sightseeing tour

Attached: pepechet.jpg (864x1105, 171K)

>The US is likely not going to ever get to fight modern Russian aircraft crewed by actual Russians,
And thank God, judging of Operation Rimon, the amount of Russian excuses would shatter the time -space continuum.

The F-35 ELINT/GMTI/XR and B-21 is the bread and butter. B-52/B-1 covers the ER and soon the XR concept for now but that's meant for bombing places like Iran, not WW3 with Russia which makes me wonder why people have NATOboo/Slavboo fights over the F-35.

47% of the budget is blackest of black projects. Look at this shit: youtube.com/watch?v=TppZgd9r0NM

Avangard, Burevestnik, Kinzhal, Sarmat, Poseidon, exaggerations or real - they're both threatening the US and telegraphing a lack of faith in their current nuclear forces to the point of showing they don't think their ICBMs can even reach their targets, which has no bearing on officially declared US ballistic missile defense. It's nothing to do with AEGIS BMD ships or BMD in eastern Europe.

They're literally saying they feel they need to use or pretend to have an underwater strategic weapon where the first salvo can't even reach the US shore without interception and they have to kick up radioactive water from way out - that they have Mach 27 HGVs that still need the capability to command-detonate and blow an EMP hole through US defenses before follow up HGVs can get to the point of re-entry. They believe that the US has BMD tech far beyond what is declared and the US basically owns the atmosphere.

That's the 47%. Russia's nuclear freakout is to do with veiled threats the US has been making since 2015 that they've developed drones with ridiculous propulsion systems, the Nimitz '04 UFO press which started with a fightersweep magazine interview then the Harry Reid/Podesta/Delonge videos was a nuclear threat to Russia. The detailed accounts include eyewitnesses telling blatant lies, on purpose, in order to let Russia know that the "UFOs" are US hardware.

Attached: 754864296539639.png (711x523, 149K)