What is the point of the F-35? Why not design seperate aircraft for seperate purposes? It's just a bloody bloated mess...

Standardization of logistics you stupid fuck. If you field 4 types of planes you're going to have to pay the bills for 4 types of plane, whereas with the F35 you only have to pay for 1 while still retaining capabilities of other planes.

We could have all armoured vehicles use the same chassis, but we don't for a good reason.

1) The Abrams has the engine at the back so it can have the crew at the front

2) The Bradley has the engine at the front so the infantry can, you know, dismount

3) The Paladin is just ancient

>Why not design seperate aircraft for seperate purposes?
More expensive, more logistically taxing.

>why does an land based interceptor need VTOL?
F-35A doesn't have that capability.

> If it's supposed to act as CAS, how is it supposed to? It has small internal bay for weaponry,
It can carry 8 SDB's and 2 AIM-120s internally and there are plans for it to carry the JSM internally as well. It can carry more on external mounts.

>you can't replace HE, HEATFS with a programmable APDSFS
A terrible analogy, but you can replace medium, heavy tanks with MBTs.

It's being addressed as we speak.

breakingdefense.com/2019/05/lockheed-says-it-can-fit-2-more-missiles-in-f-35-bay/

Attached: 524352346.png (1385x643, 413K)

Not having that sweet Abrams-based AA system is pissing me off, though

Adding to this though - if you just want more dakka, then F-15 with quad missile stacks (16 total!) has the "oomph!" that you want.

Since F-15 can work with the F-35 sensor suite, this could move into a direction where F-35 brings the eyes and F-15 brings most of the muscle.

Attached: f-15_2040c.jpg (2200x1080, 120K)

Beacuse someones gonna maintain all those delicate overengineered parts for lotsa shekels

inb4
>smaller missiles

Maybe we'll see the B-1R pursued after all. It could fill that same missile carrier role with still more AMRAAMs and also carry it's internal payload for ground/sea targets.

F-35 Painting targets and feeding that data back via some sort of spooky data link while the B-1 loiters in a stand off position would probably be fairly effective.

Attached: abrams spaa 3.jpg (1700x2200, 534K)

It's to cause such immense butthurt, that faggots like OP will never stop making shit threads anout F-35

Here is your reply.

You know something, I'm feeling nice today, I'm not even going to call you a faggot. I'm going to assume that you're a curious person arguing in good faith, and I'm going to try to educate you as best I can.

>Why not design separate aircraft for seperate purposes?

Parts commonality and logistics. Admittedly, this slowed down the development process a lot.

>why does an land based interceptor need VTOL?

Only the B variant has VTOL. The Marines asked for it because they frequently operate out of pretty ghetto airstrips. The B variant is actually one of the most requested by foreign buyers, because it enables medium powers like Italy and Japan to buy helicopter carriers and then operate fighters off of them.

We didn't plan it like that., but it turned out to be one of the F-35s single most useful features.

>If it's supposed to act as CAS, how is it supposed to?

By dropping JDAMs, the same as essentially ever other American CAS aircraft. It doesn't matter how physically close you are to the enemy if you have precision guided munitions and you can drop bombs at 40,000 feet with a near zero chance of missing the target.

>It has small internal bay for weaponry, which is great for stealth, this aircraft is can be super stealthy, but it doesn't matter if it can't hold any notable amount of munitions.

The F-35 has external weapon capability for this exact reason. If the mission doesn't require stealth, you can just load it up with bombs and get a similar capacity to a teen series fighter.

Attached: 1321735668626.jpg (250x252, 10K)

This

Why make 2-3 planes perfectly fit for their jobs when you can make 1 plane that is good enough for 2-3 jobs?

Why use hammers, screwdrivers, and wrenches?

I have a an adjustable wrench that I can hammer just fine and drive flat head screws with. Then I don't need any of those fangled other tools supply chains.

Wait what do you mean it's cheaper in time and long term cost to make hammers, wrenches, and screwdrivers, and move them around rather than allowing our approach to building/using things be unnecessarily constrained by the fact everything has to be designed with manipulation by a thumb detecting nut fucker in mind?

Some times more simpler, yet specialized options is counter-intuitively better in terms of fulfilling operational needs while leaving open options to exploit synergies between different tools.

Once you get your head around that, it follows that about the only people who'd think the thumb detecting nut fucker approach would be the ones doing accounting as their day job.

To be honest, even a lot of the bean counters I know can still wrap their head around the concept that Kitchen sinks, despite looking nice on paper, are still not as great in yielding results as right tool for right job.

As it works for the wrench, so too the plane.

The current version of the Paladin uses a Bradley based hull.

>Why not design [sic]seperate aircraft for [sic]seperate purposes?
Yeah why not make an A, B and C version that each has different characteristics?

The B's ability to work from helicopter carriers has effectively doubled NATO/SEATO's combat capability. PLaces like Australia and Japan now can get somethinng Wasp-tier without having to go through the political clusterfuck that is acquiring a major carieer. It's also lead to American Units operating on non-US carriers to extend our own reach.

Re: CAS - it's very rarely hang around forever and drop anti-tank munitions- those roles are increasingly performed my helicopters instead (who's $/hr of flight time are literally a fraction of an 4.5+ Gen fighter, and I'd assume even lower than a 5th Gen Fighter).

>you can't replace HE, HEATFS with a programmable APDSFS

But you can replace HE, HEAT and cannister rounds with programmable MPHE.

>Adding to this though - if you just want more dakka

you can use the F-35's external racks.

Hnng

Why make one plane each for three different jobs when you can make three planes that gives you three planes to use for each of your three jobs.

Thanks for educating me user.

Nope, just the same tracks and powerpack

Attached: abrams spaa 2.jpg (1700x2200, 570K)

And a new hull.

Attached: abrams spaa.jpg (1700x2200, 505K)

Greed.

One size fits all is shit. Just look at how appalled Boeing were of the idea. They sent this memester out just for lolz to compete with the Lockheed F35

You need 2 (two) fucking engines for any decent aircraft

Attached: 6993A56F-4AF9-45AF-A667-C68D0651607D.jpg (300x214, 10K)

>Some times more simpler, yet specialized options is counter-intuitively better in terms of fulfilling operational needs while leaving open options to exploit synergies between different tools.
And sometimes specialized is not simpler, and costs billions of additional dollars in development and logistics, while barely performing differently, much less better.

When you have a specific and clearly defined task done repeatedly, a specialized tool is excellent. When you have a dynamic, unpredictable, task with active opposition and imperfect information, a generalized tool will cover more opportunities with less risk. When you go into the woods, do you carry a general purpose knife, or a collection of scalpels, hook knives, and scissors?

>You need 2 (two) fucking engines for any decent aircraft

Is there any actual reason you believe this?

>hat is the point of the F-35?
The point of F-35 is to extract the maximum amount of taxpayer money.
It's basically a federal government work program.

Honestly, I think the VTOL/helicopter carrier meta is going to require improvements in air to air refueling to really work.

The takeoff weight for a VTOL F-35B is so low that it can't really bring enough fuel to have a decent range.

Maybe some kind of cheese like an air to air refueling helicopter or a VTOL tanker drone.

Do you know why the term is STOVL and not VTOL?

>What is the point of the F-35?
Making money

STOVL is Short Take Off and Vertical Landing.

I.e. the plane is still moving forward when it takes off, but it takes a very short distance for it to get airborne.

VTOL is Vertical Takeoff and Landing.

STOVL enables the plane to take off with a higher weight, which means more fuel or more munitions, but it also requires an actual runway, albeit a short one.

>hereas with the F35 you only have to pay for 1
The bill for the F35 is ginormous.

Eh.

The R&D costs were hideous, but the finished product is actually cheaper on a per unit basis than getting Typhoons or Rafales, and the F-35 is way better than either of those aircraft.

>When you go into the woods, do you carry a general purpose knife, or a collection of scalpels, hook knives, and scissors?
Depends on how crazy you are.

Not him, but the idea is that the F-15 would hang back more-or-less out of threat range while the F-35 in full stealth would get close to target enemy jets for the F-15, which actually fires the missile.

Now tell us which allows more payload/fuel and which is what the F-35B performs in use.

You mean something the F-35 can do, although even with external munitions its 'threat range' is much closer.

Ladies and gentlemen, the unfortunate result of the US education system

>you can use the F-35's external racks.

Yes, BUT it affects the stealth capability.

This is why F-35 has 4-6 missiles and F-15 has 16, F-15 just forgets stealth and focuses on missiles (in that specific F-15C configuration at least).

But they've been thinking a lot about this and using them BOTH probably has the best results. Strike force with several different aircraft is better than one type alone.

Enough with this retarded nonsense. It makes no sense. First of all the F 15 would be within target range of enemy missiles themselves. At the present non stealthy cross sections radar is longer than VLR air to air missiles. Second, why would you get a stealth jet to give away its position by locking onto another plane with radar?

>F-15 just forgets stealth and focuses on missiles (in that specific F-15C configuration at least).

F15 has a 25sqm RCS and never knew stealth to begin with.

Even the updated one will still have an RCS bigger than any fighter built after 1980.

You do realize "threat range" is the range of missiles from the enemy, which logically if is shorter than yours there's no reason to have the F 35 in the first place?

>B1-R

Please stop, I can only get so erect.

The problem with this is a non-stealthy munition aircraft will be detected and could be engaged with big, very long range missiles or SAMs which something like an F-15 could feasibly kinematically defeat at range, where a B-1 couldn't.

>Stealth pods

Boom.

>What? BONE is evolving!
>Congratulations! Your BONE evolved into BONER!

Attached: B-1R-2.jpg (1024x768, 39K)

The F-35 has 4/6 missiles or 14/16 missiles.

post yfw a single B-1R shoots down every single SU-57 that exists in one fight

Source?

Having missiles of comparable range also applies, there is no reason to try and give your opponent an equal fight.

Look at a picture of the M109A7.

>This is why F-35 has 4-6 missiles
Or 14 AMRAAMs + 2 Sidewinders, while still having much less RCS than an F-15. See, the F-35 can choose to sacrifice some stealth for a fuckton of missiles, while the F-15 simply can't choose to be stealthy. And so a pure F-35 fleet can do the same job you want the mix F-35/F-15 fleet to do, but they can also go all stealth if you need them to, and you only have one aircraft type to maintain.
Though if you want some well maintained second-hand F-15 kinda cheap then Japan is looking to sell a bunch to buy more F-35.

Attached: awetgfa.jpg (792x927, 120K)

Fucking idiot

>What is the point of the F-35?
The F-35 is great at its primary mission - which is to transfer large amounts of money from beleaguered taxpayers to politically-connected defense contractors.

Attached: tenor (1).gif (252x190, 624K)

The vehicle that is longer, wider and has a different road wheel setup than the Bradley series? That M109A7?

Spot the shill.

Are you not aware that the M109A7 has a new hull?

>6 AIM-120s internally
Gimme your source, bud, cause I have first hand knowledge otherwise

Yes i am aware, im talking to the guy saying that the Bradley and the A7 has the same hull. Which i find hard to believe, due to the width, lenght and road wheel arm layout being different

The user didn't say they shared the same hull.

... But it's not any more unequal. Unless the enemy is using stealth planes the F 15's radar far out ranges the range of its missiles.

He's talking out of his ass. Lockheed has a plan to increase the bay space, IIRC by putting the missiles in the doors, but it's not been developed.

you're full of shit. Welcome to block 4.

Attached: f35missles.jpg (798x627, 305K)

By talking out his ass you mean the pylons Lockheed developed and is offering as an upgrade.

Stop using that terrible photoshop.

Yes, it can sacrifice stealth and still be better at it than F-15.

Then again, what it can't sacrifice is price (triple, compared to F-15C) and if we go a bit further, nobody wants to sacrifice *it* because there's not that many to go around in a near-peer war.

This is "a thing" in real life, which is why they are thinking about roles and budget.

F-35 + F-15 in slightly different roles but in same strike force --> money well spent.

The doors are already dedicated AA stations, as seen here
Nice photoshop on station 8. While yes, there is room on those stations, the hardware doesn't exist yet, at least outside of a lockheed R&D lab. Same goes for
regarding the external AMRAAM capability

And F-35 has 100% of its stealth or less than 100% of its stealth.

Considering the intended role and budget, more is better as F-15 can never achieve that.

There will be plenty to go around. Procurement plan is for over 800 F-35As, and hasn't changed. Over 400 have already been delivered.

docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/20190502/109348/HHRG-116-AS25-Wstate-WinterM-20190502.pdf

Yes, it was never a stealth jet.

They did a good job on the (cancelled!) Silent Eagle version of it - similar RCS to F-35 but only from the front.

Basically F-35 is better in stealth in all cases, because Silent Eagle cost was 100 million (but probably would be cheaper if mass produced).

Its development, not developed.

janes.com/article/88236/lockheed-martin-sidekick-development-offers-six-internal-aim-120s-for-f-35a-c-variants

The dual missile racks and the F-35's wing stations already exist.

>Silent Eagle version of it - similar RCS to F-35 but only from the front.

It was never even close. F15SE and F15X both have an RCS over two sqm.

He did
Literally the start of this post chain

I'm well aware that the external stations already exist. I fucking installed 6 station 1/11 AA pylons and rails just last night, and have installed plenty of station 2, 3, 9 and 10 AG pylons. However, there is no equipment capable of carrying AIM-120s externally currently in service.

Lockheed recently announced that they've found a way to fit 3 AMRAAMs in each bay. It's kind of interesting to watch fighter aircraft development act more similarly to software dev than hardware. I guess all that talk of upgradability holds a good bit of water.

Who's working on/how far along is CUDA/SACM now? I haven't seen anything about it for a good long while.

Also B-21 arsenal plane when?

Are you ESL? Being based on =/= being literally the same.

Doesn't seem close to fielding, but you never know how far along these sorts of things really are. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some sort of B-21 A2A variant. We're gonna be buying enough to replace the B-1s, and apparently they have better flight performance than the B-2.

>it exists but it doesn't count because it hasn't been done yet

neat

>in which it was poorly suited
your opinions are fucking shit

Attached: world's #1 distributor of MiG parts.jpg (771x1024, 160K)

Chinks and vodkaniggers tout capabilities of shit they haven't gotten out of R&D yet. There's no point in saying we can load 6 AMRAAMs internally if we actually can't yet, especially since the current config is still leagues ahead of the non-existent competition.

That's fair, but an extra hardpoint on the bay door of an already operational aircraft is a little bit different than quantum-plasma 6th gen stealth missiles or whatever gets posted on this board every few weeks.

Good thing the F-35 carrying AMRAAM's on its wings isn't R&D.

Also fair. Again though, the bay door station is already the dedicated AMRAAM station. Lockheed is developing a way to put 2 on each bay station, which honestly shouldn't be very hard to do.
Station 1 and 11 can only carry the AIM-9X. Once again, there is no external AMRAAM compatible equipment currently in service. My source is first hand on the job knowledge, what's yours?

Attached: IMG_20190503_131407.jpg (2592x4608, 3.27M)