Would the F35 actually be a good carrier replacement for the super hornet?

Can the f35 perform aerial refueling duties like the super bug?

And lower RCS than the super bug even with external armaments.
Not relevant.

not that I'm aware of, however I don't see why it couldn't, but I doubt they would spend money on developing that capability when they are already investing in drone refueling concepts like the mq-25.

People don't seem to realise that the kind of loitering CAS the A-10 is designed for doens't work in any enviroment where the airspace is contested or if there is even a token Air Defence Network. The A-10 would be relegated to a Maverick Bus is any kind of symmetrical warfare, a job that F-16/18/35 will do much better.

In a situation where you have the air superiority needed to operate the A-10 in the role congress think is "real" CAS something like the Super Tucano is far better choice for a host of logistical reasons.

Its honestly not a difficult concept, the A-10 costs like a fast mover yet doens't really get any net benefit in a hot war, and cheaper options exist for low intestity police actions or bush wars.

Are we gonna see a navalised version of this?

>f/a-18 superior
Based on the inferior range, inferior sensors, or the inferior load?

Not to mention that a maxed out F35 is still more stealthy than a maxed out Bug

it's not even a question of would. in the gulf war gen chuck honer pulled all a-10's back from the front line after they got torn up by shilkas and manpads in the very first day they saw that kind of combat. The f-16 with LANTIRN pods had no problem in that environment and were used instead.

Considering the Navy is already buying over 200 of these to replace F/A 18s, I think the Navy decided it is.

I doubt it. The navy is there to project force. The tucano is good for low intensity conflicts, and policing borders of developing nations.

>10 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders

Attached: stop.jpg (480x360, 14K)

That’s 12 AMRAAMS

For starters it can handle high speeds without damaging itself, it can turn, it’s an actually proven carrier jet.
Aerial refueling is one of the main missions that the super bug performs. The navy doesn’t have a dedicated aerial refueling plane. It’s a big deal

Drink my ass

Attached: 86905128-0BB8-40A3-9592-700E4230F645.jpg (2100x1500, 1.72M)

Aircraft carriers are a jobs program. They are irrelevant in modern warfare.

This looks like a good thread to show off my 2018 pilots survival ration
>white cheddar
>dried raspberries
>chocolate chunks
>graham crackers
6g of protein and 170 kcals

Attached: image.jpg (4032x3024, 1.92M)

The thing you are attempting to meme about high speeds only occurred in two cases in 2011 in the f-35b and c model. an update to the coating was applied in lrip 8 to prevent blistering in identified problem areas. They as of yet have been unable to reproduce the problem since 2011 in testing. Additionally the limits on supersonic speeds are not software limited and are at the determination of the pilot, but 60 seconds of maximum speed is the recommended limit but such limits are likely to be a temporary measure.

No, wingtips are sidewinders.

Yea 12 AMRAAMS and 2 sidewinders

2 Wingtip winders.
2 AMRAAMs on the belly.
8 AMRAAMs on the Pylons
Where do you see two more?

>it can turn
F-35 is fine

>proven
Hornets werent proven their first time up. also, that little frame issue they had

Tbf if we are talking carriers it really is fair to bring up the B and C models, since those are the carrier planes

The F35 is a piece of shit that serves only as an expensive hangar ornament. Utter trash aircraft that can barely fly.

>not proven
Super hornet is proven

youtube.com/watch?v=NAc_Uld7L0k

>The navy doesn’t have a dedicated aerial refueling plane. It’s a big dea

Attached: IJFHGR3XHBE3RJMTLJYIDA67HM.jpg (1200x691, 197K)

How many of those does the navy have? How many would they need to store on ship? How many fighter aircraft need to be removed to make room for these?

None yet should be in service by 2024. They've already proven viability of drones on carriers years ago with the X-47b. They'd probably only keep 2-4 on the ship and they're smaller than F-18s. F-18s will hold it down until it's fully online.

Because the US can buy a lot of them and just flood the skies with a multirole plane should they need to. Who cares about slightly lower performance when you can install modern, service-wide electronics packages? Do you know how big an advantage that alone gives, and how much money that saves, not having to build compatible ones for every single plane on the roster?

AFAIK, it's not meant to replace the Super Hornet. It's going to replace the legacy Hornets. The F/A-XX is supposed to supplant the Superbugs when it starts service in 2030 or so.

>implying the US will make it to 2030

Attached: FB_IMG_1531931685213.jpg (228x211, 6K)

There's zero reason to think otherwise, but ok.

>The navy doesn’t have a dedicated aerial refueling plane. It’s a big deal
That is because the Air Force is a bag of dicks and convinced Congress they have the sole rights to any dedicated refueling platform. It was one of the primary reasons the S-3 Viking was kept around for so long was due to its ability to act as a tanker aircraft.

>Survival ration
>enough calories to last an extra day at most
Just get an MRE and have enough calories to last a few days at least.

Argue with military procurement. Apparently sargentos snack foods has gen mattis on the payroll. For the so called warrior monk he sure does have a lot of shady business dealings.

Not him, but the ballooning national debt would like a word with you.

>national debt
Literally who?

Attached: CF49FF23-3824-4589-9F39-F96271B7BFBA.png (802x628, 97K)

>How many fighter aircraft need to be removed to make room for these?
None, because carriers aren’t actually at max aircraft capacity

Explain to me in a consice manner how the nations debt will cause the country to suddenly fail?
You must just be equating Debt=Bad with no actual arguments to back it up. But this is a economics arguement and we are currently on a weapons board, I know, sometimes its hard to believe that but it is.

The elephant in the room everybody ignores
>Explain to me in a consice manner how the nations debt will cause the country to suddenly fail?
Not suddenly, a gradual process. As the debt grows, so does the interest payments. By 2029, the interest payments will be greater than the military budget, and this is with current interest rates. As the interest payments intrude evermore into the budget, the US government has to start taking money from other budgetary items like healthcare, infrastructure, ect. Also, once creditors begin to wonder whether the United States will ever repay its debts (30 trillion+), they will increase the interest rates to justify the risk. This would likely lead to the US Dollar being highly inflated as the Treasury prints more to pay the debt interest payments. There's a lot more I'm leaving out, but I'm busy at the moment. You can't truly believe you can run up the credit forever with no consequence? Please don't tell me you're a MMT proponent.

Fantasy land. Your country sucks

Ad hominem. Nice.

That's good enough for like one hour of energy

The f-18 has a shite payload

There’s like $1.5 million in R&D into this ration. I’m sure that it’s more substantial than that.