Missile bays

I just googled it and apparently the F-35 will now be able to carry 6 AMRAAMs just like the F-22 (popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a27347465/f-35-missile-increase/).

Based on that and the superior bomb capacity, 2 separated but deeper bays seem to be the superior concept.

it's about the shape and internal structural support. i think one of the reason for the f35 bays is the big engine

They're still working on that. Also it won't work on the B.

Plus F-35 can't carry internal AIM-9. The F-35's deeper bay has advantages over F-22 for strike missions but disadvantages went it comes to air superiority. This isn't a bad thing, the two planes are just built for different roles.

>different roles
b-b-but the f-35 is supposed to do everything!

It's a multirole fighter, it does do everything. USAF doctrine is to have few, highly capable, specialized airframes devoted to Air Superiority and have a bunch of cheaper multiroles.

The F-35 is terrific in air to air, it just isn't meant to have the exact same capabilities as the F-22

Attached: bg-f35a-overview-chart-2.gif (400x1020, 61K)

I watched a panel on the F35 that suggest the good shit isn't even here yet. Once autonomous combat drones are ready the F35 will be able to control 10 each. The F35 won't even need to be in the same country that the combat is taking part in.

I guess your referring to stuff like the Skyborg program:

defensenews.com/air/2019/05/22/under-skyborg-program-f-35-and-f-15ex-jets-could-control-drone-sidekicks/

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kratos_XQ-58_Valkyrie

Lockheed Martin is currently testing a external setup for AIM-9Xs that won't compromise the RCS of the F-35 entirely

Wow how long do ya’ll think it would take to get that program fully operational. How could the enemy ever compete with such levels of air supremacy? Especially with such inter connectivity between fighters?

It's not about locking on before launch, in a well run air defence network the radar return from a tracked contact suddenly increasing would be suspect enough to launch missiles and/or report the contact to local fighter aircraft for interception. In systems like Patriot and S400, after launch, the missile is guided to the area where the contact was recorded and from there the missile itself can lock on via radar or IR. This is how the russians managed to shoot down their own plane in Syria, there was no "lock" achieved on the Israeli jet, the missile was launched to the area and it locked itself onto the russian aircraft.

>how long
Not very. The US is dumping cash into a lot of air superiority and missile programs to speed up their acquisition times. China’s starting to catch up, which has finally given lawmakers enough of a motivation to allow more spending on R&D

I'd be surprised if the use F35s for that. As far as I can see the future is just B2s flying two horizons behind a fleet of drones, coordinating attacks

are you going to spoiler that LEWD next time?

The F-35 is the first aircraft with the networking hardware and information management necessary to handle it. The B-21 is seemingly being designed with that in mind, too.

>It's not about locking on before launch, in a well run air defence network the radar return from a tracked contact suddenly increasing would be suspect enough to launch missiles and/or report the contact to local fighter aircraft for interception. In systems like Patriot and S400, after launch, the missile is guided to the area where the contact was recorded and from there the missile itself can lock on via radar or IR. This is how the russians managed to shoot down their own plane in Syria, there was no "lock" achieved on the Israeli jet, the missile was launched to the area and it locked itself onto the russian aircraft.

Lets further investigate this. The U.S. had access to parts of S-300V by the 'compromiser' Boorish Yelpsin, had access to Slovakian and Greek S-300's via NATO exercises, has had strong influx of scientists and engineers from Asia (to make up for their brain drain at home), had the luxury of having modern digital electronics and more than adequate funding, but yet PAC-3 still has overall inferior characteristics to S-300PS, a system introduced in 1979, and it's development started from the mid 1960's. That in itself isn't the biggest kicker, the biggest damnation against the Patriot series is the fact that Raytheon has completely given up on improving the PAC-3 series, and completely outsourced the development of PAC-4 to the Israeli based Rafael concern. A country of 320 million with the biggest military budget in history, is completely incapable of meeting the needs of their nations aerospace defense, and is reliant on a country of 6 million (1/53rd the population) to meet those very needs....the same country that 1/6th of their population (including many of their scientists and engineers) are ex-USSR.

The F-35 has an estimated 50+ year service life. By the time they're planned to be retired, they'll be as old as B-52s are now.
Look at shit like the F-16, from its adoption in 1978 it's had so many upgrades and proposals that F-16Es and F-21s are functionally unrecognizable from the old 1970s fighter.
The F-35 we have right now is the modern equivalent of that 1970s fighter. Where it goes from here is only just beginning.

Hey, what is the other little separate bay that is open?
Circled in red.

Attached: wtf.png (360x107, 111K)

I beloeve that's the countermeasures bay. Flares pop out there, maybe chaff too.

Poop chute

Attached: believe.png (496x309, 38K)

The Vigilante wants its shitty concept back

Aside from that, the Vigilante was a beautiful beast

Trustable data, there.
>some guy asked some other guys.

The F35B and C also are designed to have the underslung gun pod mounted in between the missile bays.

Your own picture answered your question, as you can see the payload bay cutting away from the engine housing

brah, the F-22 can't hit mach 1 at sea level, you know, like just about every fighter since the 50s.

I'm not a pilot, but one could imagine a Mig 21 or similarly archaic fighter engaging and killing F-35s while they perform CAS. The low velocity and inferior acceleration leaves them completely vulnerable at low altitudes. The only alternate doctrine is something similar to the F-111, high speed, low altitude strikes with little to no time on target. I don't see how the F-35 is in anyway specialized for this role. Oh ya and the F-111 say some of the highest casualty rate in Vietnam.

Attached: 1502022977067.jpg (2300x1536, 1.28M)

MiG-21 wouldn't be able to get close enough and would get popped the second it started radiating to try to find the F-35. It would get smacked by the F-22's or F-35's escorting the CAS package.

Aircraft do not work alone.

>a Mig 21 or similarly archaic fighter engaging and killing F-35s while they perform CAS.

I don't think they carry anything that requires they be at low altitude to perform CAS.

>brah, the F-22 can't hit mach 1 at sea level, you know, like just about every fighter since the 50s

Mach 2. Mach 2 is what you would have typed if you knew anything about the correlation between speed, altitude and air density

So what you're saying is that a country with open borders has to outsource most of its development to a country with racial purity laws?
Interesting.

That would happen anyway when the missile leaves the plane. You can't really avoid the fact that at some point the enemy will see a highly visible missile with approximately the same position and velocity as your invisible plane.

this

if it's at the same position and velocity as your plane, you've shot yourself.

CAS =/= PGM strikes from high alt against predetermined targets from days before, like bridges, party headquarters, telecommunications sites ect.

CAS still requires pilots to fly lower and make visual contact with both friendly and enemy forces and ensure they're attacking the right site with constant confirmation with FAC/JTAC.

The odds of an F-35 ever being cleared to perform an actual CAS mission are almost non existent, not as long as ordinary 4th gen aircraft are still in service and dont require the long hours needed to repair RAM coating and the high risk associated with losing something like an 35.

Yeah who would ever do that?

Attached: F-117-wreckage.jpg (685x452, 45K)

>fly lower and make visual contact
The fuck do you think EOTS is?

>is completely incapable of meeting the needs of their nations aerospace defense
???

Attached: USAF.png (3780x2672, 2.98M)

IAF version?

Nigger, ive had CAS support from B-1s flying so high its almost out of sight.

>why they open in the conventional manner with the doors sitting in the airflow

Cz we haven't developed the technology yet that makes objects able to phase through solid surfaces. Bomb bays are efficient enough as they are...don'T fix what is not broken.

>The F-35 is terrific in air to air

Yeah, in Lockhead Martin simulations, I bet 1 F35 can kill a dozen Suhoi-33s without any missiles...

Even the F15's impressive air to air success can't be considered valid as it has only gone up against monkey model MiGs with mediocre pilots. It's like comparing an Abrams to T54s and 62s...

I.e. not CAS, and from the aircraft with the highest friendly kills

>CAS=low n slow

Attached: ITS PAYNE.jpg (901x1200, 121K)

>what are clouds and VFR confirmation rules

>'slow and low'
>no where in that post to be found

You really dont know what CAS means, do you?

Your post implied that what soldier user recieved was not CAS because it was from a high altitude B1.
So, here is what the USAF considers "Close Air Support"
2. Close Air Support Overview a. CAS is air action by fixed-wing (FW) and rotary-wing (RW) aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and requires detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces. All fires should support the joint force commander’s (JFC’s) objectives, guidance, and priorities.

stripes.com/news/us/report-deaths-were-avoidable-in-afghan-friendly-fire-incident-1.301537

cbsnews.com/news/why-were-five-u-s-soldiers-killed-by-an-american-bomber-in-afghanistan/#

It doesn't mean 'ground attack in general' like you think it does.

Doctrine matters. The general US strategy is to cruise missle and stealth bomb command centers, ships, airport runways, and armored vehicles followed by combined arms so the enemy never gets the chance to have a fair fight in the first place. Pulling out anti air missles after your industrial, logistical, and command structure has been decimated is not a winning strategy. If you're blasting radar waves looking for planes after the fact, you're throwing your life away. you're gonna eat a missle or satilite image/GPS guided bomb before you have time to even realize you've been spotted. And it might not even come from the fighter that initially spotted you.

>armatard starts sperging out because he realizes he's been made a fool again
How boring.

Attached: 49YRMj0.png (206x206, 90K)

The USAF considers it to be ground attack missions against targets that are in close proximity to allied forces.
fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf

Are literally incapable of reading comprehension?

So.....not ground attack in general, which is literally what Jow Forums thinks it is. Got it.

*Are you
Fixed that for you.
No need to thank me, amigo.

Attached: 1551088958470.gif (183x237, 27K)

>anime picture

Let me guess, you play ace combat? Well it all makes sense now.

Nah, more of a Crimson Skies kinda guy.

Attached: smug kotobuki.png (1920x1080, 1.99M)

I cant tell if you are trolling at this point
CAS means putting ordinance on targets CLOSE to friendly forces. Whatever drops the weapon is completely irrelevant, be it a fucking nigger-rigged spaceshuttle with GBU's or Peter fucking Pan flying over with M67's.

>Whatever drops the weapon is completely irrelevant,

>this is literally how dumb Jow Forums is

Ok, what is the definition of CAS to you then? What are the aircraft allowed to do CAS in your head?

Dunning-kruger in full effect.
>Flying low
>exposing yourself to AAA needlessly.

Remember the pods stuck on every US plane, SNIPER and LITENING. The f35 has that internally. Go fly an A-10 gramps

Attached: 1565069742921m.jpg (1024x378, 39K)

F-35 weapons bays are bigger than F-22's weapons bays.

Attached: Zardoz.jpg (1248x1000, 160K)

>stealth hasnt improved since the 80s.
>stealth renders your aircraft completly invisible
>stealth allows you to fly the same routes again and again
> losing ONE plane invalidates a concept
>your mom didnt drink her entire pregnacy

Attached: aiportraits_1563720539.jpg (512x512, 34K)

It isn't even close to A-10.

CAS means close air support. Not as in plane flying close to the ground air support, but as in friendly forces are close to the target air support. In your head an A-10 strafing a column 40 miles behind front lines low and slow is CAS then?

Only if the pilot dabs at the enemy as he flies past

Air outlet, to control turbulence. Air that is sucked into the big cavity becomes turbulence, if it does not have an outlet then it becomes a problem.

>"An A-10 is ALWAYS going to be better at CAS than an F-35"

youtube.com/watch?v=7fy6U3cmCGc

Attached: f-35 terrible at cas from F-35 pilot.jpg (1276x645, 118K)

His opinion is in the minority, and he's a retard.

Yeah, being slower, carrying less payload and getting any mission scrubbed if there is any AA more effective then a boy with a slingshot in the AO makes for a much better CAS aircraft.

>An F-16/F-35 pilot is a retard
>I'm not a pilot at all

think about what you just wrote...

Imagine being so mad and dumb that you actually try and argue against real pilots in the USAF.

That's a yikes from me, bro.

Yes, his opinion is retarded and flies in the face of his superiors and the USAF as a whole.

He actually says that the F-35 will be as good as an F-16 in CAS. Having a functional brainstem should tell you that an aircraft with over twice the range, better speed, more weapons stores and infinitely better sensors is going to blow the other one out of the water, but no apparently they're on the same capability level.

You're a dumbass for linking this.

>functional brainstem
>on Jow Forums
user, I....

>Be pilot
>Has to shill plane because he gets extra from superiors
>People believes his shit

Remember that pilot dude who started the 'The F-22 looks like a golf ball on radar' thing? Of course not.

Attached: NLDugGD.jpg (645x729, 34K)

>"his opinion is retarded and flies in the face of his superiors and the USAF as a whole"
>USAF is painted as the meanie who wants to wants to kill the A-10 because CAS isn't "glamorous" by brainlets like McCain and the mainstream media
>USAF scales back the percentage of CAS missions attributed to the A-10
>USAF increases the percentage of CAS missions attributed to F-16s, B-1s, etc
>pilot says it's unfeasible to keep flying the A-10
>"HURR DURR THE PILOT IS CONTRADICTING THE USAF"

Approximately the same, as in a few meters below or to the side.

This guy shouldn't be telling people from other countries on what they should or shouldn't buy while in uniform at least

no

Attached: f35 dispense.webm (1280x720, 454K)

You are all a bunch of niggerlipped cocksuckers.

The issue with using fast movers for CAS is not one of high vs low altitude, it is loiter time in the AO and thus the ability to make immediate follow up strikes.

This has been the ongoing issue, for the almost TWENTY FUCKING YEARS of shitcanistan east and shitcanistan west.

The only place the A-10 can operate is non-contested environments, and if thats where you're doing CAS drones have them all beat anyway.

Helicopters don't have this problem

The open bay inherently fucks up stealth even if the doors retracted up into the plane.

>Helicopters don't have this problem

Yeah, but the Chairforce agreed not to use whirlybirds offensively, in return for the army agreeing not to run tactical fixed wing airlift capability.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-McConnell_agreement_of_1966

This agreement basically killed one of the greatest CAS helos of all time, by giving the chairforce plausible reason to claim the Cheyenne was in actuality a fixed wing CAS aircraft, since it had lift generating stub wings.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AH-56_Cheyenne

>The only place the A-10 can operate is non-contested environments

That goes for every US aircraft other than those dedicated to achieving air superiority.
As that is their job, to assure that the airspace is non contested, so that airlift and ground attack can facilitate the fire and maneuver of ground elements.

WELCOME

TO

COMBINED

ARMS

WARFARE

Attached: 1555711217586.png (460x295, 128K)

F-16's, 18's, and 15e's did the work the A-10 couldn't in 2003. That aircraft genuinely couldn't handle the CAS missions that were needed when it came time to push.

>some stealth fighters have 1 large missile bay (F-22 or J-20) while others have 2 smaller ones (F-35)

Single engine vs two engines

Attached: F-35 missile bay photoshop.jpg (798x627, 305K)