F-35
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
192 comments displayed.
#130 to #103
-
theseareletters (12/03/2015) [-] Android was released in 2007 you **** poster. By then, nothing about it was original. it was effectively a windows phone- which we have now and are generally better.
Also- US invented the internet. You lose.
Also- US invented the internet. You lose.
#207 to #130
-
trolololer (12/07/2015) [-] **trolololer used "*roll picture*"**
**trolololer rolled image** Windows is actually recalling stocks related to their phone and they're going to discontinue it soon, so yeah...
**trolololer rolled image** Windows is actually recalling stocks related to their phone and they're going to discontinue it soon, so yeah...
#136 to #130
-
lennybrown (12/03/2015) [-] If your talking about Apernet yes is was first used in the USA but that wasnt the fist network it was the Mark 1 network at NPL in the UK in which Apernet was influenced.
#155 to #136
-
theseareletters (12/03/2015) [-] NPL piloted in 1969. Mark 1 was 1970 and 2 was 1986.
Leonard Kleinrock from New York put the idea of networks on paper in 1961.
Then, NWG, had a working, multi state network in 1969 and sent emails in 1971. Also invented TCP/IP- which NPL did not.
TCP/IP is how our internet works. It's possible that NPL may have sent a digital package in the same year, maybe even earlier in the year. But they did not have a comparable network- nor did they invent the backbone of todays internet, nor did they progress like NWG did in the US.
Leonard Kleinrock from New York put the idea of networks on paper in 1961.
Then, NWG, had a working, multi state network in 1969 and sent emails in 1971. Also invented TCP/IP- which NPL did not.
TCP/IP is how our internet works. It's possible that NPL may have sent a digital package in the same year, maybe even earlier in the year. But they did not have a comparable network- nor did they invent the backbone of todays internet, nor did they progress like NWG did in the US.
#131 to #130
-
kaiserdjg (12/03/2015) [-] but we invented the computer so...
and
mashable.com/2012/10/27/apple-stolen-ideas/#uvMmDaOG8qqx
Android, Inc. was founded in Palo Alto, California in October 2003 by Andy Rubin
In 2005, when Steve Jobs began planning the iPhone
so no
and
mashable.com/2012/10/27/apple-stolen-ideas/#uvMmDaOG8qqx
Android, Inc. was founded in Palo Alto, California in October 2003 by Andy Rubin
In 2005, when Steve Jobs began planning the iPhone
so no
#132 to #131
-
theseareletters (12/03/2015) [-] Define computer. PC's are nothing without transistors. A card punch is hardly a computer by today's standards. You might as well include the abacus.
Also, I said nothing about the Iphone, because it wasn't necessary for my statement.
Also, I said nothing about the Iphone, because it wasn't necessary for my statement.
#135 to #132
-
kaiserdjg (12/03/2015) [-] you can go back and back and back with who invented what but you brought it up so i continued trend, non of it is available without electricity and we have Tesla to thank for that so lets just leave it there.
we all know how apple steals ideas and then touts them as their own and "new features"
You said android was released in 2007" does that mean all the R&D before that and ideas that were stolen and copied by jobs into his IOS for release means that the iphone is somehow invented by jobs before...?
and yes android is basically a pc format whereas IOS is Mac but Mac gets all its basic ideas from PC and the Iphone and most of its features are stolen from Android.
most people will recognise the analogy i made because iphone has lagged behind on the market but always charged a lot more for less specs, just like the f-35 vs a harrier jump jet
we all know how apple steals ideas and then touts them as their own and "new features"
You said android was released in 2007" does that mean all the R&D before that and ideas that were stolen and copied by jobs into his IOS for release means that the iphone is somehow invented by jobs before...?
and yes android is basically a pc format whereas IOS is Mac but Mac gets all its basic ideas from PC and the Iphone and most of its features are stolen from Android.
most people will recognise the analogy i made because iphone has lagged behind on the market but always charged a lot more for less specs, just like the f-35 vs a harrier jump jet
#143 to #135
-
theseareletters (12/03/2015) [-] Android and apple both copied ideas. that's what people do- take something and make it better.
the f-35 has a completely different mission it was built to fulfill than what a harrier is built for. They are not comparable.
and we wouldn't have electricity without man first "inventing" fire. So lets just leave it there.
the f-35 has a completely different mission it was built to fulfill than what a harrier is built for. They are not comparable.
and we wouldn't have electricity without man first "inventing" fire. So lets just leave it there.
#145 to #144
-
theseareletters (12/03/2015) [-] the iphone and the android are filling completely different user preferences. if you don't like the apple features- like size difference, battery useage, apps, and whatever else you want to compare it to- that doesn't make it worse.
#152 to #149
-
theseareletters (12/03/2015) [-] size, battery usage, apps, weight, internal components, and so on. Same function, different format. Still different.
#163 to #162
-
kaiserdjg (12/03/2015) [-] he says after all those comments
"Android was released in 2007 you **** poster. By then, nothing about it was original. it was effectively a windows phone- which we have now and are generally better.
Also- US invented the internet. You lose."
the salt was real from the start lol
"Android was released in 2007 you **** poster. By then, nothing about it was original. it was effectively a windows phone- which we have now and are generally better.
Also- US invented the internet. You lose."
the salt was real from the start lol
#107 to #105
-
kaiserdjg (12/03/2015) [-] last two wars??? the last one we "lost" was in 1967
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_Kingdom
i did not expect much intelligence from an american but come on its not that hard
at least we dont create wars for profit
the analogy was perfect
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_Kingdom
i did not expect much intelligence from an american but come on its not that hard
at least we dont create wars for profit
the analogy was perfect
#115 to #110
-
xxxdemonxxx (12/03/2015) [-] You're bad at arguing, so I assume you're just trolling.
#126 to #103
-
buddywuggle (12/03/2015) [-] What makes the UK so original? I'm sure you guys stole as many ideas from your parent country as we did.
>19060's has not happened yet.
Android is a copy of the iPhone, which is probably a copy of something Samsung did too.
>19060's has not happened yet.
Android is a copy of the iPhone, which is probably a copy of something Samsung did too.
#128 to #127
-
buddywuggle (12/03/2015) [-] >Anyone who disagrees with you is bait.
Learn to internet.
Learn to internet.
#206 to #103
-
trolololer (12/07/2015) [-] **trolololer used "*roll picture*"**
**trolololer rolled image** I'll be honest with you, I dislike America as much as any non-American person on this site probably even more so, considering I'm Russian , but I rolled that picture completely on accident
**trolololer rolled image** I'll be honest with you, I dislike America as much as any non-American person on this site probably even more so, considering I'm Russian , but I rolled that picture completely on accident
#186 to #103
-
EdwardNigma 
ONLINE (12/03/2015) [-] 19060s?
Damn, UK needs to step up its ******* game.
Damn, UK needs to step up its ******* game.
#209 to #63
-
trolololer (12/07/2015) [-] **trolololer used "*roll picture*"**
**trolololer rolled image** it was an accidental roll, I'm Russian...
**trolololer rolled image** it was an accidental roll, I'm Russian...
#210 to #67
-
trolololer (12/07/2015) [-] **trolololer used "*roll picture*"**
**trolololer rolled image** it was an accidental roll, I'm Russian...
**trolololer rolled image** it was an accidental roll, I'm Russian...
#212 to #211
-
trolololer (12/07/2015) [-] I'm not... Russian... any more? I don't understand how that works cuz like being Russian is more than just having a passport and a greencard. You actually have to be of Slavic ethnicity.
#214 to #212
-
dasbrot (12/07/2015) [-] 'MURICA is a state of mind.
We are not bound by petty things like ethnicity!
We are a people with the belief that anything is possible for anyone...
...no matter the class, race, ethnicity, gender, culture...
...that everyone can reap the rewards of their efforts....
...to give the gifts of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness!
**** YEAH
*distant fireworks accompanied by a screaming eagle*
We are not bound by petty things like ethnicity!
We are a people with the belief that anything is possible for anyone...
...no matter the class, race, ethnicity, gender, culture...
...that everyone can reap the rewards of their efforts....
...to give the gifts of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness!
**** YEAH
*distant fireworks accompanied by a screaming eagle*
#1
-
lean (12/02/2015) [-] Neat. Hope they figure out all the issues that have been occurring. There is a significant reason behind 2 engines in fighter planes.
#34 to #28
-
deescalation (12/03/2015) [-] I haven't heard that before, but it lets me make fun of 35's and 16s at the same time, thanks
#76 to #34
-
tealcanaan (12/03/2015) [-] F-16 is literally one of the best jet-combat platforms to date.
#197 to #76
-
deescalation (12/03/2015) [-] but I'm an F-15 crew chief, I have to make fun of the lawn darts, it's in my contract
#198 to #197
-
tealcanaan (12/03/2015) [-] Haha, it's all good, Tyndall? I'm navy, but i know of the chair force
#10
-
salamandermander (12/02/2015) [-] I admit that's really cool, but the F-35 is an under-performing, expensive aircraft that is a piece of **** compared to new Russian and Chinese fighters. Hell, it was beat out by an F-16 in a dogfight. If the a plane designed in the 70's out--dogfights the plane that's going to replace it, why are we even investing in it?
#27 to #13
-
failflyer (12/03/2015) [-]
Nope. The last batch Raptors were produced at $137m each. If we made more they would have gone below $100m. F-35s are still over $150m per unit. Further along in production it should get cheaper, but the program has a terrible history of keeping with time or cost estimates.
Not to mention that 187 raptors plus R&D cost $90 billion. The F-35 is already approaching $500 billion (at about 200 built), and expected to cost over $1.5 trillion over its lifetime.
foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/everyone-who-wanted-more-f-22s-is-being-proven-right-1732105884
Not to mention that 187 raptors plus R&D cost $90 billion. The F-35 is already approaching $500 billion (at about 200 built), and expected to cost over $1.5 trillion over its lifetime.
foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/everyone-who-wanted-more-f-22s-is-being-proven-right-1732105884
#42 to #27
-
atoaster (12/03/2015) [-] "By that reckoning, each of the last 60 F-22s set the taxpayer back $137 million, only slightly more than the roughly $110 million apiece Americans pay for a new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter." -WIRED
Only a little bit. The variation I think is just reporting, so I'd say they're about equal, like you said.
The thing I think about the F-35 vs F-22 debate is the whole R&D cost per plane being a bit weird. Obviously the F-22 was made for the US Air Force, right? However, the F-35 is being made for the US Air Force, US Marines, and US Navy. That's three different variants of the plane, with VTOL capabilities for the Marine version, tail hook for the Marines and Navy, and different payloads and stuff for each. You simply can't compare a plane that's made for one branch to a plane that's designed to fulfill the roles of a military. Actually, the F-22 is no longer in production, I don't think, because the F-35 itself is already proven to be a more promising plane.
That's not to say that your estimations about the cost of each plane over time are to be dismissed, but I think the only true value for an investment is when it comes to play. Your earlier point about the F-35 underperforming is also kinda questionable. A lot of stuff underperforms when it first starts (though I'm not saying the F-35 won't crash and burn, pardon the potential pun).
Take, for example, the P-38 Lighting. At the time, it was very revolutionary. However, it had major problems in lift dynamics when diving that would cause it to crash quite often. Many blamed it for its untraditional, funny shape. In the end, Lockheed fixed it with a simple dive-brake.
The V-22 Osprey, though it's still not truly had its fair share of combat, has already proven to be quite alright, despite early concerns about its weird design, unit cost, and reliability.
On the subject of "what role will it play?", that itself is definitely yet to be determined. The A-10 Warthog was on its way out, actually, until the war started and the military realized it was a god at killing tanks.
Nevertheless, the F-35 is my fly-fu.
Only a little bit. The variation I think is just reporting, so I'd say they're about equal, like you said.
The thing I think about the F-35 vs F-22 debate is the whole R&D cost per plane being a bit weird. Obviously the F-22 was made for the US Air Force, right? However, the F-35 is being made for the US Air Force, US Marines, and US Navy. That's three different variants of the plane, with VTOL capabilities for the Marine version, tail hook for the Marines and Navy, and different payloads and stuff for each. You simply can't compare a plane that's made for one branch to a plane that's designed to fulfill the roles of a military. Actually, the F-22 is no longer in production, I don't think, because the F-35 itself is already proven to be a more promising plane.
That's not to say that your estimations about the cost of each plane over time are to be dismissed, but I think the only true value for an investment is when it comes to play. Your earlier point about the F-35 underperforming is also kinda questionable. A lot of stuff underperforms when it first starts (though I'm not saying the F-35 won't crash and burn, pardon the potential pun).
Take, for example, the P-38 Lighting. At the time, it was very revolutionary. However, it had major problems in lift dynamics when diving that would cause it to crash quite often. Many blamed it for its untraditional, funny shape. In the end, Lockheed fixed it with a simple dive-brake.
The V-22 Osprey, though it's still not truly had its fair share of combat, has already proven to be quite alright, despite early concerns about its weird design, unit cost, and reliability.
On the subject of "what role will it play?", that itself is definitely yet to be determined. The A-10 Warthog was on its way out, actually, until the war started and the military realized it was a god at killing tanks.
Nevertheless, the F-35 is my fly-fu.
#79 to #42
-
captchakid (12/03/2015) [-] I got the implication that you think the F35 is replacing the F22, in which case I have to correct you. The F22 is still the most advanced plane in the world, and will be until we get our new stealth bombers that are to replace the B2's. The F35 is a multi-role aircraft designed to be able to perform air to air, close air support, and survielance capabilities. The F22 is designed for a large focus on air superiority, which it excels at heavily, and will be in service until it is replaced by 6th generation fighters in the 2030's at the earliest.
The F22 is my dream plane, it's a terrifying and sexy show of engineering and technological prowess.
The F22 is my dream plane, it's a terrifying and sexy show of engineering and technological prowess.
#196 to #79
-
atoaster (12/03/2015) [-] I didn't mean that the F-22 is being replaced by the F-35. What I meant sources from something I read that said the F-22 is no longer in production because the F-35 is cheaper and more versatile (not sure what that means).
I assumed that the people who canceled the F-22 plane are only doing so because the F-35 program has some sort of benefit, hence why I said it was "more promising".
Note that I should have said "promising program" rather than the plane itself. Else, the F-22 would probably outpreform, because of it's design being more geared towards the air force.
I assumed that the people who canceled the F-22 plane are only doing so because the F-35 program has some sort of benefit, hence why I said it was "more promising".
Note that I should have said "promising program" rather than the plane itself. Else, the F-22 would probably outpreform, because of it's design being more geared towards the air force.
#55 to #42
-
failflyer (12/03/2015) [-]
$500 billion is still way more than triple the F-22s price.The main reason the F-35 was chosen was because making three variants on the same plane was supposed to be cheaper than making three new planes.
Both aircraft are made by the same company using similar methods, which is why I compared the two. The fact that Lockheed made the F-22 first should have made the F-35 cheaper and faster to produce. The only payload difference is that the F-35 can carry a few more types of bombs. I don't see how that can account for a several hundred billion dollar difference.
Hopefully its issues are just teething problems, but we have 165 produced already. We won't know until it actually goes into combat in the late 2020's at this rate.
Not to mention there is/was 11 countries invested in this plane. There's just too much money in it. The project's problems are probably more political than anything else. At any rate, Lockheed definitely hasn't been trying to keep the cost down
Also the USAF has a hard-on for precision guided munitions, while the Army likes big ass guns like the GAU-30. There's always been a huge disconnect between what ground forces want and what the USAF wants. The reason why the A-10 was so radical was because the designers actually asked the grunts what they wanted.
Both aircraft are made by the same company using similar methods, which is why I compared the two. The fact that Lockheed made the F-22 first should have made the F-35 cheaper and faster to produce. The only payload difference is that the F-35 can carry a few more types of bombs. I don't see how that can account for a several hundred billion dollar difference.
Hopefully its issues are just teething problems, but we have 165 produced already. We won't know until it actually goes into combat in the late 2020's at this rate.
Not to mention there is/was 11 countries invested in this plane. There's just too much money in it. The project's problems are probably more political than anything else. At any rate, Lockheed definitely hasn't been trying to keep the cost down
Also the USAF has a hard-on for precision guided munitions, while the Army likes big ass guns like the GAU-30. There's always been a huge disconnect between what ground forces want and what the USAF wants. The reason why the A-10 was so radical was because the designers actually asked the grunts what they wanted.
#58 to #55
-
failflyer (12/03/2015) [-]
Here's a better source that puts the F-35 at $120m per unit. The article I linked must have been written before the latest numbers were released. Lockheed says it can get it down to $80 million, which will allow it to compete internationally, but we'll see. USAF's chief of staff said that the Raptor would have been $90m if production had continued
www.janes.com/article/52276/paris-air-show-2015-lockheed-martin-prepares-for-f-35-ramp-up-to-drive-down-costs
www.janes.com/article/52276/paris-air-show-2015-lockheed-martin-prepares-for-f-35-ramp-up-to-drive-down-costs
#51 to #13
-
twofreegerbils (12/03/2015) [-] Woah! The unit cost is cheaper! Yippie! Hip hip hooray!
That totally makes up for the fact its a trillion dollar project for a jet we don't need!
That totally makes up for the fact its a trillion dollar project for a jet we don't need!
#173 to #10
-
rabidgerbil (12/03/2015) [-] This is why I hate that Australia is replacing all our current F/A18 Hornets and Super Hornets with these things. The Super Hornet out performs the F-35 by far.
#146 to #10
-
thumbfortrump (12/03/2015) [-] >implying modern warfare is dogfighting
Go back to watching Top Gun.
Go back to watching Top Gun.
#176 to #146
-
anon (12/03/2015) [-]
>Implying the F35 is good for anything else than dropping bombs
>Implying the F16 can't do the same thing
>It can be detected by some old british radars at medium range
>Implying the Eurofighter typhoon isn't the best aircraft there is
Go back to playing Flight simulator 2001
>Implying the F16 can't do the same thing
>It can be detected by some old british radars at medium range
>Implying the Eurofighter typhoon isn't the best aircraft there is
Go back to playing Flight simulator 2001
#189 to #176
-
sgtmajjohnson (12/03/2015) [-] I'm happy for you, and I'mma let you finish, but the F-22 is the best fighter of ALL TIME.
#183 to #176
-
thumbfortrump (12/03/2015) [-] Your reply is so insanely uninformed that I'm not even going to bother telling you why you're wrong.
#187 to #183
-
jdizzleoffthehizzl (12/03/2015) [-]
There is a connection to be found between Trump and uninformed but I'm not going to bother to tell you
#68 to #10
-
inyourmind ONLINE (12/03/2015) [-] Dog fighting is a poor determiner of performance (no modern plane will engage in it). The new Russian Jets are looks like complete **** . In fact India is planning on bailing on buying them because they are performing no where near claims in any categories be it maneuverability/speed/radar/cost. The new Chinese jets are just poor copies of the F-35 and the Russian ones so no worries there. It should be noted that maintaining the f-35 fleet should be rather cheap and it will outperform all other aircraft (especially in groups) in the sky excluding the f-22.
Overall the U.S. needs to start a 6th generation fighter project in earnest soon.
Overall the U.S. needs to start a 6th generation fighter project in earnest soon.
#80 to #10
-
captchakid (12/03/2015) [-] The Russian and Chinese 5th generation fighters are mainly concepts. Neither country has the economy to pump out more than a few a decade at the most.
#185 to #10
-
sharklazers (12/03/2015) [-] Because actual dogfights don't happen nowadays so there's no need to design a new plane for them?
#11 to #10
-
unladenswallow (12/02/2015) [-] It's how politics works. A bunch of congresspeoples' relatives are getting uber wealthy off this. That's literally the only reason people go into federal level politics anymore. You can make your entire family uber-wealthy, legally, and be wealthy yourself by association with out ever collecting an illicit dime. The F-35 program has cost nearly as much as the entire decade we spent at war in Iraq, never losing a single one of our 40 year old jets, still sucks donkey balls, yet is deemed a high priority. Politics. It's like how Harry Reid's son is getting wealthy by selling federal land to a Chinese company and that cattle rancher guy got caught in the mess.
#12 to #11
-
salamandermander (12/02/2015) [-] ******* american politics and the over-bloated military-industrial complex
#14 to #10
-
magictheg (12/02/2015) [-] Nah, this thing is replacing more than just the F-16, Its also replacing the A-10, F/A-18, The Harriers used by the USMC and the Brits. And the government thinks dog-fighting doesn't matter anymore because muh stealths, well I got news gubment, last time we thought we wouldn't be dog-fighting anymore was the Vietnam and the F-4 Phantom, guess what, the F-4 was dog-fighting, and we had to strap gun pods on the damn things, that's the reason modern fighters still have guns. At least the F-22 is a good fighter, kicked the **** out the F-15. I used to like the F-35, VTOL and STOL air-frames are neat, but it isn't going to do well when it gets into the inevitable dog-fight.
#112 to #14
-
friedgreenpomatoes (12/03/2015) [-] >replace the A-10
you fools
you don't replace big gun and ******** of missiles with stelf
you replace big gun with even more missiles
you fools
you don't replace big gun and ******** of missiles with stelf
you replace big gun with even more missiles
#137 to #133
-
friedgreenpomatoes (12/03/2015) [-] Because the GAU-8 Avenger is about as big a gun as you can put on a plane of the A-10's size before things start to get really dangerous. And the whole reason it 'needs' to be replaced is because it can't damage the more modern Russian tanks so easily as it could the T-72.
#56 to #14
-
battletechmech (12/03/2015) [-] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-12_Equalizer
But the F-35 is equipped for dog fights
But the F-35 is equipped for dog fights
#17 to #14
-
salamandermander (12/03/2015) [-] They thought dogfighting was obsolete during Vietnam and look how that turned out
#24 to #23
-
salamandermander (12/03/2015) [-] I blame a lack of sleep. I was up late studying and now I'm half dead
#32 to #14
-
failflyer (12/03/2015) [-]
Sadly all of the Air Force's budget is going to the F-35, and they can't afford to keep the F-22's avionics up to date. Its win/loss against Typhoons is much lower than its invincible record against F-15s, mainly due to its lack of off-bore missile sights, something the Russians have had since the 90's. If SU-30s and F-22s clash over Syria, I don't think they're going to be as invincible as everyone believes. But our pilots still have many more flight hours, so the odds remain in their favor
Not to mention that our rules of engagement require pilots to get within visual range before shooting something down. Especially now with so many countries flying in Syria.
We aren't going to be in another all out war with another world power, the global economy prevents that. Bombing brown people is going to be the main role of the F-35. You don't need a $1.5 trillion dollar jet with huge maintenance costs from its radar absorbent skin to do that. Hell, we have bombs you can drop over 40 miles away from your target (the F-35's weapon bays will need to be redesigned to use it). Much further away than any AA these terrorist groups can get.
Not to mention that our rules of engagement require pilots to get within visual range before shooting something down. Especially now with so many countries flying in Syria.
We aren't going to be in another all out war with another world power, the global economy prevents that. Bombing brown people is going to be the main role of the F-35. You don't need a $1.5 trillion dollar jet with huge maintenance costs from its radar absorbent skin to do that. Hell, we have bombs you can drop over 40 miles away from your target (the F-35's weapon bays will need to be redesigned to use it). Much further away than any AA these terrorist groups can get.
#70 to #32
-
inyourmind ONLINE (12/03/2015) [-] F-22's have okay performance in dogfights but in open engagement simulations have been unstoppable. The F-22 is NOT actually meant to dogfight but instead to engage from beyond visual range before the other aircraft radar (or ground radar) can spot them.
#171 to #70
-
failflyer (12/03/2015) [-]
That's what the USAF wanted when they designed the fighter. But at the time many of them weren't completely sold on beyond visual range combat. Lockheed knew this and created it to be more maneuverable than the USAF specified, and it kept its gun.
What I'm saying is that IF F-22s and SU-30's clash, the scenario will likely have Raptors being in visual range before fighting breaks out. Purely hypothetical scenario: The SU-30s would probably be escorting SU-24s or SU-34s on a bombing run against "moderate" rebels or Kurds with embedded US Special forces. F-22s would be sent to defend them. We aren't Turkey though, the Raptors would need to get closer and attempt to get them to leave without shooting first by radio contact or firing warning shots with the gun. If US and Russian aircraft are going to fight, that is a likely scenario. Russian pilots only get a fraction of the flight time that ours do, so it would likely be a win for us, but the off-bore missile sights are still strong, and there's no reason not to put them on the raptor.
This is a very quick fix. We already have the AIM-9X which can be fired at targets up to 90 degrees from the aircraft's nose, the F-22's avionics are just so out of date it can't fire them. I think we have F-16s and F-15s flying around with better avionics.
The only other problem the F-22 has, and why it can lose to the Typhoon is that thrust vectoring kills energy in a turn, and its heavy. The SU-30 also relies on thrust vectoring and is heavy, so that evens out. The Typhoon is much lighter and doesn't depend on thrust vectoring at all.
What I'm saying is that IF F-22s and SU-30's clash, the scenario will likely have Raptors being in visual range before fighting breaks out. Purely hypothetical scenario: The SU-30s would probably be escorting SU-24s or SU-34s on a bombing run against "moderate" rebels or Kurds with embedded US Special forces. F-22s would be sent to defend them. We aren't Turkey though, the Raptors would need to get closer and attempt to get them to leave without shooting first by radio contact or firing warning shots with the gun. If US and Russian aircraft are going to fight, that is a likely scenario. Russian pilots only get a fraction of the flight time that ours do, so it would likely be a win for us, but the off-bore missile sights are still strong, and there's no reason not to put them on the raptor.
This is a very quick fix. We already have the AIM-9X which can be fired at targets up to 90 degrees from the aircraft's nose, the F-22's avionics are just so out of date it can't fire them. I think we have F-16s and F-15s flying around with better avionics.
The only other problem the F-22 has, and why it can lose to the Typhoon is that thrust vectoring kills energy in a turn, and its heavy. The SU-30 also relies on thrust vectoring and is heavy, so that evens out. The Typhoon is much lighter and doesn't depend on thrust vectoring at all.
#16 to #10
-
rudeobuteo (12/02/2015) [-] Here is a Russian military expert telling you why you're wrong. The f-35 is the ****
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZbqkxjAK8E&list=FL3IL7vbbkEypuiahgZcyoVg&index=58
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZbqkxjAK8E&list=FL3IL7vbbkEypuiahgZcyoVg&index=58
#75 to #10
-
thepizzadevourer (12/03/2015) [-] Serious answer: most of what makes the F-35 unique is going to be the integration of next-gen technology, not the performance of the aircraft itself. For instance: body-mounted cameras and displays in the pilot's helmet will allow them to look "through" the plane in any direction, as well as lock on and fire missiles. Will it be worth it? Who knows, but it seems at least somewhat counter-productive to assume it won't be worthwhile before we even get to a production run.
Besides, we could always build more F-22's if it doesn't work out. Those things are amazing.
Besides, we could always build more F-22's if it doesn't work out. Those things are amazing.
#20 to #10
-
manninex (12/03/2015) [-] Ima go with everyone else saying, it wasn't meant to dogfight. There's no way in heck that thing could dog fight. Yeah they discontinued the F-22 production line for it, but we still have plenty of capable fighters. I used to be on the "F-35s suck bandwagon" until I became a bit more educated on it. Yeah, I will acknowledge that it's budget was exceed multiple times and even still fell behind expectations, but it is a capable fighter for it's role (that being pretty much everything but dog fight).
The primary reason for the lack of dog fighting ability is that we have plenty of planes that can fill that role, and we aren't anticipating having to dogfight for the next few years when things like the X-36 are made into full scale fighters.
The F-35 also comes in three primary flavors, that being the A, B, and C models (along with a few other designations for country specific versions).
The A is the Air Force model and the only one with dogfighting remotely in mind. It has an internal GAU-22/A cannon to deal with targets in the air were that to happen. General Hostage of ACC (Air Combat MAJCOM of the USAF) stated that the 35 would be irrelevant without the 22 fleet to support it because it is in fact NOT an air superiority fighter.
The B model is the Marine's baby and has the ability to take off vertically (if it's gross weight is under the thrust the engines put out) or from really short distances. The Marines tend to be bad at making airports so this was necessity for them. It is essentially the same as the A model, just with less fuel capacity and internal cannon. The reason for this is because they needed to make room for the VTOL engine.
The last primary model is the C, this one is hella big. It has a bigger wingspan and more fuel as a result because it needs to land on carriers. But it's generally the same as the others, just has big wings.
The thing I have against the F-35 is that they made me change my checklist up as a result of them getting aerial refueling certified. That means I had to redo all the notes I took and replace them. I don't even have to do anything to refuel the B and C models, they just come up and get stuff out of the probe!
The primary reason for the lack of dog fighting ability is that we have plenty of planes that can fill that role, and we aren't anticipating having to dogfight for the next few years when things like the X-36 are made into full scale fighters.
The F-35 also comes in three primary flavors, that being the A, B, and C models (along with a few other designations for country specific versions).
The A is the Air Force model and the only one with dogfighting remotely in mind. It has an internal GAU-22/A cannon to deal with targets in the air were that to happen. General Hostage of ACC (Air Combat MAJCOM of the USAF) stated that the 35 would be irrelevant without the 22 fleet to support it because it is in fact NOT an air superiority fighter.
The B model is the Marine's baby and has the ability to take off vertically (if it's gross weight is under the thrust the engines put out) or from really short distances. The Marines tend to be bad at making airports so this was necessity for them. It is essentially the same as the A model, just with less fuel capacity and internal cannon. The reason for this is because they needed to make room for the VTOL engine.
The last primary model is the C, this one is hella big. It has a bigger wingspan and more fuel as a result because it needs to land on carriers. But it's generally the same as the others, just has big wings.
The thing I have against the F-35 is that they made me change my checklist up as a result of them getting aerial refueling certified. That means I had to redo all the notes I took and replace them. I don't even have to do anything to refuel the B and C models, they just come up and get stuff out of the probe!
#29 to #20
-
sephirothpwnz (12/03/2015) [-] The main problem with the F-35 program along with the JSF program in general is that while the need for multi role fighters is there, they shouldn't be replacing dedicated aircraft. An a-10 simply offers more tactical flexibility in the CAS role it was designed for than an f35. The a-10 was designed for cas and thus it's armament capability is huge for the cas role, while the f35 in comparison comes short. in the air superiority role the f35 falls short of the f22 an many of the facets
the F-22 has a tighter turn radius, higher top speed, higher ceiling, higher thrust and arguably better stealth and visual awareness than the f-35, all of this while still being able to carry a comparable a/g armament while maintaining a high a/a threat.
The f-35 is being forced on the military when many don't wish for it, when the planes we have are doing fine. The marines are still modifying the a-10 and the air force is still dominating the skys with the f-22.
the JSF program is imho a program destined to fail, trying to replace all the roles with a single plane isn't going to endwell.
the F-22 has a tighter turn radius, higher top speed, higher ceiling, higher thrust and arguably better stealth and visual awareness than the f-35, all of this while still being able to carry a comparable a/g armament while maintaining a high a/a threat.
The f-35 is being forced on the military when many don't wish for it, when the planes we have are doing fine. The marines are still modifying the a-10 and the air force is still dominating the skys with the f-22.
the JSF program is imho a program destined to fail, trying to replace all the roles with a single plane isn't going to endwell.
#31 to #29
-
manninex (12/03/2015) [-] Did you even read what I put?
Firstly, I never said the F-35 is meant for air-to-air. In fact I said the opposite. I agree that the F-22 is better, but it's designed for a completely different role than the F-35 (that being the air-to-air while the F-35 is a support role). Another thing is that the Marines don't even have A-10s! Didja get your facts from Battlefield or something?
The people that fly the planes have virtually no say in what they get. Do you think I wanna be flying in a jet that is, at the youngest, 51 years old? (That's the KC-135 by the way). No, I mean it's cool as heck being part of a historical aircraft's aircrew, but those new KC-46s are the way to go, whether I agree with the way things are dealt with in them or not.
Also the F-22, despite being a thing in the 90's (for testing that is), only had it's first combat mission last year. We aren't necessarily dominating with it, we're just dominating in general. We're the biggest airborne force on the planet, it just kinda comes naturally.
I don't see the program failing though. The aircraft is relatively cheap. Another thing is the advanced design of it. The F-15 is from the 70's. The tankers I am on are from the 60's. While they are good, they are in dire need of something better. Unfortunately Boeing doesn't make parts for our jets anymore, so getting a plane made from 767s (a widely used passenger jet) is pretty great. Getting 1700+ F-35s means there's more resources shared among them to go around.
Firstly, I never said the F-35 is meant for air-to-air. In fact I said the opposite. I agree that the F-22 is better, but it's designed for a completely different role than the F-35 (that being the air-to-air while the F-35 is a support role). Another thing is that the Marines don't even have A-10s! Didja get your facts from Battlefield or something?
The people that fly the planes have virtually no say in what they get. Do you think I wanna be flying in a jet that is, at the youngest, 51 years old? (That's the KC-135 by the way). No, I mean it's cool as heck being part of a historical aircraft's aircrew, but those new KC-46s are the way to go, whether I agree with the way things are dealt with in them or not.
Also the F-22, despite being a thing in the 90's (for testing that is), only had it's first combat mission last year. We aren't necessarily dominating with it, we're just dominating in general. We're the biggest airborne force on the planet, it just kinda comes naturally.
I don't see the program failing though. The aircraft is relatively cheap. Another thing is the advanced design of it. The F-15 is from the 70's. The tankers I am on are from the 60's. While they are good, they are in dire need of something better. Unfortunately Boeing doesn't make parts for our jets anymore, so getting a plane made from 767s (a widely used passenger jet) is pretty great. Getting 1700+ F-35s means there's more resources shared among them to go around.
#41 to #31
-
battletechmech (12/03/2015) [-] The F-35 is "cheaper" than the F-22 as well, since Lockheed is allowed to sell them to other countries, while the F-22 is an American superiority exclusive.
#49 to #48
-
battletechmech (12/03/2015) [-] I'm going to stop before I start sexualizing aircraft and then people start posting anthro aircraft pictures and everything starts getting off track.
#21 to #10
-
iyr (12/03/2015) [-] The F-35 was not designed to engage directly in a dogfight; most, if not all, modern fighters aren't.
The reality of it is, most development in modern aircraft emphasizes fire-and-forget weaponry and maintaining stealth.
The age of tight-knit, high-adrenaline, gun-sa-blazin' dogfights died out with the cold war and modern well-funded militaries invest heavily in stealth and missile effectiveness / reliability, of which the F-35 (and even more so it's older brother the 22) perform exceedingly well.
Had the F-35 and F-16 engaged in real combat, the F-16 would have been downed before the F-35 was even in visual range and not even be able to put up a fighting chance.
Doesn't sound fair? It's not supposed to, war is about winning. This is the real world, not Ace Combat.
The reality of it is, most development in modern aircraft emphasizes fire-and-forget weaponry and maintaining stealth.
The age of tight-knit, high-adrenaline, gun-sa-blazin' dogfights died out with the cold war and modern well-funded militaries invest heavily in stealth and missile effectiveness / reliability, of which the F-35 (and even more so it's older brother the 22) perform exceedingly well.
Had the F-35 and F-16 engaged in real combat, the F-16 would have been downed before the F-35 was even in visual range and not even be able to put up a fighting chance.
Doesn't sound fair? It's not supposed to, war is about winning. This is the real world, not Ace Combat.
#33 to #21
-
failflyer (12/03/2015) [-] The problem is that its planned to be making up 90% of our airforce and 100% of our navy and marines. The planned SeaRaptor was scrapped in favor of the F-35, which leaves the navy with no interceptor or air-superiority fighter.
And as missiles evolve, so will stealth, jamming (AESA Radar), and other countermeasures.
Not to mention its US policy to get within visual range before shooting down an unidentified target.
And as missiles evolve, so will stealth, jamming (AESA Radar), and other countermeasures.
Not to mention its US policy to get within visual range before shooting down an unidentified target.
#38 to #33
-
failflyer (12/03/2015) [-]
I should also note that the Navy prefers multi-role fighters because it allows them to have less aircraft on the same ship while getting the same things done.
Also its stealth is not invincible. If its RAM is improperly maintained or its weapon bays are stuck open, its going to lose it. There's also a concern if its going up against other stealth aircraft.
There should always be a plan-b. The F-22 has thrust vectoring, and the F-35 has **** all
Also its stealth is not invincible. If its RAM is improperly maintained or its weapon bays are stuck open, its going to lose it. There's also a concern if its going up against other stealth aircraft.
There should always be a plan-b. The F-22 has thrust vectoring, and the F-35 has **** all
#22 to #21
-
salamandermander (12/03/2015) [-] They thought dogfighting was outmoded during vietnam for the exact same reason and look how that turned out for us, the worst win/loss ratio we've ever had
#54 to #10
-
inaneknell (12/03/2015) [-] The main goal of the F-35 program is to move to an upgraded version of generation five fighters. These fighters aren't meant to dogfight, they're designed specifically for extreme ranged assault (both air and land) and stealth. Most F-16 jets are more maneuverable than the F-22 and some versions of the F-18, because they were designed in an era where the goal was to turn faster than the enemy jet so you could lock on to them. The F-35 is designed for combat at such great distance that out maneuvering and flying faster are not necessary. It's stealth technology is designed to make it nearly impossible to lock onto for long, and even if another aircraft were able to get close enough, the aircraft system can fire weapons in any direction that the pilot or weapons specialist is looking. The hope is to move to 1 of these jets for every 2 F-F-16s & 18s. Lockheed Martin and Boeing do full flights simulations putting F-35s, F-16s, and F-18s in combat (both manned and unmanned) and about 70% of the time, the team with more F-35s wins, and 20% of those wins that team suffers no casualties.
TL;DR - "You don't need to be faster than the enemy if you can shoot them before they even know you're there."
Source: Me - Aerospace Engineer
TL;DR - "You don't need to be faster than the enemy if you can shoot them before they even know you're there."
Source: Me - Aerospace Engineer
#30
-
pianomanfornoone (12/03/2015) [-] Oh wow this is cool, what's this F-35 thing?
This costs how much?
*looks up price*
A trillion and a half dollars? Well **** . It's not THAT cool..
This costs how much?
*looks up price*
A trillion and a half dollars? Well **** . It's not THAT cool..
#39 to #30
-
adviceweed (12/03/2015) [-] A single one cost $98M, the whole she-bang of R&D and manufacturing of over 150 was $1.5T. I can use wikipedia too.
#43 to #40
-
adviceweed (12/03/2015) [-] What the **** does that comment even mean?
he said the plane cost 1.5 trillion, and I thought that seemed weird, so I looked it up and found the right answer on what was likely the same source because wiki had 1.5t for the project cost and 98M for the unit cost.
he said the plane cost 1.5 trillion, and I thought that seemed weird, so I looked it up and found the right answer on what was likely the same source because wiki had 1.5t for the project cost and 98M for the unit cost.
#150 to #90
-
peanutsaurusrex ONLINE (12/03/2015) [-] Good job, you think someone proving someone wrong is a personal attack on them
Is it fun being a feminist?
Is it fun being a feminist?
#92
-
undercow (12/03/2015) [-] Its easy to see that the majority of you are idiots and know nothing about military aircraft, contracts relating to the specific program or basic fundamentals of air combat.
The specific aircraft is as one person looked up on wikipedia the f35B which is the stovl short takeoff, vertical landing variant. Others are the CTOL; common take off and landing and the CV which is the carrier variant. each one is designed for its specific combat role.
The program involves multiple other countries. The $1T bill is not just for the USA it is split between a number of other countries so the price is lower. everyone wants different features and each feature with the program drives the price up and slows everything else down, IE: developmental test, operational test, modifications, weapons training, pilot training etc..
DOG FIGHTING THE F-16....This is where the majority of you like to call the bird a POS. yeah it is true that it doesnt handle as well as other some other aircraft but who actually cares that has an actual part in any part of the program.. none of you I'm sure.
The 5th generation fighter part is all about the avionics. first look, first kill. and this is from quite a ways away. look up missile stats with the AIM9x. pretty amazing stuff.
For you stealth nuts or those curious, look up radar cross section. learn a thing or two then re evaluate your comments.
-2 years F-15s RAF Lakenheath UK
-3 years F-22s Weapons Academy/Operations and Tactics Nellis AFB NV
-8 mos MQ-1 Predators AFSOC Kandahar Afghanistan
-3 years F-35s Developmental Test Edwards AFB CA
-2 years F-35s Operational Test Edwards AFB CA
-2 years Spaceship 2 / White Knight 2 Virgin Galactic Mojave,CA
You could say I know a few things.
The specific aircraft is as one person looked up on wikipedia the f35B which is the stovl short takeoff, vertical landing variant. Others are the CTOL; common take off and landing and the CV which is the carrier variant. each one is designed for its specific combat role.
The program involves multiple other countries. The $1T bill is not just for the USA it is split between a number of other countries so the price is lower. everyone wants different features and each feature with the program drives the price up and slows everything else down, IE: developmental test, operational test, modifications, weapons training, pilot training etc..
DOG FIGHTING THE F-16....This is where the majority of you like to call the bird a POS. yeah it is true that it doesnt handle as well as other some other aircraft but who actually cares that has an actual part in any part of the program.. none of you I'm sure.
The 5th generation fighter part is all about the avionics. first look, first kill. and this is from quite a ways away. look up missile stats with the AIM9x. pretty amazing stuff.
For you stealth nuts or those curious, look up radar cross section. learn a thing or two then re evaluate your comments.
-2 years F-15s RAF Lakenheath UK
-3 years F-22s Weapons Academy/Operations and Tactics Nellis AFB NV
-8 mos MQ-1 Predators AFSOC Kandahar Afghanistan
-3 years F-35s Developmental Test Edwards AFB CA
-2 years F-35s Operational Test Edwards AFB CA
-2 years Spaceship 2 / White Knight 2 Virgin Galactic Mojave,CA
You could say I know a few things.
#117 to #92
-
basicgrunt (12/03/2015) [-]
I don't know man. As a dude who relies on close air support and other fire support assets to win wars, this aircraft seems like a polished turd 6 ways from Sunday. When you take all of the stealth, avionics, and other cool wiz bang features off of the F-35, you are left with is a aircraft that can't fly very low so it can't get close enough for good target identification, can't fly very slowly because of its stubby wings so guns are pretty much off the table, and then you are stuck with tiny internal bomb bays to do all of your actual killing of the enemy.
As far as I can tell, they are trying to cram too many features into one airframe to have a "Jack of all trades" kind of combat aircraft. The problem is it sucks at all of those jobs that it is designed to do.
As far as I can tell, they are trying to cram too many features into one airframe to have a "Jack of all trades" kind of combat aircraft. The problem is it sucks at all of those jobs that it is designed to do.
#166 to #92
-
yeoldsnipermissile (12/03/2015) [-] I am lukewarm about most of your post, simply because I know of the ridiculous logistics we're currently trying to go through in order to make the F-35 even a viable combat aircraft. And you oversell our weapons and undersell our pilots greatly. Also, the AIM-9X has fantastic capabilities within 15 nautical miles, which in air to air combat, especially with our arsenal, is basically an emergency "Oh **** !" side arm.
Source: I've extensively studied, tested, and maintained almost every missile system the US Air Force owns since 2012.
Source: I've extensively studied, tested, and maintained almost every missile system the US Air Force owns since 2012.
#203 to #166
-
undercow (12/04/2015) [-] So you are a PGM AYAYAS guy? also I never said anything about the pilots. the aircraft can out perform their physical capabilities anyway which is what many dont understand or know. Its also very hard to get a point across to the unknowing civilian populous because they have little to no knowledge about anything within the context of this post other than what they have read on (insert BS news site here). know what I am laying down? I'm a former structures maintainer btw
#204 to #203
-
yeoldsnipermissile (12/04/2015) [-] Nice. Yeah, the F-35 gets a lot of hate from the AD side as well. It's understandable, though, since no one wants to risk changing what is already working for us. We will never know its true combat capabilities until we see it in combat at full capacity, so really the only hate it's getting at this point is what the hell is taking so long? Can it perform or can't it? Most people want instant gratification about such an expensive weapon system, so until it proves it can perform, it'll continue to receive hate from uneducated masses.
Oh, an you were close. I'm a PGM IYAAYAS guy.
Oh, an you were close. I'm a PGM IYAAYAS guy.
#172 to #169
-
yeoldsnipermissile (12/03/2015) [-] Missiles.
I'm qualified on all Missile systems that the USAF operates currently.
And the majority of conventional munitions employed as well.
I'm qualified on all Missile systems that the USAF operates currently.
And the majority of conventional munitions employed as well.
#219 to #174
-
friedgreenpomatoes (01/06/2016) [-] that is so clearly a raptor you uncultured savage
#101
-
anon (12/03/2015) [-]
Dont be fooled idiots. The vertical take of and landing model is the most expensive version and all your ****** countries that buy the F-35 get the basic non-stealth non-vertical take-off model.
#5
-
kageshi (12/02/2015) [-] when you have to turn it off, cus your GF doesnt want to do it, right now.
#106
-
kibbleking (12/03/2015) [-] Yeah that's real neat too bad it sucks ass and the program needs to be shut down.
#175
-
tankeruber (12/03/2015) [-] Posting the US army response to the stupid F-35 anti-shilling going on. This was posted on /k/ at some point.
1/7
1/7
#36
-
deescalation (12/03/2015) [-] My favorite part about the 35 is that if the fuel truck sits in the sun for too long before fueling and engines starting the jet catches on fire on the runway.
#77
-
orkanoidz (12/03/2015) [-] The f-35 is garbage. It's not even an america thing, the f-22 is glorious and we never should have stopped making them, **** , the F-18 and the F-18 A/E Superhornet are already badass enough.
