Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Belesarius

Bash the F-35 thred.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Xlucine said:

 

 

I think he means "carry in the tests", he moans about the A-10's not having a full loadout too

 

It's funny because the F-35 is heavily handicapped, and yet it's not fair to the A-10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, juretrn said:

The F-35 is bad because "it doesn't have armour". 

The F-35 is bad because "it's too heavy".

 

Which one is it then!??!?! FFS

these statements arent mutually exclusive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping the absurdity of the situation (the first assumption already requires the existence of competent Syrian air defense soldiers, or the dumbest IAF pilot ever cleared for duty) would give the joke away.

 

Anyway, Raytheon is waiting on a concrete timetable of integration of the SDB II.

 

Quote

Integrating the StormBreaker — GBU-53/B small diameter bomb II — is still included in the C2D2 integration, but the “dust hasn’t settled yet on exactly” when, Raytheon officials say.

In the queue are several F-35 operators planning to integrate the StormBreaker before clearing the aircraft for operational service. Last year, for example, the State Department approved a potential StormBreaker sale to Australia. Meanwhile, the USN has resequenced the timing of StormBreaker integration, moving the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet ahead of the F-35C, Raytheon says.

Who at marketing decided to CamelCase that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Krieger22 said:

Well, according to Southfront, the F-35I has already tanked an S-200 hit and came out of it looking little worse than if it had flown into a bird. It's plenty armored.

IIRC they just repost what Wael posted on his twitter account. There are no other sources and no other reports that i saw. And Wael is not reliable source of info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jägerlein said:

Depends on the intended role. A jet can be to heavy to be a fighter and yet to flimsy for a ground attack role.

Because an F-35 is going to do ground support from below 1000 feet (not that the A-10 does much of that as well once you hang Hellfires and LGBs from it).

What's next, judging an A-10 by its ability to go supersonic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, juretrn said:

Because an F-35 is going to do ground support from below 1000 feet (not that the A-10 does much of that as well once you hang Hellfires and LGBs from it).

What's next, judging an A-10 by its ability to go supersonic?

I only showed that the two statements aren't mutually exclusive. No statement about the A-10 or F-35 included nor intended from my side.
And yes, the ability for supersonic flight might be a plus on the F-35's side -_-.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The A-10 doesn't really have that much armor.  The pilot is indeed sitting in a big box:

Wxxef5y.png

 

That is an inch to an inch of a half of titanium, which has similar thickness efficiency to RHA.  There might be some armor protection for the engine nacelles too:

8wlr6wP.png

 

Most of the rest of the vital systems are protected simply by being redundant; e.g. there are multiple hydraulic lines going to the same control, so it's harder to sever the line with a hit.

 

The A-10 was supposed to have some survivability against other aircraft simply because it operated at low altitude.  For a long time, air-to-air radars had difficulty tracking targets that were below the horizon, and ground-based radars had difficulty tracking targets near the horizon.  Advances in signal processing have greatly reduced these blind spots, however, so the A-10 would have fared poorly against an enemy with actual air defenses and interceptors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Alzoc
      Topic to post photo and video of various AFV seen through a thermal camera.
      I know that we won't be able to make any comparisons on the thermal signature of various tank without knowing which camera took the image and that the same areas (tracks, engine, sometimes exhaust) will always be the ones to show up but anyway:
       
      Just to see them under a different light than usual (pardon the terrible pun^^)
       
      Leclerc during a deployment test of the GALIX smoke dispenser:
       
      The picture on the bottom right was made using the castor sight (AMX 10 RC, AMX 30 B2)
       
      Akatsiya :
       

       
      T-72:
       


       
      A T-62 I think between 2 APC:
       

       
      Stryker:
       

       
      Jackal:
       

       
      HMMWV:
       

       
      Cougar 4x4:
       

       
      LAV:
       

    • By Collimatrix
      I found this interesting picture of the Yakovlev MFI design:
       

       
      Obviously, it was never built.  The MiG submission was the 1.44 and the Sukhoi submission was the SU-47.
    • By Tied
      Why does everyone have such a raging hate boner for it?
×