Bash the F-35 thred.

[Collimatrix]

Does your code of of honor say anything about contributing to the conversation?  Your posting has been astonishingly content-free, comrade.

 

Perhaps you could start by explaining exactly what you think is so bad about the F-35.

[Priory_of_Sion]

The F-35 is bad because it is just a Harrier but better than a Harrier at just about everything.

 

Also the F-35's gun does work. However A-10oholics aren't impressed even though the gun is fine and that the 30 mm GAU-8 is the most overrated weapon system since the Tiger tank. 

 

I am also trying to find out what in 1928 America was so bad. Adam West? 

[Priory_of_Sion]

In a scenario in which enemy AA defense systems require a stealthy aircraft, F-35 operators will use F-35s until it is safe to use F-16s, F-18s, Eurofighters, etc. This is why you didn't see many B-2 and F-22 raids against the Taliban. If we need to go into Iran or North Korea you will see stealth planes be used first. 

[Priory_of_Sion]

Ok i'm going off topic here the U-2 and SR-71 are stealth planes but look how badly they did,  And in the 1991 War USAF had a easy time even as the Iraq had a large number of AA-Guns and AA-SAMs still did not help them.

The U-2 and SR-71 are about as stealthy as a flying barn compared to the JSF. The U-2 is also still doing good today and will till 2019 at least as LM are trying to convince the USAF that the U-2 is better than the RQ-4. 

 

I wasn't alive in 1991. Countries have had my whole life to develop better SAM tech and they have. You don't want to fight the last war. 

[Collimatrix]

Ok i'm going off topic here the U-2 and SR-71 are stealth planes but look how badly they did,  And in the 1991 War USAF had a easy time even as the Iraq had a large number of AA-Guns and AA-SAMs still did not help them.

 

...

 

What in the name of God are you talking about?

The U-2 had no RCS reduction measures.  None.

 

The SR-71 had modest RCS reduction measures, but more importantly it flew at a gazillionty kilometers in the air at mach three and a half and none were ever lost to hostile fire.  That's like, something that every ten year old boy knows.  Hell, it was enormous bragging rights for the crews of JA-37 Viggens that they could get a radar lock on the thing at all, and that was when it was slowing down to hook up with the tanker.  Upon what possible metric did the SR-71 do "badly?"

 

You may also have heard of a little plane called the F-117 that was used to fly through the thickest AAA and SAM defenses in 1991.

And please, try to have a coherent thought in your skull when your fingers touch keys next.

[Donward]

Ok i'm going off topic here the U-2 and SR-71 are stealth planes but look how badly they did, And in the 1991 War USAF had a easy time even as the Iraq had a large number of AA-Guns and AA-SAMs still did not help them.

Did you just look up former-Vice President Dan Quayle on the Internet and randomly click on Wikipedia links in order to form that statement?

[Khand-e]

1 per month?  That's pretty abysmal.

 

Man, that's the same thing I tell my wife sometimes.

[Belesarius]

Ok i'm going off topic here the U-2 and SR-71 are stealth planes but look how badly they did,  And in the 1991 War USAF had a easy time even as the Iraq had a large number of AA-Guns and AA-SAMs still did not help them.

We try to keep a high signal to noise ratio here.  Please make sure your brain is engaged before posting.  At a bare minimum, fact check yourself via wiki before you even think about putting fingers to keyboard.

[SuperComrade]

The U-2 is many things. but stealthy it is not; the Soviets were very well aware they were flying above Soviet territory, and it was a matter of time before they could reach up and "touch" them

[LostCosmonaut]

Project Rainbow, which eventually evolved into the A-12, was a project to reduce the U-2s RCS. Can't check my references (phone posting) but I think the CIA erroneously assumed that the Soviets were using 1940s radar tech even in the late 50s, and were pretty surprised they'd advanced so far.

[Tied]

1 per month?  That's pretty abysmal.

 

http://alert5.com/2015/08/15/u-s-navy-could-be-taking-delivery-of-just-12-f-35cs-a-year-in-worse-case-scenario/

 

atleast its a steady 1 per month

[Tied]

Project Rainbow, which eventually evolved into the A-12, was a project to reduce the U-2s RCS. Can't check my references (phone posting) but I think the CIA erroneously assumed that the Soviets were using 1940s radar tech even in the late 50s, and were pretty surprised they'd advanced so far.

 

Pretty much every stragtic or even tactical plan to use of air power against the Soviet Union and her Allies relied much more on Assumption than fact

 

 

i really cant stress enough how good Soviet air defense was, especially for its 'domestic' air defense

 

Dont get me wrong, i cant think of a single nation better to take it on than the US, and the stuff Iraq had wasn't the worst in the world in 91, but they played into the American's hands like fish

[Tied]

The F-35 is bad because it is just a Harrier but better than a Harrier at just about everything.

 

Also the F-35's gun does work. However A-10oholics aren't impressed even though the gun is fine and that the 30 mm GAU-8 is the most overrated weapon system since the Tiger tank. 

 

I am also trying to find out what in 1928 America was so bad. Adam West? 

 

Im surprised they even bothered with a gun at all

 

The Vulcan (which is what im assuming they are using, correct me if im wrong) is a pretty exceptional gun as it, but even then, there isnt much use for a gun on a JSF 

 

Because the F-35 isnt meant to get within gun range of any 4.5th gen fighter, the F-35 isnt built to go fucking top gun with the Su-27 thats what the F-22 is for

[Priory_of_Sion]

I think the gun is just an afterthought and only included because the US believes heavily in the use of guns on advanced jets after the F-4 in Vietnam "flopped". Not that it is the correct decision, but a decision to please the establishment in US military circles. Think of the shit-storm that would happen if people found out that the A-10's "replacement" didn't have a gun, even if it is relatively unimportant. 

[Belesarius]

Im surprised they even bothered with a gun at all

 

The Vulcan (which is what im assuming they are using, correct me if im wrong) is a pretty exceptional gun as it, but even then, there isnt much use for a gun on a JSF 

 

Because the F-35 isnt meant to get within gun range of any 4.5th gen fighter, the F-35 isnt built to go fucking top gun with the Su-27 thats what the F-22 is for

In a Stealth environment BVR missiles may not function as intended. If/when the PakFa/J20 and god forbid other F-35s get up and running the game may be changed for radar guided missiles.  IR missiles and guns may come back into play.  Also, the F-35s gun is more intended for ground targets IIRC. That's why they bumped it up to a 25mm as opposed to the standard 20mm M61. increased explosive load.

[Collimatrix]

Im surprised they even bothered with a gun at all

 

The Vulcan (which is what im assuming they are using, correct me if im wrong) is a pretty exceptional gun as it, but even then, there isnt much use for a gun on a JSF 

 

Because the F-35 isnt meant to get within gun range of any 4.5th gen fighter, the F-35 isnt built to go fucking top gun with the Su-27 thats what the F-22 is for

 

It's not the M61; it's the GAU-22.

 

The raptor has the 20mm M61A2, while the JSF has the 25mm GAU-22.  Because reasons.

[Priory_of_Sion]

It's not the M61; it's the GAU-22.

 

The raptor has the 20mm M61A2, while the JSF has the 25mm GAU-22.  Because reasons.

The Harrier has a 25 mm cannon, and because the JSF is a stealth Harrier it has a 25 mm cannon.

[Tied]

 

It's not the M61; it's the GAU-22.

 

The raptor has the 20mm M61A2, while the JSF has the 25mm GAU-22.  Because reasons.

Thats still fucking Stupid

 

You see this is where my hate relation with the F-35 comes into play

 

Everyone here know's my small slavic brain is more asccustomed to writing/reading on the ground aspects of Airail warfare (attack aircraft and Anti-air systems)

 

But even i know that shoving too many roles into a Fighter is just fucking stupid

 

dont get me wrong

 

I dont hate the F-35, i think its the same as the Bradley, gimped a bit from having too many roles but still will have a great service record for the amount of tech the Americans can put into anything and them not picking fights with 1st world armys, so far

 

But you will always, ALWAYs, need dedicated CAS aircraft

 

and i would take it a step further, you will always need a few wings or so of complete throwaway aircraft

 

Something like Mig-21s or Su-22s 

Aircraft you can slap some rocket pods/bombs/AT missiles to, that are modern enough to get to the objective, but are completely disposable 

 

Because some times its better to lose 10 mig-21s bombing a front line into suppression, than to lose 40 T-72s because the defenders were very much still alive, calm, and wearing unsoiled trousers

 

Warfare will always require that sacrificial lamb of a aircraft

 

Just like modern warfare will always require that sacrificial lamb of a tank, APC, infantrymen, AA system or anything else in your arsenal

 

 

Not everything in your armada needs to be of that quality, but sometimes wars are won by dropping just enough ordance on a target/series of targets or throwing just enough tanks at a line at once, that you can not only break every poor sole in the defense but also reap your efforts tenfold when there are 200 t-72s, 400 T-55s, and a assload of BMPs running amock in your enemies front line

 

Because to a rifleman in a reserve unit, a T-26 might aswell be a T-90 if he dosent have the ablity to deal with it and the ablity for his own unit to deal with the 20 behind it

 

 

same goes for CAS aircraft in general, sometimes you just need a tough aircraft, that was desinged to do nothing but bust tanks and anything softer, to roam the battlefield

 

You might lose 1, 2, or even 10 But it dosent matter, since you didn't gimp the airframe around it being hard to detect, it had more than enough ordance to give you a healthy return in terms of scores of burning APCs, Tanks of skeletons in your wake 

 

There will always be a place for some high tech aircraft to shove LGBs into every concrete bunker on your Enemy's frontier and evac before they even relise whats left of their radar array is blind to the threat

 

But there will also always be a place for Su-22s to hurl as many 1,000 kg bombs at a series of troop gatherings stealth be damned 

[Belesarius]

The F-35 has a gun because it should actually be the A-35.  It's nominal role is as a 'Strike' fighter.  The US has this obsession with multi-role aircraft. 25mm was picked because it is nominally 'better' than the 20mm for strafing apcs, trucks and mud huts. The 20mm PGU-28 has a 10 gram bursting charge.  The 25mm has 32 grams of bursting charge, over triple the 20mm.

[Tied]

 

Just keep the A-10s in service or start slapping more rocket pods to skyhawks and F-4s you twats 

 

The 21st century is so fucking disapointing

 

the Japs are fags

 

America is getting ride of all the cool stuff 

 

i cant drive around in my ural picking up chicks in Minsk 

 

No more Czech beer and Political officers

 

Why even live? 

[Sturgeon]

If we're getting technical, it should be M-35A, M-35C, and MV-35B, but there's absolutely no way the using services are going to have a combat aircraft with "M" as the code, and the Navy learned the hard way that "F/A" is stupid and most people shortened it to "F-18" anyway, and of course the Air Force would never accept its main combat aircraft have an "A" code, so it's the "F-35". Everyone's happy that way.

[Sturgeon]

 

 

Just keep the A-10s in service or start slapping more rocket pods to skyhawks and F-4s you twats 

 

As an attack bird, the F-35 will be fantastic, once it gets working, I suspect. The F-35 will have a really great electronics suite once that bit is completed, and I bet being LO will come in handy, too.

Also, we couldn't put the Skyhawks and Phantoms back into service if we wanted to. The A-10 may be good at some mudfightery things, but it also can't fill most of the roles F-35 is supposed to (some will argue that F-35 can't fill most of the roles F-35 is supposed to, but you'd get a lot closer with both F-35s and A-10s together than A-10s alone).

 

Finally, if the Air Force doesn't get new birds soon, readiness levels and accident rates are going to plummet further.

[Tied]

Thats what im saying

 

The F-35 will be fine in most roles

 

But its not a bad idea to keep something like the A-10 around just for CAS

[Belesarius]

As an attack bird, the F-35 will be fantastic, once it gets working, I suspect. The F-35 will have a really great electronics suite once that bit is completed, and I bet being LO will come in handy, too.

Also, we couldn't put the Skyhawks and Phantoms back into service if we wanted to. The A-10 may be good at some mudfightery things, but it also can't fill most of the roles F-35 is supposed to (some will argue that F-35 can't fill most of the roles F-35 is supposed to, but you'd get a lot closer with both F-35s and A-10s together than A-10s alone).

 

Finally, if the Air Force doesn't get new birds soon, readiness levels and accident rates are going to plummet further.

Yep, airframes fail eventually, engines wear out etc. I'm just skeptical about the ability of the F-35 to perform it's nominal air superiority role.  Even I think that the F-35 will be an ok attack bird eventually.

[Mike E]

It's nice to see the F-35 actually getting bashed a little bit. 

 

As Tied said, the F-35 is similar to the M2 in that it tried to accomplish so many different things. A dedicated CAS bird will do a better go at CAS than the F-35, a dedicated Air Superiorty fighter will do better at AS than the F-35 etc etc. Multi-role aircraft are fine, but they can't be expected to be the one solution to every problem...as the USAF believes it will be.