Aircraft thread

Better performance and payload than a F-15 while carrying everything internally. The only real reason it costs so much is because Lockheed wasn't allowed to export it anywhere, which is how most fighter programs lower their unit costs.

Better turn rate than a F/A-18, has the payload capacity to carry an entire F-16's weight in bombs, and has better loaded combat performance than either the F-16 or F/A-18. All of this comes with the most advanced avionics system ever put in a fighter at a lower cost than a Eurofighter Typhoon.

The minimum weight for a fighter pilot in the Air Force is 160 pounds, dumbass.

It's slower and can carry less weaponry.
It is more a lot more fuel efficient though.
I really wish the US (or other armies) would adopt them for CAS. It certainly can do quite a few jobs and that only at a fraction of the cost.

Honorable mention.

"The Pentagon’s new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is dead meat in a close battle against even a dated two-seat F-16D fighter jet, according to a scathing test pilot report War Is Boring obtained.

Don’t sweat it, JSF-maker Lockheed Martin responded. “The F-35’s technology is designed to engage, shoot and kill its enemy from long distances,” Lockheed’s F-35 team wrote in a press release on July 1."
F35 Range:2200km
F16 Range:4200km

This has been proven false. Lockheed had already submitted a proposal for JAST that features the same VTOL system as the F-35 before they ever became involved with Yakovlev. The Yak-141, while it does use an externally similar system and layout, is actually very different from the F-35 and is far less efficient. The F-35 uses a single engine to drive a lift fan along with pointing the engine downwards with a 3BSN. The Yak-141 uses 3 jet engines, one in the back and two in the front, along with a 3BSN for the main engine.

The main resemblance is through the 3BSN that is equipped on both fighters, however there's evidence that the Russians actually stole it from the US. The 3BSN was first patented by an American aerospace company in the 50s, long before the Yak-141 was ever in development.

The Yak-38 bears almost no resemblance in its lift system, and it was pretty shitty compared to the Harrier.

If anyone wants to read more about the F-35's (And X-32's) development I wrote this a little while back: imgur.com/gallery/dN4Z3

We agree on that one. The F-5 was the most underrated series of fighters ever.

Dude did you even bother to research those numbers? That F-16 stat is with drop tanks attached and the F-35 one is on internal fuel only. Purely on internal fuel the F-35 has the F-16 beat. Drop tanks also add drag and severely impact performance on an F-16. The F-35 can go much faster and is more maneuverable with the same weapons load. Sure a clean F-16 could easily beat an F-35, but that will never happen on the battlefield.

sorry Dude, I trusted goodle and couldnt squeeze more than 10 seconds out of my tight schedule.

B-2 best planefu

Flight highschool thread?

Dump em.

...

...

You clearly didn't read that report is it's a re-rehash of a set of software-enforced constraints the pilot was recommending be removed.

please do

...

...

...

You like it because you own Lockheed Martin stock and would lie, cheat and steal to make a shekel.

F-35 IS A LEMON, PIERRE SPREY

youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw

hey guise, if I post a bingo sheet with legitimate criticisms on it, I can laugh at anyone who make an argument. It's a perfect plan, because every legitimate argument appears on my bingo sheet.

lol

In addition to the citation I'll require for this, being cheaper than the Typhoon is no achievement.

NEVER EVER

To add to your point, BVR is a rare sight to see, because you can't confirm that the bogey on radar isn't one of your own guys, because there's no operational reason to divulge every mission taking place in a combat air patrol area, because of need to know. Look at Vietnam, where the mainline fighter was a glorified bomb and missile truck that couldn't dogfight for shit. The doctrine of BVR has always proven to be invalid, which is why a mainline fighter has to be able to dogfight. If the F-35 was sized to be a bomb truck and marketed as one, that'd be a different talk. But it's slated to replace the F-16, which is the 4th gen equivalent, and can't even match its predecessor.

Spitfire, dat Merlin engine.

Tell me, how accurate were his statements on the M1A1 Abrams again? How accurate were his statements on the F-20 again? Also I've almost got that bingo.

Sorry kind of a bad example. I'm a bit too used to arguing with Britbongs who see the Eurofighter as a gold standard for some reason. Here your citation: f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost . FRP price for the F-35A is set at $85 million 2018 dollars, which is cheaper than the Rafale, F-15SE, or any other 5th gen fighter. It's also only marginally more expensive than the Gripen and F-16. Production stats have supported the numbers Lockheed has given for pricing. At this point they're on schedule to reach IOC with the F-35A this year and there's no real reason to doubt that it'll happen at this point.

Oh bull fucking shit. The biggest problem in Vietnam was that fighter pilots weren't trained in proper combat maneuvers. BVR wasn't even truly possible back then. Also modern fighters have the capability of identifying enemies without visual contact. All fighters have a unique electronic, infrared, and radar signature that a jet can use to determine allegiance. The F-35 isn't even the only plane that can do this. The F-16, F/A-18, and F-15 are all capable of this. In Vietnam we had to perform visual acquisition of targets, but not anymore. Unsurprisingly, missile and avionics technology have progressed since the 60s.

Also, the F-35 is more than capable of being an F-16 replacement. It has better combat performance than an F-16 with a greater payload capacity. Unlike the F-16 its performance doesn't suffer when it's loaded with weapons. With greater maneuverability than a clean Hornet the F-35 can certainly dogfight if it has to. It also has better high-alpha performance than the F-16.

You completely failed to refute one word of the entire video.

Tell your boss that you need better talking points. If you are doing that badly on a Mongolian finger painting forum, you will do even worse anywhere else.

How is B-2 such a qt?

The F-22 has unresolved to date issues including its ability to kill pilots through oxygen starvation due to a flawed supply system. There is also another issue unresolved that made some pilots refuse to fly the F-22, some being forced to retire.
The "F-22 cough" is the term tossed about. The F-22 uses classified materials in construction, rumors are that one of the elements is mercury, which outgasses because of the skin heating up and goes into the pilots oxygen system. Lockheed-martin tried to fix this by adding an activated charcoal filter, but due to poor design the charcoal tended to dissolve and go into the pilots lungs, causing a chronic cough.

Congress killed the F-22 because it was obscenely expensive and they were unsure of its true "Force Multiplier" capabilities. If you have trouble convincing even a gung-ho congress about your weapon, then there's something seriously wrong with it.

The Russians ended the Yak-141 and Yak-36 because the pilots hated it and called them "Flying Coffins" because of their tendency to crash when hovering.

A HOVERING JET IS JUST FUCKING STUPID, the Marines equally stupid for demanding one.

Interesting fact, the P-15 Mustang was a lemon initially due to its rather poor performing packard built engine, but came into being when the Rolls Royce Merlin was installed.

The M-1 abrams is not a very well performing tank. In iraq many fell prey to the $200 russian 3-stage RPG warhead, that poked a 1cm hole in the M-1 and incinerated it from within. the only reason it did well in iraq was because iraq was under sanction for 12 years and before that fought a punishing 8 year war with iran that depleted most of its modern equipment.

Think about what this shithead is saying for a minute.

What a fucking hypocrite. This man, who was part of the fighter mafia, was one of the people responsible for that idea in the first place. The F-15 and F-16 were the result of that idea. The high-low idea is even practiced somewhat in Russia with the Su-27 and MiG-29.

This guy must have been aware that the mantra of the FX program was "Not a pound for air-to-ground" since he supposedly fucking worked on it. The F-15 was purely an air-superiority fighter. This guy was just mad that they decided to add radar and increase its size. Pierre Sprey just wants a pure light air-superiority fighter with zero radar. The F-16 was his baby and even then he wasn't happy with it since a pure light air-superiority fighter is completely impractical so it got some air-to-ground capability.

I honestly cannot fucking stand to watch this video. This man either doesn't understand anything about the aircraft he supposedly worked on, or is spewing bullshit just to make it seem like he's still relevant. His entire career has been riding on the coattails of John Boyd and Thomas Christie and he just doesn't want to admit it.

This thread on f16.net displays how much of an asshat this man is better than I ever could: f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24247

He actually tried to argue once that the F-86 was a match for the teen series of fighters. He's that fucking dumb.

youtube.com/watch?v=J-I3Cl1RICg

Check this out, they put the engine into a car.

VTOL allows for jets to land and take off from areas that no other jet can. The Harrier has had a stellar career, though early on the higher-ups in the USMC didn't understand how to use them properly.

Dude, if you have to use public highways for your aircraft, you are LOSING THE WAR.
The UK lost six Harriers to a 3rd rate Argentine AF that used outdated Skyhawks for the most part.

Dear god what a beautiful sounding engine

samefag spotted.

Both F-15 and F-16 already have conformal fuel tanks available, go figure.

My engrish is shitty as fuck so i am not sure about your point, whats the point of having a stealth plane that isnt stealth?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown

Fuel tanks are like "look at me, i am a f-16 with a sudoku system".

Or you're advancing your troops and need CAS on-site.

That's the point. The F-35 needs no drop tanks for the same missions an F-16 would need drop tanks for. There are very few missions that the F-35 will be a part of where it would need drop tanks.

I would take 3 of these over 1 of them.

Sure if you're a currynigger

Conformal tanks are stealth.
They look kinda wierd though

Then we still have to wait for "2.0" version.

Its not the same, ask Kosovo.

They aren't stealth, but they do produce less drag than drop tanks. The downside being you can't just jettison them so they add weight and drag and can still impact performance.

Or any nation with a limited military budget that has a shitload of coast to protect, it helps that they also offered us local production.
bonus points if you know where I am

conformal tanks exist because customers wanted extended range and also the ability to keep hardpoints free for weapons, plus the ability to remove them if necessary with the only concession that they can't be dropped in flight.

They work quite well and are a good retrofit for existing platforms.

Its funny but the USAF wanted to get rid of the A-10 because it was "outdated" but it is one of the few aircraft the USA refused to sell to anyone, including its alies. Obviously they were very concerned its capabilities might be used against us someday.

The F20 was awesome and the F22's air problem has been fixed you idiot

Okay, you got me. 8/8

The F-20 was never adopted because it was too inexpensive. The military loves expensive aircraft

Oh I wasn't shitting on the concept of CFTs, they're a very good solution for expanding fuel stores with a minimal drag impact.

The Tigershark is probably my favorite non-5th-gen fighter. If anyone's interested I made an album detailing the entire F-5 line and the politics surrounding the F-20: imgur.com/gallery/AE5lq

I suspect the main reason they never exported it wasn't the aircraft's overall capabilities but rather the PAC stability system that engages with a half trigger pull.
A very similar system was later used to get flying wings like the B-2 stable enough for combat use.

>not posting

The A-10 is outdated. It won't be able to survive in a contested environment if a true war breaks out in the future. Its role, even if the A-10 is not retired, will fall to the F-35 in an contested environment.

Honestly I think the main reason it was never exported was simply because there wasn't much of a market for it. Other multirole aircraft such as the F-5 can perform its role just as well while being cheaper. Pretty much any military that has a desire and the money for a dedicated attack aircraft has simply developed their own.

NorthropＰ-６１Black Widow

Lets not forget its successor now

Absolute beat of a machine. Just hearing it on a low fly-by at an airshow is crazy.

Moar flight highschool is required

...

Welcome to the world of aircraft design and production. It's not a fucking streamlined process you stupid fucks.

Wanna know what all these fucking aircraft have in common? They're built to be fucking improved upon. It's easy to sit here and bitch about the F-35, but at the end of the day it'll get better. They always do.

Stop jamming those completely different planes together.

The F-35 is the only plane that costs over a trillion dollars.

The f117 was killed for a reason, the f-35 its a piece of garbage from a "economic" point of view if we arent talking about pushing the economy keeping a bunch of rich dudes in their place.

BTW, after what happened with the f117 in Kosovo (the same that happened with a mig in Japan in 1976) keeping the "stealth" line its a retarded nonsense.

F-35s don't cost $1T, the F-35 program has. But then again, the JSF program has been in existence in one form or another since the early 90s, and the ATF program since the early 80s.

Yeah, I know they're different aircraft that have different roles, but a few fags above lumped them together so I will too.

I'm not sure if you've picked up on this or not, but in the long run, cost really doesn't matter. If we want it, we'll eventually get it. And at the end of the day, the second we go to war with China in the far future, our debts no longer matter when we JDAM their ass' into the ground.

Real war is based in big production, f-35 are made for destroying migs in shitholes.

Is that suppose to be an excuse? It isn't.

Wow. What a dumb thing to say.

Wrong. Worst assumption ever. You don't know how government debt works. If America stops paying off T bills, then we will be in default. Nobody will lend us money.

...

...

...

...

As I understand it…the F-22 can kick the F-35's ass, right?

Do it, Sandy.

I'd do it for you.

OS2U
Kingfisher

You will never catch up with superior russian jets

The F-35 program doesn't even cost 1.5 Trillion now. That's it's total projected cost including maintenance for a fleet of over 2000 aircraft from the JSF flyoff all the way to 2050.

Tell me, has the T-50 fixed its structural integrity issues yet? Has the pugachev's cobra been shown to be useful for anything that isn't an airshow?

I wish I had that F-35 Bait Image.

The T-50 is already in production. Unlike the USA they can actually make a plane on time and on budget.
They will deploy it in a year or two.

It can, but they aren't competing aircraft. The F-35 and F-22 are like the F-16 and F-15. They complement each other and do the things that the other plane can't. The F-22 is a spectacular air-superiority fighter and can also be used as a strike and fighter-bomber aircraft but isn't really capable in the CAS role. The F-35 is great in the strike, fighter-bomber, and CAS roles and can be used in the air-superiority role if need be. They complement each other so that they can focus on their strengths.

...

The T-50 isn't in production yet, dumbass. That's why it still has that 'T' designation for designs that are still prototypes. Once it actually gets a 'Su' designation (probably Su-50) it'll truly be in production. For now the PAK-FA has a whopping 6 prototypes made so far. The F-35, on the other hand, is in production and already has just about as many units as the F-22 (171 as of March, probably higher by now). Plus we've actually started exporting our fighter. Hell, India had to basically be coerced to buy the T-50. India has so little faith in it they're building their own 5th gen fighter anyways in case the T-50 can't deliver.

You're going to have to try harder than that.

...

...

1 crash out of 17 planes total, thats bad, considering the plane costs as much as an aircraft carrier

...

rt.com/news/329964-pak-jet-production-russia/
rt.com/news/313589-pak-fa-t50-maks/

That's pretty good considering most other aircraft, especially those with unconventional designs, have had a history of crashing way more often. If it keeps this up it'll certainly be able to last until the B-21 takes over for it in the 2030s.

Thanks for proving my point? I'm well aware that there are T-50 prototypes currently flying, but those aren't production Su-50s. The F-35 has been in LRIP for a while and will enter full-rate production in 2018. The sixth T-50 only made its first flight this year. It's nowhere near FRP or IOC.

Also

Consider the fact the F-35 was supposed to be deployed in 2005 and has been delayed 10 years.

Consider the fact that Russia has been trying and failing to develop a 5th gen fighter since the 80s. Since then the US has developed not one, but two 5th gen fighters while they still haven't started production on one.

Also I'm going to need a source on that 2005 number. I can't seem to find a single one, unofficial or not. You might be mixing it up with the year the F-22 entered service. Or maybe that number was given before the X-35 days, when it was pretty much impossible to predict when it would enter service.

Regardless it would have been absurd to expect the F-35 to enter service in that kind of timeframe. Lockheed was only given the contract to build it in 2001. Since we're comparing this to the T-50, Sukhoi was given their contract in 2002, only a year after the F-35. Yet somehow it gets away with having its first flight 8 years later after many delays and issues as opposed to the F-35's first flight 5 years later, which was on-time as far as I can tell. Regardless of opinion, the F-35 is definitely more complex and more advanced than the T-50, and yet it flew 4 years before it and the B variant has already entered service with the USMC and there are already two operational squadrons that use the F-35 (VMFA-121 and VMFA-211). The A variant will enter service this year too and we're already delivering export units to foreign customers.

The MiG-15's intake always looked so weird to me. Anyone have any idea why it's shaped like that?

Bingo.

its meant to slow down the speed of the air coming in by creating a disruptive shockwave so it doesn't stall the engine.

Russia completely stopped development because of the collapse of the USSR. Development of future fighters was restarted the moment Putin took office and the drunken jew puppet Yeltsin left.
Putin's first order was to get GLONASS back online with enough satelites, get the space program on the rails again, and rebuild its outdated military. Considering the short period of time involved, its pretty amazing.

The fall of the USSR hasn't caused its multitude of structural issues, engine failures, and delays. People love to shit on the US and the F-35 for various reasons, mostly bullshit and some legitimate, but I guess Russia gets a pass on everything cause they just aren't as fun to be contrarian about.

It's already butting up against its thermal limits to the point that it has to fly with its bomb bay open during hot weather. There is no overhead left on the airframe for improvements.

Gonna need a source and a very good one at that. It's internal weapons bays shouldn't even work like that. It's a weapons bay, not a fucking heatsink.

Russia does things differently, their design bureaus dont' do crazy shit like outsource parts production to 48 different states like they did with the F-35.

The strategy was to spread the production to as many states as possible to prevent cancellation, the side effect was the parts didn't fit properly when put together.
The 1st batch of F-35s was rejected by the USAF because of VISIBLE seams between body panels.

The 1st batch of F-35s was rejected by the USAF because of VISIBLE seams between body panels.

Gonna need a great big ol' source on that one too. I cannot find anything to support your claims. Also

So are the F-35s manufactured in Italy or Japan built in 45 different states? Also do you really think that planes like the F-16 are built in just one place? Do you think that ANY plane is built in just one place? Even with a Russian jet that would be absurd. Hell, none of our current fighters are built by just one company even. Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, and P&W all manufacture parts of various fighters. For example, Boeing manufactures the wings of the F-22, P&W build the engines and thermal components related to them, and Lockheed makes the Forward and middle fuselage, flaps, and tail at two different factories. All four companies also have a hand in other planes such as the F-16, F/A-18, and F-35.

aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/01/DOT&E 2015 F-35 Annual Report.pdf

Written by Michael Gilmore, Pentagon Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. Page 44:

flight under conditions of high speed and at altitudes below 25,000 feet. As a result, during ground operations, fleet pilots are restricted from keeping the weapons bay doors closed for more than 10 cumulative minutes prior to take-off when internal stores are loaded and the outside air temperature is above 90 degrees Fahrenheit. In flight, the 10-minute restriction also applies when flying at airspeeds equal to or greater than 500 knots at altitudes below 5,000 feet; 550 knots at altitudes between 5,000 and 15,000 feet; and 600 knots at altitudes between 15,000 and 25,000 feet. Above 25,000 feet, there are no restrictions associated with the weapons bay doors being closed, regardless of temperature. The time limits can be reset by flying 10 minutes outside of the restricted conditions (i.e., slower or at higher altitudes). This will require pilots to develop tactics to work around the restricted envelope; however, threat and/or weather conditions may make completing the mission difficult or impossible using the work around.

I guess I got a mangled translation but that's still real bad.

For the broader question of thermal limits, the answer is in the story that broke like last year about F-35s needing their fuel trucks to be painted white and kept in the shade. Fighters use their fuel as a heat sink, if the F-35 is already so close to safe limits that its fuel trucks need to be babied you can be certain that there's zero headroom.

Some other highlights:

There's a lot of other bad news but it's mostly software-related.