F-35 stealth jet 'will not be able to fire its guns until 2019' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Stopper;46851273]Only if it can change its colour to black during nighttime.[/QUOTE] Paint bottom blue and top black. Fly upside down at night. Perfect stealth.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46850605]What happens if (or better, once) Radar stealth becomes obsolete? Developments like scattered array radars and such already make huge advances, and it's not a stretch that radar development still has massive improvements ahead. Then you gonna end up with a plane that's expensive, sluggish and slow, all in sake of a feature that's useless at that point. Meanwhile, speed will always be at least somewhat useful.[/QUOTE] The F-35 isn't even all that stealthy. Radar stealth depends on materials and shape. The materials are best in world, but the shape only works head on because the F-35's designers have apparently decided to pack the the belly and sides with as many compound curves as they can cram into the available space. In short, current radar will pick up an F-35 unless its head on, which means F-35s can't operate over modern (or semi-modern) air defenses so they have to punch a way through like anyone else.

[QUOTE=Trooper0315;46853187]The one time we sent out aircraft without guns thinking missiles were the end-all A2A weapons was in Vietnam with the F-4, and that turned out to be such a disaster that they even put guns on hardpoints until they could add an internal one. And yes, they do still get used often and can offer cheap options to take out light targets like APCs and such. They also do offer a good assurance in close range A2A combat as missiles can be defeated in few different ways.[/QUOTE] The last time we sent a fighter into combat without a gun was the F-4, an interceptor with all the maneuverability of a brick, carrying 1960s-era, untested air-to-air missiles, under extremely restrictive rules of engagement that prevented firing without visual confirmation. None of these are issues anymore. Using Vietnam to argue that modern fighter jets need cannons is like using the Civil War to argue that modern infantry need bayonets. Modern fighters are carrying more missiles, and the ones they're carrying are far more reliable and have literally ten times the range. Not only is a gun not necessary for a dogfighting craft anymore, but military tacticians are generally convinced that the dogfight doesn't exist anymore, that the BVR capabilities of modern SARH missiles will pull engagement distances between equivalent forces out to tens of miles, and stealth ensures that whoever spots the enemy first wins. They can mount an external gun pod for CAS work, but it's not necessary or even desirable for an air-to-air superiority role.

[QUOTE=AlexConnor;46854542] In short, current radar will pick up an F-35 unless its head on, which means F-35s can't operate over modern (or semi-modern) air defenses so they have to punch a way through like anyone else.[/QUOTE] This sounds incredibly spurious. Source?

Air Combat Command chief Gen. Mike Hostage [I]"I'm going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers," the general says. "[B]Because it can’t turn and run away[/B], it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two (F-22) Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform."[/I] There you have it, head of the Air Combat Command saying the F-22 [I]can[/I] turn and run from an active threat (because it can hide from said active threat) and the F-35 [I]can't[/I] (meaning the active threat can see and kill the F-35 while its running away). Same thing the RAF have been saying (something along these lines, can't find the exact quote right now) "stealthy on the way in, sure as hell won't be on the way out". Never was going to be as stealthy from the sides and rear as the F-22, smaller size meant compromises, but somewhere along the path from the clean profile of the X-35 it has become an actively unstealthy shape due to rising mission requirements (or failing to meet them with the original design).

[QUOTE=Explosions;46853352]Everyone seems to hate this plane and nobody can explain why. It's a bit insane to believe that the US military doesn't know what its doing in this regard. Reading a Wikipedia article and making shit comparisons while beating off to the A-10 is just childish and cringeworthy.[/QUOTE] - Single engine - Low stealth when trying to have full weapons - Low agility

The F-35 is proof that the US has learned nothing. An expensive multirole aircraft in a world were the majority of the planes sorties will be against irregulars or cheap asymmetrical threats is dumb. The idea of an aircraft with parts that can be sourced from the same place is a good idea in theory. Until you realize that you've given a monopoly to a shitbird firm that has in the past bilked the government for billions. Everything about the F-35 is a disaster that highlights the hideous procurement process of a bloated defense department run by careerist war profiteers and incompetent generals and politicians. The notion that the F-35 will be fighting ISIS type forces is absurd. Wow America you can spend $80 - $130 million + bomb expenses to kill some jihadi idiots driving around in a Toyota technical in some desert shit pit. Truly the greatest aircraft, until someones SAM blows it out of the sky because it's stealth is nullified by better sensor technology or because there weren't any Growlers around. Good thing the US wont be fighting any countries that can put up a modest fight.

[QUOTE=Srillo;46856575]The F-35 is proof that the US has learned nothing. An expensive multirole aircraft in a world were the majority of the planes sorties will be against irregulars or cheap asymmetrical threats is dumb.[/QUOTE] No, having a dozen different specialized designs with their own logistical chains requiring multiple carriers and forward airbases just to conduct counter-insurgency operations is extremely dumb. Having a single design that can perform all the necessary roles adequately from a single carrier or airbase, without needing to excel at any of them because it's fighting third-world irregulars, is a cheaper and simpler solution with a lower international footprint. [QUOTE=Srillo;46856575]Wow America you can spend $80 - $130 million + bomb expenses to kill some jihadi idiots driving around in a Toyota technical in some desert shit pit.[/QUOTE] As opposed to maintaining a 1960s design like the A-10, originally meant to kill Soviet tanks streaming across the Balkans, and pressing it into the role of shooting up technicals and bunkers? The current model isn't exactly a paradigm of efficiency.

[QUOTE=Jund;46851318]That and the Harrier, A-10, and Tornado are made of pixie dust or something and should be used instead of the F-35 FP chair force is weird as hell[/QUOTE] because the A-10 is really really good at what we've currently had it doing, fighting insurgencies and rebels with no sophisticated AA weaponry, it can deliver dumb-fire rockets and bullets right where they need to be, its role could probably be replaced by drones someday but not yet the f-14,f-15 are dated and need to be retired

[QUOTE=Impact1986;46855792]- Single engine - Low stealth when trying to have full weapons - Low agility[/QUOTE] Can you explain to me why those things are true? Can you also explain why it matters if those things are true about the plane? Can you also tell me why dozens if not hundreds of professionals in the US military has seemingly missed this?

[QUOTE=Explosions;46856762]Can you explain to me why those things are true? Can you also explain why it matters if those things are true about the plane? Can you also tell me why dozens if not hundreds of professionals in the US military has seemingly missed this?[/QUOTE] 'Cus capitalism, Lockheed lining their pockets, Russia is literally a god of aircraft so it doesn't matter what we build, etc, etc blah blah blah...

God we waste so much fucking money on our dumbass fucking military

[QUOTE=Impact1986;46855792]- Single engine - Low stealth when trying to have full weapons - Low agility[/QUOTE] single engine is it due to replace the F-16 which was single engine... F-22 is the replacement for the F-15 which is dual engine. Agility really means little when you can use MRAAMs to kill the enemy's energy while they try to evade then enter the fight with a higher energy state. Full weapon load is really an impractical consideration, especially for the US which will use large formations. The Su-27 has 8 hardpoints, yet it's pretty stupid to fly out with all 8 loaded because it kills your manuverability. It's more relevant for 2-bit dictators who want to strap maximum bombs to their craft for maximum war crime. F-35 has problems but this statement really just shows how uneducated you are on the entire topic of ACM. modern air warfare is truly more about the EW capabilities of the aircraft, and the EW suite of the F35 is quite impressive, and the USAF has been doing it for some time, unlike the Su-27 which doesn't even have internal ECM... lol

[QUOTE=AlexConnor;46854542]The F-35 isn't even all that stealthy. Radar stealth depends on materials and shape. The materials are best in world, but the shape only works head on because the F-35's designers have apparently decided to pack the the belly and sides with as many compound curves as they can cram into the available space. In short, current radar will pick up an F-35 unless its head on, which means F-35s can't operate over modern (or semi-modern) air defenses so they have to punch a way through like anyone else.[/QUOTE]I'm going to agree with you for the most part, but I'd say the F-35's radar cross section isn't going to be big enough to be targeted by most of the radar systems in use today. You'll have some of the cutting edge ones like the S-400 that could probably get a solid lock no problem, but most air defense world-wide is using 70's technology because the 1970's was saturated with shit developed for the Vietnam War. Soviets wanted to rush as much as they could into that conflict so it could be field tested, and we (the United States specifically) did the same for the same reasons. You'll have some systems that were developed and fielded during the 80's based on all that was learned from the Yom Kippur War, a lot actually, but mostly it's still going to be 70's tech just with upgrades. Hell, the MIM-104 Patriot is [i]still in use[/i] despite being developed during the late 70's and fielded in 1981? or something like that, and only until very recently has efforts been made to replace it rather than continue upgrading it. Meanwhile the Buk system (same missile that shot down that airliner over Ukraine) has like a million different variants and configurations, it's basically the AK of the SAM world. [QUOTE=catbarf;46856651]As opposed to maintaining a 1960s design like the A-10, originally meant to kill Soviet tanks streaming across the Balkans, and pressing it into the role of shooting up technicals and bunkers? The current model isn't exactly a paradigm of efficiency.[/QUOTE]Except I've posted the numbers on that time and time again, a thorough burst from an A-10 costs a little less than a 250lb JDAM so it's very cost efficient which is what [i]really[/i] matters. While it's definitely an old aircraft and would not fare well against enemy fighters, it's still the king of close air support and will remain so until another aircraft comes along that can do everything it can do but better. Seriously, if you say the F-35 fills this role, you're flat fuckin' wrong, replacing the A-10 was never part of the plan for the F-35. (that shit came later from the same assholes who wanted the F-16 and F-15E to replace the A-10 because they probably huffing paint out back behind the Pentagon) I don't understand the disdain for the A-10 when the numbers do not lie, and even if they didn't support it the A-10 is basically a symbol of American air power. It's also a symbol of our dedication to protecting our infantry and other ground forces; removing it without an adequate replacement would be akin to saying we don't give a fuck about the infantryman. [editline]4th January 2015[/editline] Oh and every single time the USMC or Army says, "yo, air force, you don't want them we'll take them," the USAF flips the fuck out and gets mad about it. If even half the A-10's annual budget was transferred to the USMC and they somehow figured out how to fit a Warthog on a carrier, I guarantee you there would be two or three Marine squadrons flying the A-10 within a year.

[QUOTE=Explosions;46856762]Can you explain to me why those things are true? Can you also explain why it matters if those things are true about the plane? Can you also tell me why dozens if not hundreds of professionals in the US military has seemingly missed this?[/QUOTE] You want me to explain to you why a single engine on a combat air craft is worse than two engines?

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;46858142]I'm going to agree with you for the most part, but I'd say the F-35's radar cross section isn't going to be big enough to be targeted by most of the radar systems in use today. You'll have some of the cutting edge ones like the S-400 that could probably get a solid lock no problem, but most air defense world-wide is using 70's technology because the 1970's was saturated with shit developed for the Vietnam War. Soviets wanted to rush as much as they could into that conflict so it could be field tested, and we (the United States specifically) did the same for the same reasons. You'll have some systems that were developed and fielded during the 80's based on all that was learned from the Yom Kippur War, a lot actually, but mostly it's still going to be 70's tech just with upgrades. Hell, the MIM-104 Patriot is [i]still in use[/i] despite being developed during the late 70's and fielded in 1981? or something like that, and only until very recently has efforts been made to replace it rather than continue upgrading it. Meanwhile the Buk system (same missile that shot down that airliner over Ukraine) has like a million different variants and configurations, it's basically the AK of the SAM world. Except I've posted the numbers on that time and time again, a thorough burst from an A-10 costs a little less than a 250lb JDAM so it's very cost efficient which is what [i]really[/i] matters. While it's definitely an old aircraft and would not fare well against enemy fighters, it's still the king of close air support and will remain so until another aircraft comes along that can do everything it can do but better. Seriously, if you say the F-35 fills this role, you're flat fuckin' wrong, replacing the A-10 was never part of the plan for the F-35. (that shit came later from the same assholes who wanted the F-16 and F-15E to replace the A-10 because they probably huffing paint out back behind the Pentagon) I don't understand the disdain for the A-10 when the numbers do not lie, and even if they didn't support it the A-10 is basically a symbol of American air power. It's also a symbol of our dedication to protecting our infantry and other ground forces; removing it without an adequate replacement would be akin to saying we don't give a fuck about the infantryman.[/QUOTE] A short burst from the A-10s main gun might be cheaper than a bomb dropped from an F-35, yes, but then you need to maintain the A-10s alongside the F-35s, such as typical servicing requirements but also having to train the crews who service those planes. And then there's the physical space that the A-10s would occupy alongside the F-35s in hangers, and of course training the pilots for the A-10s as well as the F-35s. So would it really be cheaper?

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;46857913]single engine is it due to replace the F-16 which was single engine... F-22 is the replacement for the F-15 which is dual engine. Agility really means little when you can use MRAAMs to kill the enemy's energy while they try to evade then enter the fight with a higher energy state. Full weapon load is really an impractical consideration, especially for the US which will use large formations. The Su-27 has 8 hardpoints, yet it's pretty stupid to fly out with all 8 loaded because it kills your manuverability. It's more relevant for 2-bit dictators who want to strap maximum bombs to their craft for maximum war crime. F-35 has problems but this statement really just shows how uneducated you are on the entire topic of ACM. modern air warfare is truly more about the EW capabilities of the aircraft, and the EW suite of the F35 is quite impressive, and the USAF has been doing it for some time, unlike the Su-27 which doesn't even have internal ECM... lol[/QUOTE] Agility means a lot if you try to dodge anything. If you consider what the Su-27 is carrying, which is Anti-Air missiles and not heavy bombs this is just a stupid statement. And why are you even comparing a decades old fighter jet with a multirole combat jet which hasnt even seen one sortie. That is just stupid.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;46858229]A short burst from the A-10s main gun might be cheaper than a bomb dropped from an F-35, yes, but then you need to maintain the A-10s alongside the F-35s, such as typical servicing requirements but also having to train the crews who service those planes. And then there's the physical space that the A-10s would occupy alongside the F-35s in hangers, and of course training the pilots for the A-10s as well as the F-35s. So would it really be cheaper?[/QUOTE]Considering that the kinds of air conflicts we get into is basically transporting bombs and cannon rounds from their storage facilities and into the waiting anuses of rosy-faced jihadists, yeah, I'd say it's cheaper because the A-10 is fucking amazing at that. I don't see us penetrating enemy air defenses with tactical strikes and then fighting off the inevitable response from angry fighters, which is exactly what the F-35 and F-22 combo was built for. Both types are not meant to lazily fly around laying waste to anything that looks threatening, they're meant for a specific combat objective and they're designed to do it while denying the enemy the chance to retaliate. These aircraft all have different roles on the battlefield, and the moment you start trying to use A-10s as SEAD, or F-35s to shoot up technicals and various retards on foot, you're going to see a sharp drop in combat efficiency. You're not going to lose out on having the A-10 along with all our other combat aircraft that are equally effective in their given roles, expecting them to be good at something they were never designed for is retarded. I think that's part of the reason why the F-35 will probably turn out to be a mediocre combat aircraft and why it's got such a terrible reputation. It's being forced to be all these things when it should be focused into a select few roles so it can augment dedicated aircraft like the F-22, A-10, and other specialty aircraft. [editline]4th January 2015[/editline] Seriously why aren't people calling for the AC-130 to be retired too? Every argument used against the A-10 is doubly so for the AC-130, but nobody complains about that aircraft despite the C-130 being around [i]since nineteen fifty fucking four.[/i] I'd choose to give up neither, they're both equally effective and they're fucking amazing when used side by side.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;46858229]A short burst from the A-10s main gun might be cheaper than a bomb dropped from an F-35, yes, but then you need to maintain the A-10s alongside the F-35s, such as typical servicing requirements but also having to train the crews who service those planes. And then there's the physical space that the A-10s would occupy alongside the F-35s in hangers, and of course training the pilots for the A-10s as well as the F-35s. So would it really be cheaper?[/QUOTE] GAU-8/A on the A-10 is impressive, but it's not the end-all-be-all of firepower that people make it out to be.

-thanks obama-

[QUOTE=Impact1986;46858271]Agility means a lot if you try to dodge anything. And why are you even comparing a decades old fighter jet with a multirole combat jet which hasnt even seen one sortie. That is just stupid.[/QUOTE] lol "dodge" when it comes to avoiding SAMs or MRAAMs the F-35 will do just fine. In a close up fight against vectored thrust or FINS GALORE SRAAMs no amount of fighter maneuverability will help you. It's a nice trait but kind of a luxury. [QUOTE=Impact1986;46858271] If you consider what the Su-27 is carrying, which is Anti-Air missiles and not heavy bombs this is just a stupid statement. [/QUOTE] did you fail reading comprehension as a kid? My point was that even though the Su-27 airframe has a lot of hardpoints, it won't even use most of them in air to air combat, so losing stealth when carrying a large weapon load is irrelevant as external stores will only really be used in situations that really are irrelevant. And the Su-27 is bomb capable on the majority of it's hardpoints, so yeah it can carry heavy bombs and has indeed the CCIP HUD mode for bombing... so... [QUOTE=Impact1986;46858271] And why are you even comparing a decades old fighter jet with a multirole combat jet which hasnt even seen one sortie. That is just stupid.[/QUOTE] are you just stupid? it wasn't a direct comparison, my point was basically that the USAF has focused on EW capable aircraft for quite some time as compared to their russian contemporaries. If you want a more recent example I've heard russian EW countermeasures failed pretty spectacularly over georgia in 09. [QUOTE=Apache249;46858287]GAU-8/A on the A-10 is impressive, but it's not the end-all-be-all of firepower that people make it out to be.[/QUOTE] it's not even that good at busting tanks. In an actual '80s cold war gone hot I'd wager more tanks would be ended by the AGM-65 than the GAU and the cannon would be used to mulch infantry formations and more lightly armored vehicles like BTR, BMP, 2S3, and AA platforms. Luckily recent wars have provided it with a permissive environment where it really has time to shine.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;46850367]it won't fly at all if the fuel isn't within a very narrow temperature range...[/QUOTE] That's because it uses it's JP-5 fuel to cool it's avionics to save space instead of traditional water cooling system. it uses it's fuel tank as a giant liquid heat sink which is fucking brilliant. But after it takes off fuel temp will get colder.

srsly how does it take then like four years to fix a technical glitch four years of 9 to 5 work to allow a cannon to fire that is insane

Does it really matter, at this point? We'll probably never see another gun-range dogfight again. We only fight wars of aggression, and we have a well-honed first strike capability that wipes out any enemy air force on the ground. And that's when we go after people who actually [I]have an air force[/I].

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46858659]Does it really matter, at this point? We'll probably never see another gun-range dogfight again. We only fight wars of aggression, and we have a well-honed first strike capability that wipes out any enemy air force on the ground. And that's when we go after people who actually [I]have an air force[/I].[/QUOTE] F16s used their M61 when providing close air support so yeah it does matter in a multirole

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;46858702]F16s used their M61 when providing close air support so yeah it does matter in a multirole[/QUOTE] But by the time we'll ever use the F35 in a combat situation, the gun will have been online for some time.

[QUOTE=Anders118;46858708]But by the time we'll ever use the F35 in a combat situation, the gun will have been online for some time.[/QUOTE] 2019 for guns being online is a retarded statement anyways. My post was simply pointing out that cannons are still relevant when you're seal clubbing insurgents cause cannon rounds are cheaper than a JDAM when it comes to shredding a technical.

seems trotskygrad is the armchair airplane king and he obv knows more about classified military equipment than anyone else on the internet

[QUOTE=En-Guage;46858720]seems trotskygrad is the armchair airplane king and he obv knows more about classified military equipment than anyone else on the internet[/QUOTE] knowing basic ACM tactics from the '70s from reading a book hardly counts as knowing about classified military equipment. When did I ever make a statement about the specific capabilities of the F-35? All my knowledge is from public (well private) domain in books and on Jane's but shitposters gonna shitpost

you're trying too hard buddy