|
BBJoey posted:too make it lighter so it can VTOL better, i believe Could the f-35 have worked without the USMC design requirements? If it was just USN / USAF could they have agreed on a non-lovely plane?
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
It's horrible. Thing is, as a mathematician I've looked into it - the data system on the plane is neat! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-1553 Thing is, not much else is, and i know all about engines and wing end plasma injectors and all that stuff, and we're paying for dev in the UK, gently caress it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Ivor Biggun posted:Could the f-35 have worked without the USMC design requirements? If it was just USN / USAF could they have agreed on a non-lovely plane? maybe, but you'll have sold us an f22, which is what every western region wanted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Ivor Biggun posted:Could the f-35 have worked without the USMC design requirements? If it was just USN / USAF could they have agreed on a non-lovely plane? i'm pretty sure this already exists and it's called the super hornet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
Ivor Biggun posted:Could the f-35 have worked without the USMC design requirements? If it was just USN / USAF could they have agreed on a non-lovely plane? The navy already managed to say "we dont want no retard plane, can we at least get one with normal sized wings?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
Ivor Biggun posted:Could the f-35 have worked without the USMC design requirements? If it was just USN / USAF could they have agreed on a non-lovely plane? I would probably have been a lot better, but im guessing it would still turn out way too expensive to be a proper replacement for the f16. Even without the STOVL requirement you have "cheap carrier based stealth fighter bomber " which is still a tall order
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
The air force can have a piece of poo poo plane that doesn't work, because it doesn't matter anyway. But the army might appreciate having a plane that's actually good at bombing ISIS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
why the gently caress do marines need fighter jets for fucks sake
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Libelous Slander posted:why the gently caress do marines need fighter jets Looks like someone never heard of Guadalcanal! e: how come the lesson of that battle wasnt "dont land troops on an island unless you control the waters around the island" but rather "every unit must have its own airforce on the off chance that they get isolated from the rest of the armed forces" Pebergehund fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Pebergehund posted:Looks like someone never heard of Guadalcanal! also extenuating circumstances. Earth has multiple types of terrain, not just pacific islands. just take a look at the feasibility of fielding the F35 in Northern Canada
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Libelous Slander posted:also extenuating circumstances. Earth has multiple types of terrain, not just pacific islands. just take a look at the feasibility of fielding the F35 in Northern Canada
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Libelous Slander posted:also extenuating circumstances. Earth has multiple types of terrain, not just pacific islands equipped with special heat-resistant landing pads. just take a look at the feasibility of fielding the F35 in Northern Canada lest we forget
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
i forgot they melt tarmac unless you insert a mattress directly into the engine
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Lol at the thought of putting a $300 million plane on an improvised front line air field where it can get trashed on the ground by a $10 mortar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
someone please post legit criticisms of the A-10 warthog so i can reduce my blood pressure
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
there are none, the a-10 is perfect, gently caress you
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Libelous Slander posted:someone please post legit criticisms of the A-10 warthog so i can reduce my blood pressure It's too efficient for military purposes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
the gun cant kill any semi modern mbts anymore 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Libelous Slander posted:someone please post legit criticisms of the A-10 warthog so i can reduce my blood pressure Its dead meat against any modern air defense system, and vulnerable at low level to even relatively lovely SAMs. It can drop bombs on goats perfectly well but so can a bunch of other planes that also have other uses as well. The dumpster fire that is the F-35 program has hosed the Air Force budget to the point that something has to go, and the A-10 is a reasonable candidate once we're already stupidly backed into that corner. ( I love the A-10 because it was basically a win button when playing M-1 Tank Platoon.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Its dead meat against any modern air defense system, and vulnerable at low level to even relatively lovely SAMs. It can drop bombs on goats perfectly well but so can a bunch of other planes that also have other uses as well. The dumpster fire that is the F-35 program has hosed the Air Force budget to the point that something has to go, and the A-10 is a reasonable candidate once we're already stupidly backed into that corner. I'm not much of a military buff, so I honestly don't know, but what are good alternative ways of air support (CAS) for ground troops that don't share the same drawback? Helicopter? They seem just as vulnerable to me, and just as expensive. Giant hulking AC-130's? Seems easier to shoot down if anything. The F-35 Joint Strike Fuuuahahahahah can't even say it with a straight face. Other, functional jets? Like the Super Hornet or the F-16? Given the scenario of two modern nations fighting, what could actually do that job? When's the last time that even happened?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I'm not much of a military buff, so I honestly don't know, but what are good alternative ways of air support (CAS) for ground troops that don't share the same drawback? Helicopter? They seem just as vulnerable to me, and just as expensive. Giant hulking AC-130's? Seems easier to shoot down if anything. The F-35 Joint Strike Fuuuahahahahah can't even say it with a straight face. Other, functional jets? Like the Super Hornet or the F-16? drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones? e. just a wild guess but in my imagination there are guys around big tables in army clothes smoking cigars talking about how to do this stuff with drones
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
i want to hear the borg speech with the borg voice but he's talking about the F35 instead of the collective
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I'm not much of a military buff, so I honestly don't know, but what are good alternative ways of air support (CAS) for ground troops that don't share the same drawback? Helicopter? They seem just as vulnerable to me, and just as expensive. Giant hulking AC-130's? Seems easier to shoot down if anything. The F-35 Joint Strike Fuuuahahahahah can't even say it with a straight face. Other, functional jets? Like the Super Hornet or the F-16? That's exactly what the F-15E Strike Eagle was designed for e: It's what we used to hunt scuds back in gulf war i atelier morgan fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
proof of concept posted:drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones drones Well yeah, I'd assume that would be the only thing that could conceivably work in all scenarios, including against a modern military. How many drones would a single F-35 buy? I don't mean straight trade, who the gently caress would trade a functional drone for a stealthish pilot coffin, but dollar value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Well yeah, I'd assume that would be the only thing that could conceivably work in all scenarios, including against a modern military. How many drones would a single F-35 buy? I don't mean straight trade, who the gently caress would trade a functional drone for a stealthish pilot coffin, but dollar value. Actual stealth drones that can carry enough armament to matter are expensive. Not a direct comparison since they only made 2, but the X-47B program cost about $800 million.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
F-16s and F-15s are still America's fall back jets, the f-16 being extremely fast and easy to mass produce in the case of a total war, we'd definitely be seeing hundreds of those planes being built fresh instead of f-35s, if a war was to happen TODAY and not TOMORROW with combat drone hardware and AI that does not exist yet (although there would be lots of predators in the skies too). Presumably in a few years the F-35A is supposed to be pretty close in production cost and time to an F-16C but HA NOPE NEVER HAPPENING
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
"Deploy operation culture-based deterrent suppresive drone force!" ___________________________________________/  *middle eastern battlefield swarmed over with these* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU-ur7PL9Vk
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
isn't the a-10's loiter time worth something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Isn't the f-35 loiter time about how long it takes to go get a pack of smokes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
cheesetriangles posted:Isn't the f-35 loiter time about how long it takes to go get a pack of smokes? You don't want to smoke near a F35 they'll catch on fire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
cheesetriangles posted:Isn't the f-35 loiter time about how long it takes to go get a pack of smokes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
cheesetriangles posted:Isn't the f-35 loiter time about how long it takes to go get a pack of smokes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
lol that after VTO they have to midair refuel the plane
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Libelous Slander posted:lol that after VTO they have to midair refuel the plane "Look, the design doc says it has to take off vertically, it doesn't say it has to take off vertically and then be useful. Not my job."
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Libelous Slander posted:lol that after VTO they have to midair refuel the plane Is that it's most useless capability or would that be stealth that prevents it from carrying weapons?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
what's the point of an aircraft being able to VTOL if it has to be supported in the air by aircraft that can't VTOL?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:what's the point of an aircraft being able to VTOL if it has to be supported in the air by aircraft that can't VTOL? Thousands upon thousands of F35s launched from garbage scows while a carrier launches the refueling planes. Real answer: Lining the pockets of the right congressmen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
You could design a better plane with a slide rule and chain smoking if it wasn't for all the corruption.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
cheesetriangles posted:You could design a better plane with a slide rule and chain smoking if it wasn't for all the corruption. Chain smoking would probably kill more people than the F-35 (disregarding the pilots), which makes it the greatest american peace-maker ever made! fake edit: slide rule probably also has killed more people
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Chain smoking would probably kill more people than the F-35 (disregarding the pilots), which makes it the greatest american peace-maker ever made!
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 00:11
|
|