750c84 No.619520
>Belgium said on Thursday it had chosen Lockheed Martin’s (LMT.N) F-35 stealth jets over the Eurofighter Typhoon to replace its aging F-16s in a 4 billion euro ($4.55 billion) deal, saying the decision came down to price.
>After months of deliberation, the decision to buy 34 of the planes was announced at a government news conference. Belgium joins a list of other European NATO allies, including Britain, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey, to take the American-made plane, which is also set to be the U.S. military’s main fighter aircraft for decades to come. “We have landed! This government is investing heavily in defense. With the purchase of F-35A fighter planes … we ensure your safety and that of our military,” Belgian Defence Minister Steven Vandeput said on Twitter during the news conference. “The offer from the Americans was the best in all our seven evaluation criteria,” he later told reporters.
>CHEAPER THAN PROJECTED
>Prime Minister Charles Michel’s government said despite a strong desire to support European allies, the F-35 was cheaper for Belgium over the long term, coming in 600 million euros ($684 million) under what the government budgeted for.
>The total price of the deal, including the jets, pilot training, hangars and upkeep until 2030 was worth 4 billion euros, Vandeput said, compared with the original budget of 4.6 billion euros. Over the 40-year life of the aircraft, the deal will cost Belgium 12.4 billion euros, rather than the 15 billion euros first projected, he said.
>Belgium looks to have benefited from Lockheed Martin’s strategy to reduce the cost of the jets as production has increased. U.S. President Donald Trump and other U.S. officials have criticized the F-35 program for delays and cost overruns. Each plane is likely to cost Belgium around 76 million euros, slightly less than the amount paid by the Netherlands and Italy, according to Belgian newspaper Le Soir, citing a closed-door briefing by Belgian air force personnel to lawmakers on Wednesday, when the final decision was taken.
>Michel also defended the decision to choose a U.S. company over European neighbors as a way to balance loyalties to the American-led NATO alliance and defense spending in Europe. “We are choosing cooperation with NATO and for European defense,” Michel told the news conference. He said money saved on the F-35 would be used for other defense projects.
>With defense spending just under 0.9 percent of economic output on defense in 2017, Belgium is one of the worst performers in trying to meet a NATO target of 2 percent by 2024, which Trump says is already too low and should be at least 3 percent.
https://archive.is/lXt7W
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aerospace-belgium/belgium-picks-lockheeds-f-35-over-eurofighter-on-price-idUSKCN1MZ1S0
26c304 No.619526
>A US mil-industrial product
>Coming in under budget
I don't fucking believe it.
46f987 No.619541
>>619520
>picks Lockheed's F-35 over Eurofighter
Oookayyy…
>on price
pphhhhtHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
af8520 No.619547
dceacf No.619548
I don't understand as to why people unrelated to military or defense ministry have anything to say regarding equipment procurement.
Well, I suppose Belgium has decided to terminate their whole military by giving their defense budget to Lockheeb Martin so that's irrelevant really.
9b5275 No.619550
Why not just buy new F-16s?
f46c3b No.619551
>>619550
Because that would be a very intelligent choice and intelligence is racist.
dceacf No.619562
>>619550
You are not allowed to make rational decisions in western democracies.
b3d7a3 No.619567
>>619550
Because the guys who made that decision recieved briefcases full of cash and, given it's Belgium we're talking about, a bunch of underage virgins courtesy of Lockheed.
ee1578 No.619568
>>619520
And once again the F-35 cost is… well over $130M+ per plane, just like UK, just like Japan, etc…
Also this is 100% a luggenpresse report "look Lockheeb is totally cheap".
Belgium is one of the few countries tasked by NATO to drop B61 nukes and of course the USAF doesn't integrate the "high technology" that is a clamp and a cable to drop them on non-US aircraft (read they don't certifiate other planes).
They can only buy American planes, it's F-16V or F-35.
They should have taken F-16V.
ee1578 No.619572
>>619520
Also Belgium went from 160 F-16 on 12 squadrons in the early 90's, to 105 on 8 squadrons in 1999, to 80 aircraft on 6 squadrons in 2005, to 68 on 5 squadrons in 2012, to 44 on 3 squadrons in 2018, to 32 on 2 squadron in 2020 (2 F-35 will be cancelled to hid the real price).
But there has been 0 loss of capacity for NATO, no sir.
Isn't that magical?
64300c No.619573
>>619520
The same thing happened in Denmakr when we had to choose between the F35 and the F/A 18-F Super Hornet. Despite protests and questions about how they found that the F35 was supposed to b e cheaper, they went with the F35 anyway.
This led to a 'small' controversy in the eyes of the public, when it was later discovered that parts for the F35 were going out of production, so that an additional 15 million dollars needed to be spent purchasing spare parts before the planes were even done. There was also subsequent talks about how the plane might end up costing more than expected anyway, which was met by the government with a Whoopsie yikes xD
64300c No.619574
>>619573
We're also only getting a measly 27 F35s.
On a sidenote, one of the main people in charge of purchasing a replacement for the F-16 was a woman who had been in charge of a very controversial national purchase of IC-3 trains. The trains were way over budget and most of them didn't reach the danish border, and when they did, most had to be retrofitted in Denmark which made the entire process meaninigless.
Somehow she made it onto the commitee that was supposed to find and purchase a replacement for the F-16, and it is honestly disgusting.
9b5275 No.619576
>>619574
What do they bribe women with instead of cash and virgins?
ee1578 No.619580
>>619576
They don't.
Technically they don't bribe anyone.
EU politicians are all too happy to wag their tails to the US for free so they maybe get a pat on the back by a US under-secretary at a fancy party, they've been conditioned since childhood to think like that and the US state department is always there to remind them. The only thing that might stop them is if their own military tell them it's completely retarded.
So Lockheed (and cie) targets generals.
How do they do it? Simple they promise them to hire them as technical consultants on a 7 figure salary once they retire.
With the amount of generals that end up "working" for defense contracts you can probably invade another solar system.
None of it is illegal, you can't prove that generals that backed this or that program did so to take a "fake" job (that is fully within their skillset) in a couple of years.
>But anon, generals don't technically retire right? And them working for a foreign company heavily backed by public money makes them guilty "intelligence with a foreign power" right? Why don't you execute those sack of shits and be done with it?
That's the question.
64300c No.619581
>>619576
Probably cash and a male harem. If recent danish controversies are anything to go by, women really love money, so that should suffice.
89b8eb No.619584
>>619576
Same thing they offer to men. Promises of a seven figure salary in a cushy job which requires no actual work after they leave office. Until then, they might receive some award to make them feel special. They reserve the cash and virgins for Arab princes and African warlords.
bb29fe No.619585
>>619579
>Rafale
>bad
What did he mean by this?
89b8eb No.619589
>>619585
>Rafale
>good
What did he mean by this?
0b9d7c No.619590
>>619589
Well at least it doesn't use fuel as a hydraulic fluid and a coolant.
46f987 No.619607
>>619589
Rafale is the closest thing to what F-35 was supposed to be minus the stealth and it's still pretty stealthy.
dcacfc No.619611
>>619607
The F-16 is stealthier and it wasn't even designed as a stealth aircraft.
bb29fe No.619612
>>619611
But it has neither canards nor a carrier-capable version.
af6a97 No.619613
>>619520
>40-year life of the aircraft,
That's very likely.
dcacfc No.619615
>>619612
Could it be modified with canards without upsetting the balance or harmonics of the airframe? More importantly, how does the F-16's maneuverability compare to the Typhoon and Rafale? I know it already handles better than the F-35, but would it need canards to compete with the other two fighters? I guess these questions are less relevant if you want canards for lift purposes.
About carrier use, it was simply never designed for that. I wonder how hard it'd be to adapt.
ee1578 No.619616
>>619611
>F-16 is stealthier
The Rafale is not a stealth plane… what makes the Rafale stealthy is widely suspected to be ACTIVE cancellation tech, coupled to powerful smart noise jammers.
French approach to stealth is "who cares if you're seen as long the missiles don't hit", which is the sane approach to the "stealth" issue.
Of course it means you can't murdernuke Russia or China in their sleep which is what the US wants (but we're totally not the evil ones goy! Remember that).
2f91b8 No.619617
>>619612
An F-16 with canards is pretty much a Grippen.
dceacf No.619618
>>619616
I suppose Rafale was designed with the concept of limited nuclear warfare in mind? Like, battlefield tactical nukes and such, in which case it indeed is completely irrelevant if you're seen or not.
dcacfc No.619619
>>619616
I didn't say anything like the 'murdernuke' nonsense you're implying at the end of your post, at all. There's no such thing as invisible planes. My point was that the F-16 is also a harder plane to detect and hit than the F-35, I should have clarified that. I don't know how the F-16 looks against the Rafale.
26c304 No.619628
>>619573
Wait, the F-35, the new up and coming aeriel combat platform of the western world, being sold to numerous nations and still in serial production, is having spare part support already withdrawn? What kind of fuckery? They're still making spares for the C-5 Galaxy and that fucker was introduced in 1968.
46f987 No.619643
>>619611
>The F-16 is stealthier
[citation really fucking needed]
46f987 No.619644
>>619615
>More importantly, how does the F-16's maneuverability compare to the Typhoon and Rafale?
Slightly lower sustained and supersonic turn rate at least the F-16A was, current F-16C is significantly heavier much lower instantaneous turn rate. All of them rather suck in sustained AoA though, with Rafale being the only allegedly decent one at this aspect, the other two have maximum angle of attack artificially inhibited at 30 degrees.
46f987 No.619647
>>619617
Aerodynamically speaking that would be either the J-10 or a single-engined typhoon. Air intake placement and nose shape.
bb29fe No.619648
>>619615
>Could it be modified with canards without upsetting the balance or harmonics of the airframe?
It's already been done before just like it was with the F-15 but canard mods were never adopted by the USAF for (((reasons))).
I doubt they'd increase maneuverability that much considering the F-16 is fairly agile as is, but a three-surface design like in pic related could reduce takeoff+landing distance, provide precise pitch control at high angles of attack and add an additional layer of flight control surface redundancy.
64300c No.619681
>>619628
Back in 2016 when the danish politicians decided to buy the F35, it quickly surfaced that Denmark would have to purchase 15 million USD worth of spare parts onto of the jet fighter deal.
This was not advertised anywhere else, and when a statement was given by the defence minister, he said that it was necessary because the alledged parts were going out of production and that we needed to invest in more parts than we needed for the planes to be built.
Further more, excessive parts would then have to be sold to anyone who'd want to buy them to recoup some of the cost.
They never disclosed what parts were going out of production, and it may have been parts exclusive to the plane package that Denmark got. You have to consider that Lockheeb can underbid anyone by selling them underequipped or budget version of their planes.
Afaik, they have yet to release a spec sheet for the F35 model we'll be getting, probably because of 'muh national security' which will be compromised either way due to having a tiny air fleet.
64300c No.619682
>>619681
>>619628
After some digging, I found out that it is supposedly because the engine we signed to get in the F35 in 2023 is due to be changed for an entirely new engine in 2025 and therefore if we wish to have the planes in not working order by 2023 we have to pay in advance. Even better is that the engines are supposed to be assembled in Turkey and the airframe in Italy.
46f987 No.619690
>>619648
>provide precise pitch control at high angles of attack
Which is exactly the weakest point of the F-16 in terms of maneuverability.
e8d2b9 No.619692
>>619682
>the engine we signed to get in the F35 in 2023 is due to be changed for an entirely new engine in 2025
Probably because the original one didn't use enough flammable.
5ecef1 No.619695
>>619520
Belgians are fucking retarded, they picked the F-16 over the F-17 which was cheaper and higher performance. The entire country is run on bribery, cronyism, corruption and blackmail.
fd337a No.619701
>>619643
>>The F-16 is stealthier
>[citation really fucking needed]
I'd say it's not entirely implausible, especially given that the F-35 can't fly with the weapon bay doors closed when it's armed. I would like to see the comparison with multiple bands, with the bays open, from other angles besides 0°/head on.
750c84 No.619725
>>619695
Wasn't the F-17 hampered by Northrop's bad marketing? There was the .webm from a documentary of some defense official talking about how they arrived with a delegation of one man and just told the group that it was the best plane they could get and made no attempt to negotiate.
5ecef1 No.619727
>>619725
Why should he have to negotiate? It was objectively better than the other candidate.
Europeans literally were offered a slice of pie and a slice of shit, and they bought and ate a slice of shit because the shit salesman complimented them and made some jokes.
46f987 No.619742
>>619727
> It was objectively better than the other candidate.
Not really. F-16 still was faster and the champion of sustained turn rate, the most important aspect of air combat, for decades before the Rafale and Typhoon came around. The F-17 was just more aerobatic.
46f987 No.619743
>>619742
Scratch that, apparently the YF-17 was faster than its F-18 descendant and of equal speed with the F-16, so I presume with it lower weight it would have significantly better sustained turn rate than the Hornet too.
e01556 No.619753
>>619725
That was the F-20 Tigershark. Their plan was to literally send a Tom Cruise look alike to the table to exclaim that it was "the best plane EVER!" and then empty the nearest minibar.
98f447 No.619812
>>619616
>implying 3rd gen US stealth's don't run active cancellation of top of geometry and anisotropic active materials
98f447 No.619813
>>619742
>champion of sustained turn rate, the most important aspect of air combat
For guns combat.
bb29fe No.619825
>>619742
>sustained turn rate, the most important aspect of air combat
5de4aa No.619839
>>619727
to be fair, eating freshly steamed feces seems to be a hobby for Eurocrats
46f987 No.619858
>>619825
I did not come up with "speed is life" motto.
>>619813
Also for conserving energy to outturn missiles, also for putting yourself in favorable position for short-range missile kills.
5ecef1 No.619882
>>619742
1. F-17 was faster, had a better TW ratio, could get to altitude faster, could fly higher (which meant its missiles had more range).
2. Sustained turn was the most important aspect of air combat when people were shooting each other with bullets. Instantaneous turn rate and energy recovery after turn is the most important aspect when people are shooting each other with off boresight missiles.
3. A single vertical stabilizer airplane physically CANNOT have the same stability while turning at any angle than a double stab.
4. F-17 had better instantaneous and sustained turn rate. F-16 sustained turn rate is a pathetic 18 degrees, while it's 34 degrees for an F-17.
5. Oh and it had the first relaxed longitudinal stability fighter, flew that way before F-16.
bb29fe No.619891
>>619882
>Sustained turn was the most important aspect of air combat when people were shooting each other with bullets.
Where did this meme originate from and why is it being repeated on /k/ of all places?
26c304 No.619893
I didn't care about planes until this debacle, but now I am become plane fag.
5a1339 No.619997
>>619891
Boom and zoom is more fun anyways
46f987 No.620029
>>619882
I withdraw my objection.
>>619891
>you mean the "hurrr durrr instantaneous turn rate and sustained AoA are only for air shows and not air combat"
Probably American sour grapes after the Su-27 and MiG-29's capabilities became know to the West.
e01556 No.620032
>>620029
If any of that is true then why don't you go out and fight ww2 in a bi-plane? Also ask yourself as to why the P-47 was such an effective fighter? Air combat has always been about the speed and energy conservation game.
07385f No.620035
>>620032
Quite astonishing that anons on /k/ are disputing this obvious truth, I'd be willing to bet these same retards would tell us the A6M zero was a good plane.
46f987 No.620040
>>620032
Suppose for the same reason Luftwaffe's simulated dogfights got MiG-29s a 9/1 kill ratio against their F-16s. If you can shoot an all-aspect off-boresight missile even from an awkward position, thanks to HMD and the aircraft's high alpha capabilities then the pilot being shot at will be forced to bleed lots of energy for evading maneuvers losing his energy-conservation advantage.
780bd4 No.620068
>>619568
UK, Germany and Italy have had Tornados for US nukes. Italy and UK are also getting F-35's so they aren't going to pay for integrating B61's to Typhoon.
>>619573
Danish cost analysis was kinda vague and had few oddities. As usual air forces are pretty vague over their selection criteria and points systems they use to rank evaluated aircraft. Rule of thumb when it comes to any fighter deals in Europe in coming years it will be F-35 winning, as long as country can afford it. Gripen will be the budget alternative and other budget alternatives will be F-16 block 60/70 and F/A-18E/F if buyer is existing F-16 or F/A-18 user. Rafale and Eurofighter are there drive down costs if manufacturer is willing to make very low price offer.
Finland has Hornet replacement program underway. Quite interestingly Lockheed didn't even offer F-16 and Boeing didn't offer F-15 when Finland requested offers for those as well.
>>619615
Moment F-16 loaded with fuel and weapons F-35 can carry internally, its maneuverability starts to suffer a lot. F-16 could have been turned into carrier variant, but US Navy wasn't really interested in it in 70's. General Dynamics contracted Vought to develop naval variant as they didn't have experience with naval aircraft. It would have stuff that comes with naval fighters like reinforced landing gear, tailhook, folding wings and so on. In addition Navy wanted different canopy for some reason. For some reason navy was pretty autistic about two engines. It wasn't a problem for A-4, F-8 and A-7.
>>619617
>>619647
F-16 with delta wing and canards would be F-16 with delta wing and canards.
>>619695
Northrop had gigantic fuck up of marketing campaign in Europe in 70's. They basically told potential customers fuck off when it comes to license manufacturing and offset trade deals. There is a very good reason why Northrop failed to sell F-18L to anyone and McDonnell-Douglas managed to export naval version to many customers. I honestly don't understand why license manufacturing was never an issue with F-5, they probably just sacked the people that turned F-5 into export success.
>>619727
>Why should he have to negotiate?
Because that way they would have made some sales. The license manufacturing creates jobs in country for clients and that is major factor in any massive defense procurement.
4587f0 No.620099
>>620068
>Italy and UK are also getting F-35's so they aren't going to pay for integrating B61's to Typhoon.
Germany has been trying for almost two decades to get the certification for B-61 on the Eurofighter. The USAF always said that it was "impossible for now".
Because they know that would mean the death of the F-35A in Europe.
e01556 No.620186
>>620040
>muh study where they pushed the F-16 out of its comfort zone and put it into stupidly close combat to get those numbers
The F-16 also turned that simulated k/d completely around when they were clear to engage at longer distances but slavophiles always like to jack off that one time when their plane will win if unnaturally put into an advantageous position. Christ you're just as bad as the people who slapped radar reflectors all over the drone targets for the sergeant York.
bb29fe No.620214
>>620068
>all these pretty burger canard design studies and technology demonstrators
>none of which were mass produced nor entered active service in any branch of the US military
960dec No.620291
>>620186
>The F-16 also turned that simulated k/d completely around when they were clear to engage at longer distances
Against purely maintained MiGs without AMRAAMskis and with AWACS support. I don't see why the F-16 should be more than equal in BVR against a faster and higher climbing fighter.
960dec No.620292
>>620068
>Moment F-16 loaded with fuel and weapons F-35 can carry internally, its maneuverability starts to suffer a lot.
Fuel maybe but I honestly don't see how 4 amraams are a serious aerodynamic burden.
86cf50 No.620298
86cf50 No.620299
>>620298
As shit as f-35 is. Macron Butt hurts still makes it worth while.
7d70ab No.620306
>>619520
>34 F-35's are going to cost Belgium only 12.4 billion euros
So I take it they are never going to fly them then and leave them in a hangar for 40 years?
>>619548
Lockheeb takes them out to dinner.
89b8eb No.620345
>>620306
>So I take it they are never going to fly them then and leave them in a hangar for 40 years?
Isn't that what everyone's going to do with their F-35? You're not seriously going to try flying that thing, right?
e01556 No.620351
>>620291
>as long as they don't use their real world BVR equipped missiles and AWACS support that every fighter wing would have in a real combat environment they would totally lose!
Whats next? are you going to say that the mig would totally win a guns only fight if the F-16s were still on the ground too?
0b9d7c No.620366
>>620351
See this shit is why people don't like yanks.
Gyros-nigger is clearly implying that there is no indication the F-16 is superior when both sides are properly supported yet here you are construing it as if he had basically said "FITE ME 1v1 FAGGIT"
e01556 No.620375
>>620366
The debts man was trying to say that turn rate was the most important factor in air combat and cited a retarded unrealistic scenario as his proof. Boom and zoom will always be how war is won in the air and has been since ww2.
0b9d7c No.620391
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>620375
Until the argument changed to the topic of MiGs vs F-16's.
Besides your claim's falacious anyway and I can prove it. Embed related, thanks to the wonders of jets and thrust to weight ratios being close to or above 1, all previous styles of combat are applicable.
Sure all the AWACS or ground station support in the world will tip things in whoevers favour but at the end of the engagement both turn rate AND energy management (what you call boom and zoom) become factors in going defensive or going offensive.
It's the age old argument for WVR or for BVR, the truth being somewhere in the middle since in embed related you can clearly see that even with BVR missiles you use everything you can do defeat a missile and in WVR turn rate contributes to both defeating missiles AND in getting a firing solution.
Point is, you're both wrong, but olive-oil coon is the least wrong.
And before you fire back with muh AWACS support the only real difference it would've made is that the first missiles would be off the rails at a longer range, but when it comes to defeating them it's the same story. Either juke it or burn off it's energy so that it can't catch you, which by the by is even EASIER with a larger separation.
Vid related - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9FVhCYrTFY
922ef1 No.620432
>>619520
>“We have landed! This government is investing heavily in defense. With the purchase of F-35A fighter planes … we ensure your safety and that of our military,” Belgian Defence Minister Steven Vandeput said on Twitter during the news conference. “The offer from the Americans was the best in all our seven evaluation criteria,” he later told reporters.
I wonder how many shekels he got
960dec No.620441
>>620375
>The debts man was trying to say that turn rate was the most important factor in air combat
see:
>>619742
I was arguing against the frequent burger claim that instantaneous turn rate is useless.
>>as long as they don't use their real world BVR equipped missiles and AWACS support that every fighter wing would have in a real combat environment they would totally lose!
Where the fuck did you derive that from? I only pointed out that Fulcrums that lost to F-16s were not equipped their real world BVR equipped missiles (R-77) and did not have AWACS support that every fighter wing would have in a "real" combat environment.
5ecef1 No.620454
>>619891
I wonder how you're reading that. I know what words I wrote, but you're probably reading "sustained turn rate doesn't matter". It's not the most important thing moron, it's the second most important.
>>620068
>Because that way they would have made some sales. The license manufacturing creates jobs in country for clients and that is major factor in any massive defense procurement.
Northrop objectively made the best aircraft the world had ever seen, and they were rejected because their sales pitch didn't include "muh gibs" and social program bullshit.
The world deserves to burn and Northrop did nothing wrong.
5ecef1 No.620455
>>620068
>Moment F-16 loaded with fuel and weapons F-35 can carry internally, its maneuverability starts to suffer a lot.
Not really, the conformal tanks offer 800km range hi-lo-hi combat radius, and a single centerline tank bumps that up to 1150km hi lo hi combat radius. Right in F-35 range. Althought F-35 values are hi hi hi so its probably 800km hi lo hi anyway
>>620351
That's fair as long as you give the enemy the chance to jam the AWACS or shoot it down prior to the exercise. Or give the enemy his version of AWACS support.
77091b No.620456
2081
>Boeing fields the first faster than light spaceship
>Lockheed finally completes the F-35
dceacf No.620457
>>620432
So they are ensuring safety of Lockheeb and safety of that one group whose job it is to do things that are rather unsafe. Well, the less effective european militaries become, less power the politicians will have.
9e67d8 No.620484
c8d5ea No.620491
d873c4 No.620496
>>620454
>The world deserves to burn and Northrop did nothing wrong.
Northrop got exactly what they deserved, they managed to sell bunch rear fuselages and vertical stabilizers as subcontractor for McDonnell-Douglas F/A-18.
7cc31e No.620501
>>619590
>fuel as a hydraulic fluid
Going to need source on that one, the vapour pressure is too low for that.
>coolant
That has been done in rocketry since the '40s, I don't see an issue with it.
bb29fe No.620528
>>620501
>cooling several thousand kelvin worth of rocket nozzle for a few seconds
vs.
>continously cooling avionics and other shit with highly flammable kerosene on a flying fuel tank masquerading as a fighter plane
>having to shut down Radar, cockpit instruments, IRST when maneuvering because the wing radiators can't deal with aerodynamic friction
>requiring climate-controlled hangars to store planes&fuel
>plane can't land without fuel
bb29fe No.620529
>>620391
So what you're saying is mediocre sustained turn rates with comparatively high energy conservation are the way to go?
5a1339 No.620586
>>620529
Didn't the FW-190 have better turn rates than most 109s?
Are you using a headset and stick for that?
Also trash music.
0b9d7c No.620598
>>620501
>Source
OH MY LAD. YOU ARE IN FOR A TREAT.
https://media.8ch.net/file_store/dfdec2dcd6712b3de0feba8b913a725b3217f745814edba5476f16099b3ff3c2.pdf
Hop on over to page 36 on whatever reader you're using or search for the term "Fueldraulics". Really just read through the entire report,I'm convinced it's how an engineer would write a comedy.
Heck if you want a good meme just go over to the thread in question at this stamp and start reading the choice excerpts streloks have found.
https://8ch.net/k/res/611697.html#q616534
You'll also find a report from June 2018 that has multiple issues completely expunged from the program agenda for no given reason, as in the report states that the problem exists, but was either placed at a low priority and
Granted the report is almost two years old now, but changing something as deeply integrated as the "hydraulics" constitutes major redesign that we have no indication has actually happened.
>>620529
Sure if the idea is just to rock up throw missiles and fuck off. But then that'd be an interceptor, like say a MiG of some description wouldn't it?
I contend that both have to be equally important priorities in the design of dedicated fighter since you can't guarantee that your plane won't ever enter knife fight range for whatever reason, although you can probably skimp on energy management in relative terms because as I said briefly, just about any fighter worth a damn has TWR aiming to be near, at or above 1, so they're all going to be able to generate way more energy than any BVR missile given enough separation.
5ecef1 No.620601
>>620496
>the guy who sells pies didn't convince me to buy pies so he went out of business
>the guy who sells shit convinced me to eat shit, so his business succeeded
>the guy who sells pies deserved to go out of business
You deserve the aftertaste.
1c8b04 No.620602
>>620598
>While extended fires occurred in the MANPADS tests, there has been no effort expended to determine what catastrophic damage might result and the timeframe for that to occur. Current procedures are for an immediate ejection upon determination of a sustained fire.
As funny as the results of tests like the ejection seat's 23% mortality rate are, it's even funnier when they don't bother testing at all and just flat out say the pilot's boned.
d873c4 No.620611
>>620601
If you want to make food allegory. Northrop YF-17 sales pitch was kinda like McDonald's shipping all their burgers worldwide from San Bernandino, Commiefornia, or Pizza Hut shipping all their pizzas from Wichita, Kansas, instead setting up local subsidies to manage business in other countries and franchising out day to day business to consumers.
You deserve spoiled burgers or pizzas delivered from half way around world.
Local manufacturing, local maintenance, tech transfers and offset trades are just part of major factors in defense sales. A country looking for half dozen aircraft might not care much about local manufacturing, but a countries buying several dozen or several hundred aircraft will care about local content and ability to integrate their own systems to aircraft. McDonnell-Douglas offered far better deals for clients with F/A-18 than Northrop ever did with YF-17 and F-18L.
5ecef1 No.620614
>>620611
It's not an allegory, it's an analogy. Allegory is a story that teaches you a valuable lesson.
F-16: McDonalds expired beef ground in with spices to hide the bitter aftertaste of spoilage and enough soy to put tits on a chicken, with its fake sponge marketing.
F-17: A guy on a ranch in Arizona who makes a kobe steak so good it literally causes you to go into a coma, but his only advertising is a handmade sign on the turnpike.
960dec No.620691
>>620611
>>620496
The irony is that the F-18 was an inferior fighter of what the F-17 would have been due to being a non-denavalized version of a specialized carrierborne fighter that was deprived of its main selling point, low weight and high thrust to weight. in contrast to the F-14 that was always supposed to be a flying boat. There was no reason for anyone to buy F-18s as land based fighters after F-16C came around, except maybe if they really needed rudimentary close-support capabilities.
5ecef1 No.620715
>>620691
I think Canada and Norway picked the F-18 because ice blocks on the runway kept fodding their F-16 and they needed something with two engines. I think they wanted the F-15, but America at the time protected the F-15 just like it protects the F-22 now.
cb8fa9 No.620718
>>620614
>It's not an allegory, it's an analogy.
Sorry, I had 3am hitting my brain. English isn't my native language.
With food analogy, the best steak in world isn't relevant at all. Global aviation and defense companies are only analogous to global fast food giants. McDonald's for example is quite different thing in different countries. In some countries it is the worst McJob, in others they are the best McJob for students after massive outrage that has hurt their sales. Local food standards is also a factor. I'd rather get my burgers from a real restaurant, but McD at least in Nordic countries has been forced to clean up their act, so they aren't selling butchers leftovers as food.
>>620691
>The irony is that the F-18 was an inferior fighter of what the F-17 would have been
McDonnell-Douglas put a minor effort in finding local subcontractors/industrial partners in every country they managed to export F/A-18 with exception of Malaysian and Thai deals that were too small for local partners. Thai deal was cancelled due to Asian economic crisis of 1997, Hornets originally ordered by Thais ended up for 'muhreens as two seaters. Northrop might have offered Canadians as good deal as McDonnell-Douglas, but in that case unfortunately McDonnell-Douglas owned former Avro Canada and they could offer better deal for Winnipeg and Canadian territorial politics.
Northrop offered almost two tons lighter land based Hornet and extra G in turns.
> There was no reason for anyone to buy F-18s as land based fighters after F-16C came around, except maybe if they really needed rudimentary close-support capabilities.
Except when clients wanted better radar. In early 90's F/A-18 had far better radar available, post 2005 or so F-16 has had better radar as US Navy has had lower priority in upgrading their existing planes than USAF.
960dec No.620722
>>620718
>Except when clients wanted better radar. In early 90's F/A-18 had far better radar available, post 2005 or so F-16 has had better radar as US Navy has had lower priority in upgrading their existing planes than USAF.
Didn't the F-16C had dramatically improved radar/electronics pack compared to A from the beginning?
4587f0 No.620757
>>620715
Canada picked the F-18 because Canada is retarded.
Canada needs proper air superiority fighters, they're the ones literally next to Russia with a gigantic airspace to cover and only a handful few bases.
The simple fact they request light fighters is testament to how retarded the Can chairforce and Can politicians are.
bb29fe No.620782
>>620586
The 109 had superior sustained turn rates and energy conservation during mid to low speed vertical maneuvers than the 190 but inferior instantaneous turn rates especially at high speed.
The 190 on the other hand excelled in raw speed, dive performance, roll rate and straight line energy retention but sucked dick at sustained turns due to a lack of leading edge slats, which also made the plane stall and spin quite aggressively when flown by an inexperienced pilot.
>>620614
>F-17
Wouldn't the same analogy apply to the F-20?
Why didn't the Swiss buy any of those?
960dec No.620793
>>620757
>Canada picked the F-18 because Canada is retarded.
No objection there but the latitudes made single-engined planes too risky.
9078c8 No.620795
>>620757
We don’t need a military because America will protect us and there is no reason for anyone to attack Canada ever.
bb29fe No.620808
>>620795
t. Bundeswehr press official in disguise
73e4ad No.620809
>>619891
It's sort of a meme but it also makes sense in the context of the post-Korea era up until the mid-to-late-80's when advances in microelectronics finally made long range missile combat strategically effective. Boom n' Zoom tactics are only strategically effective when your aircraft has a tangible advantage in the speeds and altitudes it can achieve in normal operation. There was an overarching trend of parity in fhose categories between the aircraff produced by every military power in the post-Korea era. There are obviously times where one nation's latest design leapfrogged all others but the advantage they gained was made rapidly negated given the rapid pace of development in that peak years of the cold war. The F-4 Phamtom is the last fighter that enjoyed a sustained advantage in speed and altitude over its peers even even that was eventually negated by advances in SAM technology that forced pilots to perform avasive maneuvers in a plane that bled energy like a stuck pig in any sort of turn.
Boom n' Zoom was deprecated as a broadly useful tacfic once everyone had a fighter with a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1 and a service ceiling near the 20km limit where air breathing jet engines start starving.
11df1b No.620812
>>619572
How have they lost these planes? In war?
I'm ignorant, but that seem gigantic lose, especially when you consider the current very asymmetric wars. In any real war, they seem to basically be none existent.
>>619580
At that point, who cares of legality. They made the rule at the beginning, and they circumvent them with the appearance of respecting them. Rules are the a frame to continue mafia kind of activity without too much chaos.
>backed by public money makes them guilty "intelligence with a foreign power" right
Only if you consider that we have not been invade by USA and since then softly colonized by them.
Several article from the daily telegraph are very clear: the European union have been created by the USA. The "founder" of the european union, like Monnet, were CIA agent. They're at the head of NATO, thus basically at the head of all European armies. It never ever was about counter-weighting them.
From my point of view, Belgium buying these plane is the same whoring than Saudi Arabia being forced to buy EU/USA very costly weapons.
5a1339 No.620816
>>620808
t. Neo-Nazi who wants more wars and destruction in any country besides Russia or Israel’s neighbours.
bb29fe No.620829
>>620809
>BnZ is somehow the entirety of energy fighting
If it were that easy then the F-104 would've been the greatest fighter aircraft of all time.
You are correct about classic BnZ no longer being terribly viable in the current day, but that doesn't invalidate the practicality of rolling scissors, hammerheads and other such maneuvers.
5ecef1 No.620847
>>620782
Basically.
F-17 is the best twin engine medium jet fighter built from the invention of jet fighters until now, F-20 is the best single engine light jet fighter built from the invention of jet fighters until now, F-23 is the best full sized jet fighter built since invention of jet fighters until now, X-47 is the best jet bomber built since invention of jet bombers until now. C-2 greyhound is a good transport jet, and E-8 is objectively the best battle management platform ever invented.
I can't think of something Northrop did that was a failure performance-wise.
>>620816
t. ziokike who wants wars in Russia and Israels neighbors.
7d70ab No.620874
>>620691
>>620715
>>620757
>>620782
Pic related is why everyone who did went for the F-18. Plain and simple. If only they remembered it before they went for the Merkel
960dec No.620910
>>620906
>97 and dropping
Enjoy your curry.
26c304 No.620918
>>620910
You can tell abos didn't bother taking the test at all.
5a1339 No.620919
>>620910
>turk doesn't understand blatant sarcasm
>turk gets called an idiot for missing blatant sarcasm
>despite being 98% Greek, makes fun of a 73% white country for having an average IQ 5 points higher
Is this how Caucus arab I need to be to forget how to spot a blatant shitpost?
960dec No.620924
>>620919
>>turk doesn't understand blatant sarcasm
>merely pretending of bringing the bantz on the table
>caucus arab
>haplotype widespread across all Europe but not even found in the Arabian peninsula or southern of Alexandria
Guess just a symptom of that two-digits IQ education system of yours.
>>620918
The chart specifically mentions school-age. Abos don't go school at any time of their life.
5a1339 No.620929
>>620924
>>merely pretending
Yes this entire chain is 100% serious
>We don’t need a military because America will protect us and there is no reason for anyone to attack Canada ever.
<t. Bundeswehr press official in disguise
>t. Neo-Nazi who wants more wars and destruction in any country besides Russia or Israel’s neighbours.
Not a single word in those three posts look like shitposting/sarcasm to me. This is sarcasm by the way, don't get upset because you think this last sentence was genuine.
>haplotype widespread across all Europe
>1-10%
>widespread
>but not even found in the Arabian peninsula or southern of Alexandria
>Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Iran, Jordan
>not arabs
Guess that's a symptom of having a lower IQ than a country flooded with third worlders despite being 98% ethnically Greek.
960dec No.620939
>>620929
>>widespread
>can't open a fucking dictionary for "his own" language
>>Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Iran, Jordan
>Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Iran, Jordan
>human genes
>therefore all humans are arabs
5a1339 No.620945
>>620939
>widespread
I've never seen or heard the word widespread used to mean something is spread over a large area. Amerindians are in every single province of Canada but they're only 5% of our population, you wouldn't say they're widespread, because they are present over a large area. You would call geese wide spread in Canada because they are common, you wouldn't.
>human genes
>therefore all humans are arabs
Did you use 2 of your 93 IQ points to come to that conclusion or did you just think it would be easier to pretend that I said whatever you imagine I said?
960dec No.620949
>>620945
>found in almost all countries of indo-European decent, including all European countries minus Estonia and Finland (non-IE speakers)
>in Arab countries it is found in significant percentage of the population only in Lebanon and 2/3rds of Syria
>found only in half of Iraq and Jordan
>found in "Palestine" but not the actual the Palestinian peninsula
>Iran full retard
>major arabophone countries like Algeria, Libya and Egypt only have the haplogroup in selected coastal areas with major European historic presence
>not found in the majority of the Arabian peninsula and wherever it is present it's lower than the European average
Totally arabic, bro.
960dec No.620956
>>620949
>>620945
and inb4:
>hurrr durrr durkey and azerbaijan
4d6697 No.621152
>>620959
>>620956
>>620949
I’m fucking tired today, do you mind if we hold off the autism for tomorrow?
You’re still an idiot for missing the blatant shitpost and I think your last posts have pretty big flaws but I honestly shouldn’t have said gyros are shitskins, I’ve been amazed at your (or the other gyro’s) pure hatered for Jews at Turks and think that’s just great. There’s no need to split us up because all we really want is a great war (preferably without the smell and conditions of THE Great War), and to shoot guns.
5a1339 No.621153
>>621152
Forgot my VPN was on.
b55a23 No.621721
>>620910
tfw no qt aussie genius gf
692c25 No.626280
>>620812
>How have they lost these planes? In war?
Same way we all did, you might even be in worse shape than them I haven't got the courage to look your numbers up.
Needs more tributes to give to invaders so they don't rape our women too much and burn down our temples.
a7c1b4 No.626326
hey you faggots said the f35 was never gonna be done what the shit
5e6af5 No.628461
>>620910
Why is Australia and New Zealand so high? Is it because of all the Chinese immigration?
5e6af5 No.628463
So if the US massively improves its missile tech and retrofits their new missiles on the F35, coupled with its strength as an intelligence aircraft couldn't it perform quite well?
89b8eb No.628470
>>628461
It isn't that high, we have an average IQ of 99. Also, according to the OECD, we're 6th best at literacy, 9th at mathematics and 7th at the sciences.
e8d2b9 No.628478
>>620910
>Chile at 100
I honestly don't know what to say. I also don't think it's true.
50dcbc No.628521
>>628470
I thought Finland was much higher up that list?
1da451 No.628543
>>628470
>Hungary 98
I am confident to I say that without the cigánys it would be way above 100…
558a1c No.629314
>>628463
The F-35 actually flies pretty well. The non VTOL version can hit 9gs with the VTOL variants being capped at 7.5gs.
The plane is just as maneuverable as an F-16 is.
>>626326
>hey you faggots said the f35 was never gonna be done what the shit
Pierre Spray was wrong. ABC was wrong. RT was wrong. Basically everything said about the F-35 was wrong - except the price.
The Price of ~100 million $ per plane was correct but the terrifying thing is that the US military has fuck-off amounts of money so they can buy >1000 of these planes while China is still spinning in place with only 4 prototype planes of the J-20.
I think the Su-57 got cancelled after one mission in Syria against Snackbar insurgents.
So basically, America wins.
55bc8f No.629335
>>629314
First of all, China has the same size of economy America does, they just don't tax their people as much which means their government has a lower budget. All you are doing is strangling the growth of the American economy because you don't want to put in the MINUSCULE effort of paying an engineer that isn't retarded to design the first and last line of defense for the entire western world.
Second of all….
1. Can it supercruise?
2. Is it under 50 million dollars as originally said?
If the answer to either of those questions is a "no", then it can't replace every single aircraft in the US inventory - which is the stated purpose and long term plan.
5e6af5 No.629346
>>629335
>2. Is it under 50 million dollars as originally said?
>If the answer to either of those questions is a "no", then it can't replace every single aircraft in the US inventory - which is the stated purpose and long term plan.
Although the thing is overpriced right now, I believe they have said that the thing will be cheaper when it goes into full production. That is, of course, taking Lockheed's word for it.
e3e0f1 No.629348
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>629314
>Aircraft cannot do a basic loop.
>I-it flies well…
It has the same agility as a transport helicopter.
A combat helicopter can beat a F-35 in a dogfight!
>The non VTOL version can hit 9gs with the VTOL variants being capped at 7.5gs.
You have recent OFFICIAL reports in this very thread telling you the plane CANNOT sustain 3g or else the rudder comes apart but keep believing what the lugenpresse is saying about it, I'm sure Lockheeb doesn't have a PR budget the size of the Apollo program's…
55bc8f No.629350
>>629346
You have to understand that the only way it can replace all those aircraft is if its price point is the average of the airplanes it replaces. Average cost of all aircraft in western inventories, from tornado, mirage and A-6 to F-15, Eurofighter and Rafale is about 30-50 million per airframe inflation adjusted. The price point is 2 times that, which means the West will have two times fewer aircraft or it will double its air arms budgets.
If the former is the case - No matter how good the F-35 is, it can't be deployed to two places at the same time, and it can't do two missions at the same time. Even a low quality numerically inferior enemy will be able to punch through the gaps in any defensive line simply by exploiting the performance gaps, the front with out potential enemies is fucking HUGE. It's larger than the hemisphere of the planet!
If the latter is the case - Other force structures will suffer leading to point failures there. Or your civilians will suffer as you tax them more, which will slow down your economy, which will produce less things to tax, which will mean you have to increase taxes more…. this leads to a civilization-collapse spiral like late roman empire.
a1528f No.629353
>picks F-35
>on price
It would probably cost Belgium less. Think about it, if the chose the Eurofighter they'd have to contribute to it's development since it's payed for by Euromoney. If they go for the F-35, though, they don't have to give a cent to RnD, that's all covered by Uncle Sam.
Assuming the F-35 isn't a shit plane, which we all know it undoubtedly is, it's going to be profitable for everyone except the US. However, given that it is a shit plane and most likely will be for a very long time it's a net loss. What's more is that by the time they iron out all the kinks so it matches the relative ball-park of it's advertising it's going to be massively out of date and have to be replaced again.
The F-35 is kind of like the M3 Stuart, except the M3 Stuart cost pennies to develop and quarters to produce. The F-35 has already racked up enough of a toll to bankrupt half the world.
a1528f No.629359
>>629348
>helicopters are maneuverable
Being honest, modern jets are not valued for their tremendous maneuverability. In fact, they're not excessively maneuverable to begin with. The ability to bob and weave is considerably less important than altitude, speed, armament and information gathering.
>a helicopter can beat an F-35 in a dogfight
It's a good thing jets don't dogfight anymore, then. Why would they? They can fire off 4 missiles from 2 directions and bug out before they've even hit visual confirmation range.
e3e0f1 No.629475
>>629359
>It's a good thing jets don't dogfight anymore, then. Why would they? They can fire off 4 missiles from 2 directions and bug out before they've even hit visual confirmation range.
>What are adaptive EW jammers.
Nearly all modern planes have radar missile jamming technology (which is why the next step in missile evolution is both speed, to reduce the time the jammers have to work the missile, and long range IR with QWIP) that is VERY good, we're talking shit with adaptive behavior that tune itself to the incoming missile and radar echoes in flight to perfectly fool it.
It is very hard to hit a modern plane BVR.
So if you can't hit BVR what happens next?
Exactly.
e4f9e5 No.629490
>>629314
> The non VTOL version can hit 9gs with the VTOL variants being capped at 7.5gs
Read the pdfs, newfriend.
55bc8f No.629492
>>629359
>and bug out before they've even hit visual confirmation range
That's only the case if you have AWACS, the enemy doesn't, and he's using zero challenging EWAR. If the enemy has AWACS or he's using EWAR, or he manages to knock your AWACS down, the entire concept of BVR goes out the window. Launching a missile in those conditions is 50/50 whether you hit a friendly or an enemy.
b566ac No.629544
>>629475
Modern missiles are meant to defeat and counteract ECM too. Using main cannons is essentially going to be a last resort.
e3e0f1 No.629550
>>629544
>Modern missiles are meant to defeat and counteract ECM too.
In theory yes.
In practice nobody actually test the ECM delicate and expensive pods against the expensive ECCM + guidance in the missiles and in all training aggressive ECM suites aren't even turned on, largely for fear of spying/risk of failing the exercise (which is a big no no in every army of the planet exercise must be passed with flying colors, think of all those officers that might not get their commendation).
The last time there was a peer level conflict with people with planes and missiles of the same generation was the Vietnam war.
And the USAF went in saying:
"Meh gun are useless, missile are great".
5 minutes later:
"Oh fuck, oh fuck, oh fuck, who is the retard that thought not mounting guns on a plane was a good idea?"
I don't think there has been actual dogfight with cannon ever since but every design since has had them in it… because even if there wasn't a peer fight since and last time it was a terrible idea to take them off.
Post semi-conductor tech boom BVR combat is an entirely paper field until two countries air-force with modern tech in their arsenal actually duke it out we won't really know what works and what doesn't.
Personally I think that the efficiency of modern integrated and adaptive ECM pods are greatly underestimated.
I might be wrong, IMHO nobody actually knows.
e8d2b9 No.629554
>>629550
>IMHO nobody actually knows
Given the age of insurgencies and low intensity conflicts we live in, we might as well never know.
Maybe if some middling power declares war on another of similar military capacity we might see something, but I wouldn't count on it.
b566ac No.629555
>>629550
>I don't think there has been actual dogfight with cannon ever since but every design since has had them in it… because even if there wasn't a peer fight since and last time it was a terrible idea to take them off.
Probably because of air-to-ground support related reasons, rather than expecting dogfights. Airplanes as of recently have just been a way for large powers to dickwave rather than anything else. The last time that an aircraft shot another that I know of was when the Turks shot down a Russian Su-24 with a F-16 equipped with AMRAAMs.
Otherwise I agree. It really is wait and see until modern planes go up against modern planes, which is extremely unlikely for the next 50 years unless someone decides to chimp out. I hope that it's between China and India or some shit like that and not Europe for obvious reasons, those countries want to invest into gen 5 fighters and India has bought some Russian and Western shit.
What I would be hoping for is seeing how much Russia/China bluff about their weapons systems and how bad the F-35 actually is, if it ever actually makes it into mass production. Seeing the efficiency of modern missiles such as the Meteor would also be interesting.
e4f9e5 No.629564
>>629550
>was the Vietnam war.
More likely the Korean war. Mig-15 and and -17 were first gen, Mig-21 was second gen and MiG-19 was barely second gen, while the F-4 was a third gen and even F-14 came early enough to see some action in Vietnam even if it was late for full combat duties and acted only as escort for evac.
e01556 No.629566
>>629550
>Vietnam as an example of needing guns
That was an issue of poor training and storing missiles out on the baking tarmac for weeks before sending them up into the air. The fact that the navy/marines NEVER adopted gun equipped F4s and still turned around their K/D and the chairforce's gun equipped F4Es seldom got any gun kills but turned their K/D around through proper storage of munitions in climate controlled buildings shows that guns on planes are a fucking boomer meme.
89b8eb No.629568
>>629566
>guns on planes are a fucking boomer meme.
You take that back you little faggot or I'm going to blow up your neighborhood and rip you a new asshole.
e4f9e5 No.629578
>>629566
>D version got more kills with guns than with sidewinders
>E version got 5 times more kills
This graph does not mean what you think it means.
e3e0f1 No.629582
>>629566
>Says gun were useless.
>Post sauce that shows that the plane without guns did use the unwieldy pods regularly enough.
>And that 1/3 of the kills of the plane with cannon installed were done with guns.
>Thinks that K/D ratio matters in war like in his video game.
Genuine medical question: are you literally retarded?
e4f9e5 No.629586
>>629566
F-4C
>sidewinder gets almost twice as many kills as the the sparrow
>gun pod gets almost one third as many kills as the sparrow even though implemented much later
F-4D/E
>sidewinder gets slightly less kills than guns
>that's over one fifth of the total kills of D and half as many kills as the sparrow in E
>seldom got any gun kills
If anything the Sparrow's "success" in D and E indicate a change of engagement dogma and also probably less eagerness for foes to pursuit for a dogfight knowing the F-4 had guns. Comparing AIM-9 to gun one could safely assume guns would have double the sparrow kills in C if implemented from beginning.
def16b No.629591
Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>629314
>didn't even pull a Cobra
>those exaggerated stabilizer movements
>that tremendous speed loss in turns
>those ugly flight patterns
>the poor P-38 having to attend its retarded grandson's school play
Pathetic.
e01556 No.629592
>>629578
>>629582
>>629586
>cant fucking read the top of the chart saying airforce who only adopted climate controlled stowage on missiles after the F4E was introduced
Again, the AIRFORCE was the only branch that bitched, pleaded and moaned about requiring a gun and blamed the lack of gun as the only reason why the gunless F4s THEY SPECIFICALLY flew were trading with migs evenly. If the gun was the real deciding factor in a fight then why didn't their F4Es wildly outperform the marine's and navy's gunless F4Ds that practiced climate controlled stowage? Why were F4Ds flown by other branches sufficient when F4Ds flown by the airforce under-performing? Is it because the airforce brass were retarded and had an agenda to push instead of looking at the real problem? No, that would NEVER influence a military spending decision and push a myth into widely accepted public belief!
b8337e No.629643
>>629490
This, that post was retarded
55bc8f No.629661
>>629544
No, HELL NO, that's so wrong it's pigheaded.
Modern missiles are designed to counteract the electronic warfare of fifty years ago. And none of this fucking matters because "countering" means they hit slightly more often what they're aimed at - it doesn't mean the attacking aircraft has a clearer picture of the target or any idea what it is. You're shooting a 12.7mm machine gun at random in the woods and calling yourself a good hunter because it's not a .22.
Which means that if it has AWACS support, an F-15 is going to shoot a MiG-21 much better with the new AIM-120D than a AIM-120A. This has no fucking bearing on whether or not it can have a standup fight with a Su-27 once the AWACS eats a novator, or whether it can even find the Su-27 from a business jet carrying the presidents daughter and a full football team of niggers.
e4f9e5 No.629744
>>629591
Is he using afterburners? cause he seems to have better energy replenishment than the Su-37 prototypes had.
e77576 No.629746
>>629492
>you see when you can only afford to fly two fighters at any given time odds go up, 80/20.
Genius Lockheeb.
e3e0f1 No.629763
>>629744
Serial engines on Su-35 are better than the initial prototypes on the Su-37 as they have added a lot of the tech that was developed for the MiG 1.44 engines on them in between.
e4f9e5 No.629825
>>629763
Would suppose so but according to wiki the Su-37 engines had a technically higher thrust than the serial production Su-35.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_AL-31#Summary
e3e0f1 No.629864
>>629825
>wiki says some stupid shit with numbers and a explanation pulled out of it's ass.
How shocking.
http://www.knaapo.ru/products/su-35/index.php
558a1c No.630219
>>629591
Put some ordnance on that SU-35 wings and it wouldn't fly so well. It's pretty telling that even when skinned bare it's after-burners chewed through it's fuel in 7mins and had to land.
The F-35 can do all it's manuevers with whatever loadout because it's housed internally like the F-22. Also means that it probably has better fuel economy since external weapons won't be creating massive drag.
>didn't even pull a Cobra
The Cobra is a meme maneuver that hasn't been used in combat, nor ever will.
>those exaggerated stabilizer movements
>that tremendous speed loss in turns
>those ugly flight patterns
Confirmed for not knowing what your talking about.
Even amateurs should be able to look at the video i posted and see it flies fine and is not a turkey. A turkey would be something like the Osprey.
The price crunch is real but all the 'avivation experts' have been wrong about it's capabilities.
The only reason the VTOL F35 version exists is because the Brits wanted a replacement for their stupid Harrier Jets. And the only reason why the Harriers exist is because the Brits can't build a proper sized aircraft carrier with a catapult system.
Now because the Brits got let into the program Japan wants some planes for their baby aircraft carriers, then Canada, then it's half of fucking NATO wanting this jet.
The Management of the JSF program makes me want to pull my hair out, but as far as the plane goes it delivers on every front.
558a1c No.630222
> The non VTOL version can hit 9gs with the VTOL variants being capped at 7.5gs
>Read the pdfs, newfriend.
Ok, from the PDF found here >>620598
From pg. 60 of the PDF
>Flight Test Activity with AF-1, AF-2, and AF-4 Test Aircraft
>F-35A flight sciences testing focused on:
>Clearing the F-35A Block 3F flight envelope (i.e., to
Mach 1.6, 700 knots, and 9.0 g) for loads, flutter, and
weapons environment
>F-35A Flight Sciences Assessment
>The program was able to complete baseline
test points to clear the aircraft structure for Block 3F
envelope (up to 9 g, 1.6M and 700 knots), completing flutter
testing on AF-2 on September 29 and loads testing on AF-1
on November 4, 2016.
That was the non VTOL variant, the F-35A
Now for the F-35B
>35B flight sciences focused on:
>Clearing the F-35B Block 3F flight envelope (i.e., to Mach
1.6, 630 knots, and 7.0 g)
>Significant g exceedances (up to 7.7 g; a 0.7 g exceedance) have
occurred when pilots were attempting to sustain 6.5 g or
greater in this region. Based on flight test data, the F-35B
responses to transonic aerodynamic effects between 0.9M
and 1.05M during rolling or elevated-g maneuvering cause
uncommanded excursions that exceed the designed g limit
as well.
The plane was able to handle 7.7gs but this was an accident since they were trying test the flight controls at 6.5gs
So, non VTOL at 9g and VTOL at 7.5gs
Kiss my ass.
e4f9e5 No.630236
>>630219
>Put some ordnance on that SU-35 wings and it wouldn't fly so well
Air to air ordnance generally doesn't burden the aircraft's performance unless it's a fucking Phoenix or Novator.
e4f9e5 No.630237
89b8eb No.630238
>>630236
Everyone knows weapons rattle a jet apart if the pilot goes too fast, you fucking RIDF shill!
e4f9e5 No.630326
>>630238
>150 kg weapons that fly on on mach 4 are somehow a significant aerodynamic burden
[citation needed]
def16b No.630371
>>630326
>>630238
How in the fug does the F-35 manage to rattle its ordinance to death with its weapons bay closed?
Wouldn't there be greater stress on the hardpoints and such with the bay opened mid flight?
558a1c No.630693
>>630237
First post is from a 2015 report that says, in the title, that it was using a prototype aircraft. I'll take the Y16 report's word about the current g-force specifications over that one.
Second post is just a retard dumping screen-caps of the Y16 report with no direct quote to back up his claim about "the rudder melting".
Control + F brings up nothing about a "rudder" (probably because this report wasn't made by the navy, retard.)
However there were some excerpts about the "tail" of the aircraft:
pg 62. (same page I quoted in my post about the F-35B being capped at 7.5gs)
>Horizontal tail overheating was experienced on BF-3 during loads testing while accelerating to 1.5M for a loads test point. The left horizontal inboard fairing surface reached temperatures that exceeded the design limit by a significant amount. Post-flight inspections revealed de-bonding on the trailing edge of the horizontal tail surface and heat damage was noted on the horizontal tail rear spar.
Well jeeze, the one part of the plane that is behind the engine suffered some heat damage? You don't say?
So how bad was the damage?
>Hardness checks on the rear spar were performed and were determined to be within the acceptable range.
<Oh no the plane is melting, ameridumbs can't into jet planes, rolfmao.
But wait, there's more. What's this next paragraph?
>Failure of the attachment joint, as indicated by the migration of the bushing in the joint, between the vertical tail and the airframe structure, is occurring much earlier than planned, even with a newly designed joint developed to address shortfalls in the original design.
<See, the rudders are coming apart because they melting!
Nope that's the vertical fin. Different part and it has no heat damage.
>-35A full scale durability test article, AJ-1, showed wear in the bushing of this joint after 1,784 test hours, which indicated that the joint will fall short of the 8,000 hours of service life required by the JSF contract specification.
So basically, the joint needs to be re-inforced in order to last longer.
Easy fix. Probably was fixed considering this report was done pre-production
Either way, you're still full of shit. Kiss my ass loser.
d4d336 No.630738
>>630693
>this massive damage isn't a real problem because no planes have crashed yet
>please ignore the dozens of other problems, I'm sure Lockmart traveled back in time to correct them in the production model that entered service a year before the report was published
Begone, shill.
4ce483 No.630787
>>630219
>Put some ordnance on that SU-35 wings and it wouldn't fly so well.
No, but it would still fly better than F-35, fully loaded with more weapons and fuel.
By the way do you know what flutter testing is?
15eb3c No.631920
>>630219
>Even amateurs should be able to look at the video i posted and see it flies fine and is not a turkey. A turkey would be something like the Osprey.
All I see is a tremendous speed loss within less than second of entering a sharp turn/climb along with extremely exaggerated horizontal stabilizer movements just to get the plane to lift its nose by 20°, especially considering how fuckhueg those stabilizers are in relation to the rest of the aircraft.
Canards may have helped there, but those are racist nazi german technology so using some would be an unforgivable disgrace to the 6 billion hollercaust victims.
Meanwhile the Su-35 is floating around leasurely at sub-50km/h demonstrating its completely broken flight model made out of concentrated Russian bias for the world to see.
t. played some WW2 flight sims and once saw an F-16 do much more impressive maneuvers at an airshow
2be383 No.631969
>>631920
>reality has Russian bias
Feels good man.
5c43ce No.632119
>>619572
I don't want to fucking find out what an Iraqi level AD grid manned and operated by Serbs could do to 160 F-16s. Given that the Serbs fucking ignored NATO bombardment until NATO switched to Serbian civilian infrastructure, I'd wager it was completely ineffective.
Alongside precision weaponry and better ID capability than 30 years ago, yeah I'd honestly say that 32 Belgian F-35's would be about as effective as 160 F16s. What with the F16s forced to either fly at 50,000 feet and drop unguided dumb bombs, or come in low and get blasted by SAMs.
260e7e No.632137
>>630787
tbf fully loaded the Flanker-family are among the most sluggish fighters in current service of course that's a problem that can be easily solved by not filling them up to the cockpit when you don't need to ferry them along half Siberia or don't need them on air-policing for a couple of hours in which case you can have them be the most maneuverable fighters in service (in terms of sustained AoA and instantaneous turn rate) at 50% fuel which is pretty much the same volume of internal fuel as the average twin-engined fighter.
260e7e No.632143
>>632119
>I don't want to fucking find out what an Iraqi level AD grid manned and operated by Serbs could do to 160 F-16s.
>second-rate slavshits with less than 1/5th the military gear worth of pre-DesertStorm Saddam magically shoot down the legendary stealth plane with zero-loss record for over a decade because they got very very very VERY lucky
>they can't shoot down any other plane, including those from countries with zero real combat experience
Yeah, I'd call bullshit if I wasn't to be accused for greatest-ally-bias. If I was allowed to make assumptions I'd say Dutch F-16s were hit but not shot down and judging from the sheer volume of F-16 Holland used they probably did not risk sending even slightly damaged planes back to action.
>>631969
>spends billions of rubles aka tens of thousands of dollars in developing the land-based equivalent of F-35
>actually succeed because you don't try to break physics
>deny yourself the most obvious advantage of the platform, logistic supremacy due to actual and functional commonality of a single chassis for all jobs, because you can't afford long-term planning or food
>throw whatever's left of your budget on the development of bleeding-edge meme-planes with dead-end exportation prospects and methanol-spiked potato vodka
You're not exactly wrong but you should probably shut the fuck up too.
c94c08 No.632194
>>632143
>deny yourself the most obvious advantage of the platform, logistic supremacy due to actual and functional commonality of a single chassis for all jobs, because you can't afford long-term planning or food
What are you on about? They have 132 armata slotted on the 2018-2020 procurement, meaning the way procurement works in Russia they will be able to go full serial prod' (hundred + per year) on the next slot in 2020.
What is not slotted are kurganets/boomerang, but the tank/heavy ifv/recovery vehicles are happening.
260e7e No.632198
>>632194
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata#Procurement
>In July 2018, Deputy Prime Minister for Defence and Space Industry Yury Borisov said there is currently no need to mass-produce the Armata when its older predecessors, namely the latest variants of the T-72, remain "effective against American, German and French counterparts”, saying, “Why flood our military with Armatas, the T-72s are in great demand on the market(s).”[78][79] Instead, a modernization program of the T-72s, T-80s and T-90s in-service will take precedent.[80] In August 2018, at the ARMY2018 Forum outside Moscow, the Russian Ministry of Defense signed a contract for the purchase of 32 T-14s tanks and 100 T-15 infantry fighting vehicles, with delivery to be finished by 2021.[81]
70c510 No.632199
>>632194
>132 armata slotted on the 2018-2020 procurement
Eat shit you filthy ukrobot, Mother Russia is gonna get 2300 Armatas before 2020.
c94c08 No.632214
>>632198
>Politician
>Not talking out of his ass.
The fact that they did order a brigade worth of them a month latter after he said that should tell you all you need to know about Borisov.
Russia has 12 defense ministers, 1 actual minister, 2 first deputy ministers, 9 deputy ministers. And you have more for industry, and then you have "deputy prime ministers" which aren't actually part of the defense ministry but part of the prime minister cabinet (which has little sway at large and even less on matters of defense, as the ministry of defense report directly to the president and not the prime minister). Russia has easily a couple of hundred of "ministers".
>>632199
>MSM
>not being completely retarded.
The number 2300 armored vehicles in 5 years sounds about right (it was 180 MBTs and 300 IFVs this year before the end of the year spike in delivery) but no one sane actually though it was going to be the shit whose prototype weren't even done and there was no provision in the 2011-2016 budget for.
Reality just doesn't work that way, I know that being Ukrainian and all you don't have the best grasp on that.
c9d285 No.635748
>>619541
if anything that just says a few things about the eurofighter
overhyped piece of outdated crap
a677be No.640880
>>620910
Makes no sense, Australia is mostly desert in the middle and the people who live there are retarded natives.
777bfb No.640968
>>629314
>it works!
>it doesn't work!
>it works!
It doesn't fucking matters, what matters is that kikes syphooned 6 gorillion dollars from Americans pocked to theirs, for toy that nobody needed
0f2728 No.642333
>>619567
>virgins
>underage
in belgium you need to pick one
ed3de2 No.650629
>>619520
So much for the EU