>Can carry at most 8 hellfires or 1 2000pds bomb>One attack helo can carry up to 16 hellfiresWhy are Airforce generals trying to replace the A-10 with this?
The hordes of shitty soviet tanks are almost gone and air defense is getting cheaper, especially for a plane that was hard countered by 1980s air defenses.
>>64395682>Can carry at most 8 hellfires or 1 2000pds bombthe F-35 is rated for 2600kg of internal bombs and 6800kg of external bombsthe 16 hellfires of the apache has a combined weight of only 800kgthe F-35 carries more ordnance in its internal bomb bay than the apache can carry in its entirety (depending on the source, the apache has a total useable lift of between 2000 and 2500kg)the A-10 can only carry 7000kg of payload, for comparisonthe F-35 still carries more than the A-10 does
>>64395685>shitty soviet tanks are almost goneStill 3000+ shitty chink tanks left tho.
>>64395701Too bad Taiwan is an island
>>64395701They're going to be at the bottom of the strait before anything
>>64395698Remember that for light loads pylon layout matters more. The F-35 can only fit six triple racks while the A-10 could fit eight, and internal bays are limited in what stores they're compatible with.
i don't really understand why they made the F35 so small if they only use weapons stored in the internal baysthat limits the payload so much
>>64395741>and internal bays are limited in what stores they're compatible with.it can carry 4 large or 8 small bombs in its internal bomb baythe A-10 can only carry externally
>>64395800The three C's, ascending importance: cheap, carrier, cute
>>64395800It's not small, its internal capacity is pretty par for the course among stealth jets. The only thing that doesn't fit in there right now is a cruise missile which is why they're developing a new one for that.It's also got optional external pylons for a payload that's as large as for any tactical multirole aircraft out there.
>>64395800>that limits the payload so muchit carries 2x 1000lb bombs and 2x A2A missiles internallymost planes typically only carry a single or a pair of bombs centerline
>>64395824>>64395829compared to the aircraft it's replacing, it's quite limitedwhat's the internal payload again?compare that to what an F16 could carry
>>64395841>compared to the aircraft it's replacing, it's quite limited2x 1000lb bombs internally and 4x additional 1000lb bombs externallythe F-16 typically only carries 4000lbs of bombsthe F-35 has the same bombload as the twin-engined F-15 strike eagle, and it does with stealth
>>64395854also, it can arrange 6x 2000lb bombs at absolute maximum limit, which is triple what the F-16 can carry
>>64395854>>64395857how often does it carry weapons externally?
>>64395860the F-35 can choose internal-only for stealth or internal/external for maximum bombthe F-16 can only carry externally, so it doesnt have a choice at allbut in any case, the internal bombload of the F-35 matches what the F-16 can doits hardly limited even when only using the internal bomb bay
>>64395860In any scenario you'd send an A-10 for CAS, stealth is going to be irrelevant. The A-10 gas being retired because it can't safely operate in a modern high threat environment. MANPADs and SAMs will make short work of an A-10.So any situation where you're sending an A-10 in to do CAS means you're already confident there isn't any risk of SAMs or a very low risk at most. Meaning a F-35, even with a full external loadout, is going to have no problems operating in the same conditions even with reduced stealth.An A-10 is estimated to have an RCS of 20-40m2The F-35 with a full external loadout is estimated to have an RCS of 1-5m2, significantly worse than the RCS with only internal weapons, but still a lot smaller on radar than the A-10 on its best day.
>>64395883>gasIs
>>64395701
>>64395841>>64395860Basically what >>64395883 said.
>>64395682Why is the F-35 carrying Hellfires?>>64395741>and internal bays are limited in what stores they're compatible with.Everything.
>>64395841>compare that to what an F16 could carryThe F-16 isn't going to be carrying a max load of nothing but missiles and bombs as it needs to carry at least two drop tanks for fuel to extend its range to be comparable to the F-35, so you have to think of that too. Furthermore, the F-16 can only carry its load of missiles, bombs, and fuel tanks externally, so, drag from those becomes a HUGE problem. An F-16 carrying a comparable combat load-out to an F-35 will have a MAX speed of mach 1.3 and that's using full after burner eating up its limited fuel like no tomorrow. The F-35 can carry two AIM-9xs on the wings, and a full combat load-out internally, and max out at mach 1.6 all day on min after burner. All the while, the F-35 is invisible to any radar, unlike the F-16 that will be picked up 100nmi out.
>>64395824>The only thing that doesn't fit in there right now is a cruise missileIt has the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) it can carry internally. Which is basically an air launched version of the Naval Strike Missile (NSM).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9Gsh46jnO0
>>64395898The maximum pure magazine depth air to ground attack loadout the F-35 could theoretically do is 32x Small Diameter Bombs, 2x AIM-9Xs and 2x AIM-120-D3sThough technically you could swap those AIM-120s for an additional 8x SDBs if you were 1000% sure you didn't need long range air to air capability during the mission. But realistically I doubt they'd ever do that.Still 32x SDBs is far beyond the A-10s max loadout of SDBs at just 20-24, and the standard max SDB loadout theyve tested on the A-10 is only 16x SDBs.
>>64395898>beast mode>advert is copyright lockheed corporation lol, I can’t believe I live in this timeline
>>64395894>Thirdies talk about how drones with RPG warheads will make warships obsolete despite the fact that ships can take multiple artillery and torpedo strikes, and then the MIC comes out with a literal death ray that instantly erases ships from existence
>>64395950>It has the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) it can carry internally.USAF doesn't have any at the moment.The first delivery is expected in mid 2026
>>64395975>the fact that ships can take multiple artillery and torpedo strikesMost modern ships can't take a modern torpedo strike. Only the largest ships like the Wasp-class, America-class, Nimitz-class or Gerald R. Ford-class ships would be able to tank 1 or 2 torpedos, and even then they'd likely be mostly combat ineffective if not entirely combat ineffective.Basically any standard surface combatant (frigate, destroyer, cruiser) is going to be crippled or sunk from a single modern heavy weight torpedo.Similar for the "quicksink" 2000lbs JDAM, it only takes 1 to take out a modern warship excepting the earlier aircraft carriers which would survive simply by virtue of the internal volume of ships of that size allowing more compartmentalization and greater damage control efforts.
>>64396014>Most modern ships can't take a modern torpedo strikethey can via active measures like damage control and anti-flooding
>>64396018Lol no the fuck they can't.A modern heavy weight torpedo detonates below the keel and will basically rip the bottom of the boat open and potentially even crack the hull in half entirely. It's a mission kill like 99% of the time. Only chance you survive is if you're on a larger ship (amphibious assault or aircraft carrier). Any surface combatant (frigate, destroyer, cruiser) is fucked 99 times out of 100.
>>64396031>Lol no the fuck they can'tthey can actually>A modern heavy weight torpedo detonates below the keel keel breaking is a mythtorpedo damages ships via making a hole, and it can be mitigated with damage control
>>64396033Oh you're that schizoLolLmao even
>>64395900I wish that they could fucking get the Meteor F-35 integrated.
>>64396056Testing is ongoing, if you hadn't seen the integration timeline was extended (again), from 2027 to now 2030.
>>64395974I prefer the original 'Third Day of War Configuration' but it seems like the zoomer marketing team stuck with Beast Mode lol
>>64395685What about the hordes of shitty chinese tanks?
>>64396062The fact that it's taking so long makes me want to ascribe malice to someone involved in the process.
>>64396082Speculation I've seen is AIM-260 testing is taking priority since it's being done by the F-35 JPO which is a US based group that focuses on the US's needs first.
>>64396033>keel breaking is a mythWhat's your explanation for the various SINKEX videos showing keel breaking from torpedos and quicksink JDAMs?
>>64396093What's the deal with AIM-260? wasn't that shit also supposed to be in service a few years ago?
>>64396134Publicly it was delayed due to integration challenges.Some people speculate it's currently in a period of "silent/black IOC", so officially it hasn't entered service or achieved initial operating capability (IOC), but unofficially there are probably a few dozen AIM-260s deployed with the F-22 squadron in Kadena (Japan).
>>64396157I would further speculate that there would be some at Lakenheath, in the UK.
>>64396056They did.
>>64396109Do you have a video of these weapons actually breaking a ship’s keel? This video >>64395894 shows a modern flat hulled commercial ship which literally doesn’t have a keel. And if this weapon is supposed to be used against military targets then it should be tested against something with at least some deck armor and a hull that isn’t comparatively made out of paper. You may as well display the effect of antitank weaponry by blowing up an old sedan.
>>64396191Lewd.
>>64395977You said FIT, and the JSM fits.
The fail-35 has two objectives:1. Destroy the European combat jet industry (by being cheaper than rafales or whatever)2. Bomb gazan civilians with impunity. (Not anyone who has modern AD though)It is successful in mission 1 and mostly successful in mission 2
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/f-35-failure/
>>64396213>t.Get a fucking life. Holy shit. You're literally here 24/7 seething, vomiting your verbal diarrhea because you have nobody IRL that will interact with your loser ass.
So, in addition to being a military disaster, the F-35 many also prove to be a foreign relations disaster as well. F-35 boosters in the United States sold the jet to the leaders of these countries with elaborate pitches of the combat capabilities they planned to deliver. There were also promises made early in the process about the program’s affordability, which seem comical today. The next time an American attempts to sell a “transformative” weapon abroad, they shouldn’t be terribly surprised if a potential customer expresses skepticism. F-35 customers have paid a fortune above the quoted price, receiving only a fraction of what was promised. The United States may find a shrinking market for weapons exports in the years ahead.
>>64396134Procurement in the hundreds has started since 2024. The USAF and USN requested another $350m each for JATMs in 2026.
>>64396230>Initial funding for the group, launched in November 2019,[4] included half a million dollars each from George Soros' Open Society Foundations and Charles Koch's Koch Foundation.[5][6][7] Substantial funding has also come from the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Schumann Center for Media and Democracy.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quincy_Institute_for_Responsible_StatecraftGo back to leftypol
>>64396191Dummy munition for integration testing.>>64396197FFG-61 was sunk by keel breaking in 2021, though like most SINKEX exercises they first fired a JSOW, two NSMs, and maybe a Harpoon at it before using a mk48 ADCAP torpedo to break the keel and sink it.The torpedo alone would've been sufficient, but when you've got a warship to dispose of you want to get as much testing data as you can so they used it for testing of other weapons before sinking it with the torpedo.
>>64396248Spamming the same script you're using in the KF-21 thread, are we, loser?>>64393248
>>64395701I honest to god wouldn't worry about it.
>>64396191Ok, why in the actual fuck is the internal bay filled with hydraulic lines and cables?Does it double as a maintenance hatch?
>>64396318Why wouldn’t it be?
>>64395707They are meant to counter India, anon. Maybe Vietnam.
>>64396067Please show me where they're gonna travel by land to pose a problem
>>64396260Procurement numbers are classified, we just know dollar values, and the $ could be for further R&D and or testing, not pure missile procurement.
>>64396330how are these tanks ever going to be useful in the himalayas?
>>64396197>deck armorYour brain is irrecoverably browned. Quicksink isn't built to touch the ship, not that a century-obsolete concept like deck armor would matter to an air-dropped bomb anyway. It hits beside it and detonates underneath like a torpedo. Watch the video if you can't understand the English explanations.
1. Does A-10 even carry Hellfires?2. I'm sure you can load more if you wanted to.3. Are DCS tier heavy loadouts ever used? I've never seen a real fully loaded A-10.4. Drones can do it better.>>64396318Yes. F-35 has the maintenance design goal of having to take off minimum things to reach any particular component.
West taiwan will forever seethe over the F-35.Then agian west taiwan is trying to boast about their 4th gen maybe + gen aircraft.
f35 is for countering the any air power and AA, not to be a bomb-truck.If an f35 is your main hellfire delivery method you're doing something wrong.
>>64396460The F-35A is replacing the A-10 for CAS missions.Not sure how else you need it explained to you.
>>64396330>Maybe Vietnam.The chinks are gonna be raped so hard for the third time
>>64396475>F-35A is replacing the A-10Sounds retarded. But it was retarded to use the A-10 as a bonb truck, too.
the a10 sucks ass and you only like it because of the minigun
>>64396535real and trueshit only lucked out we went for 2 decades of playing around in a sandbox instead of trying to evade S-300s
>>64396290What's a KF-21? Who is "we" loser?
>>64395841>compared to the aircraft it's replacing, it's quite limitedNon-stealth aircraft have to do a weird jousting match in BVR where they fire missiles at each other knowing they have a low probability to kill just to force the enemy into defensive.You have to carry a large number of missiles because you know you'll have to fire a few before you're in optimal high Pk range.With stealth aircraft combat gets deadlier because the range at which they can get a lock on each other is within optimal engagement range and close to no-escape-zone. You don't need to carry as many missiles if you score a kill with the first one.
>>64395682Well the A-10 still doesn't have a radar while the F-35 has both a modern AESA set and EODAS giving it the best IRST in the skies.
The A-10 airframes are falling apart and cannot be replaced with new A-10 airframes.
>>64396483>Sounds retardedthe F-35 carries small-diameter bombs for CAS, which are as, if not more, precise than the A-10s cannonand the F-35 has a cannon or cannon pod, so it can still buzz targets anyways> But it was retarded to use the A-10 as a bonb truck, too.the A-10 got more kills with its maverick missiles than with its cannonand CAS can be performed with bombs, the B1 lancer ended up being the king of CAS entirely using bombs
>>64398346To be fair, it's like 180-220 rounds of 25mm for ~1300-1400 rounds of 30mm.Not exactly identical cannon capabilities.
>>64398370>Not exactly identical cannon capabilities.its just for hitting targets of opportunity when a bomb isnt needed but the SDBs are doing most of the work and they are much better at it than the 30mm cannon
why can't i put external bombs on my F35s in broken arrow?
>>64398382oh I 100% agree, i'm this anon >>64395883Just saying, while the F-35 has a cannon, it has so little ammo that it might as well be treated as an incidental, not a primary weapon. It's really only there in the event you run out of missiles/bombs and need SOMETHING to fire on target. Whereas the 30mm cannon on the A-10 is a primary (or at worst secondary) weapon that was expected to be used somewhat regularly.The F-35 will likely rarely if ever fire its 25mm gun in anger.
>>64395682Drones can do the job of close air support via someone on the ground controlling the drone via touchscreen tablet.For high speed, high altitude, A-10 are sitting ducks to jets.
>>64395900>Everything.Except for anything that needs to use its own sensors to acquire the target before release, or anything that comes off the rack hot.>inb4 that's obsoleteIt's cheap.
Why has nobody bothered trying to make the interior of weapon bays stealthy? Instead, it's all just exposed wires and pipes and stuff
>>64398712Concave surfaces aren't stealthy. If anything, the exposed wires inside are better than a smooth bay.
>>64395682it can carry 8 SDBs internally or 24 on all weapon stations, in either configuration it will be more survivable and have better SA than the A-10
>>64398764I think it could carry another 8 internally if you removed the two AIM-120's that occupy the other 2 stations, but realistically, you'd probably keep those just in case. The extra 8 SDBs aren't worth the trade-off.
>>64396438Hey man, j20 is a cool plane.The shame on the chinese is we made the F15-for-the-MiG25 counterpart for the j20 15 years before it ever flew as a test aircraft.
>>64396239obsessed
>>64399002>j20 15 years before it ever fleware you talking about the yf22/yf23?
>>64395800>if they only use weapons stored in the internal baysBut that isn't the case
>>64395841>what's the internal payload again?>compare that to what an F16 could carryConsidering the F-16 can carry zero pounds internally, I say the F-35 wins.
>>64396248Holy shit it's the thirdie retard "french" "european" from the KF-21 thread
>>64395682Because the A-10 was obsolete since the 80s and having an aircraft that can do a bunch of things really well is better than having one aircraft that can do one thing a bit better while being a complete liability otherwise
>>64395682>first they marketed it as a bomber>when this failed they marketed it as the next f15>when also this failed they marketed it as the next f16>when also this failed it became multirole>now its a cas capable
>>64399685please link one example each, serious sources onlyfrom the beginning it was supposed to be a F-16 replacement with greater capabilities especially in OCA, SEAD and deep strike missions, the rest sounds like TNI type journalist delusions
>bad faith thirdie seethe thread
>>64397220Stop trying to pretend to be innocent.Only one nigger on this board references responsiblestatecraft.
>>64399685>F-16>Not multirole as fuck in its actually useful and popular contemporary form
>>64399894not him but i assume that he actually meant that the f35 is total shit in comao i remember back in 2017 and 2019 when the greeks hosted their annual iniohos exercise im not sure if they were meant to disclose this or not but on a military show the commander of the base was debriefing the cos of the countries involved and he basicly said that the f35 cannot replace the f16 at comao because it requires 30% more force as a showdown in order for it to be allowed to conduct strikes
>>64396330Who cares about either?
>>64400164Vietnam is a nascent regional power who doesn't suffer from the chronic street shitting and incompetence of the jeets. They've been growing at 7% a year for the past decade and have only accelerated this year due to tariffs, if Vietnam is against the chinks then the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
>>64400181The Soviets and India show that being too enthusiastic with that idea is a recipe for trouble later.
>>64400187I mean, what are we going to do about it than take the diplomatic route? The whole Vietnam war showed that.
>>64399685You absolute fucking retard>when this failed they marketed it as the next f15This never happened because the USAF uses a High/Low mix of expensive twin engine air superiority fighters and cheaper single engine multiroles. The F-22 was marketed as the next F-15, but orders were cut.The single engine multirole was NEVER advertised as a F-15 replacement.The actual history of the F-35 is that it was the Harrier replacement, and the USAF agreed to buy a variant with the STOVL feature removed.>when also this failed they marketed it as the next f16>when also this failed it became multiroleThe F-16 is the main multirole in USAF service.>now its a cas capableNearly every fucking airframe is CAS capable, even B-52s and B-1s have provided CAS in battle.
>>64395682>4chuds don't know F35 and F15EX are datingIt's funny watching you armchair warlords bicker over things you couldn't possibly understand, no wonder everyone in the government hates you kek
>>64395682>f35>hellfire?
>>64401612>F15EXMore like F-15SEX, amiright?
>>64401716The 5 is leetspeek for S.
>>64399685t. mentally broken spreytard
>>64404444quads of truth
>>64400117>because it requires 30% more force as a showdown in order for it to be allowed to conduct strikesHow so, exactly?
>>64399685>first they marketed it as a bomberNo it wasn't. Joint Strike Fighter says it all. Joint as in a joint venture between multiple services (Marines, Air Force, and Navy) designing and building a strike fighter, as in a bomber that can fight, too, AKA a multirole platform.>when this failed they marketed it as the next f15It was never marketed as the next F-15. That would be the F-22. Which is why the F-22 size was constrained to fit into the Hardened Aircraft Shelters (HAS) already built and designed to fit an F-15 sized fighter.>when also this failed they marketed it as the next f16It was always designed to replace the F-16 for the Air Force, the F-18 Hornet for the US Navy, and the Harrier for the US Marines and Royal Air Force.>when also this failed it became multirole>when also thisNice Engrish. Furthermore, it was designed and marketed as a strike fighter (multirole) since the conception of the JSF program.>now its a cas capableAlways was. Just like B-1b and B-52 bombers performed CAS roles in Iraq and Afghanistan. As did the F-16, F-15, and F/A-18 Super Hornet. Extremely accurate GPS guided bombs have made any platform able to carry them, CAS capable. Along with laser and optical guided bombs when weather conditions permit. Not the F-35's problem that you're an ignorant retard.
>>64395682they try to replace to the old ones like how microsoft replacing win 10 with win11 even tho older ones perform better
>>64395682Hellfires have never been rated for fast-movers. JAGM *is*, but costs ~$300k.In practice, Stormbreaker is probably more likely to be used against armored targets; it's actually cheaper than JAGM, has a much longer range, and has a warhead that weighs as much as the entire JAGM missile. The only downside is that it's slower, and the F-35 can only carry 8 internally (plus 16 externally).Against enemy infantry, APKWS can be carried externally and used even in Danger Close missions (and is superior to gun runs in most, but not quite all, respects), and SDB1/JDAM are also available--and it's time to bring back the CBUs!
