>>65508763
>"the F-35 is finished!!!!!1"
>it's a literal who euro sloptuber
every time

The F-35 has been wildly successful with over a thousand airframes built thus far and, unlike the Gripen, the thing is actually combat proven.

Buy an ad faggot

>>65508774
>build over a thousand airframes
>the first ~150 straight up don't work
>pay for them anyway
>China cuts magnet material exports
>manufacturing slows to a crawl
>prioritize making parts for new build airframes so you can pad out the number of airframes built
>the existing fleet shits itself, readiness rate goes down below 30%
>ship all the spare parts to Israel, everyone else has to beg for scraps
>pick a fight with Yemen to show off your wonderplane
>lose
>pretend it doesn't count, pick a fight with Iran
>lose even harder
Wildly successful indeed.

>>65508791
The F-35 squadrons dismantled Iran's air defence network to the point that all they have left is random retards with Chinese Stingers trying to hit anything that flies too low.

>>65508805
First, that's not actually true and second how exactly does that push tankers through the strait?
Where's the regime change? Where's the oil? Why won't they stop shooting the ships?

>>65508805
Another wild success for the USAF. America's strategic aims have been met by procuring 11847937 F35s strike fighters to the total exclusion of any other fixed or rotary wing combat aircraft that might actually have been useful for the hard part of war that comes after you zoomed around in the straosphere and plinked obsolete Russian and Chinese air defence systems.

>>65508808
>not even 10 posts in and mask already off to reveal the same butthurt shitskin shill
lol. F-35s escorted b-2s deep inside iran and they dropped the mop right on top of the mountain. Where's air defence? Why did the only Iran "victory" against the F-35 involved IR seeker and not radar? Couldn't even down the fatass, lmao.

>>65508810
Again, that accomplished exactly nothing.
>where's the air defence
Judging by the undeniable fact that there are no F16s dropping JDAMs on Teheran, the air defence is mostly where it's supposed to be.
Sneaking in a stealth jet is possible to a certain extent when the air defence system is still active or somewhat degraded. A sign of a nonfunctional AD system is a non stealth jet flying over and dropping bombs at leisure. Which is not done because it is not possible because you can't actually defeat the air defence system. Because the F35 doesn't work often enough to do the job. It was useful for a few weeks when the whole thing started and when it had local air bases to fly out of. Then the parts ran out and the base got rocketed to shit.
Now you sit, cuck, cope and seethe because there's nothing you can do but pay the toll.

>F-35, B2, B1, F-15, F-18 was bombing iran cucks
>fucking b-52 was dumping jdam
>but because there's no f-16, therefor iran air defense is still actually exist (in theory)
lol
>pay the toll
Iran sure is paying the toll
>Iran managed to load around 260,000 barrels per day (bpd) for export at its ports in August, an 80% slump compared to 1.7 million bpd loaded in August 2025, per data from trade intelligence firm Kpler cited by CNBC

>>65508821
I'll settle for an F15 or F18 doing the bombing. but there isn't any. The best they can do is throw a JDAM-ER from a distance which, again, is not a destroyed air defence system, it is in fact roughly what the Russians are doing in Ukraine.

>>65508825
The US flew C-130s deep into fucking Iran to look for 2 airmen when Iran finally managed to get lucky. You're welcome to cope, seethe, and dilate about how the US flying fucking cargo planes into Iranian airspace means that their ADN is totally still working.

>>65508815
It accomplishing nothing strategically or politically has little to do with the actual effectiveness of the airframe.

>>65508763
>vatnigger expat living in the UK, shilling his garbage chatbot

>>65508810
>F-35s escorted b-2s deep inside iran and they dropped the mop
That was F22s you inbred retard.

>>65508862
https://theaviationist.com/2025/11/25/f-35-sead-op-midnight-hammer/
>The U.S. Air Force disclosed for the first time that the F-35s were tasked with the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses, and were the first in and last out of Iran during the strike mission.

>In June, the 34th FS was tasked with the escort of a strike package, “kicking down the door” and paving the way for B-2 Spirit stealth bombers. That package was the one involved in Operation Midnight Hammer, which struck underground nuclear sites at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan deep into Iran’s contested airspace.

>With one of the primary missions sets of the 388th FW’s F-35s being the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), on June 22, a formation of the unit’s F-35s was the first to penetrate Iranian airspace. The Lightnings used their stealth, radar, sensors and targeting systems to detect and destroy surface-to-air threats.

>“Our weapons officer was the overall mission commander,” Osborne said. “We flew hundreds of miles into Iran, escorting the B-2s the entire way.”

>“We employed weapons to great effect against surface-to-air missile sites… while they were trying to target us with some very high high-end systems and they were just unable to,” said Osborne. “It was cool to see the jet detect and defeat things – to watch it do exactly what it was designed to do.”

>>65508807
Zigger phenotype

>>65508868
The actual escorts were F-22s. The F35s were there to wild weasel, which they didn't do any of. You are reading a propaganda article literally written to play up F-35 as much as possible, and even then they have to admit that the F-22s were there to actually keep them safe and that the B-2s dropped all the ordnance.

And back to the main point, now that all the Iranian air defence, F-35 has fuck all utility to actually achieve any attractive strategic ends, and the program has starved every other type of airframe that might now be more useful (intimate CAS, RW attack etc) of even a single dollar of R&D or procurement funds for 30 fucking years, so there are no other cards in the deck.

>zigger youtube video ok
>actual words from airmen not ok
Fun how the main shilling against f-35 is always "please stop building more f-35"

>>65508831
>deep into Iran
literally just fucked around on the northwestern outskirts
The ones that actually flew deep into Iran are now wrecks you can see with 30 seconds of google search.
And I will now return to my original point, how many bombs exactly did those C130s drop on Teheran?

>>65508763
Stop posting jeet-tier slop garbage, you absolute nigger. Nobody gains anything from it.

t. An actual Gripen crew chief

>>65508939
Your plane sucks.

>>65508941
Its perfect for Sweden, it would be shit for most other nations. There is no such thing as best plane/tank/ship etc, it all depends on operational requiments, doctrine, geography etc.

>>65508949
I think it's exactly like the MiG29 - works always, wins never. Which is the exact opposite of the F35, which is good on the rare occasion when it works.
It's perfect for Sweden in that it is produced domestically and functions in shitty conditions such as all of your air bases being bombed out husks, but it's also inadequate for war because it's a small plane with a small radar, small missiles and humble flight range that gets outclassed by everything.

Someone please explain to me why gripen shilling always sounds like turdie rambling about the downfall of the US, no other piece of western military tech has this utterly bizarre tendency in their discussions and it makes no fucking sense to me

>>65508965
It doesn't. You're just a projecting retard.

>>65508959
Its designed to figth against Russia, and only Russia, since that is the only threat Sweden has. And trust me it would shit all over them. Meteor missiles are still top of the line, and the new radar and EW is pretty damn good. Sure, it lacks in A2G, that is a downside, but range isnt really a huge issue if you look at a map of the baltic ocean.

>>65508966
>he said while posting in a thread that is exactly that

File: Gripen-chan.jpg (1.88 MB, 5020x2810)

1.88 MB JPG

>>65508965
It's an intersection of several different factions.
>Anti-West lefties and thirdies who just hate America out of principle
>Russian propagandists because the Kremlin is rightly terrified of its foes having more stealth aircraft than the RuAF has planes in general
>Literal shills from Saab trying to sell the damn Gripen to somebody that isn't Brazil
>Brazilians trying to justify their purchase
Now, I actually am quite fond of the Gripen, I think it's a lovely little aircraft and quite a capable one. But it's not fucking stealth, and that is something that is extremely necessary in the modern air combat environment. Plus, it's just as expensive per-unit as the F-35.

The F35 was a maintenance hog to begin with and then shit happened on top of that.
In any shit hits the fan kind of situation, the F15 and F18 will be carrying all of NATO on their backs.
The rest are either shitty (F16/various Eurojets) or can't be relied on to function (F22, F35)
Make of that what you will, but that's how it is.

>>65508968
>Grippen
>against MiG31 and Su35 with double the radar size and R37 missiles
No.

>>65508966
That has been the case for a literal decade you shitskinned faggot, from here to the most normie infested shitholes the Gripen gets touted as some magical F-35 killer like Saab is paying per post

>>65508977
Nonsense, that's strictly a delusion you've cooked up in your tiny little mind.
People like the Grippen because it's an outlier in a field that looks increasingly the same. It's a cute little plane that works, has some neat features and comes out of a tiny little country that nobody would expect could make a complete fighter jet. Even if with a licensed engine, which is the most important part.
Everything else you made up.

>>65508973
>against MiG31 and Su35 with double the radar size and R37 missiles.

Oh yeah, I forgot that the Russian Air Force has total control over all of Ukraine and flies regular CAS missions in Lviv. Oh wait. No, they dont. By your logic all soldiers should have sniper rifles too, since range is the only thing that matters and everything is a 1v1 in a vaccum. That said, I wouldnt be suprised if the new Gripen radar and missiles still outclasses Russia, since their domestic electronics are behind western ones.

>>65508981
did you intentionally try to sound like an effete queer when you wrote this or does it just come naturally

>>65508981
>Nonsense
Do you want me to post archive links? Hand and outlet.

>>65508984
You don't have the slightest clue as to how this works and I'm not going to explain the relationship between missiles, networking, ground radar and airplanes to you.
In short, the things that matter are that the plane works, that it flies high, that it has a big radar and that it shoots big missiles with stealth coming in as the recent addition.
The Grippen's big advantage is that it works, I will single out the Meteor missiles for being modern and potentially adequate and it loses in all other accounts.

>>65508987
You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.

>>65508989
Very well, if you can provide evidence I will concede that deranged negroes have been posting insane nonsense.

>>65508993
>You don't have the slightest clue as to how this works and I'm not going to explain the relationship between missiles, networking, ground radar and airplanes to you.
You dont seem to realize that Russian networking is dogshit (as proven in Ukraine) Russian gound Radars are decent (but cant see to Sweden since radar horizon is a thing), Russian AWACS is basically non-existant (as proven in Ukraine) and Russian sortie rates are abysmal (as proven in Ukraine). Sweden would fight a defensive war and have the home advantage. Sweden doesnt intend to invade east Siberia.

>>65508977
He's a zigger >>65508973, which basically proves the Gripen has a weird anti-west following

>>65509004
>Russian networking is dogshit (as proven in Ukraine)
>Russian gound Radars are decent
>Russian AWACS is basically non-existant (as proven in Ukraine
Surely, you have comprehensive evidence of this and are not just talking out of your ass by extrapolating out of a small handful of isolated incidents.
Russian Su34s drop hundreds of glide bombs every week for something like 2-3 years straight, so the sortie rate thing is obviously wrong. I don't have anything specific on networking off the top of my head, but I remember there was a week when Ukraine lost several planes and the Russians said it's because they pushed a networking software patch.

>(but cant see to Sweden since radar horizon is a thing)
This will not be much of a factor if Ukraine receives the Grippen jets it is supposed to be getting this or next year.

>>65509018
>Russia has abysmal airforce performance
>PROOOOOOFS?
Why are they like this

>>65508965
So you have things like
>aggressive SAAB marketing from a while back, with SAABdefense being a prominent example that still active today
>rising EUcentric sentiment, at least from the OrangeManBad(tm) crowd
>the BRICS crowd being utterly terrified of the F35 and wanting its widespread implementation hamstrung in any way possible
>plain old contrarianism
at play simultaneously which makes for an interesting cocktail of Grip dickriding that's been gripping military aviation discussion for quite a while now

>>65508981
fascinating how you made a post solely about a fighter jet sound like child molester gas lighting, well done.

>>65508808
>immediate switch to muh strait shill talking point
Thirdies hitting all the high notes in this thread.

>>65508809
Amazing to think ziggers once boasted about how their AA networks would render stealth obsolete, now the cope is that you're a mug if you waste a bomb on them.

>>65509022
So you have nothing then?

>>65509069
The strait is the only thing that matters you retard. Of course it gets brought up constantly.

>>65508763
You're like 20 years late with that video.

>>65509074
I'm not a zigger you strawmanning little faggot. SEAD/DEAD is not an end unto itself, it's supposed to enable you to do whatever it is that your nation wants to do. The problem is that F35 took all the money for every other combat aviation program for more than 30 years, so there are no other tools in the drawer to go and get grubby after the DEADing is done. Just a gorillion fast jets and a fuck you to anyone who wants to Get Shit Done, just like the USAF always wanted. Just strikes and a vague hope that the enemy might decide to give up one day.

>>65509112
boy you sure do argue like a zigger

>the f-35 is actually bad, also Western fighter jump procurement is permanently ruined, also SUs and MIGs would totally mog the Gripen also Russian AWACS is just fine
>no I'm not a zigger, why are you even saying that

>>65509127
I sure don't. I'm just tired of historically and tactically illiterate F35 fangays trying to tell me that this time divesting everything but fast jets was the right choice and starving every other aircraft concept of all R&D and procurement funds for three decades was a necessary and really good idea, pinky promise. F35 is a great strike fighter, but doing absolutely no serious development of things like actual FAC, CAS, RW attack aviation etc aircraft since, like, 1970 has left the US military with obsolescent fleets for every function other than those directly related to air dominance and strike. And the effect of that is that it doesn't have the tools to achieve strategic ends in this year, right now, today.

>>65509156
>the f-35 is actually bad,
Didn't say that. Don't believe it.
>also Western fighter jump procurement is permanently ruined
Didn't say that. Don't believe it.
>also SUs and MIGs would totally mog the Gripen
Didn't say that. It's not something I've ever thought about because Gripen consumes literally 0% of my thoughts.
>also Russian AWACS is just fine
Didn't say that. Don't believe it.
>no I'm not a zigger, why are you even saying that
Yeah, I'm not. But you and your ilk are monumental faggots who are literally incapable of understanding the reasons why pouring all (that is to say, a huge supermajority) of your research procurement funds into a single type leaves you with capability gaps no matter how much fighter jocks with stars shill the type as being able to do everything super duper well.

>>65509197
Yes anon, now tell us about this perfect CAS aircraft they didn't build. Tell us how an F-35A or F-15EX with a TGP sitting a safe distance from manpads and delivering precision munitions where they're needed isn't a suitable solution for CAS.
Share your fucking wisdom, don't just say 'nah you didn't think about X faggot' and pretend you won an argument instead of shitting on the board and walking off.

>>65508934
>The ones that actually flew deep into Iran are now wrecks you can see with 30 seconds of google search.
You forgot to mention that they're wrecks because they were blown up by the US because it was easier than dragging them out of the sand.

>>65509224
>Yes anon, now tell us about this perfect CAS aircraft they didn't build.
How would I know what a type of aircraft that the Air Force froze all funding to research and develop in 1977 would look like? For all I know it's green and finds parking spots with an antenna. No one knows what it would look like because no one has spent so much as a wooden nickle on researching anything to do with it in literally fifty fucking years.
>Tell us how an F-35A or F-15EX with a TGP sitting a safe distance from manpads and delivering precision munitions where they're needed isn't a suitable solution for CAS.
Can't suppress anything. Can't deny manouevre. Latency between a ground call for fire and munition impact is enormous compared to a lower flying dedicated CAS airframe. Can't loiter for as long. Weapon performance much more sensitive to countermeasures and a degraded electronic environment than a closer aircraft. Perversely, requires much more SEAD to operate since it can't safely operate low or slow enough to terrain mask from theatre SAMs. We are expected to believe that pilots and mission planners will master and maintain currency on mission sets and tactics that go all the way from DCA, OCA and strike to ground tactics and CAS, FAC and CSAR coordination (protip: they won't do the second group at all because they institutionally don't care about it).
>Share your fucking wisdom, don't just say 'nah you didn't think about X faggot' and pretend you won an argument instead of shitting on the board and walking off.
kys

>>65508825
>bombing
Bomb what? IRGC has gone into hiding and behaving more like a terror cells than an actual military at this point. Just look at them constantly threatening to strike civilian ships in the strait.

>>65508791
>readiness rate
Lol.
Lmao.

>>65509380
It sounds like what you want is either an AC-130 or a few attack helicopters, which I'm sure is itself evidence of a moral failing in the USAF. Fixed-wing hasn't ever been any good at suppression in that sense to begin with, with the exception of the aforementioned gunship family. Ironically enough, well timed PGMs from a safe distance are probably better at that than trying to get in close and I'm assuming make repeated gun runs, with much less risk to the delivering aircraft, greater likelihood of actually hitting what you want to and less risk of hitting people you're trying to help. Any survivability concern for rotary-wing on the modern battlefield would also go for this low and slow loitering plane of yours too.
I'm also fairly unsure of the claim that in airspace contested enough by a capable enough foe what you'd want is to be closer to them, terrain masked from other threats or not, or that you would really want to build a plane on the assumption you'll always be able to find a sufficiently terrain masked ingress and orbit in this situation, but that's a bigger conversation. If they're capable of putting up an IADS worth being worried around why the fuck would I want to plan for them being incapable of putting together decent SHORAD near the front?
I've seen you post often enough that I think you've severely conflated a philosophical and doctrinal bone to pick with the USAF and really, the Pentagon more broadly with discussion around this specific topic. Like at one point here while ostensibly talking about the plane you're actually complaining about training priorities. The rational thing to say there is that there should be specialised units with greater priority in certain areas, not that you should buy an entirely different airframe to force people to give up the primary advantage of multiroles.
>kys
I always love a tsundere.

>>65508891
>They weren't protecting the B-2s, they were just tasked with the primary method military operations use to defend against AA threats!
>They were completely useless because Iran doesn't have any air defense network left!
>And the USA is afraid to run air operations over Iran because of Iran's powerful and widespread air defense network!

>>65508981
>comes out of a tiny little country that nobody would expect could make a complete fighter jet.
How fucking ignorant are you?

>>65508791
>a wild Spreytard appeared!

God, imagine being the shill who got stuck trying to denigrate the F-35. I'd rather be the one assigned to posting contextless videos of slavs getting arrested and calling it "bussing conscripts"

>buying a Gripen in the year 2026

If Euros must have a non american fighter the GCAP is the onky real option.

>>65508763
buy an ad

File: 5825976-scaled.jpg (510 KB, 2048x1152)

510 KB JPG

>>65508965
>no other piece of western military tech has this utterly bizarre tendency in their discussions and it makes no fucking sense to me
It's the F-35 being available to so many countries. They chose the Gripen because it's not American or stealth.

>>65509755
he's Russian, cut him some slack

>>65508949
This.

It's great for countries neighboring, or within cruise missile range of russia. But would be a terrible choice for countries like the US, France, UK, Canada, Spain and Germany.

As a Norwegian, I would like my country to have both the F-35 and the Gripen, maybe if we had a joint air force with Denmark and Sweden, it would be possible.

The main advantage of the Gripen compared to the F-35 would be operational endurance and sortie rate. The F-35 is better in every way when airborne, but it's easier to keep the Gripen airborne when the conflicts goes on. And a Gripen in the air beats an F-35 on the ground. But it's really only relevant for a few countries, like the ones with some sort of conscription, close to russia.

Another great thing about the Gripen, is it kept some of the Swedish defence industry alive, so they can actually keep making new stuff, due to not dying out in the nineties.

Love the Gripen, but the F-35 is still the right choice for most of NATO. Just wish we had more of the attitude of "why not both?"

>>65508899
It’s pretty much a given that something is actually really good when they start counter shilling something.
When they don’t ever counter shill? It probably sucks or at least doesn’t give much of an advantage, like with the SIG SPEAR XM7(tm)

>>65508891
So you're saying that F-22s were used for air-to-air, and the F-35s were used for air-to-ground?

Shocking.

>>65508763
if the f35 could be produced faster the gripens only sale would be to brazil

>>65508965
It is in Russia's and China's best interests that the most advanced and mass-produced stealth fighter in Earth not be any more widespread than it already is. Of course they'll push for a unstealthy 4.5 to be adopted by their foes.

>>65508791
implessive

>>65508949
Whoa buddy, you are NOT allowed to post this kind of reasoned take here! Everything is either the best at everything or worthless!!!

>>65509785
A balanced and logical post!? GTFOWTS!!!

>>65508971
I've written about this before, it's actually remarkable how many people have motivations to shill against the F-35
>adversary governments trying to downplay America's military capability
>Also adversaries trying to convince US allies not to upgrade their capabilities by buying F-35s
>rival aircraft manufacturers
>Domestic politicians trying to make [current administration] look bad
>Domestic politicians shilling for rival defense companies within their districts
>Domestic and foreign media farming clicks for profit
>Anons just farming (you)s
>Military brass who want funding redirected to their pet projects
>Just good ol' thirdie cope
>Trump trying to strongarm a contract renegotiation
And numerous more that I'm probably not thinking of right now

Meanwhile there are very few people with a vested interest in actually saying it's good. Even the USAF and USN generally play pretty coy about their own assets and capabilities, with a general "let them underestimate us if they want to" attitude.

File: No ziggers allowed.jpg (132 KB, 1158x1159)

132 KB JPG

>>65510055
>people only like our competition because the ziggers and chinks HATE our superiority and are trying to get everyone to buy an inferior product, please ignore that the ziggers suffered a gigantic meltdown when Ukrainians got a handful of our competitor's older planes
Weirdest locksmart cope I've seen thus far.
pic unrelated

>>65510090
...why would Russia be happy Ukraine got supplied with any western fighters period? what?

>>65508791
>have to dilate daily
>gash still smells like rotten flash
>men still find you repulsive
>disowned by family and friends
>your discord keeps getting smaller and smaller as more troons hang themselves
you're still not a woman

Just another day of browns getting upset about being brown. Check back tomorrow for more of the same.

F-35 program was humming along successfully for quite some time. Not its the wrong airframe for the pacific. All the upgrade programs have crawled to a halt, And the readiness levels collapsed.

Not good

>>65509785
Unexpectedly reasonable post. Gripen's a plane built around Sweden's unique strategic and doctrinal needs, and for that it's excellent.
It's just that if you don't have those specific needs, then you're making a lot of tradeoffs in pursuing a a nice 4.5th gen over a 5th gen of similar size.
>>65510084
To highlight the
>US allies upgrading capability
part I love pointing out that by current deliveries, Australia currently has the third largest stealth fleet on the planet. Goes up to second if you accept the suggestion that the J-20 should be considered more in line with eurocanards and F-15EXs than Lockmart's babies, though personally I'm inclined to want to assume the worst for planning.
Even with overruns and delays it's given them that capability, enhanced interoperability with South Korea, Japan and NATO, and the freedom to use their own domestic R&D resources to pursue their own loyal wingman program.
There's legitimate drawbacks and reasons countries might want to have mixed fleets or go their own way but man if I was Russia or China, I really wouldn't be happy about the number of countries nearby buying it.

File: 1754427883450706.jpg (13 KB, 206x244)

13 KB JPG

>>65509112
>i-i-i-im not a zigger! waah waah waah! faggot! fuck you!

>>65509112
>The problem is that F35 took all the money for every other combat aviation program for more than 30 years
What fucking combat aviation program was the alternative?
Converging into the high-low mix was always the goal, investing into multiple different airframes is more expensive and in real life leads to debacles like Package Q.

>>65509183
>no serious development of things like actual FAC, CAS
Remind me exactly how many allied or hostile nations are currently developing dedicated FAC or CAS aircraft.

A reminder that the Gripen is effectively a European F-16 whose fanbase is mostly Saab shills and people who hate America.

>>65509183
>I'm just tired of historically and tactically illiterate

Absolutely ironic.

>>65509380
>How would I know what a type of aircraft that the Air Force froze all funding to research and develop in 1977 would look like?
Why the fuck would the USAF be burning money doing R&D for CAS in 1978 when the A-10 was in production until 1984?
>Can't suppress anything.
Would you volunteer to test it out?
>Latency between a ground call for fire and munition impact is enormous compared to a lower flying dedicated CAS airframe.
And you'd have a low flying CAS airframe within range of enemy AD just loitering waiting for your call?
An aircraft that can survive and use altitude and speed for safety will have lower latency than the aircraft that can't be there in the first place.
Latency of weapon drop is fucking meaningless compared to the time it takes to vector in the nearest aircraft. Nearby aircraft being out of weapons/fuel and requiring another bird to transit is a much greater concern for ground troops rather than bomb drop time.
>requires much more SEAD to operate since it can't safely operate low or slow
Low and slow isn't safe.
>terrain mask from theatre SAMs
With SHORAD getting greater attention due to the drone threat, you can't be attacking and terrain masking in a fixed wing because your target is also the surface to air threat. Only rotary wing with sensors on the rotor mast can do that and lob missiles over the terrain without presenting their airframe to the target.
It's not just the 14.5mm guns and MANPADS you have to worry about, it could be laser-guided APKWS analogs, or even fast FPV interceptors which could catch up to helicopters or slow flying fixed wing.

>>65509436
Maybe modern ones that got even a tenth the R&D funding and acquisition spend of F-35.
>>65510023
No, I'm saying the F-35s weren't used.
>>65510703
>What fucking combat aviation program was the alternative?
Nearly a dozen programs were cancelled to make way for JSF and no new ones were started. They included attack programs like A-X an Silent Attack.
>>65510707
Remind me how many countries have credible militaries that are currently engaged in expeditionary war on the other side of the planet.

>>65510738
>here's why CAS is actually impossible and we need to do strike instead of investing even one single dollar into new technologies to be able to do CAS
>CAS is so impossible thay if we tried it, some pilots might even possibly die :'(

>>65510738
>Would you volunteer to test it out?
And yeah, I would. The rest of your post is drivel and equivocation btw.

>>65509436
>If they're capable of putting up an IADS worth being worried around why the fuck would I want to plan for them being incapable of putting together decent SHORAD near the front?
I'd say that SHORAD is closer to the FLOT, less well defended and closer to the objectives of the other services, so the fact that it's a held up as bogeyman instead of a focus of technical efforts to overcome it at stand-in distances is indicative of the fact that USAF's entire solution has been to stay out of range of it even if it means they can't do jobs the other services are relying on properly.
>I've seen you post often enough that I think you've severely conflated a philosophical and doctrinal bone to pick with the USAF and really, the Pentagon more broadly with discussion around this specific topic. Like at one point here while ostensibly talking about the plane you're actually complaining about training priorities. The rational thing to say there is that there should be specialised units with greater priority in certain areas, not that you should buy an entirely different airframe to force people to give up the primary advantage of multiroles.
I don't think this is the conflation you think it is. I think they're pretty clearly and directly related. I'm not complaining about training priorities, I'm complaining about unworkably broad training scope and just so happen to know what mission sets will just get dropped because they're the ones the USAF always drops. Beyond that, if you're going to have specialised squadrons to allow mission expertise then it clearly follows that airframes more suitable for the missions would be better.

The point is that F-35 fits into a pattern of USAF misbehavior that spans 70 years. If take it entirely in isolation then you can make excuses for the obvious tradeoffs, but with any historical context at all then the excuses don't hold much water.

>>65509436
>>65510787
And to follow, my main point is actually that going forward, Key West should be scrapped and all of the funding for mission sets that the Air Force has stealthily washed its hands of should go back to Army. If Air Force wants to research and procure only aircraft optimised for strategic bombing, strategic airlift, interdiction, strike and air dominance, that's fine, but they cannot be allowed to continue to claim responsibility and the associated funding for the vast swathes of mission sets closer to the FEBA that they systematically neglect.

>>65510748
>>65510787
You keep just asserting that your concept of CAS is the only valid one as the lynchpin of this entire argument and it's just not true. The USN, USMC and every other nation on the planet also seem reasonably satisfied with the shift in focus to accurate fires from multirole platforms.
That is CAS, dipshit. They can and do provide it today. They just don't seem to agree that the only true way to deliver it is when you can see the whites of their eyes and the smoke trails of their manpads.

>>65510923
>The USN, USMC and every other nation on the planet also seem reasonably satisfied with the shift in focus to accurate fires from multirole platforms.
That's just not true. If it were then the USAF wouldn't be eternally cockblocked from retiring the A10. The truth is that no one who relies on CAS is satisfied with the solution, because it's extremely sub-par. Go and talk to literally any JTAC. The USMC are just grateful to have any aeroplane at all, the USN is ambivalent at best, the Army is screaming from the rafters that it's a huge downgrade despite being 40 years newer and other countries don't have aerospace industries to pursue an attack aircraft, let alone a leading edge one.

>>65508965
It makes sense when you realize the shilling is not about objectivity or the discourse itself, it's just a reflection of the person's own desire to look and feel apart from the crowd. Same story with midwits who will tell you that .280 British should've been adopted without knowing anything other than the name and existence of that cartridge

>>65510945
>That's just not true. If it were then the USAF wouldn't be eternally cockblocked from retiring the A10.
Non sequitur, the USAF not retiring the A-10 does not mean the USAF wants the A-10, it means congress does

If F-35 bad, why so many F-35 cloning attempts huh

>>65510945
Anon we both know the politics of the A-10 aren't that simple, or I certainly hope you do anyway. I have no ill will towards the A-10 but it's sure as shit not still in the air purely on its own merits and capabilities.
>other countries don't have aerospace industries to pursue an attack aircraft
Even if you don't include China and Russia (granted Russia are struggling right now, yeah) I really think you're underselling Europe here. I think the continent responsible for the Tornado, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen, home to multiple giant aerospace contractors of their own, could probably bash something together if someone put out a requirement. Then you have Turkey's growing domestic plane production, South Korea building their own now, Japan's been in and out of domestic aviation, even fucking Australia's putting together a pretty capable loyal wingman.
You cannot convince me that between all of those countries, who are also rich enough to be worth pursuing as an export market for other countries, everyone is crying out for an A-20 and it's simply impossible for anyone to scrape anything together.
>>65510971
I think he's saying that the army wants it and are forcing the morally inferior air force to retain it. Which is neither strictly accurate nor actually evidence for its performance anyway.

>>65508763
Considering the number of Anti-US posts over the past few hours. What blew up in Brown people land/Russia or China?

File: 1781214850519697.png (283 KB, 800x393)

283 KB PNG

>>65510998

A friendly reminder that anyone who thinks CAS means close to the ground can be ignored.

>>65510945
The USAF is being cockblocked by boomer politicians who only care about the fact that the A-10 has a cult following which they pander to for votes.

File: Fury-CCA-1.jpg (646 KB, 1441x811)

646 KB JPG

>>65510998
It's the 2026 AFA and all the upcoming USAF drones have thirdies and wumao seething.

>>65511052
>500 cca drones by 2032
>about the same number of reaper replacements
>space amti launching next month
>operational by 2028
>oh btw we have space weapons rn too lol
Lot of big news today. I’d been hoping for an F-47 update but that almost feels greedy now

>>65511048
> boomer politicians who only care about the fact that the A-10 has a cult following which they pander to for votes.
I suspect there’s also no small amounts of reformerism as well.

>>65510998
The usual assortment of refineries and warehouses, one general, and there is a small possibility of a civil war kicking off in southeastern Iran.

>>65510971
>Non sequitur, the USAF not retiring the A-10 does not mean the USAF wants the A-10, it means congress does
This is a non-sequitur in the extreme. The entire point is that USAF doesn't care about CAS at all.
>>65510984
>politics of the A-10 aren't that simple
No I get it, but the core premise is still that F35 generates less useful effects on the ground for CAS than A10 despite being 40 years newer and 5-6 times more expensive on a per airframe constant dollar basis and that price is despite having production scale three times larger for the US alone and about five times larger in total than A10.
>I really think you're underselling Europe here. I think the continent responsible for the Tornado, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen, home to multiple giant aerospace contractors of their own, could probably bash something together if someone put out a requirement.
Notwithstanding the fact that the entire continent still spends less than sustainment fubding for the notional militaries they already have because they are deeply unserious and defence on every level, their aerospace industry, and high-technogy base in general, has withered since they built those things. I sincerely don't think they can build anything developmental or leading edge. I think that at present they struggle even to copy ideas from China and America, let alone to break ground on systems for a novel attack aircraft that can stand in against SHORAD.
>Then you have Turkey's growing domestic plane production, South Korea building their own now
Industries on their first forays, again, not up to breaking ground on a leading edge concept.
>Japan's been in and out of domestic aviation
Don't have a CAS requirement.
>even fucking Australia's putting together a pretty capable loyal wingman.
Even if Australia had a domestic aviation industry up to the job, arguably the RAAF is even worse for air power theorist crackpipe smoking than the USAF.

>>65511071
This entire argument is essentially a reformer being mad, so yeah that would track.

>>65511179
>less useful effects on the ground for CAS
And what exactly would those effects be?

>>65511197
I enumerated some above. Let me ask you a slightly different question to help frame the issue:

Point to any aspect of the design at all that was optimised to make the aircraft better at CAS in a way that required any sacrifice at all to its interdiction performance.

There were literally no compromises or accommodations made on this aircraft at all to be good at CAS, CSAR, FAC etc, because it is designed as a pure play self escorting strike aircraft, and the Air Force would never compromise what they wanted from the type for what Key West says they must provide.

>>65511244
> the aircraft better at CAS in a way that required any sacrifice at all to its interdiction performance.
That’s the neat part.
With modern technology, you don’t NEED to sacrifice anything to be good at CAS.

>>65511266
The addition of an internal gun to the A kinda counts, I suppose. If he wants to be really anal.

hello, retard here. isn't the eurofighter typhoon more comparable to the gripen in capability and also still in production? why is the ikea half-a-hornet always compared to the F-35 instead of that or the latest block of F-16s that are of the same generation?

>>65511266
Which, I should point out, is why the single most effective CAS aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan was the B-1.


I should probably also point out that the A-10 wasn’t designed for CAS originally. It just got shoved into that hole because it sucked even harder at everything it was intended to do.

>>65511269
The internal gun is mostly there to soothe the “BUT MUH VIETNAM, MUH F-4!” asspain

>>65511272
> why is the ikea half-a-hornet always compared to the F-35 instead of that
Because the Gripen is closer in price to the F-35 than it is the Typhoon, so it’s seen as the default choice for countries that can’t afford, can’t purchase, or otherwise don’t want the F-35.

>>65511272
Lately at least it's mainly because Canada's deciding if they want a full order of F-35As or to diversify and the Gripen has been the front-runner as an alternative aircraft, in no small part due to Saab offering construction in Canada and the suggestion that some of Ukraine's order could be built there too atop of Canada's own.
The F-16V isn't in contention because it'd still be buying American, when it's increased tension with the US causing the reconsideration to begin with.

>>65511266
But you aren't good at CAS. You're worse at it than a 50 year old airframe that's a fifth the cost. You're just trying to play a word game where you try to pretend that BAI and CAS are interchangeable terms, and this game is literally the same one the USAF is playing.
>>65511269
Internal gun is there because of BFM. A 20mm gun with 180 rounds (literally 1/20th of a second of gunfire) is worthless for CAS.

>>65511290
How about you actually tell us what you want from CAS. Not some bullshit about how a plane flying higher will take too long to drop bombs, tell us what impact on the ground you actually want, and how contemporary 4.5th gen and 5th gen options to do it aren't matching up.
You're so quick to tell everyone what isn't or what can't do it but you're only defining the goal in the negative.

>>65511290
> But you aren't good at CAS
Show your work.

>>65511288
>>65511289
okay. i've heard those lines a bajillion times. that is not my point.
what about the typhoon? or the rafale for that matter? gripen isn't the only game in town when it comes to not-american combat aircraft. this isn't a binary gripen/F-35 decision but it is fucking ALWAYS presented as such.

>>65511301
Production backlogs on both the Typhoon and Rafale are way too long to be realistic for most new potential operators without significant production expansion is my understanding.

>>65511305
Plus, the Rafale and Typhoon are both more expensive than either the Gripen or F-35. And most of the countries that the US aren’t willing to sell to (that would actually be willing to purchase a western aircraft, I.e aren’t aligned with Russia or China) aren’t exactly rolling in money, so they have little choice but to go with the Gripen. Also, I don’t know if the Eurofighter is actually on the market for foreign purchases, and while the Rafale definitely is, you’d have to deal with the F*ench.

>>65511316
The streamlined ground handling also probably helps, since that's a genuinely novel feature that everyone would find helpful and nothing else can really offer.

Does anyone else think of the F-22 as the daddy plane and the F-35 as the mommy plane? Like the daddy plane is older and bigger, and the mommy plane is shorter and more curvy? The F-35 is better at talking to multiple drones and other F-35s, kind of like a mommy plane would be better at that than a daddy plane. I think the Air Force planned it to be this way because it's just too natural, like how the B-2 looks like a bird from the side. I don't know what the baby plane is, though. Does anyone else think about planes like this?

>>65511329
I envision the F-22 as the older brother who the parents had no idea how to raise, while the F-35 received somewhat better parenting but due to the laws of the universe is still cooler because it's the older brother

>>65511329
> The F-35 is better at talking to multiple drones and other F-35s
Goddamn it. Why does this make sense in a retard logic sort of way?

>>65511316
>I don’t know if the Eurofighter is actually on the market for foreign purchases
current tranche 5 production is for the turks and they put a bid in for the indian contract that was won by the rafale, soooooo yeah, it is most def for sale to filthy unwashed furriners

>>65511333
Yeah like the mommy plane takes care of all the loyal wingman drones while the daddy plane is at work.

>>65511335
Yeah. Somehow, I completely missed that a bunch have been sold to the usual suspects in the Middle East. That’s just me being a retard I guess.

>>65511331
The F-35 is obviously a girl plane though.

>>65511297
>Show your work.

The anon thinks CAS means BRRRRRRT.

>>65511341
Older sisters aren't inherently cooler so that doesn't fit the mold
All aircraft (and ships and boats) are girls, that's just how it is, but sometimes we assign masculine aspects to them because we are incoherent, emotional great apes

>>65511273
>Which, I should point out, is why the single most effective CAS aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan was the B-1.
I have never seen this claim before and I have seen several that contradict it. Can you please source it for me so I can learn more.
> probably also point out that the A-10 wasn’t designed for CAS originally. It just got shoved into that hole because it sucked even harder at everything it was intended to do.
Nor this claim. Can you source it for me please?
>>65511295
>>65511297
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24036641/f-35a-and-a-10c-comparison-test.pdf
You can go and get the unredacted version and peruse it yourself to witness how extensively the F35 bombed, despite the tests being rigged to try to make it look better (sabotaging JTAC VMF to the A10s, counting engagement latency as the time to weapons release instead of target effect, counting only one engagement time per 9 liner so that A10 runs with multiple engagements per pass wouldn't score better, not including duration of effects on targets etc).

>>65511384
You may notice that they didn't even bother testing in a high threat environment, because it would've been such a blowout against the A-10C as a foregone conclusion. Otherwise that report doesn't tell us a whole lot, beyond the obvious of loiter time and weapons load.
It seems to me like a flawed comparison too, Strike Eagles have been conducting CAS for decades and one of them or an EX would be my pick if legs and payload were priorities, and even they aren't as survivable as they used to be.
Hard to say from how much is redacted but it strikes me as something of a category error to begin with. I agree that the F-35A isn't as good at being an A-10 as an A-10C is, but I disagree that the A-10 is vital to a force structure being able to deliver effective close air support.

>>65511384
nta but aircraft like the F-16 and B-1 conducted far more CAS missions than the A-10 in Afghanistan

>>65511436
>Otherwise that report doesn't tell us a whole lot, beyond the obvious of loiter time and weapons load.
Yes it does. Go and read the unredacted version.
>It seems to me like a flawed comparison too, Strike Eagles have been conducting CAS for decades
Not very well, but sure.
>and one of them or an EX would be my pick if legs and payload were priorities,
Legs and payload aren't the only priorities for CAS. We've discussed some of them already: Latency, effect duration, good geometries, being close enough for manpack radios to be able to reach you in an EW environment etc are others, that fast jets struggle with.
>I agree that the F-35A isn't as good at being an A-10 as an A-10C is, but I disagree that the A-10 is vital to a force structure being able to deliver effective close air support.
I don't think A-10 is either, I think an A-X is and I've already been clear on that. That fact that F-35 is mostly worse than A-10 at actually doing CAS, CSAR and FAC simply demonstrates where the gaping capability gaps are that 50 years without investment has created. It's not a catevmgory error, it's a category USAF doesn't care about.

And while we're on the topic, F-35 was supposed to replace 5 airframes. Four Air Force, one USMC, one Navy. It's replaced AV8 in the USMC and it's on its way to replacing F/A-18 in the Navy, but Air Force has continued upgrading and procuring new F-16s and F-15s, and even new types of them, despite the F-35 being unquestionably better than them in their roles. Yet USAF is fighting tooth and nail to replace A-10, despite the A-10, against all reason, being demonstrably better in its roles than the F-35. It's almost like the USAF actually just likes fast jets and doesn't give a shit about things like CSAR, CAS and FAC.

>>65511442
That doesn't mean they were better at them, it means the Air Force allocated them more sorties. It's like saying the F4 was the best CAS aircraft of Vietnam because it flattened more random jungle than any other type.

>>65511384
The primary conclusion of that report it how poorly the A-10 performed in contested airspace.

>>65511453
No it isn't lol.

>>65509380
Holy shit it's Pierre's ghost

>>65511448
>F-35 was supposed to replace 5 airframes

Not surprised you parrot this myth.

>Air Force has continued upgrading and procuring new F-16s and F-15s

The USAF hasn't gotten a new F-16 since 2005.

>>65511456
directly quoting the report

>the F-35A has a clear capability advantage over the A-10C in higher threat environments

>>65511448
>It's almost like the USAF actually just likes fast jets

It's almost like the USAF knows it has to fight peer adversaries and not goat fuckers on a mountain.

>>65511451
Now ask yourself why the F-16 was "allocated more sorties" than the A-10.

>>65508763
>>65508807
This guy used to make really good videos up until 2022 when he coincidentally switched full gear into chink and zigger propaganda. Was depressing to watch.

>>65508959
>MiG-29
>works always
PFFFFFFFFFFFF

>>65511512
Maybe if America would make a plane worth talking about there would be videos about it.
But since the F35 program eat all the potential plane development, there is nothing to talk about except the F35. Which doesn't work.

File: noodlebaker.jpg (255 KB, 980x1188)

255 KB JPG

>>65511458
Funny how it wasn't a myth back in the 90s. Picrel.
>>65511461
Directly quote the part where it says that's the, to directly quote you, "primary conclusion".
>>65511466
It's almost like the USAF has to fight goat fuckers in mountains literally right now, like tonight, and doesn't have the right toola for the job because you and it were wrong.
>>65511485
They didn't. You're thinking of Desert Storm, and in that case it was almost entirely because so many more F16s were deployed to theatre.

>>65511071
>>65511190
>>65511048
>The USAF is being cockblocked by boomer politicians who only care about the fact that the A-10 has a cult following which they pander to for votes.
You are juvenile and ignorant retards. The USAF is being cockblocked on retiring A-10 because they refuse to put forward a joint operational requirements document to start an O/A-X aircraft program to replace A-10, and instead insist that F-35 is great at CAS when it's been clearly demonstrated that it's not. Meanwhile Army cannot do the JORD themselves because they're prohibited from procuring or operating fixed wing aircraft, but they are the primary customers for fixed wing CAS.

No one, least of all me, wants A-10 in service. A-10 is not held up by Army or anyone even vaguely in the know as an example of a great CAS aircraft that should be kept forever on that basis. It's exactly the opposite - A-10 is an obsolescent CAS aircraft that is still better at CAS, CSAR and FAC than JSF, because JSF is actually pretty shit at CAS, CSAR and FAC because it's a stealth strike fighter. A-10 is just a stick to beat the Air Force into running an OA-X program to produce a CAS/CSAR/FAC aircraft that isn't obsolescent and is actually good at those roles, instead of being an air superiority fighter with a second seat added for interdiction or a stealth strike fighter, either of which earn mad fighter mafia points in the DFAC when boasting about sick BFM EM-theory war stories but which are pretty mediocre (at best) for CAS/FAC/CSAR.

>>65511816
>JORD
Or CCD or JOP, or whatever the latest person in Washington who "reformed" and "fixed" procurement decided it should be called.

>>65511816
>an OA-X program to produce a CAS/CSAR/FAC aircraft that isn't obsolescent and is actually good at those roles
We call those drones. It is not possible to make a viable CAS airplaneplane for the modern day.
The closest viable alternative is dropping guided bombs or glide bombs. And even then the viability of that comes with an asterisk.

>>65511850
>We call those drones. It is not possible to make a viable CAS airplaneplane for the modern day.
And? No one ever said OA-X had to be manned. So where is the Air Force's OA-X program optionally manned CAS drones?

The only thing the Air Force hates more than the idea of funding an aircraft program that isn't a fast jet is funding going to unmanned aircraft programs that could result in fewer seats in manned aircraft that a fighter jock could sit in. At the end of Afghanistan, USAF was operating 300 unmanned aircraft and Army was operating 7000. USAF's response was to tighten the Key West screws to reduce Army's available funds for drone programs to cut down on drone programs.

So anyway, I'll ask again, where's the Air Force program for the (maybe unmanned) A-10 replacement? A-10 entered service 50 years ago. Surely the Air Force isn't neglecting an important capability area just because it's a component of warfare that they don't like?

>>65511874
>So where is the Air Force's OA-X program optionally manned CAS drones?
https://www.stripes.com/branches/air_force/2026-09-14/air-force-names-loyal-wingman-drones-22852707.html

>but but they're not intended solely for pounding ground and can sling A2A missiles too!
Yeah, it's the age of the multi-role, because rather then buying, maintaining, and deploying two entirely different airframes, it's cheaper, easier, and more efficient to have one that can do both jobs

>>65511790
>F-16
>AV-8B
>F/A-18 (presumably the legacy Hornets, not super Hornets)
That’s definitely three.
And three definitely is not five.

>>65511914
Oh how silly of me. Can you tell me which aircraft weren't on the list?
>>65511910
It's not O/A-X because it can't do attack properly. It has all the same problems F-35 has doing anything low or slow. It's not possible to have one airframe that does both jobs properly, because aerodynamics is a bit of a bitch that way.

>>65511920
> It has all the same problems F-35 has doing anything low or slow
DINGDINGDING we have a winner for biggest retard award.

>>65511790
>Funny how it wasn't a myth back in the 90s. Picrel.

Your image explicitly states it replaces F-16, F/A-18 and Harriers. Not F-15 or A-10.

>>65511920
>CAS = low and slow

And there we have it.

>>65508767
>literal who euro sloptuber
It's a vatnik, not a proper euro

>>65511931
>Not... A-10.
Weird. I wonder why Air Force is replacing A-10 with it.
>>65511930
>>65511937
Why does it analpain you so much that sensors work better with lower bearing rates and closer distances, that you can engage longer on each pass at a lower speed, that you can engage multiple targets per pass at lower speed, that you can engage a larger area at lower speed, that you produce a larger beaten zone at lower slant angles, that you can use a lower IR signature engine at lower speed, that you can use a more fuel efficient engine at lower speed, that you can use a planform with greater lift efficiency at lower speed, that latency to target effect is lower from closer approach, that ground forces can use low wattage manpack radios to talk to you at lower altitudes despite interference? Why does it especially analpain you that all of these things self evidently improve CAS performance? Why is it so important to you to have a fast jet that flies high, even though all the design attributes of such an aircraft necessarily mean that it will be worse at CAS, CSAR and FAC?

>>65512027
> even though all the design attributes of such an aircraft necessarily mean that it will be worse at CAS, CSAR and FAC?
Because the performance of the aircraft doesn’t really matter. What matters are the weapons and sensors it carries. So you’re better off putting those weapons and sensors in a platform that actually has a chance of surviving in a contested environment.

>>65512034
>Because the performance of the aircraft doesn’t really matter.
Yes, it does. The distance from friendly and enemy forces that you operate materially matters a lot for how easy it is for those friendlies to coordinate with you in a degraded EM environment and materially matters in how quickly and how well you can apply weapon effects in myriad ways I mentioned above that you simply ignored.
>What matters are the weapons and sensors it carries.
Both of which work better, especially for CAS and FAC, from lower altitudes and with lower bearing rates. Do you want to have an argument about DAS limitations at altitude?
>So you’re better off putting those weapons and sensors in a platform that actually has a chance of surviving in a contested environment.
First, even 50 year old A10s are surviving in the environment that Iran is contesting right now. Second, F-35 is only survivable if it commits to doing a shit job at CAS, because it's designed to be survivable by being distant and fast. Its design is utterly compromised for survivability while actually excelling at CAS, CSAR or FAC because the Air Force doesn't give a shit about those functions and would rather have a fast jet that sucks at them than a purpose built aircraft that's good at them.

>>65512053
>muh low and slow
>muh bearing rates
If you care about bearing rates so much, fly higher. In multiple comments you have revealed that you still think of CAS being done a la Korea and WW2. You're a joke, your understanding is laughable. The more you try to argue, the more you reveal the depth of your ignorance. Maybe someone here can recommend an article or something, to get you on the right track, because everything you are claiming has been obsoleted bit by bit in the time period between Korea and Desert Storm

>>65512027
You know what else works better when the aircraft is flying low and slow? MANPADS and SHORAD.

>>65512101
He's been at this for genuinely months. I've seen him argue before and 'you can't contest the will of the enemy from above the clouds' lives in my head rent-free as the most reformer, boomer fucking nonsense I've ever heard. Probably slightly paraphrasing but you get the gist.
Arguing that the USAF is craven for not simply asking Lockmart to defeat the concept of SHORAD is new though, with the odd inability to grasp that those dastardly high and fast jets are in fact, the way that's being addressed.
Honestly fascinating stuff.

>>65508791
I was told there would be no fact checking

>>65508791
And other fairy tales you tell yourself while Nigel Chaddington is fucking your arranged bride Fei Fei Caucasianally.

>>65508808
The regime is dead and individual IRGC commanders are trying to do guerilla shit and getting bodied by Sunnis.

>>65511946
>someone that does videos from all around the spectrum isnt a vatnik you idiot

>>65508774
>widly successfully
>b variants cant go supersonic otherwise they start having coating problems
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04/24/the-pentagon-will-have-to-live-with-limits-on-f-35s-supersonic-flights
>super expensive to run
>the new engine upgrade has more delays than half life 3 and star citizen together
>block 5 upgrades will require a complete mcm upgrade and major structural upgrades which the first tranche wont get because they were never upgraded to block 3....because they didnt built enough airframes to replace them..
>every upgrade is expected to add between 100-300 kilos more to it as safety and more sensors

im sure there are way more issues that will arise from this blunder in the future that we dont know and dont have access to

>>65512388
>posts article from 2020

Flying any plane hard costs huge amounts of money, this is like 90% of why drones are cheaper to operate

>>65512408
>article from 2020
the problem arise from the fact that they STOLV mechanism gets HOT even during normal flight anon
there is nothing they can do without a major redesign of the engine

>Flying any plane hard costs huge amounts of money
not when its double the price of an f16 without including the fuel it eats

>>65512027
>get caught in a lie
>play ignorant about what the USAF wants to replace the A-10 with

>>65512388
The fact that this 'issue' does not effect the F-35A strongly hints at what the 'issue' is and is a red flag for how much you are grasping at straws.

>>65512443
yes ofc because we all know the navy uses a on their ships just like every other nation that ordered the b
what a fucking post is this

Anybody who's into military aviation history knows that the first gen of any aircraft is pretty much always a shitshow. "B" or "C" models always end up spending way longer in service than the "A"s did because there are always bugs you don't find or work out until planes actually enter service and start accruing flight hours and finding their way into edge case situations etc. The F-35's first generation has actually gone smoothly compared to a lot of past aircraft, especially others that involved new tech, like the F-16A was an absolute shitbox but led to one of the most successful combat aircraft of all time.

>>65512388
>Adding things to an existing airframe to make it more capable makes it heavier
Fascinating insight. Truly I kneel to your superior wisdom on aircraft, I would never have suspected this otherwise.

>>65512292
What facts?

>>65512447
The navy has the C variant too

>>65512491
here is another fascinating insight
the v variant of the f16 actually has a LIGHTER radar and sensors because it replaced alr 56 and apx 113 and egi with a single one under alq 254
it saved almost 70 kilos on the greek variant

awesome isnt it when someone actually designs their fucking plane to be more efficient than before?
>>65512512
how many c will exist? 100-120?
more than half less of what the b will be

File: 1781821572990954.gif (3.47 MB, 264x200)

3.47 MB GIF

>>65512282
>'you can't contest the will of the enemy from above the clouds'

>>65512536
It's almost like you don't always get to reap the benefits of decades of miniaturization when your underlying systems are already fairly miniaturized from the jump. It's absolutely the right call to plan for the plane to get heavier and treat any savings that eventuate as a bonus.
Like I'm not sure what you're even getting at here, if the EOTS or radar is getting heavier do you think they're just doing it for fun? Do you think the designers would avoid a viable weight saving in an upgrade package if it was achievable?

>>65512388
So, uh, you know that they couldn’t replicate that issue right? Which means it was almost certainly a QC issue relating to a specific batch and not a design flaw.

>>65508959
>It's perfect for Sweden in that it is produced domestically

It isnt. All key components (engine high pressure turbine, radar, ejection seat, composites, weapons etc) are from abroad. There is very little value adding done in Sweden. Claiming Gripen is a Swedish jet is like claiming these African cars made from Chinese kits are African.

File: giphy (1).gif (814 KB, 480x268)

814 KB GIF

>>65510998
Trump killed a bunch of senior IRGC people and the ones in charge are increasingly just senile old yes-men who Khameini tolerated because they weren't a threat. Also Achmad posts threads and then spams them with anti-US posts using a proxy website run by a furry pedophile (natural allies of Russia and Islam).

>>65511289
Because streaming services won't shill for the French language in the US and Carney needs Quebecoise separatist support.

>>65510709
>A reminder that the Gripen is effectively a European F-16 whose fanbase is mostly Saab shills and people who hate America.

An European F-20, not a F-16.

>>65508965
Canadians deciding that the US is eternally the enemy even once orange retard is gone. It’s their one national trait.

>>65510977
The shills of course ignored me as it would be tacitly admitting to F-35 supremacy

>>65511172
What’s going on in southeastern Iran? This is new to me.

>>65512651
That's how it is with most planes the supply chains are spread around.

>>65512388
this is total horseshit btw, the B variants can go supersonic just fine, just like all the other ones.

>>65512697
Balochi insurgents.

>>65512561
OP's ideal CAS plane is a blimp with a bicycle-powered propeller at rooftop level armed with guns that fire directly downward.

>>65512697
Sunni militants are slaughtering the IRGC, probably with CIA encouragement.

>>65512758
>>65512760
Man this is getting interesting. I didn’t have insurgency towards the insurgent suppliers on my Bingo card.

>>65512774
It's been going on for over 20 years now as part of a wider Balochi separatist movement that is primarily focused on Pakistan. It's still too early to tell if this is one of the normal attacks that happen every few months or if it is going to be something bigger.

>>65509083
The nuclear program mattered. The missile program mattered. The proxy IRGC central government mattered. The strait is brought up constantly because its the only thing they have left.

>>65512572
thats literally the stupidest take i have ever seen
this isnt a case if "miniaturaization" but density
its about redesign a perfect example of this will be when amd made the c variant of their chips it was still the same chip but redisgned to have the cache below the substrate to provide faster access
>>65512645
actually they did replicate the issue in 2019 but LM quick fix as it says in the article is to never hold supersonic and or do extreme manuevers under supersonic speeds after 20 seconds
>>65512743
nobody said that they cant go
everyone say even jpo that its best not to because the coating blisters after few seconds

>>65513210
>this isnt a case if "miniaturaization" but density
You don't shed weight while keeping or expanding capabilities by making the same thing tighter packed, dipshit. You shed weight through advances in technology making it require less physical equipment to perform the same or better at a task.

>>65513210
I think you're trying to mangle an analogy to AMD's X3D chips there, in which case the redesign didn't just move cache, it added a whole pile of extra cache and the underlying chip in fact has to be redesigned.
In other words they added more shit in the same approximate form factor.

>>65512434
>get baited into saying that the F-35 wasn't ever supposed to replace the A-10
>it out loud and proud
>don't see how this relates to the topic of the Air Force replacing the A-10 with the F-35 instead of doing an A-X replacement

>>65512101
Flying higher increases distance, so you're back where you started having problems resolving things as soon as atmospherics aren't completely cooperative.
>wah wah you're ignorant because you don't agree with the air force orthodoxy that I was forced to internalise at the academy
Actually, the Air Force is just shit at CAS, has been for a long time and has not been improving at it. Why? Because they don't care about it and their ideas about it are just wrong.
>>65512282
Even with your misquote, I'm glad I burned some part of a military education into your brain. Maybe as you ruminate on it you'll eventually come to understand why wrong headed USAF dogma has created enormous barriers to the US achieving any worthwhile strategic objectives in most of its wars since letting aeroplane drivers have their own service.

>>65512758
>guns that fire directly downward
How could you look them in the eye while you kill them with the guns mounted that way?

>>65512447
The USN does not use the F-35A.

>>65513284
You aren't beating the accusation just like how the A-10 isn't doing CAS in contested airspace.

>>65513383
What accusation? The original claim was that the F-35 procurement paper trail shows that USAF trying to replace A-10 with F-35 is ideologically and culturally driven by a preference for fast jets and a dismissal of task performance in missions the A-10 is good at. From that post:
>Air Force has continued upgrading and procuring new F-16s and F-15s, and even new types of them, despite the F-35 being unquestionably better than them in their roles.
>Yet USAF is fighting tooth and nail to replace A-10, despite the A-10, against all reason, being demonstrably better in its roles than the F-35. It's almost like the USAF actually just likes fast jets and doesn't give a shit about things like CSAR, CAS and FAC.
The point of this activity is for you (you being the person I was replying to who was nudging me about the interservice politics of the A-10, but who didn't fall for it) to write some variant of the words "The F-35 was never supposed to replace the A-10". Fighter jockeys, real or wannabe, would literally trade their mother for a chance to white knight for the F15.

>>65513449
The F-35 replaces the A-10 in contested airspace, this isn't rocket science you are just trying to rationalize continuing to use a death trap because you are caught up in its cult following.

File: FB_IMG_1556741600795.jpg (30 KB, 899x899)

30 KB JPG

>>65511329
>Does anyone else think of the F-22 as the daddy plane and the F-35 as the mommy plane? Like the daddy plane is older and bigger, and the mommy plane is shorter and more curvy? The F-35 is better at talking to multiple drones and other F-35s, kind of like a mommy plane would be better at that than a daddy plane.

>>65513580
The Air Force wants the F-35 to replace the A-10 in all airspace. The A-10 is obsolescent. It is an indictment on the F-35's ability to perform CAS/FAC/CSAR that despite being six times the constant dollar price and 50 years newer it is still inferior in every metric of the quality of delivered effects in these mission sets. The point is not that the A-10 should remain in service that there should be a funded A-X program that should have started 10 years ago to replace the A-10, but that late is better than never. No one except for people as stupid as you but on the "other side" of this issue thinks the A-10 should remain in service.

>>65512656
my understanding was that he killed the old seniles and brought the Young Turks imto leadership via mandatory vacancies.

>>65513695
How do you propose to go low and slow without getting killed for the exact same reasons that the A-10 is obsolete, you dumb fuck?

You're sitting between WWI and WWII decrying the British army as malicious cowards for divesting itself of horse cavalry instead of trying to develop horse armor because who else will close to the enemy and engage them in melee. That role is fucking dead because modern technology has evolved to the point that it's guaranteed suicide, and instead those effects on the enemy are being delivered by platforms that can do it from a safe fucking distance because modern technology enables them the same way it enables defenders to defeat your fucking blitzfighter retardation.

>>65513695
So I'm trying to figure out the function of an aircraft on CSAR that can't operate in high threat airspace. At some point you're just feeding pilots to the enemy.
And no, I don't believe that any amount of 'just spend more on A-X' can fix the fundamental contradiction between low-and-slow and survivability against not just near-peer threats but the growing availability of cheap and cheerful good enough assets. As active anti-drone weapons proliferate it's only going to be a worse time to be hanging your ass out.
It'd also probably be helpful to compare it to the F-16 in these roles, given it's currently often the Viper serving the role of FAC-A and delivering ordinance for CAS. And what the actual real world implementation of these missions is now for that matter. You keep wanting to compare platform capabilities devoid of context. Probably because that context is a doctrine you disagree with.

>>65513252
density allows for more area to be filled with new tech OR as i said in the case of the greeks density of the new sabr electronics allowed them to design a system that replaced 3 with 70 kilos being saved
>>65513257
nope im not talking about the l3 cache here im talking about their compact (C) cores they are redesigned smaller frequency locked normal perfomance core the l3 cache is irrelevant to this
>>65513365
thank you captain obvious nobody said that they do

How long has this CASchizo been plaguing this board?

>>65513072
>The nuclear program mattered.
Okay, so why wasn't it destroyed then? The Iranian nuclear program goes on.
>The missile program mattered.
Same question, why wasn't it destroyed then? Both missile launches and missile production go on.
>The proxy IRGC central government mattered.
The IRGC also goes on, as does every function of Iranian government.
>The strait is brought up constantly because its the only thing they have left.
The US attacks did mcfucking nothing. They replaced supreme leader Khomeini with supreme leader Khomeini. Nobody gives a shit. The strait is brought up because it's actually important and undeniable. Nobody can point at missile factories producing missiles because they are hidden under tons of rock, but everyone can point at the strait because it's out in the open for everyone in the world to laugh at.
We can also point at the Iranian government and military that function correctly, engage in both internal and foreign policy, build equipment domestically and receive it from abroad.
You're just a retard blowing things out of proportion as a coping mechanism for your own ineffectiveness while ignoring reality which of course brings us back to the F35 which would win this conflict if it worked.

>>65508808
Iran has already admitted they cannot control the Strait. You need new cope.

>>65514303
No they haven't, what form of niggery is this?

File: 1789519457337030.png (418 KB, 615x788)

418 KB PNG

>>65514304
What was that, faggot?
https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-september-14-2026/

>>65514309
You are the biggest, niggest, faggest retard this side of the Mississippi river.
The article is a pile of nothingburger cope trying to deflect away from the fact that oil passage through the strait is still down to negligible levels and oil prices are going up by pointing at diplomatic efforts between middle eastern tribals while dancing around the issue of Iranian drones and missiles effectively shutting traffic down.
I can't believe I got tricked by such a subhuman monkey into spending 5 entire minutes of my time skimming through this stupid article, and written by the institute for the study of cope at that.
Not only is Iran continually disrupting traffic in the Hormuz, but they just expanded their reach across the Red Sea through the Houthis, which is incidentally also acknowledged by the article.

>>65514309
>isw
you have to be kidding right?
but ok lets pretend isw is right
and then lets see the actual real hard data
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:58.8/centery:25.8/zoom:8
notice how the straight IS EMPTY and the ships are pilling up on the iranian islands and on the omani eez
ring any bells? maybe you know the iranian-oman deal?

File: @sf1.jpg (362 KB, 800x1200)

362 KB JPG

>>65513711
and the young ones are more hardcore. Stopping the Straits of Hormuz so YOU have to pay more for diesel and petrol.
>Diesel Prices in Florida | $6.40/gal Median

1/2
>>65514020
>How do you propose to go low and slow without getting killed for the exact same reasons that the A-10 is obsolete, you dumb fuck?
>>65514122
>And no, I don't believe that any amount of 'just spend more on A-X' can fix the fundamental contradiction between low-and-slow and survivability against not just near-peer threats but the growing availability of cheap and cheerful good enough assets. As active anti-drone weapons proliferate it's only going to be a worse time to be hanging your ass out.
Treat this as an illustrative concept of how technological progress, if the Air Force would spend some fucking RDTE money on developing it, opens avenues to make a survivable and actually-good-at-CAS A-X rather than a concrete and definitely workable concept since very obviously I have $0 research or development money spent on a proof of concept.

Make an A-12/Silent Attack sort of thing that doesn't suck. Flying wing/blended wing body planeform, targetting an MTOW in the region of A-12 (say, 80,000lb) but with a much better empty weight since it won't be navalised or retarded. Planeform that actually works broadly along the lines of something like X-47B (ie A-11). Optimise its radar profile entirely for low quarter all aspect high frequency LO - completely sacrifice low frequency performance to do it and mostly sacrifice upper aspects - you only really care about performance vs fire control radars from below and don't give a shit about early warning radars and in practice you will be too low most of the time for multistatic radar systems to be useful. Really fight to minimise external RAM even when it hurts RCS. Top mount high bypass ratio turbofans well inboard (much like a B2) and heavily thermally insulate them downwards - AOA blanking doesn't worry us that much since we're not going to go fast enough for it to be an issue.

2/2
>>65514708
Fit an evolved DAS and use it to improve the performance of an evolved and multiply redundant DIRCM (and visual band) system, that we can fit on something like this because it's so slow and free of buffetting and vibrations, and double tap it as an EO dazzler. Use advances in multiband composite LED arrays to do an evolved yehudy light system to fuck with EO laying and IIR seekers, which we can do because we don't have to deal with mach heating

Give it all the obvious targetting and sensor stuff, radios etc. Probably give it either mapping SAR along the lines of F-35, an evolved MMW Longbow, or both as well. Some EW things that no one can even speculate about. Obviously all the redundant controls and surfaces etc, armoring over bits that need it etc.

For weapons, have a single small internal bay, in the realms of <2250lb so that in the opening days of a conflict it can carry a single heavy munition or a handful of HARMs and contribute meaningfully to DEADing prior to lodgement, as well as limited self-protection, marking etc during CSAR and FAC. Mount GAU-12 with a fair bit of ammo, conventionally if needs be but, preferably in the belly sideways firing under one wing with a few degrees of internal T/E, like a very limited AC-130. Now give it a fuckload of jettisonable external pylons for stores to take it up to MTOW. When your RWR or MAWS trips, you dump all the stores and go belly on to the threat direction. The bulk of the internal volume saved on the bays of forerunner designs is given over to the extra redundancy, targetting avionics, defensive avionics and fuel.

Now if it sounds like you could just half of this this a lot more simply as "workable A-12" with big (>10,00lb) internal bays and relatively less reliance on external stores and gimicks, then you'd be right, because even A-12, assuming they got the LO unfucked, was going to be a much better attack platform than JSF turned out to be, despite its retardedness.

>>65514715
3/2
Is this acceptably survivable in a high threat environment? Yes. In a high threat environment its greatest threats by far are enemy aircraft with datalinked terminal ARH, but those are threats common to nearly everything, and the kinematics we're seeing on standoff air to air weapons makes me extremely skeptical that something like this would be less survivable in its lane than F15Es or support aircraft in theirs.

Is this significantly better at CAS/FAC/CSAR than F-35. Yes. In literally every way. Even ignoring payload, latency, comms resilience, etc even on purely theoretical things that the F-35 is supposed to be king of like being a sensor platform to do fusion and find camoflaged land targets, even with all flight envelope considerations held constant, you get much better performance out of a larger distributed aperture on a flying wing planeform. A concept like this is much worse at strike, SEAD/DEAD, direct OCA and datalinking for DCA/OCA, but far better at CAS, FAC and CSAR as well as BAI (but not
pure play big I).

Would it be manned? I don't really care. This is just a thought experiment to demonstrate that there are lots of novel and emergent technological avenues available to explore for low altitude/speed survivability, many of which are
specifically only feasible on a low altitude/speed aircraft.

What blew up in Iran now?

>>65514752
Idk. Are they still doing comms blackout in the region?

>>65514708
>>65514715
>>65514748
this is fucking retarded, stealth, even to the degree that it can confuse targeting radars, simply doesn't fucking work from these ranges.

you are in denial and are trying to hammer a nail with a fucking spoon because you refuse to understand that aircraft at those ranges simply are NOT survivable, even in relatively low threat environments their usefulness is questionable, nobody is ever going to waste time on your dumb idea just because you don't believe in longer range guided weaponry and continue to not understand that the "Close" in CAS does not refer to the distance of the aircraft but the distance between ground troops and the enemy.

>>65514762
You're an absolutely retarded pseud. Mobile AAA fire control radars are forced by the practical realities of operating land equipment in austere conditions to be dogshit weak emitters with small apertures. Something like a Gepard can only track a 3m^2 RCS target on X or KU band out to 13km because it has less than a meter of aperture and transmits, at most, a few dozen kW, which is all pretty typical of radar for AAA. Of course you can't hide at CAS distances from an S300 blasting 2mW in S band with a 24m^2 antenna to find you and then 500kW in I band with a 6m^2 aperture. The point is that you don't need to. No one can deploy shit anywhere near that big or powerful near the FLOT where you want to do CAS, FAC etc, let alone emit with it, let alone maintain it.

China's Type 95 SPAA? 11km for a non-LO target. Russia's Tunguska? 18km for a non-LO all the way up in E band. With a high frequency RCS in the realm of 0.01, gun FCS radars only work out to 5km or so, and that's not even considering any ECM.

Having pinprick RCS and sitting at 50,000ft is necessary for interdiction and strike when you want to go places were there can be big antennas and powerful emissions. If you're content not to do that then you can be quite a bit closer.

>>65514873
*and then 500kW in I band with a 6m^2 aperture to track and shoot you.

>>65514873
Wow yeah you're right; it's a good thing nothing has supplanted radar targeted guns as the SHORAD weapon of choice in the last 50 years.

>>65513325
>Military education
>"Bombs do not have the will of the warrior"
Maybe an Arabic military education.

>>65513711
>Young
No, they are literally the elderly former sychophants who retired.

>>65514417
Too bad being "more hardcore" means they're too stupid to stop getting bombed. And America is blockading Hormuz and all Iranian oil while Iran sits impotently and seethes.

File: 1788028090879788.png (347 KB, 593x715)

347 KB PNG

>>65514319
>>65514321
Achmad absolutely malding that it's now the Strait of Trump and Persiacucks can't stop it.

>>65514752
More of their senior commanders and cities and now that the US has broken their bratty Sheeeite military down almost to the squad level via bomb correction other guerilla groups are moving in and killing the IRGC and their supporters. Syria 2.0, basically.

>>65514873
you're a fucking retard and you lost lol. CAS will henceforth be done from long range, cope and seethe.

>>65514958
It'd also be a bad time for there to be a glut of new low cost systems being developed with novel threat profiles and often tracking solutions to respond to other emerging close-in air threats.
Fortunately that's not happening.

>>65514972
go ahead try to find a port that will accept it with a below loading damage that would be very interesting to see

>>65514321
Notice how he has to resort to abstract and inaccurate methods now that trackers like Kpler have quietly admitted the oil is flowing.

>>65515220
>marine traffic the prime tracking service for ships is abstract and inaccurate methods

the things you learn on this site

>>65515343
Do you think it is possible that ships with their AIS transponders off may not show up on the AIS tracking site?

>>65515356
this is not flightradar which they hide military stuff

solas mandates literally everyone to have their transponder on (not military) for obvious reasons especially in such crammed area

>>65515561
>mandates
that's cute, but they don't, sorry about that.

>>65515561
So are the SOLAS enforcement agents that storm the bridges of the tankers that drop off of AIS on one side of the strait and reappear on the other the next day working for the UN or one of the other international maritime law bodies?

>>65515609
no the companies which give the order get assraped
because well the ship MUST be insured and since all of them are temporaraly not insured you can guess where this is going
>>65515576
imo can quite literally delete the ship from the database
good luck with that

>>65514715
>Mount GAU-12 with a fair bit of ammo

Thank you for confirming, yet again, that you are an absolute fucking retard who only deserves to be mocked by demanding a fucking gun in 2026 on your platform. I don't know why I continue to engage with you across multiple threads when I should be fucking calling an exorcist because Sprey's ghost has managed to find an unattended keyboard somewhere

>>65514960
You can keep bending the misquote to make it as silly as you want, but you're only making a fool of yourself.
>War is a violent contest of wills to extend politics by other means.
>Strike bombing on its own has proven to be a wildly ineffective means of imposing your will on adversaries.

>>65511790
>They didn't. You're thinking of Desert Storm,

1/3 of all CAS missions in Afghanistan were performed by F-16, because unlike the A-10 they could actually get to a fight in time to save American soldiers.

File: itsjustlies.jpg (495 KB, 935x1843)

495 KB JPG

>>65514762
>>65515858
>no actual valid criticisms
>vaguely complain about guns
>vaguely complain about RADAR SHORAD but get shot down
>vaguely pivot to ominously inspecific "other threats"
>continue to proudly proclaim that doing a shit job at CAS is aktchually great
You keep engaging because you're
gluttons for punishment. I keep pointing you to evidence you can't dismiss that the Air Force's position on F-35 being acceptable for CAS is a knowing lie, and that makes you uncomfortable. Have another: Here's what the Air Force was saying in the Pentagon in 1993 when they were planning out the JSF requirements.

It's like doing CAS really badly from high altitude being a good thing has become part of your identity as human beings. The fact that you're all so enthusiastic to believe and repeat something that is so obviously and unashamedly an intentional lie by the Air Force is just weird as fuck. Every CAS user tells you it's a lie, the DoW's own trials tell you it's a lie and then Air Force smirks and winks at you, then repeats the lie and you go weak at the knees? Lol.

>>65516344
Sure thing buddy. I'm sure that's exactly what happened.

>>65508791
>pick a fight with Yemen to show off your wonderplane
>lose
>pretend it doesn't count, pick a fight with Iran
>lose even harder
So if the US had the Gripen they would have won handily?

>>65516349
(A little known fact is that they built the A-16 by the way, and even used it in Desert Storm. It was a massive piece of shit. Ironically, for all the accusations at me that I'm Spreying in this thread by retards, never let yourself forget that it was the Air Force that actually cobbled together a no-bullshit Blitzfighter to try to get rid of A-10 in favor of a fast jet).

>>65516344
I'm sure most of the missions you're describing were BAI with dynanic targeting, but I'm sure you don't know the difference anyway, and I'm not even confident the figure you gave is right.

>>65512724
>That's how it is with most planes the supply chains are spread around.

Russia: Russian engine, russian radar, russian ejection seat, russian etc etc
America: American engine, american radar, american ejection seat, american etc etc
China: Chinese engine, chinese radar, chinese ejection seat, chinese etc etc

No, it is not like that for "most" planes.

>>65516349
It's almost like the Army operates a dedicated airwing of attack choppers, both manned and unmanned, that are the only thing capable of fulfilling your desired specification of going low, slow, and somehow not instantly getting pasted because they're capable of hovering behind cover while networked into sensor platforms. Meanwhile, you have spent a billion dollars try to make a stealth A-10 and then flown it into fucking gun range and got it fried by an electro-optical DEW that was built to stop just such threats.

File: danger close.jpg (682 KB, 2000x1354)

682 KB JPG

For the anon who is in denial about what aircraft performed CAS during the GWOT.

>>65516611
Ah, but you see, you've fallen into his trap. The Air Force is ontologicaliy evil and as such anything that they say which disproves my point can be dismissed because they're liars

>>65516349
>n-no you’ve attached your identity to this, not me!
You are not the norm, sweetheart, your definition of CAS is not used by anyone. Hope you get over it some day.

>>65515628
Don’t need good luck when the ships have their transponderd turned off.

>>65516381
>BAI with dynamic targeting
No, it was CAS, son.

>>65508763
F-15EX Eagle 2 is better than Lightning 2. Haha.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElsYG_cs6Gw

>>65516361
Sauce? Link says they built 2 but it was a different 16 variant used in the Gulf with a modified 30mm pod and it was a failure.
https://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article18.html

>>65516628
>>65516611
So what you're saying here is that you were lying in >>65516344 and not only did F16s not perform 1/3 of CAS sorties in Afghanistan, but A10s performed more CAS sorties than any other type? Curious.

>>65516825
>your definition of CAS is not used by anyone
Except the Army. The largest consumer of CAS in the world. And the Air Force. The largest provider of CAS in the world.

No one is saying that dropping bombs from halfway to orbit can't meet the definition of providing CAS, they're saying it's necessarily very low quality CAS.

Being good at strike doesn't make an airframe good at CAS.

>>65517154
No, your understanding is correct. I was being fast and loose with my language. That being sais, the two A-16 variants were, in practice, just the Air Force trying two different roads to get to the same final set of capabilities on an airframe and force structure outcome (replace A-10 with a fast jet).

>>65517346
>necessarily very low quality CAS
Right? I hate it when I can get precision munitions on the people shooting at me in a high threat air environment. Is it even CAS if it doesn't turn into CSAR?

>>65516604
The internal consistency of your argument is in shambles and USAF should have its fleet of F-35s cut by 750, with the funds diverted to an A-X program to replace A-10, with all CAS and associated funding lines turned over to Army. USAF should be made a branch of the Space Force service, and all its generals should be sacked.

>>65517376
Your strawman is just sad when many of the ways your solution is deficient have already been described and links to their empirical verification provided in this thread at >>65509380 and >>65511384.

>>65517386
>He says, linking to the post with the report that didn't even bother with a high threat comparison because it's such a foregone conclusion that the traditional attacker platform is toast

>>65517387
>he says, knowing that the F-35 is vastly inferior in all the wars that the US actually fights and even in the hypothetical high threat theatre after the first month of the conflict
>he says, building the A-10 up as a strawman to knock down because he knows he'd break his fist on the properly funded A-X replacement that the argument is actually about
Sad.

>>65508821
To be fair, those barrels have gone up 80-100% in price. Doesn't fully make up for the loss in volume, but it helps.

>>65516831
No, it was mostly dynamic targeting with some deconfliction requirements that made it tick the box for "CAS" on a technicality and the Air Force mostly did a mediocre-to-shit job of it that they like to pat themselves on the back for anyway, son.
https://warontherocks.com/how-afghanistan-distorted-close-air-support-and-why-it-matters/

>>65508809
>Well actually totally curbstomping our A2AD network isn't impressive at all because our systems are dogshit
How is this in any way a win for the global south?

>>65517404
You misunderstand, and the meaning was made explicit at >>65509112. Also, you're a jingoist retard and you should calm down.

>>65517393
>He'd break his fist on my fantasy plane
You're comparing real aircraft, fairly selectively, to a complete counterfactual and just insisting it'd come out on top, and refusing to even briefly acknowledge anything you find inconvenient about people's problems with that. I can't speak for others but I don't even think you're entirely wrong about some of these shortcomings, I just think you're so far up your own ass you can see sunlight and for some reason that sunlight demands death to all global air force leadership for crossing you.

File: 120622-F-XA056-164f.jpg (92 KB, 560x700)

92 KB JPG

>>65517416
>You're comparing real aircraft, fairly selectively, to a complete counterfactual and just insisting it'd come out on top
I mean, I think it's a foregone conclusion that it would because the F-35's design and operating concept are so bad at CAS, but also there's nothing concrete (because no OA-X program has been run) to compare and explain in which ways it's superior and by how much. When I tried to produce an illustrative hypothetical (>>65514708) to allow that concrete comparison, it wasn't even engaged with in any meaningful way simply because of the possibility that it would enter the effective range of enemy weapons and that would allow the possibility of it becoming a casualty even if risks were well mitigated.
>refusing to even briefly acknowledge anything you find inconvenient about people's problems with that
I don't think I've done that. I've only ignored things people have said that I thought were too weak to be worth addressing. Can you highlight what things you think I haven't addressed that I should have found inconvenient? I'll happily address them.
>I just think you're so far up your own ass you can see sunlight and for some reason that sunlight demands death to all global air force leadership for crossing you.
Oh, no, that's just how I am when I'm enjoying winning an argument. That being said, if that little weasel Welsh III wants to come here and lose an argument himself, he's welcome to. I mean, just look at him: How many military leaders have you seen with a more punchable face than him?

File: HQfEz9xXEAIb5o5.jpg (115 KB, 640x885)

115 KB JPG

>>65516546
Martin-Baker is British

>>65517444
High-mounted engines will not stop every hadji dickhole with IR MANPADS being able to shoot down your stupid dorito, and imaginary yehudy lights not stop every chink dickhole with SALH/IIR MANPADS and EO SAMS from doing the same.

>>65517524
On their own, none of those things will, but together and combined with advances in MAWS via DAS and DIRCM/EO dazzler systems, I think a DCM suite like that would perform much better than you seem to think. I'm coming at this frim the other side, thinking about what you'd need to do to build a missile that was reliable against a DCM suite like that, and it's far from trivial. Of course, who the fuck knows because no one has done development or system testing on a suite like I'm describing.

>>65517341
You are either colorblind or did not read the infographic.

>>65517545
>>65517524
And since I don't want it to seem like I'm ignoring inconveniences when I ignore things I think are self evidently too weak to address: I think pointing a SALH at an OA-X fitted with a LWR, DAS, MAWS and multiple multiband DIRCMs operating across IR/UV/visual like we're talking about would probably be immediately very bad for the eyesight of the operator (or integrity of the CCD for future systems) to the extent that the pK of any missile reliant on that laser for aiming can safely be assumed to be zero.

Just as a reminder that neither the US Army or USAF think CAS means low amd slow.

>>65517582
Emit and Die works in both directions

File: you are colorblind.jpg (213 KB, 851x1153)

213 KB JPG

>>65517575
Since you have the intellect of a toddler, I have highlighted the word Afghanistan for you so you can see which pie charts are for that theater and drawn matching colored lines from the A-10 label to its associated sections on those pie charts so that you can see it's the biggest contributing airframe for each. You will also note that the red part of the pie chart, for F-16, is 33% for "Iraq and Afghanistan", but is only 18% for "Afghanistan" which implies that the number in Iraq is way higher than 33%.

Now, if you knew anything about this topic at all, you'd know that this is because CAS sorties in Iraq almost never dropped any ordnance at all, and much more ordnance per sortie and in total was dropped on Afghanistan - you are seeing figures for F-16 "CAS sorties" where air support was allocated to a requested task, but never did anything but orbit. And that's why F16s were being chalked to those missions - because they suck at CAS. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, A10s were doing more CAS sorties than any other type and they were, you know, actually using munitions on those sorties and not just beta orbiting. I will follow with some pictures from slides to help you along with this concept, little zoom zoom.

>>65517615
Lasers are directional. The SALH operator is blind because he pointed his laser at a LWR that could fry him back down the line of bearing.