F35 vs. A10?

[Speaker to Animals]

Unless you can shut down GPS satellites and space radiation, you ain't stopping passive radar. You can certainly make it more difficult by taking down the grid, but that's also a specious argument, since one could also point out that there are ways around traditional targeting systems without using stealth as well. Furthermore, the vulnerability is not just to passive radar. We already lost one stealth aircraft (and the stealthiest of all aircraft, far more stealthy than an F-35) to Serbs simply swapping out the waveguides and a few other components to use low-band radar on their off the shelf cheap ass air defense system. Then somebody just demonstrated a quantum analog to radar just last month that could potentially target any aircraft you please.

A fighter aircraft's focus should be on performance. Putting all your eggs in a gimmick basket is a recipe for disaster.

[Smitty-48]

This is just more fake news F-35 Derangement Syndrome.

I don't know, that's why I said Big Claim.
There is motive for Krauts to dis the F35, this is a big money deal and somebodys aircraft is going to lose out.

That said, I definitely want to know if this is true and can be corrected.

Bear in mind that the F-35 is taking over the market

So all the competitors, Boeing and everybody in Europe;fill the media with fake news.

Stealth is not invisibility, it never was, it's very late detection against military IADS

Passive radar is gone the moment the war starts, first thing America knocks out is the civilian power grid.

Passive radar isn't even a threat against non stealth planes

The other Big Lie is that F-35's performance is bad

That's not true, combat loaded; it out flies everything except F-22

The performance comparisons always pit F-35 combat loaded vs. competitors in air show mode; fallacy.

[Smitty-48]

To put it in infantry terms, when the fake news compares performance;

F-35 is in full marching order with ammo, water, rations, fighting order and rucksack.

The competitor metrics are in PT kit with running shoes.

Put the rucksack on the competitor jets, and their performance drops well below F-35

[Speaker to Animals]

If "full marching order" means it only carries about four missiles and underperforms 1960s-era fighters, then okay. It's slow. It's not maneuverable. Prone to stalling. It's realistic operational range is maybe a hundred nautical miles unless you use tankers, and then any stealth advantages are rendered pointless since the tanker is not stealthy.

Stealth should always have been something you add on without sacrificing performance, and certainly not something you should rely upon.

People who think stealth can never be defeated are just fools. I mean.. we already had this discussion and this clown lost his shit when I showed him photographs of a stealth fighter shot down.

Lots of people don't understand risk. The risk inherent in putting all your eggs in the basket of "they won't ever be able to track and target our stealth fighters!!" is on the order of a fat tails risk.

Also note we have gone from "stealth can't be defeated" to "we have to shut down the entire fucking grid whenever we need to fly an F-35 there".

[Smitty-48]

F-35 with Sidekick rails is 2 x 2000lb class multipurpose pylon with 4x AAM

With 18,500 lbs of fuel.

Combat loaded 4th Gen fighter does not carry more, most of the pylons are taken up with fuel tanks.

Once the IADS is knocked down and F-35 goes to Beast mode, it carries internal and external, so it's not an issue.

The F-35 does the job of the F-117 first, knocks down the IADS, after that, stealth is not needed.

Passive radar is irrelevant, can't target the F-35 with that, that's not an IADS.

Civil EM is always jammed even if not taken out, those screens will be blank in the event of war.

F-35 does not fight alone, it's combined arms, the fake news is fake.

There's going to be all sorts of other shit coming at them along with F-35, it's a system of systems.

The IADS is the threat, there's no threat except the IADS with triple digit SAMs

Threats below that America has been able to take out with ease for decades.

ZOMG All Eggs in One Basket is just more fake news, America fights combined arms, there's lots of baskets.

ZOMG too expensive is also fake news, F-35 is already cheaper than Typhoon, Rafale, Advanced Super Hornet etc

Typhoon for example costs more than twice as much, yet Typhoon is already obsolete.

Advanced Super Hornet is doubly inferior, but its 20% more expensive, there's only 600 of them; orphaned fleet.

Rafale is the same, except 40% more expensive.

Some Russian kit is cheap, but not Su-35, Su-35 is more expensive than F-35

Nobody can compete with America when it comes to economies of scale, F-35 is the best at the best price.

[StCapps]

If "full marching order" means it only carries about four missiles and underperforms 1960s-era fighters, then okay. It's slow. It's not maneuverable. Prone to stalling. It's realistic operational range is maybe a hundred nautical miles unless you use tankers, and then any stealth advantages are rendered pointless since the tanker is not stealthy.

Stealth should always have been something you add on without sacrificing performance, and certainly not something you should rely upon.

People who think stealth can never be defeated are just fools. I mean.. we already had this discussion and this clown lost his shit when I showed him photographs of a stealth fighter shot down.

Lots of people don't understand risk. The risk inherent in putting all your eggs in the basket of "they won't ever be able to track and target our stealth fighters!!" is on the order of a fat tails risk.

Also note we have gone from "stealth can't be defeated" to "we have to shut down the entire fucking grid whenever we need to fly an F-35 there".

It's not all about the stealth dude, it's about seeing them before they see you and flying into their blind spots to take out their ability to see you. No one claimed stealth was invincible regardless of circumstance. As usual your only debate tactic is create an idiotic strawman to tear down, because you can't compete against the actual argument.

[Speaker to Animals]

If "full marching order" means it only carries about four missiles and underperforms 1960s-era fighters, then okay. It's slow. It's not maneuverable. Prone to stalling. It's realistic operational range is maybe a hundred nautical miles unless you use tankers, and then any stealth advantages are rendered pointless since the tanker is not stealthy.

Stealth should always have been something you add on without sacrificing performance, and certainly not something you should rely upon.

People who think stealth can never be defeated are just fools. I mean.. we already had this discussion and this clown lost his shit when I showed him photographs of a stealth fighter shot down.

Lots of people don't understand risk. The risk inherent in putting all your eggs in the basket of "they won't ever be able to track and target our stealth fighters!!" is on the order of a fat tails risk.

Also note we have gone from "stealth can't be defeated" to "we have to shut down the entire fucking grid whenever we need to fly an F-35 there".

It's not all about the stealth dude, it's about seeing them before they see you and flying into their blind spots to take out their ability to see you. No one claimed stealth was invincible regardless of circumstance. As usual your only debate tactic is create an idiotic strawman to tear down, because you can't compete against the actual argument.

LOL. Their blind spots? LMFAO. Pro fighter squadron talk on display. I bet you wear aviator sunglasses when you play pretend to know fuck all about aviation and fighters.

Also, you apparently have no idea what straw man means either.

[StCapps]

If "full marching order" means it only carries about four missiles and underperforms 1960s-era fighters, then okay. It's slow. It's not maneuverable. Prone to stalling. It's realistic operational range is maybe a hundred nautical miles unless you use tankers, and then any stealth advantages are rendered pointless since the tanker is not stealthy.

Stealth should always have been something you add on without sacrificing performance, and certainly not something you should rely upon.

People who think stealth can never be defeated are just fools. I mean.. we already had this discussion and this clown lost his shit when I showed him photographs of a stealth fighter shot down.

Lots of people don't understand risk. The risk inherent in putting all your eggs in the basket of "they won't ever be able to track and target our stealth fighters!!" is on the order of a fat tails risk.

Also note we have gone from "stealth can't be defeated" to "we have to shut down the entire fucking grid whenever we need to fly an F-35 there".

It's not all about the stealth dude, it's about seeing them before they see you and flying into their blind spots to take out their ability to see you. No one claimed stealth was invincible regardless of circumstance. As usual your only debate tactic is create an idiotic strawman to tear down, because you can't compete against the actual argument.

LOL. Their blind spots? LMFAO. Pro fighter squadron talk on display. I bet you wear aviator sunglasses when you play pretend to know fuck all about aviation and fighters.

Also, you apparently have no idea what straw man means either.

You created an idiotic caricature of a real argument you can't actually tear down, that's a strawman. You can't compete with the actual counter-arguments, so pretend they are making another argument instead. It's literally all you have in this debate, and you are getting exposed as a know nothing even in a supposed area of your expertise because of it. Put down the Mother Jones and RAND corporation propaganda already.

[Smitty-48]

It's not all about the stealth dude, it's about seeing them before they see you and flying into their blind spots to take out their ability to see you. No one claimed stealth was invincible regardless of circumstance. As usual your only debate tactic is create an idiotic strawman to tear down, because you can't compete against the actual argument.

The actual demand from congress was a cost controlled solution.

Raptor was supposed to be the Hi asset, Panther is supposed to be the Lo asset at an affordable price.

With cancellation of Raptor and the fact the Raptor is not for export, Panther becomes the de facto Hi asset.

Yet it is the cheapest per unit when you factor economies of scale and supply chain.

$87 million for Panther.

$100 million for Advanced Super Hornet

$110 million for Su-35 Super Flanker

$120 million for Rafale.

$200 million for Typhoon.

$400 million for Raptor ( because it was cancelled at 187 jets, the per unit price is inflated, thanks, Obama )

[Zlaxer]

All planes are about to be obsolete - missile tech will soon be superior...if not already. American birds can only fly at night or super high altitudes presently....missiles way cheaper...125 f-22? Have 1000 Sams.