/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

>>3768
good news anon, another batch of Su-57 planes was delivered 2 days ago!
https://archive.is/PTwEr

>>3799
Useless wunderwaffen

>>3800
>Useless wunderwaffen
Kek, seethe.

>>3799
Hooray! This will greatly benefit the working class!

>>3811
damn anon, this is a really deep and insightful analysis

So part of the reason the F-35 is selling so well is that in the European market it is the cheapest for its size category, compared to the Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale and others comparable Western fighters that are only 4th Generation. This is similar to the F-16 in that regard - higher development costs compared to the F-15 and initially high purchase costs but the price later went down (probably because high-production numbers -> reduced need for prices, basic marketing).
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/cost-effective-f35a-cheapest-modern-western-fighter
Thus the current price is 80 million per F-35.
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/f35-europe-clients-production-dominance-market
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/losing-sorely-president-macron-claims-belgium-s-choice-of-american-f-35-over-rafale-undermines-european-security-as-french-media-slams-brussels-lack-of-continental-solidarity

However it's also unreliable with way too many problems and requires much higher maintenance, leading to higher costs overall. The US army only officially accepted it into production a decade after its intended delivery date. Pentagon Testing Office in 2021 stated that the reliability of the United States' "Most Critical Next Generation Platform" is at "Only 50%" and that efforts to fix F-35 remain "Stagnant". NATO allies also have been complaining about defects in the plane. The Pentagon itself was barely getting any F-35s in 2023, a year after its mass production was approved.
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/f35-rafale-worsening-supply-chain-struggle
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/f35-mass-production-schedule-test (finally approved)
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/defence-department-undersecretary-ellen-lord-u-s-military-can-t-afford-sustainment-costs-for-its-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-program
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/f35-quality-defects-marines-dissatisfied
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/f-35-is-a-piece-of-xxxx-why-trump-s-last-defence-secretary-hated-the-stealth-fighter-and-wasnt-the-only-one

As a reminder, the F-35 remains the only fifth generation fighter in production in the Western world, (thus compatible with a NATO standard military) which makes it the only fighter capable of challenging China’s own fast growing fifth generation fighter fleet (on paper). More importantly the F-35 is a relatively light single engine fighter, and this lacks the endurance, firepower, RADAR size or flight performance of the Chinese J-20 heavy stealth-fighter, which itself will be supplemented by lighter stealth fighters being developed (based off of the F-35 design that the Chinese copied lmao). This is on top of the fact that "although officially operational, the F-35 is restricted to an initial operating capability meaning it is currently not capable of medium or high intensity combat and will require many years to be made fully combat ready." and has limited air-to-air capability.

Russian interceptions of F-35s also speaks to them being visible on Russian RADARs, making their key feature - stealth - useless.

The F-22 isn't as capable as people thought either with some serious problems that are hard to fix without heavy reconstruction.

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/f-22-raptors-may-not-be-able-to-overcome-russia-s-su-35-after-all-severe-shortcomings-america-s-most-advanced-fighter-emerge-during-operations-in-syria
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/25-f22-maiden-flight-looks-like-failure

>>3151
>Vulnerable to lightning
How is that different from any other military plane?

>>3918
>To safely fly in conditions where lightning is present, the F-35 relies on its Onboard Inert Gas Generation System, or OBIGGS, which pumps nitrogen-enriched air into the fuel tanks to inert them. Without this system, a jet could explode if struck by lightning.
Most planes will be damaged by lightning, but they're not goin to explode unless hit directly into a critical area.

>>3933
>Most planes will be damaged by lightning, but they're not goin to explode unless hit directly into a critical area.
Source?

>>3938
>Source?
Real life lol. It happens all the time, but it's never considered a significant risk where the jet would easily blow the fuck up
>Three E/A-18G Growler jets were struck by lightning on June 6 while they conducted operations over southern Japan, officials confirmed this week. “No personnel were injured during this incident and all aircraft landed safely at Kadena Air Force Base,” Naval Air Forces spokesperson Ensign Bryan Blair said in an email.
Example: https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2023/07/06/lightning-struck-three-growler-jets-over-japan-on-the-same-day/

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/12/lightning-strike-on-fighter-jet-caught-on-cockpit-video

The F-18 and the Growler are planes the F-35B and C was supposed to replace BTW.

Israeli F-35 managed to shoot-down a Quds 3 or 4 cruise missile launched from Yemen. The subsonic missiles are the equivalent of the aging american Tomahawk cruise missile or older Kh-55, so slow and not very much of a target for any modern aircraft if detected in time.

https://defence-blog.com/israel-shoots-down-houthi-drones-using-f-35i-adir-fighter-jets/

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/Iranian-Yemeni_cruise-missiles/index.htm

>>3970
>three F-117s shot down
wut

>>3989
3 destroyed. 1 was shot down and its undeniable, but 2 others, operating from a German-NATO airbase were hit by SAMs and barely managed to return to base, classified as Class A incidents and scrapped. As little information as possible on the English internet is available, given how much of a embarrassment Yugoslavia was to NATO in general, putting up a better fight than Iraq, forcing them to fight for every inch of ground they took.

>>3990
Source?

>>3994
acig.org used to have a database on every major conflict since WW2 and what aircraft were shot down, where, when and by what, and what the source was. The database was taken down a few years back and only a few pages remain on wayback, mostly those related to Iraq.
http://www.acig.info/artman/publish/article_404.shtml is the only one still functional outside archive and even then not fully since the source links are gone.
I searched archive.is too https://archive.ph/offset=100/www.acig.info

If you check sites like http://www.f-117a.com/Mishaps.html you'll see that there are nearly 70 mishaps with the F-117, but considering how few details we know even 3 decades later, and the fact that militaries tend to hide losses and label them as mishaps in the bureaucracy, it makes the 1999 incidents quite suspect.
I was unable to find the exact information on the third one, however I did locate a mention of the second, heavily damaged F-117A
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37894/yes-serbian-air-defenses-did-hit-another-f-117-during-operation-allied-force-in-1999
https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2021/03/26/david-vs-goliath-or-how-the-serbs-hit-two-us-f-117s-in-1999/

The 3-number claim is a Serbian one, but given the lack of physical proof the USAF denies it, just as it denies many of the air losses it suffered over Yugoslavia such as numerous F-16s that were shot down by SAMs, with only one being admitted since the Serbs have the crashed parts to prove it.
Even the New York Times talks about how the F-117 was not as effective as the USAF drummed it up to be in PR.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/world/europe/032899kosovo-stealth.html

>>3990
> but 2 others, operating from a German-NATO airbase were hit by SAMs and barely managed to return to base
well then they weren't shot down

>>4007
>managed to return to base, classified as Class A incidents and scrapped
They were made non-operational with air defense as the catalyst.

>>4008
well then they weren't shot down

>>4009
If you want to whittle it down to the bare nub of it's meaning then no, they were not shot down. They were taken out of action, however, and from the perspective of air defence that's just as good as a kill.

>>3933
>>To safely fly in conditions where lightning is present, the F-35 relies on its Onboard Inert Gas Generation System, or OBIGGS, which pumps nitrogen-enriched air into the fuel tanks to inert them. Without this system, a jet could explode if struck by lightning.
>could explode
Doesn't mean it would at ever lightning strike.
This is just another safety feature that increases lightning strike resistance over any other jet without inert gas systems.

>>3748
Okay, let's be really specific abput what is wrong with this.
>INTEGRITY-178 is never at fault.
This seems believable. Keep in mind that a hardware issue (like a memory fault, or a piece of hardware that needs to power down before it can interface with the kernel again properly) isn't the fault of the OS, and that even if there was a problem in software running on the OS that wouldn't be the fault of the OS itself. They do have more constraints around what the OS will allow to run that get rid of some issues which could be present on software running on another OS, but this isn't even relevant to dismissing higher level software problems as not the fault of the OS, and of course any human interface can be designed in a faulty way that the OS fundamentally cannot judge the intentionality around.
>It never fails,
Again, believable for a limited claim about the OS itself.
>and can't be hacked
This is where he jumped the shark. "Can't be hacked remotely" would be a claim that is hard to be 100% on if we're being reeeaaaaaally pedantic, but I would understand what he was saying with that qualifier and might basically agree (I don't know the details, but it could be a believable claim). Things can be hard to hack via physical access – the ORWL was a good example in the space of consumer electronics – but not impossible, and "can't be hacked" without further stippulations is basically a non-starter.

>>4014
>t.can't read so "No source!"
Ok NAFO we get it you're butthurt.

>>4017
>Doesn't mean it would at ever lightning strike.
>This is just another safety feature that increases lightning strike resistance over any other jet
No, idiot. this means that the planes NEEDS that inert gas system to be safe. Commercial airliners get hit by lightning all the time and so do military jets as I posted >>3943
The very fact that you need a specific system to prevent the plane from blowing up when hit by lightning, and the fact that it is apparently unreliable to boot, boils down to the same point; the plane is vulnerable to lightning far more than other contemporary aircraft stated to be all-weather.
>military aircraft are designed to weather thunderstorms when necessary and complete their missions unscathed, even after lightning strikes. For instance, a single F-106B Delta Dart, a jet fighter from the 1950s, endured over 700 lightning strikes during NASA test flights, yet remained operational. While this is an extraordinary case, it illustrates that a lightning strike does not necessarily spell doom for a fighter aircraft.
https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2023/07/29/natural-lightning-the-thing-that-keeps-the-f-35-from-flying/

A plane that requires a specific system to prevent itself from blowing up and/or frying the computer systems and is prohibited from flying within a 25-mile radius of a thunderstorm while supposedly being a multi-role, all-weather fighter (named the Lightning II FFS) is a shit plane.

>>4018
Honestly the very fact that back in 2018 the USAF was looking into specifically integrating methods of countering cyber-warfare from impacting the F-35 speaks volumes of software being "never at fault" or "never fails". Although you bring up a fair point about OS not necessarily being at fault, the maxim "never say never" is important, there is no such thing as an infallible system after all.
https://defence.nridigital.com/global_defence_technology_mar19/back_door_for_hackers_f-35_cyber_weaknesses_in_the_spotlight
Even sites that absolutely shill the F-35 and USAF such as Popular Mechanics, admit to hacking being a possible threat to the aircraft.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a25100725/f-35-vulnerability-hacked/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12535823/Im-former-defense-official-warned-F-35s-catalogue-safety-security-problems-years-ago-HACKED-malfunctioned.html

>>4024
>N-no source becuz I sed so!
>Everything is ad hominum!
<'le reaction image'
You're under the mistaken impression that they cared to give you the time of day, when you're clearly just going to nitpick for the sake of contrarianism. They've dismissed you, rightly so. The proof of this is in their more serious response to another anon.

>>3745
>>3744
>There are more F-35s!
<counts all F-35s produced including for other countries
By that metric we should count every MiG-29, Su-27 (and variants) and other classes of fighter and count them… Hell even just counting Su-27 variants from China, India and Russia already dwarfs the F-35 production line, let alone China's hundreds of other indigenous jets.

>>4032
>>N-no source becuz I sed so!
>>Everything is ad hominum!
Who are you quoting?

>>4040
>Hell even just counting Su-27 variants from China, India and Russia already dwarfs the F-35 production line,
Wow an obsolete 20 years + older aircraft that has a higher accident rate btw was more produced you say? Incredible zigger cope

>>4064
>>obsolete
it’s still blowing up new overpriced NATO dogshit and helping nazi hohols reach their space program so i wouldn’t call it obsolete :^)

>>4064
>Seething so hard that he can't write a proper sentence.
1 - by that metric the F-22 is obsolete too, and frankly so is the F-35 since it was originally developed over a decade ago. Age is also not a metric of effectiveness, the Su-25 continues to be effective as does the A-10. The F-15 Eagles is still a superb platform and is even older than the Su-27. The MiG-25 was only retired recently, and contended with the peak of American Engineering, including USAF fighters decades newer than itself while its variation the MiG-31 is still one of the most significant air to air threats to this day.
2 - The Su-27 does not in fact have a higher accident rate than the F-35, in fact its a very rugged plane that can take off and land in harsher conditions, has 2 engines in case of failure or damage to one, and so on. The F-35 is a plane that flies only due to its computer systems which aren't very reliable either.
3 - The production numbers for the original Su-27 and its variants, 680, the Su-30 and its variants, 630+, the Su-35 151+ airframes. All together that's over 1460 Su-27s produced, not counting Chinese Su-27 copies. There are 975+ F-35s of all variants built as of October of 2023 and many of the older ones are those produced prior to being accepted into service and are essentially defective units, not to mention that only 450 of those are actually in US service with a scattered handful in NATO operation, (a few dozen in Japanese and Israeli service for example) and the initial operation capability of those aircraft delivered is barely half, of the 46 received by the Netherlands in 2021, only 24 were capable of operating actively at the time, as the others needed adjustment… a critical issue for an aircraft that is supposed to be a fighter-bomber and the mainstay of Western airforces, not much of a mainstay when battle-readiness of a freshly delivered F-35 cannot be stated as 100% from the get-go.

So TL;DR: Cope more NAFOid.

A few years back a Syrian S-200 unit was claimed to have shot down an F-35. The S-200 is by no means a bad SAM but is certainly much older than the F-35 even with the modernizations that the Russian military gave the Syrian military. Israel claimed the lost aircraft was a result of a bird-strike… the fact that the damage was so extensive it had to be sent back to the manufacturer (Lockheed) to be repaired brings up many questions. Russian S-400s have previously locked on to F-35s before, and the F-117 being hit by SA-3s (which are even older than the S-200 (SA-5) lends further weight to the possibility. The S-200 has previously hit Israeli F-16s, F4 Phantoms, A4 Skyhawks, various drones and a few F-15s among other Israeli aircraft, and is a proven air defense system, although Israel denies all of its losses. An F-35 is not an unreasonable possibility.

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2020/12/327745/israel-claims-birds-not-syria-took-down-96-million-f-35-fighter-jet

https://lenta.ru/news/2018/02/11/f16/

http://www.skywar.ru/lebsyr.html

>>3723
There're flying with lunburg lenses

>>4099
For what purpose? Where's the evidence they're used for anything other than training?

>>4100
>For what purpose
Take a guess

>>4102
If you're implying something about it being intentional to not reveal the plane's capabilities or to let the Russian and Syrian RADARs see them, then in both cases that's asinine considering the fact that the Syrian Air Defense force acts on its own, is directly in conflict with the US military and does shoot-down or attempt to shoot-down American Aircraft and missiles because they strike Syrian positions and air bases, this is doubly applicable with Israel with whom the Syrians actively clash with as I wrote.
So A) It's illogical for them to be doing this as it only hampers their mission capabilities against a hostile air-defense network
B) There is no proof they use them there to begin with, as Lunburg lenses are visible, pic rel from training missions and regular flights.

>>4099
the good old "we downgraded our own planes to let the enemy detect them" /k/ope, never not funny

>>4103
Syrian AD is non existent besides S-300 which is incorporated into Russian AD network and does not operate on its own. Every side of the conflict (Israel , US, Russia, Turkey) operates within their own area of operation and any strikes conducted outside of it done with some degree of a coordination between them when appropriate. US and Russia talk. They talk a lot and exchange information on positions of their forces and information on upcoming strikes to avoid the incenses. Same with Israel and Russia. Russia knows before hand when and what Israel is about to strike and Israel knows what areas are of limits for them. There's no direct confrontation between each side and Syria itself is not an actor.

>>4105
>Syrian AD is non existent besides S-300
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
S-200 units have been operating there again for years, Pantsir-S short-range systems, SA-3s and numerous other older Soviet air defense systems are operating other than the S-300. Was the F-117 that got shot down by the Serbs also using Lunburg lenses for some fucking reason? GTFO of here with this denial /k/ope.
>is incorporated into Russian AD network and does not operate on its own
Uh yes it is a seperate network, because otherwise that's an attack on Russian forces without provocation, which is a declaration of war, retard.
>Every side of the conflict (Israel , US, Russia, Turkey) operates within their own area of operation
<This tired nonsense again
Yeah except that Turkey, Israel and the USA regularly violate these agreements and the no-fly zone and attack Syrian government forces that are literally fighting ISIS with air-strikes, which is why Syria responds in turn.
>Russia knows before hand when and what Israel is about to strike
Ah like it did September 17, 2018? And that's Russia's military, not Syria's.
>There's no direct confrontation between each side
>Syria itself is not an actor.
This is a literal contradiction, either its the Russians shooting down Israeli jets and so on and so there IS direct confrontation, OR Syria is an independent actor. Take your pick.

>>4106
I know how things are done there and you don't

>any malfunction
LOL accidentally deleted the full sentence
"Any malfunction or system failure would result in a catastrophic loss of the plane and possibly the pilot because of the lack in back-up systems.

>the most expensive military project in history to date.
Just to put more source and meaning to this. Back in June of 2012, the Government Accountability Office released a report called “Joint Strike Fighter: DOD Actions Needed to Further Enhance Restructuring and Address Affordability Risks,” in which it stated that the program might cost over $1 trillion to operate by the time it was finished, and at the time of the publication (pdf related) the expenditure on the program was $331.9 billion. Over a decade later and not only is the F-35 at roughly 50% capability, but it's expenditures exceeded the estimates, hitting 1.7 Trillion dollars and the number is rising. That's almost double the expected cost. By comparison the Gerald R. Ford Class Aircraft Carrier, which was developed and put into production in less than half the time period it took to create the F-35 has barely exceeded 40 Billion dollars. How is it that an AIRCRAFT CARRIER PROGRAM is LESS EXPENSIVE than THE STRIKE-FIGHTERS they're supposed to CARRY!? It's a Military-Industrial scam of epic proportions.
https://fee.org/articles/the-f-35-program-failed-to-deliver-working-jets-but-succeeded-in-transferring-hundreds-of-billions-to-contractors/

>>4106
Russian chief rabbi Berel Lazar, the Russian embassy in Israel and several Israeli officials admitted they coordinate strikes on Syria between Russia and Israel.

>>4625
Ah yes, just like they 'coordinated' their F-35s to cause AD to hit an Il-20M instead of them because they only let the Russian military know about their strikes on Latakia a minute before? Fuck off. And that's not to mention several other strikes that were done without giving Russia proper notice.

Finally I repeat - that's Russia's military, not Syria's, while they may be allied and linked, they are not one and the same, nor dow the latter control the former.

>US Navy ordering 17 more F/A-18 Super Hornets even though they has earlier stated to stop their orders
https://topwar.ru/239837-vms-ssha-zakazali-17-samoletov-fa-18-super-hornet-hotja-ranee-sobiralis-ot-nih-otkazyvatsja.html
Seems the carrier variant of the F-35 is so unreliable that the 4th generation of fighers will continue to be the backbone of the US air forces.

You just can’t make this shit up. Lmao.
An F-35B Accidentally Shot Itself With A Gatling Gun
https://wonderfulengineering.com/an-f-35b-accidentally-shot-itself-with-a-gatling-gun/
>March didn’t start well for the U.S air force when a much costly air incident took place. F-35B stealth, the most expensive fighter jet ever built to date, accidentally shot itself while flying over Arizona’s skies.
>A single unit of an F-35B costs around $135.8 million, so at first, an aircraft’s accident doesn’t sound appealing at all. The aircraft had an externally mounted Gatling gun discharge a 25mm armor cutting explosive round into itself, leaving the aircraft with damage of approximately $2.5 million, as confirmed by the military officials.
<The Marine Corps’ F-35B carries the GAU-22 differently differently than the Air Force’s -A version. Unlike the -A aircraft, which mounts the GAU-22 inside the aircraft at the base of the left side wing root, the -B mounts the gun in a separate gun pod mounted to the airplane’s belly. This design change was due to a weight issue caused by the need to make the -B version capable of vertical takeoffs and landings. The Marines can leave the gun off the aircraft to reduce weight when necessary.
LMAO, this is literally a repetition of the F-4 Phantom not having integrated guns like in Vietnam, and using gun-pods to make up for it until the newer models came in.
>The F-35B stealth aircraft was performing a nigh time air support mission, while during its flight, the aircraft exploded a round of fire in a self-attack scenario. Fortunately, the pilot managed to land the super-costly aircraft to the ground, but the damage done isn’t at low either.
>It was a Class-A accident, as termed by the officials, directing towards a minimum of $2.5 million of loss or the aircraft’s complete inability to make it to the skies ever again.
Such superior American engineering. Just imagine a scenario of these scrap heaps doing an air attack on Iran or The DPRK and just get their Gatling guns hacked to shoot itself.

A lot of sources talk about how the F-22 and F-35 have 0.001 or 0.0001 or even 0.00001 m2 RCS (RADAR Cross Section). This is misleading at best, and straight up false at most. I'm going to write an effort-post on this particular myth of stealth-aircraft, one that Russia itself acknowledges, which is why it doesn't claim absurd RCS numbers like this.

LMAO even the Poles, who suck the US DoD like it's a milky teat are talking about how bad and expensive the F-35 is.
https://topwar.ru/234617-stoimost-obsluzhivanija-rastet-lavinoobrazno-v-polskoj-presse-raskritikovali-istrebiteli-f-35.html

Considering the increasing Iran-Israel relations (or rather, lack thereof) throughout Spring of 2024, there's a possibility that the Su-35SE (export Su-35S's) of Iran will face off against the F-35i of the Israelie Air-Force. The Israeli's have some advantages, but only stealth is something the F-35 is superior in. Armament, flight-characteristics and so on are on the side of the Sukhoi, and the F-35's stealth is not invisibility, and Iran hasn't been idly standing by ignoring those capabilities. The only REAL difference is that Israeli pilots have more experience, but even then, it's been decades since the IAF has had a proper air to air opponent and striking ground targets is not the same as a dogfight, and BVR is by no means a guaranteed hit.
https://topwar.ru/241104-f-35-vs-su-35-vstrecha-budet-v-nebe-sirii.html