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

>>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

F-35 continues to be a drain on the US economy. Lockheed deliveries are going to be over a quarter to nearly half the number its supposed to be and the poor combat readiness and high maintenance costs mean the F-35 will probably be obsolete by the time it properly enters full combat-capable service. Even the Military Industrial Complex is starting to get flak from their own best friends, the Pentagon.

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/f35-sustainment-costs-44pct-controversy
https://www.gao.gov/assets/d24106703.pdf

>>3413
The truth holds it back, the reality pushes it down, the money keeps it afloat and more money pushes it forward.

Fulfilling a request by cross posting this here from the ukraine thread

>>1856668
>Lockheed is reporting that it won't be able to deliver 25-50% of ordered F-35s

And the military's solution? Use the f-35 less, lol

https://www.gao.gov/blog/f-35-will-now-exceed-2-trillion-military-plans-fly-it-less

>In March, the fighter jet marked an important milestone — “full-rate production,” generally the point when development reaches an acceptable level of performance and reliability to start building more of them, faster. F-35s have already been in production at or near full rate for several years. At the same time, the military services that fly the F-35 (the Air Force, Marines, and Navy) plan to use it less.

The recent report offhandedly mentions that it took 20 fucking years to finally reach full production.

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106909

>After nearly 20 years, the F-35 program moved into full-rate production after conducting its final simulated tests. At this milestone, DOD determined that the F-35 demonstrated an acceptable level of performance and reliability and could be manufactured faster.

And the best part? A 2-trillion dollar program requires another 2 trillion dollar upgrade.

>Hardware and software delays—specifically those associated with Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3)—are another factor driving delays and hindering the program's progress in completing the Block 4 modernization. TR-3 is a $1.8-billion suite of hardware and software upgrades that are critical to the Block 4 modernization effort. TR-3 suppliers have faced setbacks including supply chain issues and software issues. The program and contractor are resolving these issues.

How can Russia and China hope to compete????????????????

>>4977
Imagine how an actual war with these things would look when they can't even be maintained properly without contractors.

This thread will always be the funniest thread until my country announces that we will be paying for F-35s as a service, instead of buying planes, and therefore subsidizing the US airforce and sacrificing more sovereignty. US is going to have to recoup the cost of this shit somehow and forcing vassals to pay is the only way.
https://hushkit.net/2024/05/20/trillion-dollar-trainwreck-how-the-f-35-hollowed-out-the-u-s-air-force-interview-with-author-bill-sweetman/

>>5020
Even the military can't get away from the rampant subscription model economy.

Seriously I can't believe the defense companies managed to hustle the government so bad with this, you would think there might be at least a few patriots in the air force that would point out that a jet that is supposed to do everything is fucking stupid.

Another F-35 fail - a brand new plane from the factory crashed when flying to its base.

https://topwar.ru/243326-v-ssha-razbilsja-istrebitel-f-35-kotoryj-osuschestvljal-perelet-s-zavoda-na-aviabazu.html

F-35 haters are wrong. Well, they always look at the small details like dumb ass defects and forget the biggest flaw of the F-35 is the air frame itself. It can't replace the F-16, F-15E or A-10 in CAS roles like it was supposed to because its too fragile and lacks maneuverability. It could loiter in the air but existing 4th gen aircraft can do this and carry more munitions not to mention cheap as fuck drones. It can't dogfight at all. It has a garbage turn rate and can't compete with the F-16 or F-15 not to mention the Rafale and newer MiGs and Sukhois. Those Su-35s are no fucking joke. Well okay, so its strength is in avionics and BVR and being able to stealthily loiter at range without being detected. Well that would be good if it was a missile truck with lots of weapons but it can't carry more than a handful without compromising its low observable stealth profile. It doesn't even have the speed (only Mach 1.5ish) to control the distance of a BVR engagement. Its also too slow to be a decent interceptor. So its utterly fucking terrible at the one thing it can do: long range engagements. This is a plane that is supposed to be a a do it all CAS, air superiority, multirole, strike, and a VTOL fighter but it can't do any of these missions well. Its a total piece of garbage.

Its a strike plain that can't carry dozens of weapons, its an air superiority fighter that can't dogfight or carry a fuck ton of AA weapons, its too slow to intercept, doesn't carry enough air to air weapons to box on the outside, its a VTOL plane that can't carry a fucking gun, its a light multirole fighter that's more expensive than an air superiority fighter which completely negates the whole fucking point of a light fighter. The only value in the F-35 is duping countries like Australia or Denmark into buying it so these countries chain themselves to the US defense industry and by extension US foreign policy and make them slaves to Uncle Sam. Why do you think the French opted out of buying them?

>>5053
Update on the F-35 crash. Apparently it was an an experimental test model which was being delivered from Lockheed to Edward's Air Base after refueling. The Pilot survived, having ejected and is stable but in 'serious condition' at a nearby hospital

https://archive.ph/jN0wz

>>5057
>first paragraph
Did you actually reword Pierre Sprey's F-35 rant? You (or rather he) aren't wrong, but LMAO.
>The only value in the F-35 is duping countries like Australia or Denmark into buying it so these countries chain themselves to the US defense industry and by extension US foreign policy and make them slaves to Uncle Sam.
They already are, it's just another boondoggle of the MiC, as usual.
>Why do you think the French opted out of buying them?
The frogs always did have an independent streak in them, besides they have Rafale and other industries, it wouldn't do their economy any good to accept the F-35.

>>5057
>F-35 haters are wrong.
F thirdy fibe is good.
Arrow-dye-namigs is wrong.

>>5022
The most patriotic thing an American can do is profit obscenely at the expense of the government.

>>5062
>>5061
>>5053
Not even a week later and not 1 but TWO Japanese F-35s had landing accidents.
https://topwar.ru/243638-v-japonii-sovershili-avarijnuju-posadku-dva-istrebitelja-f-35.html

This isn't one off either. Previously mentioned ITT was debris falling off a Japanese F-35 and another had a nose-landing-gear break in 2022.
https://www.outono.net/elentir/2022/12/02/the-recording-of-the-crash-of-a-marine-f-35-fighter-at-an-air-base-in-japan/

>>5083
>>5083
>Not even a week later and not 1 but TWO Japanese F-35s had landing accidents.
honestly this is the funniest thread on the site