Belgium picks Lockheed's F-35 over Eurofighter on price

Also Belgium went from 160 F-16 on 12 squadrons in the early 90's, to 105 on 8 squadrons in 1999, to 80 aircraft on 6 squadrons in 2005, to 68 on 5 squadrons in 2012, to 44 on 3 squadrons in 2018, to 32 on 2 squadron in 2020 (2 F-35 will be cancelled to hid the real price).

But there has been 0 loss of capacity for NATO, no sir.
Isn't that magical?

The same thing happened in Denmakr when we had to choose between the F35 and the F/A 18-F Super Hornet. Despite protests and questions about how they found that the F35 was supposed to b e cheaper, they went with the F35 anyway.
This led to a 'small' controversy in the eyes of the public, when it was later discovered that parts for the F35 were going out of production, so that an additional 15 million dollars needed to be spent purchasing spare parts before the planes were even done. There was also subsequent talks about how the plane might end up costing more than expected anyway, which was met by the government with a Whoopsie yikes xD

Attached: blam!.png (370x567, 270.93K)

We're also only getting a measly 27 F35s.
On a sidenote, one of the main people in charge of purchasing a replacement for the F-16 was a woman who had been in charge of a very controversial national purchase of IC-3 trains. The trains were way over budget and most of them didn't reach the danish border, and when they did, most had to be retrofitted in Denmark which made the entire process meaninigless.
Somehow she made it onto the commitee that was supposed to find and purchase a replacement for the F-16, and it is honestly disgusting.

What do they bribe women with instead of cash and virgins?

At least, us frogs still have the Rafale.

Attached: c52b106c6f7314de881f906daf466d20357522bf8f3590d7c8f8d77d0060895b.mp4 (1080x720, 2.03M)

They don't.
Technically they don't bribe anyone.
EU politicians are all too happy to wag their tails to the US for free so they maybe get a pat on the back by a US under-secretary at a fancy party, they've been conditioned since childhood to think like that and the US state department is always there to remind them. The only thing that might stop them is if their own military tell them it's completely retarded.
So Lockheed (and cie) targets generals.
How do they do it? Simple they promise them to hire them as technical consultants on a 7 figure salary once they retire.
With the amount of generals that end up "working" for defense contracts you can probably invade another solar system.

None of it is illegal, you can't prove that generals that backed this or that program did so to take a "fake" job (that is fully within their skillset) in a couple of years.

That's the question.

Probably cash and a male harem. If recent danish controversies are anything to go by, women really love money, so that should suffice.

Same thing they offer to men. Promises of a seven figure salary in a cushy job which requires no actual work after they leave office. Until then, they might receive some award to make them feel special. They reserve the cash and virgins for Arab princes and African warlords.

What did he mean by this?

What did he mean by this?

Attached: Belief.jpg (546x567, 28.09K)

Well at least it doesn't use fuel as a hydraulic fluid and a coolant.

Reminder

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1731x1227, 1.74M)

Rafale is the closest thing to what F-35 was supposed to be minus the stealth and it's still pretty stealthy.

The F-16 is stealthier and it wasn't even designed as a stealth aircraft.

Attached: ec8dcdc5471a3856d36b741b01c71f20f998af412c0a57b143c65aec6745f077.png (800x450, 687.78K)

But it has neither canards nor a carrier-capable version.

That's very likely.

Could it be modified with canards without upsetting the balance or harmonics of the airframe? More importantly, how does the F-16's maneuverability compare to the Typhoon and Rafale? I know it already handles better than the F-35, but would it need canards to compete with the other two fighters? I guess these questions are less relevant if you want canards for lift purposes.

About carrier use, it was simply never designed for that. I wonder how hard it'd be to adapt.

The Rafale is not a stealth plane… what makes the Rafale stealthy is widely suspected to be ACTIVE cancellation tech, coupled to powerful smart noise jammers.

French approach to stealth is "who cares if you're seen as long the missiles don't hit", which is the sane approach to the "stealth" issue.

Of course it means you can't murdernuke Russia or China in their sleep which is what the US wants (but we're totally not the evil ones goy! Remember that).

An F-16 with canards is pretty much a Grippen.

Attached: 800px-Saab_JAS_39_Gripen_at_Kaivopuisto_Air_Show,_June_2017_(altered)_copy.jpg (800x468, 38.56K)

I suppose Rafale was designed with the concept of limited nuclear warfare in mind? Like, battlefield tactical nukes and such, in which case it indeed is completely irrelevant if you're seen or not.

Attached: intti ainsley m91.png (760x797, 54.96K)

I didn't say anything like the 'murdernuke' nonsense you're implying at the end of your post, at all. There's no such thing as invisible planes. My point was that the F-16 is also a harder plane to detect and hit than the F-35, I should have clarified that. I don't know how the F-16 looks against the Rafale.

Wait, the F-35, the new up and coming aeriel combat platform of the western world, being sold to numerous nations and still in serial production, is having spare part support already withdrawn? What kind of fuckery? They're still making spares for the C-5 Galaxy and that fucker was introduced in 1968.

[citation really fucking needed]

Slightly lower sustained and supersonic turn rate at least the F-16A was, current F-16C is significantly heavier much lower instantaneous turn rate. All of them rather suck in sustained AoA though, with Rafale being the only allegedly decent one at this aspect, the other two have maximum angle of attack artificially inhibited at 30 degrees.

Aerodynamically speaking that would be either the J-10 or a single-engined typhoon. Air intake placement and nose shape.

It's already been done before just like it was with the F-15 but canard mods were never adopted by the USAF for (((reasons))).
I doubt they'd increase maneuverability that much considering the F-16 is fairly agile as is, but a three-surface design like in pic related could reduce takeoff+landing distance, provide precise pitch control at high angles of attack and add an additional layer of flight control surface redundancy.

Attached: F-16 AFTI.jpg (750x450, 42.82K)

Back in 2016 when the danish politicians decided to buy the F35, it quickly surfaced that Denmark would have to purchase 15 million USD worth of spare parts onto of the jet fighter deal.
This was not advertised anywhere else, and when a statement was given by the defence minister, he said that it was necessary because the alledged parts were going out of production and that we needed to invest in more parts than we needed for the planes to be built.
Further more, excessive parts would then have to be sold to anyone who'd want to buy them to recoup some of the cost.
They never disclosed what parts were going out of production, and it may have been parts exclusive to the plane package that Denmark got. You have to consider that Lockheeb can underbid anyone by selling them underequipped or budget version of their planes.
Afaik, they have yet to release a spec sheet for the F35 model we'll be getting, probably because of 'muh national security' which will be compromised either way due to having a tiny air fleet.

After some digging, I found out that it is supposedly because the engine we signed to get in the F35 in 2023 is due to be changed for an entirely new engine in 2025 and therefore if we wish to have the planes in not working order by 2023 we have to pay in advance. Even better is that the engines are supposed to be assembled in Turkey and the airframe in Italy.

Which is exactly the weakest point of the F-16 in terms of maneuverability.

Probably because the original one didn't use enough flammable.

Attached: 0% amused.PNG (492x646, 144.85K)

Belgians are fucking retarded, they picked the F-16 over the F-17 which was cheaper and higher performance. The entire country is run on bribery, cronyism, corruption and blackmail.

I'd say it's not entirely implausible, especially given that the F-35 can't fly with the weapon bay doors closed when it's armed. I would like to see the comparison with multiple bands, with the bays open, from other angles besides 0°/head on.

Wasn't the F-17 hampered by Northrop's bad marketing? There was the .webm from a documentary of some defense official talking about how they arrived with a delegation of one man and just told the group that it was the best plane they could get and made no attempt to negotiate.

Why should he have to negotiate? It was objectively better than the other candidate.

Europeans literally were offered a slice of pie and a slice of shit, and they bought and ate a slice of shit because the shit salesman complimented them and made some jokes.

Not really. F-16 still was faster and the champion of sustained turn rate, the most important aspect of air combat, for decades before the Rafale and Typhoon came around. The F-17 was just more aerobatic.

Scratch that, apparently the YF-17 was faster than its F-18 descendant and of equal speed with the F-16, so I presume with it lower weight it would have significantly better sustained turn rate than the Hornet too.

That was the F-20 Tigershark. Their plan was to literally send a Tom Cruise look alike to the table to exclaim that it was "the best plane EVER!" and then empty the nearest minibar.

Attached: b771cae640283305d039f6fd243530bcc66585b67.png (1600x1724, 205.78K)

For guns combat.

Attached: 1.png (625x626, 94.98K)

to be fair, eating freshly steamed feces seems to be a hobby for Eurocrats

I did not come up with "speed is life" motto.

Also for conserving energy to outturn missiles, also for putting yourself in favorable position for short-range missile kills.

1. F-17 was faster, had a better TW ratio, could get to altitude faster, could fly higher (which meant its missiles had more range).
2. Sustained turn was the most important aspect of air combat when people were shooting each other with bullets. Instantaneous turn rate and energy recovery after turn is the most important aspect when people are shooting each other with off boresight missiles.
3. A single vertical stabilizer airplane physically CANNOT have the same stability while turning at any angle than a double stab.
4. F-17 had better instantaneous and sustained turn rate. F-16 sustained turn rate is a pathetic 18 degrees, while it's 34 degrees for an F-17.
5. Oh and it had the first relaxed longitudinal stability fighter, flew that way before F-16.

Where did this meme originate from and why is it being repeated on Zig Forums of all places?

Attached: Fw 190 A-8.jpg (1300x892, 256.32K)

I didn't care about planes until this debacle, but now I am become plane fag.

Boom and zoom is more fun anyways

I withdraw my objection.

Probably American sour grapes after the Su-27 and MiG-29's capabilities became know to the West.

If any of that is true then why don't you go out and fight ww2 in a bi-plane? Also ask yourself as to why the P-47 was such an effective fighter? Air combat has always been about the speed and energy conservation game.

Quite astonishing that anons on Zig Forums are disputing this obvious truth, I'd be willing to bet these same retards would tell us the A6M zero was a good plane.

Suppose for the same reason Luftwaffe's simulated dogfights got MiG-29s a 9/1 kill ratio against their F-16s. If you can shoot an all-aspect off-boresight missile even from an awkward position, thanks to HMD and the aircraft's high alpha capabilities then the pilot being shot at will be forced to bleed lots of energy for evading maneuvers losing his energy-conservation advantage.

UK, Germany and Italy have had Tornados for US nukes. Italy and UK are also getting F-35's so they aren't going to pay for integrating B61's to Typhoon.

Danish cost analysis was kinda vague and had few oddities. As usual air forces are pretty vague over their selection criteria and points systems they use to rank evaluated aircraft. Rule of thumb when it comes to any fighter deals in Europe in coming years it will be F-35 winning, as long as country can afford it. Gripen will be the budget alternative and other budget alternatives will be F-16 block 60/70 and F/A-18E/F if buyer is existing F-16 or F/A-18 user. Rafale and Eurofighter are there drive down costs if manufacturer is willing to make very low price offer.

Finland has Hornet replacement program underway. Quite interestingly Lockheed didn't even offer F-16 and Boeing didn't offer F-15 when Finland requested offers for those as well.

Moment F-16 loaded with fuel and weapons F-35 can carry internally, its maneuverability starts to suffer a lot. F-16 could have been turned into carrier variant, but US Navy wasn't really interested in it in 70's. General Dynamics contracted Vought to develop naval variant as they didn't have experience with naval aircraft. It would have stuff that comes with naval fighters like reinforced landing gear, tailhook, folding wings and so on. In addition Navy wanted different canopy for some reason. For some reason navy was pretty autistic about two engines. It wasn't a problem for A-4, F-8 and A-7.

F-16 with delta wing and canards would be F-16 with delta wing and canards.

Northrop had gigantic fuck up of marketing campaign in Europe in 70's. They basically told potential customers fuck off when it comes to license manufacturing and offset trade deals. There is a very good reason why Northrop failed to sell F-18L to anyone and McDonnell-Douglas managed to export naval version to many customers. I honestly don't understand why license manufacturing was never an issue with F-5, they probably just sacked the people that turned F-5 into export success.

Because that way they would have made some sales. The license manufacturing creates jobs in country for clients and that is major factor in any massive defense procurement.

Attached: AA_19710813_ADF_Config_772_inboard_1267828237_5922.jpg (2400x877, 428.77K)

Germany has been trying for almost two decades to get the certification for B-61 on the Eurofighter. The USAF always said that it was "impossible for now".
Because they know that would mean the death of the F-35A in Europe.

The F-16 also turned that simulated k/d completely around when they were clear to engage at longer distances but slavophiles always like to jack off that one time when their plane will win if unnaturally put into an advantageous position. Christ you're just as bad as the people who slapped radar reflectors all over the drone targets for the sergeant York.

Attached: bright chew.gif (500x400, 140.98K)

Attached: Shinji-s_Scream_in_Different_Languages.webm (640x360, 1.3M)

Against purely maintained MiGs without AMRAAMskis and with AWACS support. I don't see why the F-16 should be more than equal in BVR against a faster and higher climbing fighter.

Fuel maybe but I honestly don't see how 4 amraams are a serious aerodynamic burden.

youtu.be/RzNGwhKSL6E

breitbart.com/europe/2018/10/28/400m-brexit-boost-macron-fumes-as-belgium-chooses-british-american-f-35s-over-euro-jets/

As shit as f-35 is. Macron Butt hurts still makes it worth while.

So I take it they are never going to fly them then and leave them in a hangar for 40 years?

Lockheeb takes them out to dinner.

Isn't that what everyone's going to do with their F-35? You're not seriously going to try flying that thing, right?

Whats next? are you going to say that the mig would totally win a guns only fight if the F-16s were still on the ground too?

Attached: Sami shiggy.png (479x479, 170.98K)

See this shit is why people don't like yanks.
Gyros-nigger is clearly implying that there is no indication the F-16 is superior when both sides are properly supported yet here you are construing it as if he had basically said "FITE ME 1v1 FAGGIT"

The debts man was trying to say that turn rate was the most important factor in air combat and cited a retarded unrealistic scenario as his proof. Boom and zoom will always be how war is won in the air and has been since ww2.

Until the argument changed to the topic of MiGs vs F-16's.
Besides your claim's falacious anyway and I can prove it. Embed related, thanks to the wonders of jets and thrust to weight ratios being close to or above 1, all previous styles of combat are applicable.
Sure all the AWACS or ground station support in the world will tip things in whoevers favour but at the end of the engagement both turn rate AND energy management (what you call boom and zoom) become factors in going defensive or going offensive.
It's the age old argument for WVR or for BVR, the truth being somewhere in the middle since in embed related you can clearly see that even with BVR missiles you use everything you can do defeat a missile and in WVR turn rate contributes to both defeating missiles AND in getting a firing solution.
Point is, you're both wrong, but olive-oil coon is the least wrong.
And before you fire back with muh AWACS support the only real difference it would've made is that the first missiles would be off the rails at a longer range, but when it comes to defeating them it's the same story. Either juke it or burn off it's energy so that it can't catch you, which by the by is even EASIER with a larger separation.
Vid related - youtube.com/watch?v=C9FVhCYrTFY

I wonder how many shekels he got

Attached: 1457653205568.jpg (260x476, 37K)

see:

I was arguing against the frequent burger claim that instantaneous turn rate is useless.

Where the fuck did your saturated fats saturated brain derive that from? I only pointed out that Fulcrums that lost to F-16s were not equipped their real world BVR equipped missiles (R-77) and did not have AWACS support that every fighter wing would have in a "real" combat environment.

see:

I was arguing against the frequent burger claim that instantaneous turn rate is useless.

Where the fuck did you derive that from? I only pointed out that Fulcrums that lost to F-16s were not equipped their real world BVR equipped missiles (R-77) and did not have AWACS support that every fighter wing would have in a "real" combat environment.

I wonder how you're reading that. I know what words I wrote, but you're probably reading "sustained turn rate doesn't matter". It's not the most important thing moron, it's the second most important.

Northrop objectively made the best aircraft the world had ever seen, and they were rejected because their sales pitch didn't include "muh gibs" and social program bullshit.

The world deserves to burn and Northrop did nothing wrong.

Not really, the conformal tanks offer 800km range hi-lo-hi combat radius, and a single centerline tank bumps that up to 1150km hi lo hi combat radius. Right in F-35 range. Althought F-35 values are hi hi hi so its probably 800km hi lo hi anyway

That's fair as long as you give the enemy the chance to jam the AWACS or shoot it down prior to the exercise. Or give the enemy his version of AWACS support.

2081

So they are ensuring safety of Lockheeb and safety of that one group whose job it is to do things that are rather unsafe. Well, the less effective european militaries become, less power the politicians will have.

Just fuck my shit up

independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/f35-crash-lockheed-martin-lightning-ii-eject-aviation-accidents-incidents-south-carolina-a8560756.html

...

Northrop got exactly what they deserved, they managed to sell bunch rear fuselages and vertical stabilizers as subcontractor for McDonnell-Douglas F/A-18.

Going to need source on that one, the vapour pressure is too low for that.
That has been done in rocketry since the '40s, I don't see an issue with it.

vs.

Attached: [Erai-raws] Zombieland Saga - 04 [720p][Multiple Subtitle].mkv_snapshot_00:16:35_[2018.10.26_21.35.25].png (1280x720, 1M)

So what you're saying is mediocre sustained turn rates with comparatively high energy conservation are the way to go?

Attached: Whore_Blunder_montage_part_2.webm (1280x720, 16M)

Didn't the FW-190 have better turn rates than most 109s?
Are you using a headset and stick for that?
Also trash music.

OH MY LAD. YOU ARE IN FOR A TREAT.
media.8ch.net/file_store/dfdec2dcd6712b3de0feba8b913a725b3217f745814edba5476f16099b3ff3c2.pdf

Hop on over to page 36 on whatever reader you're using or search for the term "Fueldraulics". Really just read through the entire report,I'm convinced it's how an engineer would write a comedy.
Heck if you want a good meme just go over to the thread in question at this stamp and start reading the choice excerpts streloks have found.
8ch.net/k/res/611697.html#q616534
You'll also find a report from June 2018 that has multiple issues completely expunged from the program agenda for no given reason, as in the report states that the problem exists, but was either placed at a low priority and
Granted the report is almost two years old now, but changing something as deeply integrated as the "hydraulics" constitutes major redesign that we have no indication has actually happened.

Sure if the idea is just to rock up throw missiles and fuck off. But then that'd be an interceptor, like say a MiG of some description wouldn't it?
I contend that both have to be equally important priorities in the design of dedicated fighter since you can't guarantee that your plane won't ever enter knife fight range for whatever reason, although you can probably skimp on energy management in relative terms because as I said briefly, just about any fighter worth a damn has TWR aiming to be near, at or above 1, so they're all going to be able to generate way more energy than any BVR missile given enough separation.

You deserve the aftertaste.

As funny as the results of tests like the ejection seat's 23% mortality rate are, it's even funnier when they don't bother testing at all and just flat out say the pilot's boned.

Attached: 2cb573fe47de6f8e0c253679b7d37bc92b28365ef0eb7094f2da2ba3c1276ea2.jpg (960x2880, 389.18K)

If you want to make food allegory. Northrop YF-17 sales pitch was kinda like McDonald's shipping all their burgers worldwide from San Bernandino, Commiefornia, or Pizza Hut shipping all their pizzas from Wichita, Kansas, instead setting up local subsidies to manage business in other countries and franchising out day to day business to consumers.

You deserve spoiled burgers or pizzas delivered from half way around world.

Local manufacturing, local maintenance, tech transfers and offset trades are just part of major factors in defense sales. A country looking for half dozen aircraft might not care much about local manufacturing, but a countries buying several dozen or several hundred aircraft will care about local content and ability to integrate their own systems to aircraft. McDonnell-Douglas offered far better deals for clients with F/A-18 than Northrop ever did with YF-17 and F-18L.

Attached: afuckingleaf.jpg (900x600 111.61 KB, 92.18K)

It's not an allegory, it's an analogy. Allegory is a story that teaches you a valuable lesson.

F-16: McDonalds expired beef ground in with spices to hide the bitter aftertaste of spoilage and enough soy to put tits on a chicken, with its fake sponge marketing.

F-17: A guy on a ranch in Arizona who makes a kobe steak so good it literally causes you to go into a coma, but his only advertising is a handmade sign on the turnpike.

The irony is that the F-18 was an inferior fighter of what the F-17 would have been due to being a non-denavalized version of a specialized carrierborne fighter that was deprived of its main selling point, low weight and high thrust to weight. in contrast to the F-14 that was always supposed to be a flying boat. There was no reason for anyone to buy F-18s as land based fighters after F-16C came around, except maybe if they really needed rudimentary close-support capabilities.

I think Canada and Norway picked the F-18 because ice blocks on the runway kept fodding their F-16 and they needed something with two engines. I think they wanted the F-15, but America at the time protected the F-15 just like it protects the F-22 now.

Sorry, I had 3am hitting my brain. English isn't my native language.

With food analogy, the best steak in world isn't relevant at all. Global aviation and defense companies are only analogous to global fast food giants. McDonald's for example is quite different thing in different countries. In some countries it is the worst McJob, in others they are the best McJob for students after massive outrage that has hurt their sales. Local food standards is also a factor. I'd rather get my burgers from a real restaurant, but McD at least in Nordic countries has been forced to clean up their act, so they aren't selling butchers leftovers as food.

McDonnell-Douglas put a minor effort in finding local subcontractors/industrial partners in every country they managed to export F/A-18 with exception of Malaysian and Thai deals that were too small for local partners. Thai deal was cancelled due to Asian economic crisis of 1997, Hornets originally ordered by Thais ended up for 'muhreens as two seaters. Northrop might have offered Canadians as good deal as McDonnell-Douglas, but in that case unfortunately McDonnell-Douglas owned former Avro Canada and they could offer better deal for Winnipeg and Canadian territorial politics.

Northrop offered almost two tons lighter land based Hornet and extra G in turns.

Except when clients wanted better radar. In early 90's F/A-18 had far better radar available, post 2005 or so F-16 has had better radar as US Navy has had lower priority in upgrading their existing planes than USAF.

Didn't the F-16C had dramatically improved radar/electronics pack compared to A from the beginning?

Canada picked the F-18 because Canada is retarded.

Canada needs proper air superiority fighters, they're the ones literally next to Russia with a gigantic airspace to cover and only a handful few bases.
The simple fact they request light fighters is testament to how retarded the Can chairforce and Can politicians are.

The 109 had superior sustained turn rates and energy conservation during mid to low speed vertical maneuvers than the 190 but inferior instantaneous turn rates especially at high speed.
The 190 on the other hand excelled in raw speed, dive performance, roll rate and straight line energy retention but sucked dick at sustained turns due to a lack of leading edge slats, which also made the plane stall and spin quite aggressively when flown by an inexperienced pilot.

Wouldn't the same analogy apply to the F-20?
Why didn't the Swiss buy any of those?

Attached: War Thunder (SB) Dogfights - 'Surrounded' part 1.webm (1024x576, 14.52M)