F35 sucks

[76561199793808048]

the F35 sucks. the missiles on the wing? seriously. Like atleast make internal missile bays like for the F22.

[deathspeed]

Oh, lookie here! https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/f-35a-aar-external-stores.jpg

[NuclearSnail]

The F35 is one of the best war machines ever conceived by mankind. And they really do have external weapons. They are not first strike interceptors, so they aren't as fast as the f22 and thus don't need to keep all of their weapons internal. The f22 can do at least mach 2.5. The f35 is designed for mach 1.6. The f35 is also more heavily armed than the f22 as well. Meaning it carries so many more missiles and bombs that they can't all be put in internal bays. Basically the f22 is designed to get to your base and kill it and your aircraft before you even know it's coming. It's fast and light and only carries what it absolutely needs for the job. The f35 is for a completely different task. It's armed to the teeth and basically takes over the roll of the a10 warthog while also boasting air to air combat superiority capabilities that the a10 lacks. There's also a vertical take off and landing variant of the f35 as well.

[Crug]

Originally posted by NuclearSnail:

The F35 is one of the best war machines ever conceived by mankind. And they really do have external weapons. They are not first strike interceptors, so they aren't as fast as the f22 and thus don't need to keep all of their weapons internal. The f22 can do at least mach 2.5. The f35 is designed for mach 1.6. The f35 is also more heavily armed than the f22 as well. Meaning it carries so many more missiles and bombs that they can't all be put in internal bays. Basically the f22 is designed to get to your base and kill it and your aircraft before you even know it's coming. It's fast and light and only carries what it absolutely needs for the job. The f35 is for a completely different task. It's armed to the teeth and basically takes over the roll of the a10 warthog while also boasting air to air combat superiority capabilities that the a10 lacks. There's also a vertical take off and landing variant of the f35 as well.

Both the F-22 and F-35 can either have all their weapons internally for stealth purposes, or have additional weapons under the wings for increased payload. That's not necessarily exclusive to either aircraft. The main difference is that the F-22 is primarily intended for air-to-air combat while the F-35 is also capable of air-to-ground or air-to-sea combat.

[akita neru clone #4730]

they didn't even give the f35 a good looking paintjob/skin, its just the default black for osea, a mediocre desert camo for erusia and a god awful special skin for downing the f35 ace like come on

[Fastspectre]

fat amy doesn't matter anyway
that thing is a complete design fail
they should have just made the vstol version for the marines, make more f22's and upgrade her because the base airframe is already so much better with more power and more internal stores for the USAF and make a complete new version with 2 engines and strong landing gear for the navy, or upgrade the f22 to be carrier compartible

the only fat amy that makes sense is the vertical take of and landing one because the harrier's got to old
everything else other planes could do better

[Humble]

From what I understand 35 is multirole design while F-22 is superior air to air combat specialist fighter, so based air to air combat, F-22 is better than F-35 in air to air combat but problem is it's too expensive, there is not lot of nation that had lot of aircraft, basic it's overkill for what it cost, so they want cheaper so F-35 is offer for multirole for cheaper cost than F-22 do.

Don't get me wrong F-22 is look awesome, and deady, worth upgrade, but USA don't need that lot of those, meanwhile USA need lot of F-35, since many enemies are on the ground more than in the sky.

But with drone warfare change war, I'm not sure, but aircraft and helicopter still useful but acting as support while they simpe use Drone as major attack or offense at cheaper cost and more sneaking under radars.

Not sure how would they deal with swarm of drone warfare at this point, especially A.I control it.

[Fastspectre]

the f22 was never meant to be sold, because it is so op (like the f117 too, btw it flies again, for training tho), why would you sell your most op jet to what could become your enemy, or a country where you can't controle who they are giving secrets about your most op jet too
btw they also more or less invented SDB's (small diamater bombs) for the f22 so it could also do air to ground precision striking, the f22 had those before the 35 was even a thing
it is also only as expensive as it is because there were only ever about 180 of them build, 500 or so were planed
fat amy is still fn expensive considering that there is about 600 of them allready all around the world, that thing still costs like 185 mil a piece (f22 was like 220 mil)

you can't remove manned fighter jets or any manned form combat, or you would have no controle, war wouldn't mean much anymore, when there is no lives on the line, war would happen more often when there is no lives on the line (except civillians, because you can't really controle AI) and no one is thinking about sacrificing some drones you just do it
AI can be hacked and just be returned to sender

also do you want Skynet?

or just do all fighting virtually anyway, so no one has to die

[Vicxent]

Originally posted by Fastspectre:

fat amy doesn't matter anyway
that thing is a complete design fail
they should have just made the vstol version for the marines, make more f22's and upgrade her because the base airframe is already so much better with more power and more internal stores for the USAF and make a complete new version with 2 engines and strong landing gear for the navy, or upgrade the f22 to be carrier compartible

the only fat amy that makes sense is the vertical take of and landing one because the harrier's got to old
everything else other planes could do better

The F-22 was designed to go in and destroy other planes without being detected with the ability to carry air-to-ground munitions. The F-35 is designed to flatten tactical ground targets with the ability to shoot at airplanes without being detected (not as close as F-22 though).

The 2 above is straight up overpowered against other 5th gen planes out there. And a weapon for mass slaughter against anything less. Unfortunately the F-22 is massively expensive with a maintenance that is also quite massive, designed for a time when the Air Force got a blank check every year. NGAD promised to be cheaper, better, more adaptable, configurable, and "fits better" with the US Air Force systems and doctrines. Develop with the unmanned loyal wing-man who I think is the main source of "air superiority" for the two, safe to say the air is dominated by one side again.

[NuclearSnail]

Originally posted by Crug:

Originally posted by NuclearSnail:

The F35 is one of the best war machines ever conceived by mankind. And they really do have external weapons. They are not first strike interceptors, so they aren't as fast as the f22 and thus don't need to keep all of their weapons internal. The f22 can do at least mach 2.5. The f35 is designed for mach 1.6. The f35 is also more heavily armed than the f22 as well. Meaning it carries so many more missiles and bombs that they can't all be put in internal bays. Basically the f22 is designed to get to your base and kill it and your aircraft before you even know it's coming. It's fast and light and only carries what it absolutely needs for the job. The f35 is for a completely different task. It's armed to the teeth and basically takes over the roll of the a10 warthog while also boasting air to air combat superiority capabilities that the a10 lacks. There's also a vertical take off and landing variant of the f35 as well.

Both the F-22 and F-35 can either have all their weapons internally for stealth purposes, or have additional weapons under the wings for increased payload. That's not necessarily exclusive to either aircraft. The main difference is that the F-22 is primarily intended for air-to-air combat while the F-35 is also capable of air-to-ground or air-to-sea combat.

Not true. The f35 is capable of carrying far more munitions than the f22 is. Under full capacity, the f35 cannot have all of it's weapons in internal bays. In order to internalize every weapon, it has to cut it's total munitions load down. At capacity, it has to carry some externally.

The f22 is for air to air combat yes, but it's also an interceptor, where as the f35 is a multi-roll air to air and air to ground combat craft.

The f35B is the ONLY variant capable of vertical take off and landing. It's the version used at sea. The other f35's are ground based.

[Crug]

Not true. The f35 is capable of carrying far more munitions than the f22 is. Under full capacity, the f35 cannot have all of it's weapons in internal bays. In order to internalize every weapon, it has to cut it's total munitions load down. At capacity, it has to carry some externally.

The f22 is for air to air combat yes, but it's also an interceptor, where as the f35 is a multi-roll air to air and air to ground combat craft.

The f35B is the ONLY variant capable of vertical take off and landing. It's the version used at sea. The other f35's are ground based. [/quote]

Neither plane can have all of its weapons internally if you want to run them at their maximum capacity. That's the point of mounting things under the wings. You run it with only internal weapons for stealth. The F-35C is carrier capable and the F-35A is land-based.

[NuclearSnail]

Originally posted by Crug:

Not true. The f35 is capable of carrying far more munitions than the f22 is. Under full capacity, the f35 cannot have all of it's weapons in internal bays. In order to internalize every weapon, it has to cut it's total munitions load down. At capacity, it has to carry some externally.

The f22 is for air to air combat yes, but it's also an interceptor, where as the f35 is a multi-roll air to air and air to ground combat craft.

The f35B is the ONLY variant capable of vertical take off and landing. It's the version used at sea. The other f35's are ground based.

Neither plane can have all of its weapons internally if you want to run them at their maximum capacity. That's the point of mounting things under the wings. You run it with only internal weapons for stealth. The F-35C is carrier capable and the F-35A is land-based. [/quote]

You're not air force or navy are you? Your style of nit picking shows that you don't actually know anything at all about what these aircraft are designed for or how they are designed to be operated. You read a wiki page and take it literal.

[King Fossil]

This is Ace Combat so having weapons external is an advantage. There's no drawback and it means you don't have to deal with missile delay like internal weapons do. Hate missile delay.

[Scarface Gunhoard]

It does suck, but not because of the external hardpoints. 4AAM are mediocre for anything besides bombers and helicopters, SOD is useless as always, and 8AGM are workable but would be infinitely better if they couldn't lock more than one missile on one target. The Rafale, F-15E, and even Gripen have far superior weapon options, come earlier in the tree, and have as good or even better flight performance to boot.

[Humble]

Ah, I guess we talk about gameplay, not real life. So balance issues in this game, then?

[Scarface Gunhoard]

Well yeah. Be a bit stupid to talk about their IRL performance here. 4AAM and its equivalents throughout the series have always been a hard sell over things like SAAM or QAAM, and especially with the introduction of 6AAM. Less range than 6AAM or SAAM, and homing poor enough that you're lucky to hit two or more out of a full salvo of four means that any other A2A special is almost always a better option.

SOD has always been garbage in every game it appears in because trying to line yourself up against a series of ground targets so that it actually hits more than one or two things is always a waste of time compared to just using bombs, 4AGM, LACM, etc. Can't even use it against ships too well in 7 because it's an easy target for CIWS. The only thing it really needs to go from useless trash to solid choice is the ability to change its flight path in order to hit other nearby ground targets. That'd probably be real finicky to program, but it'd be hard to make SOD outright worse anyway, so I think it's worth it for Project ACES to try someday.

8AGM would be outright excellent, if not for the absolutely horrible and pointless multi-missile lock mechanic. The hardest ground target commonly seen in 7 is AD tanks, and one 8AGM missile oneshots those, so it serves no purpose whatsoever beyond wasting your stock of missiles. If you could toggle it on and off for dumping on ships, that'd be neat, but you can't. At the very least, piles of 8 or more ground targets are common enough that you can usually get use out of your whole salvo, and you can be confident they'll all hit barring factors like terrain masking and CIWS. The same cannot be said for 8AAM, which is the single worst A2A special in the game, but that's another rant.

In short, the F-35 has perhaps the single most unfortunate special weapon loadout of any plane in the game. The most useful one overall is 8AGM, and that comes with a lot of caveats. It does have stealth and decent flight performance, but stealth is almost a total non-factor in singleplayer, and there are other planes with as good or better performance that have far superior special weapon options. Makes me almost as mad as the F-16 having trash performance just because it's the starter plane, when the F-5 is right there to serve that purpose instead.