F-16s on Mars
It will be super lightweight on mars
>>65620242What's the point of having fixed wing aircraft anymore if they're afraid of flying them over iran of all places? What happens when they have to face modern AD in Asia and not just Jerry rigged manpads?
>>65620272This is exactly what I'd be paying my patsies to say if my entire air force (decoys included) got reduced to a PR team.
>>65620278The Iranians airforce was having an exercise with dozens of migs, phantoms and tomcats just this week. Miggers really do live in a parallel reality
>>65620278Even if that were you have to admit but basically none of those iranian airframe casualties were caused by fixed wing aircraft but rather cruise missiles and suicide drones
>>65620295can we see it?
>>65620334I'm going to ignore the laughable esl posting and actually reply to your dogshit cope post. Refusing to fly or not getting the chance to fly your planes before getting btfo is not a flex
>>65620337Sure thing bucko https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/iran-deploys-f14-f5-fighters-border-patrols-israel
>>65620272Israel didn’t have a problem flying over. For once the military was competent and said the war would be stupid and pointless so trump is in face saving mode lobbing rockets.
>>65620355>Israel didn’t have a problem flying over.That was only the case during the early days of the war. When was the last time Israel struck again? They tapped out one month In and left the white goyim to sort out their mess
>>65620353>militarywatchmagazineThis is the same website that claims that Iranian F-5s are bombing US airbases. Their entire shitck is to claim the sky is falling on the US and NATO constantly and it's doomed.
>>65620242Why? F-15EX is practically the same price as F-16V and far more capable. F-16s were designed to fight the Soviets in Europe, they don't have the range to do basically anything that the USAF does anymore or might do in the near future.
>>65620242My understanding is that this is more something Lockheed is lobbying very hard for than something the Air Force is really interested in. It would basically be a way to spend money in the event the budget actually goes to $1.5 trillion annually.
>>65620474The US has a ton of f-16s retiring in mid 2030s. They need to be replaced and the air force has said they're interested, but want to focus on getting the f-47 up and running first. Expect orders for f-16Gs to be public by 2028-2029 though
>>65620242Jets wouldn't work on Mars
>>65620506There’s no way they fit orders for that into the budget if funding stays at the current level. If it gets to where it would be if reconciliation passed and stays there for several years sure, but I’m not confident that happens with a likely Democrat house next year. Even then that line is at capacity with a very healthy order book let’s call it, I think by the time deliveries could actually start CCAs will have made a large order there look very unattractive.
>>65620460Less engines=less maintenanceAirframe cost might be similar but cost of flight hours in f16 is probably much cheaper.
>>65620527Not with that attitude
>>65620353Lmao bodied that freak
>>65620272I think you missed the C-130's
>>65620272Nobody is flying over iran because all the targets worth hitting are hit.
>>65620634More like not with that altitude.
>>65620359No offense but are you retarded? Plenty of f-16s and f-15s and f-18s flew over Iran during the bombing campaign. Nobody is afraid to fly unstealthy aircraft over Iran.
>>65620444if they're claiming F5s are actively bombing U.S. bases than they're obviously lying but an F-5 did bomb a U.S. base at one point.
>>65620646>>65620353Samefag detected
>>65620242What about F-14s over Vietnam?
>>65620766It's some kind of weird turdie/zigger cope disinformation narrative they been pushing since the beginning in 2025 and will still repeat. Basically they claim the USAF never actually pentrated lran's airspace because their air defense was so great. How lran's nook sites were bombed in 2025 and how 1 F-15 ended up downed inside lran with C-130's having to go in to get the crew while A-10's provided cover must remain a great mystery to them.
>>65620646weird samefag, brownoid-san.
>>65620242>F-16s on Mars>>65620262>It will be super lightweight on marsWhat would the aerodynamics of fixed wing flight be on Mars?We obviously know that rotary wing craft are viable if designed for the task, would that spinny-boi have worked on Earth gravity unmodified?Would a regular Earth FPV function on Mars?
>>65621297>What would the aerodynamics of fixed wing flight be on Mars?Bigger control surfaces for more control authority in thin atmo.The typical planform would look like a glider.No jet engines.No internal combustion engines.Basically just forget about it.
>>65621264>how 1 F-15 ended up downed inside lran with C-130's having to go in to get the crew while A-10's provided cover must remain a great mystery to them.The F-15 shit down thnask to iran great AD. Both C-130 and A-10 got shot down too. Which means that Iran AD are Good.
>>65620242Why?The F-16 has a heap of exports because it's great for small poor countries but why would the US choose to buy more F-16s when the F-15EX is already in production and better in every way?
>>65621297>>65621312Mars has 0.006% of earths atmosphere, the only design that might have any chance of flying is the U-2.
>>65620444Iranian F-5s did, in fact, bomb a US airbase in the opening days of the war. This is something even the USAF itself admitted happened btw, which makes your denial of it really fucking comical. It's like some retard in '42 coping that the Japs never attacked Pearl Harbour because surely they could never actually pull that off.
>>65620272They did fly over Iran. They flew over Iraq twice.
>>65620242Where is muh F-111-2
>>65621437You mean an F-222?
>>65621440If it's got the numbers it needs twice the wings.X-wing, in-air handjob edition.
The USAF needs a long range fighter that can operate out of bases in Japan and South Korea and hang around China AO without requiring in-air refuelling. China's entire air force isn't designed around going toe-to-toe with F-35's and F-22's (despite claims) but to knock out the refuelling aircraft that are needed to keep those aircraft in the AO. If they are all destroyed or aren't deployed out of fear then F-35's and F-22's aren't involved around China, leaving only F-18's from carriers and F-15EX to be involved.Therefore they should be working on something with good range and ability to fight. They've long talked about it but I don't see it happening. I thought the F-47 would be it but that seems to be another 'good combat ability, bad range' thing.
>>65621452F-111 could make it from Sydney to bomb Jakarta and come home (to Darwin though) without refuelling.
>>65621452>The USAF needs a long range fighter that can operate out of bases in Japan and South Korea and hang around China AO without requiring in-air refuelling. China's entire air force isn't designed around going toe-to-toe with F-35's and F-22's (despite claims) but to knock out the refuelling aircraft that are needed to keep those aircraft in the AO. If they are all destroyed or aren't deployed out of fear then F-35's and F-22's aren't involved around China, leaving only F-18's from carriers and F-15EX to be involved.>Therefore they should be working on something with good range and ability to fight. They've long talked about it but I don't see it happening. I thought the F-47 would be it but that seems to be another 'good combat ability, bad range' thing.the US truly in its heart-of-hearts does not ever forsee it self operating in any 'real-combat' sense anywhere outside of the israeli/israeli adjacent theater, and thus continues to design its future craft for operating in israeli-centric conditions, ranges and objectivesthere just isnt a scenario where US flagged jets are downing Chinese flagged jets that doesnt instantly turn into global catastrophe..(same with Russian flagged craft)
>>65621317What in the fucking esl am i attempting to read?
>>65621317>>65621475Samefag brownoid shitting up the board on purposeGo back to /pol/estine, turdskin.
>>65621176If that picture had been taken over Arclight craters, it would look like a Macross post Space War screenshot.
>>65621458It also had an RCS of "Yes".
>>65621452>good combat ability bad rangeThey’re claiming a combat radius in excess of 1000nmi. Which would mean you could basically fly one way from New York to Los Angeles without refueling. Possibly farther depending on how much margin they’re leaving for time in station. That is great range for anything still vaguely in fighter weight class.
>>65620242Counter point: T-62s or their derivatives on Mars is far more logical given the planets atmospheric conditions.
>>65623271Wouldn't the cannon breech block on a tank deployed to Mars need some sort of basic airlock to prevent it from losing internal atmosphere reserves while it was being loaded?
>>65623271>>65623282>samefagging with the trip on
>>65623301I'm not same fagging you idiot i use the tripcode so i can ramble and rant without being accused of replying to myself**I use notations and a trip code to link to my previous post, i make it very clear
>>65620633It's an American thing, they seems to have a super expensive fighter that can do anything and a cheaper one that's the workhorse for all the jobs they don't need a super fighter for.
>>65620242>F-16s on MarsF-16s can't even survive modern battlefield like in ukraine, lmao.
>>65620353>old F-5 pic>no other pics of flying planeskek
>>65620460Turnaround time is shorter on less complex aircraft.
>>65623388>they seems to have a super expensive fighter that can do anything and a cheaper one that's the workhorse for all the jobs they don't need a super fighter for.The High in a High/Low mix is a threat-in-being that the enemy can't ignore when trying to deal with the Low.You can handle intercepting a pair of F-16s with your best fighters but you have to assume that there's an F-35 you haven't seen away at the horizon somewhere.
>>65621365Where?
>>65621317Great, you got about a week to get your ass over there and take part in the defense by catching a moab?
>>65624892so why not just high/high and have just one type of airframe do everything?
>>65625066Because it costs more and they can't be everywhere and aren't always required. You don't want to use SWAT on every traffic stop and you don't need every traffic cop to be SWAT trained and equipped. Drivers know that the cop can call for backup though, so they always know what could be around the corner and have to include that in their decision making.
