Such beauty. Why do so many troglodytes resist the aircraft of the future?
>>1006234
THE A-10 IS A MUCH BETTER CAS ROLE JET AND YOU KNOW IT KYLE
FUCK OFF
>>1006278
Believe it or not, modernizing our military isn't a bad thing cupcake.
>>1006278
CAS AS A ROLE DIED AFTER THE YEAR 1976
ALSO THIS THREAD BELONGS ON /k/.
>>1006278
>CAS ROLE
>>1006287
>CAS AS A ROLE
Jack-of-all-trades, master of none.
>>1006328
Don't you have a jazz band to look after, Sprey?
I personally don't see the point of it.
Why should we spend billions for a fucking aircraft with the F-22 is already lightyears ahead of the rest of the world while social services and infrastructure is going to complete and utter shit.
>>1006384
Uneducated people should not speak of things on which they are ignorant about.
> Aircraft commercials on TV
> Aircraft commercials at the bus stop
> Aircraft commercials on my 4chan
For what purpose? It's not like us common plebians have any say in whether we buy into the military industrial complex or not.
>>1006437
The people in charge of defence spending also watch TV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-vkdUBNOOc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6L5J7WcUpo
>>1006450
but surely the people in charge of the defence spending know enough about this topic to not let some flash cgi and catchy slogans persuade them?
>>1006461
But you do need all of that.
Leaving aside actual defence needs, as an American, your global presence is central to the continued economic and political well being.
>>1006473
*of your nation
>>1006461
Actually I'm Danish, we have way higher wages than Germany, but for some reason we have the same fucking commercials.
Regardless, I'm starting to buy into these conspiracies. For what possible reason would Denmark need a fucking fighter plane? We can't even afford any carriers in the first place, it makes no sense from a logistical point of view.
Seems like NATO is just one big excuse to beef up America's arms industry, and we have to buy into it, if we want to stay in the club.
>>1006473
Yes, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan have really helped America's political and economic well being.
>>1006489
oh fuck off, might as well say we should be isolationist just because there was an insurgency in the philippines once.
>>1006482
Wow, thought you're American, couldn't imagine those kinds of commercials are shown anywhere in Europe.
The more you know...
>>1006473
>spending a trillion dollars on a war that was literally pointless and fucked the whole area up hardcore
>your only excuse will be "m-muh oil", defending a resource that will be either obsolete or publically despised in ~25 years
>which is almost as retarded as defending the F-35, an aircraft so bad that Australia lost a prime minister after buying 12 of them
get mad Kyle, stay mad Kyle, don't kick the baby
>>1006482
>Boohoo, why should we be forced to do our share in a mutual defence agreement
Not feeling a lot of sympathy here.
>>1006518
oh right, an australian.
>>1006519
> Mutual
> Defence
> Agreement
Taking out America's latest dark boogeyman has nothing to do with any of those words.
>>1006507
Lel, those are the three latest instances of "a global military presence", the argument that you yourself brought up as "central to continued economic and political well being". Care to explain how they were in any way helpful to that? Or should we go back further? Maybe Vietnam? Was that helpful?
>>1006539
do you want a non-meme answer?
Due to the USN being a dominant force in the south pacific, trade is allowed to freely travel through. This is trade that many American allies, such as South Korea, and Japan, rely on to fuel their economies. Furthermore, American military involvement in Vietnam started the economic boom in Japan that catapulted them from some glowing pisshole to a jewel in East Asia.
>>1006568
> Pacific free trade
China, Indonesia, Korea and Japan could all maintain this without the United States presence, in fact, it would probably bring all of these countries closer together if some of them weren't deligitimizing themselves by whoring themselves out to the Americans. It also has fuck all to do with Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan.
> Japan's economic miracle was a result of the Vietnam war
Sounds like a fringe theory to me. Pretty far from most of the explanations I've heard.
>>1006607
>China, Indonesia, Korea and Japan could all maintain this without the United States presence
don't make me laugh
>>1006612
Sounds likes some absurd anachronistic mindset to think that four reasonably developed, two of them even highly developed, nations with a combined population of close to 2 billion can't be expected to patrol for pirates around a trade route that they all benefit from massively.
>>1006639
do read newspapers some time, it might help you.
>>1006642
I do, though clearly not the same ones as you.
>>1006655
yeah, reading the daily mail and the onion doesn't count, lad.
>>1006659
and what the hell does any of those claims have to do with the United States? Clearly the situation is only being made even more fucked up by the presence of an entirely irrelevant country from the other side of the globe.
>>1006234
First of all two engines are better than one especially when using vectored thrust.
I only see one engine & by the time it's combat ready it wont have that
>>1006234
>1.5 trillion
What the actual fuck? Why? What the fuck is the purpose of this? You could be feeding people
>>1006234
DOD & lockheed martin pls go
>>1006745
>First of all two engines are better than one especially when using vectored thrust.
WHEN WILL THIS FUCKING MEME END
>>1006756
You left off the fact that 1.5 trillion is over the ENTIRE LIFETIME (including total maintenance, acquisition, and R&D) of the FUCKING PROGRAM
THIS IS WHY DISCUSSING AEROSPACE WITH PEOPLE WHO DON'T FUCKING KNOW ANYTHING IS A WASTE OF TIME
>>1006761
WOW LOOK ONLY ONE FUCKING ENGINE
WHAT A FAILURE AM I RIGHT????
>>1006768
SUCH A SHITTY PLANE OH MY GOD
>>1006287
so your saying the JFO/JTAC roles in the military are useless? Most missions with air are CAS, they might not be "danger close" but still fall under CAS. most line company's like having JTACs imbedded with them (arty, air, and nav guns are good thing to have)
>>1006392
Of what is he ignorant.
>>1006778
General defence spending and aircraft roles, for one.
>>1006764
still 1,5 trillion that would be better spent on literally anything else.
>>1006776
By CAS I meant the popular conception of a Wharthog flying a couple dozen feet off the ground and unloading a wad of 30mm at a target.
Of course air support isn't useless.
>>1006659
How the fuck can China claim all that ocean?
>>1006460
You dramatically overestimate the intelligence of the people in charge of our defense spending
>>1006792
Because the area has been used by the Chinese since the 2nd century BCE.
Besides, Westerners really shouldn't be up in arms about wildly nonsensical claims, considering that many of the surrounding islands were until recently owned by the British, French, Spanish or Portuguese.
>>1006786
no.
>>1006612
If they were forced to they could. Korea alone has the biggest ship building industry in the world for Christ's sake. If Japan, Korea, and Taiwan allied and formed an Eastern version of NATO they could hold China pretty handily while bankrolling the militaries of Vietnam and the Philippines.
The US's presence is mutually beneficial. The US gets access and prestige while the body countries don't have to pay as much for that shit. If the US left though not much would change. War would be more likely is all.
>>1006806
And by Vietnam, the Philipines, etc, etc,
But wait, white people did it so its A-OK to disregard everyone else.
>>1006809
>Japan, Korea,
>ever allying
>>1006812
There's a big difference between using an area for over 2,000 years and setting up a trade post that you visit once a year.
>>1006819
This is the problem but I'm fairly certain they would if they are forced to. Korea doesn't hate Japan nearly as much as both countries hate China. (In Korea for example they have signs in Chinese in bathrooms saying don't stand on the toilet seat to shit).
Alliances are about necessity and not history. No one expected the French and British to ally, for example.
>>1006831
Exactly, chinks should fuck off
paracel islands rightful pinoy clay
As if it's the only retarded thing taxpayer's money is wasted on.
Behold! There's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81NFmOob2mA
Growler - a winner of a competition to develop a jeep that can be airlifted, can carry 210mm mortar and ammunition for it internally, is armoured and doesn't topple-down easily. Except once it entered the competition they've forgot about toppling down, armour, having the weapon and ammunition stored internally(even worse - it can't tug the mortar with ammunition at the same time, you need 2 growlers to do it) and cost.
The competition was cheaper and does more than the Growler. Why did they picked this shit?
I don't know! Had to be terrible accident!
Then there's that single-column VTOL project that started in 1960's, was called unnecessary by 1967, but continued till 1983, when the prototype has crashed. Then it was replaced by ANOTHER project that was identical to it, it's still financed with US taxpayer's money. Their common point is that none of them flew, I mean you don't have to be genius to know that trying to maintain stability in single-column VTOL is enormously hard, except when you're a congressman though.
Military-industrial complex ftw.
>>1006846
The Paracel islands have been used by the Chinese for a thousand years longer than the Vietnamese.
>>1006831
and i think there's a difference between claiming land and fishing within the borders of another nation.
>>1006886
> borders
There are no internationally recognized borders, that's the problem.
>>1006901
more like the borders aren't recognized by the chinese and no one else has the muscle to tell em to fuck off.
>>1006913
again, no such borders.
>>1006761
Obselete one engine no vector yep like an f35
>>1006960
Why is having 1 engine a problem again?
>>1006964
Because it costs less and increases sortie rates.
Which basically means that to achieve the same effect with equally-powered 2-engine and single engine aircraft, you need less of the single engine ones. Can't have it.
you asked for it
>>1007034
Hello Lockheed exclusive marketing agent! I agree with all you've posted on this very interesting infographic, there is literally nothing wrong with F-35, it's almost as perfect multi-purpose airplane as F-111.
>>1007034
>I'll just dismiss over twenty valid criticisms of this aircraft
>it sheets perfect I swear
This shit was supposed to be bombing mud huts like five years ago and it can't even fly without lighting on fire
>>1006964
Su37
>>1006278
>>1007069
>>1006482
It has all the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme
>When the product fails, recruit as many clients as you can, promote the product as loudly as you can, keep the cash flowing for as long as the market remains blind to its failure.
>>1006539
>Taking out America's latest dark boogeyman has nothing to do with any of those words.
Nobody said anything about going to war. Just do your part and spend ~2% of your GDP on your military so it doesn't rot to shit. If we'll go to war to defend you, and you'll go to war to defend us, we'd like you to make sure you're ready and capable of going to war, as we are.
Better Avionics. You don't hear much about this in layman's sources.
I'm an ignorant idiot but what's the point of developing a fighter jet like this? Who do we fight with it? What role is it supposed to play in American military strategy? It's probably just me being dumb but I don't see how this helps fight terrorists hiding in caves.
>beauty
>ugly plastic
this is beauty
>>1007450
Helps keep Lockheed afloat and experiment with R&D on whatever the fuck they want.
>>1007450
I see the need for more advanced fighters as Russia has been quite belligerent lately, and China has been flexing it's muscle in the South China Sea. Future potential conflicts will likely be in the regions around these countries.
But at the same time, by all accounts the fighters these countries are developing may outperform the F-35 in many ways.
>>1007509
>But at the same time, by all accounts the fighters these countries are developing may outperform the F-35 in many ways.
50 cents has been deposited in your account
>>1006460
>he thinks our elected representatives are chosen for their intellect
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v7XXVLKWd3Q
>>1006482
Both Denmark and Norway have NATO specialization in "jet fighter capabilities" which is why both are buying like 50 each despite note being able to afford it.
All military procurement on this level are conspiracies. Just look at all the shit Turkey got when they tried buying better and cheaper Chinese anti-air missiles and not American Patriot missiles.
F-35 is way overpriced for what you get and any new aircraft that isn't unmanned is obsolete before it's even been received.
>>1007509
Except the F-35 can't ever be used in a conflict with China since it uses parts made in China.
>>1006482
NATO countries are supposed to spend a minimum of 2% GDP on defense, and Denmark is well below that. You could be slightly more grateful for being part of history's most benevolent empire.
>>1006461
Sure you do, Hans.
>>1008026
NATO's purpose in europe is obsolete with the destruction of the soviet union
>>1006461
>>1008065
>The average American made $44.6K last year [2014]
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/20/the-average-american-made-446k-last-year.html
>Wages in Germany averaged ... 3527 EUR/Month in 2014
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/wages
3527 * 12 = 42324
42324 EUR vs 44600 USD
anyone got a 2014 exchange rate?
>>1008099
If you weren't retarded, you'd know the number you're looking for is purchasing power. And I'll spare you the time, it's lower in Germany than the United States. Overall you're doing better than the worst American certain states, such as Mississippi, if that makes you feel better.
>>1008148
Yeah, but they also benefit from social safety nets that people in Mississippi cannot. You should compare life expectancy.
say whatever you want but you'll never look cool fighting WW3 if your country's air force does not have F35s.
>>1006278
No it's not. You might think that in Europe, but the exceptional country needs and exceptional CAS plane. You need to use expectional logic.
>>1006804
You misunderstand their incentive structure and attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to self-interest.
>>1006234
>manned aircraft
ha ha,how old fashioned.
>>1006854
>started in 1960's
Over 50 years of payment from the government to a defence contractor and from a defence contractor to the decision makers. And high paying jobs to former Pentagon officials.
It is genius.
>>1008472
Can you imagine what if a World War 2 dogfight veteran would think if he watched this webm in this day and age? Back in the time, airplanes were simply mechanized vehicles that relied on engines that made vroom vroom to spin propellers so they could fly, apparently defying the laws of physics to the ignorant man, however, to the pilot and the lover of aeronautics, it was a symphony of engineering.
Airplanes were always seen as tough and rough, though. They were not seen as smooth flying grease birds, but rather, as angry jumping peacocks. Because of the old mechanics and systems, airplanes always went trough turbulence, the wind hitting on your face, the deafing sound of propellers and so on. Flying was always a though job.
Even when lovers of aeronautics of the time of WW2 witnessed the birth of the jet engine, with airplanes like the japanese kyoko, the russian mig 21 and the american F-4s, the airplane was still very rough and flying was simply umcofortable.
Now however, its the 21st century and technology has made possible what we see here as this webm you so gently give us the opportunity to watch.
Look at this babe, it's so smooth, it looks like a fairy, floating in the air at an incredible speed of at least 600 kilometers an hour as it deploys what people from the 40s would think that they're magic little fairies or beautiful things that can radioactively destroy entire cities (read: Hiroshima and Nagazaki, cities on the list of cities that don't exist anymore),
Look at that fucking steel. It's so fucking shiny. The perfect geometric forms, its angles, its silver colour.
Imagine being inside that cockpit, in the quiet, just hearing a weak background sound, something similar to a constant wind, as the result of the cacophonity of the sound waves produced by both eletronics, engine and jet.
Look at the air trail the wings are leaving behind
Look at how static the turbine is, even though its only making the aircraft model F-35 fly as a
>>1008074
Tell that to Ukraine.
>>1008472
>>1008515
(continuing)
result of the thrusting forces that the engine produces backwards and ultimately are the causation for the effectiveness of Newton's third law - action, opposite reaction - in the nature of the F-35's being.
I think that the aeronautics enthustiatic, or WW2 pilot veteran who flew his spitfire, stucka, zero, beautiful Italian plane or Hellcat, would be extremely amused by all these things I've pointed out.
This webm is beautiful and artistic and this is the impression I get from it within the context of this thread and board.
Thank you for the insight anon.
I love anime by the way.
>>1007986
Only shitty neodymium magnets which are easy enough to make any where else it's just cheap in China
>>1007450
Overall, it's going to save in maintenance costs compared to older airframes that are reaching their life expectancies.
>>1008629
Easy to make anyplace where neodymium is mined which does not include the US.
