Nightly F-35 shitstorm
Daily reminder that it's going to be the dominant air platform into the 2030's
>>22881508
>dominant western/NATO air platform
The more smarter countries that aren't tied to the US can always buy any recent version of the Su-30/35, MiG-29, Gripen, Rafale or J-10, JF-17 if they are dirt poor.
>>22881802
>more smarter countries
Anyway, all of those platforms are pretty much inferior.
>>22881802
>buy inferior shit for no reason other than you're a poorfag
This whole F-35 shitstorm has been said about the F-4, the F-111, the F-16 etc.
>>22881847
>>22881864
>Hue, spanish slipping by
Rafale is expensive as hell yet on paper is a superb plane, for some even better than the EF, the latest Flanker series aren't bad either, with the option of installing western avionics if you really think russian ones are shit, same goes for the Fulcrum although all that extra fuel had affect it's performance.
Gripen and J-10 are cheap alternatives for countries that want good fighters but can spend much, and the JF-17 is just another version of the MiG-21 for nations that really can't afford anything else but want something new.
>>22881508
Granted I'm not an airplane expert, I think the shitstorm is unwarranted. Yes, it would lose in a dogfight, but a modern day dogfight is totally unrealistic. It has superior weapons, superior maneuverability, and superior stealth. Yes, it makes sacrifices for those things, but for what it will be doing, I think it's the best.
>>22881924
I didn't mention the amount of money we spent on it is totally not worth it. However, the money is already spent.
>>22881924
>but a modern day dogfight is totally unrealistic
They said the same with the F-4 back in Vietnam...
>>22881923
But this is what I said, they're buying them because they're poor.
>>22881924
>Yes, it would lose in a dogfight
How so? It can move just as well as an F-16
>>22881923
The Eurocanards are pretty inferior to the F-35.
They have minor kinetic advantages in STR, ITR, and RoC, roughly equivalent AoA, and inferior acceleration.
They have major electronic disadvantages from inferior stealth, radar, RWR, MAWS and datalink, which roughly equivalent primary IRST.
>>22881924
Out-turns and out-climbs the F-16/18 and has 360 IRST and HOB missiles. Also an HMD and large countermeasure suite. It'll be fine in dogfights.
>>22881950
It's cheaper in terms of PUAC than literally every other major modern western fighter.
RAF's Typhoon
>$29,145,336,000 for 160 planes [1]
>$182,158,350 unit program cost
ADA's Rafale
>$60,588,918,000[2] for 130 planes[3]
>$466,068,600 unit program cost
USAF F-22
>$67,000,000,000 for 187 planes[4]
>$358,288,770 unit program cost
USAF, USN, and USMC F-35 purchases
>$398,584,600,000 for 2,443 planes[5]
>$163,153,745 program unit cost (Average across all variants)
But the F-35's an overpriced disaster, right you guize?
>Inb4 "but muh $1 trillion"
That's for O&S over the entire lifetime of the fleet, you dumb fuck. These are program prices at acquisition.
>Inb4 some retard claims a post from defense.pk or f16.net trumps an SAR
It doesn't
Sources:
http://pastebin.com/8iEdHSEt
Footnote numbers in pastebin
>>22882014
This is pasta, btw. Ignore the insults, just look at the data.
>>22882014
You should've done napkin math
$322,580,645 including airframes and maintenance over their whole lifetimes.
Think about that, that's fucking cheap, why people leave this shit out I will never know.
>>22881508
>Daily reminder that it's going to be the dominant air platform into the 2030's
Just as soon as they can get it into the air without it falling apart or catching on fire.
>>22881998
>>22882014
Well I can go to sleep knowing I learned something today. And I thought /k/ was trash at night.
>>22881508
Piece of trash. Cancel the damned program and get some Super Hornets!
>>22882101
>Uneducated response No.22882101
By 2030 Russia would be exporting the MiG-41 interceptor and T-52 UCAV
I'd rather buy those two
>>22882014
Are these the numbers where they count everything on the airframe but the engine, wink wink, making the F-35 seem like a bargain?
>>22882049
$416,093,327 on average for the entire program from beginning to estimated retirement of the F-35, actually. Still not too bad.
>>22882069
24,339 test points completed, 15,173 hours flown, 7 years in flight, 193 airframes delivered, and two accidents during that entire time.
Yep, just so failed
>>22882114
Read the sources provided. It's the entire program cost, including RTD&E, tooling, facilities, airframes and engines divided by the number of airframes. It's the straight PUAC.
>>22882147
nope, not bad at all for 55 years
>>22882159
>>22882147
wait, how did you get this number, I counted all 3,100 airframes, not just the 2,443 airframes for the US
>>22882014
> >$398,584,600,000 for 2,443 planes[5]
> >$163,153,745 program unit cost (Average across all variants)
> 2,443
>implying >implying >implying >implying >implying
>>22882176
Only the US expenditures are listed in the SAR. Our predicted life-cycle cost is $1,016,516,000,000. We're getting 2,443 planes, excluding the 17 development airframes. Simply divide.
>>22882201
>It'll totally be cancelled any day now guise, in spite of its success and the total lack of viable alternatives!
This is how I imagine you
http://captiongenerator.com/17013/Hitler-is-not-happy-with-F35-announcement
>>22882229
>its success
>15% estimated survival rate against cheap 4+ gen Flankers (mind you, not win/lose, but flee/die)
Yep, success it is.
>>22882229
Oh, sorry - you probably meant "marketing success", not the military or technological one
