TUMBLING DOWN
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
http://www.kyma.com/government-reports-show-f35-not-ready-for-combat/
“The Marine Corps declaring the F35 ready for combat was merely a PR exercise.” Smithberger says ideally when jets are taken into combat they need to be ready to go about 80-percent of the time, during this test they were having trouble getting them to work 50 percent of the time.
LOCKMART SHILLS BLOWN THE FUCK OUT
Oh boy here we go.
>http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/20/defence-review-cameron-announce-uk-reconnaissance-planes-sdsr-2015
>The MoD has been struggling to find the money for planes for the two aircraft carriers. Anything less than at least 20 planes for each carrier would be viewed at Westminster as a political embarrassment.
>The way around this for the MoD is to stress that only one carrier is likely to be operational at any time, with the other being used for training or being refitted, so planes would only be needed for one.
>The MoD originally wanted 138, then slashed it to 48. The plan is to buy an initial 16 F-35s and reassess the position when the carriers are in service.
THE DEATH SPIRAL IS HERE BOYS.
>>27953098
Science takes time. You can't rush innovation. We just have to be patient.
>>27953122
Have we gone full Hitler-mode, spending billions on super weapons that we only build a couple of because they don't really work?
>>27953138
Nigger it's been in development for over 19 years, the F-35B lift system alone was completed 14 years ago
This is just embarrassing at this point, there is no fucking excuse
>>27953098
So the 'Plane of the Future' is simply constructed entirely out of money-alloy that's been cooled for 20 years?
>>27953220
>the F-35B lift system alone was completed 14 years ago
So? Are you saying that they should have had a plane instantly completed at that moment?
>>27953220
Fuck off nigger. The US is still the only country with operational stealth fighter.
Go do humanity a favor and blow your brains out while sucking Pierre Sprey's wrinkled scrotum.
>>27953098
Creating these threads should result in a permanent ban.
>>27953263
>Talking about weapons should be banned
Kill. Yourself.
>>27953268
You're not talking about weapons at this point. You're intentionally creating bait troll threads to rail against industrial and financial policy. You have literally zero interest in discussing weapons.
Again, kill yourself.
>>27953263
>>27953286
The F-35 is itself a weapon.
>>27953286
>You're not talking about weapons
>F-35
>Not a weapon
What are you fucking on
>>27953308
Which you aren't actually trying to talk about. You're just trying to whine about it costing lots of money and being built by a company you don't like.
You're too much of an utter fucking nigger piece of dog shit to admit you made a troll thread.
>>27953329
see
>>27953329
Killing this thread. Fuck you troll faggots.
>>27953342
>>27953354
>>27953363
>>27953372
>>27953385
>>27953223
It's actually a very complicated drug running scheme where Lockmart paints heroin onto the fuselage, flies it to another country, scrapes it off and sells it for mad $$$
>>27953098
>Documents obtained by "government watchdog group"
Because these people don't have their own agenda whatsoever.
>>27953254
>Fuck off nigger. The US is still the only country with operational stealth fighter.
And several other countries will have operational stealth fighters before the decade is out.
It will be interesting to see how important stealth is over the next 50 years, with SAM systems and sensors constantly improving, are we going to have an arms race of sensors vs stealth or is one of the two technologies going to peak out and make the other obsolete?
If stealth loses the arms race will we revert back to more manoeuvrable designs, or will stealth still be implemented as heavily as it is now, just to negate older missile systems?
>>27953570
even if the F-35 loses it's stealth advantage, it's software and hardware are still GOAT
>>27953952
>even if the F-35 loses it's stealth advantage, it's software and hardware are still GOAT
But, it has a smaller range, smaller pay load, lower top speed, lower acceleration, lower T:M and less manoeuvrability than most anything else in its class.
I wouldn't say anything about its software until they finish it though (I think they've estimated 2016 for the current package and 2020 for the final package).
>>27953220
>I have no idea how long aircraft development takes
>>27953980
It has a longer range, larger pay load, comparable top speed and higher maneuverability than most anything else in its class.
>>27953570
If stealth loses the arms race we will move on to an even larger engagement radius.
>>27953098
POGO is well known for lying to push their agenda to cut military spending.
>>27954149
Compare it to the Rafale, the Typhoon and the Pak-FA
>Range
F-35 has the shortest range.
>Pay load
Rafale and Typhoon have the lowest pay load, but the F-35 is still beat out by the Pak-FA.
>Top Speed
F-35 is the slowest.
>Manoeuvrability
F-35 is the least manoeuvrable.
Now, I'm not saying the F-35 is a bad aircraft, it's just a jack of all trades.
We had the same situation with the F-111. they tried to do too many things with it and it ended up being okay at everything and fantastic at very little.
>>27954212
The Rafale and Typhoon don't have anything above them in European air forces. They are the "hi", whereas the F-35 is the "lo" in the US military.
How do you not understand that?
>>27953570
Nope. Russia might. China might. Both in extremely small numbers, if at all. THat's it.
>>27954229
>The Rafale and Typhoon don't have anything above them in European air forces. They are the "hi", whereas the F-35 is the "lo" in the US military.
Quit moving the fucking goal posts.
I only picked multirole fighters because the F-35 is a multrole.
>>27954212
>PAK FA
>a semi-stealthy Flanker is the same class as F-35, Typhoon or Rafale
>>27953098
I remember when this was first shown in April and was laughed at once people found out what the journalists were actually doing.
Nice to see a necrothread.
>>27954238
>Nope. Russia might. China might. Both in extremely small numbers, if at all. THat's it.
They'll be buying in smaller batches, buy I doubt they'll be buying less than what they need.
>>27954247
>Honestly still believing the Flanker and the PAK-FA are the same.
You take the cake my good friend.
>>27954261
> They'll be buying in smaller batches, buy I doubt they'll be buying less than what they need.
You didn't counter a single fucking thing I said.
Congratulations dipshit.
>>27954212
RCS
F-35 wins hands down
>>27954269
>You didn't counter a single fucking thing I said.
Yes I did.
And what does "extremely small numbers" even mean?
They still plan to buy at least 150, but they will procure them in smaller batches.
>>27954212
>F-35 has the shortest range.
The F-35 has comparable range on internal fuel as the Eurofighter and Rafale have with multiple drop tanks.
>Rafale and Typhoon have the lowest pay load, but the F-35 is still beat out by the Pak-FA.
The PAK FA's max payload would be what, 7500kg? That's on par with the Eurofighter.
>F-35 is the slowest.
Compared to the others when they are clean? Sure.
>F-35 is the least manoeuvrable.
You probably think the F-35 lost a dogfight to an F-16 too.
>>27954261
>Honestly still believing the Flanker and the PAK-FA are the same.
They aren't "the same", but pretending the PAK-FA is not based on the Flanker is sheer ignorance.
>>27953138
There is literally no major feature brand new to the F-35.
The Russians experimented with the lift fan location for VTOL.
Stealth exists.
Sensor fusion exists, albeit not quite as good.
None of the sensors are new technologies.
HOBS has been done.
>>27954295
No, you didn't nigger. It's still not even completely decided that they will enter service this decade. ANd even if they do, there is no god damn fucking way they will each build 150.
God damn, you're fucking retarded.
>>27954212
>>27954245
>I only picked multirole fighters because the F-35 is a multrole.
>Now, I'm not saying the Typhoon is a bad aircraft, it's just a jack of all trades.
>We had the same situation with the F-111. they tried to do too many things with it and it ended up being okay at everything and fantastic at very little.
>>Now, I'm not saying the Rafale is a bad aircraft, it's just a jack of all trades.
>We had the same situation with the F-111. they tried to do too many things with it and it ended up being okay at everything and fantastic at very little.
>>Now, I'm not saying the Pak-FA is a bad aircraft, it's just a jack of all trades.
>We had the same situation with the F-111. they tried to do too many things with it and it ended up being okay at everything and fantastic at very little.
>>27954323
Name the Russian aircraft that has the same VTOL system as the F-35.
On American aircraft.
No aircraft has sensor fusion that is in any way comparable to the F-35's.
Allowing the pilot to actually look through his plane is new.
The potential to fire at a target in any direction with the right munitions is more than just HOBS.
>>27954149
>higher maneuverability
It has the worst maneuverability of the 5th gens and has poor maneuverability for the 4.5 gen class
>>27954879
[citation needed]
>>27954922
Its opponents in 5th gen have thrust vectoring and canards
Its opponents in 4th gen are designed to be unstable and also have canards
Do the math
>>27953462
Is that a fucking Unit reference I hear?
>>27954933
Having canards is not a requirement for good maneuverability, if anything its a band aid for aerodynamics.
>>27954306
This post will be ignored by Spreyfaggots
>>27954987
The EF already has more wing area and less wing loading than the F-35 before taking into account the canards, they are certainly not a 'band-aid'.
>>27954879
>4.5 gens have less maneuverability than a zero
Welp
>>27954933
>Its opponents in 5th gen have thrust vectoring and canards
You do realize that the USAF found out in Red Flag that TVC maneuvers were a good way to get yourself killed in dogfights because they bleed energy like a bitch, and that the J-31 only has canards because its engines are woefully underpowered for its size?
>>27955093
>in Red Flag
I'm pretty sure they were made well-aware of it just as soon as they tried DACT with the Raptor. Shame it took them that fucking long to figure out how retarded it is to deliberately stall your aircraft in a fight, but I guess the Chairforce never have been fast learners.
>>27955117
Well, the fact that they went with 2d instead of 3d nozzles seems to indicate they weren't putting a high priority on TVC anyways.
>>27955120
Or maybe they figured that since it's twin-engined they could just achieve yaw using differential thrust instead of vectoring, with far less mechanical complication.
Note, nobody has put 3d TVC into service on a fighter yet to date. Prototypes and demonstrators, sure, but none are in service.
>>27953385
>only 265 A-10's are left in service out of 716 built
>>27955142
Su-30MKI has 3DTVC, but as you've stated its pretty shitty for combat.
>>27955199
>Su-30MKI has 3DTVC
It really doesn't. The nozzles themselves are gimbaled on only a single axis, but since the axis is at an angle instead of horizontal, differential deflection gives a combination of roll and yaw effect.
>>27953570
stealth isn't on/off
anything that makes stealth designs more detectable is going to make non-stealth designs more detectable and the stealth design will still maintain its relative advantage.
>>27954318
>They aren't "the same", but pretending the PAK-FA is not based on the Flanker is sheer ignorance.
Similar design philosophy, yes.
But it's a completely individual airframe.
A few retards were going around spurting that the PAK-FA is a modernized Flanker and F-35 fanboys took the bait.
>>27954337
>No, you didn't nigger. It's still not even completely decided that they will enter service this decade. ANd even if they do, there is no god damn fucking way they will each build 150.
Why won't they build 150?
China has a massive economy and an ever increasing military budget.
Russia is set to destabilize the Middle East, which will destabilize of LOT of the world's economies (they're forcing down global oil prices through over-production, which is seriously affecting US allied nations in the Middle East).
They both have the resources to do it, they've done it before in a greater scale; they'll start out slow (Russia's first batch will only be 12 fighters delivered), but as with all aircraft, once production and supply chains are set up then production speeds up massively.
There is no point building 30-50 aircraft at once if you don't have the parts/training to service them.
jets that don't work going well with the marine corp tilt rotors that don't work
>>27954344
None of those aircraft were developed with the same scope as the F-35.
They made the right decision building 3 different air frames, but they're still trying to cram so many different countries' and forces' requirements into a "universal aircraft".
It wasn't worth the money last time, it's not going to be worth the money this time.
>>27955011
>muh wing loading
Doesn't tell the whole story, faggot
>>27953122
You mean aside from the later reports that the UK is to get 138 of them? More than was ever expected since the original order?
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-to-purchase-138-f-35s/
>>27953354
>>27953363
>>27953372
>using high bypass turbofans on a mach 2+ air frame.
>>27955322
I like how it's at the podium, ready to speak
>h..hii guise
>>27955261
>Russia is set to destabilize the Middle East
what
did you just type that
>>27955011
Also better T/W
1.15 compared to 0.87
>>27953098
https://youtu.be/ZtZNBkKdO5U
https://youtu.be/LyHlp7tJrxY
The F35 is a great aircraft. See both videos all the way through before you criticize me.
>>27955433
Neither of those videos address the lack of readiness in USMC F-35Bs.
>>27955398
>so how about that roast at the dinner last night, r-right? Man who cooked that th- oh sorry Martha.
>>27955452
>literally the first squadron of aircraft
>parts are literally just being pumped out
>complaining that there isn't a surplus of parts or other airframes to cannibalize
You're a special kind of stupid.
>>27955452
>lack of readiness
>on a brand new air frame
>that requires pilots, maintenance and it's own seperate logistics system
>all three of these require a LOT of schooling and training
>>27953098
But we know already that the IOC for the F-35B was PR for years.
The feature list of the Block 2B software is well-known and open and is pretty empty.
>>27955490
>>27955473
Did you even read the article? It's a fucking problem when the USMC CLAIMS it's ready for operation when it's clearly not
>>27955506
>a RAG squadron is still intregrating and doing SOP's... whaaaaaa whaaa not everything's perfect yet.
This just tells me the marines are incompetent and shouldn't have nice things...
>>27955518
>not everything's perfect yet.
Stop moving the fucking goalposts, literally no-one in this thread is claiming it needed to be 100% finished.
Initial operating capability or Initial operational capability (IOC) is the state achieved when a capability is available in its minimum usefully deployable form.
The USMC has claimed the F-35B has reached a state where it is deployable. It is not deployable. It is as simple as that.
Are they really going to keep total production at 2443 jets? Or maybe buy more later on?
>>27955529
>The USMC has claimed the F-35B has reached a state where it is deployable. It is not deployable. It is as simple as that.
And yet VMFAT-501 the Marine RAG squadron who creates the SOP's is actively deploying... to other bases for training and evaluation for integration to other squadrons. Thats how this shit works. Not all deployments are combat deployments.
>>27954323
All those components exist, but they've never been integrated into one system before. It's a new beast.
>>27955532
It'll likely be slashed to something more reasonable
Weird thing is that iirc the navy is only buying like 280 of them... Nowhere near enough to fill 10 carriers than can each carry over 50 of them...
Screw F35. I want to see Comanche helicopter being revived.
>>27955682
They're only meant to replace the F/A-18C/Ds. The super hornets will stay on and complement the F-35 until the super hornet replacement program gets here.
>>27953098
The F-35 program has been nothing but overdelayed disasters.
People here shitpost about how 'next generation' it is and how you 'cant rush the future!!!' But it has missed every deadline and budget projection for the entire project.
You can argue about the merits of the plane itself all day long. But the development program itself was a horrible catastrophe, and the only ones who defend it are Lockheed Martin shills.
>>27955848
+$.50
>>27953176
Yes.
>>27955682
The Navy's buying 480 USN F-35C, 80 USMC F-35C, and 360 USMC F-35B.
>>27955848
>Same prototype first flight to IOC as F-22
> dev program came in significantly cheaper than F-22's despite triple the number of variants
> first program have a zero crash record
>>27955422
>using a T/W where one plane is carrying twice as much fuel as the other
>>27953098
>50% combat readyness rate
>bad
it's still 20% better than the other superpowers with their alcoholic peasants performing 10/10 maintenance
Can someone give me a quick debunking of the F-16 dogfight?
And also state how much less maneuverable the F-35 is compared to F-16?
>>27954344
I just wonder, what aircrafts were the F-111 supposed to replace?
Was it an all new design or did it take elements from previous aircraft into it?
>>27957279
The F16 had no hardpoints. The F35 had a full load, including external stores.
They're both about equally maneuverable, because both are limited by how many G's pilots can handle.
>>27957279
Test platform AF-02 with no RAM or advanced avionics and highly conservative control laws.
Flight was to see where laws could be loosened up/adjusted/fixed.
F-16 was there as a reference to maneuver against.
F-35 still performed well in same high AoA context the F/A-18 flies.
So i googled a bit and came across some fun reading...
Austria's eurofighters have a cost per flight hour of 70 000 euro, so it's 12 (!) pilots (on 15 planes!) are not getting barely any training since their government decided to cut military spending to 0.5%. They keep 2 eurofighters "mission ready" plus one spare for air policing.
EADS also paid up to 113.5 million euros to key officials in bribes for the deal to go through.
>>27953122
138 f35b confirmed just ordered from the mod. Op BTFO
