Just a reminder that F35 production is about to triple in 2016.
how do you feel about this?
>>28431687
I am filled with sadness.
This plane is a symbol of the decline of my country.
>>28431827
I'm sorry vatnick.
Maybe one day you will be able to import a chair from China and not have to squat anymore while you play LoG.
LoG?
If it doesn't work, keep pouring money into the pit.
>>28431687
Good. I enjoy the tears of illiterate retards who suck up liberally funded memes.
>>28431975
from what i've read, the F35 acually works now.
>>28431984
no, they just redefined the the mission spectrum.
>>28432170
i mean all 3 variants are clear for active use.
i assume the military wouldn't use em if they didn't work
>>28431687
Pretty good desu.
>>28431975
Sometimes, it doesn't work.
>>28432299
No they are not.
One B squadron of 12 got cleared for IOC. That's not even "active" by any reasonable sense.
>>28431687
>Looking through Youtube for old aviation documentaries as I do
>Find one titled "Dogfights of the Future" focusing on F-22/F-35
>At one point announcer says the words "When the F-35 enters service in 2010..........."
>mfw
They also said that the F-22 would be upgraded to the F-35's level of electronics by 2011, and that definitely hasn't happened either.
>>28432538
I was told my a Lockheed Martin spokesman that all 3 variants had the lockheed martin shit.
>>28432732
had IOC stuff done*
>>28432557
Marketing never likes to listen to engineers.
Slavshit Slayer coming through.
>>28432458
At least F35 can fly. The Sgt. York was absolutely utterly useless.
>>28435848
Thanks desu senpai cuck
Where's the 'bingo' and anime reaction images that serve lockshills as arguments in every F-35 thread?
>>28431687
3x 0 is still 0
>>28436120
Production is clearly higher than 0, cuck.
>>28436120
Daily reminder that the US has built more F-35s (about 175 at the moment, confirmed 162 as of october 2015) than four times the number of Su-35s plus all the PAK-FA prototypes.
>>28436192
Slavshills on suicide watch.
>>28431687
I point this out with that picture over and over, but the F-35 is generating money from it's fan exhaust, as opposed to sucking in and grinding money. This is a prime example of libtards.
Also, the F-35 makes the US money and political power now, so...good picture?
When's the Air Force doing IOC certification this year? I forget.
>>28436331
IOC is expected for August. If USMC IOC was anything to go by, they'll aim for the very end of August, or it might potentially slip slightly into September. Technically they have until December to achieve it though before they get into trouble.
>>28432170
>the mission spectrum
>>28436384
Oh okay, I didn't keep track of the precise USMC timeline, so that's good to know.
I'm sure the Air Force will have no trouble completing a smooth certification process and adhering to a punctual schedule.
>>28431687
Production isn't tripling in 2016; it's increasing, but in 2016 there's LRIP 7, LRIP 8 and *maybe* some LRIP 9 jets at the tail end being assembled. LRIP 7 is almost done, LRIP 8 had 43 jets in it and LRIP 9 has 55 jets in it (although IIRC some extras have been added by Congress).
In 2015, they delivered 45 F-35s. In 2016, they'll likely an amount in the 50s or 60s.
I'm a bit confused as to which LRIPs, etc this refers to, but nevertheless relevant: http://news.investors.com/business/121615-785609-military-would-get-more-f35s-under-spending-agreement.htm#ixzz3uX0kTiUA
LRIP 10 (being ordered / negotiated now) is when shit hits the roof though; it has >90 jets in it.
>>28436060
Which Bingo do you want? The actual bingo, or the one made by a drunk russian?
>>28436494
Post both and let us guess which one is which.
![KMPdt8P[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/y9rGmpl.jpg "KMPdt8P[1].jpg")
>>28436060
>Lockshills
That's one ticked off
They can't get rid of f-16's fast enough imo.
>>28431687
Feelsgoodman, vatnik tears are delicious.
>>28432170
This is true, the variety of missions the F-35 can perform is wider than its predecessors.
>Daily lockmart shill thread
>>28438468
>Waahhhhh people are using facts to debunk my haaaatteeee!
>>28435936
>>28435936
looks especially ugly from this angle.
i think americans are so super-defensive about this plane because deep down they know that it's a piece of shit.
>>28436184
>LRIP
>let's put prototypes into active service so that we can say the plane is finished.
>who cares if half of features are broken or missing it's not like they'll fly it anywhere near an enemy
>>28439538
Name a single fighter since the F-86 or MiG-15 to come out with full capabilities.
>>28439538
>LRIP
>Active Service
Pick one faggot, LRIP is for testing and developing doctrine until IOC
I wish they would develop a twin engine two seater medium range bomber F-35 variant, kind of like an F-111.
>>28439680
>implying two engines wouldn't turn the F-35 into a high speed low drag demonic dog fighter
It's the planes main flaw outside of operational costs.
>>28439496
>Herp derp my personal aesthetics disagree with the design so it's bad!
>>28439538
>Last fighter purchase on the scale of the F-35 was the F-16, notable for having a short, rushed dev-test-manufacture cycle and resulted in unacceptable number of faults causing massive crash counts in the 80s
>>28439680
>>28439730
>Hey, let's built a two-seater F-22 with no real advantages
>Two-seater in the age of sensor fusion - pic related
>>28439680
Accommodating another seat should be easy and I suspect it will more than likely be done in the future. When unmanned strike/fighter platforms come into service, the F35 will play command role. The individual in charge of these platforms will have to go through a lot of information and decision making. You can't do that effectively if you are also tasked with flying your aircraft.
As for bomber configuration, LRSB is suspected to be a twin F135 stealth platform.
>>28439798
>The individual in charge of these platforms will have to go through a lot of information and decision making. You can't do that effectively if you are also tasked with flying your aircraft.
A task easier than ever before
>>28439789
Longer range F-35 with two engines and a much larger payload could operate better in the Pacific without keeping vulnerable tankers around.
>>28431687
>Just a reminder that F35 production is about to triple in 2016.
It's a piece of shit program meant to shovel money into the maw of defense contractors. I mean, the fucking thing can't fly. It's intentional pork barrel spending.
>>28439832
By "flying" your aircraft I meant all information/decision process that go along with it, not just joystick. It might be easier, but there is also a lot of new information that comes with the F35.
You are not going to be doing this effectively for 1-4 other platforms
>>28439789
Only the post I responded to mentioned two seats. I was just talking about engines. Enjoy trying to belittle those who insult the F-35 with sideways attacks.
>>28439856
>Longer range F-35 with two engines and a much larger payload could operate better in the Pacific without keeping vulnerable tankers around.
That's what this thing is for.
>>28439911
>It might be easier, but there is also a lot of new information that comes with the F35.
Not really.
Its covered in sensors, but pilots won't be managing a single system in normal operation. Its the entire point of sensor fusion; it greatly decreases pilot workload, even if you vastly increase the number of sensor systems.
Its pretty much exactly what its designed to do, streamline everything.
>>28439875
Nice memes
>>28439875
>It's a piece of shit program meant to shovel money into the maw of defense contractors.
But they will continue to shovel money into it in hopes that it will pay somewhat of since if this thing fails to deliver somebody is going to have to take the fall for it and it was sure as hell be the politicians who kept over funding it because it can take off like a helicopter while flying to space and what ever those Lockheed lobbyist kept telling them. And it won't be Martin Lockheed cause that could harm the credibility of the whole military industrial complex so either this keeps on getting funded until it delivers at least something what was promised or someone at the pentagon loses his has to commit a career suicide possibly an actual suicide.
>>28439875
What's the alternative?
>>28431687
Excellent. Liars and shills BTFO
>>28439965
Only alternative is going to be a political nightmare one way or another..
>mfw america defeats itself by overspending
>>28440118
Then we'll just keep going with the F-35.
>>28440158
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS
When you consider GDP, you'll find that the US doesn't spend much more on military expenditures than Britain or France.
>>28440158
It may be true, but thats not the case for the F-35, which is in fact a pretty affordable aircraft.
There are no other comparable aircraft for cheaper.
>>28440270
yeah, also b-2 is the cheapest stealth bomber flying wing ever.
who cares if it's literally worth it's weight in gold.
>>28440355
Except that the F-35 is cheaper than or about equal to Gen 4.5 fighters. That's the first time the price has NOT increased per plane with a generational increase.
>>28440355
>>28440686
Actually, its not cheaper than the fighter it's replacing, but that's nothing new.
All numbers adjusted for inflation to 2015 standard:
>F-100D was 6.14m
>F-4E was 18.06m
That's an increase of 294%
>F-4E was 18.06m
>F-15C was 43.54m
That's a generational increase of 241%.
>F-5E was 7.64m
>F-16C was 27.37m
That's an increase of 358%
>F-16C was 27.37m
>F-35A production price will be 85m
That's an increase of 311%
We can see the F-35 is pretty much right in the zone of 240-360% generational price increase, which is to be expected considering the complexity and added capability each gen brings to the table. In fact, considering the ridiculous amount of upgrades and new capabilities, I'd say the F-35 is doing just fine price wise.
>>28440908
an F-16C is not a gen 4.5 aircraft
>>28439875
Pierre pls go
>>28441036
But it was the last major light/multirole fighter the USAF bought. Which is what all those numbers are about. Keep up, junior.
>>28431687
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328865-1/hearing-f35-joint-strike-fighter
>>28441082
what about the f-18
>>28441104
That was a USN/USMC buy.
If you want to run the numbers on those, look at the following progression: F-8->F-4->F-14 for price numbers. The F-18A/C is weird, as the USN didn't really have a light fighter. I suppose an analogue might be the A-4->F-18, but that's problematic.
Don't forget to account for inflation.
I'm pretty sure you'll find a similar percentage range.
>>28441082
>>28441148
Oh, and if you want to compare the F-18C to the F-35, remember to use the F-35C numbers.
>>28441148
>The F-18A/C is weird, as the USN didn't really have a light fighter.
>F-18 literally a contender in the lightweight fighter program alongside the F-16
>>28432170
Is it now equal to the autistic spectrum?
>>28441179
Jesus. I know you're autistic AND ADHD, but try and pay attention for a fucking second.
I was clearly talking about what to compare it to from the generation before for pricing increase, and the USN didn't have a light fighter like the F-5 with which to compare it.
>>28441179
I think that's his point: the Navy was never interested in lightweight jet fighters prior to the adoption of the F-18. Before that, the Navy Liked big beefy fighters like the Phantom and the Tomcat.
>>28441082
Realize that the post you responded to with those numbers was talking about current gen 4.5 aircraft, not the last major light/multirole fighter the USAF bought.
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
>F35 thread
Oh fuck I'm hope it's not too late to post this.
Going to be crazy once Italy and Japan start full time production as well. We really could see 3-5k of these.
>>28441237
I was pointing out that gen 4.5 is not the proper benchmark for the comparison. The US didn't buy any outside of the Superbug (which the F-35C compares favorably with in price/capability considerations). If you're going to look at what is a reasonable hike in fighter prices, you have to establish a baseline with the upgrades which have come before. Hence >>28440908. I really shouldn't have to spell this shit out for you, but there you go.
>>28441486
There is a lot of potential partners that have not signed up yet. Like Spain who openly stated that they made their carrier with the F35 in mind. The Saudis will also probably join in at some point, since they always want the latest and greatest to cuck their Shia neighbors. The Finnish, whose DM has the biggest hardon for the F35.
>>28441607
What was the time period between the introduction of each aircraft listed.
Without that, your numbers aren't really valid. We use to crank out a new jet every ten years but the F-35 is the first aircraft in a while.
>>28441715
Will the US be purchasing more than just the 2500?
>>28441218
Context doesn't excuse you saying stupid shit that is objectively wrong
>>28441248
Yep, too late.
>>28431687
The F-35 is really an amazing aircraft when you get right down to it. It will serve its masters' needs very well for the next 40-50 years. It's also a preview of things to come: we're gonna see stuff that looks like legit alien tech within out lifetimes.
>>28439875
> I mean, the fucking thing can't fly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfWHHuLILs0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSNFjD4tUXU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDNzsv76PHY
Appears to fly beautifully to me.
>>28441770
Maybe with future upgrade versions, but not likely with current model. There is no need for it, that number perfectly meets our goal. If there is going to be more though, it is probably going to come from the Navy.
>>28442070
Can't imagine they won't come out with F-35 D/E/F in a decade or so, with all the usual changes like better engines, improved avionics, or some new capability.
If the manage to get a DEW into the lift fan space that would certainly justify a letter increment and not a block number increase.
Isn't this literally a B2 and a Harrier mixed into one? what's the hype?. Shit doesn't even have lasers the future is boring
>>28442106
I doubt they will, in order to get something meaningful out of DEW you need to be at the MW scale, and although you can provide that amount of power in a fighter, the over head for DEW at that scale is massive.
>>28442106
Well, the modular design means letter type upgrades that used to have to be done can now just be done as a Block number component swap and software update.
>>28442121
>the future is boring
Wait for the Lexus Lf-lc.
>>28442158
Some upgrades might require frame redesign. P&W has talked abut F135 upgrades, that might require small frame shift.
>>28442121
>Isn't this literally a B2 and a Harrier mixed into one?
>Implying that isn't fucking amazing
>>28441801
>Context doesn't excuse you saying stupid shit that is objectively wrong
This is the dumbest post I've seen today. Context literally makes anon's statement correct. You were wrong on the interwebs. Cry more.
>>28441746
Then run the numbers. I've already contributed my share of drunk napkin math to the thread.
>>28442152
a MW isn't that much considering the lift fan shaft already transmits 29,000 SHP or 21 megawatts peak. Instead of a fan you squeeze in a generator and free electron laser.
>>28442204
F135 upgrades are intended to not require structural modifications (just perhaps the shifting of small things like hydraulic lines, fuel lines, etc.
If they are willing to mod the airframe, it'll be in order to add the AETD engine, which is at risk of not fitting in the F-35 due to the third airstream making it wider.
>>28442267
Except context STILL makes him wrong, The F-18 did NOT compete in the lightweight fighter program the fucking YF-SEVENFUCKINGTEEN did, and the F-18 is a SCALED UP (therefore not lightweight anymore) version.
>>28441746
Actually, it just makes it more impressive. All the low hanging fruit got plucked on the way up to gen 4. Things like relaxed stability and all weather all up sensors like LANTIRN etc, turning everything into multi-roles, were the first real hard core technical challenges and successes stemming from all of the easy aerodynamic gains being harvested earlier.
Now it's all in the engines, inlets, sensors, LPI datalinking and avionics and how well it all plays with VLO priorities. It's a tough balance to strike.
>>28442297
He's right, you know. The Legacy Hornet weighs as much as a Rafale, and it has a longer body and longer wingspan. Nobody says that the Rafale is a lightweight fighter so the Legacy Hornet isn't either because it is even bigger.
>>28442297
Was it scaled up that much? I thought it was just navalized, which meant a lot of structural support weight and tailhook/beefier gear added. I didn't realize they actually scaled the airframe up.
>>28442289
Like I said providing the power is not the problem, Ravens/Prowlers/Howlers have operated at this scale, it's the overhead that comes with DEW, that is the problem.
![Northrop_YF-17_and_McDonnell_Douglas_FA-18_top-view_silhouette_comparison[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/jzxQCBA.png "Northrop_YF-17_and_McDonnell_Douglas_FA-18_top-view_silhouette_comparison[1].png")
>>28442360
See pic
Empty weight also went up by 1/3.
>>28442419
Too bad they couldn't increase fuel capacity much, either.
>>28442374
If they pump the excess heat into the fuel (as normal) but also add a ram-air heat-exchanger pod onto one or two of the F-35's wet hardpoints (I wonder if the centerline fuselage hardpoint is wet?) then that should cover everything (other than volume issues).
>>28442419
Shit. Forgot they had to add a radar.
>>28442106
The air force seems to intent on having pod based lasers, so imagine that belly pod going pew pew instead of BRRRT.
>>28442768
>f-35 doing a brrrrrrrrrrt run in a-stan
When are we going to get that video?
>>28442786
This is all you get for now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFoJ93Kb5z0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTDomgJooJU
>>28431687
It'll bring the unit cost down.
/thread
>>28442813
>>28442786
Also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-OyE45DEac
>>28442813
>>28442786
>>28442959
Also: 181 rounds on the ground with sound:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJhTDzeMYkI
>>28440908
To be fair the F-16 has always been a remarkably low cost aircraft for what it did.
>>28443081
yfw a block 60/61 F-16 costs as much as if not more than an F-35
>>28443960
Yeah, because the UAE was willing to pay a lot for future-proofing upgrades rather then try and make the F-35 program work for them.
>>28444080
Translation: They panic-bought F-16s because they couldn't wait for F-35s.
>>28444135
I don't know if 'panic bought' is right, and there was a lot of state department problems with trying to get in on the F-35. Even the F-16 Block 60 has a bunch of weird shit going on where Lockheed can't give them all the firmware.
They have plenty of cash, but I personalty think they'd have been better off buying the block 50+ fighters rather then paying serious extra dosh for modest upgrades and feature integration on the old platform.
That said, they do get royalties if anyone else wants to buy in on the block 60+, something that might offset some of the billions they put into having it developed.
>>28436192
muh 3DTV nozzles
muh pugachev
![f66F8ej[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/UW31xVR.gif "f66F8ej[1].gif")
>>28444207
Even if they were buying Block 50s, they'd still cost a lot more than they used to. I don't have figures for the F-16, but look at the F/A-18C:
According to Wikipedia, they cost $29 million in 2006.
In 2014, two of them collided. The value of each F/A-18C (not including whatever damage that happened on the ground, etc) was $75m and $77m respectively (see pic).
