How do we fix this
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
How do we fix this
>>28505425
Fix the people who funded it.
We don't.
We have no need for an immediate functional next gen fighter.
During WW2 there were tons of great planes that went from the drawing board to the air in a matter of months.
We have no urgent need for the F35.
We do, however, have an urgent need for military contracts and funding to continue the cycle of the military industrial complex. Go figure.
Go figure.
>>28505425
There's nothing about the F-35 to fix. It would be better to find ways and planes to augment it's capabilities.
>>28505425
fixed
>>28505464
>he thinks in a wartime scenario that any combat aircraft will be procured in significant numbers
![MilkyOrderlyAsiaticwildass[1].webm](https://i.imgur.com/B49VtAn.jpg "MilkyOrderlyAsiaticwildass[1].webm")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtZNBkKdO5U&list=PLr7UZ_rywxTFdhDfu7SFimAMAUVdpabKL
>>28505432
This desu.
>Tfw no F/B-22
>>28505464
>Implying that designing a WW2 fighter is as easy as designing a 5th gen fighter
>>28505496
WW2 scenario =/= average wartime scenario. Not for America.
A war on two fronts, all oceans, tons of allies in need of supplies, entire country working together? That's not an average wartime scenario.
WW2 was probably the worst thing to happen to America though, the military industrial complex is probably the WORST thing to happen to tactical strategy and foreign relations ever.
I approve of testing and development, I approve of having plenty of plans in case we need to build war machines to survive. But when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
>>28505513
Manned aerial flight was half as young and twice as risky, if not more.
>>28505425
What needs fixing, its the best multirole fighter, and its at a competitive price.
We can't. Only thing to do now is limit the damage it'll cause to us by reducing the planes we buy (sans murines as they B is actually better than Harrier) and lobby as many cuck nations as possible to buy them instead. Then just focus our efforts on a 6th gen plane(s).
There's a lot of complex, precision machining in an aircraft like the F-35. The cutting edge of aerospace machining is seriously complex. Even so, the air frame investments represent only a third of the development costs of the aircraft.
>>28505540
The f-35 is much better than the f-18 and the f-16.
>>28505552
That has literally nothing to do with the subject of >>28505540
>>28505557
Yes it does. The C is better than a f-18, the plane it is replaceing.
The A is better than the f-16, the main plane it is replaceing.
Logically, if the B is better than the harrier, and that makes it worth it, then the same logic applies to the A and C models of the F-35
>>28505561
>The A is better than the f-16, the main plane it is replaceing.
In many respects yes, and in a few, no. The focus of the other guy's post was to make something better than the F-35, not to buy older and cheaper (and worse) planes.
>>28505567
But the f-35, again, is already the best multirole out by far, with nothing competitive on the horizan.
Its also better than the f-16 in every realistic metric.
They are useless anyway, the next war will not be conventional it will be through economy and cyber warfare, asymmetrical means where America is lagging behind China, a lot of money goes to the F-35 not to where it should matter.
>>28505573
>with nothing competitive on the horizan.
That's what >focus our efforts on a 6th gen plane(s)
is for.
>>28505573
It carries less dakka. It has less than half the dakka the f16 has.
>>28505582
>It carries less dakka. It has less than half the dakka the f16 has.
Patently untrue. The F-35 can carry all of the Dakka the F-16 has, albeit not while being wholly stealth.
>>28505425
I agree, we need more.
>>28505580
Well yes, but you always make air superiority fighters first, THAT should be our focus. After that is done, then we go multirole.
Just because we had an F-22 program on the horizan does not mean the gorllian f-16s kicking around were not worthy.
>>28505582
It carrys 1,000 lbs more dakka than an f-16, while having the fuel to actually get it places
In fact, here is some perspective. the empty weight of an f-16 is about 18,000 pounds. The f-35s fuel capacity is about 18,000 pounds.
You could basically melt down a f-16 and have the f-35 carry it in its fuel tanks.
>>28505524
Well guess what would happen if it didn't exist? Those industries would quicky turn to more profitable business ventures, such as commercial aircraft. Then we would lose our technological edge. And then when we needed that industry the most it wouldn't exist and the ones holding the bag would at best case be the fighting man 1,000s of miles away and at worst case you and your family at home. In both cases you would complain about why the armed forces were sent underequipped, to die and why they were unable to defend you.
>>28505425
We can fix it if everyone stopped re-shitposting the same tired disinfo memes on /k/.
Too bad that's never happening.
Even slower than a 40 year old f16. aside from its stealth capabilities, is those trillion well spent?
>>28505625
Germany had the technological edge, too.
The technological edge only benefits you so much.
>>28505727
US has technological edge with a base number advantage with equipment and normally a production advantage too.
You were saying?
Disregard F-35 and acquire Pak-Fa
>>28505727
>wehraboos actually believe this
We had:
Better radar
Better AAA fire control
Better fuel
Better engines
Better jet engines
Angle computing gunsights
Faster fighters
Better strategic bombers
Better EW
Better ASW
Better ships
Better logistics
>>28505567
The F-16 is only advantageous in cost.
>>28505785
I'm not gonna argue with that. Germany had different strategic needs, and did things differently.
But, for the countries size, they were progressing very quickly.
>>28505777
Except the PAK FA actually is junk my vatnik friend.
>>28505810
This
>>28505808
Progressing doesn't mean a whole lot if you can't produce it, hence why the MIC is a good thing. It means there is industry to develop and produce advanced technology if we need it.
>>28505704
F-16s carrying a normal combat load can't fly as fast as the F-35. By the time they reach their top speed they're empty on gas as well.
>>28505508
It was designated that to help make it more attractive to Congress because it denoted more capability.
Anyway the F-35 is a great little aircraft, sure it isn't perfect but it fits everything the US and the partner nations want overall and has top of the class capabilities.
>>28505777
Vatnik go home
>>28505785
The germans had:
Better radar, have you actually looked into what they had lol.
Jet fighter
thus the fastest fighters
Ballistic missiles
Cruise missiles
Guided missiles
Anti ship missiles
Anti air missiles
Guided bombs
Better submarines
Better torpedoes
Better chemical weapons
Arguably better tanks
better KD ratio
Better gas chambers???
>>28505960
>better KD ratio
And they're still not back to back World War champions.
>>28505991
my last two where clearly put down in humour friend.
>>28505960
>Better RADAR
They didn't have RADAR.
>Ballistic Missiles
Hardly, the V-program was more
>Cruise Missiles
Yeah, but Operation Crossbow went ahead and foiled those plans, didn't they?
>Guided Missiles
>Anti Air missiles
>Guided Bombs
>>>>>>>>>>Chemical Weapons
Nope
>Anti-ship missiles
>Submarines
>Torpedoes
Honestly don't know about this one though, possibly. Not sure how they stack up against Blue Force stuff back in the day.
>Better Tanks
The beginning of the war?
Nope
The end of the war?
Nope, simply because they made them too complex and weren't able to make enough
>KD Ratio
Yeah good luck with accurately figuring that out retard
And all of my response is coming from the holocaust denier that is myself.
>>28506023
They did have RADAR early warning but not as advanced as the British. Their tanks were definitely better late war, but that's to be expected when you are rolling out designs that are 2 years more recent and 50% heavier than the opposition's tanks.
>>28506023
>They didn't have RADAR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammut_radar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassermann_radar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%BCrzburg_radar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdschloss_radar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freya_radar
yeah sure didn't have any radar there did they
>>Chemical Weapons
>Nope
The germans literally discovered nerve gas's while the allies where still playing with ww1 gases
>>28506055
The brits had a shit early warning low freq radar, just look at the links i posted partically the freya radar system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freya_radar
>>28506023
Not seeing you posting much to back up those facts, friendo
>>28506065
>{{citation needed}}
>>28505524
>WW2 was probably the worst thing to happen to America though
>> Major push to economy
>> worst thing
Yeah, right
>>28506080
ask for citation on a post full of citations, nice.
What particular part do you want cited, i will happily link half a dozen sites to back up what i have said
>>28505506
>People will just scroll past this and continue posting retarded nonsense
>>28505960
>>28505991
SCOREBOARD! SCOREBOARD!
>>28506091
You're citing a bunch of Wikishit articles that themselves need citations (and are breaking wiki rules by posting opinions).
What if we give it to Chinese? WIll they able to fix it for you?
The "actual" problem is that it's a Cold War semi-stealthy design designed to make treetop-skimming supersonic deep-penetration attack runs into East Germany and Czechoslovakia into the teeth of the Sovs' SAMs and air defense radars, on a probably-one-way mission to drop tactical nukes on GSFG and Central Group of Forces before they could reach the front lines. This is a capability that has no utility in the US Air Force in 2015.
It doesn't have the loiter time or the payload to be a good CAS platform. It doesn't have the climb, top speed, or high-AOA turn capability to be a good A2A platform. It costs two hundred million bucks a pop and it does absolutely nothing especially well.
you plebs outta my way
>>28506178
We're not talking about the B-1B here, we're talking about the F-35.
>>28506119
most of that was to simply prove that nazi radar existed which refutes the person i was messaging, and when that is the only goal, wiki is suitable enough.
>>28506178
>F-35 is stealthier than the F-22
>stealth fighters like the F-35 attack from high altitude, not low (better situational awareness that way)
>the JSF program began 6 years after East Germany was dissolved
>It has a larger payload than the F-16 and F/A-18 which do >50% of all CAS.
>Implying dogfighting is relevant
>It has a higher AOA turn capability than the F-16 and F-15
>It's $85m a pop
>>28506210
>F-35 is stealthier than the F-22
Yeahh im calling you out on that one bud, source it or shut it.
>Implying dogfighting is relevant
implying it ever wasn't
>>28506178
>it does absolutely nothing especially well.
>stealthier than all its competition
>Best BVR fighter platform
>Best sensor package in the world
>Best avionics in the world
>B model has best STOVL system in the world
>Very fuel efficient in comparison to other jet fighters and thus very good range
>Can easily destroy any other fighter other than MAYBE the F-22 because of aforementioned advantages
>>28506218
>implying it ever wasn't
Considering how the majority of air to air kills in recent years were exclusively done by BVR missiles, and the latest HOBS missiles like AIM-9X can pull more than 4 times the Gs of any fighter in existence and don't even require you to actually face your target, yeah, dogfighting is pretty much dead.
>>28506218
>The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war.
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/
>"I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/December%202014/The-F-35-on-Final-Approach.aspx
>implying it ever wasn't
Watch this video (mainly the middle / second half) - 90%+ of all kills in the past ~30 years haven't required jets to get into a dogfight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31oJIo8EVwY
>>28506247
>>28506218
Also:
>During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.
>Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”
>less stealthy twin engine F-22 cousin
>, and is stealtier than any of its predecessors.
www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/August/06/F35-Lightning-public-debut-shows-the-right-stuff
>>28506065
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Radar_WWII.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCR-584_radar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_eastern_TBM-3W_Avenger.html
German radar was crap compared to allied radar, not even close.
> no lobe switching
> no X-band radar
> no cavity magnetron
> not slaving guns to radar directors.
Pic related, the first AWACS
>>28506426
Radar or AWACS? The first A in AWACS stands for airborne.
>>28506210
>>28506235
>Branch commonality was supposed to save money, yet program has exceeded cost of each branch developing their own jet
>Supposed to replace the A-10, but carries <200 rounds of ammo and can't fire its gun until the next software update in 2017, assuming it's not delayed
>Less stealthy than the F-22
>Worse dogfighter than F-16
>Can't carry as much ordnance as the F-15
>Marine STOVL variant basically destroys carrier decks
>Can't carry one of the most versatile and common bombs in US arsenal, the SMD II
And these things are supposed to replace pretty much all of NATO jet fighters.
>>28505506
F35 can be use in CAS rose but it will stay hight above the area
but look look guys we put a gun on it so it's kinda like an A10 only with less armor and less amo and it will never drop bellow 20 000ft over the battle area, so what's the point of the gun ?
the cold truth is that we just don't need jet fighter any more
we might still need some interceptor but the F22/15 are completely ok in that role + you can use SAM
then come long range ground unit support to cover allied troop on the field
drone can do just that with zero risk of life for a considerably lower cost, further more A10 can still reliably and cheaply do CAS they are just good doing the job because they are facing basically zero tread
the F35 is basically useless ad it's only pointy is to make money for lockheed that's all
>>28506496
>literally the backbone of most NATO air forces for the next 30 years
>hurr it's useless
Try again
Pull an Obama and sell to terrorists
>>28506508
backbone only because the US government are pressuring all of the NATO member into buying this piece of shit
why on earth would European countries buy this thing when they could buy cheaper EUropen made Typhoon or rafale
>>28506489
>Branch commonality was supposed to save money, yet program has exceeded cost of each branch developing their own jet
We don't know that; the F-22 for example cost about half the F-35's R&D budget.
>Supposed to replace the A-10, but carries <200 rounds of ammo and can't fire its gun until the next software update in 2017, assuming it's not delayed
CAS is mostly done with bombs, not guns.
>Less stealthy than the F-22
More stealthy, see >>28506247 and >>28506282
>Worse dogfighter than F-16
Yet to be seen; unless you subscribe to the idea that software testing = dogfight testing
>Can't carry as much ordnance as the F-15
It's not replacing the F-15, although FWIW it has an equal total payload capacity by mass.
>Marine STOVL variant basically destroys carrier decks
Only older decks; the F-14 "destroyed" carrier jet blast deflectors
>Can't carry one of the most versatile and common bombs in US arsenal, the SMD II
lol, "common" the SDB II is still in testing and won't enter service until 2017 with the F-15E as it's first platform. The A and C variants also have no problem carrying it, with the only issue on the B variant being that there's a hydraulic line and a bracket for some wiring that needs to shift about an inch.
>>28505960
Then why did they lose? 'Merica that's why.
>>28506239
considering how the russians and chinese have air-to-air missiles that can engage bvr missiles, and ground based radar that can track jsf with air-based radar on the way, i'd say dogfighting is pretty much alive and kicking
>>28506520
Better than their retard treasonous liberal governments having an inhouse plane program, that'll cost twice as much & be half as good.
>>28506489
>And these things are supposed to replace pretty much all of NATO jet fighters.
And that's fine, because the F-35 would easily be able to REKT any of them in BVR. It's like you want to lose air battles or something.
>>28506496
Point of the gun is for when you want to shoot up lowly snackbars or soft mechanicsed targets like trucks.
For the rest of your "cold truth":
>There's not enough F-22s / F-15Cs
>Drones will be highly vulnerable in any kind of serious war, and they're not that cheap; just look at the Global Hawk and UCLASS costs.
Swapping the A-10 for drones is fine because drones are cheaper and get the job done against snackbars, but making the F-35 disappear means pretty much making CAS non-existent for high threat scenarios.
>>28506534
you think obama isn't a liberal
you think he is not dictating what merkel or holand does
there's more US soldier in Germany than actual German, German and all of Europe is just the puppet of USA
>>28506526
Engaging missiles with missiles isn't remotely new or exclusive to Russia / China, but detecting air-to-air missiles and reacting, not to mention having a near 100% probability of interception isn't remotely plausible.
And all radars can track the JSF; the issue is whether your ground radar can get a targeting solution on the F-35 before it fires a JSM at you from 200km away. Overall, VHF radars are seriously overhyped.
>>28506496
>the cold truth is that we just don't need jet fighter any more
Who is this "we"? The USAF definitely has a solid need for jet fighters both now and for the forseeable century.
>>28506564
>Point of the gun is for when you want to shoot up lowly snackbars or soft mechanicsed targets like trucks.
but they specifically say that it's not made to fly low in order to avoid AAA and man portable AA misile so the gun still make no sense
>Swapping the A-10 for drones is fine because drones are cheaper and get the job done against snackbars, but making the F-35 disappear means pretty much making CAS non-existent for high threat scenarios.
no you don't get it the A10 is OK we don't need anything else as CAS
if you want some cheap CAS just build modern A1 skiraider
>>28506585
for doing what ?
perpetuating US presence cross the world waving it's dick at everybody then being puzzle when it turn out everybody hate USA
I'm not an idiot tho i know that it's the only thing that maintain the the dollar's value is the US military and US presence across the world
otherwise this would be treated as what it is: worthless paper
>>28506591
Yeah, and when AAA and MANPADs aren't a serious threat, you can go guns ablazing. For threats like Gulf War Republic Guard though, the gun can sit unused.
>no you don't get it the A10 is OK we don't need anything else as CAS
if you want some cheap CAS just build modern A1 skiraider
Drones are 3x cheaper than the A-10 to operate and have far lower maintenance man-hour requirements. Let the Army and Marines do low & slow with their helicopters and keep Reapers, etc in the air for delivering warheads onto foreheads against guys with AKs.
>>28506591
>you don't get it the A10 is OK we don't need anything else as CAS
You realize that the A-10 doesn't even run most CAS missions right? There are plenty of other planes that can do the job.
>>28506615
Congratulations, you just explained why the USAF has a solid need for the F-35. You may not like those reasons, but from the USAF's perspective they have a job to do and the F-35 is a damn good tool for doing it.
>>28505491
Can the other nations get their money back then?
>>28506637
The more feasible solution for accomplishing the same goals would be just builidng more Raptors.
>>28506668
Raptors are twice as expensive and have limited A2G and very little maritime capabilities.
>>28506637
no it just prove that the USAF doesn't need it
the US economy does
also i hope you /k/ guys are ready because this sit isn't going to keep flying for very long and the day shit hit the fan you can basically kiss goodbye to your money and it will be worthless overnight
the only thing with values will be bitches food and guns
>>28506718
The USAF's duty is to win whatever fight the US government / economy wants it to fight.
>you can basically kiss goodbye to your money and it will be worthless overnight
the only thing with values will be bitches food and guns
People have been crying about a doomsday for tens of millenia.
>>28506718
>the US economy does
Yearly the F-35 program represents 0.18% of the United States GDP. What are you talking about?
>>28505464
>We do, however, have an urgent need for military contracts and funding to continue the cycle of the military industrial complex.
Military industrial complex or rather the ties between military, politics and corporatism is in the center of this whole epic fail known as F-35. This is what happens when you buy a promise, not a ready product, not even a concept but a promise. Then you bump billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars in to that promise only to find out that the company making the promise is incapable of delivering.
Now billions of dollars later you have to keep pouring money at the promise in order for the company to deliver since not-delivering would cause a political crisis questioning the practicality of the whole military industrial complex while not realizing that this would've never happened if military industrial complex would still be about providing ready made products or concepts and not bumping tax money on projects based on corporate promises. Corporates lie and make empty promises constantly to make a profit. This should not be a surprise to the politicians nor to the military..
The truly sad thing about F-35 failure is that it seems that the politicians and military officials seem to be genuinely surprised about the fact that the corporation Lockheed Martin promised more than they could deliver..
>>28506735
>People have been crying about a doomsday for tens of millenia.
and it has happen a lot
just look at Syria, 4 years ago these people had a good life and now look at it, force to grope some dirty German slut just to get off
>>28506525
Nah comrade, twas the russians that won that war with the blood of there people, although they couldn't of done it without all the logistical equipment given to them by the Americans, it was a joint effort, its just the russians got the short stick.
>>28506747
>had a good life
>majority population ruled by minority Alawite dictator
>live in police state that declared martial law ~50 years ago
So good, very life. This shit was bound to happen sooner or later and it finally kicked off because Syria had a drought that forced people into the cities and civil unrest followed.
>>28506779
>majority population ruled by minority Alawite dictator
>Implying that isn't a good thing
The only way that Muslims can be peaceful is when you have a mostly secular dictator to keep shit together. Assad fills that role.
>>28506668
>The more feasible solution for accomplishing the same goals would be just builidng more Raptors.
But why build more raptors when we've got Lightning now?
>>28506779
Yea because being an islamist shithole with a democratically elected theocracy would have been such an improvement for syria
I'm really not sure how people think dictatorships are bad and democracy is good
Have you not seen the west??
>>28506463
AWACS, that is a photo of the radar display on a TBM-3W Avenger.
Ground radars can't do terrain mapping at 75 nm. Note the PPI picked up 2 bogies 250 nm out.
The big push for these came as a response to kamikaze, but it was in development since 42.
>>28506932
True, I think it was just the moving map display (if that's what it is) that threw me off
The US would be far better off focusing on ground troops only
Instead of super expensive airplanes
>>28506994
Considering how reliant US is on their air superiority that'd be real stupid move.
>>28506178
This isnt project pluto but anyway it would be awesome if they did a nuclear ramjet for the f-35... Or a nuclear ramjet in general
>>28505540
>6th gen plane(s)
there won't be any.
development of 5th-gen planes was initially driven by the cold war paranoia, but that's over now. JSF was the last big defense project. there still LRS-B, but that will get cut down eventually.
americans now want to spend money on new things that other countries take for granted, like efficient healthcare and social system. nobody wants or needs better combat aircraft except for the military-industrial complex.
B-52 has been in service for 60 years now and will be for at least 30 more. F-35 will do the same. It'll eventually get upgraded with some sci-fi tier weapons, but the basic airframe will remain.
TL;DR you're stuck with this ugly pig forever. enjoy.
>>28506883
>cherry-picking statistics
sustained and instantaneous turn rate?
climb rate?
supercruise speed? range while supersonic?
RCS?
>>28505506
>a wild cloud appears
>>28506749
>although they couldn't of done it without all the logistical equipment given to them by the Americans
this gets repeated so often but lend-lease was actually about 5% of soviet wartime needs
>>28507134
>but lend-lease was actually about 5% of soviet wartime needs
WOLOLOL
>>28507110
Do you know where I could find such information? I know the climb rate for the F-22 is around 270 m/s. What is it for the F-35?
>>28507404
Depends on what its carrying. After burning fuel it can have a T/W ratio of over one, so I'd imagine as fast as it can fly.
>>28505524
Are you retarded?
The pace of modern conventional military conflicts is so fast that, if you don't have it procured before the conflict, you aren't getting it
>>28506088
It actually was shit, as any non-retarded economist could tell you. Look at the massive jump in per-capita income and GDP that spiked once WW2 finished, c. 1946/7
>>28507803
So you're plan is basically just to make it bigger, thus raising the unit cost proportionately?
>>28506489
>Branch commonality was supposed to save money, yet program has exceeded cost of each branch developing their own jet
Im-fucking-plying
>Supposed to replace the A-10, but carries <200 rounds of ammo and can't fire its gun until the next software update in 2017, assuming it's not delayed
Gun CAS has no place being done with fixed wing jets. Leave that to helicopters.
>Worse dogfighter than F-16
People who know that they are talking about say that it's dogfighting profile resembles the F-18, which is very good albeit in a different way than the F-16 which is also very good
>Can't carry as much ordnance as the F-15
Obfuscation. Fuck off, lying cunt
>Marine STOVL variant basically destroys carrier decks
I love how detractors have to resort to bringing up issues that were fixed years ago to make their points
>Can't carry one of the most versatile and common bombs in US arsenal, the SMD II
The SDB II isn't in service yet, dumbass
>>28507842
well yeah, it looks like a potato.
and If the first prototype was like mine I'm sure the project wouldn't cost much.
they tried to make it smaller or something and they just created more problems with that
>>28505524
Have you ever played an RTS and you waited too long to train soldiers so now you're desperately trying to build them whil you're already being raided and your only barracks is being burned down?
That's you.
>>28507803
Why does it need a bigger gun and a second pilot?
>>28507881
There is nothing wrong with making it bigger. But why? Why would having a smaller number of bigger planes be an advantage unless you're going for something like the SU-34?
>>28507897
>F-35 is going to replace the A-10
let's make a shitty gun
and all ground-attack aircrafts have 2 pilots, it needs 2 pilots. one pilot cannot fly the plane while looking in the radar while operating pod while checking his shit...
>>28507910
f-35 is already small, about size of f-16. so making it slighty smaller than F-22 is going to be perfect. It just looks too fat for the wings
>>28507968
I meant " slightly smaller than SU-34 "
>>28507968
>It just looks too fat for the wings
Mostly an effect of having split side intakes on a single engine design. If you can imagine it had a ventral scoop intake like the F-16 and leading edges where the intakes are now, it'd look quit small and streamlined.
>>28507968
Do you understand the concept of a "lifting body"? We could rip the wings off and it would still fly.
>>28508079
>We could rip the wings off and it would still fly.
Lockmart shills are on the loose today.
>>28508079
it's not about if it ' can ' fly. It's about if it can " maneuver ", it's supposed to be an aircraft not a cargo plane.
with that body and small wings, it can't
>>28508129
>with that body and small wings, it can't
Smaller wings improve stability at high speeds. The F-35C has a wider wingspan to improve lift for CATOBAR but it also has a slower top speed as a result. Trade-offs anon.
>>28506740
There's definitely some terribly fucked shit wrong with development and procurement in the military industrial complex.
That being said you can't honestly call the F-35 a failure yet.
It's taken longer than expected and it's costed more money like nearly every modern military aircraft development, but the F-35 will be a viable and capable aircraft. It has to be. Problems have arised and they have been fixed-- the ones that aren't are going to be fixed.
Sure, the process is fucked and needs to be streamlined, but the product will still be effective.
>>28505425
- kill the B
- use twin EJ200 engines or a derivative, add thrust vectoring
- use the same lifting body layout as f-14/su-27/mig-29
- delete the gun
- add L-band radar
- finalize the airframe design only after the avionics are developed and working on a testbed
- nerf the specs of A,C to make it cheaper, use saved money to revive and upgrade F-22
>>28508253
>- kill the B
why. Its far, far suprior to the planes it replaces and effectivly doubles our naval airpower.
>use twin EJ200 engines or a derivative, add thrust vectoring
HALF THE FUCKING THRUST. WHY.
>- use the same lifting body layout as f-14/su-27/mig-29
But the fucking lifting body is superior on the F-35, but its also stealthy. Why.
>- delete the gun
Well ok, but you dont save all that much.
> add L-band radar
Why. It can find stealth but not lock, so its useless for fighters.
> finalize the airframe design only after the avionics are developed and working on a testbed
What does this have to do with anything. They are two mostly seperate systems as it is.
>- nerf the specs of A,C to make it cheaper, use saved money to revive and upgrade F-22
Why? The F-22 is old as shit.
All in all, fucking why.
Why!
WHY!?
You give it a second engine and cut the total order so that the more important operational costs don't smother our procurement budget.
>>28507968
>>28508005
Every time I bother to read one of these shit show threads, this is what it always comes down to. Autists pissing and moaning and finding things to bitch about because they think the aircraft is ugly.
This hate has nothing to do with capabilities or a clear view of the threat environment, it's all about mah aesthetic feelz. People that look at procurement through the lens of rule of cool like this are no better than modern BB idiots or armored LCS morons.
>>28508292
Because he only has a passing acquaintance with reality (i.e. actual threat environment and current + future mission parameters with attendant required capabilities). All of his ridiculously concrete opinion is based on whether he things the aircraft looks cool plus a 1970's understanding of the strategies behind aircraft design and combat maneuvering.
I mean, I get it. It's a change. Change is like kryptonite for puzzlenuggets. I grew up with the teen series fighters, too, and they're beautiful. But they're just not the bleeding edge anymore.
see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0
>it used to be "speed is life, more is better"
>now it's "information is life, more is better"
Remember kids, evolve and adapt or realize that you're old, you're behind and you're going to lose.
>>28508292
>why
it's a money sink. and it compromised the design of A and C and has almost no commonality in the end.
>HALF THE FUCKING THRUST.
i said two engines. that's roughly the same thrust.
>But the fucking lifting body is superior on the F-35
bullshit. just look at the fat bitch.
>it's useless for fighters.
that does not deserve an answer
>What does this have to do with anything
you'll avoid the headaches with aircraft being unexpectedly overweight and with systems integration in general.
>The F-22 is old as shit.
and yet it's still much more capable than f-35. it's behind in avionics but it has a lot of room for growth.
>>28508253
they arent replacing the f22 with the f35. the f35 is a multi role fighter, it is so they can do multiple jobs with one plane. the f22 is an air superiority fighter. if they want to maintain air dominance and win dog fights they will send up f22s. thats why they are selling f35s and not f22s. if other countries have f35s, they can still easily take them out with f22s. the f22 raptor is still the most advanced and effective fighter jet in the world. it is stealth, supersonic, ridiculously, maneuverable, and armed to the teeth.
>>28508433
Yeah just cram a second engine in there, that won't be expensive/impossible on a pretty much completed aircraft.
>>28508520
>i said two engines. that's roughly the same thrust.
Yet in modern engines, more Class A mishaps happen because of improper maintenance than because of engine reliability. This is why the F-15 has had many more Class A incidents than the F-16, in spite of the engines being nearly identical. The single engine F-16, looking at the numbers from 1985 onward, is the best thing to twice as reliable as an F-15 as far as Class A incident frequency. But this is science and hard numbers, and clearly do not trump your feels.
>bullshit. just look at the fat bitch.
Oh, look. More "look". More "aesthetics and feels". More "fat". But exactly zero fucking science. What a surprise.
>that does not deserve an answer
If you're Russian, sure. For NATO/the US, L-Band radiators are rightly regulated to support platforms. Russians are just too poor currently to field the proper array of sensoria anywhere outside of their home turf, and even there it's mighty thin.
>you'll avoid the headaches with aircraft being unexpectedly overweight and with systems integration in general.
More subtle "fat" implications, in spite of the fact that the F-35 is by no means "unexpectedly overweight".
>and yet it's still much more capable than f-35.
The only mission it is more capable in is air superiority. Which, surprise surprise, is what it's primary designed mission is.
I'm so sick of these one or two autistic morons insisting that reality bow to their opinion.
>>28508571
>they arent replacing the f22 with the f35.
effectively they are. f-35 was meant to replace f-16, f-22 was meant to replace f-15.
now that f-22 was cancelled at only 180 produced, f-15 will have to be replaced by f-35 which is not suited for air superiority role. or f-15 will continue flying until they fall apart.
>>28508644
>You called it fat, therefore it is not fat
>>28508500
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0
It's shameful how many people on /k/ and elsewhere that comment on the F-35 every damn day have yet to see or will never bother to watch this vid or any other from that conference.
I don't know about the rest of you, but when a USMC aviator with two decades flying experience who has flown and trained pilots on F-18s, F-16s, F-22s and now F-35s through his career speaks, I sit the fuck up and pay attention.
This vid, more than anything else finally cemented my opinion switch on the F-35. I used to be anti, slowly moved to the middle over 2014 and now am firmly behind the F-35. It's stupid capable and a steal at the actual (not mah 1 treeeeeeeellion) prices.
>>28508676
>you think its 'looks fat', and in your ignorance thinks it is fat even though it has a good thrust to weight ratio.
Fixed, and not even him.
>>28508676
>not fat
When it's got better AoA performance than an F-18 and better kinematics overall than a combat loaded F-16, all while having twice or better the range and VLO, no. It's not even in the same ballpark as actually fat. You just think it looks fat. It's like saying the F-15 is shit at air superiority because it's a bigger jet than the F-16 with a slightly lower instantaneous turn rate. Facts are clearly not welcome in your world.
>>28508674
F-15Es are slated to fly up to or past 2035, which is fine as they are relatively recent airframes (1998 or thereabouts). There will be F-15Cs flying until 2030, at which point gen 6 air superiority aircraft already in the design phase now will be flying as prototypes.
The F-22 and F-35 are not the only aircraft the US will develop or think about for the next 40 years, in spite of their flying for that long. Development does not stop in the west.
>>28508678
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCje2g--AF2bup1MStDC0-wQ
Here. Have a link to the rest of the speakers at that conference. They're from a bunch of different countries, and all have different perspective and information on how the F-35 fits into the future of air combat. Learned a lot with this.
>>28508703
You notice how he completely ignores the actual numbers about Class A incidents, the actual operational logic about L-Band radars for the west and the actual mission capabilities of the F-22 vs F-35?
Yeah. Can't handle reality. Can only talk about "mah planefu looks fat". He's like some demon spawned cross between Sprey and an /a/ sperglord arguing about kancolle.
>>28508292
>and effectivly doubles our naval airpower.
lol?
Those america class ships can only carry like 20 planes at a full load
For 3.5 billion
They are a joke
The only thing the F-35B will be good for, is Britshits who can't build catobar carriers, and making escort carriers from commercial ships
But once EMALS is more of a finished tech, they should produce a small modular version and turn every ship into a minicarrier for drones or w/e.
>>28508644
>engine reliability.
no it's two engines because of a) superior body shape and b) more room for growth. F-135 is basically F-119 stretched to the very limit of it's capability
>More "look". More "aesthetics and feels". More "fat". But exactly zero fucking science.
looks can tell you a lot. a lifting body should be wing shaped. draw some longitudinal sections through f-35 and think on it for a moment.
>But exactly zero fucking science
compare the flight envelope with similar fighters in it's class.
>the F-35 is by no means "unexpectedly overweight"
a large part of the program delays were caused by this issue.
in the end they gave up and relaxed the requirements for sustained g-load.
BEST PLANE COMING THROUGH!!!
>>28508805
>Those america class ships can only carry like 20 planes at a full load
And? 20 F-35's is a fuckton of dakka. The chink "full size" carrier can only carry 34.
>>28508829
>no it's two engines because of a) superior body shape
aesthetic opinion again, not fact
>b) more room for growth.
The F-35A/B/C is already the most plastic and modular fighter aircraft ever built. What are you smoking?
>F-135 is basically F-119 stretched to the very limit of it's capability
More opinion without any sort of source or actual understanding of how 5th gen engines work.
>looks can tell you a lot. a lifting body should be wing shaped. draw some longitudinal sections through f-35 and think on it for a moment.
You sound just like the morons poo-pooing the first area rule aircraft to arrive. "THAT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD/RIGHT!" Don't worry. If you scream it loud and often enough, it'll make it true in spite of the F-35 performing up to or beyond the standards of it's predecessors.
>compare the flight envelope with similar fighters in it's class.
What else is in it's class? Name a single other 5th gen light fighter that's even close in capability. Furthermore, I'd love to see your hard F-35 "flight envelope" numbers, considering the control laws are still being tweaked and relaxed toward more pilot command authority.
>a large part of the program delays were caused by this issue.
Oh, look, no source again. I love how idiots believe that while every other industry in the world has to weigh heavily increased development cycle timelines and cost against first to market advantages when designing and producing a ground breaking technology, the military/contractors are always expected to do it for cheaper and less time than is even realistic. What blows me away is how often they have outstanding successes, like the Virginia program.
>>28508914
>aesthetic opinion again, not fact
Don't even bother, anon. he's basing all his opinions on pre-relaxed stability airframes. His understand of aeronautical engineering is literally 1960's tier.
>>28508640
He didn't just ask how we fix the budget.
How long until the air superiority version of the F-35 is produced
>>28508914
do you know what room for growth means? the airframe is already crammed full. and that's with modern lightweight electronics. you can't put any more in without throwing something else out.
>What else is in it's class?
eurofighter, rafale, soon pak-fa and J-20. and by class i mean "modern strike fighter" not arbitrary crap like generations.
>F-35 performing up to or beyond the standards of it's predecessors
the fact is, it is not performing. also wing shape still has the most lift even at supersonic speeds. f-35 will never get anywhere near the speed where compression lift takes effects.
and funny you mention area rule because f-35 has awful supersonic performance. can't super-cruise even with the most powerful fighter engine ever.
>without any sort of source
it's all common knowledge, if you want a source google it. i'm not defending a dissertation here.
>>28508931
relaxed stability is about the relation of center of lift and center of gravity. it does not say the plane has to look like a brick.
>>28509203
>muh super cruise
You know going super sonic is useless and rapes your fuel efficiency?
>>28509203
>eurofighter
HAH!
> rafale
Actually a legitimate competitor to be honest, but the F-35 edges it out at a fiscal price due to stealth features.
> pak-fa and J-20
Both are vastly fucking inferior to the F-35, which is hilarious because they are both air sep fighters.
>>28509203
>. you can't put any more in without throwing something else out.
You mean like the fact that they are adding an extra pylon into the central bay or upgrading the Eodas, or the many other features they will add in future block updates.
Nope.
They dont exist.
>you are ignorant as fuck, and it shows.
>>28509222
>f-35 can't do it
>therefore it's useless
seems to be a common theme in these threads.
>>28509203
>do you know what room for growth means? the airframe is already crammed full. and that's with modern lightweight electronics. you can't put any more in without throwing something else out.
So we're up to "the F-35 is not plastic or modularly designed for future upgrades. Because I say so. In spite of tons of evidence to the contrary." Good to know.
>eurofighter, rafale, soon pak-fa and J-20. and by class i mean "modern strike fighter" not arbitrary crap like generations.
Eurofighter and Rafale are more expensive and Gen 4.5. They're also more heavily emphasized on the air superiority mission and lack a huge portion of the avionics, sensoria and data fusion present in the F-35. Not even close to the same class.
The J-20 is in a class with the F-22 (and not even in the rear view mirror so far). The J-31 can arguably be put in the same class as the F-35, and is outperformed in every single metric, except perhaps cost (which is not even napkin numbered yet for foreign sale on the J-31).
>the fact is, it is not performing.
Just keep saying that. It'll be true if you wish hard enough.
>can't super-cruise even with the most powerful fighter engine ever.
It has super cruise dash capability. Do you even research any of this shit?
>it's all common knowledge, if you want a source google it. i'm not defending a dissertation here.
so...
>i have no sources but this shit is totally true, guize!
What I'd expect from a Spreytard.
>>28509203
>can't super-cruise even with the most powerful fighter engine ever.
It was not designed to do so.
>>28509251
>the central bay
no such thing on f-35
>they are adding an extra pylon
at this point nothing more but a speculation.
>>28509295
Both of the central bays*
Better, fuckboi?
>at this point nothing more but a speculation.
A planned block upgrade is "speculation"?
Top fucking kek,
>>28509273
then they designed it wrong.
>>28509295
Check Block5 in Air to Air.
>>28509330
>we'll try to do all this shit if you throw more money at us
>love, lockheed
>>28509348
Its nice to see you backpedal all the way to lockheed shitposting
Its basically just admission you don't have anything left <3
>>28509379
no really, this block schedule is no more than a wishlist at this point. no money was allocated so far.
>>28509551
>no money was allocated so far.
http://www.janes.com/article/53954/lockheed-martin-contracted-to-deliver-block-3f-software-for-f-35
Block 3F has been fully funded since the middle of last year.
Any more excuses, fucboi?
>>28509666
>Block 3F
in your chart block 3 its supposed to be done mid-2013.
kind of proves my point.
>>28509696
Top kek, you cant even read.
>>28509696
Yeah, and sequestration/recession fucked up/slowed down a lot of programs. Your point?
>>28505591
>>28505620
By dakka I meant dakka, not bombs or missiles.
I meant cannon ammunition.
>>28507948
Except the A-10, F-16 and F-18 already do that.
>>28508674
>f-15 will have to be replaced by f-35
But that's wrong. The F-15 isn't being "replaced" for quite some time. It could stay in service all the way to 2040, at which point it will get its very own 6th Gen replacement which will look something like pic-related. They should have it figured out by 2030, at which point they will start progressively replacing F-15 squadrons until the final retirement in 2040.
>>28509869
The F-35 packs a beefier cannon that will be effective against a larger variety of ground targets.
>>28509944
>6th Gen
>2040
yeah make that 2100
>>28509997
Please read and try again.
>>28509944
What would be the point of that instead of just procuring some sort of F-35 variant.
Seems like they are doing that for the LRSB's
>>28510081
>Seems like they are doing that for the LRSB's
Are you sure?
>>28510145
no, I am not sure.
>>28510081
The LRSB is not an F-35 variant. It's a strategic bomber utilizing technology matured through the F-35 development process.
>>28509888
as I said F-35 is made to replace those you dummy
>>28506023
I've heard they had Ground to Air missiles of sorts yet any produced and being in the proccess of were bombed out thus denying that whole thing.
I come unsourced so naturally feel free to provide sources correcting/supporting me
>>28505425
Easy, we don't. Why fix a failing boondoggle? Instead we should buy Silent Eagle's for air superiority and Super Tucano's for COIN, hi-low mix successfully achieved saving the air-force billions.
>>28510953
>>28510953
I wonder how possible an ultra cheap fighter could be
Under 5 or 10 million, fielding tens of thousands of them..
>>28511276
There is absolutely nothing cheap about building logistics capable of handling tens of thousands of fighters.
Especially when they're carrier based.
>>28506210
>$85 mil a pop
Okay
>>28506693
No.
>>28511308
Last LRIP had the F-35A at $95+Engine
Once they're in full rate price is going to drop further. Like on every other aircraft ever made.
Keep being retarded.
>>28511304
Turn commercial ships into escort carriers, as long as you are strict on keeping shit simple & controlling costs. Shouldn't be too hard to do.
Not much point maintaining a large airforce when none of their fleet will have airbases availible in range of a real enemy.
>>28508678
You think he is not biased?
The argument isn't that it is worse. It is that it should and could have been better.
>>28508893
No.
So many memes spouted here.
>>28511390
Care to find anything that contradicts that number?
>>28511332
A projection. We surely should believe Lockheed's unbiased projections. It's not like they have been overly optimistic and wrong on costs for the entire program.
95mil for an A without engine and software upgrades is not 85 million as you said.
Shill properly at least.
>>28511439
No thats literally the contract that the US government signed to supply those aircraft
And it'll keep going down
>>28511439
>A projection.
No, literal costs. Thats what LRIP-8 in Nov 2014 cost.
>95mil for an A without engine and software upgrades is not 85 million as you said.
Wasn't me. But you're an idiot if you don't understand what economy of scale is.
>>28511469
It's odd that they keep buying only the A airframes for $95+ million then.
>>28511483
Your (well now you say it's not you) greentext said "85 mil a pop". I responded to it saying "you mean 95 for the A airframe?"
I never said 95 mil was a projection. I actually used 95 mil as the most recent number from LRIP 9 in my response to him.
What are we arguing about if your not the guy I responded to?
>>28511535
Its amazing how you think I can't scroll up like a 10 posts and read something completely different to what you say happened.
>>28511376
>I'm not going to listen to anyone that actually flies the fucking things plus half the US fighters of the last 20 years
>I'd rather bitch about imaginary faults and pretend only I know how it could have been so much better
>>28511483
The most recent A in LRIP 9 was 94 million without engine.
The price drop has slowed a lot. From 180 at first to 120 in 2011 to 100 in 2013 to 95 in 2014 and 94 in 2015. They have been overprice for 10 years now. I expect them to be in FRP 2018 as well.
>>28511548
I am mistaken. I never said 95 to the first anon.
I actually just said no because I know 95 million is the number from LRIP 8.
Still, he is incorrect and the 85 million projection, is a projection. That's what I meant. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
>>28511574
They slowed down, sure.
But they're still orders for like 2 dozen at most, in LRIP.
Going from a batch here and a batch there to fucking hundreds has ALWAYS reduced costs on any aircraft. the F-35 will be no different.
>They have been overprice for 10 years now.
Fucking what
>>28511558
He is biased. I believe that casts some doubt on the conjecture you're trying to draw based upon his statements.
>imaginary faults
Where did I say anything of the sort?
People who fly the newest most expensive airplane usually say it is the best.
The fact the 35 is the best airplane doesn't make it what is best for America.
A 100000 billion dollar 19th gen timewarping spaceplane is going to be called the best by every pilot.
But is it the best for the nation?
Get me?
>>28511634
>He is biased.
>I know better than people that have actually used the equipment because I read the internet
Fix'd that for ya.
>>28511634
>He is biased. I believe that casts some doubt on the conjecture you're trying to draw based upon his statements.
So... you claiming that bias exists automatically invalidates everything the combat aviator has to say. This being a man who's flown F-18s in combat, and has hundreds of hours in F-16s, F-22s and now F-35s. What the actual fuck.
I knew you were retarded sometimes, /k/, but this is beyond stupid.
>>28511602
Actually LRIP 9 ordered 41 A's and FRP 2018 is going to order about 70.
Assuming costs fall in line with the past, 85 million for an A airframe is possible.
But what if the easy cost savings have already been made?
>>28511662
Projecting much?
I never said I know better. I never said the F-35 is worse than the pilot says. I am simply casting doubt on his "infallibility."
>>28511667
Where did I say that invalidates what he has to say?
I'm saying one man's words don't prove an airplane is the best for the nation.
Both of you need to stop putting words in my mouth.
>>28505425
>Interned for a FrenchFrog aerospace company in DC over the summer
>Meet guy from Lockheed at corporate event
>goodguy.jpg does lots of outreach to younger people and invites me for personal tour of LM's offices in Crystal City
>Take a day off and show up for the tour
>Excitedly shows me this monstrosity, even though it lost to an F16 in a mock dogfight the previous week
>mfw
The rest of the tour was bretty gud tho.
>>28507134
Add a 0 to that.
>>28511691
Pic related.
Proof provided.
"Amsterdam | Charles Sanders | Colonel Bert de Smit is one of four Dutch JSF pilots. "The difference with and without Lightning II is great."
Dutch glory above Edwards Air Force Base in California. The two Dutch F-35 Lightning II (JSF) -fighter jets performed there this week operational test with F-16s and a KDC-10 tanker, also of the Royal Netherlands Air Force.
Dutch F-35 pilots tested their jets in air combat and neutralize enemy weapons and that's a first. For dogfight with special equipment fitted A-4 Skyhawk jet fighters acting as 'Red air' enemy.
"The difference with or without the Lightning II is great," said the colonel Bert Smit, one of the four Dutch pilots on the innovative product and detachment commander of the F-35 unit. "Thanks to the huge sensor package, the Lightning II is of unprecedented value."
Because in the F-35 cockpit Smit can look with the sensors, including the advanced AN / APG81 radar, many tens of kilometers further than an F-16 pilot, every action of the "enemy" Skyhawk jet fighters could therefore already be countered in an extremely early stage.
"It is the first time that we share the ultra-strong F-35 sensors collected information with our own KDC-10 and in the Dutch F-16s stationed in the US for training purposes" said Smit. "Think of it as digital" talk "to other assets. Befriended aircraft are getting vital information such as imminent danger or information to disable targets. "
The Skyhawks proved every time to be outgunned by the presence of the Dutch F-35's. Both Lightning II were refueled in the air by US tankers.
The Dutch KDC-10 flew along in order to check whether the F-35 information on proper manner was shared. In the short term also the KDC-10 are certified to refuel the Lightning II in the air.
The Netherlands has so far ordered 37 Joint Strike Fighters by manufacturer Lockheed Martin. They need to replace the F-16s by 2017 which are flying on their last legs."
Says it all desu
>>28511734
Add a source to that.
>>28511691
>But what if the easy cost savings have already been made?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale
>>28511766
It would make sense that the difference is great considering their 1983 F-16's are "on their last legs".
Does the fact the F-35 is better mean it has no problems and doesn't deserve its criticism?
Also
>hey let's criticize the plane we just spent 3.7 billion on!
>>28511801
Its not that the F-35 is without problems or is immune for critisism, anon.
Its that the critisisms leveled at it are clinical-grade retarded.
>>28508674
>only 180
They produced almost 200. Go look up the number of F-15s the US has. There are currently around 250, with more than half of those being national guard.
200 f-22s is a decent amount for a dedicated air superiority aircraft
>>28511801
>If its not a criticism its not a legitimate point
I suppose the only people who can say good things about the F-35 are people who don't have any eh?
>>28511789
What if we bottomed?
Also, in LRIP 9 we built 12 more A's than LRIP 8 yet the average A airframe cost only dropped a million from LRIP 8.
Economies of scale?
>>28509869
Why are you talking about cannon ammunition? That's a niche item.
>>28511828
Ayy lmao.
195 total. 8 test that are not active. 3 crashed.
That leaves 184 operable.
>>28511832
Where did I say that or imply that?
>>28511819
Can I say the same for the people who bumbled around and fucked up the entire program 2000-2010?
>>28511835
Because they have made the process more efficient for smaller batches.
But the difference between 29 -> 41 airframes is nowhere near the level of going from 41 -> 2,000.
>>28511869
>Can I say the same for the people who bumbled around and fucked up the entire program 2000-2010?
No, because they delivered a superb aircraft regardless. Aircraft procurement is known for being able to quite easily devolve into a clusterfuck.
People forget the F-16 was the same way.
>>28511869
>>hey let's criticize the plane we just spent 3.7 billion on!
>>28511872
Except as I posted here FRP 2018 only produces 70 A's.
>>28511738
So no we aren't going to 2000.
>>28511897
So because the delivered a "superb" plane according to you that makes up for all the fuckups, cost overruns, and delays?
>>28511948
What? I am sorry but I don't see how your two posts connect. Could you spell it out.
>>28511857
>184
>almost 200
Like I said. Comparable to the number of f15s in service.
GTFO
>>28512003
>So because the delivered a "superb" plane according to you that makes up for all the fuckups, cost overruns, and delays?
Yes, actually.
Welcome to procurement 101. This shit happens to basically every project and you're horrifically naive to think otherwise.
>>28512003
Its not a matter of how much they're producing in a year. Its getting the green light to produce many, many more that causes the cost to plummet.
It allows you to maintain a steady flow of materials and production, rather than start-stop bullshit.
>>28509944
You really think they'd go for a cranked kite wing on a fighter?
>>28508103
An F-15I flew home with one wing ripped off completely to the root.
>>28508129
The F-16 has wing loading about 30% worse than the F-4 Phantom but turns twice as fast.
Those "small" wings also have 50% more surface area than the F-16's.
>>28512003
>So because the delivered a "superb" plane according to you that makes up for all the fuckups, cost overruns, and delays?
Yes.
>>28511724
Then who's your expert authority? Play the game fair and square, cocksucker
>>28512373
Maneuverability is becoming less and less important (in that picture; what's the point of maneuvering if you can shot lazor in any direction? Cranked kite is a good planform because it's stealthy, but you can increase the length of the little cranked wing parts and increase lift / size without shifting the CG / CL much - makes it easier to make a carrier variant or make future modifications.
>>28512818
But didn't you hear? Senpai David Axe knows all and has so much more experience than a Lt Col F-16/18/22/35 pilot!
>>28512373
>You really think they'd go for a cranked kite wing on a fighter?
They might. It depends on how much they think raw maneuverability is going to matter in the future.
>>28505425
>How do we fix this
Rip the gun out of the A model and replace it with something actually useful like more fuel
>>28505425
By buying the B variant.
>>28513351
Do not listen to this man.
>>28514641
Swap the gun not for fuel, but for another ram air heat exchanger.
>>28510256
The F-35 is not made to replace the A-10, that idea comes from the budget driven planned retirement of the A-10 that has been pushed back.
>>28506088
youre thinking what happened after, he is talking about actual wartime economy.
>>28511724
The irony being you are putting words in other anons mouths and are now backpedaling when being called out on a lack of an argument.
>>28506235
lost dogfight to an f-15 eagle.....
f-15 eagle is like 30 years old
>>28514783
It was an F-16 not an F-15
And it was a one of hundreds of tests, focusing on anti-stall / anti-spin software in a specific type of flight, not a dogfight.
This video explains it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31oJIo8EVwY
>>28514783
You are referring to the test of the control laws a year ago, one where no dogfight happened.
Oh and it was an F-16, not an F-15.
Why are F-35 detractors always sprey/RT tier. I mean love tI'd o see a actual of tfail he baircraft rought up other then just lies or "feels".
>>28514891
Because they don't have shit. Increasingly, it has become evident that they are making shit up because they are luddites that deliberately want to sabotage the procurement process
>>28514674
What would that actually do? the current FAHX is adequate for all but one specific situation, and in that situation the plane is not anywhere near combat to begin with.
What might we add to an F-35 that generates o much heat that a second FAHX is needed? DEW is probably the most likely answer, but until when they are ready there's no reason to add a second FAHX.
I think a decent addition would be to shift some systems from the back of the plane forward so you can put a rear-facing antenna on the plane.
>>28514891
As more information comes out about the F-35 being a genuinely good plane, the only people left are either maliciously stupid or horribly misinformed.
A lot of the controversy is purely because uninformed people want to sound "enlightened" about the DoD misusing funding. So instead of going after the real big institutional problems that are an embarrassment to the country, like
>the fact that the VA is so incompetent that it's just taken for granted that you're fucked unless you can find a charity to save you
>inter-service rivalry being so bad that a service will literally force the procurement of an entirely new system for no other reason than not wanting to use "the other guy's" stuff
it's far easier to just target a massive program that's really easy to misconstrue as bad. Plus, it's far easier to offer solutions. You can't unfuck the VA or the inter-service rivalries by just messing with funding, but you could "fix" the F-35 debacle by just cutting it.
>>28515853
There's other things like DIRCM and GaN radar upgrades. It'd also be nice to keep the fuel tanks cooler, both to cool the weapons bays and to improve how far the F-35 can operate in Mach 1.2 without afterburners and at high speed at low altitude.
What kind of antennas would you put at the rear? There's ESM antennas at the trailing edges of the elevons, but it would be nice to have some active elements there, as well as perhaps leading / trailing edge antennas in the vertical stabilizers, not that they're really needed.
>>28511276
>Fielding tens of thousands of fighter pilots
>Fielding hundreds of thousands of maintainers
The cost in people when you have tens of thousands of anything is immense.
>>28515690
To me criticism of the plane has mostly been about how the plane was marketed and the promises Lockheed Martin made. This has become something endemic in US procurement process. Spend astronomical sums on something that can't make the promises it made and takes a lot longer than what was promised.
It's not that F-35 isn't probably going to be a good plane it's the fact that this kind of shit development process has become something to expected rather than the exception.
To put it frankly I except this kind of shit from the Russians not the Americans.
>>28516213
Except the plane delivers on the promises, and the criticism is often driven by alterior motives.
