Why are we allowing other nations to buy our most advanced technology?
>>28720919
Because they pay for it.
>>28720919
Because in exchange money and technology is given.
>>28720919
>implying that's our most advanced technology
>>28720919
C.R.E.A.M.
>>28720996
also this
because one world Government . Or, as they like to say in Revelation... the beast with seven heads & ten horns will share the aircraft.....
>>28720919
Cause said nations already helped pay to develop it in a partnership program.
>>28720919
I heard the primary value proposition is maintenance costs. If you have a collective fleet of 100 - 300 craft out there in the world, then it makes economical sense to manufacture tons of spare parts for support. This reduces costs for everyone.
So, uh, yea.
>>28720919
even Nips claiming this is gonna be better ,eventually WE buy this instead .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsaeH4nO9Mw
>>28720919
>F-35
>our technology
It's been a multinational project from the beginning, the bongs and others contribute a bunch of stuff to it
>>28725283
Impressive fighter.
The Russians should deploy this in Ukraine and there would be nothing America could do about it.
>>28725283
>bong pretending to be burger to praise themselves.
Yes guy, I am sure F 35 being built by multiple international companies has to do with our lack of technology, since we don't know how to make things likes stabilizer fins or weapons door. It's not like we have any experience building 5th gen fighters ourselves.
>>28720919
Because only allied nations are allowed to; the UAE and Saudis asked for it but got denied for example.
Also, it's because the jet's software is locked down, and because it's near-impossible for most other nations to manufacture / supply by themselves. If Israel or Turkey handed one to China, they'd struggle to build it using the same materials (a number of composites in jets after LRIP 3 even swapped out graphite epoxy composites for carbon nanotube [SPACE ELEVATORS] epoxy composites). The software would also require their best supercomputers running for years to decrypt it / decompile it, by which time the US / JPO would have already rolled out another block update or two.
>>28720919
How many AIM-120 missiles can the F-35 carry internally? This photograph appears to imply that it could carry at least six missiles at once. Is that accurate?
The paradox of military manufacturers needing both meeting their military client's parameters and serious cash at the same time.
Sure you can keep your sales domestic, but you can make more dough if you sell to overseas nations too.
>>28720919
If the F-35 is our most advanced tech, then I weep for our aeronautical engineers, stuck in the 80's.
>>28725801
That image is photoshopped, hence why there's a bomb under those AMRAAMs. The facts though are that as of Block 3F, the F-35 will carry 4 AMRAAMs internally. By block 4 or 5 they will increase that to 6 - the only thing preventing it now is time and money as they need to create a pneumatic twin ejector for the internal 'bomb' hardpoints.
>>28720919
cause obama is cucking us out for the new world order
>>28725789
>implying the chinks arent embedded into lockheed martin deeper than ron jeremy facefucking sasha grey
>implying the chinks arent just stealing it at the source before its encrypted loaded into avionics
>>28725861
It already happened with the f22, they hacked data.
>>28725875
And then had the brains to blatantly reveal they ripped off our design off.
"Behold my totally original OC!"
The F-35 started out as the VTOL or STOVL version, the F-35B. That contract started out as a replacement for the Royal Navy and USMC Harriers. So, the jet was ready for export from its inception. The program was later expanded to include the A and C versions as a measure to recoup steep development costs. So it's not that other countries and services are privileged enough to receive it, more that they're dumb enough to be subsidizing Lockheed Martin, the US Marines and the Royal Navy.
>>28725875
From what I read, the the earliest was in 2007. I'm not sure that would be enough time to do much with it. Could be wrong.
>>28725875
not really
It's more that we import and hire lots of chinks, while the federal government looks the other way
>>28725895
The J-31 is pretty different, and none of it matters because else can build the engines used by the F-35 or produce the coatings or sensors. Just copying how it looks is the very, very easy part.
>>28725861
Why do you think they're still trying to hack into the F-35 program's computers if they've got everything?
>>28725895
china: thefinebros of international politics
>>28725895
It's bizzare how similar it is. You'd think it would be more work to keep touches like those two latch parts on either side. Kind of fascinating.
>>28725895
The FC-31 is an F-22 knockoff with F-35 inlets.
>>28725906
The F-35 started when a program for a STOVL aircraft for the USN, USMC and Royal Navy was merged with a USAF and USN fighter program in the 90s.
>>28725960
Minor point, but the STOVL program (CALF Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter) was for the USMC, Royal Navy and USAF (not USN) - this program had the idea of having a convertable-to-non-STOVL variant from the start).
www.jsf.mil/history/his_prejast.htm
JAST was the other half and was to be a medium sized or heavy fighter that replaced the A-6, F-14, F-16 and F-111.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/jast.htm
>>28725934
appearances for tactical advantage? the same reason ww2 allied commanders moved troops around the opposite way on purpose sometimes so the germans wouldnt know their enigma was cracked and they literally had zero security on coded messages
>>28720919
>Why are we allowing other nations to buy our most advanced technology?
You arn't, the F-22 isn't for sale, but the crappy low-end F-35 is.
>>28720919
Because for all intents and purposes, the US/UK/Canada/Aus/NZ/SA are the same entity.
>>28720919
you dont beat the works team with customer equipment.
>>28725832
But the F-35's weapon bay is absolutely central to the aircraft's ability to fight. The F-35 should have been able to hold AT LEAST six AIM-120s before the design was even approved for mass production.
>>28725895
Copying the shaping of the F-35 was inevitable. I mean, in the past, nations would literally kill people just to get photographs of foreign aircraft. Now? There are thousands of photos of the F-22/F-35 online from every possible angle.
>>28720919
>Why are we allowing other nations to buy our most advanced technology?
If your advanced technology isn't allowed to be used, what's the point of having it?
>>28727279
>Aircraft primarily built as a multi-role strike fight with huge production numbers
>A2A capacity a priority
>>28727834
>Missile capacity isn't a priority for a fighter plane
>>28727861
Reading comprehension, the post
>>28727922
>We called it a "strike fighter" that means we can ignore A2A!
>>28727930
But apparently they didn't since they have a2a capabilities.
>>28727964
>4 missiles
>In a space that should easily be able to hold AT LEAST 6
>>28727986
Which it will
Next
>>28728004
Doesn't change the fact that there will still be hundreds of F-35's produced which can only carry four missiles before the fix is made.
Hegemony.
>>28727930
Remember when they used to be called "fighter-bombers?"
Those were the days.
>>28720919
>most advanced aircraft
>not F-22
>>28728121
>No IRST
>No EO-DAS
>No EOTS
>No GAU-22/A
>>28728039
>Modular design means fleetwide changes are easy
Obtuse, the post!
>>28728148
>No GAU-22/A
Let's be fair here, the Vulcan is still a great A2A gun. The 25mm on the F-35 is built towards precision burst fire on ground targets.
>>28728220
>Pay $100 million dollars for a jet
>You need to cough up more dough to get the ability to hold six missiles
It's like DLC for fighter jets
>>28728232
But if we're talking about which jet is more advanced, I'd say having a more powerful, more accurate gun that can use APEX rounds is a factor.
>>28728256
>It's like DLC for fighter jets
Versus the major refits that upgrades and updates needed in previous generations?
>But if we're talking about which jet is more advanced, I'd say having a more powerful, more accurate gun that can use APEX rounds is a factor.
Things that don't really matter as much when shooting airplanes.
>>28728350
Previous generations of aircraft were upgraded to take advantage of new technology that wasn't available when production began. The F-35 could have, and should have, had the able to hold six A2A missiles from the very first prototype.
>>28728379
It was never a priority. You know what was? That 2000lbs bomb capacity that makes the extra AMRAAM possible in the first place.
>>28728256
J20 can only hold 4, cause Chinese missiles are fuckhueg and the bay is not that big.
>>28726236
the F-35 has more advanced avionics and sensors than the F-22. They're not selling the F-22 because it's too expensive for anyone but the US to want to buy it.
>>28727279
this
>>28727834
it was mostly designed to do the multirole capability that the F-22 wasn't designed to do.
>>28720919
>Why are we allowing other nations to buy our most advanced technology?
>What is a monkey model?
>>28728435
>Primary buyers are other NATO nations
>Monkey modeling our friends
We aren't Russia.
>>28728446
What is the functional difference between what the Russians do and what we do when we sell an export model that lacks some of the features or capabilities of the domestic models? It's literally monkey modeling, and there's nothing wrong with the practice. It is what we SHOULD be doing.
>>28728541
Russia also sells to countries that might turn on them or act in opposition to their best interests.
>>28725875
>>28725861
China's hacks were on subcontractors. Important stuff is airgap'd. It's not like military espionage was invented by them, the USSR was operating for decades.
>implying it was just america that developed the F-35
Russia has spilled the beans on their most prized systems like S-300 by exporting it.
>>28728121
>>28728148
you forgot
>no oxygen
What is strengthening your allies and making a buck for 200$ Alex
>>28728350
>Things that don't really matter as much when shooting airplanes.
So you're saying all that matters in defining how advanced an aircraft is, is how good it dogfights?
Cos I'm afraid we got some news for you buddy...
>>28725960
To be fair, the F-35 inlet is ingenious and simple. The discovery of it's benefits was something of a "why didn't we think of this before" moment
>>28730286
No, that for the F-22 a ground attack gun isn't needed. The F-35's gun and ammo are optimized for ground attack. You don't need a 25mm APEX to shoot down other fighters in the F-22.
>>28730392
But the GAU-22/A is still more advanced than the Vulcan, no matter how you spin it.
>>28725327
Uhh.. Anon I have something you should know.
>>28720919
You are now aware that the F-35 could have been a genuinely great plane if only it had enough thrust to actually carry its own weight efficiently. China had the right idea: keep the shaping, but add a second engine.
>>28730504
The software and ammo is, yes. There isn't really that big a difference functionally speaking between the two except the caliber difference.
>>28730636
>Has T/W of 1.07 at clean 50% fuel
>Not enough thrust
You know how I know you're making shit up?
>>28730636
With two engines it still has worse thrust to weight ratio than an F-35.
They added two because they can't make a single engine worth a damn.
>>28725437
Well the USA can't make ejection seats for shit.
BAE brings a huge amount of experience to the table in regards to vtol, sensor fusion and electronic warfare.
>>28730636
Have you earned your 5 cents today?
>>28730779
>With two engines it still has worse thrust to weight ratio than an F-35.
That's only because China can't make engines. With two American-made engines each with 120 kN of max thrust, the F-35 could have been a real winner. You'd get 50,000+ lbf of thrust AND a smaller heat signature than just have one big engine. Perhaps true supercruise as well.
>>28731122
>Things it doesn't need
>The F-135 already has an insane amount of power by itself
>>28731282
Not when you consider the amount of weight it is being forced to carry. A team of smaller, more efficient engines would have been better than putting it all on 1 gas-guzzler to do everything by itself. You'd get better thrust, better top speed, and better acceleration.
>>28731321
>Baseless shitposting
>>28725943
it's a joke, they made a counterfeit plane
>>28730725
No, it is fundementally a more advanced gun.
The topic is on "most advanced tech"
Therefore, yes, it is.
>>28731529
It's not, really. They're the exact same tech, the only difference is 2 less barrels, larger caliber, and the computer controlling it.
>>28731321
Wrong. Aircraft engines scale well. For a given power, two engines will be less efficient
>>28725801
>>28725832
The F-35 will be able to carry 8-12 MRAAM if the CUDA is adopted.
