>Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. ChrisBogdansays the most common model of the plane, the F-35A, will hit $80 million to $85 million by 2019 and he expects the price will go lower, especially when it hits multi-year procurement in a few years. That price isin then-year dollars, and it includesan engine.
Not bad
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/bogdan-predicts-f-35s-for-less-than-80m-engines-included/
Yeah, but, the drink holder can only hold a medium size soda! F35 fags on suicide watch, lockmart in deathspiral, MIC finished for good, LONG LIVE THE A10!
>>28890267
>just another reason why Trudeau is a fuckhead for cancelling the F35 and ordering a new inquiry for replacement of CF-18
>>28890267
When did fighter jets start looking like alien spaceships
>>28890322
>not preparing for second independence day
Do you want the aliens to win?
>>28890322
Forward hinges. Lift fans prevent conventional canopy lifting arrangements.
>>28890331
What did Chris-Chan do to the general?
>>28890417
Giving a long budget presentation while sick with the flu.
I wonder how much the Chinese stealth fighters cost. On the one hand, they get R&D discount from espionage and cheaper labor costs. On the other hand they don't have the economy of scale that is driving down the F-35's price.
>>28890267
Why wouldn't you want to cut the cockpit close to the frame? It seems like the jet would be fucked if you're doing that.
>>28890743
Because of the detcord designed to shatter the glass for ejection.
>>28890754
>>28890743
There could potentially be 270V cabling that could ruin your day.
>>28890322
tip canopy
>>28890723
That is a very interesting question actually
>>28890723
>economy of scale that is driving down the F-35's price.
And this is based on exactly what? They haven't announced their total order at all. They could be building 50 or 50 million, you have no fucking idea.
>>28890322
Since they gave us the tech.
>>28890306
Trudeau was elected on memes & retarded liberals
What do they or he care about facts?
>>28890723
Don't forget about the corners they inevitably cut.
>>28890723
Couple of ghost cities per squadron.
>>28891322
>And this is based on exactly what?
The fact that the F-35's price has already gone down more than 50% from the initial batch as the production process becomes more efficient?
Learn 2 Microeconomics
Hahaha no one wamts fighters so they put in discount lolol
They should have bought Chinese.
>>28890723
Infinite monies, because they don't exist and no amount of yuan can be turned into an AL 31, much less a real engine you'd need for a 5th gen fighter.
>>28891565
>Missing the point like a retard
I was obviously referring to the fact that nobody knows whether EoS will be a factor in the J-20
>>28890331
DON'T LOCK YOUR KNEES!
>>28891948
Based on the scale of the rest of their forces, it's suggested China will be buying very roughly between 150 and 500. Something else that will affect their order size is the fact that half of their fighter fleet is made up of J-7s (Chinese MiG-21 copies), which will need a replacement before too long. They might step up J-10 production and make further upgrades to reduce RCS, etc, but it depends on their ambitions.
>>28891559
>perfect for blending into Chinese air
>>28890723
>On the other hand they don't have the economy of scale
They churned out 400 J-10s. If they want it, they'll have it. In fact I reckon they've got a FAAAAR better shot at it than anyone outside the US at this point.
>>28891559
Off topic, but those Chinese ghost cities would probably be a great setting for urban warfare training.
>>28890267
>prediction
>Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. ChrisBogdansays
sure
>>28890267
What would happen if I ignore that warning?
"Pentagon Comptroller Mike McCord took a different tone, however. Although the reduction to 404 total Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps F-35s over the next five years is not expected to produce a significant change in the unit cost, it is not clear the Pentagon will be able to get back to the planned production rate, he said.
“We are trying to get it back up to where we want it to be across the FYDP," McCord said Feb. 9 at the Pentagon, referring to the Future Years Defense Program. "But it’s just a lot of money too, and it’s unclear that we will be able to get this program back to the ramps that we had hoped for previously."
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/02/12/f-35-production-drop-20-but-air-force-officials-downplay-price-impact/80239400/
>>28892381
>First comment best comment
>>28894440
>Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Chris "abandoning this sinking ship in July" Bogdan says
fix'd
>>28890267
How the fuck are you suppose to cut the canopy so that the person can get out then?
>>28895483
Like this
>>28895483
Cut the canopy more than three inches above it's frame?
>>28890267
Do older generation of jet fighters have as many warnings as the F35? There is a limit to how bad ass you can look when your aircraft is riddled with warning signs. Like how are you suppose to be intimidating?
>>28891559
>This meme
J-31 have russian engines and it's just an extra plane in Chinese airforce, and they don't even give care about it much
J-20 doesn't have smoke or anything you retard, that's an airshow smoke
>>28890267
Price cutting = using cheaper shit to make it. The U.S. is taking a page from China.
>>28890267
>will
Keep shilling.
>>28895499
why do they wear those suits?
>>28895672
Because it's the standard fire fighter outfit.
>>28890322
Because despite how butthurt faggots get the f-35 is a god damn marvel in engineering.
>>28895651
Any evidence at all to support this notion? Or are you pulling shit out of your ass
>>28894453
It would be extremely painful.
>>28895672
Do you like to contract weird Alien bacteria and viruses while removing an Alium pilot from a UFO testing vehicle?
Didn't think so.
>>28895648
>airshow smoke
.50 cents have been deposited in your account.
>>28895551
>Do older generation of jet fighters have as many warnings as the F35
Absolutely, the difference being cold war secrecy and the internet.
>>28895507
Well yeah...problem?
Funny, how the USA just killed it's new gen drone programe to protect the F-35 business.
>>28896382
?
You talking about that carrier based drone which still exists?
>>28895551
>Do older generation of jet fighters have as many warnings as the F35?
See
https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf
Contemporary GAO reports on the F-16, F-18, and F-15 aren't very flattering either, and they certainly drew media attention.
>>28890267
>predicts
Okay.
>>28890288
yeah but the first block update will include a large
stay mad a10 jerk!
>>28896607
You're joking, right?
>>28896691
What am I joking about?
Is the J-20 not also going supersonic?
>>28896532
No, the navy is doing a tanker drone now.
>>28896899
Isn't a tanker drone just another name for a large flying missile platform? How easy is it to jam satellite radio these days?
>>28896899
it's still the same drone being produced, and will mostly be doing all the same shit
>>28890288
The igla-2 would like a word with you.
>>28896924
From what I've read, the UCLASS is now going to be an unmanned tanker with secondary reconnaissance capabilities.
Odds are they did that to have a safer way to get an actual carrier-based UAV into service to get ground crews accustomed to working with them and mature the technology. From there, it'd ideally be easier to get an actual UCAV. Hell, if they use something like the X-47B then the conversion between tanker and UCAV would be tremendously simple.
>>28896725
You're beyond help then, got it. Ignorant brain dead whataboutism at its finest.
>>28896956
The problem is the the X-47 isn't anywhere close to being the size of a tanker. Chances are the new UAV will be a more traditional tube and wings planform
>>28897002
They made the A-6 into a carrier-based tanker despite its size.
>>28896956
I think the issue is more that they would probably cost just as much as an F-35, and would probably be less useful.
Ideally, they should be operating their tanker drones from platforms that aren't the carrier.
>>28896924
>How easy is it to jam satellite radio these days?
By that logic we shouldn't use fighter jets or any combat aircraft for that matter.
With enough energy anything is possible, though most drones now into the future are semi-autonomous diminishing effectiveness.
>>28897023
>Ideally, they should be operating their tanker drones from platforms that aren't the carrier.
And operating heavy super-battleships. Tanker or no tanker, the Aircraft Carrier as a concept is done.
>>28897047
Carriers are too expensive to waste their time operating drones
Make them VTOL or CATOVL, and operate them from logistics ships
>>28897106
DARPA has the same thought
>>28897143
link
http://www.uasvision.com/2016/01/07/northrop-grumman-announces-darpa-tern-contract/
>>28897143
>>28897164
These are just ISR/ extremely light attack. And let me tell you, that's all you need them to be. Persistent long distance ISR is a huge role in and of itself. Its importance cannot be understated.
>>28890267
Does anyone have the "Two engine vs one engine reliability over the years" chart that showed single engine jets are safer these days???
I needs it.
>>28890267
did they fix the thing where it needs to slow down every ten minutes to open up the launch bay to cool down its armaments
and all the software bugs?
that's cool man
>>28895708
would they die if they took them off?
>>28897409
Once the concept is proven/demonstrated, larger tailsitters could be produced.
>>28897164
Are those grocery cart wheels
>>28895551
>Do older generation of jet fighters have as many warnings as the F35?
Nope. Every one of the teen series fighters was far worse. Copy Pasta incoming.
Also, it helps to have perspective on these reports; they're meant to be tough and hard on the project, and to be very very sure to point out every issue, no matter how small. Just because there are issues does not mean the jet sucks.
F-35 DOT&E report for 2015:
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/dod/2015f35jsf.pdf
Just for some context on these reports and how they work, here are some GAO reports for other aircraft at similar points in development:
F-16, 1977:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/120/116765.pdf
>In its evaluation of the F-16 development and procurement program, GAO found that the Air Force is concerned with several potential F-16 problems: F100 engine stalls, demonstration of an improved aerial restart capability, and excessive taxi speed. Tactical Air Command believes the F-16 need additional equipment; and that it doesn't have sufficient space available for all desired new capabilities.
It often reads like a hatchet job, but the whole point is to be tough on the project and identify/fix any issues ASAP.
F/A-18, 1981:
http://archive.gao.gov/f0102/114371.pdf
>The Navy and its contractors have made progress in solving technical problems discussed in GAO's Feb 1980 report on the F/A-18, but problems remain. Future decisions should include consideration of whether
>-modifications to the wing will correct a roll-rate problem without adversely affecting other performance areas
>-modifications in response to bulkheads cracking are adequate
>-a high oil temerature condition can be corrected
>-built in test objectives can be achieved
>-fuel cell leakages can be corrected, and
>-causes of two crashes can be corrected
>Estimates of the cost of the F/A-18 program continue to increase
F/A-18E/F, 1996:
http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-96-98
>>28890267
True or false:
The F-35 is designed to be easy to upgrade by segmenting certain core systems (like the sensor packages) into modular blocks that can be easily removed and replaced when the time comes?
>>28897906
No doubt it would be very painful.
>>28898064
The size of these is constrained by the hangar space on an Arleigh Burke.
>>28898131
True... kinda.
Not everything is like that, but most of it is.
>>28897002
Neither is a Hornet.
>>28898204
I'm sure they'll be used on other ships too
>>28897022
An KA-6 would make a good drone tanker platform.
>>28898283
The LCS will certainly host them. However, they will still be constrained by the Burke's hangar, unless you want to make them unusable by a huge proportion of surface combatants.
>>28896576
>>28898108
LM bots are malfunctioning?
Warning signs, i.e
>Warning: jet exhaust is hot
>Caution: Objects on radar screen are closer than they appear
>>28898712
>state historical fact
>provide historical primary source documents
>provide TLDR summary
>anon still refuses to learn something which disagrees with his cherished but ill informed world view
Can't help some people, I guess.
>>28898774
Read what the first guy asked. He was talking about the warning signs that they put on aircraft.
I have no idea why people started replying to him talking about problems other aircraft had with their development.
>>28898774
Holy shit, we actually got an actual malfunctioning shill-bot
>>28890723
China doesn't have P&W engines. Nothing they design will have any relevance due to the fact they can't make engines.
Everyone knows this. It's no secret.
>>28898875
Given the general topic of discussion, warning signs (literal) is easily confused with warning signs (reports).
>>28898875
Well the first guy misunderstood what he meant by 'warning sign' and I guess it just snowballed from there.
>>28898892
How much are you paid?
>>28898912
Yeah, I misread that. I assumed he was asking an actual legitimate and not easily quantified or quickly googled question about historical US procurement and how GAO and DOT&E reports have always worked.
I shouldn't have given him credit for not asking a question he could figure out in 30 seconds with a google image search and read his question more carefully.
My bad.
>>28898926
Still going strong it seems. I wonder how sophisticated these bots are, do they have some image recognition capability for example?
Pic related fighter sucks, even Gripen could beat it in a 1v1
>>28898997
Lies! The F-8 is twice the plane the Gripen will ever be!
>>28890267
Everything is getting cheaper.
>>28898997
I'll take this as an admission of being a shill :^)
>>28896666
Quads confirms this
>>28898997
False argument. Just because shills say the PAK-FA blows donkey balls does not mean ipso facto that it is an adequate or even extraordinary aircraft.
>>28899012
>>28899034
Hmmm... I may have triggered the bots sarcasm detector, which just seems to flip it into defensive "it was all joke"-mode
>>28898712
>Pilot is a Staff Sergeant
>WSO is Airman First Class
Am I missing something here?
>>28898131
That was part of the original concept that was sold to get the funding decades back. It seems to have been almost completely abandoned along the way somewhere though.
thats only about 4 f16s the us air force could buy instead
>>28899688
Try ~one and a half of the newest ones the price is quickly going up. Surplus ones are still cheap though.
>>28899447
Dedicated Crew Chief and Assistant. Pilots just get assigned a plane to fly as available. The mechanics own the plane.
>>28899784
It's got to be hell waiting for Class A mishap investigations to come back as a Crew Chief, knowing your aircraft went down for some reason and no knowing if it was pilot error, bad manufacturer parts, discovered design flaw or a seemingly small oversight on your part that's going to put you in jail and then dishonorably discharged. That shit must seem like it drags on forever.
Do they just put crew chiefs on another bird while all that is going on?
>>28890322
since Roswell faggot.
>>28901160
>Area-51 is the black project site
>Implying UFO sightings weren't test flights and munition/flare tests confused for alien craft
>>28899019
orly
>>28901728
Likely story G-man.
>>28895708
For fighting fires on the flight line, they have regular suits for fires around base
>>28892381
>>28894775
Its been said before. He is recycling jokes.
>>28890267
Daily reminder that regardless of price, the F-35 is by far the slowest fighter jet on the market right now, and one of the slowest fighters that the US has actually used in the past five decades. Even the Thunderchief was faster. It is possible that the F-35 will simply not be fast enough to engage higher performance fighters like the Su-35.
>>28906772
>decades of combat have shown a Mach difference of .2 doesn't matter
>The Critics like Sprey thought 1.6 was about the max needed anyways
>>28898108
Except the F-35 is 9 years old in the 2015 report and the F-16 only 4 in the 1977 report.
Not to mention the F-35 program learned a lot from the F-22 and we are 40 years ahead in production standards and knowledge. It makes sense that the 1977 F-16 report was worse than the 2015 F-35 report.
Apples and oranges.
>>28906799
LMIDF detected
>>28906799
>Citing Pierre Sprey as a source
>>28906818
No, just using his dickery as an example of why it's such a bad argument. One of the big things they railed against on the Blue Bird specs was that it was faster than 1.6.
>>28906799
>speed doesnt matter in aerial egagements
i bet you are one of those "lol why u dont put moar armor on tank" kind of fags
>>28906835
>Pierre Sprey is universally regarded as a joke on /k/
>"I'll cite him as a source for why being slower than everybody else is actually, that will work!"
>>28890267
Odd considering the latest contract for the A airframe was about $93-94 million.
FRP 1 will only be buying 30 more A's than LRIP 9.
We don't even know what the engine price for the A is currently.
I am gonna throw this in the trash until I see the real numbers. They predicted this in 2005, 2010, 2012, and now we are supposed to believe them now?
I'll wait and see.
>>28906839
Supersonic speed doesn't matter as much in the era of stealth and BVR missiles.
>>28906848
>Still confusing it for supporting Sprey's arguments
The idiot also claims it's too low for the F-35 despite saying 1.6 was more than enough for Red Bird.
>>28906799
4 stealthed robots for stealth means poor BVR, and WVR is pretty much nonexistant. The F-35 can reach mach 1.65 sure, but thats the only thing its going to do in that op (acceleration to top speed). In reality, that number is smaller.
>>28906808
F-35 program started in 1996 afaik...
>>28906862
Once in FRP they aren't doing extensive line testing, it's the "final" version they'll be building so they can focus man-hours on the build instead of the "build-test-modify-build" of the LRIP runs.
>>28906865
The mediocre top speed wouldn't be such a big deal if it also came with supercruise. But it doesn't. The F-35 is slower than other medium-sized fighter jets by every metric.
>>28906870
The thing is, supersonic is only really useful when running intercepts with critical timing. Which isn't really the F-35's primary purpose anyways.
>>28906904
For most of the countries buying the F-35, it will be their only new fighter jet for a very long time. How can you justify selling them a jet that CAN'T perform the most basic duty of a fighter jet..........intercepting hostile aircraft?
>>28906862
>We don't even know what the engine price for the A is currently.
$108 total LRIP8 price for an F-35A minus $94 mil for the airframe.
>>28906904
No, but you are not realising that the number means it can go that fast whenever it wants, which it can't. The 1.65 top speed cited is completely theoretical and depends completely on being higher than 25 000 feet and the F-35 having no countermeasures. At sub 5000, we're talking 0,77 max. For a Gripen, that figure would be 1.2 (60% increase) and i suspect the Eurofighter or Rafale is yet faster.
It can't even go supersonic until what, 20 000 high? Limited to 1.2 if you want weapons at 25k. Its literally slower than a p-51 mustang...
>>28906920
You mean countries using the F-16, which is no faster than the F-35?
>>28906865
Yess it does, the faster you go the further you can loft you missiles. Giving you that first shot advantage and the ability to take the shot at a longer distance is a pretty big deal.
>Weapons bay temperature becomes excessive. Pilots are restricted from keeping the weapons bay doors closed for more than 10 cumulative minutes when flying at airspeeds equal to or greater than 500 knots at altitudes below 5,000 feet; 550 knots at altitudes between 5,000 and 15,000 feet; and 600 knots at altitudes between 15,000 and 25,000 feet.
ayy lmao
>>28906944
>Mach 2.0 isn't faster than Mach 1.6
>>28906994
That's hot and fast. I don't see why they would need to keep their weapons bay open for 10 minutes.
>>28907034
CLOSED
they cannot keep them CLOSED
>>28907050
fuck me
>>28906900
>Mach 1.2 dash for 150 miles without afterburner.
Close enough.
>>28906994
>600 knots is mach 0.9
LITERALLY CANT GO SUPERSONIC
F-35s have got to be the loudest jets I've ever heard. Though I've not been around any Soviet cans, maybe they're worse. Those MIG-25s/31s are probably loud fucks.
Just as there are talks of less sales?
Gee how convenient!
>>28907006
>doing interceptions with no fuel and 2 sidewinders
>>28907155
>deferred procurement by a year or two equals less sales
>>28906943
t. Sprey
Okay what 5 things could we do to fix the F-35?
>>28907201
1-5. Make sure the F-35 keeps on track for its development as it has been for the last half decade.
>>28907103
No. If you need to use the afterburner every 150 miles just to maintain "supercruise" then guess what? That's not supercruise.
Supercruise means that the plane can reach and maintain a speed of at least 700 for a period of time WITHOUT using the afterburner AT ALL.
>>28907228
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/01/12-11-15%20Concerns%20with%20the%20Plans%20for%20F-35%20System%20%20Development%20and%20Follow-On%20Development%20%2810201%29.pdf
no tears friend
>>28907237
It cant do 700 knots anyway for more than 10 minutes, or the weapons bay gets overheated. See >>28906994
Though it barely does 700 anyway
Give it a bigger engine, rework the airframe to fit a nice big engine
We'll call it the F-35F
The second F is for Fat
The first F is also for Fat
>>28907271
>under 25000ft
So, complete non-issue then.
>>28890267
The F-35 is a good plane.
>>28907271
You're trying too hard m8.
>>28907311
Weapons bay limits the top speed to 500@>5000ft, 550@5000-15000ft, 600@15000-25000ft
Which are pretty shit numbers.
>>28907329
that's exactly what an f-35 would say
>>28907262
Not quite sure what point you thought you were making.
>>28907362
Except those are not speed limits, and is easily rectifiable once things that actually matter are dealt with first.
>>28906935
Source?
>weapon bays 'overheat'
>open bay doors for a couple seconds
ayy lmao
>>28907419
it'll be a patched in feature soon
if (engine.is_too_hot()) {
try {
weapons_bay.open_doors();
} catch (...) { // must've failed, jet overheating, save pilot!
eject_pilot();
}
}
>>28907411
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/03/25/f35-costs-cracks-development-/70392734/
https://www.onlineamd.com/article/lockheed-martin-f35-lrip8-contract-112614
>LRIP8 F-35A unit cost, $108 mil
which including engines and profit for manufacturers
>LRIP8 F-35A airframe cost, $94.8 mil
so the conventional engine costs, at most, $13.2 mil as of LRIP8
>>28907525
>cannot make an argument
>refuses to lose his perceived moral high ground
>SHILL, SHILL, SHILLLLLLLLL
And the irony is you are probably the one being paid.
>>28907419
>Open weapon doors for a couple seconds.
>Get shot down
FACT:
The Original X-35 model which LM used to earn pentagon approval did not even have functional weapons bays. The USA has staked it's ENTIRE FUTURE on a model that wasn't even working. It may be that the problems with the F-35 weapon's bays are inherent in the design and thus IMPOSSIBLE to fix without MAJOR redesign, crippling the F-35 FOR ITS ENTIRE SERVICE LIFE.
>>28906980
Not F-35 tho, it can't open its weapons bays at top speed (LM has promised they'll totally fix this in a few years)
so weapons bays are the new target now
>>28895712
But not a good weapon.
Deal with it dickhead
>>28907592
Yes because:
1. They are absolutely central to the F-35's design
2. They don't work.
The F-35 design should never have been approved without testing the weapon's bays thoroughly first. The fact that they were not test before so many F-35's were made shows just how corrupt the entire procurement process was, and puts the entire program's integrity in doubt.
>>28907568
opening your doors for a second is now the same as flying with them open :^)
and that was the simple fix, simply adding ventilation is the other
>>28907400
ye sure
>have already built 200 airframes
>hey guys, lets put in some beefier cooling systems
yeah, no
>>28907681
But they do work. It's only under a very specific set of conditions that they have to open them occasionally to vent excess heat until a proper fix is made.
>>28907699
All they have to do as add in some venting or reroute a cooling line. They already have stealth heat venting for the cannon mount, they can do the same for the weapons bay if they wanted.
>>28907677
Deal with what? That no matter what you losers say over 2 thousand will be made and used by most first world nations?
Yeah I'll deal with it, dickhead.
>>28907677
Except it is a good weapon, no matter how much you pout and stomp your feet.
>>28907681
At least you admit to desperately grasping at any straw, no matter how itsfuckingnothing it is.
>>28907714
Ok, they "just" have to make a few structural changes to a product that's been in development for 15 years and which development phase is supposedly finished.
You clearly have no idea what is an engineer.
>>28907699
>build 900 F-16s
>hey guize it needs a new tail design to stop stalling
yeah, no
>>28907738
>You clearly have no idea what is an engineer.
Because you do :^)
hey guys. arab here. i've been trying to save up my allowance to buy a couple f-35s to fuck beyonce in. anyone wanna partake? probably gonna plastidip it too.
>>28907852
Don't think banging Beyonce in a single seater would be too comfortable, unless you are doing it in the weapon bays.
>>28907747
So you are ceding the point that significant rework of the entire program is required for the plane to be the capable plane that LM markets?
>>28907568
Versus what, the X-32 prototype that had serious trouble even flying straight and a fundamentally flawed STOVL system?
>>28907568
The X-32 didn't have a weapons bay either. The X-35 had space to do so in its design. It was a major reason the X-35 won.
>>28907900
So you are ceding the point that adding ventilation to the weapon bays is a low priority task and is far below what has been done in the past?
>>28907900
It's not really as big an issue as people make it out to be since the heat issue only crops up in altitudes the F-35 normally doesn't operate in.
>>28908221
No, it doesn't. The heating stems from airpressure which is lower the higher you go. Ergo, the problem starts at sea level and doesn't end until the stratosphere, getting worse and worse the higher the pressure is. Which means, the lower you fly, the slower you fly.
>>28908145
Well, no, it probably could be solved, but the thing is, it hasn't been solved. If your solution is "dont fly at X heights" you have limited your operational capacity by quite a lot. If you are also banking on it being solved in a future block upgrade, which is likely, we're still looking far in the future and with many dollarydoos being flung into the project. Moreso, it's likely that the buyers that aren't the US won't have the money to spend on upgrading their fighters when they've already gone over budget prasing it as a jack of all trades and selling it as a long-life aircraft.
>>28908326
Yfw this is true anyway unless you want a combat radius of 1nmi
>>28908543
So you are in fact ceding the point that it is a low priority nonissue.
>>28908577
True, but you are still limiting aerodynamical and manouverability capabilities, which, are decent at its best...
>>28908543
?
ok? The plane is not in full production yet, nor is it close to operations.
This is one of many issues that'll be fixed in time, its likely not even a serious issue either.
>>28908742
>>28908766
Yeah, but you know how the Critics work: take minor issue and call it the death knell, cancel it all, fuck high tech weapons.
>>28908766
It's not, but it is in preproduction and testing phase which means that making larger changes is completely out of the question. Smaller modifications and software changes are easier to modify and as you did point out, its nowhere near being operational.
But is a serious issue, and it's unacceptable that this is a problem so far into the program.
>>28908982
>But is a serious issue, and it's unacceptable that this is a problem so far into the program.
You should tell that to literally every other fighter project in the past. They've all suffered issues that were equivalent, if not worse, than what the F-35 is going through right now.
And sometimes there's some problems you just can't find with a handful of prototypes. LRIP is a middle ground where you can get production started and at the same time find issues that never would have been found until you started flying them in serious numbers and hours.
>>28908982
The fact it hasn't come up before likely means its a new issue or a negligible issue
>>28908982
>But is a serious issue
Except its not.
>>28906772
It wasn't built too, plus what does it matter when it can detect an SU-35 50 miles out, spam missiles and RTB?
>>28909135
Or even better, fire be the control point for the 50 missiles in a B-1?
>>28898997
>>28909552
The Griffin has more international sales despite costing more.
>>28909568
>>28906808
Every successive aircraft generation has taken longer to develop. The F-16 took almost twice as long to develop as the F-5. The F-5 took two and a half times as long to develop as the F-100.
Aircraft have gotten exponentially more complex with each iteration. This is true even in the civilian world.
>Not to mention the F-35 program learned a lot from the F-22 and we are 40 years ahead in production standards and knowledge. It makes sense that the 1977 F-16 report was worse than the 2015 F-35 report.
This is just illogical and retarded.
