The F in F-35 stands for Failure.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/03/14/oversight-group-f-35-may-not-be-suitable-for-combat-before-2022/
>dodbuzz
Into the trash it goes
>>29267720
>dodbuzz
>>29267720
Can we just consider F-35 threads to be spam now? Please?
>>29267820
>>29267854
Delusional Americans
>>29267863
I never understood why we can't discuss gun control laws on /k/, but can shitpost about the F-35 all the time.
>>29267863
I spoke too soon. Now THAT is a delusional picture.
>>29267720
>>29267820
>>29267854
>>29267863
What IS the problem, though? Why is this so hard? Why was LM able to create the F-22 and make it work but they can't seem to make the F-35 do what it is supposed to do? Why are they having so much trouble with the weapon bays when the F-22 has very similar weapon bays? Why did they build so many before doing adequate testing? Why is the software taking so long? Can't they just take the software from the F-22, modify it a bit for a single-engine plane, and put it in the F-35? What is going on?
>>29267720
F-35's a fucking lemon. It's designed to fight imaginary foes by using delusional tactics. It's main purpose is to separate taxpayers from their money.
F-35 = jack of all trades, master of none.
>>29267863
>Can we just consider F-35 threads to be spam now? Please?
dat motherfucking butthurt! HAHAAH... see pic.
>>29267879
>but can shitpost about the F-35 all the time.
news is shitposting... someone needs to get on some meds to control his delusions I see..
>>29267922
The software is much more than just flight performance. the F-35 is eventually going to handle a lot of different roles as well as different weapons systems than the F-22, and it will have some different capabilities. All of that necessitates new/different software
>>29267930
>F-35 = jack of all trades, master of none.
You mean exactly like the planes it is scheduled to replace?
There are legitimate criticisms of the F-35. This has never been one of them.
>>29267937
Why not create a rudimentary "stop-gap" software that allows the plane to fly, land, navigate, uses its most basic weapons (sidewinder, AMRAAM, gun), and essentially perform the most basic duties of the aircraft? Then gradually build on from there? I don't mean to imply that software engineering is easy. I just mean, this thing has been in development for so long now it seems baffling that they don't have the software written.
>>29267948
Fucking bullshit.
>>29267969
They're literally already doing that. The software is already capable of basic functions and its continually updated as development progresses.
F35 is dogshit and Ill tell you why. Why spend over 1.5 trillion dollars (they keep updating the price, nobody is paying what it was originally supposed to cost) when we can just upgrade older airframes to do the same thing for cheaper, or even just using the F22, which is objectively a superior fighter.
You can't take the F-35 seriously after looking at all of its glaring faults. Nogunz F4 sucked, nobody learned, so they nogunzed the f35. When they did, rarely did they work. The expensive special snowflake helmet doesn't work. If it rains, the stealth doesn't work, and "stealth" is such a pointless gimmick there is no real reason to bother with it. It's just a meme to get normies to hand over their tax dollars like good cattle. Plus they're obsessed with making the F35 into a multirole - falling hard for the ancient "Jack of all trades, master of none" meme, turning it into a mess with shitty payload and shitty operating range. Throw in the fact that the engines love to explode and catch fire, and that it can't even operate on fuel above a certain temperature (lol wat) and all you get is a big fat paycheck for the relentless lockmart shills - wait, you didn't seriously believe the trillions spent on this stealth fighter when the superior Rafale is available, that gets easily knocked out of a dogfight by the F16, was spent on developing a viable weapons system, do you? Reputable sources reiterate
this fact countless times:
https://www.rt.com/usa/331308-pentagon-f35-issues-list/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw
http://warisboring.com/articles/we-have-proof-the-u-s-air-force-watered-down-the-f-35-to-avoid-embarrassment/
And apparently the A-10 isn't good enough for CAS? Which it has been doing quite well for a while, now. The A-10 is combat proven and loved by everyone who operates with it. Why bother canning it? Especially when the trillions of dollars mess barely holds a 50% readiness rate. All this for a plane that can't fight Russia or China.
>>29267988
The Hornet is NOTHING if not a jack of all trades.
>>29268008
>stealth planes are literally invisble to every non-western radar
>hurr this is just a meme/gimmick
no
>>29268008
That's a bingo!
>>29267969
What's even more baffling is that some basic "next gen" software features that F-22 supposedly has are causing massive issues for LM to implement and are still completely disfunctional on F-35. Is F-22 actually a lemon as well, but it's all just been veiled in "top secret"-stamps and "we don't allow to use feature x in exercises so it doesn't leak"-explanations to hide the truth about state of the plane
>>29268030
Excellent maneuverability, enough cannon ammo for a strafe run or two, can carry any missile, CHEAP.
>>29268038
Care to elaborate?
>>29268039
You mean exactly like the F-35 but less capable and less survivability??
>>29268038
That's what I just don't understand. In theory, the F-35 just be like a single-engine F-22. All the major technical hurdles should have already been overcome with the development of the F-22. Instead, it almost seems like the did it backwards.
The F-35 should have been easy. "Take the stuff we learned from developing the F-22 and use it to create a single-engine F-16 replacement." What happened?
>>29268063
Exactly as capable and the same, if not better survivability (reliability).
The F-35 need years to catch up to be as combat-ready.
>>29268068
The F-35 uses completely different systems and technology from the F-22. They're not even made from the same material.
The F-22 was the "safe" option. The DoD wanted a balance beteween cutting edge and matured tech, and as a result, the F-22 is outclassed by the F-35 in terms of computing power by orders of magnitude.
>>29268084
>Exactly as capable
Now I know you must be trolling. The F-35 outclasses both the legacy and super hornet by every metric.
>>29268084
surviability is not reliability
>>29268096
What do you mean by computing power?
>>29268106
What a joke.
>>29268084
The F-35 isn't replacing the Super Hornet. Just the smaller, older Legacy Hornets. Although at this point I think they should consider just buying more Super Hornets to replace the Legacy Hornets and move towards an All-Superbug fleet. Start throwing money at Boeing to develope the ASH. It isn't as stealthy as the F-35 but at this point we just need something that works.
>>29268109
In that the F-35 is significantly more software intensive than any fighter plane the US has ever built. The DAS alone dwarfs the capabilities of any other fighter but requires fucktons of lines of code.
>>29268109
Literally having a more powerful computer that can handle a lot more complex "data fusion" which is just a big fancy word to say that all the plane's sensors work together and transmit the information directly to the pilot in a summarized format to prevent information overload and improve reaction times.
>>29268121
So mount a new computer system.
>>29268115
How is it a joke mister Joker.
>>29268116
Even if F-35, as you say, 'didn't work', at this point in development, all scrapping it for ASH would do is tack all we've spent on F-35 onto an objectively less capable aircraft that would take longer to actually field.
Add to the fact that J-20 and Pak-Fa are starting to really grow up. Like it or not, F-36)5 is going to be the forsake future of tell Western air power.
Funny how this happens for every single fighter, like fucking clockwork. Or are you too young to remember the lawn dart days?
>>29268134
How does this solve anything?
>>29268139
America shouldn't be dumping its planes for this new multirole aircraft. There's nothing this plane can do that another airframe can't handle.
>>29268133
Isn't supposed to be able to eventually make use of two-way datalink between missiles and other aircraft as well?
AFAIK it's one of the pioneers in that realm as well, though i don't know nearly as much about it.
>>29268151
Except fly farther and not get shot down by modern SAMs.
>>29268151
Except enter non-permissive airspace. :^)
>>29268148
You don't spend money on extra scrap.
>>29268167
>not get shot down by modern SAMs.
>invisibility meme
>>29268151
Find for me where it says literally anywhere that the government is "dumping its planes". This is literally how the development and life cycle of any sort of equipment works: We decide the things we have are no longer cost-effective to upgrade, develop a replacement, and as the replacement proves itself and is deemed ready for active duty, we start to phase out the old stuff. It's literally how development of pretty much every fighter platform for at least the last 40 or 50 years has worked, if not every other piece of kit the military uses
>>29268170
And a hornet is going to not be hit by that sam 3x as far out?
>>29267930
>>29267948
>jack of all trades master of none
Why does NOBODY EVER POST THE FULL SAYING!? FUCK!
>a jack of all trades, master of none, is still better than a master of one.
>>29268170
>If it's not perfect, it's useless.
The fallacy is you.
>>29268180
to be honest, that's the first time in my life I've ever even heard that there was an extra part on there.
>>29268177
Both can be hit within their operational range.
>>29268180
But it's not.
>>29267720
oh lawdy!
we'd betta cease production of the F-35 then!
Face it, the F-35 is a good plane.
>>29268214
>we don't need to fund schools
>we don't need healthcare
>just make me some new planes we don't need
>>29267720
It is going to be very embarrassing for America when S-400 start batting these overpriced pieces of shit out of the sky.
>>29268212
>uses misquote
>hurr see this old adage is 100% right and infallible! F-35 a lemon!
>confronted with original, full quote
>hurr a-anon, you're a b-baka, full quote not true! Misquote is i-infallible anon!
Get a grip you fucking ass clown.
>>29268222
>He doesn't know the F-35 program will only cost about 0.03% of the national budget.
>>29268229
Is there a single place where that quote applies in the modern world?
I thought so.
>>29268238
>$1.5 trillion program
>>29268228
It's going to be very embarassing for Russia when these things BTFO S-400.
>>29268206
What we're saying is that locking onto an F-35 will take 10 times as long as locking onto a Hornet. That's time for the F-35 to do something, run away, deploy defensive weapons. That's time the Hornet wouldn't have.
>>29268222
If that's your angle then you're not really mad about the F-35. You're mad about military spending IN GENERAL. That's a completely different argument. Even if the military budget were cut significantly, the F-35 would still be around just in smaller numbers than previously planned.
>>29268146
*F-35 is going to be the foreseeable future of Western air power.
Jeeezus, autocorrect.
>>29268246
>1.5 trillion over the next 50 years
>meanwhile the US spends 4 trillion a year on social welfare programs.
>>29268253
Both planes have countermeasures and have reaction times. There is not a single foreseeable or current battlefield where the F-35 would be worth using.
>sand niggers
>>29268246
Yes, the full, correct quote directly applies to the F-35.
You know what's fucking hilarious? These are the same people that defend the failed abortion of the Armata progran, which was, you guessed it, an attempt to standardize the chassis of every ground combat vehicle.
Problem is, the Armata isn't even a jack of all trades, it is a pleb of a few.
>>29268273
>Let's never plan for future conflicts. It worked for the French!
>>29268246
Over its entire lifespan. Healthcare costs per year already dwarf that, 1.5 trillion sure sounds like a lot but over half a century it might as well be nothing.
>>29268278
No, the F-35 is like arming the entire US army with HK416s instead of M4s because they work a bit better in sand and water, though costing multiple times as much.
>>29268286
>future conflicts
Against a country that has SAMs that need 5th gen stealth, you'd have nukes at the ready, not planes.
>>29268273
>Both planes have countermeasures and have reaction times.
The F-35 has better countermeasures and better reaction times. You might as well argue that the M4 Sherman and the M1 Abrams are the same because they're both tanks.
>>29268299
Because Russia will never sell S-400s to 3rd world dictatorships, right?
>>29268305
Literal strawman. If a SAM installation like the Russians' catches you, you will be gone.
If a sand nigger aims his soviet Igla at you, it won't matter.
>>29268299
That analogy would be accurate if the HK416 allowed American soldiers to mop the floor with any ground unit that came remotely near them with minimal casualties.
>>29268299
>arming the entire US army with HK416s instead of M4s because they work a bit better in sand and water
That's not necessarily a bad idea.
>>29268321
>If a SAM installation like the Russians' catches you, you will be gone.
That's why the F-35 is designed to be hard to "catch"!
>>29268316
Yes, they won't. Not yet, at least.
Russia selling some SAMs to China was considered a big sign of trust and respect.
>>29268321
>Literal strawman
I guess I shouldn't be surprised you missed the irony.
>>29268305
>You might as well argue that the M4 Sherman and the M1 Abrams
Some people make that kind of argument already, albeit in a modified way.
>>29268330
F-35 would never survive in Russian airspace. You are a delusional fool if you think otherwise.
>>29268330
>>29268324
Right, I forgot.
The HK416 also has a chance of double feeding or exploding the mags.
>>29268342
The US doesn't have any plans to directly invade Russia, so that's okay.
>>29268336
Russia has always been itching to sell S-400. They're an export military, after all. Its deployment in Syria is nothing more than a huge advertisement.
And they already pass around S-300 like candy.
>>29268340
M1A2 BTFO
>>29268357
So for the time being, the F-35 is completely unnecessary.
>>29268344
>the F-35 a shit
>no, even your stupid fucking quote is wrong
>oh yeah?! Well the HK416 sometimes blows mags!
This is you.
>>29268361
Go to bed, Sprey.
>>29268362
Well, yeah. The F-35 is built for future conflicts in mind.
>>29268357
Which really just makes the point that the F-35 is a pointless waste of taxpayer money.
Ground based energy weapons are going to make air forces extinct by 2100, so enjoy your overpriced toys while they last.
>>29268362
Preparing for the future is always necessary.
>>29268361
Well considering both die from ATGMs and IEDs, you could just slap TUSK on old tanks and let them roll out.
>>29268379
>>29268376
So when the S-600 comes, you make the F-45?
>>29268392
Even fatter, slower, and more expensive than before!
Oh I forgot, it's not fat, just curvy! Missiles can't hit planes with "sexy" curves!
>>29268403
Yeah man for the F-55, just literally stack an A-10 warthog on top of an F-22
>>29268414
but that would be an F-32
>>29267922
That's the problem that delusial F-35 faboys cant see. I wont say it's a bad plane, in fact i think if it's was operational by now, it will be one of most advanced(if not the most) plane in the world for decades, but now it's just a money cow...
Sadly.
>>29268431
>for decades
See me after class
>be fat american
>design fat plane
So all in all american capitalism got BTFO in this thread.
Thanks for shitposting.
>>29267720
I have heard a lot of criticism of F-35 but never a possible alternative. Do people think you can push F-16/15 until 2050 or what? F-35 is the best plane for all air forces, possibly excluding the US and that's only because US is the only country that could possibly afford to maintain 10 or so different fifth gen air crafts families, and it would be a huge strain on US resources. No other nation has the economic capacity or technological knowledge to do so.
>>29267720
Eh, but it's all minor software changes. Mechanically it's fine, that's why we already have almost 200 flying. By 2022, when it will be suitable for combat, we will have close to 1000 f-35s already built and flying. It's not as big of a deal as you think.
>>29268533
No, people are saying you can upgrade the older planes for as long as your biggest threat is a soviet Igla and planes without stealth, and make parallel RnD at Area 51.
>>29268555
Except you don't get real development if you don't put your research into actual use in the field. That line of thinking won't work.
The F-35 puts an entire new way of conducting air combat into practice. We will have no idea if it's viable unless we build the fuckers and use them in combat.
>>29268610
>what is computer simulation
>>29268555
Probably the same people who think that training can replace experience. Its a good plane that will serve US needs for the next 40 or so years. It allowed US to maintain its technological edge and capacity so they don't have to invest money into technology demonstrators like EU countries or Japan. A good part of its cost will be recuperated through exports. It maintain the qualitative and quantitative edge of US over other countries and forces would be competitors to invest money and knowledge they don't have trying to compete.
>>29267863
Ticking off a list, liberal use of quotation marks or excessive use of exclamation marks are no real substitute for the truth.
>>29267879
Excessive emotional attachment and invested personal reputation. This makes people throw good money after bad money, every single time.
>>29267922
>they can't seem to make the F-35 do what it is supposed to do
The best description I ever saw was that SR-71 and to some extent F-22 were technical engineering feats. F-35 is a financial engineering feat, where every single state has a parts production involved. The project is practically immortal.
>>29268625
Oh, because those are always 100 percent?
>>29268008
>All this for a plane that can't fight Russia or China.
Also a plane that SHOULD NOT fight China. After all the Chinese penetrated RSA and using their b0rken crypto get in to LM and took all their blue prints.
I still wonder why they admitted this - was it to get even more funding to create new solutions that the Chinese hadn't stolen (yet)?
>>29267922
The F22 was in development since the 80s and the F35 has 4X the code for computer systems than the F22.
>>29268741
They didn't steal the complete design, just bagged some data from some of LM's lowsec subcontractors.
>>29268761
>4X the code for computer systems
Due to incompetence. There is no formalized engineering discipline for software development in America, and it shows.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-wants-on-time-f-x-not-more-f-22s-422950/
>>29268741
lol wut? They got some older airframe design, but they have no idea how the EW works.
>>29268063
>survivability??
I presume the survivability of a hangar queen is superb.
As for a Hornet that, you know, is actually in the battle theater, well then yes, things are not that trivial. I know it is the tradition to each and every single time to underestimate the enemy but some times they are not the parody of knuckleheads.
>>29268792
More like the F-35 has significantly more advanced avionics and systems than the F-22. Computerwise, the F-22 is still very simple.
>>29268438
So what if F-35 is a little bit thick? At least it's putting that extra space to good use
>>29268792
It could also have something to do with software being more advanced or complex. Maybe.
>>29268761
F-35 has much better radar processing.
>>29268810
>>29268808
Nope, both have incompetently designed software. All of what they do could be done with 1/100th the code, if software design methodology were as rigorous as other forms of engineering.
>>29268826
I'm sure you're speaking from your experience as a well established programmer and not out of your ass.
>>29268267
So dumping trillions one place makes it OK to dump trillions elsewhere?
Now I understand why the financial crisis hit the US first.
>>29268826
>if software design methodology were as rigorous as other forms of engineering.
That's a pipe dream.
http://www.cs.usfca.edu/~parrt/doc/software-not-engineering.html
>>29268837
oh look, I was just proven right:
>>29268849
Software design is not an engineering practice. It is a complete mess.
>>29268848
Hey, nice goalpost shifting. The original accusation was that the F-35 was eating too much of the national budget, which it really isn't.
Guys please, body shaming is not okay.
>>29268862
So? That can be applied to literally any project that requires coding. It's an industry wide issue. It's unfair to specifically fault the F-35 for it.
>>29268885
>vmFAT-501
>>29268885
That plane has a fucking pannus. Disgusting.
>>29268896
I fault the F-35 program for allowing itself to be hung up by computer dweebs with poor work ethic and no respect for engineering traditions.
>>29268896
I sure would like a peek into how Lockheed develop software.
I'm fairly sure they employ some of the worst Silicon Valley Distruptive Tech meme practices.
Especially since they went C++ because a lot more developers are familiar with it.
>>29268906
>>29268907
Ah, the epitome of unverified claims.
>>29268906
>no respect for engineering traditions.
So you think they could have just employed the waterfall model and be done with it? That's traditional (TM) engineering.
>>29268907
I guarantee you that if you walk into their software development offices at any random time of the day, you are more likely to find the programmers browsing reddit or playing ping pong than doing actual work.
You want to know why software development is so bad? It attracts all of the lazy bullshitters. It's an easy industry for bullshitters to thrive in, because the non-tangible nature of their work makes it easy for them to obscure what progress they've been making from their bosses.
>>29268927
They would never let you, because they want to spend all of their time circlejerking with their own specialized management processes that keep management out of the loop and out of their hair. It's industry wide collusion to avoid actual work.
>>29268008
>rt.com
Why not link North Korean sources while you're at it...
>>29267922
>What IS the problem, though? Why is this so hard?
You have bought into the lie that the F-35's development is wrought with disaster.
>>29268934
>You want to know why software development is so bad? It attracts all of the lazy bullshitters. It's an easy industry for bullshitters to thrive in, because the non-tangible nature of their work makes it easy for them to obscure what progress they've been making from their bosses.
Only if you have some HR shits doing interviews and not actual senior programmers who have a skin in the game.
>>29268222
We spend as much money on medicare as we do the military.
>>29268885
kek literally says 'FAT' on the side.
WTF I hate F-35 now
I guess I'm a SuperDuper Hornet-missile now.
>>29268992
I guarantee you the majority of the budget for the F-35 has gone to beanbag chairs, doritos, and delivery pizza for their hourly "scrums".
That sort of waste is a direct consequence of managers saying "fuck it", giving up, and letting 'senior' programmers 'manage' programmers.
>>29268377
>what are atmospheric conditions
>>29267996
The big problem is it's being developed using inappropriate tools. This is critical software the many lives will rely on and they are coding it in C++!
On many of the issues that get brought up here the F-35 boosters can make some good points but it all fails when you realize it's all dependent on software that's a) not yet written and b) being written in a shoddy manner which will guarantee it continues to fail to perform as it should.
The software is shit because they're making it like some poo-in-loo would make a phone app. They should just hire Chris Sawyer to teach them assembly.
>>29267948
>You mean exactly like the planes it is scheduled to replace?
Uh, no. The A-10 is a specialized CAS platform. The F-15 and FA-18s are both fighter-bombers, and any fighter-bomber is somewhat subject to that criticism, but the A-10 in particular is not at all.
>>29269124
>I guarantee you
How much do you think has actually been spent so far?
>>29269180
Thusfar at least half a trillion on pizza and nintendo wiis alone.
>>29269124
I'm sure there are legitimate criticisms of the F-35 but they're buried under so much "I know more about planes than actual aeronautics engineers" high-horse posturing that is hard to find them.
>>29269176
The F-35 isn't really replacing the A-10 in a direct fashion. It's more like the A-10 is being retired without a direct replacement.
>>29269219
The aerobatics engineers are not to blame for anything worse than making an ugly fat plane which is a national embarrassment. The software "engineers" are the ones responsible for the delays.
tfw I was supposed to be brought on as a software engineer for the f-35 but lockheed tried to shoe me into help desk.
whenever I see these issues I just think "Their Loss"
>>29269262
Wow you really convinced me with those hot opinions.
>>29269190
Ok you were just shitposting.
>>29269262
Its funny seeing 'its fat' repeated over and over when it is no bigger than aircraft like the Rafale.
>>29267820
>>29267854
More importantly,
>POGO
>Into the trash it goes
>>29268096
>The F-35 uses completely different systems and technology from the F-22.
Is the Senate aware of this? You see the plan was to have commonality with F-22 to reduce cost, risk and development time. About 10 seconds on Google will show you this.
>>29269528
Feature creep is a hell of a drug.
>>29268146
>Funny how this happens for every single fighter,
Yes. So why didn't they learn from it then!?
They could have reduced risk A LOT by doing the sensor fusion work on F-16 and a lot of the corresponding software while working on the F-35 airframe.
Instead they once again want EVERYTHING to go in the first round. So it costs a fortune and is not ready yet.
>>29268162
>two-way datalink between missiles and other aircraft as well?
That feature was found in F-14, rather a long time ago. Mid course guidance is really old.
You might also want to look up Link-16. A lot is openly available.
>>29268267
Only if you consider Social Security and Medicare 'welfare' programs.
>>29267720
Would it have been better to focus all attention on the Navy version first, then work on developing the other two versions from that after it is in service?
>>29267863
Was that bingo before or after this one.
>>29268008
>Nogunz F4 sucked, nobody learned, so they nogunzed the f35.
The main fix to the 'nogunz' F4 was to change tactics and improve pilot training.
>>29268299
>you'd have nukes at the ready, not planes.
Because proxy wars never happen, Russians don't sell their stuff, and major powers immediately will go nuclear at the drop of the hat.
It's not the Fulda gap age anymore. If we flew f35s over Ukraine in a hotter conflict I doubt the Russians would go nuclear.
>>29269668
Even by the end of the Fulda Gap age the military was starting to develop plans that didn't involve nuking the russkies as soon as they came rolling over.
>>29268773
>>29268804
That is very kind of the Chinese to restrict themselves from the real goodies.
Elsewhere:
>The hackers are believed by many US officials to be affiliated with the Chinese government. The humiliating 2007 incident saved China “25 years of research and development,” according to a US military official cited by The Washington Post in a 2013 article covering the breach.
>>29268377
So, if the f-35 is used for 50 years, we get that to 2070ish, 30 years short of 2100 when the Air Force is "extinct". All at a fraction of our budget. Especially when we will probably lead the world in laser advances and auto drone stuff.
That's not a bad deal.
>>29268816
That is an amusing claim given that the latest reveal is that they had a regression in the radar software suite.
>>29269176
Well, isnt it easier and safer to just drop a GPS-guided bomb on a laser designated target by the ground forces?
>>29268792
>my tablet has more code than a 99 cent calculator
>obviously this is bloat ware and unnecessary for its functions, apple/samsung/acre can't write for shit and if they were competent they would make a product with calculator-tier coding.
>>29269568
Pumping money into something being phased out is pointless. The developmental would have been the exact same, only now you've added the procurement and operational costs of integrating the tech into an ageing airframe in addition to the plane replacing said airframe. You're paying extra to clean up a 300'000 mile jalopy.
There is an option you haven't considered; that this is merely the name of the game in US procurement, and all the media spin and post-hippy liberal bullshit doesn't change that this is exactly how the program was mentioned to be. You must be crushing naive/12 years old to not understand this already.
>>29269176
A-10 was never specialized for CAS
>>29268249
In 2022?, by that time the russians will have the S-800, kek
>>29269712
It is easy if and only if you have ample GPS bombs to drop and a well positioned person illuminating the target.
Laser designating a GPS bomb is silly, the bomb is already provided with the GPS coordinates and need no extra targeting, even if it had the means for this.
Rather than picking nits on a little mistake we can look instead into the scenarios:
GPS Bombs: these can glide in to target. Still need a bomb freighter of sorts. Works well but is expensive.
Laser bombs: need a designator, either a person on the ground who has to be in the right position which is hard; or can be a drone which is better but not sexy and AF needs sexy. Don't ask me why.
Israel is considering a crate solution: lorries positioning crates in the field. Open lid and rockets propel bombs to fair altitude, picking up laser designator spots on ground and homes in. Cheaper, but still need a designator with limited view.
A-10: sees all from the air, loaded with lots of ammunition, cuts through targets like white hot knife through warm butter. Cheap. Efficient. Reliable. Only problem is lack of aforementioned sexy.
>>29268357
So you are wasting trillions to bomb goat herders? Nice.
>>29269528
A decades advancements in computing means that, no it's not going to have anything similar
>>29269709
It was a regression in stability, not capabilities. The current 2B software has radar stability on par with mature AESAs. I don't know if 3i will get back up there in time for USAF IOC, but it will improve over the reported ~4 hours MTBSA. 3F will almost certainly see a significant recovery in stability.
>>29269712
The issue is more of cost; the A-10 has the option of doing fairly cheap CAS with the gun. The A-10 does apparently spend the majority of its time doing CAS at medium altitudes (ie without the gun), but we don't really have wartime-spending-per-platform figures to get a comparison.
>>29269568
>They could have reduced risk A LOT by doing the sensor fusion work on F-16 and a lot of the corresponding software while working on the F-35 airframe.
They did - not on the F-16, but on the CATBird and Northrop BAC 1-11 test aircraft. Sensor fusion has also been worked on through the F-22. Overall, there's only so much you can do on other aircraft. When you shift one sensor to fit a new airframe, a lot of things change; suddenly you have different RF noise, different ambient sensor temperatures, different challenges with the deployment of flares, etc.
>That feature was found in F-14, rather a long time ago. Mid course guidance is really old.
Two-way data links are where missiles report information back to the aircraft, not just receive it. That means that a missile can tell the fighter if it's being jammed (and potentially by what), whether or not it has identified the target, whether or not it's had a system failure and isn't going to work, etc. Older missiles like the Sparrow and Pheonix only had 1-way data links (receivers).
Link 16 is also really restrictive; you can't add / remove users at will, you have a small data bandwidth, etc. Link 16 systems are also traditionally / primarily omni-directional as well, making communication dangerous when operating near high-end threats. Ultimately, MADL is to fibre optics as Link 16 is to dial-up.
>>29268008
>rt
>warisboring
yeah those are some really great sources you have there
russian state media and the kotaku of the defense industry
>>29269792
>Pumping money into something being phased out is pointless.
No. There is plenty of life left in F-16. After all much of the near future war is pumping camels full of lead, shooting up lorry convoys in Syria etc. F-16 had one mid life upgrade and can take more. B52 is after all capable of running for decades after decades.
>The developmental would have been the exact same
No. You are not familiar with incremental development.
>There is an option you haven't considered; that this is merely the name of the game in US procurement, and all the media spin and post-hippy liberal bullshit doesn't change that this is exactly how the program was mentioned to be.
It is true that big acquisition programs bring in the big promotions. Still. As a tax payer I am not happy about this.
>You must be crushing naive/12 years old to not understand this already.
It is a long time since I was 12, since I served in uniform and since I worked on defence development projects (not F-35). I am painfully aware of how it works.
Had you paid taxes you would also be uncomfortable about this barely flying joke called F-35. Everyone knows it is now Too Big to Fail and it lumbers on forever. I do wonder at times what it would take to kill this project, it sure would surpass anything seen in zombie movies.
>>29269995
Slow. Vulnerable to MANPAD's. Cannot assist in Air Superiority missions (something that can be done with F-18/F-35).
>>29270090
>I do wonder at times what it would take to kill this project
Somebody would need to prove that it is a bad plane, a feat that many have attempted but none have succeeded at.
>>29268792
The F-35 has more computer systems integrated in its systems that are way more advanced than the F-22's outdated 80s shit. The strengths of the F-35 are in these systems rather than pure stealth and manuvering like F-22.
>>29267922
Americans are too stupid to get it up and running.
They are used to throwing money at problems instead of solving them.
>>29269995
GPS bombs don't work against anything other than goatherders because its very easy to jam
>>29270249
>what is backup INS
>>29270090
By your own argument, F-16 has no need of sensor fusion to bomb camels. It's role in current doctrine is as a truck for ordnance. Dressing it up as something it isn't is utterly pointless
>>29270267
Doesn't have anywhere near the accuracy as a GPS bomb
>>29270315
True, for bombing camels you do not need sensor fusion. Actually a few rounds with the gun should be sufficient.
There are however other missions like surveillance, escort and patrolling for which sensor fusion is useful. It also helps to avoid information overload, a problem which has existed since WWII.
Last but not least F-16 has been a test bench for new technologies.
If you need an ordnance truck you also have B-52. Payload is huge compared for either F-16 or F-35.
>>29269393
Rafale has 2 engines though.
>>29270419
If that is your rationale, compare the engines.
>>29270396
There is no information overload in anything like A-10C, F-16, F-15 etc. Half the shit is automated and the "hard work" involved is putting a pipper or marker over something, which you will know the general area to look due to the info in the data cartridge or from radio intel.
>>29270419
And the F-35's engine is more powerful than both the Rafale's engines combined.
>>29270452
That is my rationale for the physical size of the Rafale. Whatever reason they chose 2 weak engines over 1 strong engine I don't care.
>>29269628
The other on that anon posted here was first. I made it like 6-8 months ago. The one you posted was made shortly after.
I really need to update it though.
>>29269393
That picture proves that hte F-35 is significantly fatter than the Rafale.....
>>29269762
If your calculator had a billion lines of code, and your tablet had 100x more than that, they would BOTH be bloated pieces of shit.
>>29270504
I don't see it.
>>29270022
What exactly does all this 'computing' even do for the plane?
99% of all USAF missions are just bombing angry goat farmers in some desert country.
My physics teacher designed the f-35
>>29270548
So they can put new stupid toys in that we'll use for 50 years.
>>29270548
Compare your radar with your wingmans radar with the next squadron overs radar with the AWACS radar with the boats radar.
>>29270548
Why don't we just replace the entire AF with Super Tucanos then?
>inb4 someone unironically agrees with this
>>29270601
Doesn't datalink already exist?
And how useful would that information even be against ground targets?
As far as I can tell it seems all this new 'high tech' is only really useful against a modern combatant in A2A BVR combat. But we already have the F-22 for that.
>>29270655
No thats the big thing they want in the f35 that the f22 does not have is the datalink, they can hit a window in a building from 40km away thanks to this and the better radars+sensors.
>>29270629
Predator drones are the cheapest solution, but they can't carry the payload or the range necessary in many cases, so a lot of missions are being flown with F-16/18.
By the time the F-35 comes out with IOC by +2020, I would have to question what real advantage it will have in A2G missions over cheaper drones. By that time we will be seeing drones be doing most of the bombing.
>>29269393
>>29270539
>>29270504
Seriously? You don't see it?
Here, I flipped the Rafale side onto the F-35 side, then colored in the F-35 so you can compare how they overlap.
Hint: The red parts are fat.
>>29270539
>>29270742
If you think I tampered with the outline of the F-35 to make it fatter, try opening both images in two different tabs, then flipping between both tabs.
The F-35 is a fat fuck. That's just a fact.
>>29270768
Yes do you think they add or remove area to add radar diffusing geometry and they did not make it fat to do it.
>>29270768
Rafale has to carry some stuff in pods though.
Everything the f-35 needs is in-house except a useless gun for WVR that is never going to happen. It also has better range thanks to conformal fuel tanks.
>>29270803
Actually the added area is due to the plane eating too many Doritos.
By all means, defend the plane for being fat. Maybe the fat serves a purpose. But don't pretend that it isn't fat. That's just insulting our intelligence. Everyone can plainly see that it is fat.
>>29270846
If the "fat" means that the plane can travel further, carry more bombs, then really who cares?
>>29270583
Ask him why it can't sustain over 4.5 Gs.
>>29270897
I'm so glad we've progressed from "it's not fat!" to "who cares if it's fat!"
>>29270949
I personally have always thought that the F-35 looks somewhat bloated. I just think it doesn't matter. The Chinese evidently agree because the J-31 looks pretty much the same.
>>29267720
>dod buzz
>anything
yeah, no.
>>29270949
I never really made the argument against it being 'fat', but who really does care? All you've been saying is 'hurr durr it's fat just look at it' without actually saying why this is bad.
>>29270949
Its not fat though, though I did like how you counted part of the wing as the body.
>>29270971
>The Chinese evidently agree because they are too incompetent to make their own plane, so they copied ours.
>>29271000
>Its not fat though
It's sure as shit fatter than the Rafale.
> you counted part of the wing as the body.
I did not color the parts that are part of the body. I colored the parts THAT ARE FAT.
you are now aware the F-35 being "fat" means that aircraft that have to carry droptanks and pods are actually gaunt and exposed ribs level starved
>>29271035
>It's sure as shit fatter than the Rafale.
It really isn't though.
>>29271069
"big boned"
>>29270742
bb;bbbut the f-35 isn't fat
>>29271098
It really isn't. It is properly sized for what it needs to do.
>>29271201
> this man isn't fat. He is properly sized for what he needs to do.
>>29271230
That's actually true though. If you fight a sumo the sumos gonna win.
>>29271261
Sumos are still fat. If you think otherwise, you need your head examined.
>>29271279
My understanding is that they have some sort of diet that makes them appear fat but it is actually muscle.
>>29271298
They have muscle, but it is underneath a great deal of fat.
Seriously, pecs don't look like that. Those are big sloppy man titties.
>>29271316
I think the truth is we just don't know. Science does not yet understand the mysteries of the Sumo.
>>29271519
Why does curvy have to carry everything on pylons checkmate baitist.
Rafale fanboy reporting in, F-35 isnt fat and good investment in the long therm so murrica keeps its technological edge. Without expansive and debatable projects you guys would have never land on the moon.
>>29270472
The point is that 2 small engines take up roughly the same volume as 1 large engine.
Let's do this niggers
>>29268008
>Nogunz F4 sucked
Navy never put guns on their F-4s and consistently had a ratio 10x better than the Air Force.
>>29273625
What was the reason for that?
>>29273666
No "universal pilots"
Better training
No bomber-focused "flying safety" culture
>>29273666
Training. That's it. The Navy never forgot what they learned in the World Wars, fighting to the death against Zeros.
>>29273666
Training. Navy changed their training system more realistic earlier on. Top gun and shieet.
>>29273701
>>29273716
>>29273725
Note too that the training also had big components about using missiles effectively (working in NEZs, etc) and was also for maintainers, who were taught how to handle missiles properly, resulting in fewer broken seekers, etc.
>>29273701
Also, more efficient two ship formations rather than the unwieldy and blindspot prone four ship formations the AF liked to use.
>>29268299
You mean countries like Iraq or Iran?
>>29269245
>The F-35 isn't really replacing the A-10 in a direct fashion. It's more like the A-10 is being retired without a direct replacement.
>>29268805
Hangar Queen? What makes you think the F-35 is a hangar queen? Considering its replacing almost every front line combat fighter in the US military, I'd say it's quite likely to see combat.
And what's with this idea that it "can't fight China or Russia"?
First of all, if you think the F-35 can't, then that means no other fighter jet the US has or is developing can either. Not to mention that neither China or Russia have anything at all comparable, especially fighting the US. It's a straw man argument to say that the F-35 can't fight China or Russia. The fact is that it's the most capable fighter in the world and would fare the best against another modern military, far better than anything else.
>>29269124
Right, if you keep making up stories about Doritos and beanbag chairs and lazy programmers I'm sure everyone will take you seriously.
I'm sure you have some super special insider knowledge of the programming practices at LM
>>29269176
>implying the US needs a dedicated low altitude CAS plane when the majority of their CAS missions are done by multirole jets anyways
>>29269393
It just has a stealth profile. The F-22 has the same kind of shaping, it's just bigger so it doesn't look "fat". The F-35 has the same profile and shaping, just in a smaller package.
>>29274584
>You shall know them by the fruits of their labour.
Their fruit sucks, therefore they suck.
>>29274597
I used to adore the A-10 until it became an excuse to hold up progress.
>>29269995
You're an idiot. The idea of an A-10 flying around at low level cruising around taking tons of enemy fire while visually identifying enemies on the ground and BRRRRTing everything in sight. Meanwhile, in reality, the A-10 spends most of it's time using FLIR and the usual shit to drop LGBs. Same as an F-16 can do.
>>29270742
>implying that isn't just the shape needed to make it stealthy
>implying that extra space isn't used to carry more fuel and avionics
>implying that extra space has any huge negative effect on the aerodynamics
>muh f-35 is fat meme
>>29274661
Maybe we should find some pilots with balls to fly the thing. I hear all the hotshot pilots want sexier faster airplanes. In fact....
>>29274706
...maybe introducing incredibly unsexy (fat) airplanes like the F-35 will solve this problem.
>>29274628
>lel le F-35 sucks XD omg warisboring had this article
>>29274748
> the F-35's software is coming along swimmingly
Wrong.
>>29270742
I'm sorry I had to. Congratulations, you've triggered me.
>>29274769
I'm sorry, but this is not a good look.
>>29274744
of those qualified to fly fighters in the USAF, after the F-22 it's pretty evenly split between each aircraft.
>>29274661
>You're an idiot. The idea of an A-10 flying around at low level cruising around taking tons of enemy fire while visually identifying enemies on the ground and BRRRRTing everything in sight. Meanwhile, in reality, the A-10 spends most of it's time using FLIR and the usual shit to drop LGBs.
You're an idiot. The idea of an automobile cruising around stop and go and pick up and drop off all day. Meanwhile, in reality, my minivan spends most of it's time on cruise control flying down the open highway.
>>29274877
I'm sorry but that's where the gear storage is you dunce.
But really, this is what you're reduced to. With no real argument to make you're reduced to some opinionated bullshit about how the aircraft looks.
You guys know that the F-35 fuselage is designed as a partial lifting body similar to the F-22 right?
>>29274972
Many other aircraft manage to have retractable landing gear without looking nearly so ugly.
>>29271744
>>29270452
F135 has 47% larger frontal area and 1320% larger volume but produces only 25% more thrust than two M88's.
>>29274991
Yup, just like every fighter since the F-4
>>29267720
Is it true that America won't allow Australia to buy non-American planes?
>>29274911
sorry but medium altitude bombing is life now.
and it can't even do that as well as other aircraft since it doesn't have an attack radar.
>>29275140
What's an attack radar?
Forgive my idiocy.
>>29275154
a radar that is used to identify and bomb targets.
