Why is the F-35 taking so long to finish? It was supposed to enter service in 2010.
>>29843907
Only if you go by the early estimate for a less capable aircraft that was made before the JSF competition was held.
>>29843907
You can't rush perfection, Anon.
By the time the F-35 will enter service it will be already outdated aircraft.
It's probably Obama's fault.
>>29843907
1. In the 90's they thought that simulations with all this new fancy CAD / simulation software could cut down how long it'd take to develop the jet.
2. They didn't anticipate the software being so difficult to program.
3. Regulations changed; a lot of time, money and effort goes into the administrative / regulation-compliance / safety overhead. Eg: pretty much every software release is accompanied with cyber security vulnerability tests by government agencies to ensure that some jet vulnerability can't be used to piggyback viruses into military networks.
Overall, it's not taking much longer / is actually going quicker than other jets of its generation; after the initial X-plane competition, Lockheed was selected to build the F-35 in 2001. In 2002, Sukhoi, Chengdu and Shenyang were selected to build the PAK-FA, J-20 and J-31 respectively.
>>29844267
memes
>>29844595
>memes
Great argument anon, it really made me think
>>29843907
enter service ≠ finished
>>29844271
This, but unironically
>>29844532
Thank you for putting your trip on. It's so important that everyone knows who you are. You're really importanto.
>>29845278
>Guy says something relevant.
>Only comment on the fact that he's using a trip.
Just shut the fuck up and never post again.
>>29845296
>taking your trip off to samefag
Nice try, autist. Make me
>>29845278
>Dragon029 actually makes highly informative videos worth watching
>trip is in fact relevant to the discussion
>You're a dipshit
>>29845443
I know how to post from my phone too, faggot
>>29845451
Stay mad, asshat. Just because multiple posters are calling you a fucking moron doesn't make you right.
>>29845473
>Multiple posters
>Multiple
>>29845397
He's not me; the reason I use this trip is kind of two-fold:
1. Because people pick sides on these threads and believe they're arguing against the same person (who actually has a similar but different opinion), it helps prevent people asking me why I think ____, when I never said I did. I like how 4chan is mostly anon, but it can be annoying at times.
2. Builds up my identity as a sort of authority on the topic of the F-35 (see >>29845443). Means that I can reply quicker without having to spoon out sauces out of the jar. Also helps attract attention to my videos. $250 a year from YouTube ain't much (although it'll hopefully continue to go up as I release content - if you don't like it, use an adblocker), but it's helps fund my hobbies.
>>29845503
Wait, are you actually making internet-money? Nice
You dont ask a beautiful lady why it takes her an hour to get ready.
>>29845503
>builds up my identity as a sort of authority
Back
2
>>29845520
Your analogy is completely irrelevant to the audience.
The only beautiful ladies these plebes know have the last name of .jpeg.
>>29845519
Yeah, I originally thought it'd be cheap or sell-out-y, but then I got over that and said fuck it; might as well profit off this stuff; plus it makes it ironic when people call me a shill.
>>29845521
Need somewhere to store my sources; also to reach out to normies
>>29845560
Heh, i was actuallt about to mention that you just opened the "Lockshart shill"-door, as someone probably will try to spin it :p
>>29845560
You've already ended up making an impact on the internet bong defence sphere. Doing God's work.
http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/have-the-armchair-f-35-critics-got-it-all-wrong/
>>29845560
>Yeah, I originally thought it'd be cheap or sell-out-y, but then I got over that and said fuck it; might as well profit off this stuff; plus it makes it ironic when people call me a shill.
Hey, it's decent ammo cash, at least.
>>29844532
>Sensitive and well thought out comment
>only gets one shitpost reply
I swear the main problem with /k/, or even 4chins in general is that people just want shitposting contests.
>>29844532
Wow what a wonderful non-shitpost answer. This guy wins.
>>29845764
Real problem is that people mistake memes for legitimate opinions.
Prime example is the QE class and ramps.
Yesterday in one of my Uni class, some too level engineers from Lockheed showed up and told us some of the challenges they been having with the f35 and the f16 upgrades.
They didn't give us all the details but right now it's the fact that they need more engineer that know how to code and more programmers in general. The radar and sensors for both have gotten so vastly accurate, it's causing errors on a human level. Basically the planes are generating to much info and making aiming with their guns really fucking hard for pilots as it's over estimated where the target is.
Also they believe they can make thing work much better and faster if they manage to have a stable multicore cpu.
>>29845973
I don't even know where to begin with this post
>>29845973
>Basically the planes are generating to much info
I've heard the same thing actually, only the USN and USAF are currently on top of the data output.
>>29844532
>In 2002, Sukhoi, Chengdu and Shenyang were selected to build the PAK-FA, J-20 and J-31 respectively.
Where's your source? What I can find is that Chengdu got chosen in 2008. The J-31 still hasn't been selected by the PLA even now.
>>29846022
For Shenyang (the pic also looks to me like an early version of the J-31): http://web.archive.org/web/20071225093240/http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jdw/jdw021210_2_n.shtml
Given the timelines and a supposed article that Wikipedia cites from 2006, stating that there were actually 3 programs under development, and the fact that the 2002 announcement was about 'J-XX' (which was later aligned with / became J-20) it seems to me like the J-20 began in 2002. I could be wrong, but I've emailed the magazine that cites Chengdu about getting a copy of the article; hopefully they still have it stored somewhere and are willing to give / sell me a copy.
>>29846134
BOOM, disregard waiting for the email; I tracked down a scan of the magazine - it's pretty telling that it's a J-20 prototype:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/05/05/f-35-a-10-air-force-fighter-jet/83961964/
>So which platform is better for protecting soldiers in a firefight: the A-10 or the F-35? Lt. Col. Raja Chari, who started out flying F-15 Strike Eagles and is now director of the F-35 integrated test force and commander of the 461st flight test squadron, weighed in during an interview here with Defense News.
>“You need to really define: What exactly are you talking about when you say [close-air support]? The way you define the question will dramatically affect the answer that you come up with,” Chari said Tuesday, fresh off his latest F-35 test flight. “Are you talking about CAS in a low-threat environment, or CAS in a high-threat environment? Basically, contested or uncontested?”
>If US forces are fighting in a high-threat environment, the A-10 “isn’t really in the conversation,” Chari said. While the Warthog performs well in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the skies are uncontested, it is not suited for operating against more sophisticated air defenses.
>Commanders can send an A-10 into a high-threat battlefield, “but you can only do it once,” Chari said.
>>29845503
onto the blocklist you go
>>29843907
JSF is an international embarrassment
>>29846360
>“but you can only do it once,” Chari said.
Why do former pilots always have a great sense of humor?
>>29845503
You're no Oppenheimer.
You are a gigantic faggot.
>>29846439
Calm down fiddy.
>>29846403
>Blocking one of the best sources of info on the F-35 because you're butthurt
Haters, everyone.
