http://nordic.businessinsider.com/f-35-setback-2016-5/
LockMart does it again, folks.
When will the f-35 finally be finished, and how obsolete will it be by then?
How many thousands of these threads are we going to sit through before you get bored and go do something else?
>>30083168
MEE
MEE
S
>>30083168
>When will the f-35 finally be finished
2070 is when it is scheduled for retirement.
>Obsolete
We're doing laps around all of the other countries in the world in spite of their best efforts. Yeah, we've lost some time with the F-35, and it came out to be a fucking fiasco in terms of expenses, but it's not like the faggots in Russia or China are going to be playing catch up anytime soon.
>inb4 Russian disinformazia or Chinese shills show up to shit up the thread
>>30083168
>implying I'm reading that shit
give me a synopsis faggot
>>30083177
>comprehensiveinformation.wordpress.com
From now on this is the only thing I will post in F-35 threads. And it should be the only thing posted in F-35 threads.
>implying they don't have top secret aircraft 20x better
>>30084572
20x better aircraft would cost 200x more. who pays for it?
the timeline for f35 news
it sucks
it's nothing wrong everything is fine
it sucks
it's nothing wrong everything is fine
it sucks
it's nothing wrong everything is fine
it sucks
it's nothing wrong everything is fine
it sucks
it's nothing wrong everything is fine
it sucks
it's nothing wrong everything is fine
continue forever.....
which is it? can't be both.....
>>30083168
I mean... it's an extremely advanced piece of hardware with some crazy fucking computers along with it.
There are no wars right now and absolutely no threats coming any time soon. Why the fuck would you want to rush something like this?
Do you flip your tits when a video game is delayed?
>>30084676
Do you even watch the news or are you saying there are no wars in your cave
>>30084642
>which is it?
if there was nothing wrong with the airplane, there would be no need for news saying so
>>30083168
The writing in this is god awful. It's so incredibly biased and written in the most retarded "click bait" fashion.
News writers have fallen a long way haven't they.
>>30084642
Its part of the developmental cycle. IRL testing shows problems or shortcomings that computer simulated testing didnt reveal and they are analyzed and solutions applied to newer/existing aircraft.
The same shit happens with every new plane in development. The only real difference is that the more complicated and complex aircraft become, the longer the time it takes to complete the developmental cycle.
The F-35 is shit because it's way over budget and way behind schedule.
I have no idea how well it will actually perform, and frankly neither do any of you.
Maybe the end result will be a serviceable plane, maybe it won't.
Either way, the whole program is fucked, and the F-35 is already shit because of the massive budget problems and delays.
>>30084740
Stay mad faggot.
>>30084775
What exactly do you think that I'm mad about?
>>30084688
Holy shit you might be literally retarded.
>>30084775
Why does the F-35 have a cloaca?
>>30084740
The F-35 being over budget and behind schedule says absolutely nothing about whether the F-35 is a good plane or not.
So you have no idea how it will perform but it's shit ?
I think you should turn your computer off, sit in a room with no distractions and try to think about your post until you understand why it's retarded.
>>30084728
This. I keep seeing people use details and small problems as "proof" that it's bad. As if you can't change lines of codes or something...
It's obvious that people who shit all over the F-35 based on these arguments know nothing of engineering or aeronautics.
>>30084703
>outrageous bullshit headlines
>get clicks/views
>print money
thats totally not something the news would do?
>>30084781
The fact it's now on budget and on time maybe? If i remember correctly all the flak it got about it not being ready on time were from estimates from the mid 2000s when it had it's teething problems.
>>30084785
No threats in the middle east or pacific, no sir!
No islamic extremists being supplied FN-6s, no sir!
No "wars" right now? I guess boots on the ground don't count anymore
>>30084822
>The F-35 being over budget and behind schedule says absolutely nothing about whether the F-35 is a good plane or not.
That is literally, 100%, exactly what I just said.
>So you have no idea how it will perform but it's shit ?
Something has to perform poorly to be shit?
I'd consider any project that goes way over budget and way behind schedule to be shit.
But whatever, maybe you don't care about those things.
>I think you should turn your computer off, sit in a room with no distractions and try to think about your post until you understand why it's retarded.
A bit embarking for you to say this after so obviously failing to comprehend what i was saying.
>>30084676
>comparing the release of a piece of entertainment software to a machine that is vital to the defense of nearly 1 billion lives across two continents
>>30084822
>says absolutely nothing about whether the F-35 is a good
how about the fact that they relaxed requirements on F-35s performance during development
>>30084846
>I'd consider any project that goes way over budget and way behind schedule to be shit.
Hows life treating 14 year olds these days
>>30084618
Its the aliums, anon.
And before you ask, there are 21 f-35s because it takes 21 f-35 to rival the power of 20 f-35.
>>30084849
Defense projects are literally always behind schedule.
Just be thankful the F-35 is cheaper than the F-16 was as a percentage of GDP.
>>30084837
>The fact it's now on budget and on time maybe?
I'd love to see a source on that.
Especially since the OP was a source saying the exact opposite.
>>30083168
>one engine
>>30084861
Not an argument.
Reminder that Bernie Sanders supported to project because it opened up jobs in his homestate.
>>30084882
>the rate of mechanical failure on modern engines is now many hundreds of times lower than the chance of human error causing engine failure
>having the pilot manage two engines simultaneously is somehow a good idea in this situation
>>30084869
>Defense projects are literally always behind schedule.
Nope.
>>30084909
I want you to find me an aerospace project on this scale that arrived on time and on budget.
I'll wait.
>>30084889
Wasn't meant to be.
I'm not going to even attempt to have a real conversation with someone so mindbogglingly out of touch they thing any project that goes over budget or goes behind schedule is shit, because thats most defence projects and a lot of civillian ones.
>>30084890
the hippies were constantly whining about F-35s being based in Burlington because it would be loud
They already had F-16s forever
>>30084916
Ooo, nice goalposts there.
>>30084618
>What is black budget
>>30084906
>>30084932
You don't understand that term, it seems.
>>30084839
Those aren't wars you dumb faggot. They are small meaningless conflicts that no one cares about. There have been what, 6500 US soldiers killed in the last 15 years? Most of which probably being friendly fire. nearly that many soldiers died on June 6th 1944.
So yeah, no real war is coming any fucking time soon.
Let me know when goat fuckers have the ability to touch any US plane and any actual need for anything past an f-15 is actually needed.
>>30084925
Find me a source that most defense projects go years behind schedule and hundreds of billions over budget.
>>30084955
>it isnt a real war if it isnt WWII scale
This is some high level shitposting. Guess it really is summer now
>>30084952
>find me an aerospace project on this scale that arrived on time and on budget
People are calling this the most expensive weapons system ever.
It's impossible to find anything of this scale to even compare it to.
As for the goalposts:
>Defense projects are literally always behind schedule.
meaning: every defense project is behind schedule
suddenly became
>find me an aerospace project on this scale that arrived on time and on budget
Notice the difference?
Because me and everyone lurking this thread does.
>>30084984
>I can't understand the difference between hyperbole and real claims
>>30084846
It's hard to comprehend something when you make contradictory statements one after the other.
Either the F-35 is shit, or you don't know if it's good or not. You can't have both. Now if you're trying to say that the conception process was shit, that's a whole other point. But the end product doesn't include the conception process, those are two different things.
>>30084860
That only tells us that the requirements weren't realistic. It's very hard to tell what the end result will be before you actually try to make it. Someone fucked up making the requirements, not the actual plane (well unless you have good evidence that the plane itself is shit).
>>30084973
>it isnt a real war if it isnt WWII scale
That's totally what I said.
Do you honestly believe killing terrorists makes it a war? Do you think the "War on Drugs" is a real war too?
Think a bunch of shitskins with rusted AKs and ww1 springfields are gonna require f-35s?
>>30084984
The F-22 was over budget and behind schedule and everybody hated it, yet people heap praise on it now.
The Eurofighter Typhoon was over budget and behind schedule and everybody hated it, yet people heap praise on it now.
The Rafale was over budget and behind schedule and everybody hated it, yet people heap praise on it now.
The F-16 didn't even working engines when it was introduced, crashed all the fucking time, and everybody hated it, yet people heap praise on it now.
Noticing a pattern here? It's as if modern fighter design is inherently expensive and time consuming.
>>30084999
Maybe you should ease off using the word "literally" if you don't want people to take you seriously?
I don't know, this whole thing stinks of you making a stupid comment and trying to reel it back without anyone noticing.
Either way, you obviously can't defend either statement.
>>30084984
>Because me and everyone lurking this thread does.
actually, we all think you're fucking stupid and need to drop it already.
I can't comprehend how you're able to excuse this level of autism.
>>30085030
I'd like to see sources for all of that, but even if you have them,
the F-35 is over budget by more than the entire cost of the F-22 program.
>>30085050
I notice you still haven't responded to any of my arguments with anything other than name calling.
Strange, that's what happens when someone is losing the argument.
>>30085022
the war on drugs is complete bullshit, and so is your argument.
Look up proxy wars and tell me what is happening in the middle east now is not the prime example of one.
>>30085070
Not the guy you replied to, but
>the war on drugs is complete bullshit
In the massive bloated welfare state we live in, it may be better than the alternative.
>>30085070
"prox·y war
noun
a war instigated by a major power that does not itself become involved."
>not itself become involved.
Gotta have those f-35 for all those proxy wars we don't take part in.
>>30085081
It costs 100,000 for a felony criminal prosecution, 30,000 a year for incarceration, and whoever you sent up the river will likely never find a good job or pay more in taxes than they consume in government services.
Shit's expensive, especially compared to drug treatment.
>>30085098
Believe it or not, it costs even more to put people on welfare.
>>30085054
>I'd like to see sources for all of that, but even if you have them,
Holy fuck, anon.
Bet you aren't even old enough to know about the lawn dart.
>>30085054
Dude, a simple google search will show you a plethora of news sites dumping hate on the current fighter gens just like on the F-35.
>>30085103
lolno
>>30083168
OH FUGGG MY LMT STOCK
>>30085120
>>30085118
So in other words, you have no sources?
Because if you did, it's reasonable to assume you would have posted them.
And you also have no counter to my argument, for the same reason.
>>30085091
No, we dont need it for the shitskins, but we will need it when Russia or China or whoever-the-fuck decides that its time to overtake the west as a superpower.
That said, the f-35 is clearly not the 5th gen jet we need.
>>30085135
oh, whew!
nevermind, all is well
>>30083168
The french rafale will eat him alive he can't fly it's a turkey
>>30085140
Not that anon thats talking to you, just admiring your autism.
>>30085126
Actually, yes.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html
>>30085103
Prove it
>>30085165
I'm really not bothered by name calling, if my argument is totally untouched.
>>30083193
>2070 is when it is scheduled for retirement.
Don't bet on that.
All of a sudden F-16 (also made by LM) is showing signs of aging to an extent they have to (they say) retire it well before its original design life.
And this in spite of having paid a handsome price for the mid life upgrade.
>>30085017
>That only tells us that the requirements weren't realistic.
5.3 g sustained turn, 55 seconds acceleration from mach 0.8 to 1.2 are unrealistic requirements in 2016?
>>30083168
HELP!
THE MARKETS ARE CLOSED AND WON'T OPEN UNTIL TUESDAY!
The news will get around by then, and $LMT will drop like a stone.
>tfw stuck holding over a holiday weekend
>>30085194
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1400853/Flak-flies-over-Eurofighter-a-Cold-War-relic.html
>>30083168
In the end the market price reflects the news, and the market says nothing is happening.
So get wrek't faggot OP.
Fucking alarmist Russiaboo shill!
>>30085227
Where does it say that it was over budget and behind schedule?
This also does not even imply that it is disliked.
The article is about whether it's worth the money.
You've had all this time, and this was the best you could do.
Which is of course because you made all those previous statements off hand with no real knowledge as to whether they were true, and hoped I wouldn't challenge you on them.
Then deflected those challenges with name calling.
>>30085275
The name calling was some other guy, and I can't exactly hunt for links since I'm on mobile.
But honestly, the current batch of planes have taken around a decade to actually get developed, and additional years to actually reach peak capability. Note how in that article Eurofighter was assuring that the Typhoon will git gud in 2010, and the article was written in fucking 2002.
You're just remaining willfully ignorant because you're determined to prove the F-35 is a shit fighter over silly criteria.
>>30085316
You sure have a lot of excuses for your lack of evidence.
>you're determined to prove the F-35 is a shit fighter over silly criteria.
I NEVER
ONCE
said this.
My position,
FROM THE VERY BEGINNING
has been that the aircraft itself may or may not end up performing well,
but the program as a whole is shit due to these massive budget and schedule problems.
Go back and look at my very first post in the thread.
>>30084740
This whole argument stems from you refusing to believe that I think the plane itself might work fine, but it's shit because of budget/time problems,
you posting nonsense that you've pulled from thin air and presenting it as fact,
and then resorting to name calling when I call you out on it.
You know what? I'll have a turn at it.
You should honestly feel embarrassed.
And seriously up your game.
>>30085372
http://m.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/
>>30085372
http://m.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-910231.html
>>30085140
>So in other words, you have no sources?
WHERR IS THE SOURCES!
here's a source for you you dumb motherfucker
www.google.com
here's another source for you, trying not being a lazy 12 year old faggot
while you're there, check out how the tomcat nearly bankrupted grumman. and check out the clusterfuck of the nh-90 program and the airbus atlas. a400? look at out how long it takes to design and build a new toyota corolla
>>30085372
http://www.channel4.com/news/multibillion-eurofighter-typhoon-overspend-revealed
>>30085378
Those numbers are completely wrong from everything that I can see.
The only result I can find for their claims about its unit cost are from articles quoting this article.
Other sources put it at around half that figure, and that's including development costs.
>>30085416
>the total programme cost will eventually hit £37 billion.
Let's accept this as true.
The F-35 will cost over 1.5 TRILLION and is what, something like 200 billion over budget?
That's no excuse for the eurofighter to go over budget,
but the two are nowhere near comparable.
>>30085372
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-advanced-fighter-woes-20130616-dto-htmlstory.html
>>30085451
>confusing life cycle cost with development cost
Welp, I'm done. You clearly don't know shit.
>>30085275
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
>Development of the aircraft effectively began in 1983
> the first prototype of the finalised Eurofighter made its first flight on 27 March 1994
>The Typhoon was introduced into operational service in 2003.
>entered service 9 years after design finalization, for a 1980s design
>Unit cost 125million GBP for a fighter designed in the 1980s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#Upgrades
>In 2014 the "second element of the Phase 1 Enhancements package known as 'P1Eb'" was announced, allowing "Typhoon to realise both its air-to-air and air-to-ground capability to full effect"
>only now fully air to ground capable, 31 years after design began and 11 years after entering service
that's from five minutes of google you lazy cunt. you want more, go to the bottom and start reading the links provided under references you lazy piece of shit. then feel ashamed because you're worthless.
>>30085467
That figure isn't the development cost. (It's actually much higher than official numbers, but whatever, let's say it's true.)
That is the whole cost for Britain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
>in 2011, the National Audit Office estimated the UK's "assessment, development,production and upgrade costs eventually hit £22.9 billion".[50]
>>30085423
>Those numbers are completely wrong from everything that I can see.
>the national audit office is completely wrong from what anon can see
from the national audit office site, which you ignored
https://www.nao.org.uk/report/management-of-the-typhoon-project/
>The cost of each Typhoon aircraft has risen by 75 per cent. While Typhoon performs some defence tasks now, it won’t take on all roles until 2018.
>this anon is better informed than the national audit office
>>30085451
>The F-35 will cost over 1.5 TRILLION
over a 60 year program
the longest and most ambitious fighter program ever attempted in the history of the human race
>>30085492
Are you the same retard that got BTFO by Oppenheimer in the other thread?
>>30085500
Also, it's down to 800 billion now.
Or about a year of Social Security.
>>30085494
Interestingly, a lot of the numbers in the 2 articles don't match.
But what exactly is your point?
That since the Eurofighter is over budget by a few billion, it's no big deal for the F-35 to be over by hundreds of billions?
>>30085532
Considering the Typhoon is only a fraction of the capability and scale, yes.
>>30084703
>news organizations don't protect their own interests even more than politicians
You naive
>>30085500
The F-22 is planned to be around for half that time and cost a tiny fraction of the money.
>>30085517
That's one estimate of operational costs, not total costs.
>>30085553
So being hundreds of billions of dollars over budget already is perfectly acceptable to you?
And that's because much smaller programs have been over budget by a few billion before?
I don't see how one small fuckup justifies even larger fuckups.
>>30085532
>That since the Eurofighter is over budget by a few billion,
the point is you're a retard and you're so stupid you've lost your way.
the point was use google you faggot, you can find this out for yourself
the point is that the eurofighter, a not even particulary ground breaking program, is over thirty years old now and the aircraft are still not fully functional, and are still more expensive than the f-35
the point is most defence programs, in fact major industrial programs, are total clusterfucks, which you asked to be proven because you didn't believe it to be so and it would have only taken you five minutes in google to find out
the point is now you've been shown you're fagging around pretending otherwise
the point is you're a backpeddling faggot bitch, and your mom is a whore
>>30085572
Because we literally only have 1/10 as many F-22s as planned F-35s. On a plane to plane comparison, the F-22 is significantly more expensive to maintain.
>Hey guise, how do we fund our secret squirrel super plane without revealing it to China or Russia.
I know, let's pretend to spend billions trying to get the f-35 to work.
>>30085581
I'm not saying its good we have stuff overbudget, but I am pointing out it's not anything new or special and is not a direct indicator of the quality of the plane itself.
>>30085590
Thank you.
>Yfw part of the reason the poncho liner is banned is to help pay for the F-35
>>30085200
You do realize that airframes don't age well, right?
There are videos of f-35's flying. The production lines are being set up now.
I suspect one of the reasons the f-35 hasn't entered full scale production yet is because there is a secret 4th variant thats been built that has working AI, and nobody wants to let that cat out of the bag.
>>30084929
Ay VTbro where you at?
Ever seen their site?
THE F-35 CARRIES A WHOLE 9 TONS OF FUEL OH MY GAAAWD
THE NOISE CAUSES BIRTH DEFECTS!
Hilarious shit.
>>30085054
>the F-35 is over budget by more than the entire cost of the F-22 program
Not that you have actually looked up how much money has been spent on the F-35 so far.
>>30085572
>The F-22 is planned to be around for half that time and cost a tiny fraction of the money.
This is where you show us the expected life cycle cost of the entire F-22 fleet and compare it to the F-35's, while taking into context the staggering difference in number of aircraft.
>>30085886
it's actually because of budget cuts to service funding i think
this happened a bunch for both the raptor and the lightning. basically there is a need to save in the annual budget, so they cut program funding. problem is, to deliver a program there is still x amount of work to do. not funding that work and its cost just postpones that work to another financial year. what is more, the program can't actually stop. this is because
1. you have to recruit, train and retain workers (the labor issue). this takes time and money. if you then let them go they have to go and find other jobs. which means you have to recruit, train and retain another workforce again (an extra cost of course, you're paying twice), or at least a percentage which has left to other work. so you pay to retain them. this adds extra that wasn't in the original program funding.
2. you also have to retain manufacturers because a. if you cancel an order, contractors contractors can't retain staff they hired for that order (labor again) and b. if they take other orders they may not have capacity to supply again when you get around to it. the last two fighter programs use contractors like never before.
3. the machinery/tooling and infrastructure still has to be maintained while it's not being used to generate product and paying work. which again adds extra costs that would not have existed if funding for the original production timeline had been kept
so on top of the original program cost, you're adding all this other cost caused directly because of delay. this is one of the problems with modern politicians, and /k/ as well, they don't understand what manufacturing actually involves because most of them have never held a real job in their lives. so they live in a world of words, and believe that simply saying something or writing it on a piece of paper changes everything.
tl;dr mccain is a fucking faggot
>>30083168
Hopefully soon so these threads can fucking stop
i would recommend to anon two publications to read if they're interested and want good information on this kind of thing
1. aviation week and space technology
2. flight international
if you don't want to pay your library should have them. they're industry mags and follow the money. they detail program and political issues. they also provide a lot of political information, because of course you can't seperate the two.
janes has it's moments, but i haven't really read their periodicals (hard to find where i am), and the omnibus books are expensive and date quickly.
really? this thread again
>>30083168
>When will the f-35 finally be finished
Still next year; we've expected Block 3F to be 2-6 months late since 2013 or 2014, the recent 'news' is just that they've narrowed that down to 4 months (Nov 2017), which in turn confirms that IOT&E will start in Jan or Feb 2018.
IOT&E doesn't have an impact on whether or not Block 3F is delivered to the fleet and doesn't have anything to do with declaring the jets combat ready, but is a policy thing that the DoD has to complete before the government will allow the US forces to go into full rate production or (now it seems) participate in a block buy. Partner nations are unaffected by IOT&E.
Essentially, IOT&E is the DoD's official review of the final product; if they're not happy with it, they'll patch things, but realistically if it's not a critical issue they'll just push it through the door.
So to reiterate;
July 2015 = USMC IOC, first USMC F-35Bs are declared ready for combat
A few weeks ago = Block 3i completed and released into the fleet
October? 2016 = USAF IOC
November? 2017 = Block 3F is completed and released into the fleet
[between that and IOT&E] = 23 jets with the final Block 3F hardware and software are built and delivered to certain operational test squadrons.
Jan or Feb 2018 = Initial Operational Test and Evaluation begins
Something like 3 or 4 months later = IOT&E is completed, a decision is made on whether or not FRP / any block buys can be made.
Aug 2018 to Feb 2019 = Navy IOC
>>30086078
Second Line of Defense is also really good, while Defense News also tends to get a lot of news quick
>>30084775
>F-35 fires cannon
>F-35 needs 140 hours of service replacing all panels within 10 feet of muzzle
>>30083168
the entirety of the F-35 arguments are made by people that expect a flagship multirole to just somehow appear out of thin air and be fucking amazing with no problems whatsoever.
That could have happened but we wouldn't have known about the F-35 until a few more years from now. The bugs it's currently going through would have been done behind closed doors in the black.
LockMart and the DoD in general is, for some reason, keeping you faggots in the loop. What do they get in return? The media shitting it up and you guys complaining that it's inferior, a waste of money, and should be cancelled.
I will be damned if they are this transparent the next time.
>>30083193
>In B4 program to extend service life for another 40 years.
>>30086892
>The bugs it's currently going through would have been done behind closed doors in the black.
Worse, there would've been no iterative dev process and fatal flaws would've made it into mass production, resulting in total losses/fatalities.
See: F-16.
>>30084882
i know that's bait but twin engine jets are acually less safe.
twice the moving parts
1 engine goes, so does the other one.
suspective to pilot error.
its not safer.
>>30085886
F35 parts assembler here
F35s are slowing entering full production.
they want 1x F35 per day in 2019
no idea how that's gonna workout but, job security i guess.
>>30086892
>I will be damned if they are this transparent the next time.
Hence why the USAF is fighting to keep the B-21 in the dark despite Congress wanting otherwise
>>30085204
>5.3 g sustained turn, 55 seconds acceleration from mach 0.8 to 1.2 are unrealistic requirements in 2016?
5.3 G sustained turns at altitudes the F-35 operates at is breddy gud.
>>30086892
The problem is trying to make a flagship multirole fighter in the first place and expecting it to be cheaper and more effective in the long run than upgrading current fighters and/or creating new role-specific aircraft. Moreover, the "design by committee" approach has never worked for anything, especially when the committee is composed of politicians trying to funnel tax dollars to their own districts.
Maybe the Air Force will come to its senses and Boeing up on their offer to upgrade the F15s.
https://youtu.be/snMwAXYpXnQ
>>30087802
t. Boeing shill
>>30087802
>upgrading current fighters
What have we been doing for the past 40+ years?
>creating new role-specific aircraft
Why not streamline things and make one that can do multiple roles, much like how aircraft procurement has been going since the late 50s?
>>30086621
nailed it, my face nearly exactly when these threads pop every other day
>>30083168
Considering the rest of the world hasn't caught up with the last high performance aircraft we put out, I think we have a comfortable safety window.
>>30087964
Because it's impossible to make an aircraft that can do all things well that is also not expensive to build and maintain.
>>30088397
What evidence do you have for this besides your assertions?
How about the F-4, F-18, F-15E, F-16, Su-27 variants, etc, that were all used successfully as multiroles?
>>30088467
Only Lockheed Martin™ is capable of making a fifth gen fighter
>>30088487
As Boeing was the only other JSF competitor to be believed to have something plausible as a new 5th Gen, so far that seems pretty accurate, actually.
>>30088487
Your response does not correlate to the post you responded to.
>>30088487
If you're the same guy, non-sequiturs don't prove anything.
>>30087964
>Why not streamline things and make one that can do multiple roles
see: F-111
>>30090007
see: F-4 Phantom
see: F/A-18
see: Rafale
>>30087798
too bad it was reduced to 4.3 g
F-35, a 5th gen plane with 3rd gen performance
>>30090034
the f-4, f16 and f/a 18 were more like happy accident where an insanely high thrust to weight ratio make them decent at everything.
>>30090071
Compared to previous generations perhaps, but the F-35 has a similar T:W
>>30087525
Yeah but you have twice the redundancy.
>>30083177
Why did you come here to post if you find these threads repetitive? What made it so hard for you to NOT click on it. Why did you feel compelled to?
>>30083168
This is now F-35 thread
>dem curves
>>30085972
There is talk of restarting F22 production. So, something might not be completely kosher with the F35 program.
>>30084916
>>30090034
>Thrusty mcNoguns
>Super "needs F-16s to do SEAD first" Hornet
>virginal moustache plane
wow, way to pick 3 planes that don't prove your point.
>>30084676
Research and build AFTER a war already starts.
Your a fucking genius.
>>30085204
That purely depends on the conditions of those requirements. Something simple like whether they will be permanent, or just there to push the F-35 into early production can make a huge difference.
>yfw they divert all of the F-35 money into upgrading the A-10
>>30090601
Here in new zealand we have skyhawks wrapped in gladwrap somewhere. But we need to upgrade our airforce to something cheap and effective. Anyone say fishbed???
>>30090675
I say JAS 39, cheap as fuck in every way
>>30090688
>>30090699
Ive got a bit if a hardon for glorious comrade fishbed.
Fun fact, NZ traded with Russia in the 80's (meat and dairy) and in leiu of money they sent us fucking ladas. Why not send us fishbeds instead???
>>30090715
>they sent ladas in exchange for products that probably saved thousands from starvation
On a more serious note, because they are outdated as fuck, better off getting J-7s, basicallyreverse engineered MiG-21 exepct better.
>>30084882
I know right senpai, the F-16 is such a fucking turkey. We should just build more F-4s instead, they're tried and trusted, not to mention carrying a wider variety of weapons
Daily reminder 3 F-35s made transatlantic flights already and nothing happened
>>30090592
>That purely depends on the conditions of those requirements.
Performance attributes of a system considered critical to the development of an effective military capability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_Performance_Parameters
usually, not meeting KPPs is grounds for cancellation of the project. but F-35 is too big to be cancelled.
>>30090480
No, it's another request for cost estimate on restarting it.
The only thing "not kosher" is all the political bullshit by poorly informed politicians with a boner for the A-10.
>>30091243
Unless those unmet requirements are final and nothing will be made to change that, the point is still irrelevant.
Besides, do you even know what impact that difference has ? Does it really affect the capabilities of the F-35 that bad as to counter its advantages ?
>>30090551
Giving the F-4 a nickname doesn't disprove his point. The addition of guns didn't make much of a difference, just ask the navy.
>F-18 can't do SEAD
What happened in El Dorado Canyon then?
You're not making a compelling argument.
>>30090601
>>30083168
Never, better but some rafale for discount
>>30090514
Wew lad, lets see that black budget then.
>>30091243
The F-35 never had KPPs because JCIDS came after the JSF program.
>>30091418
My friend its YOU who is poorly informed. Our politicians have a boner for the A-10 because Soldiers like myself have a boner for it. Yes, its out dated and the Gau-8 doesnt deliver the same killing power as a JDAM or cluster bombs.....but those other weapons dont strike fear into the hearts of the enemy like the BBRRRRRRRRRRRR......BBBBRRRRRRRRRR does. The GAU breaks the will of the enemy and lifts our morale in ways no other munition can. Never discount the psychological effects of such a weapon.
Now as for the F-35? They were supposed to deliver a combat ready aircraft years ago. Not a working prototype. Not a nearly done aircraft. A FUNCTIONAL COMBAT AIRCRAFT. Granted some problems are to be expected with brand new equipment, but this is not an MRAP pushed into service as fast as possible, this is our Gen V fighter and it does not work as advertised.
>>30092075
>What if we take a project
>Ask it to do too much
>Keep moving goalposts
>Mess with funding and numbers
>Then complain about the progress after our messing with it
>Then write sensationalist articles about it, feeding into the cycle
I'd not saying that LM have handled it brilliantly but it can hardly be blamed for a lot of this shit.
>>30090035
Now tell us what other aircraft can do at the equivalent speed/altitude/payload.
>>30083196
The Gyrfalcon is literally a copy of the F35 built from blueprints the chinks stole by hacking. Dumbfuck.
>>30084964
>Find me a source that most defense projects go years behind schedule and hundreds of billions over budget.
http://www.gao.gov/
now run along i think i hear your mommy calling you
>>30093131
i think the last original idea the yellow horde had was gunpowder, and they didnt even know how to use it right...
"stolen from the west" is the only way the commies [pick any] advanced their tech.
>>30083168
I know a better way to spend money.
>>30083196
The J-20 is already better than both F-22 and F-35, even if it is only in LRIP stage.
Seriously.
Avionics surpassing the F-35, with the aerodynamics surpassing it and approaching that of the F-22.
Nothing comes close.
>>30093131
A literal copy without any of the material sciences, avionics, actual engines, stealth, quality control...
>>30093518
Yeah I heard official claims how it'll have 10,000 units produced next sunday and how it's missiles can be fired from a stationary j20 to intercept american ICBM's before they even leave silos to kill chinese innocents.
The news about J20 having inflight VR porngame entertainment and being able to transform into a mech to rescue downed pilots blew my mind too!
Is there anything the chinese can't do!?
>>30092075
>but those other weapons dont strike fear into the hearts of the enemy like the BBRRRRRRRRRRRR......BBBBRRRRRRRRRR does.
The moment you see a pair A-10's come flying in to provide air support for you, and they both get shot down by multiple SAM's, will be a very depressing feels.
Now imagine that happening more than once, and having it posted on the Internet. Suddenly your boner will go soft.
Also, the shitposting here would reach critical levels when that happens.
>>30084676
The only issue is that the fleets it is replacing, like Marine F/A-18 squadrons, and Air Force F-16 squadrons, are stretched to their limits right now, and we have an incredibly low amount of them combat ready right now. We shut down assembly lines well before the F-35 was ready as a replacement and now squadrons already undermanned and with not enough maintainers need to scrape the bottom of the barrel, look through boneyards, and tear pieces of museum aircraft.
>>30090601
>>30093604
As far as I know USAF F-16 fleet accumulated something like 200k flight hours per year last few years, and that's pretty great. Just to compare, entire Russian AF accumulated 300k during 2012. Still aging airframes is main problem of USAF.
>>30092874
They said they could do it. They said it would be all these things....just for more money mind you. Personally I like the F35, I just think its dumb to keep pushing it when it obviously needs time to mature, especially when we have the F-22, which might not be as good as the perfected F-35, but it works now and outclasses everything else.
>>30093602
>shit posting is ALWAYS at critical levels
While you are not wrong about the effect that would have, it coukd happen to any aircraft doing CAS.
>AC-130
>AH-1
>AH-64
>UH-60
>F-15/16/18A-Z
hell even the F-117 has been shot down. Its war. That kinda shit is just gonna happen
>>30084916
Not the guy you are arguing with, but on rare occasions things work out in development. The U-2 spy plane was made and delivered in time and under budget - a miracle to probably everyone involved.
But I get it; no plan survives after first contact with reality.
The F-35 looks like a boondoggle only because every detail is being reported on and the internet exists for everyone and their dog to put their opinions on it. Imagine if we had the internet during the '70s when the F-16 was being developed to replace the F-4. I wonder if the shit posting and hating would be just as intense?
>>30083168
>When will the f-35 finally be finished, and how obsolete will it be by then?
when we get f22 tooling back online
>tfw I actually have a chance to fly the f-35
However low of a chance it is, I'll take it. Realistically I'll probably end up flying helos or going maritime. But theres still a chance I get to go tailhook and land an f-18 or f35 slot.
>>30093131
>The Gyrfalcon is literally a copy of the F35
Not without software, RAM coatings, built in maintenance considerations, built in logistical considerations, AESA radar, EOTS, built in NV helmets, equivalent BVR capabilities, STOVL, VTOL, a 25mm gun, CATOBAR capabilities, sensor fusion, equivalent flight hours, similar range, qnd airbto ground capabilities it isn't.
>>30093572
Lol underrated post.
>>30095673
Not really sure where you are in the pipeline, but the Navy isn't going to start selecting CAT I guys for years. The Marines are actually gonna have F-35C selects before the Navy.
Headed to Corpus or Whiting?
>>30095782
I actually don't even report to Pcola until November, since I just commissioned 2 weeks ago. Hence the probably going to get helo or maritime.
>>30093131
>The Gyrfalcon is literally a copy of the F35
>F-22 knockoff with F-35 elements
>literal copy of the F-35
>>30083168
It was supposed to be deployed in 2005, any plane 10 years late will be obsolete the moment it is in production.
>>30090480
>There is talk of restarting F22 production. So, something might not be completely kosher with the F35 program.
Reminder the F-22 is made by the same company that makes the F-35, so they're equally shitty planes.
>>30098915
>4 years after the X-35 got approval
By the gods you're retarded. F-35B IOC happened in the same 15-year space from first X/Y model flight as the F-22.
>>30098951
>so they're equally shitty planes.
>Nothing comes close to matching the F-22 in A2A
>Just as much a curbstomper to 4th gen as the F-15 was to 3rd
>equally shitty
I suppose "not at all" is the same as "equally." Thanks for being stupid enough to call the F-35 awesome when trying to insult it, I suppose?
>>30098976
The Eurofighter has a similar timeframe as well.
>>30091082
see that's what we really need, a bomber that drops other aircraft to bomb while you bomb
>>30092075
>but those other weapons dont strike fear into the hearts of the enemy like the BBRRRRRRRRRRRR......BBBBRRRRRRRRRR does.
This is because those enemy are already dead from actually effective CAS.
Can we drop this fanboy faggotry already? You sound like an over-enthusiastic fucking child.
>>30094924
>They said they could do it.
Duh, so did Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. In the contracting world, saying no just means your competition gets the contract.
Seriously though, go have a look at the cost of an F-16 or F/A-18 or F-15, etc in the 90s and then look at what they cost today. It wasn't just the JSF program.
>I just think its dumb to keep pushing it when it obviously needs time to mature
You can't mature a jet if you don't have enough to fly the 200,000 hours.
![JSF-Schedule-2003-1S[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/kx87xKy.jpg "JSF-Schedule-2003-1S[1].jpg")
>>30098915
lol no, they ran the JSF competition until the end of 2001 and didn't plan for the first flight until 2006. The original schedule had the first jets entering service (IOC) in 2010.
The chart attached is from AusAirPower, so you know it's the earliest / most different to today's schedule
>>30098915
>any plane 10 years late will be obsolete the moment it is in production.
yeah, that eurofighter is a piece of shit isn't it
and the rafale
>>30093518
hahahahahahahaha
>>30095758
Less of a literal copy, more like a cargo cult effigy
>>30090601
Maybe they could use some of that cash to refit the Iowa class BBs too.
Maybe they could convert an Iowa class BB to launch A10s with their main guns...
>>30085200
>F-16 (also made by LM)
>"retiring" a 40 year old aircraft "well before its original design life"
unbelievable fucking retard detected
>>30083168
>still didn't finish writing a simple 1 line program of "if triggerbutton=true: fire weapon" so it can finally shoots the onboard gun
yep, dog fighting in the sky sure is dead
>>30100032
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-OyE45DEac
![4fc[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/o4z5cDB.jpg "4fc[1].jpg")
>>30100032
>Undated
>Invalid source style
>1: STOVL roll control nozzles have issues at forward speeds they don't operate at
>2: A literal metal shaft that can be repecc'd to a better material
>3: Clutches can get hot? WEow, it's fucking nothing!
>4: Door that's only open during STOVL Take-off and landing doesn't work at higher speeds
>5: Probably already fixed
>6: Who the fuck cares, that's what the HMD+ EODAS are for
>7: Rare to fly at that speed to begin with, still better than the F-22's RAM
>8: New lightning arrestors already on the way, normal for all aircraft to avoid storms unless mission critical anyways
>9: As if the Harrier didn't have that problem
>10: Clearly outdated source
>11: Issues already cleared and flying again
>>30100032
>>30100120
It's from 2014 (and therefore irrelevant to today)
>>30087802
This guy, every F-35 thread. There's only so much shit you can bolt onto an old airframe. The reason why this is a multirome instead of a bunch of diffetent role specific jets is that it'd be much more expensive in the long run to have 5 or six new jets or refurbish old ones.
Now you have three practically seperate. Multirole jets with a good amount of parts interchangabilty, easy to maintain, and great performance in a "5th gen" platform. Modern technology means you need less role specific jets, a multirole is just fine fir modern combat.
Even the best role specific air superiority fighter has limited multirole capabilities. (F/A-22). People seem to forget that the "A" designates an "Attack role" as in Ground attack.
>>30090571
Your reading comprehension is shit. Anon is saying "so what if it's over budget etc. We have time to work out the kinks, why rush it?"
>>30100277
Mot to mention, no other nation is even remotely close to finishing their 5th gen fighters, afaik china is close, but we'd still have more F/A-22's and some F-35b's to handle that.
>>30091453
not sure what you're trying to say, but these are things that you can't fix in production. the design is flawed.
>Does it really affect the capabilities
being worse at turning and acceleration than most other modern multiroles? you bet it does.
>>30100323
F-35 is not a true 5th gen.
>>30101255
>you bet it does.
In a niche of air combat
>>30101290
a fighter aircraft should be able to do air combat
>>30101330
Sure, but you don't judge soldiers by their ability to use a bayonet
>>30101255
>being worse at turning and acceleration than most other modern multiroles?
But it isn't.
>>30101330
Are you suggesting it can't?
You realize that its kinematically similar to an F/A-18, which can perform air to air just fine, while being superior at everything else you care to mention, right?
It'll do great in air combat, not that its primary job is that anyway.
>>30101377
what if each soldier is equipped with only two rounds for asault rifle and two rounds for pistol?
>>30101394
>its kinematically similar to an F/A-18
the newest 5th gen fighter, the most expensive military project in history, is just as good as a mediocre fighter from 1970's. fuck yeah.
>>30101416
As good kinematically (which is no means bad), significantly superior in all other aspects.
Its like you didn't even read the post or something, turbonerd.
>>30084955
Whether it's a war, a proxy war, a conflict, or "police action" if you "buy the farm" you're still just as dead. It's called the "War on Terror". After we get the terror we will commence the War on Horror!
>>30101397
You're not seeing the bigger picture.
An analogy of modern / near-future air warfare:
Two factions are in a football stadium, including up in the stands. The roof is closed and it's pitch black inside. There's also random cover around the place (it evacuated during a half-time event, shush).
The soldiers of each side can be sorted into two general categories, infantry and marksmen.
Infantry carry assault rifles, torches, maps and radios.
Marksmen carry DMRs with fewer ammunition, a torch, map, radio and also IR goggles + IR lasers.
Does it matter that each marksman carries half a dozen rounds, isn't pure muscle and doesn't carry as large a bayonet as another guy? Not really. They see enemies coming from a mile away and can either vector infantry to intercept them, or call for help from another marksman who can take them out from elsewhere.
Perhaps if the enemy really coordinates their action, one or two marksmen might end up fighting CQB, but a DMR, while a bit more unwieldy, still kills fine from 5m as it does from 500m. The marksmen aren't completely useless in hand-to-hand as well and can either get lucky, or, if they happened to be noticeably better trained, beat the enemy through their superior skills.
And if at the end of the day, a few marksmen die from enemy bayonets, that isn't going to matter much when the side with the far greater number of marksmen dominates the enemy's mostly or all-infantry force. There's still far more ammunition than enemies.
>>30101418
good kinematics are one of the key characteristics of a 5th gen fighter. and it's not just for dogfights. a missile gets it's initial energy from the fighter. if it's launched from a higher altitude, at a higher speed, and from a favorable aspect, it will have a higher chance of killing.
>>30085081
Legalize drugs and systematically kill hardcore junkie criminals. Sounds good to me.
>>30085098
A good bullet costs about ¢47.
>>30101476
>good kinematics are one of the key characteristics of a 5th gen fighter
Really aren't. 5th gen is based around the "sensor shooter", not turning ability.
>if it's launched from a higher altitude, at a higher speed, and from a favorable aspect, it will have a higher chance of killing.
F-35 has far superior AOA and supermanouverability, so it would be able to fire in a favorable aspect if really required. Almost all BVR launches have been subsonic, easily within the F-35's crusing speed.
>>30101498
>F-35 has far superior AOA and supermanouverability
i think you may have overdone it with the shilling there
>>30101522
I'm sorry that you can't handle objective facts to the point that you would consider them "shilling", anon.
Or that you don't understand the term supermanouverable, perhaps.
>>30101530
super-maneuverability means being able to recover from AOA over 90 degrees, and being able to perform post-stall maneuvers in general.
f-35 is about as super-maneuverable as an f-18, by which i mean not at all.
>>30101542
>f-35 is about as super-maneuverable as an f-18, by which i mean not at all.
If you cover your eyes for long enough the truth doesn't just fly away, anon.
>>30101551
that's not a refutation you fucking shill
>>30101556
t. Boeing shill
>>30101556
If we're being honest, neither is merely saying "not at all"
>>30083168
>>30083196
>>30084642
>>30084676
>>30084728
Honestly? I think we got over ambitious with the F-35. Too many things into too small a package. It's too damn expensive for a one man plane and we've poured too much into developing it. At this point it makes more sense to just make two different planes that, when combined, does what the F-35 does for a fraction of the price.
>>30101655
well meme'd
>>30101259
>Stealth
>Most advanced sensor and comms suite
It's full 5th Gen. The fuck is your bullshit interpretation that says it isn't?
>>30101869
the definition of 5th gen originally included supermaneuverability and supercruise (see: f-22)
but then f-35 turned out to be a dog, and suddenly 5th-gen means a stealthy missile truck.
>>30101869
It cant even supercruise, a 4th gen feature.
>>30103428
>the definition of 5th gen originally included supermaneuverability and supercruise
No, it didn't.
>>30103514
>a 4th gen feature
>only two aircraft that have shown the ability to supercruise by the original definition are the F-22 (5th gen) and Eurofighter (4.5 gen)
>>30085144
Not really. America has more in numbers alone to destroy whatever take out armu China can field. And Russia is a shadow of its former self.
F-35 fighting anyone on the planet at this current time would be like turning on no target.
>>30104008
>F-35 fighting anyone on the planet at this current time would be like turning on no target.
And the F-35 has a cheat on that shows where everything is.
>>30083168
>Manned planes
>Manned fighters
>201X
How does it feel to pander to welfare queens?
>>30105626
Come see me when a drone can outfly an F-22 AND is considered smart enough to be held accountable for attacking the wrong target.
See you next century at least.
>>30105626
You are aware they scrapped the UCLASS program in favour of a simpler aerial refuelling + ISR drone program right?
>>30105677
Meh. 2040 tops, but even so, that's a 30 year gap to bridge. I'm not salty about the F35, it's a decent plane.
>>30105710
Maybe for performance, definitely not the AI side.
