http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35-wont-fire-a-shot-until-2019-2014-12
why do lockmart shills still worship this overpriced piece of utter fucking shit?
>>30158214
LOCKMARK SHILLS ON SUICIDE WATCH
>>30158214
The F35 is the Donald trump of planes. The more you hate it the stronger it gets.
>>30158214
>2014
>>30158351
>implying it works
>implying its still isn't utter shit
>>30158351
Its been 2 years and they're still have problems that not even cold war era planes have with the F-35. I'm not entirely sure that it's going to stay a viable route for the US at this point.
>>30158377
What is not working again?
>>30158413
everything.
>>30158399
Cold War planes didn't have these fancy things called "computers".
>>30158423
Specifically.
>>30158399
Actually, the gun "issue" was solved.
Much like every other thing thats been pissed and moaned about; quietly solved and nobody cares because thats not good clickbait.
Fuck off.
>>30158423
Huh, thats odd i thought it was in service with the marines already.
I guess thats all just a conspiracy, right?
>>30158423
But its flying in OP's picture so you are wrong evenything does not work.
>>30158431
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norden_bombsight
>F35 can't use something that was in use 70 fucking years ago
do you think im supposed to be impressed here?
>>30158457
its CG you fucking sperg
>>30158450
For the Marines it is considered IOC which isn't really the same thing as being in service. The chief pentagon tester has made it pretty clear that the F35 still has a long way to go before it is truly ready for combat.
>>30158447
>"solved"
right, but it's still massively overbudget and behind schedule while providing almost no benefit over current aircraft.
>>30158458
>Brings up a piece of equipment used for a completely different type of role and type of plane.
Man, you're really reaching here.
>>30158499
providing almost no benefit over current aircraft.
Go to bed, Sprey. Your precious F-16 can't stay in the air forever.
>>30158481
>For the Marines it is considered IOC which isn't really the same thing as being in service
But it is. In the F-35Bs current form, its is already vastly superior than the harrier.
>>30158481
>The date at which IOC is achieved often defines the in-service date (ISD) for an associated system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_operating_capability
>>30158555
that doesn't change the fact that all the other versions belong in the fucking trash and have no use what so ever
>>30158567
Yes, let's ignore that the legacy hornets are falling apart and F-16s have always had endemic issues with being put into a role it wasn't initially designed for.
>>30158567
What makes them "in the trash"?
The EODAS system? Its stealth? Its fantastic range? Its great carrying capacity?
>wont fire a shot until 2019
Is this that Dave Mumjarwhatever article with no souces saying the gundunwerk even though it has already been live fired while flying?
>>30158251
Now I want to see President Trump land an F-35B on Hillary's face.
>>30158476
https://www.f35.com/media/photos-detail/cf-2-
>>30158590
That's more due to the fact that US hasn't been able to borrow enough money the past decade to fund military to keep those planes in operational condition, out of all the legacy Hornet users it's only US that's having this massive issues with the maintenance
>>30159412
>That's more due to the fact that US hasn't been able to borrow enough money the past decade to fund military to keep those planes in operational condition
No, they're just fucking old
> out of all the legacy Hornet users it's only US that's having this massive issues with the maintenance
Maybe because the US does literal orders of magnitude more flights?
>>30159501
That and why burn money to get a high readiness rate on planes going away soon.
>>30159412
>That's more due to the fact that US hasn't been able to borrow enough money the past decade to fund military to keep those planes in operational condition.
Well yeah, because the older a plane is the harder and more expensive it is to maintain, especially when new parts are no longer being produced and experienced maintainers retire or move on to other craft.
>out of all the legacy Hornet users it's only US that's having this massive issues with the maintenance.
Last i checked, practically every other legacy Hornet user is looking for a replacement.
Where is my god damned VTOL
>>30158768
Yep
>>30158214
Good news for the A10.
Guess we will have to keep BRRRTTTTing groundfags with A10s and AC-130 spookies and Apaches, bombing the fuck out of almost everyone with B52s, bombing the rest of the world with B2s and B1s if you get lippy, maintaining air superiority with F15s and F18s, and fucking around however we want with various drones. Maybe you will fuck up and we bring a single F22 to the front and blow up your whole air force? Pic related.
Anyway it isn't like we don't have 20 years to figure out the F35 and when we do it will be superior to everything for 40 more years like the F22 still is and will be until all of us are dead.
>>30158214
>ITT
>>30161670
http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/07.pdf fucking kek
>>30158214
>This will be a particular problem when the aircraft is being used to support ground troops because a gun is more precise than dropping a small bomb in the area
dropped
>>30161670
I honestly wonder sometimes whether Pierre Sprey was a well-intentioned lunatic or a genuine Russian-plant. The fact that he gives interviews with Russia Today makes it really.....questionable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQSs2kN2GpQ
>>30161707
>>30161670
>F-15 Eagle
>Easily shot down with 0.22 cal
Literally how is it possible for a man to write this in a public forum and still get taken seriously?
>>30161762
He says what people want to hear and they pretend he designed the F-16 and A-10.
>>30158214
You mean well before any other country has any real number of 5th gen aircraft in active service?
Get fucked you dumb nigger.
>>30161787
That interview above said he was a designer for the F-15, too.
The man just floats around on vague attachments to projects
>>30162807
What's hilarious there was that the fighter mafia was vehemently opposed to the F-15, which is why they put together the Red Bird counter that eventually became the YF-16/17.
But the F-35 has already fired live munitions.
>>30158447
Really? From what I read, the gun does not provide the CAS capabilities that the A-10 has with its gun. How did they fix this?
>>30164077
The A-10's gun doesn't do shit.
>>30158251
The ironic thing is he fell for the the F-16>F-35 meme.
>>30164077
It doesn't. The bombs do.
What the fuck are you doing using a jet for gun runs, anyways? If the environment is that permissive you really should be using something cheaper, like a helicopter or light COIN aircraft.
>>30164077
An A-10's gun is not its primary CAS weapon, nor is it related to the 'problem' Dave Majumdar made up.
>>30164077
>he fell for the BRRRRRRTTT meme
>>30161732
>or a genuine Russian-plant. The fact that he gives interviews with Russia Today makes it really.....questionable.
Given his dangerously retarded ideas in the 70s-80s I wouldn't rule it out
>hurr all weather capability is a meme
>let's just ignore the fact that the Soviets have been training to exploit poor weather
>let's try and out T-72 the T-72 with pic related
>>30158214
I want to believe the whole project is a smoke screen for something way awesome, we are just using this claptrap as a money lightning rod to make the world think were just incompetent, but we actually have the same kind of B2 style project underway for a hidden next gen fighter. If we can get the Chinese to steal the F35 plans and then they copy the same flawed deisgn we could counter it with maybe a new hidden craft, they already hacked that shit according to some news outlets.
Also, what's with the X37B, I want to know more about its future.
>>30164398
>I am so caught up in my narrative that I refuse to accept the F-35 is a superb aircraft
>>30164419
I want to believe, but the waste and corruption in the process of producing it is an overall example of what's wrong with our system of R&D now, and results are less than spectacular for our new game changer.
>>30159412
"hasn't been able to borrow"
Funny, the Administration has doubled the federal debt over that same time period.
I don't think "borrowing" is the cause of the lack of funding...
>>30164481
>esults are less than spectacular for our new game changer.
Really?
Which 'results', specifically?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EnttHIgx8s
>>30164295
What the fuck? lmao 90mm top kek.
>>30164526
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/07/disastrous-f-35-vs-f-16-face-off-was-also-a-battle-of-philosophies/
Also this.
https://warisboring.com/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875#.sviz8y8o8
Oh, and this.
http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/f-35-joint-strike-fighter/
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-big-budget-f-35-fighter-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run/
Should I go on to the articles from the governments own specialists? Why do people shill so hard for this 400 billion dollar aircraft that's not very good at anything. The man that first proposed the whole idea now doesn't want anything to do with it.
>>30164077
isn't the F-35 gun more accurate than the gun on the A-10?
>>30164626
kek, jesus christ.
The platter of moronic sources and blogs is great, anon.
>Should I go on to the articles from the governments own specialists?
Thats literally the only thing you should refer to, not fucking warisboring.
Actually, don't. You're probably too retarded to argue with if you read that shit unironically.
>>30164645
The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) recently released a scathing assessment of the F-35 program as part of his annual report. Buried inside 48 pages of highly technical language is a gripping story of mismanagement, delayed tests, serious safety issues, a software nightmare, and maintenance problems crippling half the fleet at any given time
http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2016/the-f-35-still-failing-to-impress.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/
Why do you support this aircraft so much? I am curious. You seriously don't think we can do better?
>>30164649
>if i put valid criticisms into a bingo card, I will win every argument!
literally you
>>30164689
I'm seriously curious if you think this is unusual.
Are you old enough to remember the lawn dart, anon?
>>30164709
I'm just disappointed in this generation that's willing to buy into a corporate advertising image of a failed weapons project kept alive by special interest and lobbyists on capital hill. We spent so much less on previous aircraft with far better results, this aircraft is only here to justify congressional district spending in the name of "Muh Patriotism".
>>30164704
Which ones are valid? Because I count 1.
>>30164722
>We spent so much less on previous aircraft with far better results
Again with the vague shit.
Anon, you realize that the F-35 is basically mana from heaven for clickbait sites, don't you? F-22 went through the same shit. F-16 went through the same shit. Eurofighter went through the same shit.
>>30158214
Sure it's late, overbudget, but it's a pretty good multirole plane.
There is no aircraft that can replace three older aircraft from three different branches of military. Also there is no aircraft that offers STOVL version that is actually feasible.
No gun is not a big deal, A-10 is still in business, in the future when gun is really deprecated F-35 will probably replace it.
Single engine/dogfight is proven to be memes. Also payload and number of hardpoints is also addressed.
I don't understand what's fundamentally wrong with the design, please help me if you know.
>>30164704
name one that is valid
>>30164689
>pogo
>>30161707
>>30164722
I am disappointed that there are so many like you that have little knowledge of even basic details of the F-35 program but think your opinion has value.
>>30162881
How many F-15Cs and Es could we have bought if not for the LFM and their inferior F-16?
>>30164742
Since you probably only take news from alex jones or zero hedge, hope this weird blog called TIME might make some sense to you, but there are no adds for forever seeds or buying gold coins so probably not.
http://swampland.time.com/2013/12/18/how-not-to-buy-the-most-costly-weapon-system-in-the-history-of-the-world/
Things have only gotten worse since this preliminary article, almost 16 years in development and this is supposed to be our answer to the next generation of fighters, makes me sick as an American and worried about our future in the conflicts of the next decade.
>>30164689
>A man whose job is to find problems in experimental aircraft doing is actual fucking job.
Wow, it's fucking nothing.
>>30164842
>Taking the word of non-military news sources.
Time (and pretty much any major news site) is not a credible source when it comes to military R&D at all.
>>30164842
Doubling down after being called out on your ignorance is not the way to go about things.
>>30158431
Viggen had a digital computer in the 1960s, nignog...
im sure you guys werent that far behind
Daily reminder.
If you parrot Sorry be aware of his other "ideas"
M60 should never have been replaced with the Abrams
M60 is superior to Abrams
F-15C is laden with "useless junk" like radar and can't fight
F-16 was a strong independent woman and didn't need no radar
F-16 should have had twin Vulcan's to be a better fighter
If any of these sound ludicrous, maybe you should listen to your dank memes played back to you.
>>30164916
Sprey, even auto correct takes pity on him
>>30164916
>>30164931
>insulting the Sprey, noble prophet of the Murdercube
it's not gonna take 3 years to fix a software bug.
another bullshit article paid for by the chinese.
>>30158447
specifically
- the 1980s vintage software development process at LockMart doesn't scale to the actual amount of software this plane uses, which is A FUCKING LOT. Notable areas of concern are general systems integration, the human interface and the comms
- the engines run very hot, by design (mostly b/c lolsupercruise) which creates endless thermal management issues
- it's not an A-10. Congress wants A-10s enough to blanket the skies and Abrahams enough to cover the earth in Freedom
>2014 article
gun is ready and fully functional as of 2015.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69Nv3FIHNK0
>>30164916
It's worse than that, he thinks that about the fucking M48, the M60 is probably too high tech for him.
>>30158214
One engine.
>>30165126
God damn why are the best reaction images always out of anime and manga I don't even watch/read much of it but my image folder is so kawaii it's sickening
>>30165057
>lolsupercruise
>F-35
...
>>30165142
>>30165159
the f22 is the only jet that has that right?
>>30165224
The only American jet, yes. The F-35 can "dash", but it doesn't have true supercruise.
>>30165224
Eurofighter and F-22 by original definition.
>>30164916
At this point, F-22 and F-35 might as well become a meme itself. It's expensive, costly, and seriously what did they expect to see these aircraft? Taleeban?
>F-16 was a strong independent woman and didn't need no radar
I don't even know how to begin to react.
Because it's not a piece of military hardware. It's a religious idol. Fanatics tend to get more frentic and devoted proportionally to the growing gaps in logic and mounting contradictions in holy scripture
>>30165333
What your describing perfectly fits A-10 fanboys.
Every modern jet project is pretty bad for shit like this. The eurofighter project was a fiasco. But the F-35 is in a category all of its own when it comes to bullshit.
>>30164580
>Published on Jun 10, 2013
>>30164809
>How many F-15Cs and Es could we have bought if not for the LFM and their inferior F-16?
Far less than we had of F-16s, and Air National Guard/Reserves would've been stuck with F-5s or something old and shitty like that. And the F-16 was designed and built by General Dynamics, LM bought them to keep the F-16 production going.
>>30164806
It is the internett, after all...
>>30164995
>>30158214
I don't believe the F-35 is a bad plane in performance terms.
But I'm not drawn to it aesthetically and I don't believe that nations such as Canada or most NATO ally states require credible air forces since in any real war situation we'd be bailing them out anyway. I would much prefer they were used as dumping grounds for cool-but-useless projects like the Silent Eagle and F-20.
>>30165318
The F-22 was expected to see SU-27s and rape them from afar.
>>30165940
It is sort of like how in the past all the lesser nobles would pay tribute to the king. America is the king. All the lesser countries pay tribute to America by purchasing Aircraft from US based corporations.
>>30158499
It wouldn't matter.
Old airframes are old.
We LITERALLY have to replace them.
It's no coincidence that two stunt crashes happened the same day. The air frames are OLD. You cannot push a car beyond a certain point when it's just too exhausted from use. The frames HAVE to be replaced.mthere are limitations from the old frames we have learned about too, and new features we can try to put in to expand their role (just as their roles expanded in the first place to accommodate more missions). And stealth isn't really something you can paint on and call it a day, there are specific facets of the design and shape that are accounted for. That's why the nighthawk was such a weird thing (cuz gen 1 stealth blah blah). We built a stealth fighter designed from day one with a dazzling array of electronic powers and capabilities, something on a scale never really done before.
It can take its time. It's going to be the NATO fighter of the 5th gen, and will have its role expanded (probably) as we enter the gen after, whatever and whenever that will be.
Like it or not old stuff needs replaced. A single F-35 shared with allies makes training easier, parts cheaper due to commonality, makes ordinance easier to design for, etc. It will be the west's workhorse for the next 40 years.
>>30166075
But given the poor performance of the F-35, wouldn't it make sense to buy F-16E's instead?
>>30166190
The military's excuse to start up all these new projects was that the F-16 (and variants) are getting a little old, so they're using f-16's in the mean time while they can produce f-22's, f-35's, etc. while still having a good plane to fall back on
>>30166190
The F-35 outperforms the F-16 in every important metric by a significant margin.
>>30166190
No. Even if the chassis was brand new, why would you buy a chassis designed 40 years ago?
>>30166205
Don't you get it? We're literally at the point where they've got multiple aircraft falling out of the sky per day! The entire fleet is too old and they're suffering reduced readiness across the board because of it. The F-35 is simply too late. They need to start ordering new F-16's now.
>>30166228
Newer F-16's have AESA radar just like the F-35.
>>30166227
The F-35 doesn't even really exist at this point. It is still trapped in development, even though it was supposed to enter service in 2010.
Virtually every critique of *insert modern fighter here* is copypasta of the critique from *insert it's precedent here.*
The same arguments made against the F35 were made against the F15 and F16 by F4 Phantom proponents and they were just as retarded then.
While the F35 will obviously be delivered slow and overbudget (because (warning, spoilers) it's a government program) it's a perfectly decent plane and most of it's critics are simply incapable of understanding modern combat doctrine. Aerodynamic gains are mostly capped out, but stealth is still progressing and EW/networking/"cyber" hasn't even begun to get good.
>>30166239
Yeah, and? Those are still inferior radars shoehorned into an inferior frame.
>>30166260
And they work, and they're ready for buying right now. Unlike the F-35 which is still trapped in development.
>>30164859
This is true
>>30165318
> The group strongly believed that an ideal fighter should not include any of the sophisticated radar and missile systems or rudimentary ground-attack capability that found their way into the F-15. Their goal, based on energy–maneuverability theory, was a small, low-drag, low-weight, pure fighter with no bomb racks. This group influenced the design requirements of the highly successful F-16, though they were not happy with the design changes made to the YF-16 to make the larger, high-tech multi-role fighter currently in service.
Straight Outta wiki
>>30166249
Militray programs over run in peace time with no pressing need to force the aircraft into service by the 1st date selected.
WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED!
>>30166267
We don't need them right now; because we have plenty of planes right now.
20 years from now, we will need planes, because the old frames will be worn out to complete destruction. And when that time comes, we'll want planes that are 20 years old plus updates, not planes that are 20 years old, but with a 60 year old design.
>>30166291
>Planes are literally falling out of the sky
>Pilots are literally dying from using old aircraft that have been stressed to their maximum service life
>The Marines are having to raid museums for spare parts
>Strategic partners are forced to sit and wait while hoping that their own aircraft don't fall apart
>NO PRESSING NEED
>>30158423
t. Pierre
>>30166303
Maybe they'll be combat worthy by the time they're retired.
>>30164916
It seems to me like Sprey came up with what he thinks is an amazing concept, and has trying to push it into production ever since. Obviously no one else is on board with him so his concept never became real. He just can't accept this and has become quite bitter, so like most salty shitposters on 4chan, he just shits on everything that stole his dream. Obviously since he's irrational he'll grab onto anything to shit all over the F-35.
>>30164916
>F-16 should have had twin Vulcan's to be a better fighter
I want a source on this. It sounds like something a child would come up with. Also the Vulcan system seems to take up the aircraft's entire width so I don't think adding another Vulcan would be possible.
>>30166249
>trapped in development
>already in service and ready for combat
>>30166516
without its gun its a glorified airshow piece.
Unless you don't think the gun is necessary- in which case why don't they rip them all out as dead weight?
>>30166249
>Already as many built as there are F-22s
>Already in USMC IOC for nearly a year
>AF/USN IOCs still on track
Special. Kind. Of. Retarded.
>>30166587
>gun
>relevant to air war
Pick one. A gun on a plane is like a knife on a grunt, it will never be used but it's cheap backup, so why not bring it.
It's only really useful to compensate under retarded peacetime ROE anyway when something like visual ID for intercepting a civvy plane in restricted airspace is required. The more intense the war gets, the less relevant guns become.
>>30166516
>Ready for Combat
The Chief of Testing for the Pentagon has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't think that the F-35 is ready for combat anytime soon.
>>30166623
>Already as many built as there are F-22s
Literally irrelevant. The F-35's in circulation now are all prototypes. They are not suited for combat.
>Muh IOC
Until they've actually been cleared for combat by Michael Gilmore, it really doesn't matter what the USMC thinks. FOC is what actually matters.
>AF/USN IOCs still on track
Honestly, who even cares about IOC? FOC is what matters buckaroo.
>>30166587
>without its gun its a glorified airshow piece.
The Navy and USMC didn't even bother having an integrated gun. Fuck off with this meme already. Guns didn't even have an appreciable effect on F-4s in Vietnam.
>>30166686
>The Navy and USMC didn't even bother having an integrated gun
>AKA they wanted a gun but they had to cut it off to save weight because the bird was overweight
>>30166683
>The F-35's in circulation now are all prototypes.
Yeah, no. Everything from LRIP-1 onwards is a proper production model, updated with every change since it was built. Idiot.
>Honestly, who even cares about IOC? FOC is what matters buckaroo.
>Implying you aren't an idiot
>>30166705
Thats a baseless inference if there ever was one, anon
>>30166705
Or because it's pointless extra weight that serves no purpose 90% of the time, but is nice to have as an option should mission needs dictate its presence.
>>30166711
FOC is what matters. Period. FOC means that the plane is actually ready for combat.
>>30166724
>Every other modern fighter jet has a gun including the F-35A but the F-35B and C don't need one because I say so
The Navy/Marines obviously wanted guns but Lock-Mart couldn't figure out how to make it work within the weight restrictions.
This thread is full of fuckwit wannabe DoD jockstraps.
![NETS[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ivJ5SAQ.jpg "NETS[1].jpg")
>>30166770
>FOC is what matters. Period. FOC means that the plane is actually ready for combat.
>>30166782
>This thread is full of fuckwit wannabe DoD jockstraps.
Yeah, the Spreytards are pretty pathetic.
>>30158535
Even if his analogy is retarded, the F-35 is supposed to provide CAS. So not entierly different role. Still retarded though.
Serious question to everyone, why is the DoD so eager to get rid of the A-10 instead of keeping it alongside the F-35?
I mean even lockmart could do a shitton of money by keeping these old birds flying.
I know MY analogy is shitty, but keeping an old car running is more expensive on the long term than to buy a new one.
And I know that the ultimate goal is to spend as much as possible without raising any concerns.
>>30166901
>Serious question to everyone, why is the DoD so eager to get rid of the A-10 instead of keeping it alongside the F-35?
A. The A-10 doesn't do anything better than the F-35.
B. The factories producing A-10 parts shut down a long time ago and existing replacement parts will eventually run out. Restarting the factories isn't an option either because the blueprints themselves are gone.
>>30166770
>FOC is what matters. Period. FOC means that the plane is actually ready for combat.
Yet planes have done actual combat missions during IOC, like the F-117.
You are a sad, ignorant little man. The F-35B is far superior to its replacement as it stands, right now.
>>30166901
>Serious question to everyone, why is the DoD so eager to get rid of the A-10 instead of keeping it alongside the F-35?
The genuine answer is simply that the Pentagon has a smaller budget than it used to. So they have to cut something, and they've decided that the A-10 is one of those things that could be cut. The Air Force has said many times that they would keep running the A-10 if they had enough funding to continue supporting it. At the end of the day, it is simply a matter of budget. You cannot expect the Air Force to maintain a Cold War sized fleet of aircraft with a less than Cold War budget.
>>30166941
Well for the A part, allow me to disagree, as it does one thing better, which is being cheaper to fly, and still doing it's job ok in currents assignements.
For the B part you're right, but it's the consequence more than the cause. That cause probably being lobbying?
>>30166980
Its not cheaper to fly when replacement parts are damn near extinct.
>>30166901
Not too long ago, there was some Air Force general who was advocating that the Apache helicopter should be retired to help pay for the A-10 and keep the A-10 in service. The Army went REEEEEEEEEEE and basically said you'll have to rip our helicopters from our cold dead hands. That ended that.
>>30166963
I see, it sure makes sense but in the end running with F-35 all day won't make that saving useless?
>>30167005
No, because running F-35s all day only requires AF to maintain F-35 schools and F-35 supply chains, instead of F-35 schools and A-10 schools and F-35 supply chains and A-10 supply chains at the same time.
>>30166980
>For the B part you're right, but it's the consequence more than the cause. That cause probably being lobbying?
The causes are the Soviet Union not existing anymore, Uncle Sam not needing CAS that can tank fire from shilkas, and the development of PGMs.
>>30167053
The A-10 could never 'tank' fire from a Shilka.
>>30167099
>muh flying abrams
I think a lot of people confuse
>keeping the pilot alive
with
>keeping the aircraft in combat condition
>>30166770
Nothing is changing on the F-35 between IOC and FOC, just the number of aircraft and personnel in operational non-training squadrons.
>>30166997
Id imagine that the Army could tell the Air Force to fuck off, seeing how they are separate budgets and command
>>30166901
The USAF needs to cater for 2 types of CAS; high and low intensity CAS.
For low intensity CAS, the A-10 is great, but it costs $18,000 per flight hour, whereas other systems like an A-29 or MQ-9 are ~$5000 per flight hour and can still do the job, even better in some ways.
For high intensity CAS, the A-10 is useless / irrelevant. This is where the F-35 will replace the A-10. If there's ever a non-MAD WW3 scenario, there's going to be scenarios where your ground forces are going to be engaged with other ground forces, while there are still air defences and/or enemy aircraft still in the area. Some battles or wars, like a Korea 2.0, will require ground forces to engage other ground forces immediately, before you've had the chance to spend a few days wiping out their SAMs and AAA. There's also the constant threat of MANPADs.
>>30167325
>the A-10 is great
>here's a list of platforms that can do its job for a third the price
>>30167325
And in a high-intensity scenario interdiction is better than emergency front-line bombing anyways.
>>30167558
It is a false choice because ultimately you need both.
>>30166941
proof, or as usual you're a dumbass liar trying to inflate his e penis
>>30167693
>implying I said it was a binary choice
>>30166941
The A-10 wasn't a complicated aircraft. Even without the precise blueprints, building more wouldn't be difficult.
All these posts, most of them claiming all the problems have been fixed.
How did they fix the underpowered gun?
>>30167881
Retooling, even with parts literally in front of you, is very difficult,
When the soviets tried to build a copy of the B-29 bomber during ww2 they were delayed a considerable amount of time because of the conversion of 1/16ths of an inch to millimeters, despite having blue prints and the planes themselves. Retooling is NOT an easy task..
As another anon noted, the A-10 spends most of ots days dropping precision guided bombs anyway, so why bother making A-10a if the F-35 would do it just as well (better, actually, given the better radar systems of the F-35)
>>30167940
The F-35's gun is the most powerful gun ever for a U.S. fighter jet other than the A-10.
>>30167958
The parts don't need to be identical. They just need to work. If a request for more A-10 was ever put out, contractors like Boeing, Northrop, and Lockheed would fight over it like dogs. There is no question that they would be able to build more Warthog's.
>>30166190
The f-35 has a lot of benefits over the f-16, notably range (the F-16 has a short range without drop pods) and payload (the F-35 can carry as much internally as an F-16 can, meaning you can deliver a whole F-16's worth of boom stealthily, all on internal fuel that STILL gives it more range than an F-16).
The f-16 is a good plane. But we are basically comparing p-51 mustangs and F-4 phantoms
>>30168002
All of that falls apart when you realize than 1 f35 costs at least as much as three f16.
>>30168044
If you have three f-16 it won't matter if they are getting blasted out of the sky by S-300s, or can't reach their objective with an appreciable payload cuz they have to carry a ton of drop pods
>>30167992
The question was never if it was physically possible. With enough time and money almost anything is.
It was if it was even worth it; and making a whole new contract for more airframes is 100% not fucking worth it.
>>30168044
Quote me what you think an F-16 and F-35A cost.
Because clearly three times as expensive wasn't asspulling hyperbole! right?
>>30168789
A modern F-16 costs around 65 million.
An F-35A costs around 200 million.
>>30168805
Last LRIP the F-35A cost under $100m, targeted (with losses absorbed by LM) ~$85m when it goes into full production.
Only time it cost anywhere close to $200m was the first two ever produced. Past that they were way cheaper and getting even less so.
>>30168805
I think the UAE F-16 Block 60 deal averages around 160mil each, which puts it around F-35A flyaway costs when you factor the spares and support costs are included.
>>30168994
That's just for the empty airframe. Throw in the engine, electronics, life-support, etc and it quickly goes up to around $200 million per aircraft.
>>30169029
It really, really isn't.
The delusion is cute, though
>>30169029
I'm positive you can substantiate that claim at all.
