The F35
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
I need you guys to educate me.Why the hate for the f35? I don't know much about planes, but from what I've seen on /k/, it apparently sucks.
It's just a liberal thing
Liberal media decided to run with the F-35 sucks meme
Then liberals repeat it because they thrive in being willfully ignorant
It doesn't suck, but you gotta admit that its development program is dragging on a bit.
>>30427770
it's too fat and too expensive. it's supposed to be a jack of all trade so it sucks. too fat to be a fighter, to small to be a bomber. the airframe was butchered to make it STOL capable.
>>30427770
>>30427807
italianfag here, it actually is about politics: EVERYTHING you do is a waste if money according to the opponent party
>>30427770
Here's a pretty thorough summary, OP:
>https://comprehensiveinformation.wordpress.com/
https://theaviationist.com/?p=39090?p=39090
>>30427770
If they could ever finish it, it would be pretty useful. Similar airframe between branches makes maintenance/parts easy, avionics are second to none, and production costs should be reasonable for such an advanced fighter.
That's what my uncle told me at the family reunion and he's a retired admiral (but he doesn't work at Nintendo). I also ran into some flight instructors from Laughlin AFB a few years ago at the local BBQ joint, and they said the same.
So I'm taking their word over the internet.
My personal opinion is that they are ugly, slow, and maneuver like a school bus compared to the F-22, and Lockheed is milking every dollar they can from the project.
I don't see the need for a super duper stealth plane, when any war we will ever be involved in between now and the next DoD plane contract will most likely be with a shitty third world military that still flies 3rd gens.
My opinion is probably wrong, feel free to roast me over it, but the pilot testimony part is true.
>>30428869
>My personal opinion is that they are ugly, slow, and maneuver like a school bus compared to the F-22
They're pretty quick, as quick as you'd want them to be. Here's a video of a Dutch F-35A out accelerating and outclimbing an F-16. It seems like the Dutch were comparing the two aircraft with the same load. The F-16 visibly is carrying 4x AIM-120s as well as two drop tanks. This matches the F-35's current internal load of 4x AIM-120s and significantly larger internal fuel tank. It's as large as it is because it needed to carry all the fuel that most planes carry externally, internally. Drop tanks aren't particularly stealthy, see? Takeoff starts at the 4 minute mark or so, going off of memory. If not, I'm sure you can figure it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEpXh3vqdxI
As to whether it's an unmaneuveable aircraft, there's an article floating around out there written by a Norwegian F-35 pilot who formerly flew the F-16. He really likes the ability to point the nose of the aircraft wherever he wants. Therefor, while it might not be able to match the sustained turn rate of an F-16 (few aircraft can), it could turn inside it for a snapshot. Sure, it burns energy, but that's how you win fights, and that big F135 engine is very good at regaining it, as seen above.
As for ugly, I'd have to disagree. From certain angles, the F-35 is nothing special. However, at others it's just a gorgeous bird. Pic very much related. I love that belly. You're entitled to your own opinion on the topic, of course.
>and Lockheed is milking every dollar they can from the project.
This is probably right pre-restructuring, but following its restructuring, the military has been doing its utmost to cut costs. Doesn't mean that Lockheed isn't trying to make a buck where it can, just that the military is taking a LOT less of their shit.
>>30428869
>>30429042
Part 2!
As for potential uses for a stealth plane, I'm a firm believer that in order to provide credible deterrence, and thus prevent war with a major nation, you need credible overmatch. That overmatch does not exist without significant qualitiative differences. The F-35 would provide the quantity AND the quality.
As for the use against third world nations, I think you'd find that the F-35 is useful even then. Are you familiar of when the United States bombed Libya in the mid 80s? In retaliation for a terrorist attack conducted by Libyan agents, the United States launched an air raid against a number of Libyan sites. This was a quite sizeable undertaking, requiring the use of over 50 aircraft in order to complete the mission and strike four target locations while suppressing the significant Libyan air defense. Despite these efforts, one aircraft was shot down in the process. High class air defenses are again being proliferated. They are significantly more potent than those faced some thirty years ago. Fourth generation aircraft simply won't be able to cut it in such airspaces without a significant and lengthy process of suppression and reduction of enemy air defenses. The F-35 changes that. That same mission could have been done against a modern opponent with 8 aircraft, which is much cheaper.
Not to mention that our planes are literally falling to pieces. The Marines just recently had to pull some Legacy Hornets out of the boneyard in order to keep their current ones running. The aircraft are at the end of their life cycle and need to be replaced now. Waiting another 5+ years for a new aircraft to come along is not an option, and simply replacing them with already existing craft means forfitting the qualititative edge, not to mention you're stuck with a design which has already expanded as far as it can (aircraft are designed with empty space to grow into), and is of dubious survivability against a modern IADS.
>>30427807
>implying all the A-10 stronk types are liberals
Don't try to lump this just on liberals, everyone got in on the shitstorm.
>>30427861
Compared to projects back in the 60s and 70s. Compared to the F-22, Typhoon, Rafale, PAK-FA, J-20, J-31, etc, it's pretty average, if not comparatively marginally quick.
>>30429080
The two biggest and most vocal A-10 stronkers in the government, Congressman McCain and Representative McSally, are both Republicans.
>>30427770
The F-35 has one huge advantage over other fighter jets and that's stealth.
Unfortunately, the usefulness of stealth is quickly evaporating as the various forms of detection have are catching up with it. For example, the F-35 (and F-22) are both stealthy only against X-band radar. The S-400 scans across multiple radar bands so it will be able to detect the F-35. There is also the problem of heat. Unlike the F-22, the F-35 does not have any thermal stealth. The F-135 gives a huge IR signature and all Russian fighter jets have IRST that they can use to detect the heat emission's from the F-35's engine. It will only get worse as computing power increases and radars getting better at filtering out the clutter and backgroud "noise" that stealth aircraft depend on to keep themselves hidden.
>>30429042
Thanks for the vid. I didn't know that the fuel and armament would wiegh the F-16 down so bad.
I'd seen first hand an F-16 take off as quick as it could when I was a kid in the mid 90s. Throttle was opened, brakes dropped, and it shot forward. After a short run it climbed vertically and punched a hole in a cloud, then disappeared into the sky.
This was prior to an airshow mind you. Not a Thunderbirds unit, but unarmed nonetheless.
>>30429502
>The F-35 has two huge advantages over other fighter jets and they're stealth and sensor fusion
fix'd
Sensor fusion also isn't just a buzzword; it extends the ranges of its sensors and massively improves situational awareness by having computers autonomously operate the sensors.
Also, detecting the F-35 isn't even half the battle. Even if you manage to bypass the jamming and electronic efforts coming from F-35s, F-22s, Growlers and drones like the MALD-J, you still have to actually get a targeting solution using X-band (or another similarly SHF) radar or infrared. X-band / SHF is covered by the F-35's stealth, IR is covered by thermal limitations in missiles that make IR seekers useless at the speeds and ranges that they want to be engaging F-35s at. By the time that's no longer an issue, the F-35 will have lasers, even if they're only DIRCM.
As for heat, the F-35 has plenty of thermal stealth; arguably even more than the F-22. The aircraft's skin is made out of carbon composites that work well as thermal insulation, there's an IR reflective layer in the top skin, just like the F-22, the engine uses a high bypass ratio to produce more thrust by mechnically pushing air vs using combustion, the nozzle is actively cooled using air and fuel (that then circulates back into the engine to be burnt) and the F-35 only has one engine and one nozzle, both similar in size to each of the F-22's individual F119s. And while I'd still say it's an overall advantage in general, by not supercruising, the F-35 keeps cooler.
You're right that the F-35's stealth will be less significant going into the future, but those very same advances will also allow radars to detect non-stealthy aircraft are further distances. The inverse-square rule will always work in favour of stealth fighters.
>>30429557
Thankyou o Sage of heavier than air devices of warfare.
The F-35 is a jack of all trades, so by definition a master of none. It'll be located by the new Chinese OTH radar with ease, so what's left is a less maneuverable fighter with some EM tricks up its sleeve that will help it survive one or two minutes longer. The STOL functionality is funny, but will probably never be used since regular takeoff and landing is much more fuel efficient.
>>30429610
0/10
I think they tried to make the equivalent of an MBT, but I guess it doesn't work with aircraft.
>>30427770
Its great, it just had a problematic development period.
It will however be very expensive to operate for everyone exept for the US, and that might be a problem for some european countries
>>30429557
This. Right now an F-35 can use its passive sensors about as well as some fighter's active sensors, and thus nail someone with an AMRAAM without giving out much of any sign it's there.
Training engagements between F-35s and anything else might as well just be ground control repeatedly telling the other team that they're dead and please reset for the next round, the other team just never sees them before they're dead.
And in a real combat situation, they would never be alone. Yes, they are powerful, being world class at a job that is at best their secondary concern, but they would be going into actual combat backed up by legions of Gen 4 aircraft and the even more invisible, even more deadly specters of F-22s.
All of whom are sharing sensor data and nailing targets with unprecedented accuracy.
Is it invincible? No, but being a fighter is it's secondary job and even then it provably outmatches both the aircraft it was intended to replace, and our current mainline fighters.
Not to mention I hear there's a lot of talk up high about restarting F-22 production, so they're going to have even more backup if that goes through.
>>30429502
>only against X-band radar.
That's wrong. They're optimized for X-Band as it's by far the best method of detecting aircraft. L-Band is a meme that can tell you something is around somewhere in that direction, it's horrible at giving speed, heading and altitude though.
>>30429619
>I don't agree
>so it's bait
Fine rebuttal.
>>30429633
>It will however be very expensive to operate for everyone exept for the US, and that might be a problem for some european countries
On the contrary, its single engine, ALIS and the airframe being rated for 8000 flight hours makes it a cheaper fighter than the Superhornet, Eurofighter and Rafale when you look at lifecycle costs.
>>30429937
So FH cost will go up but lifecycle cost is better than everyone else?
How many FH is the other airframes rated to?
>>30429502
The F135 has exotic coatings, is faired in, and has a low-observable augmentor. Look up its tailpipe and you won't see highly radar reflective spray bars or the LPT to get JEM lines for NCTR. It's based on the core of the F119 from the F-22 after all.
For an afterburning turbofan it's pretty fucking stealthy.
>>30429610
The back bone of our air force has been jack of all trades since ww2....
>>30429502
>Unlike the F-22, the F-35 does not have any thermal stealth.
Bull. Fucking. Shit. The F-22's exhausts are for THRUST VECTORING, not thermal blocking.
> The F-135 gives a huge IR signature and all Russian fighter jets have IRST that they can use to detect the heat emission's from the F-35's engine.
And the F-35 has a significantly more advanced set of IR sensors, and Russkie jets have no "IR Stealth" either.
This entire post is shit you pulled out of your ass because you can't imagine the F-35 being good.
>>30429042
>>30429057
Here is said Norwegian pilot's take;
http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2016/03/01/f-35-i-naerkamp-hva-har-jeg-laert-sa-langt-the-f-35-in-a-dogfight-what-have-i-learned-so-far/
I'm just going to say, I dread to see when F-35s become common place at exercises and simulations. Larger numbers and more operators mean they're going to take more public 'losses' in comparison to the USAF's stinginess with the F-22 and the Sprey fags are going to be jerking themselves off.
But till then;
>8 aircraft deployed to mountain home.
>88 of 88 sorties accomplished
>94% accuracy weapon deployment.
>0 losses to aggressor F-15Es
>>30429987
6000FH, although the Danes also conducted a hypothetical on if the Super Hornet could do 8000FH and it was still a bit more expensive.
>>30430252
So the SH, Rafale and EF2000 is rated to 6000?
>Danes also conducted a hypothetical on if the Super Hornet could do 8000FH and it was still a bit more expensive.
Didnt Canada plan on doing this with their CF-18s?
>>30429610
Jack of all trades master of none, better than the master of one?
>>30429610
People said the same shit about the F-4 Phantom and those remained in service for over thirty fucking years.
>b-but it's too multirole
>it's too big
>the fancy electronics won't help!
>missiles are a fad, burger, superior russian guns will win))))
Literally all said about the Phantom and all categorically false by the end of Vietnam. Consider suicide.
>>30430271
Not sure about the Rafale, but yes for the Super Hornet and Typhoon.
Canada is looking to extend the lives of their CF-18s, but it's nothing special; many aircraft across many fleets have received life extensions, they just don't factor in to these discussions because they're an added optional cost; usually in the ballpark of $5-10 million per extra thousand hours.
They do it by deconstructing aircraft, manufacturing new copies of highly-stressed structural components (on the Hornets, they primarily replace the centre barrel of the fuselage) and then rebuild the aircraft. Doing all of that requires limited-production runs of very costly and specialised components (ordering ~60 sets of very large, CNC machined aluminium or titanium billets) and also considerable factory space and expertise in order to rebuild the core of the aircraft.
>>30427807
>It's just a liberal thing
Far from it.
It is a financial engineering this where L-M has placed large orders in each and every state thus securing the unwavering loyalty of senators. you just cannot kill this project.
Blackbird was as much a technological leap as this, if not more, and was executed in less than a decade.
>>30429937
>airframe being rated for 8000 flight hours makes it a cheaper fighter than the Superhornet
A huge assumption that L-M won't write down the life time. You know, the way they recently did with F-16.
>>30430362
>Blackbird was as much a technological leap as this, if not more, and was executed in less than a decade.
The F-35 has the Same X/Y plane first flight to IOC time frame as the F-22, suck it Spreyfag. The Blackbird is brute force engineering.
>>30430391
Lockheed already have written down the lifetime; it's 8000FHs, which is meant to equate to about 30 years of service. They've already tested and verified that the airframe can last 8000FHs, they even test it to 2 or 3x its lifespan to figure out what parts are the weakest links to fatigue and how a service life extension might one day be implemented. Last I recall, testing was at >12,000 flight hours.
>>30429502
I recognize this debunked pasta and image.
>>30430418
>written down
OK. For commercial reasons they will not announce writedowns unless absolutely necessary at this stage and then as late as possible and when expedient. The F-16 writedown was quite recent and convenient as it pushes F-16 users over to F-35. It is not as if they have many choices.
>>30430421
Debunked? Israel has already openly criticised the stealth capacity as has someone in Australia. Also public images of F-35 show a blue jet out of the engine and that has to light up something awesome in thermal IR.
The F35 deserves no more hate than any other highly developed 5th gen fighter. Creating technology like this isn't cheap and it isn't something that can be done in a year or two. The F-22 was 20 years in the making realistically with billions poured into development. Once we start actually using them the complaints stop.
![ab9ca2831b9e503d02a618eb2d22e8d0[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ZWJzrVi.jpg "ab9ca2831b9e503d02a618eb2d22e8d0[1].jpg")
>>30430449
>Also public images of F-35 show a blue jet out of the engine and that has to light up something awesome in thermal IR.
Fuck off with this IR Stealth meme already.
>>30430449
[citation needed]
![5377489450_64cc1fcd4a[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/pJ73FpB.jpg "5377489450_64cc1fcd4a[1].jpg")
>>30430436
Woops, misread your comment. Since when have F-16s been written down? The fleet is old and they were only rated originally for 4000FH, with SLEPs extending that.
>>30430449
>Some random shared an opinion, therefore I'm right.
Also, link to Israel's criticisms?
All engines show a blue jet under the right lighting circumstances; hell, I've seen an Embaer 190 (an airliner) shoot blue flame out of its central turbine exhaust when the shadows were dark enough.
http://www.aiirsource.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/magnificent-f-22-raptor-night-ta-1280x768.jpg
https://cdn1.lockerdome.com/uploads/8859ab256730ed614ce27f83a65951d2eecf43cc95449c538bdbcabc820cc7d9_large
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/US_Navy_050715-N-4843B-027_An_F-A-18F_Super_Hornet_oes_to_full_afterburner_prior_to_launching_off_the_flight_deck_during_night_flight_operations.jpg
>>30430449
Are you fucking retarded? Of course engaging your afterburner or going to military power is going to light up thermal. You could see that shit from the back of an F22 as well... assuming they are flying low enough for you to even spot them.
>pic related
What really matters when trying to get the drop on the enemy is engine blade hiding. That's why the F-35 has two S-Duct intakes. You cant see the engine at all on radar or thermal or otherwise.
>>30430487
>I have no clue but I would like to sound cool.
Sorry the world does not live up to your fantasy land. Deal with it.
>>30430490
>[citation needed]
From the Wiki on F-35:
>An IAF official stated that while the stealth of the F-35 in its current form will be overcome in 5–10 years, the aircraft will be in service for 30–40 years, and that is the reason that Israel insisted on the ability to make its own changes to the aircraft's electronic warfare systems.[59]
>>30430505
>Since when have F-16s been written down?
Trolling? It is just a few weeks since I wrote about it and sourced it.
>>30430505
>>Some random shared an opinion, therefore I'm right.
>Also, link to Israel's criticisms?
Already did.
>All engines show a blue jet under the right lighting circumstances; hell, I've seen an Embaer 190 (an airliner) shoot blue flame out of its central turbine exhaust when the shadows were dark enough.
Are we seriously comparing the stealth of F-35 with an airliner??
>>30430512
>going to military power is going to light up thermal
Thank you for breaking down and confessing.
>What really matters when trying to get the drop on the enemy is engine blade hiding.
That is the problem with the stealth discussions here: people having a one tracked mind discussing RF stealth ONLY. Really guys, stealth is about a lot more than that including audio.
>>30430362
>Blackbird was as much a technological leap as this, if not more, and was executed in less than a decade.
The Blackbird was also developed during the middle of the cold war, where both the left and right would throw dosh at whatever would give them the leg up on the soviets. It's kinda hard to push that tech through on the current premise of it being used to bomb mudhuts in shitholestan, which our current fleet is more than capable of.
>>30432303
>Sorry the world does not live up to your fantasy land. Deal with it.
You mean the not-fantasy world were pretty much everybody with some form of IRST is on even keel? It's not going to magically give the F-35 away unless the Russkies already have a rear angle on them.
>An IAF official stated that while the stealth of the F-35 in its current form will be overcome in 5–10 years, the aircraft will be in service for 30–40 years, and that is the reason that Israel insisted on the ability to make its own changes to the aircraft's electronic warfare systems.[59]
So, completely unrelated to stealth and more about Israel wanting to update its own avionics and comms.
>lots of "I'm right because I said so" BS cut
>Are we seriously comparing the stealth of F-35 with an airliner??
You seem to think RF stealth is a meme and that IR stealth is a thing. Might as well keep up the ridiculous comparisons.
>Thank you for breaking down and confessing.
>HERP DE DERP DE DERP!
>That is the problem with the stealth discussions here: people having a one tracked mind discussing RF stealth ONLY. Really guys, stealth is about a lot more than that including audio.
And IR requires you to be in visual range of the sensor, no force countering F-35 partner nations has the stealth or passive RF to compete past that. None of them even have 360x360, it's telescope systems.
The audio bit got a chuckle. As if that's of any real use, just like low band radars. "Hey, I think something's up there!"
>>30432391
>unless the Russkies already have a rear angle on them.
IR tech is improving all the time and getting cheaper. You even get it for cell phones these days. And you don't need to be directly behind, anywhere in the rear hemisphere will do for supercruise and the visibility cone will get bigger with afterburner.
>So, completely unrelated to stealth
Except that it IS related to stealth. Or do you profess to know more about this and dismiss IAF?
>You seem to think RF stealth is a meme and that IR stealth is a thing. Might as well keep up the ridiculous comparisons.
Garbage. Try reading again.
>And IR requires you to be in visual range of the sensor, no force countering F-35 partner nations has the stealth or passive RF to compete past that. None of them even have 360x360, it's telescope systems.
What do you know about this? Really?
>The audio bit got a chuckle.
I am sure. Occasionally Germans also laughed. Just because it is old it doesn't mean it stopped working. Especially as F-35 is causing noise problems at airports where F-16 is already operating.
Today's solutions are a lot more advanced than the picture.
Have you ever served?
>>30433010
>I am full of shit: the post
>>30427770
they are so god damn pretty to look at though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLnR2AdG850
>>30428869
>F35
>Ugly
It's like you have no taste, anon.
>>30429610
>The F-35 is a jack of all trades
So is the F-14D, F-15E, F-16C, F/A-18C and E, F-4, Su-35, J-17, J-31, J-20, Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon and on and on.
This argument is retarded and it needs to die a slow, painful death.
>>30433393
F-35 is in with the times. As in overweight.
Back in the 60's they really know how to make an elegant craft that could fly with impunity. Pic. related.
>>30433718
>All that fuel sprayed across until the panels got hot enough to seal up
The Blackbird is a testament to Brute Force engineering. The F-22 and F-35 are what you get when you can model aerodynamics with extreme precision.
>>30433718
>waaaaaah
>I have to prove this aircraft is combat ineffective because it offends my aesthetic taste
>waaaaaaaaaaaah
fuck off.
>>30434090
Still no taste?
>>30434173
>taste is objective
What are you, 12 years old? Autistic?
>>30434173
Your taste exemplifies its subjective nature.
>>30430449
>as has someone in Australia
why dont you say his name, fucboi?
>>30434208
Nope. Just amused. I have served and I have worked in the defence industry including on sensor work. The level of denial and autism here is amazing.
>>30434541
>I have served and I have worked in the defence industry including on sensor work.
Does your dad also work at Nintendo?
>>30433010
Its only like 1 db louder then th F-16 tho
>>30434541
Then put up, OPSEC permitting, or shut up
>>30432303
>Trolling? It is just a few weeks since I wrote about it and sourced it.
Sorry I don't spend every waking breath on /k/; dig out the source again?
>Already did.
One IAF official doesn't mean all that much; you want to be referring to their strategic policies and CONOPS primarily. Not much is going to change in 5-10 years in terms of radar capability and what actually gets fielded. The Israelis certainly won't have to worry about much more than Su-30s, S300s and maybe S400s in their region. in that period; sounds to me the 5-10 figure was pulled out his ass during an on-the-spot interview.
>Are we seriously comparing the stealth of F-35 with an airliner??
Yes, because it points out how dumb it is to use flame colour as a measurement of IR stealth.
>Really guys, stealth is about a lot more than that including audio.
Technically true, but lol - there's a reason RF stealth is the primary focus for engineers, and that reason rhymes with rejection strange.
>>30435128
>One IAF official doesn't mean all that much; you want to be referring to their strategic policies and CONOPS primarily. Not much is going to change in 5-10 years in terms of radar capability and what actually gets fielded. The Israelis certainly won't have to worry about much more than Su-30s, S300s and maybe S400s in their region. in that period; sounds to me the 5-10 figure was pulled out his ass during an on-the-spot interview.
And even in 40-50 years the laws of physics aren't going to change, or somehow make stealth completely irrelevant.
All the memes posted here sounds like I should try to go naval aviation and not get the VTOL f35 the muhreens have
>>30429464
>Congressman McCain and Representative McSally
Both pretty damn liberal republicans
>>30433010
>IR tech is improving all the time and getting cheaper.
IF it develops into something that is comparable to Radar, all that does is force the next gen plane to incorporate far more IR reducing features
The plane of the future is probably a bigger subsonic platform which will mount lasers & powerful radars
>>30438601
But then you can't land it in your driveway when you go home
![landscape-1450212484-sixth-generationa-fighter-concept-northrop-ngad-1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/F4YJAi3.jpg "landscape-1450212484-sixth-generationa-fighter-concept-northrop-ngad-1[1].jpg")
>>30439140
F/E/B-21 when
>>30440127
Soon™
>>30440425
Give it about five to ten years for a development program and flyoff - sooner if shit looks like it could hit the fan or some other unexpected development takes place and creates an urgent need for new and advanced weapons.
>>30440436
Hey, they are saying about 10 years to OIC, which is basically lightspeed for mil development, if they dont have flying demonstrator/prototype.
Basically, they have a flying demonstrator/prototype we dont know about. Well 2, one design lost.
>>30440453
>Basically, they have a flying demonstrator/prototype we dont know about. Well 2, one design lost.
Not likely. It's much more likely that any new aircraft will make extensive use of existing technologies, and will have fewer systems to develop and integrate.
>>30440480
>"I buy the USAF line that they are skipping demonstrator/prototype phase because muh COTS"
Hey man, if you belive it then more power to you. I simply dont.
There have been too many sightings of unknown planes in the last 5 or so years (over texas, than kansas) that perfectly matches the profile of the B-21.
The fact that they are completely skipping demonstration phase for this procurement, COTS/mature tech or not, proves this.
Now this is where you say, YOU HAVE NO HARD PROOF, and you are right, i dont. But lack of evidence does not prove the plane does not exist. The stealth blackhawk did not have any real proof until its tail ended up in OBLs flower garden.
>>30440453
>>30440512
The point is they can take existing RAM, incrementally updated sensors/electronics/materials, use 2 f-35 engines, use a bulk of already written programming, etc
As long as they aren't spending years developing new technologies, it's not hard to just build a plane.
>>30441235
Probably use ADVENT engines rather than F135s.
>>30441302
Planning vehicles on paper engines is how you get 20 year development delays
>>30441317
>Paper engines
They've been running since last year.
>>30438601
All the Marines who have flown the B love it, and most of them have come from the harrier shitshow.
>>30442503
Pilots adore any aircraft they're allowed to fly. You don't really get to complain about it either way.
>>30442525
Alright, let me expand;
>Marine pilots love the F-35B more than the harrier because of its ease of use and far greater capabilities.
>>30442557
This. That's what people miss in all the F-35 shitposting. The pilots coming up from AV-8Bs, legacy F/A-18Cs, F-16s? Those guys LOVE this jet. It might take them several months of flying it, especially the older pilots, before they start clicking with the 5th gen mindset and way to fight, but every driver I've run across that has been flying it more than four or five months has a permanent hard on so big doors open for them half a minute before they get to them.
All this argument about what a 5th gen should be? That's all leftover fighter mafia/Pierre Sprey stirred bullshit still swirling from the 4th gen design process back in the 70's. It's an argument emphatically ended by Desert Storm. It's an argument made by old men struggling to protect a legacy they feel should be theirs, but never will be.
cont
>>30442806
We needed a fighter to replace the legacy bugs, harriers and vipers. We needed it to reflect how we fight now and in the future. We needed it to be survivable. And we needed it to be better than what came before it. Let's look at what we got:
>the most network and sensor integrated aircraft ever produced, with heavy processing and prioritizing so pilot workload is actually much lower than a 4th gen with 1/10th the information
>the most sophisticated collection of A2G, A2A and RWR/EW sensors in an aircraft outside an AWACS or JSTARS.
>swarm sensor integration - all pilots see what all the other pilots, AWACS, munitions and sensors see. Information goes EVERYWHERE, nearly automatically, and is presented in easily understood symbology with confidence factors automatically
>in an airframe made very survivable by the best of current VLO standards: excellent passive sensors, tiny RCS, IR reduction and heat reservoirs, LPI active sensors and LPI high-bandwidth comms
>all of this in a fighter with at least 1.5 times the combat radius with internal fuel of its predecessors carrying bags, equal or better AoA to a bug, better combat-loaded acceleration than a viper, far better and safer STOVL systems than a harrier, excellent responsiveness and maneuverability, a quantum leap forward in cockpit/battle task flow, reduced pilot workload and finally cheap enough to build in the numbers required to actually replace all these airframes
This shit is a no brainer.
It's a flying piano, guys
>https://www.traditionalright.com/the-view-from-olympus-a-useful-airplane-and-a-useless-airplane/
>>30442817
>https://www.traditionalright.com/the-view-from-olympus-a-useful-airplane-and-a-useless-airplane/
>Lind
>in July 2014
How desperate are you? Why don't you find a recent and actually credible article bitching about it now that it's hitting IOC. One with actual program insight that isn't an obsolete fossil masturbating on A-10 and Su-25 models while watching simulations of Fulda Gap armor columns in the 1980's.
>>30442817
>https://www.traditionalright.com/the-view-from-olympus-a-useful-airplane-and-a-useless-airplane/
>Its design is so poor as a fighter that, with a wing loading higher than that of the infamous F-105 and a less than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio, it is a flying piano.
So... he doesn't know what body lift is, has no clue about how T/W ratio actually works when looking at an aircraft with such massive internal fuel tanks, and judges the usefulness of all aircraft against the BCM benchmarks which dominated 4th gen design all while ignoring the simple fact that the F-35 has better BCM characteristics than any of it's predecessors.
Why is he commenting on military aircraft again? He clearly doesn't know his asshole from a hole in the ground.
>>30442817
>>https://www.traditionalright.com/the-view-from-olympus-a-useful-airplane-and-a-useless-airplane/
>it is useless as a bomber because airstrikes, no matter how successful technically and tactically, defeat the power carrying them out at the moral level
I got that far and had to stop reading. What a fucking idiot.
>>30442817
>>https://www.traditionalright.com/the-view-from-olympus-a-useful-airplane-and-a-useless-airplane/
>it is useless as a bomber because airstrikes, no matter how successful technically and tactically, defeat the power carrying them out at the moral level
Holy fucking kek
>>30442865
you should keep reading. it only gets cookier. this is the defense analyst equivalent of that crazy old fuck in his undershirt spraying passing kids on the street with his garden hose and screaming at them to stay off his lawn.
>>30442888
like this gem
>For wars between states, the F-35 is useless not only because it is a turkey but because we should not be planning to fight more wars with other states. The losing state will tend to disintegrate into another stateless region, which is a greater danger to us and to all other states than was the state we were fighting.
super cereal guys, we shouldn't prepare for conventional wars anymore because they're a bad idea, mkay?
>>30433662
None of those are built around VTOL/STOVL capabilities. No one has yet built a VTOL plane that is an effective supersonic fighter.
>>30434941
>Then put up, OPSEC permitting, or shut up
I already have.
And OPSEC has in reality changed a lot the last 30 years. Technology even available for civilian use is now so advanced that we are often just limited by the laws of physics. Knowledge is also no longer esoteric but available to the general public too.
This means that if you want to do IR detection you will be limited to a few very specific bands where the atmosphere is transparent.
>Near IR about 1 um can see very hot things. Get a Raspberry Pi and PINoIR and you can test this for yourself very cheaply.
>Mid IR is 3 - 5 um where you can see exhaust. This is old sensor tech, like GaAs, quantum wells etc. Often uncooled but works well enough as long as the target is really hot.
>Long IR is 10 - 13 um where you see body temperature range of heat. This requires more exotic stuff, all of which is known, like bolometers, CMT etc. And the funny thing is that defence R&D establishments across the world publish scientific articles on this openly.
Also this is moving into civilian tech with Seek IR and FLIR One. More is coming with the pedestrian detection for cars, already in some expensive European cars. https://youtu.be/GkvaUX8AXAA
So the premise is very much given by the laws of physics. And we know quite a bit from public pictures. And the hot exhaust is a problem in most aspects except from head on.
I can accept that F-35 has good microwave stealth. However leaving other emissions open will null this advantage.
The other issue, again not under OPSEC, is that radars are continuously improved and will soon have phase noise so low you can measure wind shear in huge volumes of air. Meant for weather measurements it can also be used to detect fast objects in the air.
>>30443005
So. Even though the F-35B has better combat radius, AoA performance and combat loaded acceleration than an F-18C or F-16 (not to mention the sensor fusion or VLO shit), it's somehow an ineffective supersonic fighter? What the literal fuck.
Do you even think about the shit you're typing? Or are you really just that ignorant?
>>30427770
>From what you've seen on /k/, the T-14 is armored with sheet metal and muh jack in the box.
Fact: it's designed to jack-in-the-box without harming the crew. This is literally it's version of blowout panels. Russia should be congratulated for finally getting the memo about ammo isolation.
>From what you've seen on /k/, China's massive naval catch-up is laughable and should be blithely ignored, because lolchinks can't do anything right, right?
Fact: the stereotypical Chinese (low)quality does not apply to PLA items. They get good shit. And they don't need to magically have a Chinese equivalent of the USN overnight, just to be a geopolitical force that needs to be watched and countered seriously.
>From what you've seen on /k/, warships need to go back to carrying heavy armor and using guns as their primary armament.
Fact: passive armor and damage control have not made the kind of advances that active defenses have made over the past 5 decades. This trend shows no sign of reversing; passive armor and enhanced damage control are largely dead ends.
>I need you guys to educate me.Why the hate for the f35? I don't know much about planes, but from what I've seen on /k/, it apparently sucks.
Basically, haters and contrarians are everywhere, and they are driven by an emotional feeling of being right and superior. Here on /k/ you have to get a keen eye for spotting juvenile arguments, poorly supported arguments, and ass-pull. There's a lot of actual interesting discussion here too.
>>30443036
>And OPSEC has in reality changed a lot the last 30 years. Technology even available for civilian use is now so advanced that we are often just limited by the laws of physics. Knowledge is also no longer esoteric but available to the general public too.
So. You don't even know what OPSEC means, yet were supposedly a DoD contractor working on advanced sensor systems?
What a fucking bullshit artist.
>>30442834
>>30442857
>>30442865
>>30442888
>>30442899
I'm joking. The thread yesterday exposed me to the gift that keeps on giving that is Lind
>>30427770
After it's been developed it'll probably wind up being considered as a good airplane. Then it's critics will forget all the shit they said here.
>>30443036
That's not what OPSEC means. You're full of shit, Mr. """DOD Contractor"""
>>30443079
>After it's been developed it'll probably wind up being considered as a good airplane. Then it's critics will forget all the shit they said here.
Just like the F-16, F-15, F-14, F-4, F-8, etc, etc. All these kids that have only seen major development projects in the internet age somehow think the same exact shit wasn't screamed in the press about the F-16 or F-15 or their beloved F-14. Just silly.
>>30429464
>The two biggest and most vocal A-10 stronkers in the government, Congressman McCain and Representative McSally, are both Republicans.
The biggest BBwankers in the '80s were Republicans as well. Being Repub doesn't make you immune to pork addiction, technical naivete, or alzheimers.
>>30443129
>Being Repub doesn't make you immune to pork addiction, technical naivete, or alzheimers.
Kek.
Truer words and all that.
>>30442806
As LtCol. Berke put it, for legacy pilots transitioning there's the first week or so where you're starstruck by it, then about 6 months of frustration as those old habits from 4th Gen keep fucking you up, then it finally clicks and it's amazing again.
Rookie pilots in 5th Gen get it immediately.
>>30443036
Fucking lel.
How embarassing for you.
>>30434253
>why dont you say his name
Because I am quite fine with some autism. It is just the Tourettes I cannot handle.
>>30435128
>dig out the source again?
OK. The trollage level is awesome in here but on the chance you are sincere:
http://www.tu.no/artikler/da-det-ble-oppdaget-kritisk-feil-pa-et-norsk-f-16-satte-usa-82-fly-pa-bakken/347331
It is quite readable through Google translate. In essence: design lifetime was 8000 hours but structural failure is seen in a fleet having an average age of 6000 hours. A component surrounding the cockpit is no longer defined as fail safe.
>One IAF official doesn't mean all that much;
Really, how come?
> Not much is going to change in 5-10 years in terms of radar capability
Having worked for quite a few years on this field I would very much like to know what you base this on.
>and what actually gets fielded.
Fielded in the West, that I can buy. The story behind IRIS-T suggests military fielding take place when there is an urgent sense of a gap having opened.
>Yes, because it points out how dumb it is to use flame colour as a measurement of IR stealth.
Please explain.
>Technically true, but lol - there's a reason RF stealth is the primary focus for engineers, and that reason rhymes with rejection strange.
An adversary needs just one mistake to get around the stealth issue. As a defence contractor you sell what the customer demands. Having served in uniform I am not comfortable about pilots relying on stealth that is not compete.
>>30443054
>yet were supposedly a DoD contractor
And where did I state that?
Nowhere, it is.
I work in Europe. We did not supply L-M.
You see that is your problem throughout: you make a lot of assumptions. You think you know things. You blare out with no reservations. Often wrong; never in doubt.
>>30443081
Another thinks DOD is the entire world. You are amusing.
>>30443543
Still haven't explained why you have no clue what OPSEC means
>>30443543
trying to red herring away from not knowing what opsec meant?
>>30429502
>The F-135 gives a huge IR signature and all Russian fighter jets have IRST that they can use to detect the heat emission's from the F-35's engine.
>Yfw Russian IRST with a range of 20km isn't that great.
Then you gotta factor in weather and F-35 having the best IR stealth of any modern fighter.
Face the fact, the F-35 is the premier 5th generation fighters with the greatest sensor tech and radar/IR stealth. There's no competition.
>>30427770
Do you realize what you've done op
>>30443712
>>30443722
Still dodging. Still blaring. And still having absolutely no clue.
>>30428722
This is the only post in this thread that should have been made.
>>30444823
I've made two posts in this thread, anon.
The only one "dodging" here is you.
>>30445188
You expect low-info shitposters to actually read stuff and learn things? Do you know where you are?
>>30427770
I fucking love you OP, 15/10 Bait. Look at 'em go!
The F35 is good, honestly the hate is just a meme here.
