So now that the dust has settled and the F-35 has proven to be one of the most capable combat aircraft ever designed, can we all agree that /k/s hateboner for it over the past 5 years has been completely misplaced?
>>30490388
>proven
>>30490388
Only "proven" that counts is "battle proven". So, anon, which battle has it proven itself in?
>>30490388
>proven
>>30490388
"proven" to have cost so much it killed several other programs?
"proven" to be "the cheap" F-16 replacement so expensive your allies can't even afford the amount they need to replace their F-16s?
>>30490439
>>30490468
>>30490475
>>30490493
Goddamnit, people...
>>30490388
AHAHAHA AHHA HHAHHAHAH AHAHHAH AHA Topkek!
Trollvomited/10
>>30490493
>"proven" to be "the cheap" F-16 replacement so expensive your allies can't even afford the amount they need to replace their F-16s?
None of them replaced their F-4s, A-4s, F-104s, F-100s etc with an equal number of F-16s or F-18s. None of them replaced their F-100s, F-84s or F-86s with an equal number of F-4s or F-16s. And on and on. Planes have gotten a lot more expensive with each successive generation. They get more sophisticated, and have an exponentially greater number of systems and parts. On the flip side, they've also gotten exponentially more capable: they cover far more ground, see far further and can strike from much further out. Deal with it.
>>30490388
/k/ seems to stopped worrying and love the Lightning over the last 2-3 years
Its going to have one of the best combat records in history. Its miles away from the nearest working competitors.
But you can still hate it for the cost overruns and delays.
>>30492942
And for performing under the requirements of what was proposed...
>>30492327
strangelove reference. /k/ post in it's exact best form. /k/uddos to you.
>>30493013
Name a single military system developed in the last 60 years with significant technology risk that met every one of the proposed benchmarks in the early program proposal. Meanwhile, I'll start listing military programs just in the US which either never met intended benchmarks, were marked by severe cost overruns or met them much, much later, yet became some of the more excellent and combat effective platforms of their respective classes:
>F-111
>F-14
>F-15
>F-16
>F-18
>F-22
>B-1
>B-2
>M1 Abrams
>Bradley Fighting Vehicle
>Burke class destroyer
>Seawolf class SSN
>Virginia class SSN
>Wasp class LHD
Those are just the more recent ones, and not even including the myriad of support and logistics platforms. I can list dozens more, going all the way back before WWI.
The point is that, especially with more modern projects with more technology risk, it takes a long time to bring a project in. Over that time period, things change, including budget, technology integration feasibility, mission needs, production capability, etc etc.
If you think a project that takes 30 years to make has to look exactly like what was put on paper in the beginning to be successful, you're either stunningly naive or flat retarded.
>>30493121
Hate to correct you there, but the Virginias were actually under budget and delivered ahead of projections, all with the same performance it was promised.
Although, that was partly because the Navy gave higher estimates for cost after the Seawolfs, and Congress just accepted it because they think that's how much subs cost.
>>30493287
>Hate to correct you there, but the Virginias were actually under budget and delivered ahead of projections, all with the same performance it was promised.
They did not reach targeted budget until severe cost reduction measures were enacted. The modular construction plan, several of the technologies and the two-yard plan all initially caused overrun issues. The initial deliveries were also late, compared to early project projections. Now, 12 boats into the program, they're coming in consistently under budget by 5-10% per boat and as much as months ahead of schedule, each successive boat. It's doing very well, just like the later production run Burkes. Furthermore, early Virginias had many teething issues, including things like having to repair/replace ENTIRE an-echoic tiling surrounds for the hulls due to tile degradation. The USN was able to do this with relatively little operational impact, but it illustrates that the program was not without significant hiccups, like all big projects. Even today, as they're building the Block III boats, they're having hiccups with the new LAB array and other issues that come with a 40% redesign of the bow compared to Block II boats.
The Virginias are a perfect example of what happens when you don't write a project with problems off, and instead work to apply the most efficient solutions to it. The added pressure with the VA class was the simple fact that if they fucked it up, not only would the USN not have a replacement for all those 688s at the end of their reactor/service lives, but they wouldn't have money for the Ohio replacement program.
>>30490388
No.
I never hated it because it didn't perform as well as the planes it replaced. I dislike it because it replaces multiple aircraft with a more boring airframe.
It's part of the broader trend of things getting more capable and less interesting. You see it in airliners too.
>>30490388
I do think the F35 is a decent aircraft, but proven? Where?
Are you talking about the transatlantic flight it made? That's no proof.
>>30490388
fuck you and your Lemon.
The f35 will get better with each block. Nobody was screaming for Rafales and Typhoons when they first came out.
>>30494026
Don't fuck lemons, you might get citrus in urethra.
>>30494122
You don't fuck citrus? It's the best way to wake up. The sting is bracing in the morning. Nothing says ATTACK THE DAY like, "oh my god my dick is on fire!"
>>30490388
>proven
Proven to be a monumental waste of money. Cheaper options would have been just as effective in the real world and not behind schedule.
>>30494184
nice meme. tell me, what else being currently produced in the "real world" has the same capabilities for the same money.
>>30494158
>>30494122
Only way to rise and shin. Only faggots don't squirt citrus into their urethra every morning right before their sriracha enema.
>>30494210
>Implying all the capabilities are needed against its current adversaries or possible adversaries in the immediate future.
>Implying that cheaper options would not have still been effective against anything currently in the skies
>Implying that we have hostile relations with any country that is even a remote threat to our current fleet
>Implying that by the time anything becomes a threat to it it will still be relevant.
Yea, way to fall for the F35 meme, buddy...
>>30494232
>sriracha enema.
Pussy. If you were a man, you'd just dice up a few ghost peppers, stuff em in for the day and then do squats and deadlifts until you can't feel your left nut. That's how a real man girds his loins for the day.
>>30494286
see >>30490570
>>30490578
>>30490610
>>30491183
and kindly figure out how to not be such an intellectually lazy and naive child.
Coasting along and saying shit like, "it's good enough, nothing's out there to challenge us, why bother," is a good way to make like the French at Agincourt. Or the Prince of Wales and Repulse in Dec. 1941. Or the Japanese starting in late 1942. Or the Iraqis in 1991.
Fuck outta here with your weak shit. Read a book. Learn something.
>>30494292
Everyone knows the pepper suppositories are integral to it, goes with out saying, but:
>ghost peppers
Yea, maybe when you run out of manly peppers and have to borrow some from your little sister. Real men know that the best morning suppositories are made from Carolina Reaper peppers, purred to a thick paste, and slathered all over a pine cone.
Seriously, get your testicles out of your boyfriends purse, faggot.
>>30494409
>purred to a thick paste, and slathered all over a pine cone.
Bro, do u even peppository?
Dried. Ground. And inserted with Sweet Gum pods.
Fucking amateur hour around here.
>>30494347
Diffrence is there are literally no powers who can even touch our current force. It would be much better to build it in 5-10 years when we know what are threats are and technology advances further, making it cheaper or better. I am not saying say fuck it, I am saying we blew trillions on something better, but something we have no need for when we could have bought better shit better suited to the need as the need arises.
It is not like we would be giving up our superiority by not building it, and we have intelligence on a international level that will let us know when there is a threat that we need to start building better shit to respond to.
>>30494532
>It would be much better to build it in 5-10 years when
>we could have bought better shit better suited to the need as the need arises.
You're a fucking moron. All that means is that the F-35 project would have started in 1998 instead of 1993, and it would not have looked substantially different at all.
It literally took us 23 years to get here, and that's only if you don't include the precursor programs that got folded into the JSF. You wanna wait until the threats "reveal themselves"? Fucking great. Then what? Ask them to wait another 25 fucking years while we build something to counter them?
Just how stupid are you?
>>30494597
Literally what use do we have for this jet?
Literally what nation could attack us that we would not notice gearing up?
What other nation or group of nations even comes close to use militarily, especially when it comes to air superiority?
Literally what need does this fill that we are unable to currently preform?
>>30490388
>>30494532
The F-35 is going to be continually upgraded over the years to deal with new threats, and if you're saying we should've began the entire JSF program in the 2020s it'd take another decade or so for it to bear fruit, at which point people would still be accusing it of being complete overkill for its contemporary threats while being inadequate for future threats.
>>30494706
>Literally what use do we have for this jet?
Most of our F-16s, almost all of our legacy bugs and harriers have exhausted useful airframe life. It would cost far more for far, far less benefit to rebuild all those planes and get them another 4,000 hours for the next decade than it would to build the F-35s for the next 30 years.
>Literally what nation could attack us that we would not notice gearing up?
You're saying we could build 2,500 F-35s in the maybe 6 months we might have if we push the button at the first sign of trouble? That's how much time we had in 1991. And, what, we're just not going to use our carriers or LHD/LHAs in the meantime? Have no capability to strike in regional flareups or enforce no fly zones? What the literal fuck is wrong with you?
>What other nation or group of nations even comes close to use militarily, especially when it comes to air superiority?
If we have to go to China or we have to fight Russia in the Baltics or Eastern Europe with what we have right now, we'd lose a lot of jets. A lot of pilots. A ton of assets. You know how we avoid that? You know how we repeat 1991 against any and all comers? WE STAY AHEAD OF THE CURVE, FUCKHEAD.
>Literally what need does this fill that we are unable to currently preform?
What did the F-15, F-14, F-16 or F-18 fulfill that the F-4, F-106, F-105, F-111, F-104, A-4, A-7 or F-8 couldn't? Use your fucking head for just a minute.
>>30494819
Teh f15 was sexy as fuck and went zoom zoom really fast?
>>30494896
Exactly. It was a huge upgrade. It set the standard for air superiority for 40 years. If we'd all thought like >>30494706 in 1945, we might still be flying P-51Ds and speaking a lot more Russian around here.
>>30494819
>That's how much time we had in 1991
Iraq was never an existential threat to the United States.
America could've beaten Iraq with Vietnam era equipment.
>>30496807
>America could've beaten Iraq with Vietnam era equipment.
At a vast cost in US life and materiel. Not to mention the cost of lost training and death benefits for all those downed airmen, marines and soldiers. Which you clearly couldn't be fucked to care about.
>>30496915
>At a vast cost in US life and materiel.
Ha.
At a higher cost, but almost certainly less than the development cost of the new equipment. (Quantifying the value of a life in purely government-financial terms.)
We didn't develop the F-15 to bomb Iraq. We didn't need the F-15 to bomb Iraq. We built the F-15 to kill Soviets. We're already ahead of the curve, and while we can quite certainly continue to build on that there does eventually come a point where your only potential enemies are so fucking shitty that it becomes criminal mal-investment to develop a superfighter and then use it to bomb Syrians with nothing but AK-47s.*
*Note that this hypothetical superfighter is not necessarily the F-35.
>Which you clearly couldn't be fucked to care about.
If one is in the business of saving lives, throwing billions at the military while ignoring domestic issues (or even foreign aid) is a very quaint way to go about it, and I'm no dove.
>>30496961
>We didn't develop the F-15 to bomb Iraq. We didn't need the F-15 to bomb Iraq. We built the F-15 to kill Soviets. We're already ahead of the curve, and while we can quite certainly continue to build on that there does eventually come a point where your only potential enemies are so fucking shitty that it becomes criminal mal-investment to develop a superfighter and then use it to bomb Syrians with nothing but AK-47s.*
You are completely ignoring all the conflicts the US avoided simply by virtue of having platforms like the F-15. But, hey, can't expect deep insight when arguing with children.
>>30490388
>proven
Get 100+ kills then we'll talk fuccboi
>>30496991
>You are completely ignoring all the conflicts the US avoided simply by virtue of having platforms like the F-15.
Because my primary point was about their actual necessity in practice, and not their deterrent value. There are alternative options when it comes to deterrence.
I'm very curious as to what conflict you think the F-15 prevented that the Minuteman did not, however, given the F-15 wasn't enough to deter what was at one point the fourth largest army in the world :^)
>>30497020
>I'm very curious as to what conflict you think the F-15 prevented that the Minuteman did not, however, given the F-15 wasn't enough to deter what was at one point the fourth largest army in the world
Paging Oppenheimer. Paging Oppenheimer.
It's hilarious that there are still idiots on /k/ who do not understand the difference in applicability and strategy between nuclear deterrence and conventional force balance deterrence. God bless the willfully ignorant.
>>30497039
It was a pithy way of throwing out "muh USSR", not a literal appeal to nukes. My general point is that the economic power of the USA (and the large armed force it maintains) is by far it's key asset. Even armed with MiGs, the USAF would be the world's best.
What country was so afraid of the F-15 in particular, instead of the general might of the USA as delivered by any aircraft, that it decided to hold back it's ambition? Go on. Just one. I'm sure you could find one.
Didn't scare Serbia much either...
>>30493441
Kek get a load of this nerd
Hey where'd you get that booklearnin faggot? Suck it out of Stephen hawkings limp dick?
The Failure 35 sucks. And will always suck.
>>30497000
Still kicked your ass uncle
>>30494026
>>30494286
>>30497678
And here we see last few Spreyites on /k/ as they journey though the Kübler-Ross model.
>Anger - When the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue, they become frustrated, especially at proximate individuals. Certain psychological responses of a person undergoing this phase would be: "It's a turkey!"; "How can this replace muh A-10?"; 'It's a Lemon!"; "Why would this happen?".
>>30493287
Sorry, but
>>30493441
is correct. VAs started out almost as expensive as -21s, for a lot less value. It was later that the magic of mass production, efficiencies of scale, and learning curves kicked in.
Which is what seems to be beginning to happen to the F-35, which is why a lot of anons are starting to jump on the bandwagon.
>>30492305
>Italy
>then
>Cold War
>F-84?
>fine
>F-86?
>fine
>Do you want the F-100?
>nope
>What about the F-5?
>Fuck off burger we now have the G-91 and some idgaf macchi something
>F-104?
>Yeah why not after all we have too many pilots
>F-16?
>Nah
>F-4?
>Eh...nah we have to pay royalties to mafia and politicians sorry
>F-15
>Busy bribing and btw we still have the F-104 and now we have the AMX too after all citizen are still making children and there is always a free seat in our coffings
>Le Tornado
>K now your fucking F-104 is dang too old...SO F-16?
>Nah just fetching surplus ADV from the bongs
>What about your fleet?
>Sure give me some AV-8B plenty of shores for our Marioins
>F-16 now?
>Oh wait let me check the Mirage 2000-5 first,oh nm we hate le frogs k need F-16
>Last block?Look at our catalogue
>Nah politicians are scalping us just ruin my shit and give me some forgotten ADF and add Aim-120 compatibility cause there too many seagulls around
>We EF-2000 now!!!
>Oh fuck to expensive
>Want some F-35?
>Nah
>But peace comes with a price
>Ok after all we made another carrier for the rapefugees,count me in cause we'll be in the need of bombing towel heads
>Nope,you can't bomb towel heads with our equipment,we must give you the greenlight first
>B-but
>Shut up Mario and enjoy the overpriced boulder
mfw
>>30499321
It's the circle of life.
