Is your country involved in this project? How do you feel about it?
UK yes. I admire the versatility of jump-jets so I feel good about it.
>100
MOOAARRR
Nope, nothing really.
Plus, why spend so much on a plane that seems to have many problems? Better wait till they finish the program(if they do).
Isn't been hacked by some Chinese las week btw?
Umm...i want to have sex.
Pic related, recent picture of UK RAF F-35B
>>57026090
>Plus, why spend so much on a plane that seems to have many problems?
It has problems because it's new technology. Pioneering aircraft always have problems in development.
>>57026092
Who doesn't.
>>57026204
I know, but i always see so many threads pointing so many problems and links, links and more links about it.
Seems kind of a waste.
>>57026353
>I know, but i always see so many threads pointing so many problems and links, links and more links about it.
The frequency of 4chan threads concerning a topic indicates nothing. Judging something based on how it's discussed on 4chan is one of the most stupid things you can do.
A non-idiot would read about the F-35's development problems on respected defence news websites, compare to past innovative programmes to put it into context, and then judge like that.
>>57026565
The thing is those same respected news websites sasy the same.
Maybe it's because of nowadays internet that everybody knows everything.
Get us the frick off that image, it's 2016
>>57025996
jesus we are taking a fuckton of those per capita
>>57026798
>The thing is those same respected news websites sasy the same.
No, they do not say the same as 4chan. The people spamming links about the problems won't tell you about the recent story that the F-35's service life has been extended 6 years to 2070, or that the unit cost has started to fall dramatically.
You're ignoring what I said about context too. The F-16, Typhoon and pretty much every single major fighter programme in history that tried to advance technology was plagued with delays and extra costs.
Your logic seems to be: advancement is difficult so let's not bother. I think that way of thinking is absolutely pathetic, and it will lose you the next war because you'll hand the technological edge to your enemies.
>>57026971
>jesus we are taking a fuckton of those per capita
Because it will be your only fighter. The USA, UK, Turkey, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Korea, maybe others are getting the F-35 in addition to other fighters in the air force.
Australia will completely rely on the F-35 for all its fast fighter jet needs.
>>57025996
>2443
Jesus Christ.
>>57027197
>all those anglo flags
name a better civilisation protip you can't
>>57027197
>or that the unit price has fallen dramatically
>service life extended to 2070
Yeah it's easy to do that when you have massive cost overruns and delay the plane 6 years.
>>57027197
You sound autistic.
The program is delayed by 6 years and is still $30 million higher than the average unit price promised. And yes, these promises were why LM was chosen in the late 90's.
That's why people are mad.
>>57027707
>>57027812
Can you provide a source to back up the claim that the programme is delayed by 6 years? I know there have been extensive delays but after googling I can't find anything about 6 years
>>57028070
http://theweek.com/articles/605165/f35-still-horribly-broken
>The $56.4 billion development project for the aircraft should be completed in 2018 when the Block five configuration is expected to be delivered—several years late and considerably over budget.[92]
Original plans estimated 2010 as the IOC.
>>57029517
I make that 8 years not 6
France
No
hahahaha
Okay, so could someone explain why these jets have taken so long to develop, used up so much money, still aren't ready for use, and why the whole project wasn't abandoned years ago?
t. A confused Cucknadian
>>57031433
Because they invested so much in it already they can just hope throwing more money at it will fix it, plus the US air force desperatly needs a replacement for its legacy fighters
We originally intended to buy something like 117 of those planes.
So, the fact that we buy 37 shows how much of a failure the project is.
>>57025996
>France
>Non
Feels good man
>>57026131
have they decided how many of the 138 are going to the Navy for the QEC carriers's airgroups ?
>>57032798
3 and a half
>>57032853
are you being sarcastic?
>>57033020
Yes
>>57032071
>failure
Not really. It's our own fault since the government was hopelessly naive thinking they could buy at least 80 of them for like $5bn.
The F-35 really isn't more expensive than a Typhoon or a Rafale, and aside from those there really aren't any fighters available which offer significant improvement in capabilities compared to our F-16s.
>>57032798
>have they decided how many of the 138 are going to the Navy for the QEC carriers's airgroups ?
It's dependent on the situation. The British approach is to share ALL of the fighters between the Royal Navy and the RAF and put squadrons on the carriers or elsewhere when necessary. Sometimes there will be RAF-piloted squadrons on the carriers, sometimes Fleet Air Arm squadrons will deploy from overseas bases. The UK's name for the aircraft during development is "joint combat aircraft" (JCA) which is a hint to the thinking over here. As far as I'm aware no other country is using the F-35 like this.
What we know is that a frontline British squadron is 12 fighters. There will be a larger squadron of 18 fighters for training and maintenance. Subtract this 18 from the total, you're left with 126. That's a maximum of 10 frontline squadrons with some spares. The fighter capacity of one QEC carrier is 3 squadrons.
As you can see in the pic, for some situations the QE carrier will require a single squadron. When it needs to surge to three squadrons, you might see two Fleet Air Arm squadrons joined by an RAF squadron.
>>57033956
desu I thought it could carry more aircraft than that, with brits calling it a supercarrier and all
Is there any global project where USA doesn't do 99% of the work?
>>57033956
Ugh, sorry.
138 - 18 is not 126 it's 120. I'm a retard. What an embarrassing mistake. Anyway, to summarise:
1x training and maintenance squadron of 18
10 x regular fighter squadrons. Some of which will surely be reserve squadrons
>>57034106
"Supercarrier" is not a British term, it's used in military circles to mean an aircraft carrier that displaces at least 65,000 tonnes
>>57034156
Well the Eurofighter project has yuropeans in charge, if that counts
>>57033956
It must be an absolute nightmare to train so many pilots that'd otherwise never need carrier ops training, its 3-4 extra years.
I just can't see Airforces doing ASW either but apparently RAF does that too.
>>57034167
>"Supercarrier" is not a British term, it's used in military circles to mean an aircraft carrier that displaces at least 65,000 tonnes
I've only ever seen brits call it a supercarrier though
It's bound to create confusion too, as supercarriers usually describe carriers capable of holding up to 100 aircraft
>have no air defense sovereignty
>invest in planes anyway
AYY LMAO
>>57034314
It only creates confusion if you don't understand what "supercarrier" means.
>as supercarriers usually describe carriers capable of holding up to 100 aircraft
Nope, they usually describe carriers that displace a tonnage of 65,000 tonnes or larger. That's the modern use of the term.
The first use of "supercarrier" was by the New York Times to describe the 22,000 tonnes British carrier HMS Ark Royal in 1938. Since then the displacement definition has increased over time.
>>57034432
why can't they make it do a vertical landing like the harriers? who fucking cares about fuel if all you have to do is land atleast that was our idea behind not using arrestors on Viraat.
>>57034272
>It must be an absolute nightmare to train so many pilots that'd otherwise never need carrier ops training, its 3-4 extra years.
Keep in mind that procurement of the total 138 will span a long period of time. We don't even know how long yet. All we know so far is that 42 F-35s are expected by 2023.
This 42 includes the training/maintenance squadron and 2 frontline squadrons.
Pilots have already been training on the F-35s for years
>>57034530
>Nope, they usually describe carriers that displace a tonnage of 65,000 tonnes or larger. That's the modern use of the term.
No, you don't get it. While that's the official definition, people generally use it to describe american supercarriers which are an order of magnitude more capable than european, chinese or russian carriers.
I have yet to find a single non-British source describing the QE-class as supercarriers
>>57034762
>why can't they make it do a vertical landing like the harriers?
The F-35C can't do vertical landings.
The F-35B can. Like this.
>>57034106
Below deck it can carrier up to 50 aircraft, but it's just that we don't store aircraft above deck like the Americans. So we don't count it in.
>>57034849
There's no official definition of "supercarrier", it isn't a real term.
>>57034912
it might just be the size of the Nimitz but that looks way more stable than any harrier I've seen land on the deck of viraat/hermes.
>>57035291
Now you're just being a pedant
>>57035371
I'm not the lad who you were first replying to.
But supercarrier isn't a real term.
"Supercarrier is an unofficial descriptive term"
>>57034849
>I have yet to find a single non-British source describing the QE-class as supercarriers
I guess you're not good at using the internet? A quick google news search found this. The website is US-based and uses American English.
http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/3488/20140626/new-british-supercarriers-equal-china.htm
>>57035371
That's not me.
>>57035299
>it might just be the size of the Nimitz
It's not landing on the Nimitz. The USA uses their F-35Bs on the Wasp/America Class
>that looks way more stable than any harrier I've seen land on the deck of viraat/hermes.
Yes it's much improved compared to the Harriers it replaces
>>57035494
Is the UK too poor to make its own entirely British jets?
>>57035494
>I guess you're not good at using the internet? A quick google news search found this. The website is US-based and uses American English.
Or maybe I'm not actively looking for non-British websites calling the QE-class supercarriers. You probably had to look for a while though, because I can't seem to find anything about "queen elizabeth supercarrier" that's not from a British source
Which is better when fighting russian planes? f-35 or f-22?
We have enought with our S 80 submarine project to throw tons of millions of euros to the wc.
>>57035793
It's not that we're too poor, it's that our government doesn't spend enough on defence to allow us to make something this good by ourselves. The wealth is there but the electorate expects certain standards of health, education, pensions and social services which means only a small fraction of our wealth is spent on military things. The skills are there, certainly.
>>57035920
It's not exactly a mystery that a British aircraft carrier will be predominately discussed by British websites.
>>57035793
Well it would be a cost vs benefit issue. The defense industry has been globalized for a while now, so why not use it to your advantage?
>inb4 that one guy claiming the Typhoon could be fully made in the UK
>>57035947
in close range dogfighting they'd both get shot down easily by an SU-30/MiG29UPG but in BVR they win just as easily.
In short they both win by virtue of stealth.
too soon to talk about the T-50.
>>57027197
>some countries will never use it at it's full power are buying anyway
Why?
>>57035920
Do you find it surprising that a country talks about its national projects a lot?
>>57035793
Poor is the wrong word.
There's loads of reasons, google NAO reports or MoD white papers on it.
It is more efficient to jointly develop (STVOL) aircraft and get all the bennies from both the US and UK, instead of going sole.
>>57035947
F-22 is the USA premier air superiority fighter, but the F-35 has the superior sensor suite.
I'd just say the F-22.
>>57031064
Why? You already have Rafales
>>57036073
>It's not exactly a mystery that a British aircraft carrier will be predominately discussed by British websites.
Replacing suprcarrier with carrier gives other results that aren't from UK websites though
>>57036303
What do you mean?
>>57036323
Maybe British websites use the term more frequently, but as I've shown foreign websites also use it.
I don't know why you're getting so hung on this issue. It's not very important.
>>57036375
You dont need the F35, you already have great fighting planes.
>>57036560
We're not getting the F-35, Rafales are already more than we need
>>57036542
But I'm not, I was just saying brits are more keen on using the term
>>57035947
Air-to-air combat is the F-22 specialty.
The F-35 is multi-role.
When things get hot and heavy up close, stealth means less and the maneuverability of more modern Russian jets puts them about on par or slightly better than the F-22, and clearly superior to the F-35.
But the whole idea of both planes is that you never get close to begin with. Both the F-22 and F-35 can drop Russian aircraft before they see them coming. Moreover, the sensor and data fusion on both American aircraft allow pilots to make more informed decisions about their options, whatever they are.
>>57036259
>close range dogfighting
>>57025996
No, its not.
Feel like we have dodged a bullet.
>>57036813
>proceeds to buy Gripens for a higher price
JUST
>>57036813
You picked the wrong eurotriangle
>>57036875
It works AND we get the blueprints of sensitive tech that otherwise would take years to develop.
It was a good trade.
>>57036875
Gripens seem more suitable for Brazil, since the Swedes made them to be used out of a rugged environment if necessary, and they're cheaper to operate.
If you look at Brasil's location, geography and its needs, I'd struggle to see why they'd want the F-35. On the other hand for a country like Turkey which is in that unstable area and right next to Russia, you can see why the F-35 is a great idea for the Turks
>>57036767
yeah sometimes you don't fire missile at them from afar, like for say when you intercept them before they reach your airspace you get close and warn then fire warning shots from canon then escort or just shoot down.
and this is especially relevant for when you call it a "Multirole" fighter.
which means it can at the very least do ground attack, bombing , interception and BVR.
>>57025996
Jump jets are for countries that can't afford real aircraft carriers.
>>57026971
No, you're not. And you have a massive area to patrol.
>>57037106
>P-47 seem more suitable for Brazil, since the Swedes made them to be used out of a rugged environment if necessary, and they're cheaper to operate.
Still, I fail to see why P-47s would be worse for Brasil than Gripens. They'd excel against jungle guerillas, they're cheap as fuck, and can be repaired with spare scrap. It's not like they're gonna fight anyone with an airforce anyway.
>>57037331
3 leftist countries around Brazil just showed support to our president that is about to be impeach flexing muscles.
One of them even said that "we should support our comrade Dilma by any means necessary" when givving a speach to his officials.
And we make super tucanos that is a bit more modern than this P-47 thing.
>>57037465
>And we make super tucanos that is a bit more modern than this P-47 thing.
Well at least they don't use fucking piston engines
That would be nigger tier
>>57037331
No, you still need a relatively capable fighter. If you're Brasil, you have to be ready for neighbours like Chile and Argentina to modernise put more emphasis on the military in the medium to long term. After all, both of those have been controlled by the military not too long ago, with formidable armed forces for the time.
You look at all your natural resources, and you think about the future, and you wonder if a coalition might be formed to take some away.
You also wonder about the medium/long term possibility of external military intervention, perhaps if you do something unpopular with the international community or take a shit on a powerful country's ally. If that happens, you want an air force that will make the powerful country think twice before rocking up to your coast with an aircraft carrier
>>57037575
True, but they sound good as hell.
>>57036966
How is the development of the Gripen NG going then? I haven't heard about it for a while.
And desu I never buy into the whole "technology transfer" thing. More of than not it's just a way to get the political will for the purchase, offering some short-term jobs to the local defense/aerospace industry.
>>57027197
why are those flags reversed?
>>57037775
Its going steady because there is a schedule to be followed.
The Navy wants to make a derivative of the NG to work on the carrier, but I think they will not be able to do that because they have a lot of things to pay first.
And we got a good deal with the transfer because SAAB was desperate to sell the aircrafts. At the time, no one elses had brought, so they would accept any kind of deal they could.
Things like the engine are not part of the deal because it belongs to GE. But this we can get with the russians or british if US dont want to sell it to us.
>>57037775
>>57037982
Also the Swedes are more "ok" with tech transfer than most other countries with a defence industry because they have a policy of neutrality and they're not a global power with global interests.
>>57038313
That is true.
But believe or not, they almost aborted the deal when Brazil was to vote some anti feminist laws in here if I recall correctly.
Bomb ppl is OK. But not being progressive almost made them cancel the entire thing.
That country is a mess.
>>57038486
Really? lel.
Kinda like he Hman Rights condmning us for selling cluster bombs to SKA.
>>57038486
Yeah, it's interesting they have an explicit "feminist foreign policy".
http://www.government.se/government-policy/feminist-foreign-policy/
First country in the world to do something like that. Whether you agree or disagree with it (I'm quite cynical personally), you have to admire the Swedes for their attempts to innovate
literally shittiest jet
usa offered us some but im glad we declined
>not buying bases Super Tucano
constanza.jpg
>>57038486
This Gripen deal might give them some KC-390 as well.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/kc-390-or-a400m-could-lift-swedish-air-force-capabil-411926/
>>57039580
It wil end up being the A400M.
Now with Russia going amok in the boarders, they would not risk buy a lift from a country that will not help then if a conflict ever happen there.
>>57037308
>Jump jets are for countries that can't afford real aircraft carriers.
The USA can't afford real aircraft carriers? Interesting suggestion there.
>>57039647
Dunno, after all this circlejerk that we've been maybe they will.
I know the Czechs are interested and Portugal wil probably go for the C-130 even though we made a real good price for them.
Portuguese being dumb again, no surprise.
>>57025996
We're participating but I hope they don't buy this meme plane.
>>57029904
Well F-35B got IOC in late 2015.
Yes
Cucked again
>>57040186
Didn't weedman shut'd the deal?
>>57034530
Wait isn't the Lianoning a supercarrier? It breaks 68k tonnes in full load.
>>57042398
>>57042842
reeeeeeeeeee this graph is wrong
HMS Queen Elizabeth class can carry 50 aircraft.
>>57044304
I have another, gib a check.
>>57042842
>>57044574
There seems to be mixed usage of metric tonnes and US tons. both labelled as tons.
>>57044850
Oh, i'm sorry then.
>>57044987
It's not your fault
