>The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter's digital maintenance and logistics system could be vulnerable to cyber attacks, while the jet's combat software development is in danger of falling behind, the Pentagon's operational test chief warned in a leaked 11 December memo.
>The F-35's Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) "continues to struggle in development with ... a complex architecture with likely (but largely untested) cyber deficiencies," wrote Michael Gilmore, the Department of Defense's (DoD's) director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E), according to a portion of the document viewed by IHS Jane's .
This plane is the biggest boondoggle and a disaster in the history of Pentagon's procurement system.
What a disaster!
http://www.janes.com/article/57454/dod-chief-tester-warns-on-f-35-cyber-software-issues
>Could be
Yeah, every computer system could be vulnerable to an attack
>>28694807
LOCKMART SHILLS ON SUICIDE WATCH
>>28694842
Janes isn't a tabloid news source. They wouldn't say "could be" unless it was more likely than not.
>>28695018
Janes is just repeating what Michael Gilmore is saying, Michael Gilmore himself is just someone whose job solely exist upon testing being conducted and flaws being found (he's the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.
The cyber security threat in particular comes in the wake of the Gilmore saying that they should conduct a full-on cyber attack test where they try to find holes in it's security. The F-35 Joint Program Office said they weren't doing that now, because it's stupid to be conducting that kind of testing on what is essentially beta software. It's like the president of Norton Antivirus or something telling EA or Valve that they should be stopping development on their new game so that they can test how well their DRM stands up to pirating.
Cyber warfare testing will be conducted in the coming years, just not while ALIS is undergoing major upgrades.
Software can never ever be changed or fixed. Better scrap the entire thing!
>>28695018
>They wouldn't say "could be" unless it was more likely than not.
Ironically that is the tabloid interpretation of what they said.
OH GOD, THE F-35 COULD BE VULNERABLE TO CYBER ATTACKS, AND THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT MIGHT FALL BEHIND.
PANIC!! MONEY WASTED!! AMERICANS BTFO!!
>computer can be hacked or compromised
>better just leave out the computers in a modern fighter aircraft
History has a funny way of repeating itself.
>>28695478
beat me to the punch!
>>28695460
>The popular media has a funny way of repeating itself
ftfy, namefag.
>>28695534
Post the ahegao version.
>>28695478
>multirole
"jack of all trades, master of none."
it will basically suck at everything because it was designed by several committees.
>>28695625
shut up nerd jajajjaa
>>28695669
>shitty drawings
you really need to ask Lockmart for a raise. you could shill so much better if they paid some manga artist some money to come up with better memes.
>>28695748
>>28694807
Best Lightning coming through.
>>28695625
The full saying is
>Jack of all trades, master of none, though sometimes better than a master of one
aster of one
It's time.
>>28694807
The F-35 is a good plane, don't tell me you believe Pier Sprey's lies?
>>28696099
>though sometimes better than a master of one
>aster of one
Except that's almost never, ever, true.
F-35 will NEVER be better than A-12 at CAS.
F-35 will NEVER be better than F-22 as a fighter.
F-35 will NEVER be better than F/A-18 Growler at EW.
F-35 will NEVER be a better bomber than an F-15.
F-35 is fucking garbage. It was designed to fulfill a bunch of checkboxes by various clients instead of being designed to be great at some role.
>>28694807
Cry all you want, it can't be defeated, in the air, or in Congress. America will have its fleet of 1900 stealth fighters.
>>28697188
>F-35 will NEVER be better than A-12 at CAS.
Given that the A-12 never existed due to failed assumptions about the composites materials that the air-frame was supported to be made out of and budget overruns that made the B-2 program look cost effective I think its safe to say the F-35 will do better at CAS. The F-35's not only exists but can also fly and use weapons, feats that the A-12 never accomplished and are rather critical to CAS.
The plane is a complete joke altogether. Without its stealth, it becomes nothing. The moment a radar comes along that can detect it, or even a 4 gen equivalent with stealth which the f- 35 can't detect, the whole program becomes useless.
>>28695882
>Best Lightning
Please.
Mach 2 in 1955
>>28697188
You don't understand the saying
It's going to be a better fighter than the Growler
It's going to be a better strike aircraft than the F-22
It's going to be a better EW aircraft than the F-15E
>>28697415
>Gen 4 with stealth
>>28697188
And none of those aircraft with ever be as Multirole as the F-35.
>>28697188
Assuming you meant the A-10.
The F-35 can perform CAS in nonpermissive environments, which the A10 falls completely flat in. It also has much better range in ths A version, and unlike the A10 has CATOBAR and STOVL versions for usage from aircraft carriers and LHDs. As a fighter, the F35 has a vastly improved sensor suit and better HMD. These upgrades will probably be implemented into the F22 maintaining its' dominance at some point but they'd have to actually be developed first. It's a far better bomber than an F15E for the same reasons it beats the A10, in addition to its' kickass sensor suite. EW is early warning which is performed by E-2D not Growler. The F35 is not intended to perform SEAD or other jamming operations like the Growler. The Navy's plan is to use them to replace legacy Hornets in the light fighter role while also adding a low observability aircraft to their inventory. Their idea is to use E-2D to detect, F/A-18G to jam, F35 to spot, and F/A-18E to fire the munitions.
>>though sometimes better than a master of one
>>aster of one
>Except that's almost never, ever, true.
>F-35 will NEVER be better than A-12 at CAS.
>F-35 will
>>28697607
Oh god I've just gone through my post again and it's full of errors
Truly sorry
>>28697415
when will the f35 ever face anything that the 5th or even 4th gen benefits from
>>28697607
>>28697656
What about is wrong? It seems generally okay to me. The only part that made raise an eyebrow was saying it was a better bomber than the F-15E. Let's face it, the F-15E holds a lot more bombs.
>>28697878
I would guess the almost word salad and grammatical errors.
>>28697607
>The F35 is not intended to perform SEAD or other jamming operations like the Growler.
It will for the USAF and most other nations - it is a good jamming aircraft though - it's almost as powerful as the EA-6B Prowler (naval dedicated jamming aircraft). The only real difference between the EA-18G and the F-35C is that the Growler is currently compatible with the ALQ-99 pod and will get the Next Gen Jammer first. Otherwise, both aircraft only have forward-facing X-band radars for jamming (with the F-35 having a more powerful radar) and 360 degree passive ESM.
Hell, even the ALQ-99 pods can only jam low frequency OR high frequency radars / comms - you only get both if you put on multiple pods configured differently inside.
>>28697457
F-35 is NOT BETTER than any other SPECIALIZED aircraft in AF right now at ANYTHING.
Let that sink in for a bit... it's WORSE when compared to existing, specialized aircraft, that it's suppose to replace.
>>28698088
It's better than the F-16, which it replaces.
Than the Harrier, which it replaces.
Than the F-18, which it replaces.
>>28698023
Nah it seemed fine.
One big thing that people seem to forget about the A-10 is how absurdly rudimentary its avionics suite is. From what I've seen, it completely lacks the ability to deploy standoff munitions, and despite its much-vaunted survivability, it's got a countermeasure suite worse than the AV-8B and has been shot down by MANPADs on multiple occasions.
>>28698088
It's better than the F-15C at air to air combat, better than the A-10 in high intensity CAS / DAS, it's better than the F-16 in pretty much everything, it's better than the F/A-18 in pretty much everything, it's better than the Harrier in everything.
>>28698088
It's not replacing anything it's worse than.
It's the "Lo" to the Hi-Lo mix, so its replacing the less capable planes like
>F-16
>Harrier
>Legacy Hornet
All of which it's a significant improvement over.
Impressive
To make a plane with a vulnerability against China's cyberwarfare strength is truly idiotic. It is of great probability that the one who pushed for this idea is really paid by China.
>>28697503
>Multirole
you sound fucking retarded.
"hey man, why are you taking that shitty swiss army knife to combat?"
"because it's multirole. I can use it scissors"
"but it has a small blade, why not take a 4-6" knife instead?"
"swiss army knife is multirole. it has small pliers"
" yeah, but aren't pliers tiny?"
"swiss army knife is multirole. it has tweezers"
....
it's the same retarded logic that F-35 proponents are pushing.
when they meet an enemy that has a diversified air force with a lot of specialized aircraft that beat F-35 at every task, F-35 will be a fucking lame duck.
>>28698088
Please explain in detail why you believe that the F-16 and F-18 are "specialized" aircraft. The only specialist aircraft the F-35 is going to replace is the AV-8B, and there it is a huge upgrade in every conceivable way.
>>28698169
and here we go.
>>28695460
But it's likely that the knowledge gained from that program was used for the 'stealth-hawks'
>>28698184
>Modern armies use knives for fighting
>>28698184
Which, again, if you'd listen, is why the aircraft that the F-35 is outperformed by are still sticking around. The only aircraft being directly replaced are ones that the F-35 is a significant improvement over.
>>28698169
I hope you realise that the greatest lie is that all software is secure?
All software is vulnerable or has vulnerabilities.
>>28698184
Except we're not talking about tiny little blades and pliers.
A realistic analogy is that you have a job site and you're building a house. You can either hire 4 guys, each of them is specialised in using a hammer, or using a saw, or laying bricks. Or you can hire 4 guys that are better trained and can jammer and saw and lay bricks, etc each.
That way, when one guy finishes laying bricks, he doesn't just sit around wasting your money, but rather can help out with carpentry work, etc.
>>28698226
no such thing faggot, that was hollywood that created that fake shit.
>>28698263
So Hollywood went over to Islamabad and planted a fake tailrotor in the midst of a top secret raid?
>>28695478
>Ga-shunk
F-35 is a shark now?
>>28697878
Good thing the Strike Eagle isn't being relieved anytime soon then, I guess? The F-35 can still operate where the 15E can't, so, well, nice non-sequitur I guess.
>>28695460
Christ, that was a good-looking eggbeater.
>>28698088
>viper
>hornet
>specialized
>>/out/
>>28698310
it never happened dude, shit was staged using props that had already been made for the movie. do you take everything the government says as truth without question?
>>28698444
So even all the social media accounts from people in Islamabad and the even people I've met from the Pakistan military are all lying?
>>28698184
>>28698466
He's too far gone. Reason won't reach him
>>28694807
Can F-35 carry AIM-9X internally? Someone in the WEBM thread claimed it cant, but I don't wanna make a scene of it in there.
>>28698661
It can't at this point, though there's methods for employing it and still retaining that first-look, first-short advantage (tl;dr - send in clean jets first, have heavier a2a loaded jets at the rear just beyond the enemy's detection range that you send in when the enemy tries to retaliate).
>>28698698
So it's still in the pipeline. What currently prevents internal stowage?
Hey guys, I'm pretty new to /k/ but it seems to me that everyone hates the F35, can I just get a quick run down? Used to be USAF but got out 5 years ago and stopped following all the military news.
>>28698743
Tl:dr, major fighter procurement program has significant developmental hangups and delays that major fight programs do. Exacerbate this with F-35 being very electronics and software based, and being actually three fighters in one, and the butthurt from the usual anti-MIC types and a few Jurassic 'experts' was truly unreal.
>>28698717
Software, testing, and certification.
The big thing to keep in mind is that since the F-35 is software defined it doesn't need major overhauls or letter upgrades to use new weapons.
>>28698717
It might potentially not be in the pipeline (it's still unknown what's happening exactly in Block 4 or 5), but the main reason for weapons integration delays at the moment is time and money - weapons integration and stores separation testing are somewhat time consuming, because (for example) if you want to integrate bomb X, you need to test how it behaves when ejected off a clean jet at each different hardpoint, as well as how well it behaves if ejected next to bomb Y or Z, etc. See this PDF to see just how involved it is:
http://pages.mscsoftware.com/rs/mscsoftware/images/F-35%20Joint%20Strike%20Fighter-%20Store%20Separation%20Flight%20Test%20and%20Analysis.pdf
>>28698661
They just did the first launch recently.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-fires-aim-9x-as-raytheon-snags-next-gen-weapons-421133/
>>28698787
The AIM-9X ideally should only be launched off the bay door point and outermost external pylon in any case.
>>28698776
I should also add, fast forward a decade or so and, lol and behold, costs came down, problematic tech matured, and what was billed as a total failure is now poised to be the gold standard multirole fighter for the next 30 years. So really, the usual bullshit.
>>28698787
I should elaborate too that when I say it might not be in the pipeline, that's because AIM-9s are nearly as long as AMRAAMs, which means you could only ever trade them 1:1 internally. With new missile programs like the SACM and MSDM, the AIM-9X might actually become obsolete (for the F-35), as you can have 2 SACMs for every AMRAAM, or possibly 3 MSDMs (short range interceptor missiles) for every AMRAAM.
The reason it's important to keep as many AMRAAMs as possible is because closing in to use the AIM-9X is only really meant to be a last resort.
>>28698804
That was an external launch
>>28698810
Yes, but there's other weapons that are more involved that have priority.
>>28698776
Thanks, the debate was starting to heat up when I separated but I never really followed it being a heavies guy. I never lurk these F35 threads but after checking this one out I see now like you said its those Jurassic "experts" who keep this meme going
>>28694807
I guarantee you're the same faggot that spams these threads every day.
>>28698743
The F-35 is actually the greatest plane to ever exist. Many of the arguments against it rely on incredibly strained assumptions or intentional misrepresentations of facts. And for every supposed problem the F-35 has that gets reported, the program keeps passing through milestones. Last week it was that the F-35 fired its first AIM-9X. This week it is that the f-35 is going to its first European airshow.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/01/27/world/lockheed-f-35-jets-join-u-k-air-shows-u-s-air-force-confirms/#.Vqg-FvkrLIX
>>28698831
Ahh, I see.
>>28698831
Well, with a couple AIM-9Xs you have a bit more space for primary mission munitions in full-stealth config compared to the bigger missile and fins on the AIM-120D.
>>28698852
Are the detractors F22fags? I was stationed in Alaska when that bird crashed in Denali national park, seems to me the 35's issues are limited to a plane that couldn't properly supply oxygen to it's pilots.
>>28698743
People are mad about $1 trillion in development and delays that happened years ago and talk of it replacing the A-10 so they shit on it as much as possible without knowing the facts. You'll hear anything here. If it isn't sourced, don't trust it. Wait until an F-35 appreciation thread rolls around and someone tries to refute its success. They'll get bombarded with test results while the most they can come back with is "b-but it doesn't LOOK aerodynamic, so it must be the worst dogfighter ever!". I don't have an image of F-35 thread bingo but these threads are basically the same shit over and over with emphasis on the F-35's most current publicized issue, never mind that they are getting ironed out at an absolutely normal pace and that it is the definition of a development process to find issues and work them out.
Have fun here. Lurk a lot before posting much and get an idea of what kind of people post here. Remember you're on an anime website but still a weapons board. There are lots of retards here too so be careful of whose opinions you pay attention to and where "facts" come from.
>>28698900
Nope, F-22fags understand the hi-local combo. It's mostly Chinese and Russian shitposters, acolytes of Kopp, Sprey, and Axe, or an occasional deluded Eurocanard fan.
>>28698930
>Muh trillion
That's a 50-year total cost guesstimate out to 2065. Using the same calculations the planes being relieved will cost 4x that much.
>>28698930
>Have fun here. Lurk a lot before posting much and get an idea of what kind of people post here. Remember you're on an anime website but still a weapons board. There are lots of retards here too so be careful of whose opinions you pay attention to and where "facts" come from.
thanks man. I actually post a lot in handgun threads but kinda but stay out of equipment threads for the most part, I've seen this thread 1000 times before but IDK it was kinda bugging me today.
>>28698833
Different guy here.
Years ago, the complaints against the F-35 program did hold water, as it was pretty far behind schedule. However, since the program reorganization in 2010, the F-35's stuck to every major deadline and all the problems have gradually been fixed.
I've had Dr. Beliquava (the guy who invented the F-35's lift fan) do a lecture for one of my classes, and his explanation for all the controversy was that they decided they wanted to mature all this technology with the F-35 instead of just doing a simple F-16 replacement. Short term, it caused costs to rise and ultimately ended up causing all the program delays. However, for something that's going to be the mainstay of Western airpower for the next several decades, it was an excellent investment.
More recently, the only people who actually are anti-F-35 either are terribly misinformed or have a horrible understanding of modern air combat. You've also got the people who want to act like they give a shit about the military-industrial complex boogeyman, so rather than going after actual issues like
>Interservice rivalry being so bad that the Air Force and Navy have literally forced the procurement of entirely new platforms purely because they don't want to fly "the other guy's" plane
>The VA being so criminally incompetent that it's just taken for granted that you're fucked unless you can find a charity to save you
>The Marines being a bloated army-within-an-army purely out of tradition instead of the small shock troop unit they should be
It's a lot easier to target a program with huge projected costs and a simple "solution" for it like the F-35.
>>28698891
There's not really much difference when the doors close, the AMRAAM sits somewhat offset to the bomb - a bigger bomb would probably intersect with (or at least get too close to) the bomb bay doors before it intersects with the AMRAAM.
>>28698961
I know, I was actually debating typing >muh gorillion dollars but I didn't know if he would understand because he said he was new to /k/. Guess I should have though.
>>28698963
Oh, alright. I'm borderline nogunz piece of shit so I love equipment threads. F-35 is a meme.
>>28699004
Yeah, but then again, moot point once you can put a pair of CUDA or whatever half-length future missiles on the door.
>>28699075
Precisely my point (CUDA = SACM)
>>28698971
The software is lagging way the fuck behind, especially since 2014. Maybe lockmart should hire some programmers that actually poo in the loo?
>>28698900
The biggest detractors seem to be guys who want to be seen as reformers but can't find a real problem to reform. The most prominent is Pierre Sprey, and more recently this guy "David Archibald" seems to have climbed on the bandwagon, advocating that the USAF should purchase the Swedish Gripen instead of the F-35. His articles are filled with assumptions and strained logic such as "the Gripen is equal to the F-22 in combat because it has a tighter turn radius"
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/american-gripen-the-solution-to-the-f-35-nightmare/
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/5_reasons_why_our_f35s_are_too_dangerous_to_fly.html
>>28699075
>CUDA or whatever half-length future missiles
Vaporware until proven otherwise.
>>28699171
>The biggest detractors seem to be guys who want to be seen as reformers but can't find a real problem to reform
Not that they can't find a problem to reform. They just don't want to look at the actual problems that need reforming because those are too hard.
Honestly it's a miracle the JSF even happened in the first place. Last time they tried to make a standardized "low" fighter, the Navy pulled the
>muh twin engines
Requirement out of their ass to come up with an excuse to not use the F-16.
>>28699142
Software is the most ambitious aspect of F-35. If need was urgent, people could be paid to literally work till it's finished. That delay isn't a deficiency of science, it's a deliberate cost savings measure
>>28699142
The software is still on schedule - there's also only 4 months of risk in the software, which is within the program threshold.
For the record, Microsoft spends more annually developing Office than the DoD on developing the F-35's software, and they don't have the issue of crashing software potentially equalling death.
>>28699171
In Sprey's case he seems to be determined to protect his "legacy", no matter how wrong he was, even about the F-16/F/A-18 LWF design request he helped with that gimped the Air Force and Navy's multi-role capabilities for decades with fighters with wimpy ranges and payloads.
>>28699204
Dude, do you actually work with Lockheed? I mean this in the most positive way possible. You seem to just know a shitload of information about the internal matters of the program.
>>28699201
>the Navy pulled the muh twin engines
Requirement out of their ass to come up with an excuse to not use the F-16.
Makes sense to me tbqh. Why would the Navy want a single engine fighter?
>>28699196
Who implied otherwise? This isn't Russia or China where weapons 'in service' are barely serviceable as proof of concept, no need to be so defensive.
>>28699269
>>28699269
>Why would the Navy want a single engine fighter?
>>28699269
Because that single engine fighter, F-16, was a genuinely great plane, and the Navy adopting it would have saved a ton of money.
>>28699256
Lockheed-Martin pays me to shill in these threads, I get to ride on a test pilot's lap very 100th post.
>>28699269
>Why would the Navy want a single engine fighter?
Because the F-16 was great and there was no reason to not use it?
>>28699269
sxg
>>28699298
>>28699303
An older plane, maybe the Navy leadership didn't want to deal with another single engine fighter here. It obviously didn't fit their needs for whatever reason.
>>28699269
hsfh
>>28699306
Ehhhh, a navalized F-16 would've had it's own issues. But not completely undefeatable. There's a reason it's not the F/A-17, though its the same baseline design.
>>28699336
>whatever reason.
Yeah, the fact that they pulled the twin-engine requirement out of their asses.
>>28699319
>Doesn't even try faking being the namefag
>>28699269
5f4
>>28699256
Nope, I'm a military guy (not from the US) who just has an interest in this stuff and is tired of civilians putting out BS. I'm by no means some righteous bank of inexhaustible knowledge, but some of the stuff put out there (eg, the recent Gripens for the US article) are just retarded and sway other people to think the same way because they don't have any other knowledge.
>>28699336
Engines back then weren't very reliable - if the Navy went with the F-16 they would have had some serious issues. Since then engines have become way more reliable though:
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-151113-019.pdf
>>28699269
84df
>>28699391
>not from the US
>>28699269
a42
>>28699269
jhfv
>>28699418
Except engines were reliable enough that the Navy had been operating single-engined fighters since their inception. Hell, the most accident-prone fighters in Navy history were twin-engined.
You can stop spamming F9s faggot
>>28699489
F9F Cougar and F9F Phantom are not alike, jerk
*shakes fist in the air*
>>28699489
How about Furies then?
>>28699483
>Except engines were reliable enough... the most accident-prone fighters in Navy history were twin-engined.
This reminds me, LMAO TF-30 and F-14
>>28694807
It can't be reasoned with.
>>28699595
It can't be bargained with.
>>28699609
It will never stop.
>>28699589
The dipshit who did that must've been flogged. The F-110 was god-tier, though.
Half of the issue was the wide spacing that exacerbated the flame-out into flat spins, too though.
I was genuinely hurt when I found out the F-14 was being retired and I'd never get to fly it after growing up watching Top Gun.
>>28699626
Someone please explain AoA to me, and why it's such a desirable trait.
>>28699531
>F9F Phantom
>Phantom
>>28698891
>seems to me the 35's issues
That never hsppened to a F-35, it was a F-22's flight suit that 'choked' a pilot.
>>28699912
It's the ability to maintain controllable flight at very high pitch angles. A high AoA fighter can pitch harder than high energy fighters, which can get better angles for a missile shot if the tactics optimize the shot. The issue is that energy fighters like the F-16 don't lose speed in turns as badly. That said, there isn't that big a difference in performance between equally skilled pilots.
>>28699967
Quoted the wrong post, friendo.
The F-35 is literally infallible. Prove me wrong, spreyshills.
>>28699418
I thought that engine problems severe enough to knock a single engine plane out of the sky were usually severe enough to knock a two engine plane out of the sky as well, only more likely due to the greater number of parts that can fail, and the increase in maintenance work for the mechanics.
>>28698661
That might have been me. No, it can't. Not yet.
>>28700022
Unlike bombers/cargo planes/airliners the engines on fighters generally aren't spaced widely enough to negate failures/prevent cross-engine damage.
>>28699912
It's Angle of Attack - It's the vertical angle between where you're pointing the aircraft and where your aircraft is actually moving.
The higher your angle of attack, the more air you deflect with your wings, meaning you can turn in a tighter circle. The downside though is that you also increase the drag on your aircraft.
The F-35 and F/A-18 can hit high angles of attack, while the F-15 and F-16 cannot. The F-35 and F/A-18 have a tighter turn radius (turn in a smaller circle) and generally a faster instantaneous turn rate, but the F-15 and F-16 have a better sustained turn rate.
In short, high alpha gives you the opportunity to snap your nose up at your enemy and get a shot, but it then makes you vulnerable while you have to built up speed. Strengths vs weaknesses.
>>28700022
In the past, things like fuel pumps were more prone to stopping and starving the engine. Now high flow fuel pumps are very mature and things like modern machining techniques means that they're very reliable. In turn, however, engine designers have been improving engine performance by making them burn hotter and by using more exotic materials and manufacturing techniques. As a result, more components are facing hotter temperatures and forces.
Now here's the thing - engine components will always wear out after a while - you just keep an eye on them and replace them once they've worn enough or are showing cracks past a certain size. The problem though is that depending on engine use in flight, there's uncertainty in when those cracks will start to appear. If your maintainers don't notice a crack forming during a boroscope, etc, and that part fails, then it is catastrophic and likely to take out both engines.
Another way to put it - all the easy and less-volatile problems in jet engine design have already been fixed, now it's mainly just the violent problems in jet engines that remain, and they're mainly up to human eyes spotting cracks.
>>28700179
Not even human eyes, there's equipment specifically issued for checking metal stresses.
>>28699319
M-madfag?
Is that y-you?
>>28699595
I love how that video is a storm landing, completely invalidating the "can't fly in rain" fags.
>>28695460
>need replacement for 1983 era OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, based on 1961 design
>develop RAH-66 Comanche for 21 years and cancel it right before going into production
>cancel ARH-70 Arapaho meant to replace the Comanche
> cancel Armed Aerial Scout program meant to replace the Arapaho
>currently pushing the Future Vertical Lift program in part to replace the Armed Aerial Scout
>OH-58 still in operation
The Comanche could have been in service for ten years already if it was just followed through.
Hopefully we will drop the F-35. F-35 a shit
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/drop-jsf-for-us-f22-raptor-former-raaf-officer-recommends/news-story/1aa8badef8942897365c81ee66bc5236
>>28700894
>RAAF
>>28700894
>herp derp we want worse capability for more money because memes
>>28700913
>>28700915
F35DF pls go
>>28700937
>Implying F-35 isn't the genuine upgrade
>>28699203
>Delays in software development are a deliberate cost saving measure
Dude
>>28700813
Is it wrong that I REAAAALLY love the Commanche? In addition to all of the normal scout and light attack helicopter roles, it'd be a mean UAV and helicopter killer. In addition to 3x Hellfires, or 24x APKWS, it could carry 6x stingers, all internal. That's a mean internal loadout, if you ask me. Then if you want to go external you've got another whole load of hardpoints. Another 8 Hellfires or 52 more APKWS? Sign me up! Add to that the Commanche guiding in Hellfires from Apaches, and you've got a damn fine platform scout/light attack platform.
>>28700894
Being an F-22 fanboy, I would say that if Australia only wanted a plane for killing other planes, the F-22 would be your choice. Sadly the US would not sell it to anyone else in a million years. So you've got to settle for second best.
>>28701148
>Ozzies
>Needing a pure Air superiority
lolno. You bought a Super Hornet as a gap filler, and the F-35 is ultimately the best option.
>>28701178
That's why I qualified the statement, mate.
>>28701178
ya fucken idioot
>>28701244
Settle down buddy.
>>28699324
>F-16
>Navy
Obviously you're not referring to the F-16N Aggressors, so
WEW LAD
E
W
L
A
D
>>28694807
Witness the sound of angry spreyfags trying to stop the F-35:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBxn56l9WcU
>>28703057
You completely missed the point.
>>28700813
helicopters are an obsolete form of flight
