F-35 General #2
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
Danger Zone Edition
>F-35 fighter jet to go on display at Singapore Airshow
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/f-35-fighter-jet-to-go-on/2501102.html
>Italian F-35 completes first transatlantic flight
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2016/02/09/Italian-F-35-completes-first-transatlantic-flight/7141455030067/
>Budget calls for new planes, but no change to end strength
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/02/09/budget-calls-new-planes-but-no-change-end-strength/80048120/
>These are some of the weapons the Pentagon wants for its $583 billion budget
http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-wants-funded-for-the-future-2016-2
>US Air Force Major General faints during F-35 briefing
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12150382/Watch-Moment-US-Air-Force-general-faints-during-F-35-briefing.html
>The Revolt of the Majors (mandatory reading)
https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf
Revolt of the Majors should really be mandatory reading for anyone who wants to discuss the F-35 seriously.
>Air Force cuts 45 F-35s from purchase plans
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/budget-bow-wave-causes-air-force-to-cut-45-f-35s-from-purchase-plans/
>F-35 is so stealth it disrupts spacetime continuum: first transatlantic flight took 1, 3 and 4 days.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/171060/unanswered-questions-about-the-f_35%E2%80%99s-transatlantic-crossing.html
>>28870256
cutting 45 aircraft over 10 years is hardly a death spiral. When the original plans are for thousands....
>>28870775
It's also just a temporary deferment; the USAF has stated that it still intends to purchase the whole amount (they say that in the fainting video).
>>28869751
And it doesn't even deal with the F-35. It's just a massive F-you to anybody who says that the technology in a fighter jet doesn't matter, or that the Air Force is a hideously incompetent organization that can't learn from its mistakes. It's about how the REAL problem of the USAF in Vietnam, dismal training, was solved by true reformers in contrast to critics who just wanted to frame themselves as reformers at the expense of the air force.
>>28870984
it's a fantastic insight into the development of the modern US air power.
And yes, it doesn't deal with the F-35, but it shows how the F-35 fits with the lessons learned of history, it shows how the idiots like Sprey and Boyd have been up to the same tricks for decades and were proven wrong when they bitched about the F-15 and F-16, both of which proved to be amazing fighter jets.
omg I think I just found a guy even more retarded than Sprey and Boyd and co.
Sen. Gary Hart put a book out in 1984. In it, he advocated cancelling production of the F-15 and replacing it with a new light weight fighter (not the F-16 because it was too heavy with its radar and such). All work on the F-111 and F-15E and other deep interdiction aircraft would be stopped. Work on the AMRAAM and LANTIRN pod would be cancelled. they would focus on a new aircraft armed only with a heavy cannon, produced by the thousands.
Seriously.
Delaying a fighter order is the same as just waiting to cut it. 6th gen hits around 2030.
>>28871115
6th gen is only replacing the F-22 and Super Hornet (remember that the USN has accelerated it's orders due to UCLASS being semi-cancelled).
F-35s will still be a major part of the fleet through to the 2060s. It's like how the Super Hornet is still production when the F-35C is nearing IOC.
>>28871115
>6th gen hits around 2030.
there's no way govt will want to pay for another hi-tech fighter so soon after the f-35 debacle
>>28871069
>armed only with a heavy cannon
We talkin' GAU-8?
Or WW2 style 90mm
>>28871162
Not really, the Super Hornet is in production because the F-35 is late.
>the F-35B will have had its full load of SDBII for eight years before 6th gen is supposed to hit
2400+ orders is a bacon pot pie flying in the sky.
>>28871195
They wanted to pay for another fighter debacle after F-22. To the same company responsible for that debacle even.
>>28871195
>debacle
There is no debacle you fuck, stop listening to Bill Whittle.
>>28871310
so there were no delays, no cost overruns, no lowering of requirements?
>>28871365
None that are significant enough to matter in the grand scheme of things.
>>28871365
I'm saying there's nothing out of the ordinary with the F-35's development.
In many cases it's doing better than it's predecessors were at this stage of development.
>>28871195
This is why I believe that the F-XX will essentially be an F-35+.
>>28871069
There's a reason why Sprey and Boyd knew they had to take their '''''reform''''' to people like him and Fallows.
>>28871226
I imagine more like a GAU-8.
>>28871250
>debacle debacle debacle
seriously, what makes the F-35 any more of a debacle than the F-15, F-16, or F/A-18?
There are delays, cost overruns, etc in ANY project. For one that's as advanced and high-tech as the F-35, it's actually been pretty good compared to other fighter jets.
>>28871454
probably. What's awesome is that there's a good chance it'll be a two-seater, which means we'll essentially have a 21st century stealth Tomcat. SEXY
>>28870256
>Cutting a few dozen aircraft from planned purchase of a couple thousand
>DOA
>F/A-18 numbers at 1,400
Wooooooow
>>28869425
i don't get it if f-35 has glass cockpit and some super advanced HMD. why they won't go full ace combat and make canopy solid?
>>28872936
In case the electronics fail, and also because the human eye has more clarity than the EO-DAS (but not the EOTS).
>>28872936
Because redundancy, a key component of aircraft design
>>28869425
How much does it cost to buy a block 60 F-16E/F with conformal fuel tanks? Plz provide a source.
>>28873108
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2013-04-26/uae-orders-more-f-16e/f-fighters
$4 to $5 billion for 25 Block 60 F-16s. That's $160 million to $200 million each, but that's their procurement cost, not their flyaway cost.
Typically a jet's flyaway cost will be roughly 40% of it's procurement cost, meaning that it's flyaway cost would be somewhere around $65 to $80 million.
>>28873214
Thank you.
>>28873214
It depends though. Their order was extra special.
>>28873593
In what way? This was an add-on to a previous order.
>>28871069
Hart was directly and constantly briefed by Boyd, Sprey, Riccioni and Spinney. He was basically their glove over their attempted hand on the tiller in Congress, along with other easily bamboozled Senators like Strom Thurmond.
>>28873608
They were buying a number of bespoke technologies and combinations (the F-16E is basically just a super gucci up teched F-16C, and it's gucci/bespoke because they're pretty much the only ones buying it).
>>28876051
The scary part is that Hart was a serious contender for President, twice.
Sprey came so close to achieving his dream of an Air Force composed purely of F-5's and A-10's.
>>28876126
The UAE is the only nation that's bought the F-16E and helped develop it; >>28873108 was asking how much a Block 60 F-16 cost, so there's not really any answer other than the UAE's figures.
>>28870256
They are't cut, the purchase of them is being delayed.
>>28870256
>>28871310
Err, I think you mean Bill Sweetman.
I haven't heard Bill Whittle say much about the F-35.
>YFW you realize that you will never read a sanitized AAR from Neptunus Lex after his first F-35 OPFOR flight
>>28870256
>PAK-FA limits pre production models to 12 planes
HAHAHAHA PAK_FA a shit
>USAF cuts 45 F-35
Y-Y-You know i-it's normal. Yeah normal.
Burgerboos cannot handel the truths.
>>28879147
A deferment on ~2% of the total expected procurement, whatever shall burgers do :^)
>>28878249
No I meant Bill Whittle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HrKnF0dwqQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyv05W07Ih0
https://youtu.be/fJV00yDwMH8?t=296
I actually like Bill Whittle, but when it comes to the F-35 he drank ALL the cool aid and then some.
>>28879147
>12 PAK-FAs by 2020
>More than 650 F-35s by 2021
>>28871365
>delays
>cost overruns
>lowering of requirements
Do you even procurement? Show me one weapons development program that didn't have at least two out of those three.
>>28880139
This guy does not know what he is talking about. He's just vomiting canned Sprey memes from his mouth.
>>28881966
Show me one successful program that had more problems than the F-35.
>>28869425
>F-35 Carrier landing video.webm
fake, f35 can't fly in the rain
>>28882904
F-16.
>little known fact that hasn't been covered on /k/
The Australian senate launched an inquiry into the acquisition of the F-35 in December.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/Joint_fighter
Let's hope Lockheed was up to their old tricks and we can find some cases of bribery, then comparisons to the F-104 will really kick into high gear.
>>28883001
Let's see that GAO report with more problems than what the DOT&E just dropped.
>>28883087
How many F-35s have crashed? What's that, zero?
>>28883145
You're narrowing the focus of my question. We're talking about a programs full list of development problems.
>>28883060
oh boy are they going to use Kopp as an "expert" like they always do?
>>28883172
Why does it even matter that the plane is having development problems when the plane isn't even scheduled for full-rate production until 2019? They have 3 years to work stuff out and finalize the design.
>>28883172
Just for some context on these reports and how they work, here are some GAO reports for other aircraft at similar points in development:
F-16, 1977:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/120/116765.pdf
>In its evaluation of the F-16 development and procurement program, GAO found that the Air Force is concerned with several potential F-16 problems: F100 engine stalls, demonstration of an improved aerial restart capability, and excessive taxi speed. Tactical Air Command believes the F-16 need additional equipment; and that it doesn't have sufficient space available for all desired new capabilities.
It often reads like a hatchet job, but the whole point is to be tough on the project and identify/fix any issues ASAP.
F/A-18, 1981:
http://archive.gao.gov/f0102/114371.pdf
>The Navy and its contractors have made progress in solving technical problems discussed in GAO's Feb 1980 report on the F/A-18, but problems remain. Future decisions should include consideration of whether
>-modifications to the wing will correct a roll-rate problem without adversely affecting other performance areas
>-modifications in response to bulkheads cracking are adequate
>-a high oil temerature condition can be corrected
>-built in test objectives can be achieved
>-fuel cell leakages can be corrected, and
>-causes of two crashes can be corrected
>Estimates of the cost of the F/A-18 program continue to increase
F/A-18E/F, 1996:
http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-96-98
>>28883281
Because the F-35 is 20 years behind schedule.
>>28883329
>Because I'm pulling shit out of my ass.
>>28883349
http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/f-35-joint-strike-fighter/
You earned your $50 dollars for the week, lockheed shill.
>>28883379
>America’s new trillion-dollar fighter jet
Literally shows itself to be moronic in the title, why are you linking it again?
>>28883385
Brilliant rebuttal attacking the TRUE title.
>>28883408
wat
>>28869425
Fifty upcoming years of unprecedented air strike ability is worth every penny.
>>28883379
>its relatively short operating range will limit its capability in geographically large areas
Why is this even being mentioned? Compared to the planes that it is replacing the F-35's range is at least double or more, even with just internal fuel. It will be downright amazing whenever the planned 426-gallon drop tanks manifest themselves.
>>28883424
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a16248/test-pilot-f35-cant-dogfight/
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/03/15/How-Build-400-Billion-F-35-Doesn-t-Fly
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-big-budget-f-35-fighter-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run/
>If I stick my head under the sand everything will be ok
It can't even fly.
/k/ sure makes fun of Russia and the Pak-fa a lot but in the end they'll have a real fighter. Meanwhile my tax money goes to trillion dollar boondoggles.
>>28883502
Explain videos of it flying then.
>>28883532
they're clearly cgi
>>28883502
>A bunch of completely fabricated or intentionally blown out of proportion test model issues
>Actually unironically quoting Pierre "I have zero qualification to talk about fighters" Sprey
>>28883532
>B-But it'll all be good in the software update
Even a brick with wings and enough thrust will fly.
>>28883502
Sprey Sprey, go away! The F-35 is here to stay! WHOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
>>28883585
>Even a brick with wings and enough thrust will fly.
The A-10 did, so you're sort of right. But this isn't anything the A-10 can do:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWji8AcOYGA
>>28883585
but i'm a sexy brick
>>28883502
>spamming old, poorly researched, and long discredited articles
You sure showed us, buddy.
>>28883621
muh dik
>>28881966
> JSOW
> Super Hornet
> Virginia class submarine
back in the day
> Fletcher and Essex
> M4 Sherman
> P-51 Mustang
>>28882904
>>28883001
>>28883087
F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-111, F-102, F-22, B-2 and even some indications that the F-117 development was, while a black project, still a shit show. As for GAO reports, have the F-16, F-18 and F-18E/F right before IOC, the same point the F-35 is at right now:
F-16, 1977:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/120/116765.pdf
>In its evaluation of the F-16 development and procurement program, GAO found that the Air Force is concerned with several potential F-16 problems: F100 engine stalls, demonstration of an improved aerial restart capability, and excessive taxi speed. Tactical Air Command believes the F-16 need additional equipment; and that it doesn't have sufficient space available for all desired new capabilities.
It often reads like a hatchet job, but the whole point is to be tough on the project and identify/fix any issues ASAP.
F/A-18, 1981:
http://archive.gao.gov/f0102/114371.pdf
>The Navy and its contractors have made progress in solving technical problems discussed in GAO's Feb 1980 report on the F/A-18, but problems remain. Future decisions should include consideration of whether
>-modifications to the wing will correct a roll-rate problem without adversely affecting other performance areas
>-modifications in response to bulkheads cracking are adequate
>-a high oil temerature condition can be corrected
>-built in test objectives can be achieved
>-fuel cell leakages can be corrected, and
>-causes of two crashes can be corrected
>Estimates of the cost of the F/A-18 program continue to increase
F/A-18E/F, 1996:
http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-96-98
We have cracked bulkheads, engines which cause the entire aircraft to lawndart and, lawls, not aerial restart ability, massive cost overruns (over 2x in the case of the F-16), and insufficient/downgraded capabilities.
It was far worse than what the F-35 is currently getting slaughtered for.
>>28883324
>>28885869
Oh, shit. Someone already posted the copy pasta I wrote. To expand, here are further issues with eventually very successful fighter programs which were very big issues at IOC:
F-15:
>massive cost over runs
>intense scrutiny and politicking and fighting from the USAF just to keep it in the specialized A2A role and not turn it into another shitty F-111.
>constant engine issues with the Pratt engine contract and F100-PW-100 overtemp/flameout issues which caused a very high O&M cost and parts shortage
F-14:
>entered service underpowered due to some attempted Navy budget trickery which got facefucked; engines weren't upgraded for more than a decade
>huge issues with compressor stalls causing aircraft losses due to the high centerline offset of the nacelles pushing it into flat spins; problem was especially bad at low speeds which made carrier landings of a fucking naval interceptor an adventurous crap shoot
F-111
>budget nearly quadrupled
>flyaway cost in 1965 of 103 MILLION DOLLARS (more than a current LRIP F-35A), when a comparatively expensive and all weather naval strike aircraft, the A-6, was 11 million.
>poorly functioning/down rated systems and underpowered. The systems weren't fully worked out until the late 80's, when it finally became a great deep interdiction strike platform, and the "fighter" remained underpowered for its entire service.
>the highest per flight hour maintenance, repair time and parts costs of any tactical aircraft in service for it's entire service life, including the F-14
F-102
>underpowered
>severe low speed maneuvering deficiencies which led to many losses
>absolutely insufficient non-nuclear A2A armament (the AIM-4 Falcon)
>required almost a complete airframe scratch design (the F-106) to rectify some, but not even all of the issues.
>>28884356
>> Super Hornet
The Super Hornet cost over 1.5 initial budget estimates and the project had to fight constantly not to get cancelled due to Congress asking if it was really necessary
> Virginia class submarine
Massive cost over runs early in the program and in the first few boats. It wasn't until the project office and Congress mandated very strict cost control measures and ship builders were forced to finally get all the kinks in the modular building system worked out that it started hitting budget and schedule targets. Now it's under budget and beating every schedule by more and more with each successive boat, which closely parallels many military mass production projects, like the Burkes, F-16 and F-15.
>> Fletcher and Essex
wartime production and economic footing is an apples-and-oranges comparison to current procurement, and there were significant issues with both designs, overall excellent as they were.
> M4 Sherman
> P-51 Mustang
Both of these programs, while eventually successful capability cornerstone systems in the war, had very, very rocky beginnings and early models. Anyone familiar with either should know this. The first P-51 production models were very disappointing as far as intended design capability and performance, and the Sherman's early production and design woes are enough fodder for a book that can double as a doorstop.
>>28886131
>Massive cost over runs early in the program and in the first few boats.
This. Early VA class boats cost almost as much as Sea Wolf class boats, which almost negated the point of the whole program. There were two different points where the Navy had to fight tooth and nail to avoid getting the whole project scrapped. Look at it now.
>>28881966
>>28883001
>>28883145
>>28883281
>>28883324
>>28883349
>>28885869
>>28886015
>>28886131
>>28886143
God, I love the smell of uneducated, poorly informed anti-F-35 idiots getting napalmed with facts in the morning.
Anybody have the webm of the F-35 eyeing the casino from 14 miles away?
>>28886995
>14 miles away
41nmi away, anon. can't find it at the moment.
>>28886995
>>28883502
Fuck off with your stupid meme fighter, you filthy slavaboo. The Russkies won't even have a squadron of those things by the time we can fill the sky with F-35s slinging AMRAAMs from BVR.
>>28886188
Okay anon, off the top of my head, I will post a larger F-35 development problem list than any of those posts gave to a single fighter.
>could not hit its max speed of mach 1.6 without pulling off a specific maneuver
>lightning strikes would have probably crashed it
>F-35C wings are cracking
>can't keep its bomb bay closed for too long
>ejection seat not performing as advertised
>delays to the program itself and specific things like weapon integration
>F-35B needs to have its bomb bays redesigned for size issues
>overbudget, has been bought at prices around six times the original goal
>could not maneuver as well as legacy platforms despite that being boasted many times
>the engine fire
>using data from multiple fighters gave false targets
>ALICE the maintenance system is bugged to hell and back
>the back up engine program was cancelled
>its IR sensor suite will be missing features commonly found in today's targeting pods
>the stealth coating used to come off in flight
>reliability issues severely cramped its availability
>it was damaging ships with its launches
>the program lowered sustained G and acceleration requirements
>two variants do not have an internal gun, and you can hate guns all you want but they made external guns for the fighters which cost extra money, this is also space that cannot be used for things that would be better than a gun
>advertised as the second coming of electronic warfare when it can only jam one radar wave length
>the helmet used to be bugged as fuck with low resolution
>fuel tanks had heat issues
>marine operational tests have failed to provide combat conditions or even realistic conditions
>the program isn't following government rules for cyber security, which is cutting the pentagon off from testing information
The program was a disaster and we'll be lucky if we make it over the last hump.
>>28887242
Blue Thunder plz go.
>>28887411
Other aircraft regarded as successes have had similar early production problems that were corrected before main production began. Give the bird time.
>>28869425
Is there a chance that the F-35 will ever be refitted with a better engine that will give it true supercruise?
>>28887411
>could not hit its max speed of mach 1.6 without pulling off a specific maneuver
It can, but it's quicker to use that maneuver.
>lightning strikes would have probably crashed it
Even before its lightning protection was upgraded it was proven safe; an F-35C was struck by lightning while landing and nothing bad happened
>can't keep its bomb bay closed for too long
At high speeds and low altitudes
>ejection seat not performing as advertised
Still doing better than most ejection seats and the fix is easy
>delays to the program itself and specific things like weapon integration
No arguments here - it's been delayed about 5-7 years (depending on which service you reference) since it began.
>F-35B needs to have its bomb bays redesigned for size issues
It needs a small hydraulic line and a bracket for some wiring to be shifted an inch or two; nothing structural.
>overbudget, has been bought at prices around six times the original goal
Nowhere near that; the original budget called for jets that cost pretty much exactly half of what they're going to cost (original plan was for an A model to cost $28m in 1997 dollars; $41.3m today). Even a Gripen costs more than that.
>could not maneuver as well as legacy platforms despite that being boasted many times
Against 1 legacy platform in 1 test flight. It was meant to sit between the F-16 and F/A-18 in maneuverability and that's exactly where it sits.
>the engine fire
Unfortunate design flaw, but easily (and already now) solved
>using data from multiple fighters gave false targets
With Block 2B software; alpha versions of software tend to be like that.
>ALICE the maintenance system is bugged to hell and back
*ALIS; it is buggy, but pretty much all aircraft logistics software is like that, it's also made major strides in 2015
>the back up engine program was cancelled
Because the F135 is performing well; better to focus on future engines than alternate equivalent engines
[1/2]
>>28887615
>It needs a small hydraulic line and a bracket for some wiring to be shifted an inch or two; nothing structural.
For a weapon that did not exist when it was designed.
>>28887615
I'm gonna need your help for this one.
>>28887589
word is their is already some newfangled engine in the works
and it's part of the upgrade plans i.e. it's already planned into the 1 trillion thing
>>28887411
>its IR sensor suite will be missing features commonly found in today's targeting pods
The only thing it's missing is ROVER data link support, which will be added in Block 4. In the mean time there are alternate data links.
>the stealth coating used to come off in flight
Haven't heard of that one, unless you're talking about that issue from ages back about the afterburner damaging the skin on the tail.
>reliability issues severely cramped its availability
Reliability has been pretty good - according to the latest DOT&E report the main things that reduce availability is maintenance involving adhesives in certain areas and non-design-related-issues, like incomplete instruction manuals requiring technicians to call Lockheed to ask how to fix certain things, or having to wait while spare parts are shipping from the currently-limited supply depots. Even still, availability is up at about 51% which is about equivalent to Germany's Typhoons. At Hill AFB, where they have LRIP 7 (Block 3i) jets and have a good jet-to-spares part ratio, the availability rate of the jets is at 80%, which is slightly better than a mature F-16 or F-15 squadron.
>it was damaging ships with its launches
*Landings; the damage is a long-term issue though
[TEXT BUDGET OVERRUNS; 2/4?]
>>28887411
>>could not hit its max speed of mach 1.6 without pulling off a specific maneuver
bullshit
>>lightning strikes would have probably crashed it
temporary project safety limitations do not equal current problems. this issue has been addressed and relegated to non-issue status for at least two years now
>>can't keep its bomb bay closed for too long
same issue the F-22 had until they got the heat management and radiation systems fully sussed. Also, this is only in extremely high ambient temperatures flying close to the deck or on the ground
>>ejection seat not performing as advertised
It's the same fucking company (Martin Baker, a british company, by the way) that has made ejection seats for the majority of NATO jet fighters since the 40's. The F-35 program, through actual extensive testing, discovered an issue (increased danger to very low weight pilots) which has been endemic to ejection seats since the dawn of the technology, and is only now being fixed.
>>delays to the program itself and specific things like weapon integration
Feel free to point out specifically which systems integrations have been delayed and what the full test schedule is.
cont.
>>28887765
>>F-35B needs to have its bomb bays redesigned for size issues
The F-35B bomb bay has always, since design phase, been slightly smaller than the -A or -C. All three have had minor modifications and moving of things like hydrolic lines for both better access and better munitions capacity. This is a normal part of operations testing.
>>overbudget, has been bought at prices around six times the original goal
This is complete bullshit. It's only 22% more expensive in flyaway costs than the most optimistic early 90's cost projections in THEN YEAR DOLLARS, not adjusted for inflation.
>>could not maneuver as well as legacy platforms despite that being boasted many times
It has better alpha than an F-18, better kinematics than an F-16 with a combat load, double the combat radius of either with external fuel stores on internal fuel alone and destroys the Harrier in every possible metric.
>>the engine fire
One single Class A mishap in the entire program to date is an unprecidentedly excellent record for any military aviation program in history. Period.
cont.
>>28887773
>>using data from multiple fighters gave false targets
It's an extremely sophisticated system, and it's still being worked up. If you think ANY software project, especially one as sophisticated and complex as this one, EVER works completely right off the starting line, you're a moron.
>>ALICE the maintenance system is bugged to hell and back
Yup. It's an incredibly complex piece of software, roughly 8 times more complex than the code running in the F-35. Software development takes time.
>>the back up engine program was cancelled
I have no clue what this is even supposed to mean.
>>its IR sensor suite will be missing features commonly found in today's targeting pods
This is either a flat lie or you are pathetically misinformed. The EO-DAS and EOTS both are infinitely more capable than an IRST system currently in existence. It's not even within the definition of IRST.
>>the stealth coating used to come off in flight
Nope. The F-35 production RAM is both far, far more robust than any legacy application and the factory application process is an order of magnitude faster and easier to apply.
>>reliability issues severely cramped its availability
The F-35B has a better availability by 14% than the Harrier did upon entering USMC service. Likewise, the average availability for the F-15 was in the 30-40% range for the first five years of its service. It's doing better on availability than almost any other newly introduced fighter in the US since Gen 1 jet fighters.
cont.
>>28887792
>>it was damaging ships with its launches
This has already been discussed ad nauseum starting here >>28880172 in another CURRENT thread, much less the number of times it gets addressed per week.
>>the program lowered sustained G and acceleration requirements
Just like every teen series fighter? What, did you think F-16s pulled 9Gs every fucking day and didn't come back Class 2 or Class 3 and the pilot get benched for months?
>>two variants do not have an internal gun, and you can hate guns all you want but they made external guns for the fighters which cost extra money, this is also space that cannot be used for things that would be better than a gun
Your incredibly uniformed opinion, not shared by anyone in a position to understand how the jet will operate in mission profile for the USN or USMC and how it will deal with the current and future threat environment. Read a book.
>advertised as the second coming of electronic warfare when it can only jam one radar wave length
Bullshit. The plan was never, ever other than to have the Growler flying alongside and supporting the F-35 for the forseeable future.
>>the helmet used to be bugged as fuck with low resolution
Because highly sophisticated, bleeding edge tech always works perfectly immediately, right? It's fucking perfect now, which is the point of developing and testing.
>>fuel tanks had heat issues
You don't understand enough to know that their part of the airframe and avionics heat management systems. I'd love for you to expand this in a meaningful way.
>>marine operational tests have failed to provide combat conditions or even realistic conditions
Bullshit. Produce a source.
>>the program isn't following government rules for cyber security, which is cutting the pentagon off from testing information
One subcontractor system has a vulnerability which is being addressed. When you have literally over a hundred distinct subcontractors in one project, SOMEONE SOMEWHERE is going to fuck up.
cont.
>>28887807
And finally, I would note that you are taking an entire projects worth of quibbles, molehill mountains and legitimately identified and corrected issues and acting as if even a tenth of them are still valid. Finally, I refer you back to >>28885869
and >>28886015
which, as I specified DETAILED ISSUES JUST BEFORE IOC and not complete program issue histories. Feel free to compare
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/dod/2014f35jsf.pdf
to any of the reports linked above.
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/bogdan-predicts-f-35s-for-less-than-80m-engines-included/
>Now, Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan says the most common model of the plane, the F-35A, will hit $80 million to $85 million by 2019 and he expects the price will go lower, especially when it hits multi-year procurement in a few years. That price is in then-year dollars, and it includes an engine.
>>28887717
>the program lowered sustained G and acceleration requirements
Putting it roughly equivalent to the Super Hornet in sustained turn performance
>two variants do not have an internal gun, and you can hate guns all you want but they made external guns for the fighters which cost extra money, this is also space that cannot be used for things that would be better than a gun
I don't see how this is an issue; they don't want the gun? They won't use the gun.
>advertised as the second coming of electronic warfare when it can only jam one radar wave length
One radar band, which is also the most commonly used band for radars (the kind used by fighters and radar-guided missiles). Jamming wideband frequencies is what jamming pods are for.
>the helmet used to be bugged as fuck with low resolution
Gen III helmet works a lot better and has IR cameras in the helmet with more than double the resolution
>fuel tanks had heat issues
No they haven't; if fuel gets hot there's an avionics heat issue, but that only applies under very niche conditions that are likely to affect other jets like the F-22 and Super Hornet (which use the same method of avionics cooling)
>marine operational tests have failed to provide combat conditions or even realistic conditions
DOT&E wanted a whole carrier with Ospreys and other helicopters running missions simultaneously; if the DOT&E wants to provide funding for that kind of testing, then they'd do it.
>the program isn't following government rules for cyber security, which is cutting the pentagon off from testing information
True and somewhat funny, but it'll be rectified soon, if it hasn't already.
[3/3]
>>28887589
Possibly, but engine upgrades will bring incremental performance boosts; don't expect 20% more thrust in the next engine upgrade.
>>28887673
True, and one which is not even going into service until 2017.
>>28887679
Link?
>>28887055
Thanks, I thought 14 was way too short but I also knew the numbers 1 and 4. Didn't put that together.
>>28887858
Yup. Nautical Miles, too, not just miles. That's even further.
>>28887827
>Link?
>>28887821
>>28887858
Minor note, but I'm not sure where 41nmi comes from either (besides the other anon; I've seen 41nmi quoted in other threads though); the video says 49.1nmi - it's not that different, but still.
>>28887878
Damn. I still can't find that vid.
>>28887890
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN3PGyOYZxw
Full video in the link, for some reason I had it unlisted.
This guy uploaded the webm: >>28887242
>>28887989
Danke
>>28886995
>>28887055
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2q65qOl1tM
49.1nmi
>>28887875
Responded to the guy
>>28888435
nothing as satisfying as a point by point refutation
>>28887989
>>28888254
Woops, yep I linked to the wrong video - same applies though, the "F-35 EOTS" video is now public instead of unlisted.
>>28888435
Do him now.
Are Lockheed shills on the level of 50 cents or are they even higher and can contend for Jews for top shills?
>>28888753
We get paid in top keks with a $666 monthly bonus.
>>28888644
k, although he's somewhat correct (about why the bays overheat compared to the F-22 at least)
>>28888753
>Jews
wrong board
>>>/pol/
>>28888852
So then is it hopeless? Is the F-35 a lemon after all? I don't see how they can ever fix the overheating problem without a major redesign if he's right.
>>28889087
That or the 'overheating' problem is not a big deal.
>>28889087
I've just replied; copy-paste of what I said to him:
>While the position of the engine alongside the bays is almost certainly the root cause, I don't think it's going to be that hard to fix - there isn't going to be a fix this prior to Block 4 at the earliest due to it not being that big of an issue (the F-35's standard operating altitude is meant to be >40,000ft), but if they do want to fix it, all they need to do is either put in a pair of vents to flush out the hot air in the bays. There'd be more sophisticated options as well, such as altering where the fuel flows from the ram-air heat exchanger, increasing the heat transfer in the RAHE (eg, increasing it's size a little), upgrading the engine to a variable cycle engine, etc, but my point here is that if they want to fix it, they can; it won't be free, but it's not going to require a billion dollar redesign.
>For vibration, it's likely just a matter of harmonics; minor alterations / tweaks to dampening measures should be able to bring it down to acceptable levels.
tl;dr - pop some holes in the weapon bay doors to let the hot air out and the cool air in, or just wait until you have a variable cycle engine.
And in case you're wondering; perforated surfaces is a real possibility - the rear of the skin that covers the gun on the F-35A is perforated to let flammable residue escape when firing; if they want to keep it stealthy they could even be a little extra fancy and have a pop-open ramp that just opens every so often to vent the bays.
>>28889237
Yeah!
Good news everyone! In the Democrat debate tonight, Sanders and Hillary both agreed that if elected the F-35 boondoggle would be canceled.
Good times ahead. Glad to see even the establishment isn't buying Lockheeds shit anymore.
>>28889429
Fortunately for us, that's not entirely their decision.
Plus this seems like more of just a political move by both of them to buy points. If you're looking to offer up a quick "solution" to the various problems with the military, the F-35's an easy option. Of course, there's real problems like
>The VA being so goddamn incompetent that it's just taken for granted that a wounded veteran will have to rely on charities
>The USAF/USN rivalry being so bad that they will force the procurement of entirely new platforms purely because they don't want to use "the other guy's" stuff
>The Marines being a bloated clusterfuck of a military-within-a-military using sub-par equipment instead of the small beachhead-securing unit they should be
But of course, all those have far more complicated solutions than the F-35.
To be fair though, at least Sanders has mentioned that first point a couple of times, so he seems like he might make the effort to unfuck the VA.
>>28889429
>more retarded old people shit on the F-35 just because muh military spending and have no actual knowledge of how things work
Great. So the next president will cripple the US military.
Or, they will promise things and then when they get elected the military will tell them to stfu and stop talking about things they don't know about. Kinda like what's happening with Trudeau here in Canada.
>>28889572
>Kinda like what's happening with Trudeau here in Canada.
I'm glad that, despite what his dismissive response to reporters implied, his cabinet seems to have been selected based on something more than the color of their skin.
The Sikh guy they've got in charge of defense seems like he actually knows what he's doing.
Shame the Canadians elected an internet meme, though.
>>28889429
>Campaign trail trash.
Literally irrelevant, unless now we're trusting politicians on their words alone. Literally nothing will change, they'll toe the line the moment they get their post-elector briefings. Same as Obama.
>>28889566
>>The Marines being a bloated clusterfuck of a military-within-a-military using sub-par equipment instead of the small beachhead-securing unit they should be
Hey now. The Marines have a valuable role beyond simply grabbing a beachhead. Let me put it this way. In 1991, the threat of a Marine amphibious assault kept a significant number of troops away from the real main effort. But the Marines could easily have landed there and assaulted the Iraqi forces, with a good deal of success, and not just because they were Iraqis. They're an excellent middle-weight force, able to be used to rapidly put out any fires due to being forward deployed with heavy enough equipment to deal with anything they come across.
No, simply using the Army would not work for this. The role requires a highly specialized force. While you could make the Marines a sub-branch of the Army, it makes more sense to leave them attached to the Navy, as that is who they'd be most closely working with.
>>28889701
My concern is more that they seem too bloated for the budget they're allocated. They seem perpetually underequipped, and it seems to me that you'd get a more effective force by keeping them smaller while allowing their budget to focus on keeping their equipment up to standard.
Plus, I don't exactly agree with how they've been used in recent years. They're supposed to be a shock force to secure beachheads for the actual army to come in. They shouldn't have been involved in the occupation of Iraq, especially not some place as far inland as Fallujah.
>>28889701
Man, the Marines must be overjoyed. Babby's first carrier aviation.
>>28889771
Well, first carrier based fighter, rather.
>>28889622
>The Sikh guy they've got in charge of defense seems like he actually knows what he's doing.
Just looking at his record he seems like a pretty solid guy. But at the end of the day he's still subordinate to Weedman.
>>28889779
They've operated Harriers and F/A-18s before / still do.
>>28889766
They're at the size they need to be to accomplish their tasks. They ARE underfunded. They've ALWAYS been underfunded. They've learned to make do.
Get your mind off beachheads. They can push inland just as any other can. Not as heavy as an ABCT, but heavier than an SBCT. Should they be used in occupation? In a perfect world, no. However, they are a force which can be used to perform said occupation. That takes the strain off the Army as a whole, and also provides invaluable experience to the Marines.
>>28889779
They've been operating off of carriers since WW2. But yeah, replacing the AV-8s is rather important for them. This gives the ARG a whole hell of a lot more capability.
>>28869425
Why was the AMRAAM never given a proper nickname like "Sparrow" "Sidewinder" "Maverick" "Pheonix" or "Harpoon"?
Did they just run out of names?
>>28890111
Because "AMRAAM" was a convenient and easy to say acronym?
>>28890111
Am-Ram and As-Ram is hard to say?
>>28890156
>>28890185
AIM-7 isn't hard to say either. It just seems strange.
>>28890235
You would be comparing AIM-7 to AIM-120, not AMRAAM.
>>28890235
Notice how that "AIM-7" is three syllables. Everything else is two syllables. Brevity is life.
>>28889841
Marines cost almost as much as the entirety of the UK military, if you count in the stuff the Navy does for the Marines, it's probably more.
You can probably pare the marines down to 3-4 more specialized light infantry brigades and transfer all the armor and mech infantry to the Army to simplify logistics.
A big part of why the marines seem chronically underfunded is that they always do their own procurement separate of the Army, which makes sense if the Marines are doing special missions that Army/equipment can't but they are not.
>>28891266
>Marines cost almost as much as the entirety of the UK military,
The UK's military is rather small at the moment. The Marines are almost twice the size of their Army.
>You can probably pare the marines down to 3-4 more specialized light infantry brigades and transfer all the armor and mech infantry to the Army to simplify logistics.
If you do that, you are completely missing the point. The Marines NEED that heavy equipment. They are NOT comparable to the Royal Marines. Force Recon would be somewhat equivalent to them, as would the Rangers.
>A big part of why the marines seem chronically underfunded is that they always do their own procurement separate of the Army, which makes sense if the Marines are doing special missions that Army/equipment can't but they are not.
That's because they have different requirements. It might seem strange, but salt water will fuck you up, and space and weight considerations as well as amphibious capabilities are of a far greater importance.
So no, anon. You completely do not understand the Marine Corps. It's a much heavier force than you think it should be. That comes from experience. If you can't understand why an island nation would want an highly strategically mobile middleweight force that focuses especially on amphibious assaults and the exploitation thereof, I don't know what to tell you.
>>28889841
>They ARE underfunded.
?
Then why did they buy a boondoggle like the V-22?
Why are they buying the CH-53K?
Why do they want to aim to be leg infantry?
>They can push inland just as any other can.
Except we've seen in the shitshow that was iraq, no they cannot, because all their equipment gets fucked up by RPG's & heavy machine guns.
>>28890111
But it has one, "Slammer."
>>28891725
Just because they're underfunded doesn't mean they don't' have funding.
>Except we've seen in the shitshow that was iraq, no they cannot, because all their equipment gets fucked up by RPG's & heavy machine guns.
I don't know about what reality you're living it, but it's wrong. Marines did a lot of heavy fighting all the way up Iraq, and performed very well. No, an AAV-7 is not going to take an IED very well, but it isn't supposed to.
>>28891832
They are not underfunded, which is why they can waste so much money on boondoggles
>>28891377
> The UK's military is rather small at the moment. The Marines are almost twice the size of their Army.
Right, and how many of those Marines actually do the amphibious thing and how many are offloaded once a beachhead is already secure? At which point regular Army brigades will also be joining the fight.
> That's because they have different requirements. It might seem strange, but salt water will fuck you up, and space and weight considerations as well as amphibious capabilities are of a far greater importance.
Talking about things like MTV, SMAW, etc. Pieces of equipment that the Army has exact counterparts for but the Marines bought a different piece of kit to do the same job. Thus is reasonable if they are able to do something unique. It's not as reasonable if a large percentage of Marine infantry is doing the exact same job as Army infantry.
>>28891819
unfortunately, it ends up colliding with the SLAM-ER
>>28870256
>Local authorities at Lajes Airfield, which alone could clarify the flight details beyond doubt, proved uncooperative.
>Contacted Feb. 9, the Lajes civil air traffic control declined to discuss a military flight, and referred questions to the Portuguese Air Force’s local Dispatch Office.
>Asked to say when the F-35 arrived and departed from Lajes, the Dispatch Office duty officer told Defense-Aerospace.com Feb 9 that “I am not authorized to give you this information,” but refused to say why. He also suggested calling “back tomorrow or Thursday, when a supervisor might be available.”
Jesus fuck, it arrived on February 3rd - some Portuguese guy posted photos of it on the ramp at LPLA that afternoon
>>28891888
>Right, and how many of those Marines actually do the amphibious thing and how many are offloaded once a beachhead is already secure?
Depends on the task. If you wanted to gather up all their assets at once, you could land at least 2/3rds of a Division at once using solely the existing ARGs, which would be your immediate amphibious elements. You could easily have the rest of the division offshore on other platforms. There are three such divisions. That makes perfect sense to me from an operational point of view. Rule of threes, and whatnot. You can conduct two different landings and still have a force in reserve.
And I would like to note that regular army brigades are either not as strategically mobile, or do not possess the firepower of an equivalent Marine unit. They're designed this way for a reason.
>MTV
Point there. Don't understand why they did it. Perhaps it was cheaper.
>SMAW
They've had that for far longer than the Army has had the M3 in any significant sense.
But no, we're talking about the actually important gear. Vehicles. You can't take an Army vehicle and just give it to the Marines. The M1 Abrams is the one big exception, because the Marines don't have the funds to make a tank of their own, and it's a great piece of kit.
>>28892009
Sure you could put the boots on the ground, but these light marine forces would have serious trouble overwhelming any local garrison to actually establish a beachhead
What the marines need to do is buy some commercial ships to carry a larger heavier landing force, but I believe they are already doing this
>>28892035
>Sure you could put the boots on the ground, but these light marine forces would have serious trouble overwhelming any local garrison to actually establish a beachhead
They aren't light, mate. That's the entire point. The landing force would consist of at least a battalion(-) of tanks, not to mention the far more numerous LAVs and AAVs. And then you have to realize that they do posses their aviation assets to assist them. These assets are tied directly to the units they are supporting, making them more combat effective than otherwise.
>>28892065
They are very light, and their ground vehicles are old dogshit
If they spent the money that went on aviation to ground vehicles, they would be 10 times more capable.
For some reason, only the army maintains actual landing ships rather than this over the horizon ship to shore meme
>>28891962
STOP THE PRESS, JPO LIED. Not
It's completely normal for management to twist the truth once in a while to hide potentially embarrassing shortcomings, especially when building something as ADVANCED and HIGH-TECH as JFS.
>>28892090
>They are very light,
They really aren't. I just gave you proof that they weren't. You provide none otherwise other than just saying it isn't. Back up your statements.
>and their ground vehicles are old dogshit
For the AAVs, you have a definite point. For the rest, not so much.
>If they spent the money that went on aviation to ground vehicles, they would be 10 times more capable.
Probably not. They are easier to project power from the ARG, and have a greater effect than otherwise.
>For some reason, only the army maintains actual landing ships rather than this over the horizon ship to shore meme
You think it's a goddamn meme? Fuck, you're stupid.
>>28892137
It's a meme because its logistically impossible to carry out
The US has spent decades learning that light infantry being helicopterred around is a disaster in the making.
But in the marine force, its still going strong.
>>28892217
Yeah, I'm just going to fall asleep now. Dream of gliders, you insane fuck, you.
>>28886188
>napalmed with facts
Hopelessly gulping down LM's forged and fake numbers like an addict sniffs up a cocain line...Good job, buddy, keep it up!
>>28892234
And when an actual amphibious invasion happens, it'll be the army leading the way with their actual amphibious capability & heavy units
You don't do an offensive with LAV's, AAV's, and transport helicopters.
>>28892243
>ANY FACTS THAT DON'T FIT MY UNINFORMED OPINION DON'T EXIST
>>28892217
>logistically impossible to carry out
>dozens of exercises and actual operations are wrong
>>28892271
>exercises with no OPFOR, landing from 500 meters out, skipping the impossibility of supplying fuel/landing troops over the horizon
real nice stuff
>>28892279
>asspull
>denying actual exercises and operations deploying and supplying troops over the horizon
k kid
>>28892293
name them
>>28871365
its only pork when its not your district, faggot.
>>28892279
Howdy. USMC O-3 here. Just dropped by to say you've got your head further up your ass than my marines usually think I've got mine. Which is a really neat trick.
Have a nice day, and god bless the Corps.
Good night, Chesty.
![web_120206-N-VG904-027[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/79V95hF.jpg "web_120206-N-VG904-027[1].jpg")
Here is america testing their amphibious operation
Notice the horizon? Notice the landing ship?
Thats all the distance an AAV can swim
>>28892261
Damn, that cocaine must be good...send me some.
>>28892333
which is fine becuase the idea of an amphibious assault is obsolete
>>28892348
Just like war is obsolete because of MAD right?
>>28892306
They literally do it every year
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/sep/04/dawn-blitz-2015-pendleton/
>They are simulating a composite force of nearly 8,000 troops as they launch landing craft from well decks, fly MV-22 Ospreys off helicopter destroyers, and send grunts ashore to prepare for everything from humanitarian crises to all-out warfare.
>>28892351
"helicopters"
>>28892348
what is a chinook
what are osprey
airlift, dude. make the great leap into the 21st century already
![150905-N-MZ309-234[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BDhtena.jpg "150905-N-MZ309-234[1].jpg")
>>28892357
>>28892363
How will transport helicopters operate anywhere near an enemy?
Doesn't look like over the horizon to me m8
How do they supply these grunts? How do they provide fuel for vehicles ashore? These are things that they do not plan for, or have the ability to do.
Nor can light infantry overwhelm a local garrison or turn back counter attacks.
>>28892376
Someone hasn't figured out how to into combined arms warfare, yet. Or how defensive reduction/SEAD/beach head preparation works. Don't worry, little fella. Someday you'll muster the brainpower to understand concepts that even public school educated inner city 18 year old Marine boots with ten times more interest in pussy than knowledge of how to get it and little more recognizable english (or even native Spanish, for that matter) than a Thai hooker understand and execute.
>>28892348
>the idea of an amphibious assault is obsolete
It's not obsolete, it's just changed in a way our resident Sparky clone can't appreciate. Aviation and standoff distance are the shit now.
http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2015/07/20/Talisman-Sabre-2015-Bigger-and-more-amphibious.aspx
>>28892405
Murreens doing their thing in Op Talisman Sabre 2015
>>28892403
>>28892405
>>28892421
Only in the case of amphibious operations does the "Our firepower will kill everyone before we see them" meme still exist.
Do these exercises have an OPFOR? no, do they model realistic supply/fuel usage? No
Do they actually land from over the horizon? No.
Can the osprey or CH-53 operate in contested airspace? No.
>http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/bogdan-predicts-f-35s-for-less-than-80m-engines-included/
>Bogdan said he’s aiming for eight to nine hours between such software failures when a radar or DAS or EOTS needs to be rebooted
>Aim: system that crashes only every 8h
I wish Bogdan and the whole F-35 development team best of luck in archiving this ambitious goal
>>28892477
>Do these exercises have an OPFOR?
Yes.
>do they model realistic supply/fuel usage?
Yes.
>Do they actually land from over the horizon?
Aaaaaaand yes.
See, America does this thing. Maybe you've heard of it? It's called Train the Way You Want to Fight. The USAF does it. The USN does it. The US Army does it. And guess what? The USMotherfuckingMC does it.
You sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "NYA NYA NYA" doesn't change the facts.
>>28892682
>Bogdan said he’s aiming for eight to nine hours between such software failures when a radar or DAS or EOTS needs to be rebooted, which is what legacy aircraft boast.
>which is what legacy aircraft boast.
>boast.
>>28892477
>do they model realistic supply/fuel usage?
The fucking exercise was in Australia, using USN ships, dipshit. They didn't need to model it. They fucking did it.
>>28892801
Though to be fair, the Emus permitted the exercise; if they hadn't the assault probably would have failed.
>>28892787
This.
>>28892801
And This.
>>28892477
Also, you're a fucking idiot.
t. Marine who deployed by Osprey during TaliSaber from the Boney Dick.
>>28892810
Them birds is baaaaaad mothafuckas, man. Don't piss our emu overlords off. One of those fuckers tried to eat my hat.
>>28892477
>Only in the case of amphibious operations does the "Our firepower will kill everyone before we see them" meme still exist.
Uh, anon? I hate to be the one to tell you this, but standoff weapons, VLO on manned aircraft and munitions and non-radiating sensors are pretty much a thing across all services now. It's literally the way America fights conventional militaries since before Desert Storm.
>>28892799
How many "legacy aircraft" has DAS or EOTS?
>>28892905
I think he was probably referring to the maximum up times of certain targeting pod, IRST and EW systems which legacy fighters and strike platforms use. Many/most of them have some pretty odd limitations on run time and power requirements not to mention issues with required cyclic cooling downtime for some of the fuselage retrofitted systems.
When people in the DoD say, "we really can't fit any more shit into this airframe, and we really can't just throw something like EO-DAS in there from scratch as a refit", it's not just about how much avionics bay volume is left in an F-18 or F-16.
>>28892376
>How will transport helicopters operate anywhere near an enemy?
The same way amphibious landing craft do.
>>28891888
The SMAW is actually pretty slick, especially now they're upgrading with a laser ranging system. The ammo being the back half means it's lighter and less awkward for the gunner when not in use.
LIGO gravity wave actually originated from a F-35 test where the G limits were taken off, not a black hole
>>28892682
I wouldn't draw the Russian into this since they are a few orders of magnitude less open about their military stuff.
It's not a fair comparison.
>>28887827
As far as I know the Super Hornet can sustain its maximum G load. Can you prove otherwise? Most of 4th gen in general doesn't suffer from a sustained G limit. The closest I ever found was the Mig 25, which was a notoriously disappointing dog fighter that sustained a 4 something G load.
>>28894316
>Most of 4th gen in general doesn't suffer from a sustained G limit.
Holy fuck the ignorance.
>>28895834
>source for claim
>coming as soon as the F-35 finishes 3f
Who owns the movie rights of The Pentagon Wars 2?
>>28894316
Wow. He really does fucking think fighters are out there pulling 9G willy nilly. What a fucking moron.
Tell you what, son. Next time you run across a retired military aircraft maintainer, ask him about having to Class 2 and Class 3 aircraft from over G. Ask him about popped rivets.
Then watch the veins in his forehead pulse.
