>Design and build the most advanced air superiority fighter of all time.
>Shut down the line at less than 200 aircraft
I will NEVER understand this. Why did they stop producing the Raptor? Why not keep improving it? How is it that the F-15 is still selling new versions but the F-22 was given up after just 1 iteration? It is perhaps the most baffling decision the Air Force has ever made.
cost
>>29805530
But they dumped trillions into it already to get to that first production run; what's a few billion more for another couple of productions runs?
>>29805756
They're absurdly expensive to build and maintain, and, at the time they were built, they were so far ahead of anything else that even a small production run was acceptable.
Until you start seeing sizable numbers of 5th Generation fighters actually making it into service, don't expect F-22 production to start back up.
>>29805756
kill yourself please. You haven't done the least bit of research on this topic. Use a magical tool called "google" before shitting up /k/ with your idiocy.
>>29805795
>they were so far ahead of anything else that even a small production run was acceptable.
Yeah, but why stop there? Why not keep the production center open and work to improve the design?
>>29805756
>But they dumped trillions into it already
>>29805500
What?
The F-22 is still getting block upgrades. The next big one that's planned is essentially porting over the F-35 EODAS system over
>>29805881
Because we have more than enough to slap the shit out of anything and everything that we could go against.
They are working on improving the design, but, apart from minor block upgrades, the bulk of the work is being done with the F-35, where things like software, RAM, and sensor improvements can be developed with costs spread out across far more aircraft and technology can be matured for use across far more platforms.
>>29805500
They moved on to the F35. It's probably cheaper than that one and it seems they can "mass produce in comparison to the Raptor.
Is it better? Nope. Can you have more for the same price? Yep.
Larger quantity of great stuff > lesser quantity of the best possible stuff you can make.
It's not like in anime where the armed forces have a super cool unique prototype in the hands of a single teenage ace pilot.
>inb4 muh F35 breaking the country and whatever else memes.
>>29805950
That's what I mean. Instead of trying to invent a completely new aircraft, they should have just worked on improving the F-22 (and producing more every now and then, incorporating the new technology in the design with each new batch).
>>29806010
>Instead of trying to invent a completely new aircraft
Except the F-22 had already filled its role, and you can't use F-22s to fill the role of the JSF. They're still working on refining the F-22, but the biggest improvements have taken a backseat to the F-35 because it's easier and cheaper to mature the relevant technologies on that program and apply them to the F-22 later than it is to spend all the effort on a single aircraft with a fairly small production run.
>>29805500
>Why did they stop producing the Raptor?
Because ~180 is more than all of our adversaries best aircraft combined.
10 years later.
>Why not keep improving it?
F-22's are being upgraded, heck they recently gained the ability to fire AIM-9X missiles.
>How is it that the F-15 is still selling new versions but the F-22 was given up after just 1 iteration?
By new versions you mean aircraft tailored to particular customers.
>It is perhaps the most baffling decision the Air Force has ever made.
Not surprising when you clearly have done no research.
>>29805975
>he doesn't know X-37B is piloted by a qt 16 year old girl in a medically-induced coma who has psycho-electric powers and can disable foreign military satellites at close range
It's the current year.
>>29806025
>They're still working on refining the F-22
How can they do that when there is no chance of making more? Sure, they can modify the existing aircraft, but that's it.
>>29806080
same way they upgrade tanks and helicopters.
>>29806050
>by a qt 16 year old girl in a medically-induced coma who has psycho-electric powers and can disable foreign military satellites at close range
>inb4 200 replies asking about the existence of this imaginary girl and if her feet is cute.
>>29806050
yeah but whats her feet look like
>>29806080
>How can they do that when there is no chance of making more?
They made sure to keep tooling specifically because there's a good chance they're going to have to start up production again once someone gets their shit together to field enough 5th gen fighters to seriously contest air superiority.
Until then, you'd be surprised just how much you can overhaul an airframe. Just look at the B-52s. The last one was rolled out in 1963, and yet they've had numerous upgrades to integrate everything from new weapons to countermeasures and avionics. Hell, I'm pretty sure they've even had significant structural overhauls as well.
>>29806115
>>29806151
That's classified.
>>29806159
>tfw no new engines
>>29806050
Lala.
>>29805500
>no equivalent threat at the time
>large amount of money needed to be freed for the quick buyup of massive amount of MRAPs
pretty much it
>>29805500
>I will NEVER understand this
>proceeds to ask anyways
Fag
>>29805500
When the only customer you're allowed to sell to decides to stop buying it, you shut down the line and move on.
>>29805795
>Until you start seeing sizable numbers of 5th Generation fighters actually making it into service, don't expect F-22 production to start back up.
And with the far larger F-35 count, even then it isn't really as critical anymore.
>>29805881
>Yeah, but why stop there? Why not keep the production center open and work to improve the design?
Because that's not how aircraft design works.
The US didn't get to the F-22 by incrementally improving the design of the F-15. They don't need to build more F-22s to get to their eventual 6th-gen design.
The only reason to build more F-22s is to assure air superiority over the Soviet Union's peer air force... which stopped being a thing right around the time when the F-22 would have ramped to full production. So instead of ramping, it didn't.
By the time China or Russia gets to the point where something like the F-22 is needed, 5th gens will be obsolete anyway, and the US will already be prototyping a 6th-gen design that wasn't hampered by being tied to the F-22 airframe during development.
Meanwhile, the F-35 is more than sufficient for current 5th-gen needs. The history of military aviation is full of planes that were the fucking tits for a brief moment in time, before technological advances and political shifts made them obsolete. You need to learn to appreciate them for what they were, not for what you think they should have been.
a jet without an enemy bro.
never even been in a hostile dogfight
used mostly to bomb things ironically.
hence the F35
they realized using an air superiority fighter to bomb was fucking dumb.
>>29805500
>keep
Airforce Guy here, my last base was edwards so I got to talk to a fuck ton of civilian old timers.
Here is the real issue with the F-22. It is amazing. Fucking amazing. It's capabilities are cutting edge, what it was made from was cutting edge. How it was produced...that is obsolete. The assembly line for the F-22 is not as efficient as the F-35. It's jigs, giant ass mills for titanium and so much more are cool, but not amazing. They are literally hand crafted masterpieces, and that is not sustainable, that is what added to the cost.
If the F-22 line gets a restart, it will no doubt get a lot of modernization from lessons that the F-35 and LRSB can give.
>>29806566
this.
>>29806774
Its capabilities are hardly entirely cutting edge anymore. The RAM is a fucking nightmare in comparison to the F-35s.
>>29806774
Let's hope that happens. Soon. China and Russia are both gearing up, and they both seem to have the end of the decade as a kind of deadline for... something.
>>29806848
>russia gearing up
Yeah, no.
>>29806050
This isn't Ace Combat anon.
>>29805500
>Not building the ultimate meme air force by making a high-low mix of Raptors + Warthogs
>>29805500
The real reason is Gates closed it down so he afford more MRAPs.
Seriously.
>>29807207
>the ultimate meme air force
>not Super Duper Hornets and F-15SEs
>>29807318
I really wonder how Boeing managed to convince Qatar to buy both of their meme-planes at the same time.
>>29807383
WHAT?
>>29806848
Holy fuck, I can't believe it's taken me this long to realize just how retarded tripfags are.
>>29806848
>Russia gearing up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrU1hZxSEXQ
For another bender, you mean?
>>29807383
By bribing the shit out of them.
>>29805756
>trillions
>with an s
>>29807503
That's because you've missed that thread where one tripfag tried to convince the world that the Russian soldiers in Crimea were issued de-milled AK-74s.
>>29807383
Anon you really got my hopes up, and then all I could find was that Qatar is buying 36 F-15Es and Kuwait 24 F-18E/Fs.
I really believed that Qatar was about to realize my meme dream.
>>29807613
What the fuck?
>>29807697
Yep. I ain't even joking.
>>29807697
Also the guy couldn't resist but spreading his idiocy to Leddit as well
https://www.reddit.com/r/ak47/comments/3k0pbo/remember_those_fake_ak74m_rifles_issued_to_the/
>>29807753
>Or it could be that they issued their men deactivated firearms
Wew.
>>29806218
>world's only coal-powered aircraft
>>29806050
She just wants to make friends.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UB6BqbOE4o
>>29805500
Obama. Hope. Change. Poor decision making by Defense Secretary.
That's it. It was a terrible idea to stop production with so few units but I remember the idea at the time being that there were no wars for them and we wouldn't need them.
lol and then russia and china reminded us that they do indeed prefer themselves in place of america.
>>29806218
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pw-still-pushing-upgrade-of-b-52s-original-tf33-en-424327/
>>29807853
There used to be a schizophrenic seeming crazy guy that hung out at my local Taco Bell for hours on end, every day, drawing coal-powered aircraft on the paper full-page advertisements Taco Bell would print and put on each tray that he collected from kids who liked his drawings and contributed. I still sometimes wonder what happened to him. He seemed interesting.
>>29808171
>I wouldn’t be surprised to see [the B-52H] go further than that.
I want to see 100 year-old B-52 arsenal planes with eight new engines, pls.
>>29805922
Source?
>>29805500
Protip: The F-15s being built today are bombers that happen to have almost the same maneuverability as the original air superiority version.
>>29805795
Actually, thats a pretty good answer.
>>29808819
Samefag
Did I save a thumbnail; like a retard?
>>29808830
Yes, yes you did.
>>29806025
>role of the JSF
You mean Pentagon has finally found combat application for this disaster?
>>29809408
XD WELL MEMED
>>29807753
>>29807791
Why is it surprising that soldiers would be issued demilled weapons for the Crimean operation?
There was virtually no fighting, just "polite green men" showing off for international media.
>>29805500
I worked Aircraft Armament aka "weapons" in the Air Force. I just so happened to work on that jet for two years. IT IS A COMPLETE BALL ACHE TO WORK ON. Not sure if that contributed to it but I'm happy I don't have to touch one of those again
>>29809478
Because the Russian Army has no shortage of rifles.
>>29809478
This guy again
>>29806700
Also now that I've scrolled down a bit. The jet shown in the picture on this post was one I worked on. Tail number is familiar 5088 out of Holloman AFB.
>>29809494
USAF DEP here, how available are the 5th gen jobs nowadays?
>>29809506
Well, exactly. There's no shortage of AK-74M's, so what's up with all the modified franken-74's?
>yfw this beauty lost to the F35
The F-22 was too good at what it was meant to do. Money isn't made by planes that simply cannot be shot down. Shit son it's almost like you think American defense corporations don't operate on a profit basis.
>>29809565
>The decision to discontinue the F-22 wasn't made by politicians
>>29809536
Not sure man. I've been out for like 2.5ish years. Armament was never a super popular job choice though. 2W1X1 if you're interested. If you end up being a crew chief or specialist as well you could probably work on them if they still have them at Holloman. No one tries to go to Alamogordo, New Mexico. Not sure if they are still there. Most of the guys I worked with in NM are now station at Tyndall in Panama city and they work the 22. You can't really pick Air Craft the only thing you can do is load your dream sheet up with bases that have the 22. You're given access to said sheet during tech school after basic. If you pick all stateside bases with the 22 there's a good chance you'll get one
>>29809590
Please excuse my shit grammar it's like 230 am here and I'm fucking all sorts of shit up
F22 is supposed to be the superexpensive fighter that can fuck up all other fighters. US does not intend to sell them or to use them for anything but air superiority anymore.
F35 was supposed to be a mass-produced jack of all trades slut to be sold to every ally which was supposed to make her perky chest and firm butt cheaper and her hot body available to all of US' friends, but they fucked it up because to be promoted in management and administration means to be recognised for your retardation.
>>29806774
I live in Rosamond. Please kill me. At lest you got to leave...
>>29809585
Greentext doesn't make you intelligent anon.
>>29809607
Then they could have just made "monkey model" F-22's without the stealth skin for export.
>>29809632
...it's not a fucking tank, anon. there is far, far more than the "stealth skin" that makes the F22 a good aircraft, and there's no point in making shitty "monkey models" when the aircraft will still be extremely fucking expensive.
Not to mention the fact that it's not really a good strike fighter.
>>29809552
>costanza.plane
>>29806050
>piloted by a qt 16 year old girl in a medically-induced coma who has psycho-electric powers and can disable foreign military satellites at close range
What is this a reference to?
>>29809590
>>29809602
What about overseas bases? They've got 22's stationed in Korea don't they?
>>29808187
As in, like, steam powered prop planes? That's pretty damn cool to think about, even if it's totally impractical.
>>29806842
That's why they swapped the RAM on the F-22 fleet to the one the F-35 uses.
>>29810402
I thought the RAM on the F35 was baked into the aircraft. Wouldn't it requires shit load of money to switch all the body panels on the F22 to that?
>>29805500
Nice double dubs.
The equipment, knowledge and resources to build it are still there, and I artistically believe that one day they'll revive the production line.
>>29806774
>It's jigs, giant ass mills for titanium and so much more are cool, but not amazing
i'm an assembler for several F35 parts.
ur F22 assembly line description is EXACTLY what we use to make parts.
nothing has changed.
>>29810585
Yes and no; the RAM itself isn't baked into the skin, but rather there's a conductive layer that is. In previous stealth jets, that conductive layer (which would be something like a microns-thick silver coat) would often delaminate, fucking up the coating.
So in the F-35, they do something like have a conductive alloy interwoven with the carbon fibers / carbon nanotubes (since LRIP-3, some panels use CNTs) in their composites. That shit can't delaminate (or at least, not very easily).
The top RAM coating however is also new on the F-35 and uses new materials / polymers / fuckifIknowwhatitis that makes it more durable. That stuff is getting ported to the F-22, but the F-22 will theoretically still have the delimination issues.
>>29810585
the RAM for both f22 and f35 are baked into the metal.
same goes for the B-2
it's a fucking pain cuz entire pieces have to be replaced when it chips off.
>>29810632
Hey Dragon haven't seen you here in a while.
>>29810651
I usually just post anon; before you ask, Ep.4 is in editing (it covers the "the F-4 sucked without a gun", the ejection seat, and the hot fuel / overheating stuff), but stuff's been delaying it; the text-to-speech engine was taken offline, so I had to find its source, which has a background noise watermark that I have to filter out, also I've been waiting for them to announce the LRIP 9 / 10 aircraft prices, but I'm considering leaving it and "costs" in general for its own episode.
>>29810667
Don't forget the classics then.
>>29810686
>F105 thunderchief in a dogfight
I saw one of those the other day.
they are retarded big, and steer like a fucking battleship.
I'm quite surprised he won, versus the small quick mig.
fucking glorious.
>>29810692
It could be a situation where some guy who is a veteran of WW2/Korea is up against some poor commie who just had a weeks worth of training.
>I saw one of those the other day.
Where? Where is this magical place? I want to go to there.
>>29810686
Yep I've kinda included that; because of the resolution of that chart and because people always harp on about sources, I've got (hi-res) screenshots of the source: http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100921-010.pdf
>>29810692
I was a bit confused too by their kill record, especially by how little they used the AIM-9; the catch though is that they generally didn't fair very well; only had about a 2:1 K/L ratio (same as the Phantoms mind you). They also (IIRC) didn't carry Sparrows, meaning the pilots would've been more inclined to go straight to guns. Also they flew a lot of interdiction missions up north, meaning they'd get intercepted a fair bit.
>>29810710
national museum of nuclear science in albuquerque.
http://www.nuclearmuseum.org/
it's in their outside plane gallery thing.
they have a A7C, a F16, B47, B29, and a B52B, one of three in the world.
and a fucking titan 2.
place is really, really cool.
check it out.
>>29810692
Also, I've seen a MiG-17 fly IRL as well. It didn't seem like a particularly agile plane to me.
>>29810748
yeah, but the F105 was called the thud since it was such a flying brick.
I meant "agile" in relative terms.
>>29810059
ace combat?
>>29810754
To be fair, I didn't really see it fly so much as:
>Take-off
>Do a bunch of passes
>Land
If I had been further away from the center maybe I would have seen it do more.
>>29810638
>it's a fucking pain cuz entire pieces have to be replaced when it chips off.
If it chips off then the panel's damaged anyways.
Why not just ramp up super tuc production.
>>29806566
/thread
Those 200 raptors can BTFO the russian airforce three times over
there is no need to make more of such an expensive aircraft.
>>29809552
He's happy even though everyone turned their backs on him....
I know those feels.
Stay happy, happy plane!
>>29805500
The F-15 is sold to other countries. The technology in the F-22 is too advanced to share. The US would rather keep it exclusive while the can.
Remember, the more it is deployed, the sooner it is shot down and copied by retarded Ruskis and Chinafags.
>>29811131
I actually really wish they'd do this. Cheap as fuck COIN. As if they're going to shoot it down.
>>29805500
Its expensive and good at useless things
>>29807318
Please explain the memes to me, will you?
>>29811242
The F-15 was never shot down, why would a plane that completely curbstomps the F-15 in exercises get shot down?
>>29811242
Eh, Congress did just ask for information from the USAF and Lockheed on what it would take to reopen the F-22 production line and even listed that they'd be open to selling it to 'close allies' like the UK, Japan, South Korea and Australia.
We'll see how that pans out if at all.
>>29811322
People think that you can take a Super Hornet or F-15 airframe, which supposedly is cheap, proven and more aerodynamic and then throw in IRSTs, new AESAs, sensor fusion, etc like it was a new car audio head unit, with the end result being something that's better than an F-35 and/or a better alternative to an F-22.
Never mind that both the ASH or F-15SE are still early in limited development, or that they cost more than an F-35, or that they throw more bulk onto the airframe to reduce their RCS...
>>29808747
If you're referring to them still getting block upgrades, you can just google that. As for the EODAS.. I'll have to dig around in my old, old /k/ folder. It was a slide from a Lockheed PDF about the F-22 and F-35 from.. I want to say around '08/09. It showed a list of planned Block upgrades up to Block 45 and then potential upgrades at Block 50 and above leading to 2025+, what was neat about it is that after that it starts mentioning increasing commonality with what's now the NGAD program.
I'll see if I can find dig it up for you, bro.
>>29807318
Frankly, the only part of the Mega Super Bug that's interesting is the weapons pod. I legitimately think that's a serious contender for being one of the next big things that VLO aircraft are going to get.
>>29811339
You're not a history buff are you?
>>29811405
I have no idea what you're trying to insinuate here.
>>29811377
I'd be interested to see them too, although obviously it's all changed since the program was cut short. At this stage (to my knowledge) they're working on bringing in Block 35 Increment 3.2B, which adds the AIM-120D and AIM-9X, but otherwise just improves it's EW and ESM capabilities a bit.
Everything else beyond that is currently unfunded and not really defined (although neither is the F-35's Block 4).
I do expect the Raptor to get IRST capabilities one way or another, but it won't be cheap and it'll need to be a new Block upgrade. Adding the EODAS will require structural modifications (the current MAWS apertures / housings are too small). Adding the EOTS would be easier., but adding either such capabilities would also require an update of the aircraft's processors, which will be problematic (just look at the F-35's switch from Block 2B to 3i).
Ideally you'd want this to be part of either a production restart, or something that piggybacks off the NGAD program (eg "okay, we know that we'll have NGAD begin production in 2030 and have IOC in 2038, the F-22 will need to stay operational until 2045, therefore it needs these upgrades by 2030").
>>29810059
Nothing, I just thought about how the X-37 would be used in an animu premise and made something up.
>>29811437
You are the coolest faggot ever and I have literally used your videos to educate retards.
Maybe not "literally" "retards", but close enough.
Sorry for hijack.
>>29811380
Now that you mention it, yes. But I'm sure Lockheed will be able to develop a more expensive one for the F-35.
>>29811242
>The technology in the F-22 is too advanced to share.
Only for Israel.
![1171[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/P75ba4V.gif "1171[1].gif")
>>29811583
>>29806159
B-52s still in service go through periodic depot level rebuilds where the aircraft are torn down and significant structural members are replaced if necessary.
>>29806050
>girl
this is not ok.
>>29810378
As far as I can tell they are deployed (TDY) there. I could be wrong but after looking it up the tail flash on the jets they sent over there is FF. Those are Langley jets which means if you go to Korea you're not gonna work them. It would be people from Langley doing it and even you're sent to Langley they are sending you over there mid TDY.
I'm pretty sure they are all state side. Probably due to the fact that they don't want foreigners peeping their secrets and we used local contracts for shit in other countries. The last thing we need is some fucking grass ninja taking pictures of shit he shouldn't
>>29806286
>trips on 4chan
Fag
>>29811080
Well no, the RAM chips very easily sometimes for no good reason.
We have had to send a lot of shit back to Lockheed because of this.
>>29812244
>dem dub dubs
So what would you say has better odds working for them? Crew chief or some kind of electronics specialist? I'm waiting on my recruiter to get me a list of jobs, but he keeps trying to shove me into one of those open area AFQT's like 9TM44 or 55.
>>29810059
R-type
>>29814585
Man fuck that, make that dude work he's got quotas to fill. You'd have to see which job actually had openings. To be honest their are more crew chiefs then anyone because their has to be 1 for each jet on each shift but they work the shittiest hours. Don't go engines or they are gonna put you where ever they want with no regard to what you pick plus you could end up in props which will ensure you never work a fighter. Weapons and specs are smaller but Specialists are required to be pretty smart so I would think it would be easier to get that job depending on your ASVAB. Basically crew chiefs are best shot but pick one of the other two if they are open as well.
>>29817896
Also excuse grammar again I know I used the wrong there. I just got done work for microsoft tech support and today was a shit show.
>>29807853
>only
Step aside stove, the real locomotive furnace is passing by.
>>29809552
It was superior in nearly every way.
Should have been made.
Sleep tight puplane.
>>29818507
>Way bigger with no space for munitions
>Crappy wing design
>They couldn't even get it to work without tail fins like they planned
>STOVL version based on the Harrier, but worse and tended to suck hot exhaust
>>29818507
The X-32 probably would have been fine as a pure harrier replacement. But the JSF needed to be something that could be adapted to fit multiple roles.
>>29818595
Call me backwards, but I'd rather have a selection of specialized aircraft for different roles.
The generation five meme has been proven false, because if for example the F35 were engaged by an aircraft specifically designed to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft it would be fucked.
>>29818645
If we're talking purely about the F-22, then you might be right.
But against any other fighter the F-35 is gonna be a pain to deal with. Ruskie memes aside, there is still no way to reliably engage a stealth fighter in combat.
>>29818645
>Call me backwards, but I'd rather have a selection of specialized aircraft for different roles.
You are backwards. Backwards by about a half century, actually. The people that actually do this for a living are, quite frankly, smarter than you. You make that much obvious with your total disregard for logistical complexities incurred by having a ton of special snowflake airframes.
>>29818645
>Call me backwards
You're backwards.
>but I'd rather have a selection of specialized aircraft for different roles.
Even if the F-35 can do it all better?
>The generation five meme has been proven false
By who? Oh, right, nobody who matters.
>because if for example the F35 were engaged by an aircraft specifically designed to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft it would be fucked.
https://warisboring.com/don-t-think-the-f-35-can-fight-it-does-in-this-realistic-war-game-fc10706ba9f4#.wfqzfhrz3
Not even WiB can fake your opinion.
>>29818645
It makes infinitely more sense to have a large fleet of general-purpose fighters supplemented by smaller fleets of more specialized combat aircraft.
For example, the F-35 will be the workhorse of the USAF, but the AC-130 will still be around to help give fire support for special operations teams in permissive airspace.
>>29818686
I'm not baiting here, but haven't the Eurofighters shot them down in war games?
>>29818733
True, I did admit this though didn't I? I'm not trained for it, just an outsider looking in.
However I also see the logistical pain in the ass of having a trillion dollars of RnD shot the fuck down by an aircraft with specialized capabilities developed by a rival.
>>29818738
Thanks bud.
Where's the proof that the F35 can do anything better than a specialized fighter craft? Curious here, not being a dick, I'd like to see.
I want the F35 to work out, it seems cool and futuristic as fuck.
But all bait and meming aside, I don't think we can ignore its glaring flaws and the myriad set backs that were encountered during its production.
A lot of the things wrong with our (US) developed equipment is that the best people for the job don't get the work, the companies that line the pockets of senators etc get the work.
I often imagine just how powerful the US military could be if they were allowed to choose what they got for a change.
>>29818805
>8805 â–¶
>>>29818645 (You)
That's what I'm saying mate. I want the general purpose fighter - and - specialized aircraft as well.
But they just stopped with the F35
I'd like to see the entire fleet get upgrades or replacements.
>>29818831
>but haven't the Eurofighters shot them down in war games?
The F-22 wears lunebergs during wargames to make it fair for everybody else.
>>29818831
>I don't think we can ignore its glaring flaws
What actual flaws? Do you have anything concrete or just Sprey?Axe/Muh feels theories?
>>29818852
I think it's kinda' silly to over-estimate ones strength, it's been proven historically to be a fatal flaw.
I believe that if the US and its weapons development becomes comfortable and complacent we leave ourselves vulnerable to surprise.
>>29818883
http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-all-the-problems-with-the-f-35-that-the-pentagon-found-in-a-2014-report-2015-3
https://www.rt.com/usa/331308-pentagon-f35-issues-list/
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35494003
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-big-budget-f-35-fighter-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run/
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/02/f-35s-terrifying-bug-list/125638/
Pick a source mate.
>>29818899
The good news is that we have think tanks filled with people way smarter than us to make sure that never happens.
>>29818645
>The generation five meme has been proven false, because if for example the F35 were engaged by an aircraft specifically designed to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft it would be fucked.
No 4th gen air superiority fighter can win an information battle against the F-35. The only 5th gen air superiority fighter in existence is the F-22.
The generation five meme looks pretty healthy to me. Let's do this again when the Chinese start fielding PAK-FA in quantity.
>>29818921
How many of those reference the 2013 or 2014 DOT&E report, vs the 2015 report?
>>29818931
Why don't you read them senpai?
>>29818921
>Semi clickb8 reposting GAO reports without needed context
That one is at least understandable
For the rest
>RT
>BBC "technology" section
>Blog repeating a sprey saying
>Defense clickbait
>>29818923
True enough, though we have to take that on confidence.
When you look at other important things the government is in charge of you often find them woefully deficient.
Who's to say that's not the case with these think tanks?
>>29818921
RT is literally a russian state propaganda network, don't ever use it as a source.
>>29818939
Because I don't care to read about problems that no longer exist.
>>29818943
BBC is probably one of the finest news sources out there mate.
What's better?
I'd really love for a large scale war to happen so we didn't have to argue about this shit anymore.
>>29818964
>BBC is probably one of the finest news sources out there mate.
>>29818929
>China
>operating PAK-FA
I'd believe it.
>>29818964
They're good for some things, but their technology section is severely lacking.
>>29818981
Large scale war would mean the next iteration of fighter jets will be developed in a hurry, and we would move on to arguing about them
>>29818645
>Call me backwards, but I'd rather have a selection of specialized aircraft for different roles.
You're backwards. Remember when Night Fighters were a thing? Because radar sets were bulky and heavy and required extra crew to operate?
So for night fighting, they had to build specialized airframes with extra crew stations, more engines, more avionics space and weight allowances... All so that they could fight at night.
Later, as electronics minaturized and engines became more efficient, the night fighter was replaced with just "the fighter": A plane that had all that sexy electronic gear, without having to also be big like your mom.
And that's where we are today, with the fighter and attack roles. There is no goddamn reason why the same airframe can't carry and operate AA and AS weaponry with equal aplomb, depending on the mission.
Hell, even the F-22 has demonstrated the capability to put JDAMs on target from standoff ranges. And it's not even supposed to be multirole!
>>29818964
Look at multiple sources and see which was will cover what. After a while you start to see the biases of individual sources scream loud and clear.
>>29819038
>>29806848
>China and Russia are both gearing up, and they both seem to have the end of the decade as a kind of deadline for... something.
'Not being shit' is my guess.
Doesn't look good for them.
>>29805500
The ideal is what we had in the 1960's with the F-4 Phantom.
Just one good solid plane that could do everything from naval interception to air superiority to short-range bombing.
>>29818831
>Where's the proof that the F35 can do anything better than a specialized fighter craft? Curious here, not being a dick, I'd like to see.
There are three F-35s. The A model is intended to replace the F-16, a supremely capable 4/4.5-gen fighter (and multirole!). The F-35A outperforms the F-16.
The B model is a STOVL model that replaces, and outperforms, the AV-8B STOVL currently used by the USMC.
The C model is a carrier variant that outperforms the F/A-18 multirole naval plane it will be replacing.
Each variant improves on the plane it will be replacing.
>>29806848
>and they both seem to have the end of the decade as a kind of deadline for... something.
Yes, only the Russians and Chinese work on 10-year modernisation campaigns :^)
>>29818831
>I often imagine just how powerful the US military could be if they were allowed to choose what they got for a change.
It would probably be even more pants on head retarded than it actually is, I think. The military isn't necessarily at its best when it's given a free rein and no oversight.
>>29818831
I often imagine just how powerful the US military could be if they were allowed to choose what they got for a change.
>>
Anonymous 05/02/16(Mon)22:42:53 No.29818846â–¶
>>29818805 (You)
>8805 â–¶
>>>29818645 (You)
That's what I'm saying mate. I want the general purpose fighter - and - specialized aircraft as well.
>But they just stopped with the F35
I'd like to see the entire fleet get upgrades or replacements.
Reading "Revolt of the Majors" gave me new respect for civilian oversight. The part where Nixon shits all over the Air Force for their fuck-ups in Vietnam make me smile just thinking about it. And the Air Force came back stronger from that.
>>29819100
So much this. Everybody learns the wrong lesson from the F-4.
> Muh missiles meme
The real lesson of the F-4 is that fucking multirole is the future, and that missiles will only get better over time.
>>29818831 see >>29819138
To give you an idea about how bad it can be at times, try reading "The Revolt of the Majors". It'll give you a very good idea about how pants on head retarded the military can be, as well as what it takes to break free of being a stubborn jackass. Among other things of course.
>>29819184
>That's what I'm saying mate. I want the general purpose fighter - and - specialized aircraft as well.
That is literally not what you said at all.
>>29819208
I fucked up and somehow fuzed multiple comments together. I'm not that guy.
>>29819184
>Reading "Revolt of the Majors" gave me new respect for civilian oversight. The part where Nixon shits all over the Air Force for their fuck-ups in Vietnam make me smile just thinking about it. And the Air Force came back stronger from that.
Did you miss the part where a group of non-expert miscreants poisoned public discourse on procurement because they got BTFO when dealing with people who expected hard facts?
>>29819206
>It'll give you a very good idea about how pants on head retarded the military can be, as well as what it takes to break free of being a stubborn jackass. Among other things of course.
It took intelligent, careful, and studied effort by experienced combat veterans to fix the issues, while the jackass outsider critics just caused more problems.
>>29819248
And those idiots were defeated every single time.
>>29810686
The only reason that chart is any good is because it shows that 2 mig pilots flew directly into the rear gun of a b52.
>>29819100
And it was at first a huge shit and then they fixed its teething issues and the mistaken assumptions in development and it went on to be a very good aircraft. its still one ugly motherfucker though.
>>29819280
There was nothing wrong with the F-4. Nothing.
>But muh gun
That was a pretty minor issue overall.
>>29819274
>And those idiots were defeated every single time.
In the arena of experts, yes. But their simplistic "the government is dumb for doing this" arguments resonated hard in the media aimed at layman voters, which is why the news is such a circus about aircraft these days.
>>29819280
Japan and Turkey still field variants to this day if I'm not mistaken.
>>29819280
>its still one ugly motherfucker though.
Not enough for a nickname like the B-52 BUFF (Big Ugly Fat Fucker) or A-7 SLUF (Short Little Ugly Fucker).
>>29819290
The area of experts is the only area that matters. Fuck the plebs.
>>29805975
While at the time the F-35 was projected to cost much less than the F-22, the F-35's costs have since increased and now the prices (adjusted for inflation) are very close. Usually, F-35 defenders quote a price that doesn't include the engine, which makes it seem lower. They also point out that while costs continue to increase, the projections and promises for the NEXT rev in the development process show big savings. Then the rev comes out and costs have increased again so the promises get moved to the rev after that.
Basically, when the decision was made, it was the reality of a fully-developed weapons system, warts and all, versus the wishes and promises of a project still in development. Paper plans always look better than reality.
The F-35 is one of the most tightly optimized weapons platforms in history... optimized for the procurement system, that is. By tying so many armed services together, plus the air forces of so many allied countries, plus cancelling all viable alternatives, we're kind of stuck with whatever we get out of the process. Our allies will buy it to avoid offending us. We'll buy it to avoid offending our allies by cancelling it and leaving them high and dry. The Marines, Air Force, and Navy are all deeply invested in it. Basically, everyone has a finger in the pie and stands to lose big if it's cancelled, and nobody of consequence is left who can call shenanigans on the whole thing.
It's basically the TFX all over again. Something eventually emerged from that mess that was viable in its niche. With all the cash and talent we're flushing down into the F-35 hole, we're bound to get something useful eventually. But at this point, the program itself is a cautionary tale of how to put together a truly epic boondoggle.
>>29819311
South Korea and Iran as well
>>29819432
good things those F-35 costs are dropping like rocks though the LRIP lots.
>>29819432
>the F-35's costs have since increased and now the prices (adjusted for inflation) are very close
As of 2014, an F-35A is about $108 million (and that does include the engine; the engine costs $13 million), while (adjusted for inflation) and F-22 at its cheapest was about $150 million.
>They also point out that while costs continue to increase, the projections and promises for the NEXT rev in the development process show big savings. Then the rev comes out and costs have increased again so the promises get moved to the rev after that.
Prices have been continually *dropping* for the past ~5 years.
>>29819432
Nigger, what in the actual fuck are you talking about.
The F-22, in 09, costed 150 million dollar per unit.
The F-35A, in 2015, costs ~115 million WITH engine. (LRIP-3 F-135 engine cost being 16 million, source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-deal-targets-unit-cost-below-100-million )
BEFORE inflation, the F-35 is cheaper IN LRIP.
God damn, you are stupid as fuck.
>>29807968
The sad part is that a lot of our fighter fleet is about deterrence. That is, if we'd built the F-22s, then Russia and China wouldn't have been so aggressive, and then we'd be arguing about how obviously there was never a need for them in the first place.
Maintaining that kind of numerical and technological lead would have had another effect. The benefits Russia and China could have anticipated from their own R&D programs would have been much lower, so they would have invested less in that area and helped widen the gap still further. It would have exerted price pressure and market competition against Europe's efforts-- an important consideration since they've emerged as long-term strategic rivals.
You don't have to actually use a weapons system for it to be effective in achieving your geostrategic goals.
(This works vs contractors, too. If we'd kept the F-22 lines open, we could have credibly threatened to cut the F-35 program. That kick in the ass might have helped us avoid many of the problems we've seen. By this point we'd have had a strike variant or even an export version we could sell to Taiwan, Israel, and Britain.)
>>29805500
If Japan goes forward with developing the F-3, it will be Raptor 2.0 in all but name. The US should look into partnering with Japan on this to get a new F-15/F-22 replacement in the pipeline.
>>29819536
This isn't entirely accurate. The F-22 is somewhat limited as an Air Superiority fighter, and they mostly know that head to head their fighters can't really compete in that arena.
The F-35, on the other hand, as a full spectrum strike fighter, is built to be devastating to ground assets, especially IADS and supply lines, which is where they've invested a lot of time and limited resources to. Why else do you think RT and the Web Brigades are so hard charging to spread so much disinfo about it?
>>29809585
You have no idea how these kinds of decisions are made. The politicians negotiate a strategy, then give the pentagon their marching orders. Then the pentagon makes "impartial, non-political, policy-based rulings based on the data" that just so happen to match whatever the politicians agreed to.
When you're tracking procurement decisions, there's the legal/administrative process they follow, and then there's the REAL decision-making process, which is much more intuitive, social, and political.
Example: the IOC problems the F-35 had. When the new chief of procurement came on, he solved them! How? He simply changed the IOC requirements to make them less stringent. It's like a professor curving a test so he won't have to fail too many students. It was probably the right decision in that case, but it illustrates the point: the rules don't screen out politics, they're the smokescreen behind which politics take place.
>>29819572
>The US should look into partnering with Japan on this to get a new F-15/F-22 replacement in the pipeline.
You... you know 6th generation is already in early development, right?
>>29818686
>there is still no way to reliably engage a stealth fighter in combat.
1. Aquire short range IR missile (AIM-9, IRIS-T, Python-5)
2. Attach propulsion portion of your nation's medium range AAM (R-77 etc.) to back
3. Fire missile in the general direction of the stealth aircraft you picked up on IRST (F-35 gets hot as a bitch)
4. Missile get's in range of it's seeker, booster drops off and IR missile fire away
Congratulations, you have succesfuly engaged a stealth aircraft in combat
>>29819534
Don't forget operating costs. F22's are expensive by the hour.
>>29819689
>"reliably"
>>29819280
Most of its teething issues had more to do with training deficiencies than anything related to the actual plane. Adding the gun was more of a psychological boost than an absolutely essential lifesaver.
>>29819689
The keyword in the sentence was "reliably."
Yeah there are ways that you can do it but you're still gonna lose more fighters than you'd like in the process of trying to engage just one target.
If you kill an F-22 but you loose 6 planes in the process and his buddies come and slaughter the rest afterwards then what have you won?
>>29819689
>>29819689
>3. Fire missile in the general direction of the stealth aircraft you picked up on IRST (F-35 gets hot as a bitch)
> general direction
> ends up ridiculously off bore
> not even in detection cone of short-range seeker heard
> reliably
Why even live, Potato IRST?
>>29818645
OK, I'll bite.
On one hand, looking at raw production economics and tactical niches, you're totally backwards. You want maximum commonality to reduce the size and complexity of your logistical chain. Commonality means parts and technicians can be shared and reassigned across many platforms without transition cost/time. It means you're less subject to stockouts and surpluses of spare parts. It means your fixed costs (men, capital equipment, infrastructure, R&D) can be shared across a larger pool of planes, with less duplication between them.
So a single multirole platform gives you economies of scale, and economies of scope. So far, so good.
Now let's inject managerial strategy and public choice economics into the picture. One Big Project leaves you with no leverage against your contractors, because you have no alternative to accepting the project as delivered. It forecloses any ability to look at alternatives in design/doctrinal decisions. It concentrates risk rather than dispersing it; so now a tactical or design flaw affects your whole fleet. It inhibits knowledge generation (critical since so much of the cost/value is tied up in R&D results).
It's why GM's procurement sucks despite leveraging all those wonderful economies of scale, and why Toyota's is the class of the world despite the complexities of juggling multiple redundant suppliers who are free to innovate.
Multirole is fine so long as you have multiple redundant multirole platforms. It sounds ridiculous until you take into account the fact that procurement is a political process followed by human beings.
This problem is why despite the rosy on-paper cost savings you'd get from merging the Marines into the Army (more economies of scale!), it's a terrible idea. Not just because politically it's impossible due to marine vets going apeshit. Because due to the effects above, you'd likely get cost INCREASES, not savings.
Economists call these effects DISeconomies of scale.
>>29819248
>>29819273
I did say "Among other things". Sprey definitely burn in a fire, but it does show how he came to be fairly well. That aside, you guys are also forgetting the whole Strategic Air Command (SAC) vs Tactical Air Command (TAC); old, stubborn brass held us back for a long time. It wasn't until the previously young officers grew old and climbed the ranks that things slowly started to change into what we have today. And even then, it was a long, grueling process that had to be fought every inch of the way due to how new and unproven all the concepts and tech was. The very same tech that became the F-15 and F-16, our JDAMs and so forth. With the F-35, it is most likely no different.
>>29819038
>Hell, even the F-22 has demonstrated the capability to put JDAMs on target from standoff ranges. And it's not even supposed to be multirole!
You're illustrating the point. A few designs that are flexible but initially specialized will eventually work their way into other niches. The F-22 develops a strike variant, for example. At that point, you have an ecology of designs that all overlap to some extent and compete for budget $$$.
If a contractor drags his feet, you re-focus on a competitor. If a design element is controversial, it appears in one design but not the other and you find out empirically (and then the next generation platforms all have the features that are proven). If a design has concept or execution flaws, then other designs can pinch-hit. One idiot in a design bureau who's adept at office politics can't fuck up a whole generation of aircraft.
You do lose parts and design commonality when you do it this way, of course, but the parts commonality between the A, B, and C variants of the F-35 is very low compared to the original projections anyway. We're pay the logistical price for multiple designs without reaping any of the rewards.
>>29819984
Thank you for your well thought out and interesting post. You are a valuable human being.
>>29820095
>We're pay the logistical price for multiple designs without reaping any of the rewards.
Having them all use the same engines and avionics was a good idea.
Trying to create a common air-frame was not.
>>29820128
I thought they weren't quite the same airframe? From what I understood, each variant of the F-35 had enough differences in their airframe that they could fill in their intended role.
>>29819321
There were armies of experts lined up behind the TFX program. It's easy in hindsight to explain what went wrong, but at the time all the hard evidence backed the concept.
The experts are by definition invested in the project's outcome (so they're political actors even if they don't realize it), often parochial in their views (experts on one FACET of a problem), and only experts at what we know at the time of the decision (rather than what we learn later that might show what we "knew" at the time was incomplete/wrong).
I'm not saying expertise isn't critical, just that it's not the end-all, be-all of decision-making. The Soviets' whole system was predicated on experts making all the decisions, and it was a disaster. Injecting non-specialists into a development process is something that the private sector does all the time, for these exact reasons.
>>29820166
>I thought they weren't quite the same airframe?
They aren't. They TRIED to make them one common frame but it just didn't work and its a big part of the reason why everything got delayed so much. Eventually they just accepted that each variant had to be different and that was a major turning point, although the time lost from before is still lost.
>>29820183
You're smart. I like you. Post here more often.
>>29820108
>>29820236
Positive feedback on valuable, insightful commentary? It's not trolling? Where the hell am I? This isn't 4chan! I can't wake up!
>>29805881
Because despite being almost 20 years old (first flight Dec 1997) it's still at least 20 years ahead of its next closest competitor (currently the J20).
Because you need a hell of a lot less dedicated air superiority fighters than you do multirole, CAS, EW, or other aircraft. Especially since they're limited to ground bases. 200 operational F22's is about 195 more operational 5th-gen anythings that any other country has, and is supplemented by around 2700 4.5th gen fighters and will have an additional 2300+ 5.2nd gen multiroles to support it in the next decade or two when the F35 hits full scale production.
>>29810686
Holy shit- don't mess with the F-105 over there.
>>29819534
>http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-deal-targets-unit-cost-below-100-million
Your article is projections and promises, dating from 2013. The contract signed for LRIP 9 engines this morning has them at over $20 million each. The deal signed just now has the nekkid airframes at $100 million each.
That's just today, which I only just checked now, so I will concede that that's a slight drop from the last sticker price.
Keep in mind also that you're comparing the F-22's price at the time of cancellation, when so few were going to be ordered total that the sticker price had to be jacked up to cover the fixed costs of developing it. A price just before cancellation of a program will always be artificially inflated.
I'll let you look up the CPI since 2009; inflation effects are noticeable but marginal in this case.
>>29820261
Lol, I know, right? But don't worry, I won't get a big head, I also earned a
>>29819534
>God damn, you are stupid as fuck.
My area is economics, procurement, and policy... not tactics or engineering. But thanks for the kind words. :) I like that /k/ isn't afraid to call bullshit, even when there are some false alarms. Credentials can make people IRL afraid to challenge you, and even when they're wrong is useful for them to speak up without fear.
>>29807207
>Not building the ultimate meme plane by combing the Raptor and Warthog. Pic related.
>>29820536
>stealthhog
>supercruising BRRRRT
You mean an air superiority fighter that can also do close air support? Isn't that the whole point of the F-35?
(tongue only slightly in cheek here)
>>29820368
>That's just today, which I only just checked now, so I will concede that that's a slight drop from the last sticker price.
where did you get the numbers from?
>>29811380
>not having a raging hard on for the conformal fuel tanks
What are you, some kind of faggot?
>>29805795
You can't just start production back up.
>>29820589
The contract was signed today (yesterday as of an hour ago). Google News, there's a dozen articles that all repeat the same talking points.
Whereas the article the anon cited was from 2013, projections of what the F-35 project promised that they could get costs down to by now. Not surprisingly, they're still not there yet.
>>29820565
>(tongue only slightly in cheek here)
Because that cock is taking up most of the room in there.
>>29820368
I'm not the same guy, but:
>The contract signed for LRIP 9 engines this morning has them at over $20 million each. The deal signed just now has the nekkid airframes at $100 million each.
Wrong, unless you're averaging across all 3 variants. The A and C variant engines cost $13 million, not $20 million. The B variant costs $30 million.
The airframe deal has not yet been signed (I've been following very patiently for them to sign the damn thing), but will be very soon. The A-variant LRIP 8 airframes (signed in Nov 2014) were $94.8 million. LRIP 9 is anticipated to be about $90 million, LRIP 10 is expected to be $80-$85 million.
LRIP 6, 7, 8 were consecutive drops:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/03/25/f35-costs-cracks-development-/70392734/
>you're comparing the F-22's price at the time of cancellation
They were still producing at a decent rate; production was cancelled in July 2009, the last F-22 came off the production line in Dec 2011.
>when so few were going to be ordered total that the sticker price had to be jacked up to cover the fixed costs of developing it
That's not how procurement works. These costs we're talking about, for both the F-22 and F-35, don't include R&D costs; R&D is paid for in separate rounds of funding, as well as in EMD or early LRIP aircraft. The ~$150 million figure for the F-22 was from years after they finished development.
>>29820854
>The contract was signed today (yesterday as of an hour ago). Google News, there's a dozen articles that all repeat the same talking points.
Nothing there:
https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=7yLTVZHVLLDu8wfGnYrADw&gws_rd=ssl#q=F-35+LRIP+9&tbm=nws&tbs=qdr:w
1/2
>>29820854
>>29821518
2/2
>Whereas the article the anon cited was from 2013, projections of what the F-35 project promised that they could get costs down to by now.
Yes and no, those were target prices for LRIP 7. Right now they're producing LRIP 7 and LRIP 8 jets. A target price is an estimate of what it'd cost in the future, but it's also the exact price that the government / taxpayer pays for the airframe. If the jet costs less to make (which it will), then that's Lockheed's profits. If the jet costs more, the extra comes out of Lockheed's pocket. That uncertainty is why they have to negotiate the contracts (like they've been doing for LRIP 9/10 for a few months now), rather than just calculate the production cost and slap on 10%.
>Not surprisingly, they're still not there yet.
They've been there since 2015. They've become even lower with the LRIP 8 jets.
>>29805795
>F-22 production
>start back up
Is that even possible? Seriously, I'm asking.
>>29806050
I think you've been playing too much Metal Gear.
>>29805500
Priorities in the war on terror. You don't need a 145 million dollar plane to bomb a hut.
Also high cost, high maintenance reqs, lack of real enemies to use it on (as in, other 5th gen planes).
Once the Russians, Indians, and Chinese have 5th gens closing on the F-35 expect a whole new air superiority fighter to be built, unless they feel upgrading existing raptors is better.
It's not easy to restart production, don't let people tell you it is.
>>29821562
There will be issues though; the F-35 is being produced in the (massive) warehouses where the F-22 was produced, so they'll need a new plant / location. The other big issue is that a lot of the F-22's electronics aren't in production anymore, so even if they didn't want to, they'll need to upgrade the avionics.
End result is that it'll be pretty expensive, although it'll also bring about an upgrade.
>>29807211
Not a bad option given that the only air support al Qaeda and the Taliban has is the USAF in friendly fire incidents.
When people are getting IED'd and VBIED all the time yet no one is dying from air attacks it's maybe worth considering a shift in spending priorities.
>>29819315
No but it had Rhino before the super hornet
>>29821584
>It's not easy to restart production, don't let people tell you it is.
Nobody thinks it is, but it's way easier than procuring a new aircraft. That process takes decades.
The F-35 should be scrapped, and replaced with a Joint Russian-American Fighter, which both countries would then use in cooperation to conquer the world. Who could stop us?
>>29821932
>>29821984
Well?
>>29821932
But why should we spend a whole bunch of time, money, and effort on inventing cutting edge aircraft technology, and then allow a receding developing-world country with a broke and brain-drained military-industrial complex to take partial credit for it, /pol/?
>>29822295
Because m-muh Sukhoi!
>>29807753
