It's so futuristic. How is anybody against this?
>>55254163
VTOL has been around for a long time before the F-35, and that's not the issue people take with it. But you already knew that and just wanted to post a strawman.
Some idiots are going to fall for it anyway even after my post.
serious question: why do we still have manned fighter jets?
>>55254247
doesn't make VTOL any less cool though. RIP Harrier
>>55254163
>the f35 program has cost America 1 trillion dollars
>100m unit cost
>due to payloads being internal cant carry as much as other jets
>7 years behind schedule
>os doesn't work
>other jets already do its job better and are cheaper
The list continues.
>>55254247
First supersonic VTOL.
>>55254163
>futuristic
>implying
i can't believe my country is so clucked as to actually be buying those damn things
I'm hardly a military nut so there could be a blindingly obvious reason. But why would you need a self-piloting fighter jet when a drone can surely do the same job.
Except dog-fighting which is pretty much a spectacle for hollywood now anyway.
>>55254631
The trillion dollar bill goes into the development of various technologies that can be used in other applications as well, its not as if the jets themselves are particularly pricey in the end point. The fact that they're generalist units will make them more cost effective in the long run.
>>55254292
Countries don't like to back out of development projects that they ran for 2+ decades because muh funds.
5th generation jets like F-35 and typhoon that were in development hell for many years are expected to be in service for at least 30 years, long after they'll be obsolete.
>>55254292
Because an airplane is a really expensive piece of equipment and you can't always have perfect connection with remote control. You need a pilot to assist the vehicle.
>>55255066
Ask America, their new defense contract for the LRS-B includes an unmanned component.
>>55254292
This is actually a really good question.
I thought by now we would be 100% dronefagging the shit out of terrurists
>>55254163
I rather have a slice of bacon than all of American army, begone already and take your gay toys with you.
>>55254163
Because then engine sucks in cold weather, so we can't protect our border with Russia. Our politicians knows this, and they'll still buy this shitty plane so we can suck more US dick
>>55254163
>this thread is face saving
Let me guess the F35 project got a new crisis leader?
AGAIN?
Fuck off, numbaaa 1.
F35 sucked ass then and now. Fucking admit it already. It's a sinkhole for black project and the proof that you can't engineer shit without NAZIs.
>>55255157
Israelbro, how many shekels do you guys syphon off the JSF project?
>>55255406
>F35 finally operational after 45 years of development
>Gets blown out of the sky by a $5000 autonomous drone
>>55254163
Dang, if they can land that smoothly, is there any way we can ever have submersible carriers? Think of that. A submersible carrier that carries like 10-12 planes. Surface, launch/recover, dive.
>>55254997
>his country trusted that an American defense contract would finish on time and under budget
>>55254292
Something about pilot effectiveness exceeding unmanned flight
>>55255972
>They're still giving us shekels for the f-35
>>55256071
I thought it was mainly ethics, I am probably wrong though.
But a human pilot is the main limiting factor of fighting jets.
Can I still say human? Is humyn the PC word for this?
>>55255923
Implying it's safer underwater. There's like sharks down there dude.
>>55254163
we were doing it decads ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqxK3gbje00
Will never understand scrapping these.
>>55255923
Japan had those
>>55256171
Until somebody can devise an AI that is truly superior to a human brain, no it's not a limiting factor at all.
>>55255923
America actually used that in WW2. They only carried a single plane each and were strategically mostly irrelevant so the concept was abandoned.
Yes.
I will post this every F-35 thread
Get Whittle'd on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HrKnF0dwqQ
>>55256095
>they still think they'll have an advanced fighter aircraft at the end of their multi-billion dollar investment
>>55255260
But instead you just fund them
>>55254163
wow, the wires are almost invisible
>>55256232
>not a limiting factor at all
>passes out just from maneuvering the plane
>>55254163
F-35 Hummingbird?
>>55256306
>They still think they're getting a discount for investing in the project
>>55256383
>Maneuvering beyond 9G matters for a fighter plane
The missiles maneuver at 60G.
>>55256461
Nice logic there, ranjeep.
Because they're complicated and expensive.
Therefore they're prone to break, which means more man-hours maintaining them, and also more hours training people to maintain them. Which means more money.
America is weird in that it doesn't like to break the bank on something like this, but is perfectly fine with a man shooting a shoulder-fired missile that costs more than he makes in a year.
>>55254163
cuz we needz mo muhnny fo dem programz
>>55254292
It's really easy to distrupt/jam those signals. Remember when Iran stole a drone from us out of the air?
>>55254631
The F-35 WILL HAVE COST 1.1 trillion (lately revised to approx 850 billion) by 2065, where it will have reached the end of its service life.
The F-35 is "so expensive" because its the first ever plane for which the Pentagon has calculated every single cost the plane will accrue over its entire service life. That TRILLIOM DOLLURZ is going into:
>research
>development
>upgrades
>training
>maintenance
>spare parts, including engines and radar arrays
>fuel costs
>2400 F-35s
The per unit cost of the F-35 is actually lower than the Dassault Rafaele, the Su-50, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-22. It's also a highly capable multirole fighter.
It's also designed to be very modular and upgradeable, so it SHOULD be up to date even until it's phased out in 2065, but nobody can predict new technological advances with perfect accuracy so take that with a grain of salt.
I wish people would stop spouting this JSF BOONDOGGLE meme
>>55256432
>They thought that "It'll be the most advanced, most capable fighter in the world when it enters service" was more than just a load of bullshit we fed Euros to separate them from their hard-earned shekels
>>55256537
>He thinks that he can dodge sidewinders.
>>55256637
Yea sister, your logic is sound and irrefutable
>>55256637
An advanced AI could
>>55256619
Dude, come on.
>implying we'll buy 2400
The government always pulls the rug out early, without fail. This causes an increase in per-unit costs and is part of why defense contracting is such a rigger, sick joke these days: because we end up paying more for less, every single time. We're getting buttfucked.
>>55256626
>The next F-35 payments are coming in monday
>>55256723
>"The check is in the mail."
>>55256619
It's Dassault Rafale, not Rafaele
>>55256693
Okay then. Invent an advanced AI that can dodge missiles. Then we'll just put it into the F-35. What, did you think that all those cameras on the outside of the plane were just for the helmet? The F-35 was always planned as a fighter that could be turned into a drone if the time was right.
>perfectly calm seas
Let's see it handle this crap:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJIZTL2ZyEw
>>55256706
Maybe they won't buy that many but that's not the point.
The point is that the F-35 isn't a bad deal, it's actually a lot cheaper than a lot of other planes that it outperforms by huge margins, PLUS VTOL capability, PLUS built in upgradeability and an airframe designed to last many more hours than any previous aircraft, PLUS equivalent payload stored internally allowing it to hit top speeds while fully loaded, PLUS a longer range than all the planes its replacing.
The F-35 is, bizarrely enough, an excellent plane and people who say otherwise are just memeing.
>>55256619
>The per unit cost of the F-35 is actually lower than the Dassault Rafaele, the Su-50, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-22. It's also a highly capable multirole fighter.
Just fucking kill yourself.
This sjw shit from California won't work here.
Do you really think people will not call you on your lies???
The F35 is currently a not flying junk. An F22 costs $100mn a piece! This one is at least double.
Plus many countries are now either not buying it or ordering less.
Come up with some better next time, NGO!
Now, fuck off with your damage control.
>>55256706
If they pull out, it will be a huge mistake. They'll end up with an aging fleet of legacy fighters and no replacement when they start falling out the sky. Which has already started.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3285870/Pilot-killed-F-18-Hornet-fighter-crashed-British-farm-young-father-way-home-family-fighting-Isis-Syria.html
>>55256942
Your butt-hurt is delicious. The F-35 is not only better than any other strike fighter, it's cheaper as well. The current price is $100 mil per plane, and we're still in LRIP. The price will go down even further through economies of scale.
>>55257128
>He believes the price will go down
>>55254292
Because you fucking children do not understand the actual technology we have and the limitations.
>>55257128
>The F-35 is not only better than any other strike fighter
Except it's not. According to the pilot flying it.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers
>I hope the state department paying you enough
http://investmentwatchblog.com/f-35s-clubbed-like-baby-seals-the-f-35-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run-shame-it-isnt-like-clubbing-banksters/
>>55256942
>Just fucking kill yourself.
Good start.
>This sjw shit from California won't work here.
>sjw is just whatever i disagree with
lol
>Do you really think people will not call you on your lies???
You're free to address any part of my post.
>The F35 is currently a not flying junk. An F22 costs $100mn a piece! This one is at least double.
The F-35 is currently conducting flight tests and has been for a long time. The only restriction that has yet to be dropped is flight in lightning storms, as certain portions of the electronics have yet to be properly isolated. Additionally, the unit cost of each F-35 is ~$million, with each F-22 coming in a $150 million. So that's wrong too.
>Plus many countries are now either not buying it or ordering less.
Only canada has dropped out, because DUDE FREE WEED LMAO would rather spend the money on transexual weed dealerships
>a bunch of other salty ramblings
you should take it easy, you wouldn't want to get angry about jet planes on a Waziristani dominoes trading forum
>>55256854
>>55254163
>>55256619
A multitrillion dolar flying disgrace that can get shot down in a dogfight by a flying scrapmetal cigare bolted to a triangle by tractor factory workers half a century ago in Siberia
>not to kill yorself
pick one
>>55257264
>it's not as maneuverable as a smaller fighter designed for manueverability at the expense of a huge number of other capabilities.
If an F-35 ends up in a dogfight with an F-16 at any point I will eat my hat. There's no real situation i can imagine where an F-16 would know where an F-35 is before the F-35 could have a missile locked and in the air already.
Here is one source, if any of you actually care about what you're talking about I'd suggest you watch it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtZNBkKdO5U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyHlp7tJrxY
>>55257297
None of the things you just said or implied are true.
>>55257207
It's already gone down 55% from its original price.
>>55257264
The F-35 was locked at 6G maneuvering for that test because they were refining the programming. In the real world, the F-35 will have a 9G maneuvering limit.
In practice, the F-35 is going to be faster and more maneuverable than the F-16 because the F-35 can hold weapons and fuel internally. The F-35 can reach 1.6 with a full internal weapons bay and full fuel tank of over 8000 kg. If you put that same amount of weight on an F-16, good luck getting it to go beyond mach 1.2
>>55257507
its really not about the weight, but the drag that having all those external weapons causes. But yes, the F-35 can outperform an F-16 under 90% of circumstances and the other 10% are extremely unlikely to ever occur in real combat scenarios
We actually managed to acquire the F35 internet defense force on /pol/
>>55257490
Women are not like this!
You need to watch this anime...
>>55257588
It's not even /pol related!
>they are banned on /k so the shithead comes here
>>55257588
>I have no facts, sources, or cogent points so I'll just meme about JSFIDF
What would a Dutchman know about fighting machines anyway?
>>55257772
We're buying that f35 junkheap so apparantly we know fuck all
>>55257845
Educate yourself and maybe you'll feel better about it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtZNBkKdO5U
>>55255923
Hmmm. That would certainly eliminate the HGV issue. Hmm. Thanks for the idea bro. I'll pass this up.
>>55254912
Serial? Well, it will be, provided it is declared fully operational and enters mass production.
All in all? Fourth at least. After Yak-141, Dassault Mirage IIIV and EWR VJ 101
>>55256942
It's already operationally deployed jackass.
>>55254292
Because people need to be inside of things for war to remain real. We have drone but it's not the majority.
Robot wars would quickly become a joke thus ending war.
>>55257881
>Educate yourself
>Links youtube propaganda material
0 views for you
>>55256619
>2400 F-35s
No way. No fucking way. Of course the way this is bugeted it's impossible to see the cost to date so all we can ever do is speculate. But no way does 1.1tn pay for 2400 of these guys and maintenance . IIRC they require a full service with parts replaced after every 4-5 training flights or one IRL mission.
>>55258022
>i disagree with it
>it's propaganda
What would constitute an acceptable citation/source for you?
I can't believe the JSF project managers have stooped so low that they start shilling their shit on a Bhutan mural tapestry bazaar.
>>55257905
It's in mass production and has entered service operations.
>>55254292
ai is still fucking stupid and remote controlled airplanes give you a disadvantage
>>55257582
I should have been more clear about that.
It's about drag, no so much about weight. The F-35A can hold 1360 kg of ordinance internally and over 8000 kg of fuel internally.
The F-16C can hold no ordinance internally and 3200 kg of fuel internally.
So there is a 6160 kg difference. If you took that 6160 kg and strapped it to the F-16, it is going to be so burdened by drag that it can barely exceed mach 1.2. Meanwhile, the F-35 can still travel at Mach 1.6.
>>55258030
I honestly don't see how they would be able to cancel the project. What's the alternative? Watching Hornets and F-16s just fall out of the sky? You can only make an aluminum air-frame last for so long.
>>55258030
I've never heard that before now. It sounds like something you'd say if you didn't understand concurrency (ie how every F-35 is upgraded as soon as development is completed on some part)
But maybe. Jet planes are extremely high maintenance.
Maybe it'll help if we put the potential costs of NOT modernizing into perspective. Maintaining our aging fleet of airframes will require at least double the cost of the F-35 since none of the planes were designed to last this long. Every airframe will have to be reconditioned, software will have to be upgraded, etc etc etc and by the end of it we'll have spent at least 2-3 trillion bucks for a much lessened capability than a fleet of F-35s offers.
>>55258196
>ow they would be able to cancel the project. What's the alternative? Watching Hornets and F-16s just fall out of the sky? You can only make an aluminum air-frame last for so long.
Don't forget the Harriers. We bought the entire British fleet, just to be used for spare parts.
>>55257490
Oh well let me quote it then: "Mig-21", grammar nazi.
Can't report the thread. Got the unsolvable captcha bug.
Somebody do /pol/ a favor please.
>>55258313
I thought that we only used Mcdonnell-Douglas AV-8B's? Are you saying that we actually bought British harriers?
>>55258013
>Robot wars would quickly become a joke thus ending war.
I think you underestimate the economic value of war.
E V E R Y D A Y
V
E
R
Y
D
A
Y
>>55257396
You know that the human eye can see something like 30 kilometers?...
And that pigfat plane sure isn't going to be faster than a designated fighter jet
>>55254997
there's my av-8b
>>55258030
>RC they require a full service with parts replaced after every 4-5 training flights or one IRL mission
That's actually pretty normal. There are parts on the Harrier which need replaced after 2hrs of flight time. Major parts. These aren't sedans. Drag racing cars have a full engine rebuild after every race. It's the nature of redlining the motherfucker every time you go out.
>>55258467
All 52 of them IIRC. Just for the spare parts so we could keep the Harrier in service until the JSF entered service this past June.
>>55258248
I'm not saying you shouldn't. Just that the 35 is a meme plane. Half your problems come back to this race to production. Or concurrency if you prefer.
>>55258579
And the JSF FLIR can see 40+ miles.
>>55258579
way more than 30km
and
DESIGNATED
>>55258407
I'm not sure if you're memeing or not:
The MiG-21 had a bad time against planes built by Americans in it's own time. It's kind of a joke to compare it to the F-35 and say it would last longer than a snowflake in hell.
>>55258618
Concurrency has actually represented about 2-3% of the total development budget for the F-35. It's actually a cool idea.
>>55258579
With combat loads, the F-35 is faster than the F-16. Holding ordinance internally means less drag. The F-35 can even supercruise for short distances. Even a naked F-16 can't do that.
See: >>55258196
>>55254292
Drones are ok for targeting sand people on the ground, but when it comes time for WW3 we're going to need to have our manned air force continue to dominate the world.
>>55258640
And so? If we consider the possibility that an opposite 5'th gen can fire off flares or use some kind of anti-missle emp-burst or whatnot then what?
What if the F35 has used all its missiles? In WW2 it was not uncommon for planes to spend all their ordnance. Neither was it in the Vietnam war, and what then?
Or, how does stealth help if you have just fired off a missile? There will be a heat trail all the way back to it, not to mention the human eye can see the flame.
The F35 is designed to fly against a technologically capable enemy, and for that purpose it just does not seem to be a good contender.
>>55258773
What the fuck does the F16 has to do with a 5'th gen fighter jet?
Your (our) opponents are not going to fly F16's against us
>>55258998
>Or, how does stealth help if you have just fired off a missile?
You sneeki breeki your way back to the airbase/carrier for more ordinance.
I guess so many are just too young to have seen the growing pains from earlier jets.
This same shit happened with public development of the f-15, f-16, f-111, and I'm sure others.
Moreover, people like the a-10 because they understand it--lots of armor and a big-ass gun. Full capability of the f-35 are secret. They don't even fully show what these planes can do at airshows (they announce this at the plane's introduction).
>when you're strong, appear weak, and when you're weak, appear strong
>copy a decades-old Soviet aircraft
>charge people six trillion dorras for it erry year
To be fair, this is an excellent business strategy.
>>55259038
>Your (our) opponents are not going to fly F16's against us
No, they'll likely fly something inferior to the f-16
>>55259127
he was wondering whether or not it would blip the radar or be detectable from the missile's point of origin via heat seeking or naked eye line of sight, i think.
good question, i don't know the answer definitively but, stealth technology is meant to keep the aircraft "invisible" to long range detection, in the fray it means very little. think of the stealth mode in crysis.
>>55259127
In an actual war, not these "interventions" we see these days? Do you seriously believe that would happen in a proper war with an enemy that is capable of fielding more planes than the US?
Why are military jets so god damn cool?
>>55259352
russian jets are cooler
>>55259276
like the SU-31?
>>55259340
If everything keeps progressing as planned, there will be 1700 F-35s in the USAF alone. That's not counting the USN or USMC. The Russian Federation has about 800 fighters, split between their Air Force and Navy. Where is this magical place that can field more planes than the US going to come from? Mars?
>>55259352
Because they're always the most technologically advanced machines on the planet at their given time. It's the one area where every nation puts their absolute best foot forward.
>>55259340
There is no such enemy. Only China could possibly come close to being able to field enough planes but they're decades behind us technologically.
>>55259207
I'm just surprised nobody has said "It can't do CAS because it can't fly low and slow" yet.
>>55259127
Stealth helps because you can close the ordnance bays, go invisible to radar again and nothing can get a target lock. Maybe tracing the missile trail will let the enemy know where you were, it doesn't let them know where you are now.
>>55254292
>200 million uav
>gets detected by enemy
>jams gps signal
>lands on enemy air field
>>55259513
>like the SU-31?
Yes
https://youtu.be/JA1mZF3FQhc?t=543
>>55254163
I wasn't aware the F-35 had vertical takeoff and landing.
>>55259319
It's a little more complex than aircraft v radar system these simplistic scenarios envision. We actually use 20th century stealth aircraft in conjunction with 19th century balloons. Along with everything else in our arsenal, to defeat advanced integrated air defense systems.
>>55259875
It was a requirement of the JSF program since it began.
>>55256071
A pilot can be effective remotely, and not subject to g-forces and human limits of needed oxygen, food, etc. F-35 already has imaging systems. Drones are the future.
>>55259875
Yup, just like most every other 5th gen fighter
>>55259480
>russian jets are cooler
The post you replied to was a Russian fighter, jackass. It's a Luftwaffe MiG-29, made by Russia.
>>55259632
> thinking that Russia will ever go directly to war with the US again
>>55259786
> Decades behind
> Hackers already stole the schematics for every current US military project
> F35 components are made in China
> China mines +95% of all rare earth minerals
> Even if just building a 4'th generation fighters, China could field 3-5 times the US numbers
>>55258586
Not to mention that aerospace components have very small safety factors due to weight restrictions. Parts quite simply won't last as long in high performance aircraft.
>>55255157
>5th generation
>typhoon
>>55258524
Whats that about the F-16 dog fight? Did some F-35s lose to some Falcons in a mock battle or something?
>>55254292
because remote control is to unstable
and self flying drones does not exist yet.
>>55256723
Imagine the smell in that room
>>55259992
> Hackers already stole the schematics for every current US military project
[citation needed]
> F35 components are made in China
> China mines +95% of all rare earth minerals
Just magnets for the radar array, because of that rare earth thing. No actual complex systems are developed or built outside the United States.
> Even if just building a 4'th generation fighters, China could field 3-5 times the US numbers
And they'd all get shot down before they knew what was coming, since they wouldn't be able to see stealth planes before the F-35s had missiles in the air.
>>55259931
What about the time that Iran hacked an American drone and got it to land?
>>>55259992
>thinking that Russia will ever go directly to war with the US again
Again? When was the first time?
>>55259931
Drones aren't the future, drones are now. But there are factors which make them not ideal for a fighter aircraft. You get lag delays, and worse, your aircraft can be jammed or hacked. True fighter drones are still a long way off. Perhaps in 2040.
>>55260116
Yes. But it was a shakedown. The F-35 had restrictions in its software to keep it from performing at peak.
>>55259931
NOOOOPE. There is far too much latency for fighters to be unmanned for awhile... not to mention the comms between jet and pilot could be jammed.
Also,
>food
Do fighter jets now have dispensaries to keep pilots fed while flying now? The fact that you mention "food" is kind of hilarious to me
>>55260198
They didn't hack it. They jammed the signal and it glides to a landing inside Iran.
>>55254631
/thread
>>55259992
>china
>serious threat
lol
>>55260206
Although it did have restrictions placed on it, I don't think a F-35 could win in a knife fight over a F-16. Not that the F-35 is that shit, but the F-16 is a better plane than given credit.
>>55258022
Watched both, and while sources aren't provided for some things I'm sure it's easily verifiable.
Has a lot of interesting information (and the channel seems to be a plane fan/mil tech fan)
In short: The F-35 is the next fighter. Deal with it.
>>55260396
>cup holder
Kek
>>55259931
>>55259480
50 years later, and Russia still stuck with the F-14 design they received from Iran.
Now they started blending that design with the F-22.
Why can't they do their own stuff?
>>55254163
Neat
>>55260172
In a proper war situation, with dozens or hundreds of planes in the air, you don't need a fucking radar to see something unless it's dark.
>>55260198
Vietnam. I misphrased, Russian pilots didn't fly, but their planes surely did, and did great damage to the American airforce (also against a supermodern aircraft that would never ever engage in dogfights because we future now)
>>55260431
The F35 isn't supposed to fly missions until what, a decade from now? By then China will be a threat. A serious one, maybe not to US soil, but to US interests surely
>>55254465
Why do we even need VTOL?
Unlike the poorfag bongs we can afford fullsize carriers
>>55260514
Maybe. There are two big advantages the 16 has over the 35; many thousands of man hours more flight time than 35 pilots have, unrestricted flight parameters.
>>55260708
>China will be a threat
China is going to collapse soon. The higher you jump, the faster you fall.
Also, stop being a shill. You've made 20 replies with the same general point.
>>55260708
The f35 is already in service.
>>55260734
We have as many little decks as we do big decks. Didn't you know that?
>>55259207
RARE!!!
Is there a video of it doing a vertical landing or take off before or after flying? Does it use its main thruster to perform the vertical maneuvers? Can it reliably stop mid flight, swap to vertical and land? Can it swap after a vertical lift off and then go into flight? I want to see that.
>>55260734
So that they can be used on something like America-class assault ships, for when you need some air support but not have to displace an entire carrier wing.
>>55260708
>with dozens or hundreds of planes in the air you dont needs radar
How did those enemy planes get close enough to visually identify the F-35s? Did the F-35s just not fire missiles out of respect/politeness?
>>55260734
>Why do we even need VTOL?
The Marines like having their own highly mobile air support. It's part of USMC doctrine that ground units should ALWAYS have at least one air unit nearby to support them. V/STOL helps make that possible.
>>55260808
> China
> Collapsing
They aren't the ones in the proces of loosing reserve currency status
They aren't the ones whose recent economic slowdown is rattling the world markets
They aren't the ones who is loosing influence in South America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East one nation at a time
I'm not saying the US is going Weimar MKII, but China is clearly the rising superpower here
>>55254292
Minovsky particles
>>55261097
It's why Marines flew Harriers for years. One of the few situations where American armed forces actually imported planes.
>>55254292
Drones are making massive progress almost by the day but they just aren't on par with a pilot yet.
>>55260930
Uhh yes? A harrier can do all that and more, the F-35B is just an advanced harrier.
>>55261135
>China's demographics
>rising superpower
What happens to Chinese society in war when only a tiny fraction of their population can work or fight, and the rest have to be provided for by that tiny percentage?
>>55261135
America is the biggest cultural center of the world. They also have the largest military in overall effectiveness, and holds up most of the world from going dark
If America does collapse, which we may of passed a point in human civilization were certain nations won't collapse like Rome anymore, then it won't go alone. It'll drag it's allies and enemies into hell as one.
>>55254631
>trillion dollar bill is for the entire 50 years service life
>this wouldn't fund the department of education for 20
>>55255914
>/pol/_looks_for_an_east_aryan_waifu.webm
>>55256794
Actually it's spelled "Dasshit Rafail".
>>55261261
>mfw I watched a Brit pilot make a Harrier take off backwards.
>>55261327
>the education needs more money to be effective meme
good goy
>>55260115
Ok, 4.5.
>>55257264
>continuously shilling a test in which the F-35 was intentionally gimped and engaged in situations it was not designed for
IRL the F-35 would destroy the 16 before even entering its detection range. GG no Re.
>>55261264
> Tiny fraction
> Present total labour force is around 750 million people
Pick one
Even if that number went down, there could still be more Chinese soldiers than citizens in the United States
>>55261327
>implying we shouldn't abolish the dept of education
>>55261602
>implying we would engage in a land war before the odds were in our favor.
>>55261602
And what proportion work in factores to arm the rest?
And what will they be armed with? The main advantage for the US will always be technology in this fight, the Chinese don't have anything even close to rivaling our capabilities.
>>55261353
That's kind of a trick, he's not taking off backwards in a traditional sense, he does a vertical liftoff while rolling backwards so it looks like he's taking off backwards.
On another note, wouldn't you agree that the Harrier is the loudest motherfucker you ever heard? That thing is louder than a squadron of F-104s when it's just hovering there.
>>55261198
gundams when?
>>55261364
>>55261626
That was my point
Even with the f35 being a military Keynesianism program it is still not as bad as the shit show that is other government bureaucracy
>>55261711
Goddamn that fucking thing. Everyone asked how cool I thought it was. I always said it was cool, for about ten fucking minutes. Then it was just loud. The thrust nozzles rotate greater than 90*. He actual did have a slight backward angle when lifting off. Burned all his fuel and had to immediately land, but he did it.
>>55259340
>Do you seriously believe that would happen in a proper war with an enemy that is capable of fielding more planes than the US?
Just out of curiosity bro, what exactly do you think fighter planes did when they ran out of ammunition in the past?
>>55254163
>tfw no harriers
They were such beautiful machines.
>>55261948
They got shot down... bro
>>55262209
Only if they stuck around in the fight like assholes.
>>55254163
So much money for what ? Bomb kebabs ? WW3 against china ??
I'm glad France didn't buy this useless shit.
>>55259258
>Yak-141
>2,600kg payload
>F-35
>8,100kg payload
And that's ignoring stealth, speed, range, climb and everything else.
>>55260696
>T-50 RCS = 0.1
>F-35 RCS = 0.001
>F-22 RCS = 0.0001
They are literally 30 years behind.
>>55261711
>Tfw when i did science on the f104
Lol
>>55262343
LM actually worked with Yakovlev in the 1990s to develop the lift-fan that would eventually be used in the F-35B.
A rare, fleeting moment of post-cold-war cooperation.
>>55262209
That's retarded.
>In WW2 it was not uncommon for planes to spend all their ordnance
So what, you think they all got shot down and didn't just fly back to base?
>>55259480
seriously how do they handle all them G's constantly changing dierctions and shit when they do stuff like that?
>>55254163
Your plane takes a gigantic hit in both top speed and maneuverability because all the extra piping and fans needed for vtol.
>>55262837
That plane is moving at a very low speed. Also, the plane very likely has a computer that prevents that pilot from making any turns like that at speeds that would put him over 9Gs. 9Gs is generally accepted as the limit for what a trained human being can handle without risking a blackout. For an untrained person, its more like 3Gs.
>>55254163
Because war is about cost management not overkill and overprices toys, if you can build 20000 ok performing and cheap planes or 2000 outstanding expensive sky beasts you should pick the former because 10vs1 make any performance different meaningless.
Also you know what is futuristic? Kinetic shields, now that would justify the absurd costs.
>>55255104
They are very expensive, it's the most expensive weapons program in history and all it's going to do is give you a plane that does a job that could literally be done better by many ww2 aircraft and worse than what does the job now.
>>55260734
wow, rude
>>55263113
Ty for the input
its just the fact that in the matter of 1 second the G's have hit you from 360 degrees mabey its because it happens so fast that they can handle it
>>55259276
ULTRA RARE FLAG
>>55263412
>all it's going to do is give you a plane that does a job that could literally be done better by many ww2 aircraft
These absurd hyperboles are why nobody takes your claims seriously. The F-35 can carry more kg of ordinance than an overloaded B-17.
>>55262427
Not that I disagree with that statement, but 1) those numbers are estimates and they depend on aspect angle, etc. and 2) people don't realize that the RCS must reduce by a factor of 10k to achieve a 10 fold decrease in detection range. The tyranny of the radar range equation.
>>55262672
It's a completely different system though.
>>55254163
>we've had VTOL aircraft since the 80s in the form of the harrier
>america makes one decades later
>WOW SO FUTURISTIC
>>55254163
my tax dollars at work to enforce the expansion of jewberg goldstein's fortunes around the world.
>>55255923
This is the lions gate bridge in Vancouver. I would know that vista anywhere.
>>55254292
Because the future belongs to the humans and not the AIs.
Nah, who am I kidding, I welcome our new overlords.
Reminder that the F-35 is a great plane that's been shit on by butthurt shits who lost the contract
>most powerful fighter aircraft engine
>faster than all of the competition with full combat payload (mach 1.6)
>2x more flight hours between servicing
>can carry more weapons than f-16, f-18, and a-10
>durable, cheap stealth
>need massive radar to spot
>only $100m per unit while its new
>pilot can see through floor
>best targeting system in the world
>can do cas from high altitude with IR AR
>pocket fighter that doesn't even require an airfield
>only a trillion to build, maintain, and support 2043 aircraft for its entire lifespan (till 2065)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtZNBkKdO5U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyHlp7tJrxY
>>55264595
And Nazi's had flying saucers
>>55266157
I can confirm that.
![AA2027_Yak-141_model[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/mK5NJBT.jpg "AA2027_Yak-141_model[1].jpg")
>>55254163
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAyIDsz55Rk&t=1m01s&ab_channel=ValentinIzagirreBengoetxea
>such futuristivicity
sovjets invented this shit 1987 and declared it as useless
>>55256774
>trust me i'ts not about the moverability or the actual stealth you can shoot down commies from faar away
plane will be in hangar shooting down russkie jets
>spend $100 trillion on aircraft carriers
>don't use their runway for takeoff and landing
but why
>>55266511
Is that a serious question? Look at Germany in WW2. They had problems getting some of their aircrafts up because all the landing zones have been bombed.
>>55266320
shh.. they are americans, if their all captured foreign scientists died they inventing things much slower
>>55266320
>sovjets invented this shit 1987 and declared it as useless
Reminds me of DF-12 missiles Chinastronk faggots claim have made US super-carriers obsolete.....
>>55262672
The yak had a radically different propulsion system than the f35.
You do realize that right.
>>55266320
The yak 141 used 3 jet engines to achieve lift. The f35 has one. It's a completely different system. The f35 has more in common with the harrier.
>>55267049
this thing is 50 years old ofc it is not 100% the same but the whole concept was already proven to be shit
>invent rocket laungcher and assault rifle in one thing
>oh it performs poorly as rocket launcher and even more poor as assault rifle
>well looks like you can't have both better stick with one thing
>50 years later Lockhet Jew comes by with the superbest thing the Asaultrifle Rocket launcher
>>55254465
You know the Harrier was a deathtrap, right?
>>55267330
It's not the same concept. The yak dosent even have a lift fan. Why are you lying? You know that the yak used two mini jet engines and a main engine to achieve lift.
![18d40ujw18dk8jpg[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/WcKkl7m.jpg "18d40ujw18dk8jpg[1].jpg")
>>55267573
look
a vertical take off plane will always be heavier then a conventinal plane so it can't perform as good as a conventinal plane or as a conventional vertical take off machine like apache or something like that it's litterary the same thing as the "boat car" sounds great but swims like a turd and drives like one too
>>55267767
The f35b is to be used on carriers that lack catapults. They are replacing harriers. Is the f35b better than the Harrier in every way? Yes.
>>55267882
yes it's a much nicer boatcar but it's still a boatcar
can't outperform a boat or a car
>>55267986
It's not meant to.
The f35a replaces the f16
The f35c replaces the f/a18 (not super hornet)
If your argument is that there is no point to the Harrier and its role? That's kinda idiotic as the Royal Navy, Indian navy and us marines would disagree
Yak carrier landing. Is same.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kPOo1jOqZTA
>>55267049
>>55266320
>>55264091
I said that Yakovlev and LM worked together on developing a new V/STOL system in the 1990s. Which is true. Nowhere did I say that the V/STOL system in the F-35B and the Yak-141 is the same. Ultimately, the idea began with Dr. Bevilaqua and Skunkworks in the 1980s. They began exploring concepts for a V/STOL aircraft after DARPA contacted them on the behalf of the USMC. When the Marines saw the system that Bevilaqua had created, they immediately recognized its potential. This is how the Joint Strike Fighter program began.
>>55268289
Bevilaqua never worked with yak.
>>55264733
the sum of all this thread in one post
>>55254163
Design demands came from all military high brass.
Meaning you have the navy, the army anf the airforce bitching over requirements.
It has to be stealth which means no outside weapons. It has be fast, so your aerodynamic shape made for high speed travel is unfit for support missions, where you need to go low and slow. The gun on this nigger tier shitfest of a planr still doesn't operate properly and won't function properly untill 2017.
And because you don't want to fuck up your stealth you cannot have backup fuel tanks for long support missions.
Not to mention the fact that all migs and plenty of older fighter jets can out manouvre this turd with wings.
The only thing it is good at. Is sending money to Lockheed Martin.
>>55269778
>It has be fast, so your aerodynamic shape made for high speed travel is unfit for support missions, where you need to go low and slow.
Tell that to the B-1, B-52, F-15E, F-16, and F-18. All of these planes have been used for air support in Iraq and Afghanistan. Precision munitions obviate the need to get close to the ground.
Even the A-10 rarely goes low now that they've been fitted with sniper pods.
>people hating on based burgerbros who spend trillion so that we can just steal their tech and produce our own tech without spending a dime on R&D
Thanks burger bros, greatest allies
>>55266511
becuz floating airport
is this ur first time shitposting?
