Just a reminder that F35 production is about to triple in 2016.
how do you feel about this?
>Looking through Youtube for old aviation documentaries as I do
>Find one titled "Dogfights of the Future" focusing on F-22/F-35
>At one point announcer says the words "When the F-35 enters service in 2010..........."
They also said that the F-22 would be upgraded to the F-35's level of electronics by 2011, and that definitely hasn't happened either.
Marketing never likes to listen to engineers.
At least F35 can fly. The Sgt. York was absolutely utterly useless.
I point this out with that picture over and over, but the F-35 is generating money from it's fan exhaust, as opposed to sucking in and grinding money. This is a prime example of libtards.
Also, the F-35 makes the US money and political power now, so...good picture?
IOC is expected for August. If USMC IOC was anything to go by, they'll aim for the very end of August, or it might potentially slip slightly into September. Technically they have until December to achieve it though before they get into trouble.
Oh okay, I didn't keep track of the precise USMC timeline, so that's good to know.
I'm sure the Air Force will have no trouble completing a smooth certification process and adhering to a punctual schedule.
Production isn't tripling in 2016; it's increasing, but in 2016 there's LRIP 7, LRIP 8 and *maybe* some LRIP 9 jets at the tail end being assembled. LRIP 7 is almost done, LRIP 8 had 43 jets in it and LRIP 9 has 55 jets in it (although IIRC some extras have been added by Congress).
In 2015, they delivered 45 F-35s. In 2016, they'll likely an amount in the 50s or 60s.
I'm a bit confused as to which LRIPs, etc this refers to, but nevertheless relevant: http://news.investors.com/business/121615-785609-military-would-get-more-f35s-under-spending-agreement.htm#ixzz3uX0kTiUA
LRIP 10 (being ordered / negotiated now) is when shit hits the roof though; it has >90 jets in it.
>let's put prototypes into active service so that we can say the plane is finished.
>who cares if half of features are broken or missing it's not like they'll fly it anywhere near an enemy
>Herp derp my personal aesthetics disagree with the design so it's bad!
>Last fighter purchase on the scale of the F-35 was the F-16, notable for having a short, rushed dev-test-manufacture cycle and resulted in unacceptable number of faults causing massive crash counts in the 80s
>Hey, let's built a two-seater F-22 with no real advantages
>Two-seater in the age of sensor fusion - pic related
Accommodating another seat should be easy and I suspect it will more than likely be done in the future. When unmanned strike/fighter platforms come into service, the F35 will play command role. The individual in charge of these platforms will have to go through a lot of information and decision making. You can't do that effectively if you are also tasked with flying your aircraft.
As for bomber configuration, LRSB is suspected to be a twin F135 stealth platform.
>The individual in charge of these platforms will have to go through a lot of information and decision making. You can't do that effectively if you are also tasked with flying your aircraft.
A task easier than ever before
>Just a reminder that F35 production is about to triple in 2016.
It's a piece of shit program meant to shovel money into the maw of defense contractors. I mean, the fucking thing can't fly. It's intentional pork barrel spending.
By "flying" your aircraft I meant all information/decision process that go along with it, not just joystick. It might be easier, but there is also a lot of new information that comes with the F35.
You are not going to be doing this effectively for 1-4 other platforms
>Longer range F-35 with two engines and a much larger payload could operate better in the Pacific without keeping vulnerable tankers around.
That's what this thing is for.
>It might be easier, but there is also a lot of new information that comes with the F35.
Its covered in sensors, but pilots won't be managing a single system in normal operation. Its the entire point of sensor fusion; it greatly decreases pilot workload, even if you vastly increase the number of sensor systems.
Its pretty much exactly what its designed to do, streamline everything.
>It's a piece of shit program meant to shovel money into the maw of defense contractors.
But they will continue to shovel money into it in hopes that it will pay somewhat of since if this thing fails to deliver somebody is going to have to take the fall for it and it was sure as hell be the politicians who kept over funding it because it can take off like a helicopter while flying to space and what ever those Lockheed lobbyist kept telling them. And it won't be Martin Lockheed cause that could harm the credibility of the whole military industrial complex so either this keeps on getting funded until it delivers at least something what was promised or someone at the pentagon loses his has to commit a career suicide possibly an actual suicide.
Then we'll just keep going with the F-35.
When you consider GDP, you'll find that the US doesn't spend much more on military expenditures than Britain or France.
Actually, its not cheaper than the fighter it's replacing, but that's nothing new.
All numbers adjusted for inflation to 2015 standard:
>F-100D was 6.14m
>F-4E was 18.06m
That's an increase of 294%
>F-4E was 18.06m
>F-15C was 43.54m
That's a generational increase of 241%.
>F-5E was 7.64m
>F-16C was 27.37m
That's an increase of 358%
>F-16C was 27.37m
>F-35A production price will be 85m
That's an increase of 311%
We can see the F-35 is pretty much right in the zone of 240-360% generational price increase, which is to be expected considering the complexity and added capability each gen brings to the table. In fact, considering the ridiculous amount of upgrades and new capabilities, I'd say the F-35 is doing just fine price wise.
That was a USN/USMC buy.
If you want to run the numbers on those, look at the following progression: F-8->F-4->F-14 for price numbers. The F-18A/C is weird, as the USN didn't really have a light fighter. I suppose an analogue might be the A-4->F-18, but that's problematic.
Don't forget to account for inflation.
I'm pretty sure you'll find a similar percentage range.
>The F-18A/C is weird, as the USN didn't really have a light fighter.
>F-18 literally a contender in the lightweight fighter program alongside the F-16
Jesus. I know you're autistic AND ADHD, but try and pay attention for a fucking second.
I was clearly talking about what to compare it to from the generation before for pricing increase, and the USN didn't have a light fighter like the F-5 with which to compare it.
I think that's his point: the Navy was never interested in lightweight jet fighters prior to the adoption of the F-18. Before that, the Navy Liked big beefy fighters like the Phantom and the Tomcat.
Realize that the post you responded to with those numbers was talking about current gen 4.5 aircraft, not the last major light/multirole fighter the USAF bought.
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
Oh fuck I'm hope it's not too late to post this.
I was pointing out that gen 4.5 is not the proper benchmark for the comparison. The US didn't buy any outside of the Superbug (which the F-35C compares favorably with in price/capability considerations). If you're going to look at what is a reasonable hike in fighter prices, you have to establish a baseline with the upgrades which have come before. Hence >>28440908. I really shouldn't have to spell this shit out for you, but there you go.
There is a lot of potential partners that have not signed up yet. Like Spain who openly stated that they made their carrier with the F35 in mind. The Saudis will also probably join in at some point, since they always want the latest and greatest to cuck their Shia neighbors. The Finnish, whose DM has the biggest hardon for the F35.
What was the time period between the introduction of each aircraft listed.
Without that, your numbers aren't really valid. We use to crank out a new jet every ten years but the F-35 is the first aircraft in a while.
The F-35 is really an amazing aircraft when you get right down to it. It will serve its masters' needs very well for the next 40-50 years. It's also a preview of things to come: we're gonna see stuff that looks like legit alien tech within out lifetimes.
> I mean, the fucking thing can't fly.
Appears to fly beautifully to me.
Maybe with future upgrade versions, but not likely with current model. There is no need for it, that number perfectly meets our goal. If there is going to be more though, it is probably going to come from the Navy.
Can't imagine they won't come out with F-35 D/E/F in a decade or so, with all the usual changes like better engines, improved avionics, or some new capability.
If the manage to get a DEW into the lift fan space that would certainly justify a letter increment and not a block number increase.
I doubt they will, in order to get something meaningful out of DEW you need to be at the MW scale, and although you can provide that amount of power in a fighter, the over head for DEW at that scale is massive.
>Context doesn't excuse you saying stupid shit that is objectively wrong
This is the dumbest post I've seen today. Context literally makes anon's statement correct. You were wrong on the interwebs. Cry more.
F135 upgrades are intended to not require structural modifications (just perhaps the shifting of small things like hydraulic lines, fuel lines, etc.
If they are willing to mod the airframe, it'll be in order to add the AETD engine, which is at risk of not fitting in the F-35 due to the third airstream making it wider.
Except context STILL makes him wrong, The F-18 did NOT compete in the lightweight fighter program the fucking YF-SEVENFUCKINGTEEN did, and the F-18 is a SCALED UP (therefore not lightweight anymore) version.
Actually, it just makes it more impressive. All the low hanging fruit got plucked on the way up to gen 4. Things like relaxed stability and all weather all up sensors like LANTIRN etc, turning everything into multi-roles, were the first real hard core technical challenges and successes stemming from all of the easy aerodynamic gains being harvested earlier.
Now it's all in the engines, inlets, sensors, LPI datalinking and avionics and how well it all plays with VLO priorities. It's a tough balance to strike.
He's right, you know. The Legacy Hornet weighs as much as a Rafale, and it has a longer body and longer wingspan. Nobody says that the Rafale is a lightweight fighter so the Legacy Hornet isn't either because it is even bigger.
Was it scaled up that much? I thought it was just navalized, which meant a lot of structural support weight and tailhook/beefier gear added. I didn't realize they actually scaled the airframe up.
Empty weight also went up by 1/3.
If they pump the excess heat into the fuel (as normal) but also add a ram-air heat-exchanger pod onto one or two of the F-35's wet hardpoints (I wonder if the centerline fuselage hardpoint is wet?) then that should cover everything (other than volume issues).
The air force seems to intent on having pod based lasers, so imagine that belly pod going pew pew instead of BRRRT.
I don't know if 'panic bought' is right, and there was a lot of state department problems with trying to get in on the F-35. Even the F-16 Block 60 has a bunch of weird shit going on where Lockheed can't give them all the firmware.
They have plenty of cash, but I personalty think they'd have been better off buying the block 50+ fighters rather then paying serious extra dosh for modest upgrades and feature integration on the old platform.
That said, they do get royalties if anyone else wants to buy in on the block 60+, something that might offset some of the billions they put into having it developed.
Even if they were buying Block 50s, they'd still cost a lot more than they used to. I don't have figures for the F-16, but look at the F/A-18C:
According to Wikipedia, they cost $29 million in 2006.
In 2014, two of them collided. The value of each F/A-18C (not including whatever damage that happened on the ground, etc) was $75m and $77m respectively (see pic).