Korea is buying the F-35: https://www.f35.com/global/participation/republic-of-korea
There was some tech transfer controversy due to the US gov being cheeky breekies, but that's been resolved as well: http://www.janes.com/article/56554/us-approves-f-35-offset-technology-transfer-to-south-korea
>>28460649 they are, AFAIK they had ordered 40 so that Lockheed Martin will help with their development of KF-X program that is until US rejected to transfer their AESA, IRST, EO pod and RF jammer technology
>>28460779 It wasn't the US who promised them It was the Lockheed Martin, US just decided cuck them midway, which is understandable cause KF-X is a joint development program between Korea and Indonesia Those avionics is not to be given freely ($16.5 millions/fighter) to mudslimes
>>28460943 I still had no fucking idea Indonesia will fund 20% of the total development cost, and today they signed $1.3billion deal for it http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-3388092/Indonesia-South-Korea-sign-1-3bn-fighter-jet-development-deal.html
Yet Indonesia will receive 50-80 aircrafts (depending on source, though 50 more likely), while Korea itself only get 120. Indonesia get to send 100 of their workers for the development and production, though its most likely they wont learn anything. I'm pretty sure they don't have much power to decide anything during the development either.
It might have been put to sweeten the TNI AU plan to buy Korean T-50 trainer aircraft, as both were announced very closely in 2010. Overall, I think this is just another facade to trick Indonesian parliament fund this relatively big project as they are pretty whiny if any military purchases doesn't include transfer of technology. While in reality, what Indonesia did is just pre-ordered a barely coherent steam greenlight title
>>28460943 Who else they could join with? they'd rather surrender to Best Korea before even thinking about doing something with Japan and China was a no go since the US would get buttblasted. Vietnam? Thailand? India?
>>28461291 They are indeed promised, in fact one of the requirements of F-X 3 procurement program is that there is some kind of technology transfers http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/02/15/korea-lockheed-martin-fighter-kai-plan/23348261/
>>28461413 Korean finance ministry had approved $7.9 billion for development. Overall budget is not yet known, many used to throw $7 billion as the numbers though it is very unlikely. You had to consider that they mostly are going to use off the shelves parts rather than develop it from scratch, that will keep the development cost down.
>>28461417 Not likely, unless some of you asshole requested another weird spec and it has to be delayed. KF-X is expected to enter service at 2025.
>>28461824 The F-35 keeps you relatively competitive with the rest of the world on a 1 to 1 basis, and allows your air force to better integrate with any other forces that are also using the F-35, which is going to be more than a few.
The Gripen saves you a buck in flight costs (though it isn't as low as they say), and thats about it. It'll fire missiles.
>>28461859 >>28461882 But 50 planes wont do much against Russia. Is it really worth it using that much money instead of trying to develop a common defense with sweden and finland. I imagine the us is not really keen on risking ww3 to defend such a small nation as norway.
>>28461928 > I imagine the us is not really keen on risking ww3 to defend such a small nation as norway.
NATO article 5 is invokable by any member in self defence, doesn't really matter what the US thinks.
50 of anything alone isn't going to stop Russia. If your country wanted to avoid getting steamrolled within a week, you would have to have a common defence initative and train with neighbour countries anyway. Gripens are just far less of a threat. F-35s might actually delay operations long enough for someone to help you out.
>>28461970 >Would you rather have a common defense with Sweden and Finland or NATO?
Those aren't mutually exclusive. Nordic defense cooperation is mostly about joint material procurement, training and things like unified airspace management.
Personally I believe that both Finland and Sweden will join NATO in few years. Basically EU membership anchors both countries to western camp that strongly that neutrality just theoretical concept, at the moment both are in position where all negative diplomatic and political aspects of NATO are already reality, just the safety guarantees are missing.
>>28462029 Clearly, they dislike Japan more than they dislike China or love the US. Because why else would their president go to China in total defiance to American pressure to watch a military parade designed to shame Japan to the ground?
>>28462458 I wouldn't be surprised if one day I hear that the fished out the wreckage of the Musashi/Yamoto out of the sea and smelt the shit into a pillar that supported the arena where they play Starcraft.
>>28463966 If Russia invaded any NATO country it would lead to article 5 being followed, or the disbanding of NATO entirely.
The political/world situation that would lead to Russia being dumbfuck enough to do that, would likely also include a NATO that was willing to tell the slavs to fuck off back to their caves and die there
>>28461928 Who said Russia's sending their whole ~1500 fighters only to you? They've got bigger fish to worry about and other places to send those fighters. Not to mention something like a fleet of Su-27Ps or MiG-29s would get steamrolled by half as many F-35s.
>Lockheed Martin offered to provide 21 technologies required to build the KF-X fighter jet as part of F-X III offset deals. The US aircraft giant was also selected as the main partner to build KF-X with Korea Aerospace Industries.
>At the request of Seoul’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), Lockheed Martin also agreed to consult with the US government over the transfer of four more technologies related to the active electronically scanned radar (AESA), electro-optical targeting pod, infrared search-and-rescue systems, and radio frequency jammer.
>In April, however, the DAPA received notice of the refusal to transfer the four technologies, according DAPA officials.
>>28467283 >hey let's make a new attacker aircraft, our F-117 fleet is literally falling apart >hey let's strap AMRAAM capability on it and sell it to congress and alies as a new "low cost" element to the F-22, so we can blow more money during R&D phase >no chaim, politicians and general public have no idea what we are talking about, they get their aviation expertise from Top Gun and what other ignorants spout on the internetz >no I tell ya, they have no idea the F-16 was a side project and it was NEVER EVER meant to be serious part of our procurement >we prefer big planes with lots of electronics so we can blow endless tax money on them, but some fresh engineering graduated pilot who thought he was an hotshot managed to promote his ebin lightweight fighter abroad among our allies, so we had no choice but come up with this "hi-lo mix" bullshit >no I tell ya. Increase PR department by 3000%, get people who can make dank 3d animations and professional marketeers >if somebody ever BTFOs us we can always start crying USAUSAUSAUSA #1 GREATEST CUNT IN TEH WORLD, U UN-AMERICUH
>>28468068 >Does anyone even use Sprey as a source outside of memes?
He might be valid source if you talk about shit that was going on between 60's and mid 80's. When it comes to memes, half Pierre Sprey said it shit on /k/ is at least misquoted and completely taken out of context.
Shit he has said about F-35 shows quite clearly that he has focused on playing jazz since mid 80's. He is still a hack, but not even closely as retarded as most /k/ thinks.
>>28468207 he drew the initial requirements he was a military analyst, a real one no wonder he always rants "nuh uh the F-35 costs too much", if you think like a strategist a cheapo plane that does 80% of the mission is better than a money guzzling monster that does 200% and also makes you coffee onboard
>>28468222 Ehhh, even his proclamations about the F-16 have been proven "completely stupid." Current Block 50/60 F-16s are nothing like his LWF ideal. The F-35 is what you get when you combine lessons learned from the F-16 with modern stealth and sensors.
>>28468347 No fighter jet is worth 400 billion dollars- not even the F-35.
What makes the program so insurmountably fucking bad isn't the plane itself- it's concurrency.
The Marines aren't even flying full production "fly away cost" aircraft at the moment. They're flying prototypes that constantly need software/hardware upgrades as they go along. The current prototype planes have a cost astronomically higher than production aircraft for incredibly obvious reasons.
Defense procurement would fix itself over night if the requirement was "fix your fucking plane before we buy it" instead of constantly having the maintain/upgrade fleets of aircraft that still need more testing.
The F-35 engine fire occurred because the requirements for "breaking in the engine" were bad. They had to immediately roll those back to prevent casing rub.
>>28469102 >No fighter jet is worth 400 billion dollars- not even the F-35.
Well its a good thing we have not spent that much so far then isn't it?
>What makes the program so insurmountably fucking bad isn't the plane itself- it's concurrency.
Actually it is one of the smarter things done in aircraft development recently.
>The Marines aren't even flying full production "fly away cost" aircraft at the moment. They're flying prototypes that constantly need software/hardware upgrades as they go along. The current prototype planes have a cost astronomically higher than production aircraft for incredibly obvious reasons.
Do you even understand the difference between IOC and FOC?
>Defense procurement would fix itself over night if the requirement was "fix your fucking plane before we buy it" instead of constantly having the maintain/upgrade fleets of aircraft that still need more testing.
The irony being it would be more expensive to not build the small number of LRIP aircraft and fly the fuck out of them to find problems, as opposed to doing like we did with the F-16 and buying hundreds of aircraft only to have to go back and fix shit.
>The F-35 engine fire occurred because the requirements for "breaking in the engine" were bad. They had to immediately roll those back to prevent casing rub.
The engine fire occurred because an engine that had not been 'broken in' had excessive rub during a high G maneuver, generating 1900 degree temperatures.
>>28469176 The F-16 had something like 18 crashes A YEAR because they pushed it straight from completed prototype testing to 2000+ unit production. The large unit count combined with modular, software-defined design of the F-35 means that literally every opinion you put in your above post is wrong.
>>28469233 >The engine fire occurred because an engine that had not been 'broken in' had excessive rub during a high G maneuver, generating 1900 degree temperatures. Technically, the engine fire was caused by Prett & Whitney cutting corners and shipping defective units.
>>28469233 >Well its a good thing we have not spent that much so far then isn't it? We're buying prototype planes that cost twice as much as the final product just to build. That's even excluding costs of bringing them up to date.
Before anyone gets to saying that the only things the F-35 needs only software upgrades, I want to say you're full of shit. They're still working on thermal buildup in the electronics over at the AFRL.
>Do you even understand the difference between IOC and FOC? I do.
>The irony being it would be more expensive to not build the small number of LRIP aircraft and fly the fuck out of them to find problems, as opposed to doing like we did with the F-16 and buying hundreds of aircraft only to have to go back and fix shit. That doesn't even make any fucking sense. Flying hundreds of aircraft simultaneously doesn't address long term problems for the plane- nor is it indicative of build quality of the final production aircraft.
>The engine fire occurred because an engine that had not been 'broken in' had excessive rub during a high G maneuver, generating 1900 degree temperatures. That was part of the break in procedure for the aircraft.
>Speaking during a defense conference Wednesday at the National Press Club, Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said three weeks before an F-35A made by Lockheed Martin Corp. caught fire during takeoff June 23 at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, it was flown in a manner designed to test the performance of its g-force, roll and yaw characteristics within designed limits known as the flight envelope.
>>28469374 B-2 was such a albatross for Northrop Grumman, especially with the Air Force constantly changing their order size, that it is likely what cost them the YF-23 program over all other factors.
>>28469394 Block 2B software is not ready for combat. They haven't even fully implemented the firing control systems.
From Lockheed's own sources: >Block 2B – Block 2B provides initial warfighting capabilities, including but not limited to expanded data links, multi-ship fusion and initial live weapons. The U.S. Marines will declare IOC with Block 2B. With Block 2B, more than 87 percent of the required code for full warfighting capability is flying.
>>28468435 >Ehhh, even his proclamations about the F-16 have been proven "completely stupid." Current Block 50/60 F-16s are nothing like his LWF ideal. The F-35 is what you get when you combine lessons learned from the F-16 with modern stealth and sensors.
You are enjoying nearly half century of hindsight while saying that. By the time ADF/LWF specs were drawn in late 60's missiles and precision guided bombs weren't really proven technology. Not to mention the fact if BVR missiles were such a high priority... why the fuck integration Sparrow to F-16 was delayed until early 90's. Basically to moment AMRAAM became operational and replaced Sparrow. F-20 Tigershark with less room for avionics had 'em from the get go. In reality USAF delayed Sparrow integration to ensure that F-15C/D production line keeps on going. BVR capable F-16 was threat to that.
Whole Pierre Sprey says M48A5 is better than Abrams is taken from paper that is all about return of investment. While M48 has couple relevant advantages in COIN warfare over Abrams, lower depression of coax MG and fuel consumption, it's actually about how both programs went on back in the day. M48 was evolutionary development of M47, M46 and ultimately M26. It was cheap reasonable increase in capability with low cost. Abrams on the other hand has couple actual flaws, low ammunition capacity and it being fuel hog. Getting rid of hull ammunition storage in M1A1 upgrade and fuel weren't issue in 80's when US Army was expected to fight on door steps of it's own bases in Germany. Expeditionary warfare in Iraq or Afghanistan are bit different matter as shit needs to be either airlifted or comes with convoys that require escorts due to insurgents and IED's.
The 40 ton tank with 75mm or 90mm gun he proposed in 70's wasn't M48. It would have had better frontal armor than Abrams has (at cost of APC tier side and rear armor) and it was supposed to be armed with new smoothbore gun designed to spam APDU at silly muzzle velocity.
>>28469363 >We're buying prototype planes that cost twice as much as the final product just to build. That's even excluding costs of bringing them up to date.
I think your price numbers are just a wee bit out of date.
>That doesn't even make any fucking sense. Flying hundreds of aircraft simultaneously doesn't address long term problems for the plane- nor is it indicative of build quality of the final production aircraft.
Issues like the engine rub or where the frames wear and crack would not have been discovered without thousands of hours of flight time,
>That was part of the break in procedure for the aircraft.
Your quote says nothing about it being part of the break in procedure.
>See: What the Marines did last summer.
And you are confirming that your concerns about concurrency do not apply to the current situation.
>>28468459 >"# targets per plane" paradigm. >mfw americans think they can pull an itano circus in combat AMRAAM is a inertial guidance missile. That means it flies straight and receives guidance updates from the guiding platform/launcher every 10 seconds. They are supposed to be shot in packs ... but against non-manouvering targets (which may be the case against Abdullahnistan's air force tbqh)
You should watch less movies over there. Laws of warfare were put into equations at the beginning on the 20th century. They apply to infantry&cavalry, armored&motorized, ants' fighting and space era warfare the same way
>>28469502 When Sprey was doing plane stuff, all they had were dumb bombs. It took several planes to destroy single targets if they didn't get lucky. In current form with SDB-Is a single F-35 is pretty much guaranteed to be able to destroy 8 targets per sortie, plus carry a pair of new missiles like the AIM-9X and AIM-120D that your opinion isn't based on.
It's nice they let the mentally handicapped use the internet, though.
>>28469550 IOC is not combat ready. This cannot be stressed enough. No one sane in the Pentagon, not even the Marines, are thinking about combat deploying these aircraft into a war zone anytime soon.
> Air force is going to this year. No >Initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) is scheduled to begin in 2017. This date is dependent on successful completion of development test and evaluation.
>>28469647 You're really wanking hard on this, even though the actual prototypes and test models are all complete and actively engaged in flight testing, while there's ~200 up to date complete LRIP builds.
>>28469701 Plus the AIM-120D has even more advanced attack modes, like the fact it can do two-way guidance into terminal range before going active, which the F-22 and F-35 can lead in via passive sensors.
>>28469802 >But the Marines did it before ever doing IOT&E.
Which is not uncommon, see B2.
>Fortunately, anyone can look at that for less than five seconds and realize they're full of shit for doing it.
No, anyone can read what the block 2B software entails and can logically say that its in its minimum usefully deployable form. Which is IOC definition.
>Comparing to the AV-8B Yes, as thats the only plane the F-35B is replaceing, and it is already vastly superior.
>>No live testing False >Still need hardware upgrades >need False >ALIS Logstical system related to the f-35. Semi true >Still non-function FCS 100% false. >Still need software upgrades >need >for IOC in the F-35B False
>>28468222 >He might be valid source if you talk about shit that was going on between 60's and mid 80's.
F35 fanboys can't seem to realize that physics' laws are still the same as back in the 60's and 80's...They keep shouting that 'technology is superior' to everything...even the laws of physics. Gotta love their ignorance.
>>28471023 Physics laws are still the same, but we know how to use and abuse them a hell of a lot better with that new superior technology.
For example; the F-16 that Sprey adores? It has worse wing loading than the F-4 Phantom, yet it kicks it's ass in a dogfight. That's because of things like it's LERX and negative static stability.
The F-35 has negative stability too, but it's also neutrally stable in yaw and has chines and vortex generators up front to give it extra lift. It's also capable of more than 3x the max angle of attack of the F-16 without flipping the fuck out.
And as >>28471036 said; an F-16 or a Su-35 might be able to turn pretty damn quick, but it's got nothing on an AIM-9X or AMRAAM.
Those missiles also rely on thrust vectoring. Once they are out fuel, that ability to literally turn a 180 is gone. The are reduced to the maneuverability of earlier finned missiles. The seeker head prevents the missile from being decoyed by traditional methods such as flares but as laser blinders become more widespread the seekers may once again be rendered vulnerable.
>>28471081 And that makes them that much easier to try and dodge. The effective launch envelope for that missile is also significantly reduces for HOBS shots because so much of the missile's energy is used during the turns.
>>28471067 Not just thrust vectoring - those fins do move and when you have the kinetic energy of ~100lb moving at Mach 2.5, with wing loading of only ~4lb/ft^2, you've still got heaps of maneuvering energy.
>>28471124 For a head to head shot. Not for a shot at a maneuverung target that may be so many degrees off boresight. I also bet that is above a certain atltitude for a target moving at a certain speed
>>28471101 I never said it couldn't turn just the insane initial turns afforded by the thrust vectoring.
>>28471167 You can manuver all you want, a shoulder shot will put the plane into its NEZ instantly, due to the fact that you will only attempt a shoulder shot if the aggressor is to close to turn the jet around, i.e. knife fight range.
>>28471098 >And that makes them that much easier to try and dodge. Look up "proportional navigation." Once it performs the initial turn (primarily using TVC while airspeed is still low) and accelerates onto a collision course with the target, it only has to match any maneuvers the target makes - which, considering that any conceivable target can only pull <12 Gs while an AIM-9X can pull 50+, is not too difficult (and yes, this is AFTER the fuel has been expended - once the missile has enough airspeed for the fins to become effective TVC is effectively irrelevant anyways).
>>28471135 If your shiny overprized dick is so awesome, then how come it just keeps shitting out problem after problem for a decade now? And countries (including your own) are cutting back on how many of them they are willing to buy (for now).
>>28471316 >Cutting back >UK's reaffirmed a buy of 138 F-35Bs >Congress has increased F-35 orders by 20% for FY16 due to lower than expected pricing >SK and Japan have signed onto the program
Also, implying that >F/A-18s weren't crashing during testing >Dozens of F-16s weren't crashing in the early years >F-22s weren't crashing due to computer glitches and life support issues >F-15s weren't having engine problems and being labelled overpriced, underperforming turkeys
>>28471316 You want to know what the difference is? The internet. Every single design fault they find they have a fix for in a couple weeks, and can implement it across the entire fleet in a month or so. And guess what? It won't be in later builds!
But fuckers like you take every little found issue and blow it up like it's the end of the plane, and you and your little echo chambers like War is Boring explode about how the plane you hate has "yet another problem." Back when the F-16 was out you fuckers couldn't discuss it like you do now, and loss rates for that were disgustingly massive. While the F-35 has a big fat 0 crash count.
>>28475339 oculus rift does not have to stitch together six hi-res video streams, run them through pattern recognition and image enhancement / noise rejection routines plus add an overlay from other sensors, all of this in real time.
it will lag, the question is how much. should be good enough for ground attack missions where things are moving slow.
>>28479582 USAF said they might deploy them soon after IOC, which is in August, maybe September this year. They might just be deploying to Japan though. USMC isn't deploying anywhere until 2018 (Japan).
>>28482103 Britain got involved in 2 world wars to prevent Germany from becoming a European hegemon. You are extremely naive if you truly believe that Britain fought 2 world wars it did not want to because of some agreement it signed.
>Northrop’s vice president for research, technology and advanced design, laid out the basic parameters for the sixth-gen fighter (Northrop refers to it as NG Air Dominance): it must boast long range because it’s unlikely to have many bases to operate from overseas; it must “carry a lot of weapons
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.