[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
Why aren't Korea buying F-35? Do they...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons

Thread replies: 176
Thread images: 32
File: f35.jpg (3 MB, 4256x2832) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
f35.jpg
3 MB, 4256x2832
Why aren't Korea buying F-35? Do they *want* to lose to China?
>>
They're buying the massively superior Boeing ™ F-15 Silent Eagle © ®
>>
>>28460649
Shitposting begots shitposting
>>28460661
>>
>>28460649
They're working on their own planes, and they'll have F-35s on the murrican bases there...
>>
>>28460649
Who cares? The F-35 is a meme you dip.
>>
>>28460649

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
>>
>>28460684
/thread
>>
>>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
>>
>>28460649
Korea doesnt actually have beef with China.
If there's a relationship between major asian countries that can be categorized as being 'pretty good', it is SK and China.

Hell, South Korea even defied America multiple times last year: First with AIIB and then in visiting China's Anti-Japanese Military Parade.
>>
>>28460698
The US changed their mind again:
>>28460684
>>
>>28460704
I think SK hates China.
But they hate Japan even more and they'll stop at nothing to make them salty, NOTHING.
>>
>>28460731
No, they initially wanted to transfer 25 technologies
4 that I mentioned is rejected, and they worried that the other 21 will suffer the same fate, so they send their diplomats

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/kf-x-paper-pushing-or-peer-fighter-program-010647/#2014-2015
>>
>>28460761
My bad; sucks for them then; should got a more binding agreement with penalties should the US pull out on the full terms.
>>
>>28460734
Joining the AIIB isnt about making Japan salty, but more the US.

But the brits, french and german were equally ready to cuck the Burgers in that regard.
>>
>>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
>>
File: f35l.jpg (91 KB, 800x1200) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
f35l.jpg
91 KB, 800x1200
>>28460898
Why would they joint develop with Indonesia?
>>
File: 1409098332984.png (67 KB, 181x201) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1409098332984.png
67 KB, 181x201
>>28460661
>Boeing has neither of the 5th gen contracts and is relegated to painting 767s grey
How assblasted were they by Lockheed?
>>
>>28460704
fucking squinty eyed asiatic scums.
>>
>>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
>>
>>28460898
>It wasn't the US who promised them
>It was the Lockheed Martin

They were never promised.
>>
>>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?
>>
File: 1437701602306.jpg (687 KB, 1754x1754) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1437701602306.jpg
687 KB, 1754x1754
>>28461124
>1.3 billion
don't tell me that's 20%
AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What the fuck are they going to build with that.
What the fuck are they going to build with that.
>>
So will the KF-X be operational faster than the F-3?
>>
>>28461124
Indonesia is the most developed country in the Southeast Asian region, with the most money. Unlike Ausfalia, it can actually have the technology to develop its own domestic 5th gen.
>>
>>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.
>>
Some people in my country's media (Norway) are really butthurt about us buying f-35 instead of gripen. Do you agree with them /k/?
>>
>>28461824
No, Gripen is comparative dogshit.
>>
>>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.
>>
went to AF recruiter this morning and he almost came his pants talking about the f35.

>bro its so badass
>these machines are BAD. ASS. BRO.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>28461928
Would you rather have a common defense with Sweden and Finland or NATO?

I haven't kept up to date with it but I'm pretty sure Finland is also strongly considering the F-35 as their next fighter.

>But 50 planes wont do much against Russia
It's more about deterrence than anything else.

>I imagine the us is not really keen on risking ww3 to defend such a small nation as norway.
This is literally the purpose of NATO
>>
>>28460784
You must be pretty delusional to think SK likes China more than the US. Or that SK dislikes the US at all.
>>
>>28461970
Finland is probably going to get F35.

http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/politics/10310-haglund-advises-against-jas-fighter-acquisition.html
>>
>>28461928

>But 50 planes won't do much against Russia

Those 50 planes are each capable of beating anything Russia has in a 1 on 1 engagement. Even with inferior numbers, that's a significant obstacle for an invading force to overcome.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>28460984
>Grey
Gray 767's != P-8A.

Obviously you're a commonwealth fuck who also doesn't know how to read.
>>
>>28462029
Whatever you say; but fact is that SK is pretty reluctant to join America's containment against China, their biggest customer.

Even the THAAD placement in SK is meeting with intense resistance, and still is, despite NK's provocations.
>>
>>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?
>>
Korea people dislikes every country

Anti-Japan
=Anti-US
=Anti-China
=Anti-Russia
=Pro-N.Korea
>>
>>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.
>>
>>28461954
>NATO article 5 is invokable by any member in self defence, doesn't really matter what the US thinks.

It's not like alliances have ever broken down because of conveniences like national interests or self-preservation like you know ever. Nope! Not single case of that happening in history ever..

It would be the end of NATO but then again staying out of ww3 and backstabbing a few friends will always be preferred to global nuclear holocaust..
>>
>>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.
>>
>>28460704
I love how they are all wearing western clothing, created by the people who they proclaim they hate.
>>
File: 4564565.jpg (81 KB, 1000x600) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
4564565.jpg
81 KB, 1000x600
>>28461594
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/09/27/tech-transfer-hobbles-south-koreas-fighter-program/72808800/

>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.

No, the 4 technologies were never promised.
>>
>>28466803
>created by the people who they proclaim they hate

Chinks hate other Chinks?
>>
File: f-35 bingo start.jpg (667 KB, 1430x1352) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
f-35 bingo start.jpg
667 KB, 1430x1352
>>28460649
Lets do this faggots
>>
File: heah.gif (1 MB, 207x207) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
heah.gif
1 MB, 207x207
>>28461571
>Indonesia
>Not a third world slime filled shit hole

Thanks for the laughs.
>>
>>28466803
nah
once ccp dies china will be muricanised, itll be a large scale taiwan i suppose
>>
File: butbut.png (3 KB, 107x178) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
butbut.png
3 KB, 107x178
>>28461928
>But 50 planes wont do much against Russia.
but anon

you got to understand

each F-35 can take out half a dozen enemy fighters

with inertial guided missiles

nvm it's supposed to be a bomber and will get his ass handed on a plate when it inevitably comes to WVR combat

nvm it cannot capitalize its stealth™ on such a situation like an F22 would do, because bomber lol
>>
>>28462406
Ok retard.
>>
File: Shit.png (92 KB, 1320x861) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Shit.png
92 KB, 1320x861
>>28467980
>>
>>28467995
fuggin slit eye gook fucks
>>
File: 1426443055025.jpg (34 KB, 506x386) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1426443055025.jpg
34 KB, 506x386
>>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
>>
>>28467283
Does anyone even use Sprey as a source outside of memes?
>>
File: Shit.png (77 KB, 506x798) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Shit.png
77 KB, 506x798
>>28467995
This is after a surge of positive view of China, when they showed willingness to contain South Korea.
>>
>>28467995
Fuck you, Germany
>>
>>28468068
>designer of the F-16
>designer of MUH BRRRRT A-10

>just an old fart lol XD
>clearly Lockmart PR cannot be wrong XD
>>
>>28468068
until fairly recently f-35 detractors literally never shut up about Sprey
>>
>>28468139
>posted from my assault plane/interceptor/tank/gundam with VTOL
>>
>>28468121
>designer
>>
>>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
Yeah, but the core problem is that that number game works great back in the "# planes per target" era. But nowadays we're into the "# targets per plane" paradigm.
>>
>>28462080
Is it too much to hope for a Simo Hayha of the skies?
>>
File: bob1.jpg (211 KB, 1600x1143) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
bob1.jpg
211 KB, 1600x1143
>>28468046
If you don't have any reasons to live why are you still here :^)
>>
>>28461954
>Guys, if we all have F-35s, we'll be more of a threat
>WW3 breaks out
>All of the planes are still stuck on the tarmac
>>
>>28460984
Boeing helped build the F-22
>>
>>28469031
Meanwhile in reality the F-35 already has tens of thousands of flight hours.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>28461970
>>28462080
i was just talking to one of the majors here about fighter acquisition...

they all think the f-35 is sexy and cool and all the officers want it but smart money is the advanced hornet cause who gives a fuck

they can probably get another 20 years out of the current hornets cause they fly them like 10 hours a year xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDdddddd
>>
File: aurora.jpg (1 MB, 2200x1599) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
aurora.jpg
1 MB, 2200x1599
>>28469102
>yfw that concurrency is why there have been no F-35 crashes
>>
>>28469063
Their prototypes do- not their full production aircraft. None of the armed branches have even completed IOT&E. They're not cleared for combat until at least 2020.

Meanwhile, the Marines laughably attempted to convince everyone that bypassing IOT&E with IOC on Block 2B software was a legit thing to do.

I guess I can't blame them since Marines procurement is so shit that they have to scramble to acquire F-35s since their other planes are literally falling out of the sky.
>>
>>28469126
It doesn't matter. None of these prototype aircraft have passed IOT&E and won't even be at that point for another 4 years.
>>
>>28469102

The issues you're describing apply to any fighter plane near be beginning of production. It's better to deal with those issues now, then wait until later when there may not be time.
>>
>>28469187
Concurrency is fine when you're not trying to rush a plane into production and not trying to overhaul an entire fleet of planes all at once.
>>
File: what bullshit.jpg (256 KB, 1000x980) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
what bullshit.jpg
256 KB, 1000x980
>>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.
>>
>>28469231
Neither applies to the situation.
>>
>>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.

>>28469279
See: What the Marines did last summer.
>>
File: 1451813049383.jpg (4 MB, 2426x1606) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1451813049383.jpg
4 MB, 2426x1606
>>28469149
The B-2 bomber was in IOC before IOT&E was finished, and also performed combat sorties before FOC was declared.
>>
>>28469363
So wait, you think LRIP aircraft are prototypes?
>>
>>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.
>>
>>28469424
No, answer the question.

Do you think the LRIP aircraft are prototypes. Im not talking about the software.
>>
>>28469424
>Block 2B software is not ready for combat
>Block 2B provides initial warfighting capabilities

You seem to be contradicting yourself.
>>
>>28469424
Did you even read your greentext, you idiot?
>>
>>28469447
initial warfighting capabilities just means if China attacked tomorrow and we need more of any planein the air now, the F-35 could do some stuff
>>
>>28469447
>87%

>>28469443
LRIP are prototypes. They cost more than flyaway aircraft, and have limited features compared to their final product.
>>
File: Screenshot.png (195 KB, 1048x805) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Screenshot.png
195 KB, 1048x805
>>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.
>>
>>28469476
>LRIP are prototypes.

AHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAH

HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE THIS RETARDED?
>>
>>28469475
>F-25 on block 2b
>doing anything
The plane can't even use its gun or precision guided weapons.

The armed forces won't ever, ever field that airplane until IOT&E is complete. It maybe be 4 years for that to happen. It may be another 4 after that before they even think of putting it into combat.
>>
File: 1438744129244[1].gif (2 MB, 500x281) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1438744129244[1].gif
2 MB, 500x281
>>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
>>
>>28469476
>LRIP are prototypes.

No. LRIP aircraft are early serial production aircraft that don't have all features and more expensive because entire supply chain isn't working at full efficiency, yet.
>>
>>28469502
>That means it flies straight and receives guidance updates from the guiding platform/launcher every 10 seconds.

>10 seconds

Kek, what is it, 1985?
>>
>>28469500
The f-35B cant use its gun because it does not have one, you idiot.

>precision guided weapons.

Yes it can, you idiot.
>>
>>28469500
>The armed forces won't ever, ever field that airplane until IOT&E is complete.

Marines have already fielded it. Air force is going to this year.

How does it feel to be wrong?
>>
>>28468347
>he drew the initial requirements

He was part of a committee that came up with the initial requirements, if the F-16 had turned out as he desired it would have been an gun fighter.
>>
F-35s are so unique
>>
>>28469534
>The f-35B cant use its gun because it does not have one, you idiot.

It's supposed to have gun pod.
>>
>>28469500
>B-2 bomber finished IOT&E in 1997
>B-2 bomber had its first combat mission in 1999
>B-2 bomber had FOC declared in 2003

M-MUH ALBATROSS!!!!!
>>
>>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.
>>
>>28469571
The gun pod was never supposed to release with the airframe.
>>
>>28469502
>AMRAAM's do not have their own radars
>>
>>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.
>>
>>28469633
>are thinking about combat deploying these aircraft into a war zone anytime soon

Because there is not an immediate need to, its really that simple.
>>
>>28469588
See the part where the B-2 had to pass IOT&E before it bombed anything anywhere. The F-35 and all of its LRIP "w-we're not prototypes we swear!" aircraft are paper tigers until then.
>>
>>28469633
>IOC is not combat ready.

Yes, sir, it is verbatim.

>Initial operating capability or Initial operational capability (IOC) is the state achieved when a capability is available in its minimum usefully deployable form.

The f-35, currently, is in its minimum usefully deployable form. Verbatim, as per definition.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>28469502
What?

Are you trying to say that the AIM-120 isn't an active radar missile? Once the thing goes pitbull it doesn't require terminal guidance form the launch platform.

Somebody post that graph of the ways aircraft have been killed in AtA combat throughout the years and how it's shifted more and more to BVR engagements
>>
>>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.
>>
>>28469656
This. The aircraft is already more capable than the AV-8B ever could be.
>>
>>28469666
No don't you see, those are not the 'final' build so those ~200 aircraft are all just prototypes.
>>
>>28469656
>Yes, sir, it is verbatim.
But the Marines did it before ever doing IOT&E. Fortunately, anyone can look at that for less than five seconds and realize they're full of shit for doing it.

You can see the actual procurement chart here:
http://www.hjspllc.com/2014dev/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/DAUlarge.jpg

>Comparing to the AV-8B
The AV-8 is a huge piece of shit and comparing to anything isn't all that great of a standard.

>>28469666
>No live testing
>Still need hardware upgrades
>No ALIS
>Still non-function FCS
>Still need software upgrades
B-But they're complete guys!
>>
>>28469778
Except they are the final build.

The only thing thats going to change is the production processes.
>>
>>28467995
Wow, thanks Kenya it's nice to be liked.
>>
>>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

>B-But they're complete guys!
>IOC=Complete
False
>>
>>28469807
that loud whooshing sound over your head
>>
>>28469882
Im sorry, some people actually spout this on /k/.
>>
>>28469778
There were only two prototypes: X-35B and X-35C.

LRIP Aircraft are not prototypes as they are combat capable aircraft with a nearly identical design as FOC aircraft.
>>
>>28469802
>>Still non-function FCS

hahahahahaha, nigger you are stupid as fuck.
>>
>>28460661
the boeing is alot faster then the f35
>>
>>28468068
Russia Today certainly does; people that watch that show are willing to swallow his loads.
>>
>>28469102
Concurrency retrofits and upgrades have only cost the program about $1.5 billion. Concurrency is the one reason that the jet is seeing IOC now rather than in mid-2020s.
>>
>>28469359
Cutting corners how? Even the engine that broke had no defective manufacturing and would have been fine if it had been worn in properly.
>>
>>28470494
So is the F-22, but that's part of why it costs more than the F-35 to buy and operate.
>>
>>28467995
>Germany doesn't like US or China

Well, who do they like?
>>
File: angry-muslim2.jpg (74 KB, 550x397) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
angry-muslim2.jpg
74 KB, 550x397
>>28470571
>>
File: hid.jpg (50 KB, 468x350) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
hid.jpg
50 KB, 468x350
>>28462702
>>28462702
They love the Dutch.
>>
>>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
>Missiles that can literally be fired at an enemy at your six
>Not rendering maneuverability irrelevant
How's that for "physics," huh?
>>
>>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.
>>
>>28471050
>>28471036

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.
>>
>>28471067
>Once they are out fuel, that ability to literally turn a 180 is gone.

And?
>>
File: indo 2.png (85 KB, 1360x537) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
indo 2.png
85 KB, 1360x537
>>28461571
New memes have arrived
>>
>>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.
>>
>>28471098
>And that makes them that much easier to try and dodge.

No, aim 9x NEZ is incredibly large.

>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.

The effective range of an aim 9x is 35 km. You wont be attempting a shoulder shot at this range anyways.

Your point is moot
>>
File: f35b.jpg (262 KB, 2560x1600) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
f35b.jpg
262 KB, 2560x1600
>>28471023
Pierre pls go
>>
>>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.

Your point is moot.
>>
>>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).

Explain that to me plz......hint, you can't.
>>
>>28471316
What the fuck do you think development even is, if not the product shitting out problems till it's fully ready?
>>
>>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.
>>
File: f35a.jpg (2 MB, 4256x2832) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
f35a.jpg
2 MB, 4256x2832
>>28471316
The only problem is choosing which Slavshit to BTFO first.
>>
>>28472645
Not that retard, but do you have any links to some of those f-16 crashes? I kinda wanna read up on it.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5VuCsQJy8Y

Some fresh EODAS footage.
>>
>>28473095
http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/mishaps-and-accidents/
>>
>>28473700
that's...really damn impressive
>>
>>28473700
and a panorama view at the bottom? Is that integrated or something extra for the video
>>
>>28473700
looks like there's lot of signal processing going on before the image is displayed,
so it must have horrible lag.
pilots will have to be handpicked for resistance to nausea.
>>
>>28475305
Nah. The oculus is sufficient to not have any lag, and we're talking military grade funding here. Lag will not be an issue.
>>
>>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.
>>
File: rm7ilPu.png (487 KB, 601x611) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
rm7ilPu.png
487 KB, 601x611
>>28475437
They'll run it trough purpose built circuits if they have to. Image processing lends well to parallelization too.
>>
>>28475437
The oculus rift is being run on thousand dollar gaming rig.
This is a multi billion dollar project for a platform that runs roughly $180 million dollars.
It will not lag.
>>
>>28473700
Annoyingly it seems that IRST is still susceptible to weather; the EODAS picks up a target and then loses it when it goes behind/above a distant cloud. Still; it's come a long way.
>>
>>28474585
Extra just for the video, although there's no reason they couldn't implement something like that into the visor if they wanted it.
>>
File: moonpie.jpg (29 KB, 480x360) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
moonpie.jpg
29 KB, 480x360
>>28473700
Noice, how long till this thing is out bombing the designated Arab group of the month?
>>
>>28479582
>Never saw Moon Pies until stationed at Ft Gordon
>>
>>28470662
>responding to obvious angry jap
I know you may not visit /int/ very often but it really gives you an insight into how people from various countries tend to write.
>>
>>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).
>>
>>28466803
You might want to take a closer look at chairman chink then. Doesn't look that western to me.
>>
>>28463966
Britain got involved in two world wars in order to keep it's agreements. This is serious shit and Obama only has a year left in office.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>28461571
Yeah, nah. Singapore and even Malaysia are more developed than you guys.
>>
File: 1450237100844.jpg (65 KB, 800x523) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1450237100844.jpg
65 KB, 800x523
>google f-35
>first result
>http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/01/08/f-35-ejection-seat-fix-delayed-2018-pilot-restrictions-continue/78519892/
>>
File: f35dwi.gif (3 MB, 636x350) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
f35dwi.gif
3 MB, 636x350
>>28483285
>"elevated" for under 165 pounds
>"unacceptable" for under 136 pounds
I guess there won't be any women or children piloting the F-35? What's the problem?
>>
File: 1450237405470.png (39 KB, 680x991) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1450237405470.png
39 KB, 680x991
>>28483329
Check your privilege, white male scum :^)
>>
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/12/northrop-unveils-sixth-gen-fighter-concept/

>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
>>
>>28483373
>must “carry a lot of weapons
CUDAs and SDBs confirmed to be standard load out for 6th gen.
>>
>>28483373
>northrop unveils a 3d render
whoa
Thread replies: 176
Thread images: 32
Thread DB ID: 389297



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

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 [email protected] with the post's information.