We can't. Only thing to do now is limit the damage it'll cause to us by reducing the planes we buy (sans murines as they B is actually better than Harrier) and lobby as many cuck nations as possible to buy them instead. Then just focus our efforts on a 6th gen plane(s).
There's a lot of complex, precision machining in an aircraft like the F-35. The cutting edge of aerospace machining is seriously complex. Even so, the air frame investments represent only a third of the development costs of the aircraft.
They are useless anyway, the next war will not be conventional it will be through economy and cyber warfare, asymmetrical means where America is lagging behind China, a lot of money goes to the F-35 not to where it should matter.
>>28505524 Well guess what would happen if it didn't exist? Those industries would quicky turn to more profitable business ventures, such as commercial aircraft. Then we would lose our technological edge. And then when we needed that industry the most it wouldn't exist and the ones holding the bag would at best case be the fighting man 1,000s of miles away and at worst case you and your family at home. In both cases you would complain about why the armed forces were sent underequipped, to die and why they were unable to defend you.
Better radar, have you actually looked into what they had lol. Jet fighter thus the fastest fighters Ballistic missiles Cruise missiles Guided missiles Anti ship missiles Anti air missiles Guided bombs Better submarines Better torpedoes Better chemical weapons Arguably better tanks better KD ratio Better gas chambers???
>>28505960 >Better RADAR They didn't have RADAR. >Ballistic Missiles Hardly, the V-program was more >Cruise Missiles Yeah, but Operation Crossbow went ahead and foiled those plans, didn't they? >Guided Missiles >Anti Air missiles >Guided Bombs >>>>>>>>>>Chemical Weapons Nope >Anti-ship missiles >Submarines >Torpedoes Honestly don't know about this one though, possibly. Not sure how they stack up against Blue Force stuff back in the day. >Better Tanks The beginning of the war? Nope The end of the war? Nope, simply because they made them too complex and weren't able to make enough >KD Ratio Yeah good luck with accurately figuring that out retard
And all of my response is coming from the holocaust denier that is myself.
>>28506023 They did have RADAR early warning but not as advanced as the British. Their tanks were definitely better late war, but that's to be expected when you are rolling out designs that are 2 years more recent and 50% heavier than the opposition's tanks.
The "actual" problem is that it's a Cold War semi-stealthy design designed to make treetop-skimming supersonic deep-penetration attack runs into East Germany and Czechoslovakia into the teeth of the Sovs' SAMs and air defense radars, on a probably-one-way mission to drop tactical nukes on GSFG and Central Group of Forces before they could reach the front lines. This is a capability that has no utility in the US Air Force in 2015.
It doesn't have the loiter time or the payload to be a good CAS platform. It doesn't have the climb, top speed, or high-AOA turn capability to be a good A2A platform. It costs two hundred million bucks a pop and it does absolutely nothing especially well.
>>28506178 >F-35 is stealthier than the F-22 >stealth fighters like the F-35 attack from high altitude, not low (better situational awareness that way) >the JSF program began 6 years after East Germany was dissolved >It has a larger payload than the F-16 and F/A-18 which do >50% of all CAS. >Implying dogfighting is relevant >It has a higher AOA turn capability than the F-16 and F-15 >It's $85m a pop
>it does absolutely nothing especially well. >stealthier than all its competition >Best BVR fighter platform >Best sensor package in the world >Best avionics in the world >B model has best STOVL system in the world >Very fuel efficient in comparison to other jet fighters and thus very good range >Can easily destroy any other fighter other than MAYBE the F-22 because of aforementioned advantages
Considering how the majority of air to air kills in recent years were exclusively done by BVR missiles, and the latest HOBS missiles like AIM-9X can pull more than 4 times the Gs of any fighter in existence and don't even require you to actually face your target, yeah, dogfighting is pretty much dead.
>"I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.
>During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story. >Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”
>>28506210 >>28506235 >Branch commonality was supposed to save money, yet program has exceeded cost of each branch developing their own jet >Supposed to replace the A-10, but carries <200 rounds of ammo and can't fire its gun until the next software update in 2017, assuming it's not delayed >Less stealthy than the F-22 >Worse dogfighter than F-16 >Can't carry as much ordnance as the F-15 >Marine STOVL variant basically destroys carrier decks >Can't carry one of the most versatile and common bombs in US arsenal, the SMD II
And these things are supposed to replace pretty much all of NATO jet fighters.
>>28505506 F35 can be use in CAS rose but it will stay hight above the area but look look guys we put a gun on it so it's kinda like an A10 only with less armor and less amo and it will never drop bellow 20 000ft over the battle area, so what's the point of the gun ?
the cold truth is that we just don't need jet fighter any more we might still need some interceptor but the F22/15 are completely ok in that role + you can use SAM
then come long range ground unit support to cover allied troop on the field drone can do just that with zero risk of life for a considerably lower cost, further more A10 can still reliably and cheaply do CAS they are just good doing the job because they are facing basically zero tread
the F35 is basically useless ad it's only pointy is to make money for lockheed that's all
>>28506508 backbone only because the US government are pressuring all of the NATO member into buying this piece of shit why on earth would European countries buy this thing when they could buy cheaper EUropen made Typhoon or rafale
>>28506489 >Branch commonality was supposed to save money, yet program has exceeded cost of each branch developing their own jet We don't know that; the F-22 for example cost about half the F-35's R&D budget.
>Supposed to replace the A-10, but carries <200 rounds of ammo and can't fire its gun until the next software update in 2017, assuming it's not delayed CAS is mostly done with bombs, not guns.
>Worse dogfighter than F-16 Yet to be seen; unless you subscribe to the idea that software testing = dogfight testing
>Can't carry as much ordnance as the F-15 It's not replacing the F-15, although FWIW it has an equal total payload capacity by mass.
>Marine STOVL variant basically destroys carrier decks Only older decks; the F-14 "destroyed" carrier jet blast deflectors
>Can't carry one of the most versatile and common bombs in US arsenal, the SMD II lol, "common" the SDB II is still in testing and won't enter service until 2017 with the F-15E as it's first platform. The A and C variants also have no problem carrying it, with the only issue on the B variant being that there's a hydraulic line and a bracket for some wiring that needs to shift about an inch.
>>28506239 considering how the russians and chinese have air-to-air missiles that can engage bvr missiles, and ground based radar that can track jsf with air-based radar on the way, i'd say dogfighting is pretty much alive and kicking
>>28506496 Point of the gun is for when you want to shoot up lowly snackbars or soft mechanicsed targets like trucks.
For the rest of your "cold truth":
>There's not enough F-22s / F-15Cs
>Drones will be highly vulnerable in any kind of serious war, and they're not that cheap; just look at the Global Hawk and UCLASS costs.
Swapping the A-10 for drones is fine because drones are cheaper and get the job done against snackbars, but making the F-35 disappear means pretty much making CAS non-existent for high threat scenarios.
>>28506526 Engaging missiles with missiles isn't remotely new or exclusive to Russia / China, but detecting air-to-air missiles and reacting, not to mention having a near 100% probability of interception isn't remotely plausible.
And all radars can track the JSF; the issue is whether your ground radar can get a targeting solution on the F-35 before it fires a JSM at you from 200km away. Overall, VHF radars are seriously overhyped.
>>28506564 >Point of the gun is for when you want to shoot up lowly snackbars or soft mechanicsed targets like trucks. but they specifically say that it's not made to fly low in order to avoid AAA and man portable AA misile so the gun still make no sense
>Swapping the A-10 for drones is fine because drones are cheaper and get the job done against snackbars, but making the F-35 disappear means pretty much making CAS non-existent for high threat scenarios.
no you don't get it the A10 is OK we don't need anything else as CAS if you want some cheap CAS just build modern A1 skiraider
>>28506585 for doing what ? perpetuating US presence cross the world waving it's dick at everybody then being puzzle when it turn out everybody hate USA
I'm not an idiot tho i know that it's the only thing that maintain the the dollar's value is the US military and US presence across the world otherwise this would be treated as what it is: worthless paper
>>28506591 Yeah, and when AAA and MANPADs aren't a serious threat, you can go guns ablazing. For threats like Gulf War Republic Guard though, the gun can sit unused.
>no you don't get it the A10 is OK we don't need anything else as CAS if you want some cheap CAS just build modern A1 skiraider
Drones are 3x cheaper than the A-10 to operate and have far lower maintenance man-hour requirements. Let the Army and Marines do low & slow with their helicopters and keep Reapers, etc in the air for delivering warheads onto foreheads against guys with AKs.
Congratulations, you just explained why the USAF has a solid need for the F-35. You may not like those reasons, but from the USAF's perspective they have a job to do and the F-35 is a damn good tool for doing it.
>>28506637 no it just prove that the USAF doesn't need it the US economy does
also i hope you /k/ guys are ready because this sit isn't going to keep flying for very long and the day shit hit the fan you can basically kiss goodbye to your money and it will be worthless overnight the only thing with values will be bitches food and guns
>>28505464 >We do, however, have an urgent need for military contracts and funding to continue the cycle of the military industrial complex.
Military industrial complex or rather the ties between military, politics and corporatism is in the center of this whole epic fail known as F-35. This is what happens when you buy a promise, not a ready product, not even a concept but a promise. Then you bump billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars in to that promise only to find out that the company making the promise is incapable of delivering.
Now billions of dollars later you have to keep pouring money at the promise in order for the company to deliver since not-delivering would cause a political crisis questioning the practicality of the whole military industrial complex while not realizing that this would've never happened if military industrial complex would still be about providing ready made products or concepts and not bumping tax money on projects based on corporate promises. Corporates lie and make empty promises constantly to make a profit. This should not be a surprise to the politicians nor to the military..
The truly sad thing about F-35 failure is that it seems that the politicians and military officials seem to be genuinely surprised about the fact that the corporation Lockheed Martin promised more than they could deliver..
>>28506525 Nah comrade, twas the russians that won that war with the blood of there people, although they couldn't of done it without all the logistical equipment given to them by the Americans, it was a joint effort, its just the russians got the short stick.
>>28506747 >had a good life >majority population ruled by minority Alawite dictator >live in police state that declared martial law ~50 years ago So good, very life. This shit was bound to happen sooner or later and it finally kicked off because Syria had a drought that forced people into the cities and civil unrest followed.
development of 5th-gen planes was initially driven by the cold war paranoia, but that's over now. JSF was the last big defense project. there still LRS-B, but that will get cut down eventually.
americans now want to spend money on new things that other countries take for granted, like efficient healthcare and social system. nobody wants or needs better combat aircraft except for the military-industrial complex.
B-52 has been in service for 60 years now and will be for at least 30 more. F-35 will do the same. It'll eventually get upgraded with some sci-fi tier weapons, but the basic airframe will remain.
TL;DR you're stuck with this ugly pig forever. enjoy.
>>28506749 >although they couldn't of done it without all the logistical equipment given to them by the Americans this gets repeated so often but lend-lease was actually about 5% of soviet wartime needs
>>28506489 >Branch commonality was supposed to save money, yet program has exceeded cost of each branch developing their own jet Im-fucking-plying
>Supposed to replace the A-10, but carries <200 rounds of ammo and can't fire its gun until the next software update in 2017, assuming it's not delayed Gun CAS has no place being done with fixed wing jets. Leave that to helicopters.
>Worse dogfighter than F-16 People who know that they are talking about say that it's dogfighting profile resembles the F-18, which is very good albeit in a different way than the F-16 which is also very good
>Can't carry as much ordnance as the F-15 Obfuscation. Fuck off, lying cunt
>Marine STOVL variant basically destroys carrier decks I love how detractors have to resort to bringing up issues that were fixed years ago to make their points
>Can't carry one of the most versatile and common bombs in US arsenal, the SMD II The SDB II isn't in service yet, dumbass
>>28507968 >It just looks too fat for the wings Mostly an effect of having split side intakes on a single engine design. If you can imagine it had a ventral scoop intake like the F-16 and leading edges where the intakes are now, it'd look quit small and streamlined.
There's definitely some terribly fucked shit wrong with development and procurement in the military industrial complex.
That being said you can't honestly call the F-35 a failure yet.
It's taken longer than expected and it's costed more money like nearly every modern military aircraft development, but the F-35 will be a viable and capable aircraft. It has to be. Problems have arised and they have been fixed-- the ones that aren't are going to be fixed.
Sure, the process is fucked and needs to be streamlined, but the product will still be effective.
>>28505425 - kill the B - use twin EJ200 engines or a derivative, add thrust vectoring - use the same lifting body layout as f-14/su-27/mig-29 - delete the gun - add L-band radar - finalize the airframe design only after the avionics are developed and working on a testbed - nerf the specs of A,C to make it cheaper, use saved money to revive and upgrade F-22
>>28507968 >>28508005 Every time I bother to read one of these shit show threads, this is what it always comes down to. Autists pissing and moaning and finding things to bitch about because they think the aircraft is ugly.
This hate has nothing to do with capabilities or a clear view of the threat environment, it's all about mah aesthetic feelz. People that look at procurement through the lens of rule of cool like this are no better than modern BB idiots or armored LCS morons.
>>28508292 Because he only has a passing acquaintance with reality (i.e. actual threat environment and current + future mission parameters with attendant required capabilities). All of his ridiculously concrete opinion is based on whether he things the aircraft looks cool plus a 1970's understanding of the strategies behind aircraft design and combat maneuvering.
I mean, I get it. It's a change. Change is like kryptonite for puzzlenuggets. I grew up with the teen series fighters, too, and they're beautiful. But they're just not the bleeding edge anymore.
see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0 >it used to be "speed is life, more is better" >now it's "information is life, more is better" Remember kids, evolve and adapt or realize that you're old, you're behind and you're going to lose.
>>28508292 >why it's a money sink. and it compromised the design of A and C and has almost no commonality in the end. >HALF THE FUCKING THRUST. i said two engines. that's roughly the same thrust. >But the fucking lifting body is superior on the F-35 bullshit. just look at the fat bitch. >it's useless for fighters. that does not deserve an answer >What does this have to do with anything you'll avoid the headaches with aircraft being unexpectedly overweight and with systems integration in general. >The F-22 is old as shit. and yet it's still much more capable than f-35. it's behind in avionics but it has a lot of room for growth.
>>28508253 they arent replacing the f22 with the f35. the f35 is a multi role fighter, it is so they can do multiple jobs with one plane. the f22 is an air superiority fighter. if they want to maintain air dominance and win dog fights they will send up f22s. thats why they are selling f35s and not f22s. if other countries have f35s, they can still easily take them out with f22s. the f22 raptor is still the most advanced and effective fighter jet in the world. it is stealth, supersonic, ridiculously, maneuverable, and armed to the teeth.
>>28508520 >i said two engines. that's roughly the same thrust. Yet in modern engines, more Class A mishaps happen because of improper maintenance than because of engine reliability. This is why the F-15 has had many more Class A incidents than the F-16, in spite of the engines being nearly identical. The single engine F-16, looking at the numbers from 1985 onward, is the best thing to twice as reliable as an F-15 as far as Class A incident frequency. But this is science and hard numbers, and clearly do not trump your feels.
>bullshit. just look at the fat bitch. Oh, look. More "look". More "aesthetics and feels". More "fat". But exactly zero fucking science. What a surprise.
>that does not deserve an answer If you're Russian, sure. For NATO/the US, L-Band radiators are rightly regulated to support platforms. Russians are just too poor currently to field the proper array of sensoria anywhere outside of their home turf, and even there it's mighty thin.
>you'll avoid the headaches with aircraft being unexpectedly overweight and with systems integration in general. More subtle "fat" implications, in spite of the fact that the F-35 is by no means "unexpectedly overweight".
>and yet it's still much more capable than f-35. The only mission it is more capable in is air superiority. Which, surprise surprise, is what it's primary designed mission is.
I'm so sick of these one or two autistic morons insisting that reality bow to their opinion.
>>28508500 >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0 It's shameful how many people on /k/ and elsewhere that comment on the F-35 every damn day have yet to see or will never bother to watch this vid or any other from that conference.
I don't know about the rest of you, but when a USMC aviator with two decades flying experience who has flown and trained pilots on F-18s, F-16s, F-22s and now F-35s through his career speaks, I sit the fuck up and pay attention.
This vid, more than anything else finally cemented my opinion switch on the F-35. I used to be anti, slowly moved to the middle over 2014 and now am firmly behind the F-35. It's stupid capable and a steal at the actual (not mah 1 treeeeeeeellion) prices.
>>28508676 >not fat When it's got better AoA performance than an F-18 and better kinematics overall than a combat loaded F-16, all while having twice or better the range and VLO, no. It's not even in the same ballpark as actually fat. You just think it looks fat. It's like saying the F-15 is shit at air superiority because it's a bigger jet than the F-16 with a slightly lower instantaneous turn rate. Facts are clearly not welcome in your world.
>>28508674 F-15Es are slated to fly up to or past 2035, which is fine as they are relatively recent airframes (1998 or thereabouts). There will be F-15Cs flying until 2030, at which point gen 6 air superiority aircraft already in the design phase now will be flying as prototypes.
The F-22 and F-35 are not the only aircraft the US will develop or think about for the next 40 years, in spite of their flying for that long. Development does not stop in the west.
>>28508678 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCje2g--AF2bup1MStDC0-wQ Here. Have a link to the rest of the speakers at that conference. They're from a bunch of different countries, and all have different perspective and information on how the F-35 fits into the future of air combat. Learned a lot with this.
>>28508703 You notice how he completely ignores the actual numbers about Class A incidents, the actual operational logic about L-Band radars for the west and the actual mission capabilities of the F-22 vs F-35?
Yeah. Can't handle reality. Can only talk about "mah planefu looks fat". He's like some demon spawned cross between Sprey and an /a/ sperglord arguing about kancolle.
>>28508644 >engine reliability. no it's two engines because of a) superior body shape and b) more room for growth. F-135 is basically F-119 stretched to the very limit of it's capability >More "look". More "aesthetics and feels". More "fat". But exactly zero fucking science. looks can tell you a lot. a lifting body should be wing shaped. draw some longitudinal sections through f-35 and think on it for a moment. >But exactly zero fucking science compare the flight envelope with similar fighters in it's class. >the F-35 is by no means "unexpectedly overweight" a large part of the program delays were caused by this issue. in the end they gave up and relaxed the requirements for sustained g-load.
>>28508829 >no it's two engines because of a) superior body shape aesthetic opinion again, not fact
>b) more room for growth. The F-35A/B/C is already the most plastic and modular fighter aircraft ever built. What are you smoking?
>F-135 is basically F-119 stretched to the very limit of it's capability More opinion without any sort of source or actual understanding of how 5th gen engines work.
>looks can tell you a lot. a lifting body should be wing shaped. draw some longitudinal sections through f-35 and think on it for a moment. You sound just like the morons poo-pooing the first area rule aircraft to arrive. "THAT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD/RIGHT!" Don't worry. If you scream it loud and often enough, it'll make it true in spite of the F-35 performing up to or beyond the standards of it's predecessors.
>compare the flight envelope with similar fighters in it's class. What else is in it's class? Name a single other 5th gen light fighter that's even close in capability. Furthermore, I'd love to see your hard F-35 "flight envelope" numbers, considering the control laws are still being tweaked and relaxed toward more pilot command authority.
>a large part of the program delays were caused by this issue. Oh, look, no source again. I love how idiots believe that while every other industry in the world has to weigh heavily increased development cycle timelines and cost against first to market advantages when designing and producing a ground breaking technology, the military/contractors are always expected to do it for cheaper and less time than is even realistic. What blows me away is how often they have outstanding successes, like the Virginia program.
>>28508914 >aesthetic opinion again, not fact Don't even bother, anon. he's basing all his opinions on pre-relaxed stability airframes. His understand of aeronautical engineering is literally 1960's tier.
>>28508914 do you know what room for growth means? the airframe is already crammed full. and that's with modern lightweight electronics. you can't put any more in without throwing something else out. >What else is in it's class? eurofighter, rafale, soon pak-fa and J-20. and by class i mean "modern strike fighter" not arbitrary crap like generations. >F-35 performing up to or beyond the standards of it's predecessors the fact is, it is not performing. also wing shape still has the most lift even at supersonic speeds. f-35 will never get anywhere near the speed where compression lift takes effects. and funny you mention area rule because f-35 has awful supersonic performance. can't super-cruise even with the most powerful fighter engine ever. >without any sort of source it's all common knowledge, if you want a source google it. i'm not defending a dissertation here. >>28508931 relaxed stability is about the relation of center of lift and center of gravity. it does not say the plane has to look like a brick.
>>28509203 >do you know what room for growth means? the airframe is already crammed full. and that's with modern lightweight electronics. you can't put any more in without throwing something else out. So we're up to "the F-35 is not plastic or modularly designed for future upgrades. Because I say so. In spite of tons of evidence to the contrary." Good to know.
>eurofighter, rafale, soon pak-fa and J-20. and by class i mean "modern strike fighter" not arbitrary crap like generations. Eurofighter and Rafale are more expensive and Gen 4.5. They're also more heavily emphasized on the air superiority mission and lack a huge portion of the avionics, sensoria and data fusion present in the F-35. Not even close to the same class. The J-20 is in a class with the F-22 (and not even in the rear view mirror so far). The J-31 can arguably be put in the same class as the F-35, and is outperformed in every single metric, except perhaps cost (which is not even napkin numbered yet for foreign sale on the J-31).
>the fact is, it is not performing. Just keep saying that. It'll be true if you wish hard enough.
>can't super-cruise even with the most powerful fighter engine ever. It has super cruise dash capability. Do you even research any of this shit?
>it's all common knowledge, if you want a source google it. i'm not defending a dissertation here. so... >i have no sources but this shit is totally true, guize! What I'd expect from a Spreytard.
But that's wrong. The F-15 isn't being "replaced" for quite some time. It could stay in service all the way to 2040, at which point it will get its very own 6th Gen replacement which will look something like pic-related. They should have it figured out by 2030, at which point they will start progressively replacing F-15 squadrons until the final retirement in 2040.
>>28506023 I've heard they had Ground to Air missiles of sorts yet any produced and being in the proccess of were bombed out thus denying that whole thing. I come unsourced so naturally feel free to provide sources correcting/supporting me
>>28505425 Easy, we don't. Why fix a failing boondoggle? Instead we should buy Silent Eagle's for air superiority and Super Tucano's for COIN, hi-low mix successfully achieved saving the air-force billions.
>>28511376 >I'm not going to listen to anyone that actually flies the fucking things plus half the US fighters of the last 20 years >I'd rather bitch about imaginary faults and pretend only I know how it could have been so much better
>>28511634 >He is biased. I believe that casts some doubt on the conjecture you're trying to draw based upon his statements. So... you claiming that bias exists automatically invalidates everything the combat aviator has to say. This being a man who's flown F-18s in combat, and has hundreds of hours in F-16s, F-22s and now F-35s. What the actual fuck.
I knew you were retarded sometimes, /k/, but this is beyond stupid.
>>28505425 >Interned for a FrenchFrog aerospace company in DC over the summer >Meet guy from Lockheed at corporate event >goodguy.jpg does lots of outreach to younger people and invites me for personal tour of LM's offices in Crystal City >Take a day off and show up for the tour >Excitedly shows me this monstrosity, even though it lost to an F16 in a mock dogfight the previous week >mfw
"Amsterdam | Charles Sanders | Colonel Bert de Smit is one of four Dutch JSF pilots. "The difference with and without Lightning II is great." Dutch glory above Edwards Air Force Base in California. The two Dutch F-35 Lightning II (JSF) -fighter jets performed there this week operational test with F-16s and a KDC-10 tanker, also of the Royal Netherlands Air Force.
Dutch F-35 pilots tested their jets in air combat and neutralize enemy weapons and that's a first. For dogfight with special equipment fitted A-4 Skyhawk jet fighters acting as 'Red air' enemy.
"The difference with or without the Lightning II is great," said the colonel Bert Smit, one of the four Dutch pilots on the innovative product and detachment commander of the F-35 unit. "Thanks to the huge sensor package, the Lightning II is of unprecedented value."
Because in the F-35 cockpit Smit can look with the sensors, including the advanced AN / APG81 radar, many tens of kilometers further than an F-16 pilot, every action of the "enemy" Skyhawk jet fighters could therefore already be countered in an extremely early stage.
"It is the first time that we share the ultra-strong F-35 sensors collected information with our own KDC-10 and in the Dutch F-16s stationed in the US for training purposes" said Smit. "Think of it as digital" talk "to other assets. Befriended aircraft are getting vital information such as imminent danger or information to disable targets. "
The Skyhawks proved every time to be outgunned by the presence of the Dutch F-35's. Both Lightning II were refueled in the air by US tankers.
The Dutch KDC-10 flew along in order to check whether the F-35 information on proper manner was shared. In the short term also the KDC-10 are certified to refuel the Lightning II in the air.
The Netherlands has so far ordered 37 Joint Strike Fighters by manufacturer Lockheed Martin. They need to replace the F-16s by 2017 which are flying on their last legs."
>>28512373 Maneuverability is becoming less and less important (in that picture; what's the point of maneuvering if you can shot lazor in any direction? Cranked kite is a good planform because it's stealthy, but you can increase the length of the little cranked wing parts and increase lift / size without shifting the CG / CL much - makes it easier to make a carrier variant or make future modifications.
>>28512818 But didn't you hear? Senpai David Axe knows all and has so much more experience than a Lt Col F-16/18/22/35 pilot!
>>28514891 As more information comes out about the F-35 being a genuinely good plane, the only people left are either maliciously stupid or horribly misinformed.
A lot of the controversy is purely because uninformed people want to sound "enlightened" about the DoD misusing funding. So instead of going after the real big institutional problems that are an embarrassment to the country, like >the fact that the VA is so incompetent that it's just taken for granted that you're fucked unless you can find a charity to save you >inter-service rivalry being so bad that a service will literally force the procurement of an entirely new system for no other reason than not wanting to use "the other guy's" stuff it's far easier to just target a massive program that's really easy to misconstrue as bad. Plus, it's far easier to offer solutions. You can't unfuck the VA or the inter-service rivalries by just messing with funding, but you could "fix" the F-35 debacle by just cutting it.
>>28515853 There's other things like DIRCM and GaN radar upgrades. It'd also be nice to keep the fuel tanks cooler, both to cool the weapons bays and to improve how far the F-35 can operate in Mach 1.2 without afterburners and at high speed at low altitude.
What kind of antennas would you put at the rear? There's ESM antennas at the trailing edges of the elevons, but it would be nice to have some active elements there, as well as perhaps leading / trailing edge antennas in the vertical stabilizers, not that they're really needed.
>>28515690 To me criticism of the plane has mostly been about how the plane was marketed and the promises Lockheed Martin made. This has become something endemic in US procurement process. Spend astronomical sums on something that can't make the promises it made and takes a lot longer than what was promised.
It's not that F-35 isn't probably going to be a good plane it's the fact that this kind of shit development process has become something to expected rather than the exception.
To put it frankly I except this kind of shit from the Russians not the Americans.
>>28516213 Russians do things like 1970s America; get shit done, for relative cheap, but at the expense of a mediocre product.
Eg: The PAK-FA; if it's $100m it'll be cost effective for a jet its size, but they're going for IOC without it's proper engine, rushing weapons separation / integration testing, putting it into airshows and having compressor stalls, etc.
>>28516601 Operationally doesn't mean a thing given the plane isn't expected to operate in any combat theater for some time. If one can do it now, it should be taken as representative of the whole fleet as they're all in a purgatory between "operational" and "prototype" where in reality they're much more like an Android app: content patches fucking everywhere. It's just the way modern technology is right now, Halo 5 and the F-35 aren't all that different desu.
>>28517206 Keeping the current fleet of F-16s and F-18s until 2060 or whenever the F-35 is projected to last until would cost in excessive of 5 trillion or so in contrast to the cost of the F-35 projected lifetime cost.
Fixed that for you. >P&W F119 allows you to shrink most of the porkiest dimensions of the F-35 >Reduced drag improves performance just about everywhere else >No F-35B cockpit, because it does not belong on a plane that does not have VTOL. >The F-35A, B, and C only have similar looking cockpits so Congress wouldn't cancel it because Lockheed made three different planes.
>>28517280 I would imagine it'll be in the competition again. If Canada doesn't want something as expensive though I can only really see something like the Gripen being selected and that'll be at the trade off of a lot of capabilities.
There's also the PR issue with the F-35s through which, even if it comes out to be the best cost/performance ratio, it might not be selected because of ignorant public opinion backlash.
>>28517365 >Essentially, you've just taken an F-35B and turned it into an F-35A but with a weaker engine.
The fact that the non-STOVL models share the compromises that were necessary for the F-35B is the biggest flaw in the program. The F-35A and F-35C have very little business, but plenty of politics, looking as much like the F-35B as they do.
The airframe is as wide as it is so that it can fit 2x 2000lb bombs, it's as long as it is so that it fits carrier footprint requirements, it's a single engine fighter because the USAF didn't want to spend 30-50% more in maintenance costs, etc.
>>28517600 Look at where the engine is, where the weapons bays are - unless you want pointless drag, you cover those parts of the frontal cross-section with intakes. In addition, you need those intakes in front of the weapons bays, which forces them to be up near cockpit; that makes the neck of the F-35 wide.
It's the same on the F-22, except that the F-22 is deeper, having it's intakes go over a shallower weapons bay and having it's cockpit stick out more to allow the F-22 to have a thinner shock cone (the F-22 can go faster before the shock cone starts to intersect with it's wing tips).
>>28517206 Even if you're generous with the cost estimates. its hardly money well spent.
Obviously, the F-35 is a great plane. Its the most technologically advanced aircraft ever made. Its better than anything any nation can field right now, including the US, by a LONG shot. BUT SO FUCKING WHAT? We don't fucking need a new jet fighter that can see enemies from 100km. Just because we can doesn't mean we ought to. As many have said in this thread, competing aircraft like the J-20 or PAK-FA are fucking jokes. I get being ahead of the curve. But at what cost? Why do I, a taxpayer, have to pay so much fucking money for an aircraft that we don't need? Do you really think we're going to fight a conventional war anytime soon, if ever in our lifetimes? I'll remind you its been 30 fucking years since the last one.
An aircraft like the Super Tucano is obviously leaps and bounds inferior to the F-35. But who fucking cares. Its not about having the most advanced shit. If you're going to fetishize technology, don't make me fucking pay for it.
>Obviously, George is a great pitcher. He can throw the ball so fast that nobody would ever be able to hit. He's better than anybody else out there right now, including on our own team, by a long shot.
>BUT WHY WOULD WE WANT HIM ON OUR BASEBALL TEAM!!!!!!!!
>>28518163 Because aircraft get old and need replacements at regular intervals. In addition, even if you were not generous with the costs, the overall projected lifetime costs are dramatically lower than the life extension programs that would be required if the US did NOT field it.
It should also be said that maintaining swarms of your cheap aircraft is a logistical nightmare as that means training more pilots AND ground crew for each aircraft. It is more cost efficient to produce an aircraft with the best capabilities available to you, and build enough to fill the current slots available to pilots, ground crews, and airfields, because simply having 10,0000 Tucanos doesn't necessarily mean you bought a hangar and airstrip for them as part of your fly-away cost.
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@example.com with the post's information.