F-35C

>>28648084
>>28648084
Yeah, it fits the Navy's needs. The Navy needs to replace the Legacy Hornets badly, and this extends the range quite substantially. I would argue they need even longer range in some specialized aircraft, but the F-35C is plenty good.

I don't know the Super Tomcat very well at all, so I'll refrain from commenting. In an ideal world, however, I'd like an upper end fighter and attacker with the F-35C taking the lower end of both, like what the F/A-18 was for the F-14 and A-6.

It generates more lift, so it might turn better. Then again, it's heavier. Probably turns slightly better, rolls slightly worse.

The real problems with the F-35C are really in that it's more expensive than what it's replacing. Even that isn't a problem, just what always happens. Not really much else. It's also not specialized as either a fighter or attacker, so it loses out somewhat in potential performance in those roles, but it's more than capable of both roles.

No, the Navy doesn't need a dedicated fighter terribly. Replacing the Legacy Hornets with the F-35C more than gives that capability. In the current budget environment, that's the wisest choice.

The F135 is a huge engine, and initially they couldn't fly it in for UNREP. However, they changed the packaging they carried the F135, and it now fits inside C-2s and V-22s just fine. And yes, that'd generally be how they'd be carried. Additional ones, at least. There's a number on the carrier itself, and there might be others on one of the AKEs in the CSG.

>>28648084
>What does it have over other fighters like the Super Bug and F-14?
Uhhhh... stealth? Integrated sensors? Massive internal fuel capacity? Just to name a few.
>With the larger wings, does it have better turning characteristics than the 35A?
In theory, quicker low-speed ITR and STR, but worse roll rate and ultimate G limit.
>What are the disadvantages of the F-35C?
Compared to what?
>Would it have been wiser for the Navy to invest in a dedicated air superiority fighter while letting the Super Bugs handle air interdiction and bombing?
No. A carrier has limited hangar space; having a warplane which can be readily configured for any mission is a fantastic force multiplier. Plus, strike is the most important mission for a carrier aircraft, so the F-35 really has the correct balance of priorities.
>The F135 engine is larger and therefore more difficult to transport
...But you only need half as many of them...
>but for that matter how are engines brought to a carrier?
All of the above, or simply loaded by crane in port.
>I wanna know what y'all think about the F-35's place in naval aviation.
Oh, it'll play a very major role I'm sure. I suspect it replacing the remaining legacy Hornets with it is just the beginning.

How's the F-18 going to launch strikes into china?

File: USNavyintegrated.jpg (282KB, 624x1001px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 624x1001px

Here's how the navy wants their air assets to work together.

Thanks for the answers guys. Glad this didn't turn into the shitfest over in >>28650989
I have another question, does seawater damage the F-35B/C's stealth?

>>28649223
>Uhhhh... stealth? Integrated sensors? Massive internal fuel capacity? Just to name a few.

Try not to sound like a pretentious fuckmouth. He asked valid questions. I'm sure you've seen the other threads tonight and how quickly they dissolved into a pissing contest.

>>28651804
>does seawater damage the F-35B/C's stealth?
Sea water makes everything more maintenance intensive.

Including RAM.

But it's not like this is the first navalized application using stealthy coatings.

>>28651804
Yes, it does damage the F-35B/C's stealth capability.

>>28651824
>yes
>doesn't explain

>>28651804
It doesn't really damage it - the coatings will last 8 years before needing a recoat.

However, if the jet doesn't get cleaned with fresh water, the salt that builds up can reflect radar energy and cause accelerated wear in certain areas. Not having a clean skin can also cause issues when you're apply stealth tape, etc (stuff they put on the jet to cover gaps on most panels).

Overall though it's not much different to non-stealthy aircraft - your main priority for washing the aircraft down is to prevent corrosion.

>>28651867
How do you know so much about aircraft?

>>28651867

>stealth tape
>stealth duct tape

Amirite?

>>28651879
I keep my ear close to the ground - there's tons of things that get mentioned here and there - articles that seem routine and mundane can sometimes have pilot or maintainer interviews where something unique gets mentioned, like fuel burn rates, etc. Shit on me later for it, but there's a couple of guys on Reddit that have actually worked as maintainers on the jet as well. Probably the best source for F-35 data is F-16.net

>>28651904
On stealth aircraft you have (obviously) gaps between panels. Because of how the panels are shaped, those gaps can reflect radar energy.

Older stealth aircraft solve this issue by inserting a putty into the gaps, which then hardens. The problem with that however is that every time you need to do engine maintenance, etc, you have to crack open those panels, get them off, do your maintenance, clean off the old putty, put the panel back on, put in new putty, wait for it to dry.

On the F-35 they've made it faster by having a tape of some sort which just goes over the gaps. Compare these 2 images and you can see the difference on some of the panels:
http://i.imgur.com/H5xy6.jpg
https://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/f35c.jpg

>>28651906
But why are you interested in such things?

>>28652005
I work for a government that happens to be acquiring the F-35 if you're thinking espionage-wise, but I'm mainly interested in it because I'm interested in military aviation in general, and the F-35 is going to be the centerpiece of western aviation.

Somehow along the way I've become somewhat of an SME on it overall, so it's just something like a hobby (not that it's my only hobby, my life doesn't center around this jet).

>>28652031
>and the F-35 is going to be the centerpiece of western aviation.

Is that why it keeps losing buyers and getting it's orders decreased?

>>28652239
Anon, please. You're not fooling anyone.

>>28652239
It hasn't officially lost any buyers yet (Canada might still be buying it), and in fact it's gained 3 additional buyers so far (South Korea, Japan and Israel). Also, only 2 nations (the Netherlands and Italy) have reduced their orders, primarily due to economic conditions.

>>28652239
Bongs just confirmed their order of 138 and want them sooner. Was going to be a order half that size then "we'll see".

Canada was never an offical buyer, but still may place an order.

File: 1450733329938.png (369KB, 2025x2025px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 2025x2025px

>>28650952
So according to this arrangement, F-18s are regulated to a role easily filled by a dedicated pilotless platform. With all this networked targeting, is there any role the F/A-18 can perform that couldn't be performed easily with an unmanned dedicated bomb truck?

>>28653759
Permissive airspace strike, interdiction and CAS (which is the bulk of the job after the IADS is rolled back), fleet CAP, buddy tanking, a number of other things.

>>28648084
Why does the F-35 have such better range?

Did they actually not care about the huge drop in range between the F-14 and F-18?

>>28652031
>centerpiece
Might be an exaggeration. Using that word shows you are biased towards the program.

Fewer Western nations are using the 35 than the F-16.

>>28652283
The program was designed with Japan/SK/Israel in mind. Matter of fact wasn't Israel a tier 3 partner?
Calling them additional orders is inaccurate considering LM was predicting 8'000 foreign orders in 05'.

Turkey slowed their orders as well.

>>28653759
When has a drone performed the role described in that infograph?

>>28648084
>>Stealth
>>Gets picked up by french radar.

>>28653859
>Fewer Western nations are using the 35 than the F-16.
Not all of those nations bought the F-16 before it even hit IOC.

>Why does the F-35 have such better range?
Partially because it was a design priority, and partially because when they designed the F-16 and F-18 as light fighters, kinematics/dogfighting ability were the primary performance goals. Manufacturers figured out that less fuel = less weight = better performance, so gave them small internal tanks with the idea of carrying drop tanks which would be dropped in the furball like in WWII. Meanwhile, the plane's stats get a hefty leg up in competition.

>Calling them additional orders is inaccurate considering LM was predicting 8'000 foreign orders in 05'.
This is not true. That would have been 3,500 more than the F-16 ever sold, and it's considered one of the most successful US export fighters ever.

>>28653921
>That would have been 3,500 more than the F-16 ever sold
Sorry, that was unclear. I meant to say it was 3,500 more F-16s than were ever BUILT.

>>28653859
>>28653921
>>28653929
And 3,000 more built than the F-4, the most successful Gen 3 export fighter.

>>28653921
>fewer before IOC

F-35B is IOC and the A is few months away. I just don't think you can call it the centerpiece unless more nations buy in.

>partially
I think that is true. It just seems odd that so many people on /k/ say the F-35 is as maneuverable as the F-18.
The F-35 is a flying fuel tank tbqh. Also, the single engine helps, but that comes at a tactical cost as well.

>F-16 orders are
>"While the United States is the primary customer and financial backer, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway, and Denmark have agreed to contribute US$4.375 billion towards development costs.[463] Total development costs are estimated at more than US$40 billion. The purchase of an estimated 2,400 aircraft is expected to cost an additional US$200 billion.[464] The initial plan was that the nine major partner nations would acquire over 3,100 F-35s through 2035.[465]"
>Several government officials, have used the production number of 5,000 as recently as September 2010 as an indication of the supposed benefit to industry in providing components and services for this large fleet. Analyst Kenneth Epps stated in November 2010: "The global F-35 market of “up to” 5,000 aircraft cited by Canadian industry and government officials is outdated and now greatly overstated. Realistically, the likelihood of worldwide F-35 sales is closer to the figure now given as the order total for the program partner countries, that is, “up to” 3,500 aircraft. The uncritical use of F-35 sales projections that are now almost 10 years out of date calls into question other claims made by officials about the F-35 program."[16]
They were predicting over 3,100 just for the 9 initial partners by 2035.
So my 8,000 number is inaccurate. I must have confused it with the estimated total procurement number.
Still, I think there is a point to be made that far far fewer foreign orders have happened than expected.

>>28653859
Total orders for the F-35 currently stand at only 1,000 fewer than for the F-16's total 40 year run. At this point in it's program, there were only semi-solid buys (same as F-35 currently, as not even all the US orders are fully contracted yet) for the F-16 amounting to roughly 2,200 planes. If you look at the timeline, the F-35 is already outperforming it. It probably doesn't hurt that the STOVL and CATOBAR versions exist, which would be like combining the F-16, F-18 and AV-8B sales (add another 1,800 jets to the 4,500 F-16 total, or about 3,200 at this stage in the process - which still puts the F-35 ahead).

>>28653890
The point isn't to be absolutely invisible

The point is to make your signature so small that weapon systems ignore it, thinking its a bird or some other small flying thing

>>28654021
>I just don't think you can call it the centerpiece unless more nations buy in.
Just about every major western air force save the Swedes and French have a serious interest, which is even better than any of the Gen 4 fighters did at the same point.

>It just seems odd that so many people on /k/ say the F-35 is as maneuverable as the F-18.
It is. The F-18's greatest strength was always the ridiculously high AoA/nose pointing capability. The F-35 tops it by over 25%.

>Also, the single engine helps, but that comes at a tactical cost as well.
Lower maintenance and lower chance of human maintenance error causing a Class A incident? Because that's the reason the F-15 has a higher Class A incident rate than the F-16 - more chance one of the two engines is going to go down due to normal failure or maintenance mistake.

>So my 8,000 number is inaccurate. I must have confused it with the estimated total procurement number.
No one even estimated it as the total procurement number. 8,000 is stratospheric as far as fighter sales. No Western jet has done that kind of business since the F-86.

>far far fewer foreign orders have happened than expected.
You have yet to prove this. No one aside from Canada has even suggested they were pulling out, and only two other countries have reduced orders. Meanwhile 4 countries have increased their orders or contracted the entirety of their long term order sooner than expected.

Say what you will about the F-35, but so far it is a massive business success in the world of military aviation, and that is not even up for argument.

>>28654040
Your whole post is problematic

Total orders are about 500 right now. Total planned orders are 2400+600/700/800 foreign leading to 3000/3200 total.

The F-16 is still being produced at 4540.

Of course given 40 years the F-35 will pick up more orders. But 1300/1500 more orders is unlikely.

It's much more likely to be around 3500 like my citation says here>>28654021

>>28653759
>>>28650952
> So according to this arrangement, F-18s are regulated to a role easily filled by a dedicated pilotless platform. With all this networked targeting, is there any role the F/A-18 can perform that couldn't be performed easily with an unmanned dedicated bomb truck?

Mission capability in a network-denied environment.

> Drone halfway to target.
> Satlink drops because war
> Mission is fail

> Manned strike plane halfway to target
> Satlink drops
> Mission continues because HFY

>>28654063
No, the point is to lower the detection threshold - the range at which an enemy sensor sees and recognizes the aircraft for what it is - to tiny fractions of what it would be for a Gen 4 bird.

For example (random numbers used for example, don't sperg), if an F-15E can be detected by a certain radar at 600nmi, the F-22 would be detected and give a solid, target track return at less than 20nmi. It's actually even better than that, but whatever. If this seems drastic, that is because we are dealing with orders of magnitude reductions in RCS, not just twice or three times better.

>>28654113
>Total orders are about 500 right now. Total planned orders are 2400+600/700/800 foreign leading to 3000/3200 total.
No different than any other fighter program, including the F-16 at this stage, as I noted in the post you quoted.

>The F-16 is still being produced at 4540.
That UAE order is likely the last the F-16 will see outside of retired USAF F-16Cs being sold to local powers.

>Of course given 40 years the F-35 will pick up more orders. But 1300/1500 more orders is unlikely.
Yet that's how many more the F-16 received from the USAF alone in the 1990's buy. It is not historically unlikely.

>>28654110
Interest != buying

>it is
Could I have a source for that?

>less chance of human error
You don't think human error on a bigger, more complex engine is likelier than a smaller, less complex engine? It might be a smaller chance than two F-18 engines, but it's not 1 to 1.

Also, comparing F-16 engine failures and F-15 engine failures is apples and oranges. Different engines, different roles, different uses, etc.

They estimated 5500 just from the US and 9 partner nations. Assuming other nations (Japan/Israel/SK for example) bought that would have put their estimated number higher.

So I'm only 1,000-2,000 off on the number I pulled off the top of my head.

>yet you have yet to prove this
>Several government officials, have used the production number of 5,000 as recently as September 2010 as an indication of the supposed benefit to industry in providing components and services for this large fleet. Analyst Kenneth Epps stated in November 2010: "The global F-35 market of “up to” 5,000 aircraft cited by Canadian industry and government officials is outdated and now greatly overstated. Realistically, the likelihood of worldwide F-35 sales is closer to the figure now given as the order total for the program partner countries, that is, “up to” 3,500 aircraft. The uncritical use of F-35 sales projections that are now almost 10 years out of date calls into question other claims made by officials about the F-35 program."[16]

Did you not read all of my post?

>>28653859
>Why does the F-35 have such better range?
More efficient engine and less drag for the same amount of fuel.

>Fewer Western nations are using the 35 than the F-16.
No shit, but many of those nations are transitioning to the F-35 (Norway, Denmark, US obviously, SK, etc - others like Singapore and Finland have expressed their interest in doing the same once their F-16s get a bit older).

>The program was designed with Japan/SK/Israel in mind.
Nope, it was designed with the US and UK in mind - Japan / SK only joined a couple of years ago (~15 years into the program) and as FMS customers. Israel isn't a Tier 3 partner, they're a "Security Cooperative Participant", same as Singapore.

>LM was predicting 8'000 foreign orders in 05'
Source? That's a lot considering the US was only planning on 2443.

>>28654181

archive.defensenews.com/article/20110516/DEFSECT01/105160302/F-35-Tests-Proceed-Revealing-F-18-Like-Performance

>>28654180
Could I have a source for no different?
I provided two citations.

Bangladesh/Bulgaria/Romania/Thailand/Colombia are all looking at or confirmed buys. Some will be new build while others will be transfers. I don't know and no one knows the total new build numbers.

>yet that's how
Source?
In the time frame, Produced != procured.
The F-35 program is no young duckling by the way.

Also, you're conflicting directly with my citation which says 3,500 is much more likely than 5,000.
The US isn't buying significantly more than we planned. Trying to draw an analogy between the F-16 procurement in the late 80's-early 90's to the F-35 today is decieving if nothing else. The programs and procurement schedules were completely different. (Cold war + F-16 rushed development)

>>28654181
>Also, comparing F-16 engine failures and F-15 engine failures is apples and oranges. Different engines, different roles, different uses, etc.

The F-15 and F-16 use the same engine. The newest (since 1991) variant, the F100-PW-229, has had 5 mishaps on F-15s, zero on F-16s.

>>28651819
Not him but welcome to 4chan. No one gives a fuck.

>>28654181
>Interest != buying
At this stage the signs are almost universally good; in fact better than the F-16, considering that jet's pretty massive early production run teething issues.

>Could I have a source for that?
It is heavily documented that all F-35 variants will have a 50 degree AoA control law limitation, and high-AoA testing showed controlled flight as high as 70 degrees.

>You don't think human error on a bigger, more complex engine is likelier than a smaller, less complex engine?
It is, but nowhere near twice as likely. Look up the list of Class A incidents for each relevant airframe. You will find that since the mid 1980's, single engine airframes have had far fewer than twin engine airframes. Do your homework instead of spouting memes.

>Also, comparing F-16 engine failures and F-15 engine failures is apples and oranges.
Not when you restrict the causes of your research to maintenance-human error caused, and the F-15 displays almost twice the Class A incident frequency overall.

>They estimated 5500 just from the US and 9 partner nations. Assuming other nations (Japan/Israel/SK for example) bought that would have put their estimated number higher.
Except that well over 1/3 of the total F-16 buys came in the 1990's, not the 1970's and early 80's.

>So I'm only 1,000-2,000 off on the number I pulled off the top of my head.
You said 8,000 as if that were even on the same planet, much less the same ballpark.

>Canadian industry and government officials
Political hatchet jobs and misrepresented facts do not a proof comprise, junior.

>>28654214
Yep yep.

He claimed the F-35 is the centerpiece of Western aviation. I say we wait before we make such bold claims.
Walk the talk.

I admitted not knowing for sure about Israel. Israel was a SCP partner so the estimated procurement numbers had them in it.
Also, who seriously thought Japan and SK wouldn't buy the 35?

>8,000
Explained here.>>28654021
5,500 for the US and 9 major partners. That leaves out other nations like Jap/SK/Israel so adding those to 5,500 would mean I was 1,000-2,000 off on a number I pulled off the top of my head.

>>28654250
Thank you.

Your source says similar in most aspects. He claimed it was better.

File: image.jpg (214KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 640x1136px

>>28654285
They do?

Pic related.

>>28654254
>Trying to draw an analogy between the F-16 procurement in the late 80's-early 90's to the F-35 today is decieving if nothing else.
How so? It is the last major export multi-role project, and it served even fewer market sectors than the F-16, which had no STOVL and not CATOBAR. It's also historical fact that the F-35 has more soft buy commitment currently than the F-16 had at this same point in the program (just before IOC/in early production).

>(Cold war + F-16 rushed development)
The same argument can be made for aging gen 4 airframes + obsolete air forces without VLO now.

Why are you fighting so hard against the concept that the F-35 is thus far a business success, regardless of anything else? There is literally no market analyst, hedge fund turk or financial guru on the planet that would suggest otherwise. Just look at LM stock, and how it is responding the F-35 project milestones.

>>28654339
It is. That was before they revealed the actual AoA test numbers. 70 degree controlled flight is only in legacy hornet dreams.

>>28654317
You're mixing up people, I'm that >>28654214 and the 'centerpiece' guy (went AFK for an hour).

Even if the F-35 isn't procured in the same numbers as the F-16, it'll still be the centerpiece.

>>28654339
Ignoring the "the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope.", the F-35's also been demonstrated as being able to reach >110 degrees AoA when the software limiters were overridden:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers

>>28654358
Yes they do:
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-151113-014.pdf
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-151113-011.pdf
Wikipedia's just picking one of multiple engines the F-16's used (in some countries).

>>28654317
>He claimed the F-35 is the centerpiece of Western aviation. I say we wait before we make such bold claims.
What other possible multi-role will fill all these roles? There is NOTHING else out there which is going to step into this market share at this point. The last possible market competitor died when Boeing lost with the X-32.

>>28654395
>>28654358
Also, from here on, I'm going to use a username

>>28654113
But, something to keep in mind is that the F-35 probably won't see as much fleet attrition as with the F-16. The US's fleet has written off or scrapped 400, and 530 are sitting in the boneyard. There are only 1200 of about 2200 in service.
http://www.f-16.net/fleet-reports_article2.html

>>28654301
Suit yourself. You have no results.

Then could you provide one saying the F-35 has better AoA ?

I said it was not 1 to 1. But you make it seem like it is half as likely.

Except different roles, uses, and aircraft design changes the rate at which engines fail.
I'm gonna say aircraft engine maitenance on land is better than at sea as well. So the F-16/F-18 comparisons I see spouted on here as proof of what you're saying are memes.
F-16/F-18 engine failure comparisons are difficult because of the different speeds, turn rates, and uses of the two aircraft. It's not a perfect comparison hence apples and oranges.

How do you restrict for human error on engined? Is that even possible?

Could I have a source for well over a third? Also, the F-16 was procured in the cold war and end of the cold war. It was also rushed. The whole schedule is different than the 35's.
Apples and oranges.

5,500 + other buys would have put me 1,000-2,000 off. Sorry that I was inaccurate. Already said that.

Am I triggering you?

>>28654368
Until you provide a source for these claims, I won't respond. I provided a source.

Business success != properly managed program. Business success = money earned for LM and friends.
Program success = well managed program without cost overruns and delays.

>>28654152

Also let's not forget that the band/type of radar we're considering matters also. Being able to detect a plane with a ground-based radar is worthless if the radar on the plane you send to intercept it can't pick it up because it operates on a different band which the hostile plane is designed to be invisible to.

>>28654440
I'm not the guy you're replying to but:
>Then could you provide one saying the F-35 has better AoA ?
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers

>So the F-16/F-18 comparisons I see spouted on here as proof of what you're saying are memes.
F-16 / F-15 - they use the same F100 engine family, both are land-based fighters.

>How do you restrict for human error on engined?
Have fewer engines to work on, reducing fatigue. You can put more people to work, but engines aren't that big that you can have a dozen people working on them, and doing shorter shifts causes handover/takeover errors.

>Could I have a source for well over a third?
It's actually the 80s that most were produced:
http://www.f-16.net/fleet-reports_article9.html

>>28654395
Sorry I'm being attacked by 4 different anons so I get the postchain wrong.

And if software/mechanical limiters were taken off the legacy fighters would that increase their AoA?

Does that control for different roles and stationed locations? Doubling the engines increases maintenance failure rates. But not 1 to 1.

Wikipedia says they are different.

>>28654474
Even then, "excessively optimistic" early stage planning is more likely to account for delays than anything intentional.

>>28654521
The F-135 also has a clean, easy removal process so the maintenance team can work on it with full access at a comfortable level.

>>28654521
I see that. Lookie here >>28654527

I messed up and said F16/F18 instead of F-16/F15 in the second part. Lookie here >>28654527

I'm saying how do you restrict class A failures to just human error? How do you attribute it to human error?

Hence the Cold war during Reagan's buildup. F-16 and F-35 procurement are a different beast.

>>28654521
Hey, good talk though.

I have definitely gone from an ignorant F-35 program skeptic, to a knowledgable skeptic. Been a five year process.

Finding good sources and arguments on /k/ is difficult. But it's one of the few places I can.

I simply believe the F-35 program is going to provide a good 5th generation plane at a higher than expected program cost. I believe it could have been run better if we had simply built built the A and C and not the B. The B could have been produced for a different aircraft.

>>28654527
>And if software/mechanical limiters were taken off the legacy fighters would that increase their AoA?
Depends on the plane and what you want to achieve at a high angle of attack. An F-16 for example will flip the fuck out and cause you to crash if you were to exceed about 25 degrees angle of attack. An F/A-18 could reach a similar angle of attack as the F-35, but it would very likely be less controllable. A Super Hornet IMO is equivalent to the F-35 in angle of attack, but is more draggy (all it's tanks / weapons on it's wings have to be tilted outwards (for safe separation) a few degrees which causes considerable drag).

>Wikipedia says they are different.
It's Wikipedia; either way, the F-16's had 2 engines and a total of 6 engine variants over it's life. They're just referencing one of those 6.

>Doubling the engines increases maintenance failure rates. But not 1 to 1.
Mathematically / according to probability theory, if someone has a (just for example) 50% chance of screwing up an engine part, having 2 engines means they have a 75% chance of screwing up at least one of the engines. That's theory though; there's also considerations like that generally guys will get fatigued or get deja vu doing a second engine immediately after the first (if they're the same crew). Even if they're not the same crew, there's generally only one guy that goes out and signs off on the work.

>>28654591
>How do you attribute it to human error?
It says here: http://www.afsec.af.mil/aviationsafetydivision/enginestatistics.asp
That these numbers exclude bird strikes, fuel starvation, etc. Under those circumstances, it's pretty much always human error, as the parts should be swapped out / replaced before they end the last of their life. If something fails prematurely, it's meant to be picked up by inspections. Even if it only appears in-flight and fails in-flight, the subsequent investigation generally looks at other samples to check if the metal, etc was below spec.

>>28654661

>The B could have been produced for a different aircraft.

So you move the B to another program, thus removing that cost from the F-35 program but creating a new program equal in cost to that which was removed from the F-35 program at the same time. Bravo.

>>28654853
Probably a lot more. The dev program of the F-35 was 7 billion less than the F-22's.

>>28654440
>So the F-16/F-18 comparisons
Except I specifically compared the F-16 to the F-15, which have nearly identical engines in one of the main F-16 configurations.

>F-16/F-18 engine failure comparisons are difficult because of the different speeds, turn rates, and uses of the two aircraft.
Once again, if you can't even keep straight which aircraft are being compared, I have to ask why you would believe your opinion to be worth enough to insist on it like this.

>the F-16 was procured in the cold war and end of the cold war.
Well over 2/3 of the F-16s flying today in the USAF were built after it was clear the Soviet Union was collapsing.

>5,500 + other buys would have put me 1,000-2,000 off.
Again, you claimed 8,000. Now you're shifting goalposts in every direction to try and salvage some of the justification for your ill-founded opinions. Better to just admit you were wrong and revise your opinion on the matter.

>>28654474
>Program success = well managed program without cost overruns and delays.
I will thank you to point out a single such modern fighter program. The F-16, F-14, F-14, F-15, even the very well managed F-18 project ALL had delays and cost overruns. The F-16 is the most successful gen 4 export fighter period, and it got just as much bad press from program overruns as the F-35, and for MORE reason, not less.

>>28654661
>The B could have been produced for a different aircraft.
For 1.5 times the total cost, over twice the flyaway cost for the same capabilities. There's no way it would have survived in today's fiscal environment, and the USMC and RN would have ended up with NOTHING fixed wing to put on their flat tops. You are being unrealistic.

>>28654705
>Mathematically / according to probability theory, if someone has a (just for example) 50% chance of screwing up an engine part, having 2 engines means they have a 75% chance of screwing up at least one of the engines. That's theory though; there's also considerations like that generally guys will get fatigued or get deja vu doing a second engine immediately after the first (if they're the same crew). Even if they're not the same crew, there's generally only one guy that goes out and signs off on the work.
Not to mention the simple fact that if this anon got off his lazy ass and actually looked at Class-A incident records and loss rates, he'd see the obvious, historical fact. Twin engine fighters, as much else being equal as possible, have far more serious accidents with modern reliable engine technology than single engine fighters, and this is because human error in maintenance is now the greater risk factor than unexpected engine failure.

>>28654661
>I simply believe the F-35 program is going to provide a good 5th generation plane at a higher than expected program cost. I believe it could have been run better if we had simply built built the A and C and not the B. The B could have been produced for a different aircraft.
Gee, anon, wasn't this thread about the F-35C and whether it was what the Navy needed? You wouldn't be moving goalposts about, would you?

Every time I sit down and read one of these F-35 threads, it becomes more and more clear as time passes that the people which have actually done their research and taken the time to draw their conclusions based on the emerging data (instead of what the media tells them the data says) are almost overwhelmingly behind the program now.

Three years ago? Most people, even well informed ones, were skeptical. Now it seems like the only people pissing and moaning are the lazy ones who can't be fucked to do a little research on the program and actually compare it with historically relevant programs.

>>28654591
Here you go. Yet another couple sources. This is the F-15's Class A engine related mishap rate for the F100-PW-229.
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-151113-011.pdf
You will note that from 1990 to present, there have been 5 total mishaps, a cumulative rate of .46 Class As per 100,000 flight hours. This spiked at over 4 in 1998.

Now, here's the F-16 with that same EXACT F100-PW-229 from 1991 to present:
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-151113-014.pdf
Holy fuck. Not a single accident.

If you want to compare the very similar F-22s F-119 to the F-35s F-135, you will find that the F-22 has suffered two engine related mishaps to the F-35's one.

Can we just sticky an F-35 general info thread with all relevant sources? I mean, jesus. At least two threads at any given time on /k/ are just people taking the time to educate lazy ignorant fucks with loud opinions.

>>28654965

Source? I ask not because I don't believe you but because I like to compile relevant sources in Excel to save time.

OP here, good replies.
I know that the 35C is replacing the legacy Hornets, but what else is it going to be doing? There are only 7 F-18C squadrons left in the Navy, each has 10 to 12 aircraft, putting the total number of Hornets the Navy still operates under 100. But the Navy is ordering 260, so where are the other 160 going? Will the numbers make more sense as the fleet goes back to 11 carriers from 10?

>>28648084
People keep forgetting that it's main disadvantage is that it's not combat ready and won't be that way until 2020 at they very minimum. None of these prototypes have passed IOST&E yet.

File: Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at 11.10.05 AM.png (148KB, 1107x699px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1107x699px

>>28654214
>same amount of fuel
Wat
>>28653859
>Did they actually not care about the huge drop in range between the F-14 and F-18?
I blame John Boyd... he got the whole aerospace industry dick-measuring their fighters' performance against one another in the "dogfight configuration" of two missiles, gun ammo and "50% internal fuel" without further qualification. As a result, some manufacturers picked designs that used fairly small internal fuel tanks, which shaved several tons of weight off this "dogfight configuration," offering a considerable boost in performance which they would then boast about. But in the end, they just would up producing fighters that were heavily reliant on external fuel carriage (which, admittedly, they could carry a lot of - the Super Hornet can carry five bags totaling over eight tons of fuel).
With 5th-gen fighters, it was realized that external fuel would disrupt the precious low RCS, and thus relying on it would be absolutely unacceptable. And so the F-22 and F-35 were designed with enormous internal fuel tanks.
>>28654152
>Sperg inbound
It's not actually better than that. The F-22's RCS is about 150,000 times smaller than the F-15's, BUT the radar equation bears an inverse-fourth relation to range, so the F-22's detection range is "only" about 20 times less than that of the F-15. It's not a linear relationship at all.

HOWEVER, the story changes when you add in the effects of range-dependent noise sources, such as defensive jammers. If the aircraft being targeted carries a fixed-power jammer (whose noise factor varies with the inverse-square of range), the overall signal-to-noise ratio suddenly changes from an inverse-fourth relationship to inverse-squared. By THIS measure, the range at which a radar could achieve burn-through and track a *jamming* F-22 is about 1/400th the range of an F-15 with similar ECM. THIS number IS indeed "better than that." BUT jamming does expose you to HOJ, so there's that.

>>28653859

>Did they actually not care about the huge drop in range between the F-14 and F-18?

The cold war was over, and the F-14 was seen as a cold war bird filling a cold war role. Sure, there were people who bitched about the reduction in range, definitely, but the people who controlled the $$$ didn't really care.

>>28655896

The Marines are getting the remaining C's I believe. They will mostly likely be used for close air support alongside the B.

>>28656222
Direct replacements for USMC Hornet squadrons.

No range, no payload. It carries a max of 2 bombs and 2 A2A missiles.

>>28656284
>No range
200+nmi more than the Hornets is no range?
>It carries a max of 2 bombs and 2 A2A missiles.
In full-stealth loadout, sure. Into areas the Hornets can't fly. And that's only if using 1k/2k bombs. It can do 4 500 pounders or 8 SDBs in that setup, too. Or install externals and carry a total of 18,000lbs of munitions.

>>28656481
Hey, fuckwit, what's the point of even using the F-35 if you can't maximize its stealth capability? Get a clue.

>>28656506
>herp derp I can't imagine how having amazing mission flexibility if stealth isn't necessary is a good thing

>>28656516
>can't form coherent sentence

What?

>>28656191
Why would they have a "Dogfight configuration" rather than a minimum range or something

>>28654300
>being so new that you think /b/ and /pol/ are the whole website in terms of attitude

>>28656564
>obviously has no clue about aircraft
>comes into aircraft thread anyway

fuck off

>>28653859
>Did they actually not care about the huge drop in range between the F-14 and F-18?
They sure a hell did. It's just that the F/A-18 was never meant to replace the F-14. The F/A-18 originally replaced the short ranged A-7 and F-8. When the USN finally retired the F-14 and A-6, they just simply didn't have the money or time to go with an alternative platform. Thus, the F/A-18 E/F.

>>28656537
Don't like the appropriate response to a retarded statement?

>>28648084

How many AMRAAM's can the F-35 hold internally?

>>28656735
Four currently. In a future block, they'll be increasing that to 6. Or at least that's the plan. And then this just happened.

http://www.pddnet.com/news/2016/01/raytheon-awarded-air-force-missile-contract

Lockheed's CUDA missile concept was to fit this competition, and it claimed similar performace to the AMRAAM at a fraction of the size. So much so that you can carry twice the amount of them internally in the F-22.

But yeah, only 4 currently. Not the greatest, but hopefully being able to get closer before launching will provide a higher pk to compensate for the lower number.

Just an aside which is somewhat relevant, instead of carrying 2x AIM-9s in addition to an internal bombload, it carries 2x AIM-120s.

>>28656710
>The F/A-18 originally replaced the short ranged A-7

>A-7
>Short range

>>28656924
When laden with bombs, yeah, it is.

File: 4ad7939f.jpg (65KB, 1023x586px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1023x586px

>>28656813

The F-35's greatest advantage over gen four fighters is its stealth. It's hard to argue that the F-35 will be able to use that to its full advantage if it can only hold four missiles internally. That's not something that should have been left to a future date. 4 missiles just isn't enough for a decent air-to-air loadout. 6 would bring it up to par with the raptor, minus the two side-mounted heatseeker launchers.

It just seems like the Lightning II will have to rely on external stores, mitigating its greatest advantage.

>>28656813
>http://www.pddnet.com/news/2016/01/raytheon-awarded-air-force-missile-contract

If the MSDM works as advertised it will be a game changer.

>>28657008
This is a relatively near term block, definitely in the next decade. But yes, a mere 4 internal missiles is not ideal. It won't need to RELY on external stores, but if you just want to get volume up there, perhaps. Generally the way I'd see it done is having at least several pairs of F-35s with their internal load sending targeting data back to others behind them, who are carrying a number of missiles. These could even be F/A-18s.

And I would argue that stealth lets you really get close enough to make it worth 1.5x their usual value. That applies to the F-22 as well.

>>28657071
A huge one.

>>28657007
Any numbers on that in comparison to a Hornet?

>>28657008
The F-35's greatest advantage is not VLO.

Its a great asset, but its only one of many of its fairly equally important and distinct tools.

>>28657142
No exact numbers, but generally speaking between 400-600 nmi for most payloads.

>>28657256
So you're talking out of your anus on /k/.

How standard.

>>28657281
I mean, do you want me to open up CMANO and use thaat as a source, or do you want me to go out and check through some pilot interviews? Those are what the numbers are.

>>28655896
Each carrier is also under strength at the moment. Average current manning level is only 44-48 bugs and superbugs (four squadrons). Also, spare airframes for replenishment squadrons at NASs, training, etc.

>>28657292
>I mean, do you want me to open up CMANO and use thaat as a source

Lets keep video games out of serious discussions, shall we

>>28657409
Just a reminder they take their data from real sources, for the most part. Some of it is best guesses, but that's generally only for classified stuff.

>>28657008

Two things to think about. Internal mounted weapons only makes sense when flying SEAD missions while external loadout can be used for everything else. Second, stealth pods and stealth missiles.

File: 1450386296231.png (224KB, 413x413px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 413x413px

>>28657715
> Internal mounted weapons only makes sense when flying SEAD missions while external loadout can be used for everything else

Why comment on something you don't understand at all, anon?

The F-35 is a toy until it actually is ready for combat deployment. There's nothing specular about a fighter with stealth and can land on a carrier. If the F-35 fails IOST&E, the program is done. No one can unsink that Titanic.

>>28657755
>The F-35 is a toy until it actually is ready for combat deployment.

technically speaking, thats right now.

>>28657770
IOC is not combat ready. The Air Force isn't even doing its evaluations for another 4 years. Marines just made shit up because their planes were literally falling out of the sky.

>>28657785
>IOC is not combat ready.

Thats precisely what that term means, actually.

>>28656564
Probably because Boyd didn't feel like doing range calculations before every maneuverability calculation when outlining his theory. In the long run it certainly would have been better to take that into account, though... but nobody ever did.
>>28656611
Wat

>>28657715

I think it is the opposite. The internal stores are primarily for air-to-air missiles. The external hard-points are for bombs. If the F-35 is doing air defense, it wants to have the smallest RCS possible. If it is just going after ground targets, then it can carry bombs on its wings.

>>28657851
Not really. With air DEFENSE, the main objective is to intercept enemy strike aircraft, which will be trying to avoid you, not engage you. Furthermore, since you're over your own soil, you won't have enemy SAMs trying to engage you either. Lastly, since you will likely have friendly aircraft and SAMs in action as well, you actually WANT to make your position and identity fairly well-known, for IFF reasons. This is why North Vietnamese MiGs ran with IFF in auto-reply all the time, while American fighters over North Vietnam nearly always kept IFF on standby.

But for strike, offensive air superiority or anything that puts you over enemy territory, it's a different story. Radar threats abound, so stealth and evasion are high priorities, ESPECIALLY for strike aircraft that are laden with bombs and fuel instead of missiles and aren't in the best configuration to protect themselves.

>>28656222
>>28656261
The Corps is buying 67 of its own F-35Cs, the Navy isn't buying it for them. Also, a majority of the VMFA Hornets are getting replaced by 35Bs, only 4 will transition to the Charlie. It doesn't look like they'll be getting an FRS for the C according to link related though, so I guess Marine SNAs will head to Lemoore or Oceana then end up at Miramar or Beaufort. This is what Marine Air will look like in the future
www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19920
>>28657715
SEAD is the Growler's job.

>>28659166
>SEAD is the Growler's job.
It's not the sole purview of the growler. Aren't enough of them on a carrier for that to be the case.

>>28657008
Something to remember here is that the F-35, unlike the Raptor, unlikely to be getting into 1v2 or 1v4, etc scenarios if it's purchased in the thousands like planned (and which seems to be the future for the program now that it's moving at speed).

So while 4 AMRAAMs might not be enough for taking out a flight of enemy birds, it'll definitely be enough to take out an opponent or two or maybe three, which is what it's designed for. When you also factor in the networking capabilities and the psychological effect of the enemy going up against an unknown quantity of stealth aircraft, you wouldn't even always have to use up all your AMRAAMs to defeat the enemy.

>>28657281
The Super Hornet's combat radius varies heavily based on payload due to the way the Super Hornet's hardpoints are arranged. 400-600nmi is fairly accurate. It's akin to asking what's the range of a car towing something - what that something is has a major effect.

>>28659166
>SEAD is the Growler's job.

Who needs stealth if you can just blind the enemy?

>>28659406
Because sometimes the enemy can see you before you can effectively blind them. It's like blinding someone with a flashlight - if they're running up towards you from 300 yards away trying to blind you, you can just fire at the guy / the flashlight. If a god damn ninja sneaks up to you and uses the same flashlight 10 yards away, you can be blinded.

>>28659406
Because the blinding isn't complete. Combining stealth and jamming makes the enemy's radar worthless until very short ranges.

File: PAK-FA_F22_Weapons_AA.jpg (37KB, 496x640px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 496x640px

>>28659346

The US will never have any issues, but not every country which is buying the F-35 is going to be able to afford 2000 of them! Being able to hold six missiles is something that should have been in the JSF requirements from the beginning, underlined and in bold letters. I can accept that the F-35 isn't as fast or maneuverable as the F-22, but such a small missile load isn't acceptable.

>>28659718
It is in the requirements, it's just not finished yet. The weapon bay is fit more for depth than for width.

>>28659718
Except no nation operating the F-35 is going to be using them alone against a high-end threat. That's particularly where the "Joint" in Joint Strike Fighter comes in to play.

>>28659813

So if holding six missiles internally was in the requirements, then why can the F-35 not currently do that? Why did they approve a design that cannot meet the core requirements? Speaking of which, where can the actual, original requirements for the JSF program be found? There must be a document that spells them out. Same for the ATF (advanced tactical fighter, not the dogkillers) program that resulted in the F-22.

>>28657806
An aircraft can be IOC and be completely unable to deploy any live ammunition. The Marines further circumvented typical procurement by doing it before IOST&E. No US aircraft has ever entered combat without passing IOST&E first.

>>28659889
I don't have an official one for the original documents, but this is the next best things, mentioning some of them and talking about the logic behind them:

www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/TD/td1801/steidle.pdf

>>28659919
The USMC definition of IOC for the F-35B explicitly lists the combat missions they're now ready for.

>VMFA-121 has ten aircraft in the Block 2B configuration with the requisite performance envelope and weapons clearances, to include the training, sustainment capabilities, and infrastructure to deploy to an austere site or a ship. It is capable of conducting close air support, offensive and defensive counter air, air interdiction, assault support escort and armed reconnaissance as part of a Marine Air Ground Task Force, or in support of the Joint Force.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2015/07/31/f35-operational-marine-corps-joint-strike-fighter/30937689/

Now, you're right in inferring that the USMC won't be using F-35Bs in combat any time soon, but that's besides the point - the primarily objective of any new fleet is to train and develop tactics, which is what's happening now.

That said, the USAF has a much larger fleet of F-35s than the USMC and so it can have squadrons that haven't achieved combat operational status perform training, while their Rude Rams deploy with the cream of the crop. As it sits, the USAF has been putting out rhetoric of late, saying that while they don't have solid plans, there's a solid chance that they could be deployed mere months after IOC (though they could just be deploying like F-22s to Japan, etc).
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/09/14/f-35-could-deploy-quickly-after-ioc-next-year-general-says/72259278/

>>28659999
lol @ anything on Block 2B configuration firing any weapons let alone going anywhere near a battlefield. I know this is a huge semantic slap fight, but it's bullshit and everyone knows it.

The Air Force and Navy have been more conservative about their testing for a good reason: They don't have to replace their fleet of aircraft right away even with all the delays.

>>28659718
>but not every country which is buying the F-35 is going to be able to afford 2000 of them!
But at the same time, in any fight where they need that they'll probably be doing joint operations with other F-35 users, including the US.

>>28660027
That said, the AV-8B is such a sack of shit that it even makes the F-35B look good.

>>28660027
Well, for AF/Navy the F-35 isn't quite the huge doctrinal change as the Harrier is to the -35B, either.

>>28659889
Because it's not bloody finished yet. And the JSF requirements have changed so many times over the years doing such a thing would be pointless. Hell, most of the time the requirements are far more vague. "I want these three things emphasized, with at least the following range and payload".

>>28660027
Either way, nobody's said the USMC is deploying the F-35B any time soon - they're just saying that it's combat capable (the USMC deploy their F-35Bs for the first time in 2018 to Japan). The USAF is the one that is saying that they could be potentially throwing F-35s into Syria by Christmas this year. I'm not saying it's likely, but I and the USAF are saying that there's nothing stopping them.

>>28660144
The F-35 is likely not to see combat until 2020. It's unnecessary to deploy a plane into combat before it even passes IOTS&E when plenty of other older planes could do the job.

File: 1448946589218.jpg (449KB, 2016x1134px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 2016x1134px

>>28660108

What do you mean it's not finished yet? I have pictures of the thing flying around and doing things. Why is LM producing aircraft of an unfinished design? Wouldn't it make the most sense to nail down the core design, THEN start production? Or all these just prototypes and we've all been rused?

>>28660168
The F-35 needs to go through various hardware and software upgrades before it's ready to go. The planes they're buying now are literally 150%-200% more expensive than projected flyaway cost for the plane. They're doing this to "save money".

Concurrency is shit.

>>28660168
There's still about ~150 design changes a year - the design is very much locked down now, but there are still little adjustments happening here and there, mainly on the maintainability side of things (eg - "this hydraulic line is hard to reach with a spanner, kink this bend in the other direction so I can get my hand in there").

>>28660192
ALIS still doesn't work.

>>28648819
Hi-lo was and is used in the airforce... not the navy. The navy designed the f18 to replace a few designs, namely the a-6/7 and f14 to simplify logistics and increase sortie rate. In this capacity, the f/a 18 is the better burd, giving a carrier force more flexibility.
So instead of having 3 different planes for 3 different missions, you now have 1 that can do all three, making the navy have a more dynamic tempo for operations.

The problem with the f35 naval edition is that while it is better in air superiority, ground strike, and recon/intelligence, it can't really carry anti ship missiles without losing the stealthy advantages it has. So the superbugs will be the missile trucks using the f35 to "spot" for them. This means that the navy is losing a little bit of the "one plane good for every role" flexibility and back to the days of dedicated attack and fighters.

I suppose you still could use superbugs for air superiority and cap after the f35's are out, but that would probably be suboptimal.

>>28660189
>The F-35 needs to go through various hardware and software upgrades before it's ready to go.

Its not 2011 anymore, friend.

>>28660200
>it can't really carry anti ship missiles without losing the stealthy advantages it has.
Thats not really much of an argument is it?
A Harpoon on a F-35 increases its RCS just as much as it would on a F/A-18E.

>>28660200
>it can't really carry anti ship missiles without losing the stealthy advantages it has

LRASM

>>28660168
Because it's not finished. I'm sorry, that's how it is. The planes that are currently out there are in such a state where they CAN be used if absolutely necessary, and so they can train up pilots for them. They'll be finished after delivery, mostly by adding in a whole lot of software.The basic plane is finished, but they're stuffing more stuff in it.

>>28660200
The F-35C can carry the JSM internally, but I don't know how that compares to a harpoon.

>>28660200
>it can't really carry anti ship missiles without losing the stealthy advantages it has

Why is that, exactly?

With stealthy munitions like JASSM / LRASM, its not much of an issue carrying them externally.

File: 1451260106656.png (315KB, 522x511px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 522x511px

>>28660192

I'll I need to know is that when F-35 goes into full rate production, it will be able to carry six AIM-120s. I can't accept that I've actually defended this thing if it can't even hold 6 AIM-120s.

>>28660281

>they're stuffing more stuff in it.

That stuff better be AIM-120s and there better be at least six of them.

>>28660316
You really need to calm your tits about such a minor issue.

>>28660316
Reminder that the j-20 can only carry 4 bvr missles internally.

File: images.jpg (12KB, 276x182px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 276x182px

>>28660199
It's massively improved over 2015: https://youtu.be/hBhyxIgauWM?t=4548

>>28660200
>>28660294
Not right now, but it'll be able to carry missiles like the JSM (300km range, 125kg warhead) internally in Block 4.

>>28660316
Full rate production starts in 2018 / 2019, while 6x AMRAAM is a Block 4 or 5 capability, coming in the 2020s. Also, you are aware that aircraft like F-16s and F/A-18s generally only fly with ~2 AMRAAMs right? You can put more on there, but you can do the same with the F-35 and still retain the sensor advantage.

>>28660200
>Hi-lo was and is used in the airforce... not the navy. The navy designed the f18 to replace a few designs, namely the a-6/7 and f14 to simplify logistics and increase sortie rate. In this capacity, the f/a 18 is the better burd, giving a carrier force more flexibility.
This is not true in the slightest. Yes, Hi-Lo is only really professed by the Air Force, however the USN clearly practiced it. The F-18 replaced two planes initially- the F-8 and the A-7. Both of them were "light" versions of their respective designation. They were less expensive and more maneuverable. It was not supposed to replace the A-6. It was not supposed to replace the F-14. The only reason it did was because their actual replacement programs failed. This isn't me making things up, this is verifiable history. And yes, by combining the light aspects of the carrier air wing into a single plane, the carrier gained a lot. As we know, specialists of roughly the same age are normally better than generalists in their given role. However, to be made up of nothing but specialists means the CVW is weak and can't necessarily generate as much mass in a given task as it might need to. Thus, the optimal solution is to posses a number of specialists, but to round out the mix with generalists. The budget falling with the end of the Cold War caused the A-12 and the F-14's replacement to fall through the floor, not because the Navy didn't believe that they were useful.

>it can't really carry anti ship missiles without losing the stealthy advantages it has
So what? There's literally no problem with this. The F-35 can do it if needed. That's what the external pylons are for. This isn't a problem. And I will mention that the JSM is specifically designed to fit inside the F-35's internal bays.

And yeah, why wouldn't you? The Super Hornets will still work just fine.

>>28660389

But the F-35 needs to be able to fly without exposing itself. It's supposed to be like an invisible, mobile, SAM-launcher, that flies. How can it do that with only 4 missiles?

>>28660526
>SAM-launcher

>Surface to air missile launcher

How about you close your 4chan tab

and never come back

>>28660543

You're acting like I'm the first guy to ever use that phrase "flying SAM launcher." It's a reference to the plane's capacity for throwing long-range missiles.

>>28660526
It's not meant to be a SAM launcher, it's meant to be an "invisible" F-16, which means carrying 4 missiles. Why does it need 6 vs 4?

>>28660600

Because I was told that fighter pilots, ALWAYS shoot two missiles. So 4 missiles means only 2 kills.

>>28660563
Its a retarded term in every single respect.

>>28660617
That's not common at all - sometimes they will, but not nearly "always". Besides that though, how many fighters are you expecting the F-35 to go up against? Remember that there's going to be ~3500 of them, whereas there's only about 100 Su-35s ordered worldwide, etc. Most older aircraft will only require 1 missile; hell, just look at the Turkish shoot down of a Russian Su-24; that took one missile and the Russian crew said they had zero warning that the missile was incoming - their radar warning receivers, etc didn't even pick it up.

>>28660617
Often they will. It depends on the situation. A longer ranged shot might have a volley of two shots. The reason for this being that the enemy will go defensive against the first missile. In the process, they will burn a lot of energy. If they manage to succeed against the first one, they'll probably not have enough energy to dodge the second. This is really only a thing on some long ranged shots, as at extreme ranges the missiles don't have as much energy to maneuver with.

The F-35 being able to launch from shorter range, possibly without the enemy even knowing they're being locked up, is a huge advantage. IMO, causes a huge increase in pk.

>>28660788
About 80% of kills have occurred over the past few decades without the enemy being aware they were being engaged - not saying that'll stop them from launching more than 2 missiles, but it's a big consideration.

File: Screen-Shot-2016-01-22-at-5.09.51-PM-620x396.png (94KB, 620x396px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 620x396px

>>28660600

>it's meant to be an "invisible" F-16

And invisible F-16 would be able to turn. The F-35 can't. Its only hope for winning an air-to-air engagement is to fire missiles at long-range and get out without being detected.

File: xvqptxkz6p91q0evgws1[1].jpg (39KB, 636x358px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 636x358px

>>28660881
>Using a source that has zero classified knowledge on the F-35.

File: 1415986279148.jpg (640KB, 1754x1754px) Image search: [Google]

640KB, 1754x1754px

>>28657156
>>28657008
obligatory copypasta

>Stealth isn't really the big game changer, it's a necessity now. The big game changer is the huge pile of passive sensors, sensor fusion, and data sharing that turns it into a mobile data gathering monster.

>>28660881
>gripen
>better than an F-16 in any way shape or form

swedecucks need to quit trying so hard

>>28660108
>And the JSF requirements have changed so many times

not that you can quantify this

>>28660189
Oh, its just a troll and not a fact based complaint.

File: Sprey tears.jpg (27KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x360px

>>28661046
You mean sourceless.

File: bhifbjup4srgdzmc0o4y.jpg (71KB, 800x491px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x491px

>>28661989

>The big game changer is the huge pile of passive sensors, sensor fusion, and data sharing that turns it into a mobile data gathering monster.

Okay, so why not take all that jazz and load it onto an aircraft that can turn?

File: 8GCTU2r[1].png (126KB, 1575x881px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1575x881px

>>28662269
Because that extra bit of turning performance doubles the cost of the jet and isn't used in 98% of air combat.

>>28660881
That chart is beyond ridiculous. Who the fuck is actually expected to take it seriously? I mean, really. Anyone with half a brain knows the F-16 has one of the best instantaneous turn rates on the planet, and at what speeds are those ridiculous sustained turn rate numbers supposed to represent?

Fucking bullshit.

>>28662277
^Checked

>Other includes: Tricking enemy into terrain intersection and that time an F-15E killed an Iraqi Hind with a 2000lbs laser guided bomb

File: chengdu_j_20_by_iskaryot-d3gsyjw.jpg (719KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 1680x1050px

>>28662277

>le epic "maneuverability doesn't matter for BVR combat" meme

Every turn a missile has to make causes it to bleed energy and lose speed. If the aircraft's nose is pointed in the right direct prior to launch, then that reduces the amount of turning the missile has to do, so it will go further and faster. This increases to odds of a hit.

The F-35 has a huge edge over 4th gen fighters because of stealth. But what happens when other countries start churning out their own 5th gens with vastly superior kinematic performance?

File: aim9x.webm (368KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 480x360px

>>28662404
>Every turn a missile has to make causes it to bleed energy and lose speed.

If you're at the point where you need to turn faster than your enemy, your missile has shit tons of spare range.

>>28662269
Oh, you bought into the lie that the F-35 has poor maneuverability.

>>28662424
At say 50 miles out, a missile is effectively gliding.

>>28662444

Watch this video and tell me if you think this turn radius is impressive. Keep in mind, it's not even going very fast, so it should be able to turn around easy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq36rJ_OOYA

>>28662463
Maybe Sparrows or early AMRAAMs.

File: highalpha.webm (693KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

693KB, 1280x720px

>>28662463
And at that range, you're not trying to out-turn your opponent. Sure, maneuvering reduces the pK of the missile, but that's primarily only if you don't wait for the enemy to get inside the missile's NEZ. Once they're in the NEZ, maneuvering has minimal effect compared to that of ECM and IRCM.

File: Y78qHO3.jpg (502KB, 1240x1650px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 1240x1650px

>>28662404
>But what happens when other countries start churning out their own 5th gens with vastly superior kinematic performance?

image not related

>>28662341
>that time an F-15E killed an Iraqi Hind with a 2000lbs laser guided bomb
God, that story never gets old. F-15 really is the elder god of all things A2A, even when it is deploying A2G munitions to show someone the unfriendly skies.

>>28662496
That doesn't even look like a hard pull.

>>28662496
see >>28662506 and >>28662547

>>28662496
You dumbass, that's not even a full rate turn and it's still a respectable climbing turn rate at that altitude. You did notice he put on at least 300ft altitude during that turn, right? Idiot.

>>28662503
What a2a missiles actually have engines that burn longer than 15 seconds?

>>28662584
The AMRAAM has a sustain burn which goes for a while (dunno about 15 seconds though). The Meteor is powered the entire flight to the target though.

>>28662613

>The Meteor is powered the entire flight to the target though.

How is that even possible?

>>28662645
Ram jet not rocket.

>>28662645
It's ramjet powered, so it's ISP is way higher. It's throttled as well, so after the initial boost, it throttles way back, before then powering back up for terminal maneuvering. It'll be great when they get added to the F-35 in Block 4.

File: 0_ff405_bee05d0c_XL.jpg (296KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 800x600px

>>28662613
>The AMRAAM has a sustain burn which goes for a while (dunno about 15 seconds though).

10-12 seconds based on people observing SLAMRAAM launches.

>The Meteor is powered the entire flight to the target though.

It is much longer, but it too glides most of the distance for its max range.

>>28662645
Ramjet. That's its entire thing. That's what all the fuss is about. The meteor is very deadly at range because of it.

>>28662658
The throttling trick and pulsing is also why AIM-120Ds are much longer ranged than Cs.

>>28662535
That's actually the only Strike Eagle A2A kill on record.

>>28662670
Keep in mind most BVR kills on record show the target never knew there was incoming until they were already NEZ'd.

>>28662794
Right. Because AIM-9 makes it too easy. Strike Eagle likes a challenge.

>>28648084

The F-35 program was doomed from the start. As soon as you design a multi-mission airplane, you're sunk.

>>28663022
You're late to the meme

>>28663022
get the fuck out of my thread, faggot

File: alreadydead.jpg (65KB, 500x368px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 500x368px

>>28663022
Well said, it's a turkey.

>>28663022
>>28663540
Shouldn't you be in bed by now old man Sprey?

>>28662691
I STRONGLY doubt that. Dual-pulse motors have been a thing for decades, I'd be quite surprised if there was ANY AMRAAM variant that *didn't* have it.

The AIM-120D's range improvements come mostly from improved midcourse trajectory plotting, including the possibility of highly-lofted, semiballistic trajectories (like the AIM-54 used).

Missile count is a thing. Traditional dogfighting involving squadrons getting entangled well below BVR range.

Now you just have packs of aircraft who all skirt around the known BVR of the opposing aircraft and hope to all fire off a salvo at once before turning around.

If both sides have effective/similar RCS but can still detect each other, this becomes even more problematic.

>>28663601
Samefag here

Before anyone gets autistic on me for bad terminology, I meant "missile lock range" instead of BVR

>>28663601
>https://www.youtu>Now you just have packs of aircraft who all skirt around the known BVR of the opposing aircraft and hope to all fire off a salvo at once before turning around.
Not exactly. Modern BVRAAMs are fire-and-forget, but it still helps considerably if you DON'T forget them and keep feeding them target tracking info through midcourse until their own seekers acquire the target. Naturally, if the enemy gets a chance to fire back, you forget about your missile and go defensive; but otherwise, you press on towards the target, often even to the WVR merge.
be.com/watch?v=OZ5N58z9UUM

>>28663655
Not to mention, with stealth aircraft, you're trying to do things like flank the enemy and screw with their formations / tactics.

>>28656165
>None of these prototypes have passed IOST&E yet.

It was supposed to back in 2010, and then they reworked the program for it to complete in 2015. Unfortunately it is still not ready.

>>28648084
It's going to end up being cancelled. the USN is the sole buyer of the F-35C and it is obvious their reception of the plane is luke warm at best. Plus, Lockheed does not have the same relationship with the Navy as they do with the USAF. So they will be more willing to can it. The Navy are butt buddies with Boeing (and to a lesser extend Grumman), and will do what ever they can to ensure the super hornet line does not shut down. Plus, they just simply can not afford the plane while also buying new boomers/the whole LCS fiasco/new carriers/Zumwalt/replacement for the C2/Congress making them keep the Ticonderoga class going/etc.

>>28663719
I think you're confusing IOC and IOT&E.

IOC is when it becomes minimally deployable for combat, and that happened last year with the USMC. IOT&E is when the final product is delivered and operational squadrons perform their final evaluation to compare against the overall program requirements. That's scheduled to complete about 6 months after Block 3F is delivered, which has been Q3 2017 for years.

>>28663746
I disagree; I don't think they'll cancel it - at worst, they'll reduce the buy by ~50%. It's important to remember though that the Navy wasn't super keen about the Super Hornet either originally and they never anticipated to buy this many. As F-35 production occurs over the next 22 years and the Super Hornet ages, I think we're going to see the Navy value the F-35C more and more, potentially repeating the Super Hornet process and buying more F-35Cs than they originally intended while F/A-XX drags its feet.

Additionally, part of why the Navy is so lukewarm about it is because they've never operated a stealth platform; they've always been about kinematics or EW, and so stealth has been this foreign thing of the USAF that's always talked up. Once the USN gets to use their F-35Cs in exercises, their pilots are going to become a whole lot more positive about the jet.

>>28663769
Edit: Also on the notion of stealth platforms + the USN, the A-12 Avenger left them with a bit of a sour taste in their mouth as well.

File: Mace Windu.png (330KB, 654x430px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 654x430px

>>28663746

>Any part of the F-35 program getting cancelled

>>28660304
The f35 can carry two lrasms internally along with two amraams

>>28663852
Oh God no. LRASM is much too big. It could carry JSMs, and that's it. It could carry 4 LRASMs externally.

>>28663769
It's not normal to declare IOC before IOT&E, which made what the Marines did really suspicious

>>28663881
Yes, my bad, I was thinking of the JSM. Either way, that's decent ASuW capability. Combined with F/A-18E and F's trucking heavier weapons and launching them with guidance from the F-35's, they'll have fine antiship capability.

>>28650952
Link 16 gives me a boner. OPTASKLINKs give me a hard on.

>>28663926
Or you could carry LRASMs on F-35s as well. I mean sure, some of them are gonna be stealthy to provide the targeting information, but you've still got enough F-35s to run a strike.

>>28662658
>It'll be great when they get added to the F-35 in Block 4.
Is there any indication that US services might adopt it? Or are they going to go "not made here" and stick with AMRAAM for everything BVR?

>>28663917
IOT&E has been constant and rolling in all F-35 variants for 2-3 years now. All of the IOT&E milestones for, for instance, the F-15 in 1975 at Luke have long been passed by the F-35 in all variants. You're confusing a full IOT&E check for ALL SYSTEMS on the F-35 with IOT&E for the airframe and basic operation itself. IOT&E is performed for every new system to come in (one was performed for the F-16 just last year), so every new capability added as part of the F-35 scheduled systems work up is fulfilling part of the overall IOT&E checklist.

The F-35 is different in that basic airframe IOT&E was not a completely separate process from all systems IOT&E, but all rolled into one long schedule.

If you think the F-16, F-15, hell just about any fighter since the F-86 met IOC with anywhere close to what would become full capabilities, you're sorely mistaken.

>>28663980
The US will likely never adopt Meteor. They just started a new program for a missile. Or two, as the case may be. It's essentially the CUDA.

http://www.pddnet.com/news/2016/01/raytheon-awarded-air-force-missile-contract

>>28663746
>it is obvious their reception of the plane is luke warm at best.
What
>The Navy are butt buddies with Boeing (and to a lesser extend Grumman)
>to a lesser extend
Whaaaaaaat

>>28663980
>>28664042
The US has a few missile programs running - besides SACM and MSDM there's also T3 (Triple Target Terminator). There seems to be USAF or DARPA work on a spiritual successor to NGM - I can't find the article, but last year a new page on the USAF domain talked about something like "Next Generation Air Dominance Missile" as a separate program to T3 and SACM (MSDM aka KICM has kind of popped up out of nowhere in the past 6 or 12 months).

It's hard to say when they'll be fielded, let alone prototyped for operational testing, but based on the pddnet article, if tech work is done by 2021, we could see SACM being introduced in the mid or late 2020s.

>>28663917
As >>28663994 says, the F-35 program has done it differently this time, which is actually been good for operational safety / development, because there's more in-depth analysis and exception reporting, but bad for it's PR image - with the IOT&E process beginning early, with the DOT&E being involved and releasing their first reports earlier than usual.