>Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's director of operational

When are you going to make a better plane, OP?

The F35 is going to be amazing. It's going to be the bread and butter fighter-bomber jack of all trades for many decades to come.

>>29376013
you're probably right. but the fact is, the project is a decade behind schedule and twice the projected cost.

how come there are no repercussions?

Here's Michael Gilmore also (very recently) stating how important the F-35 program is:
https://youtu.be/ahhCgAOOLjs?t=32m54s

This sort of answers >>29376044

>>29376044

That's what pretty much every major military project goes through.

>>29376044
>how come there are no repercussions?

Because Americans have forgotten what the 2nd Amendment is actually for.

>>29376225
>Stealth- the aircraft are not invisible to achieve success against the modern ... mobile threats...

Is this like Duke Nukem Forever- The Plane or something?

>need to fix the problems
>take too long to fix the problems
>your fixes are now obsolete
>need more fixes
>take too long to fix those
>your shit is obsolete again

I could honestly see this self perpetuating for years to come.

>>29376319

Americans are also being destroyed by propaganda, politically controlled education system, estrogen laced food, chemical tainted water, and a toxic entertainment industry...

What's happening to people's beliefs and understanding is a crime :(

File: resize_image.php.jpg (77KB, 317x450px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 317x450px

http://www.businessinsider.com/air-forces-f35-is-getting-delayed-for-another-year-2016-3

my face when t-50 becomes operational before f-35

>>29376354
Wouldn't, call 5 prototypes that the commies can barely afford to make as is along with 0 interested buyers "operational" but you do you I guess.

>>29376007
>I have no clue how complicated programming is
>military avionics have no issues whatsoever

>>29376361
>it doesn't matter that fail-35 is dysfunctional deathtrap as long as we have A LOT of them

There's not a single plane in history that has had such a complicated and advanced computer system.

X-COM (the original) was extremely ambitious, but it was so far behind schedule and over budget that it was ordered to be cancelled. The memo was simply never passed on to do so, and the person who was supposed to kept quiet about it. It was a huge success and is widely regarded to be one of the best games of all time.

It might seem silly to compare vidya to a fighter jet, but my point is that ambitious and very successful projects often take more time and resources than we expect them to. If you're at the cutting edge of technology then you WILL run into problems that you simply could not foresee because you're doing things that nobody has done before. I'm not saying that there's nothing that could have been done better in the JSF program, but the reality is that you can't predict every problem you run into.

It is also important to give context to the "failures" of the JSF. The USAF doesn't have a capability gap that it needs filled with extreme urgency, so it can take the time to work out kinks in the system and fix them before large scale production, rather than pushing things into production in case the commies decided to bumrush the Fulda Gap this week. Compare it to previous fighter jet programs, the number of airframes and pilots lost due to testing, and the cost of upgrading entire fleets when major flaws were found. Had the program been done in the traditional way, then the F35 would be in service already... at the cost of many lives, many planes, and many expensive retrofits. This was the reality of 20th century fighter jet development, and I'm glad that we're not doing things that way anymore.

File: KMPdt8P.jpg (173KB, 1024x905px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1024x905px

>>29376405
Do I really gotta bust this out my dude.

>>29376414
>butthurt ruski/chinks
that's an odd suggestion considering how jsf practically surrenders future air superiority to russians and chinese. ah well, carry on

>>29376414
I'm confused. My post that you're replying to is defending the JSF program.

>>29376414
I like how this picture doesn't refute anything.

>>29376414
>Muh A-10

you shut your whore mouth

>>29376007
>We should just blindly wing defense programs and not carefully ID and fix problems!
>up to 18 F-16 crashes a year in the '80s

>>29376428
>>29376429
>>29376439
>>29376446
>butthurt haters with no facts to back up their stupid opinions

>>29376413
/thread

>>29376606
Are you going to deny the plane is grossly overdue and over budget?

>>29376413
>It might seem silly to compare vidya to a fighter jet,

But what if I compare the JSF to failures such as Duke Nukem Forever and Daikatana?

Where's your stupid fucking analogy now?

File: wash.gif (404KB, 312x176px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 312x176px

>>29376319
lol

holy shit, how are you people so goddamn stupid

>>29376671
How's the Patriot Act working out for you?

>>29376644
>grossly overdue and over budget?
Still wayyyy cheaper long term than canceling and trying to carry on with current airplanes or the insane costs of a crash program.

>>29376646
Up your ass, with your head.

File: 1454529498800.png (18KB, 626x551px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 626x551px

>>29376007
F35 fags BTFO.

>>29376744
>Still wayyyy cheaper long term than canceling and trying to carry on with current airplanes or the insane costs of a crash program.

>This shit smells better than that shit

I couldn't agree more, the F35 is the shit we're stuck with so we might as well swallow it.

>>29376922
>Massively better than the planes it's replacing
>Only true Gen 5 entering general NATO service
>~$20m less than euro Gen 4.5s
>shit

>Its a shitty terrible plane!
>Chinese desperately try to copy it with J20

>>29376644
JFS is actually under budget and on-time as it was rebaselined

Is the F-35 an example of sunk costs fallacy?

>>29377966
Given the resulting product is fantastic, no.

>>29376316
no. Just no.

In countries unable to afford such nonsensical bullshit, they don't.

>>29377937
Shh, only 20 year old estimates are allowed.

>>29377994
You mean countries unable to develop gen 4 or later aircraft.

>>29377937
>its on time now that they've revised how long its going to take

Lol, this level of faggotry is brilliant

>>29378074
>Early projections on high-tech, bleeding edge technology are never hopelessly optimistic!

>>29378114
Oh shit, someone unironically defending F-35 being fucking trillions over budget and decade behind schedule
t. >>29377937

>talking shit about the f-35

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtZNBkKdO5U

>>29376333
Seriously. Sometimes you have to cut your losses and start fresh.

>>29378188

Literally why does it matter? No laws were broken. Whatever problems were taking place in the past, it is clearly making steady progress now under General Bogdan. If we canned everything that didn't meet the earliest projects we wouldn't have a military at all.

File: x32.jpg (146KB, 1750x1250px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1750x1250px

The X35 (yeah, fuck calling it anything but an X-plane still) hasn't proven its not a flawed piece of shit any more than Mr Smiles.

>>29378188
>trillions over budget
>only a couple hundred billion actually spent
>trillion number is the 50 year estimate of all costs, and could be as low as 800 billion
>Keeping the Gen 4s in service until 2065 would cost $4t
Did your caregiver let you have fun on the internet today?

>>29378232
The F-35 is not one of those cases.

>>29378268
>I have literally ignored fucking everything that has happened for at least fifteen years

>>29376007

>tfw the internet as we know it didn't exist during Desert Storm.

>You will never watch Pierre Sprey excoriate the F-15 only to get BTFO

>Will never watch the glorious butt-hurt unfold as Russian trolls are forced to see the US military perform it its highest level.

>>29378372
>only a couple hundred billion actually spent
>only a couple hundred billion

Fucking lol'd.

Look at the Blackbird if you want a groundbreaking aircraft done right, the X-35 is dogshit.

>>29378074

>You should never revise goals during a long-term project

>>29378372
>only a couple hundred billion
>tfw live in a cuntry whose total defence budget is $7bn/a
>tfw US is forcing F-35's down our throats

>>29376646
Comparing it to DNF we'd need to have a final product that resembles an original version F-16. Comparing it to Daikatana we'd need to be talking about the PAK-FA.

>>29378540
>missing deadlines doesn't count if you just make more deadlines

HURR DURR

>>29378531
>durr hurr I don't know the difference between actual funds spent and the guestimate out to 2065

>>29378652

>You must stick exactly to 10 year old predictions or else

>>29378579
Then you haven't paid any of that you retard

File: ada_answers_gem_logo_fourth.jpg (21KB, 250x190px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 250x190px

>>29376413
Yeah but that computer system is the core of the weapon and it will NEVER work correctly, the way it is being built. That's a huge problem.

Stopping and doing it over right is unlikely to happen. And without doing that it becomes an exercise in turd-polishing, unfortunately one where people have to die before you know where polish needs to be applied in some cases. It's malpractice.

>>29378866
Herping so hard you derped: The Post

Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's impossible.

>>29378824
>>29378834
I feel vindicated that this shitheap of an aircraft is taking so long we'll be having this thread again in half a decade.

>>29378886
AF and Navy IOC this year, stay ignorant and mad.

>>29378943
Navy IOC is 2018
late 2017 at most optimistic projection but they never go with that

>>29376413
>There's not a single plane in history that has had such a complicated and advanced computer system
f-111 wad just as complicated for the time. and how well that project turned out

>>29378882
just because it's possible doesn't mean it's practical

>>29376044
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-lowers-f-35-acquisition-cost-estimate-423530/

Down 3% just this year. $379 Billion.

>>29379277
And in this case it is, in fact, practical. It's not like the F-35 will ever have a "final" software package because the entire point is that you can just release a new block when new capabilities are needed. Just because you are stupid and lack imagination doesn't make the F-35 bad.

>>29377937
>JFS is actually under budget and on-time as it was rebaselined
so you ordered a new car for $20k? ok, here it is, 8 years later. oh, and now you have to pay $40k. you see, this is perfectly legit, because your order was rebaselined.

>>29379244
A thirty year career and a better ratio of successful to unsuccessful strike missions in Desert Storm than any other aircraft?

>>29379357
>implying LM did it unilaterally and not as a total program review with the DoD
I love how you fucking idiots imagine how these things work.

>>29379358
at what cost? with what availability rate? and what happened to the navy version?
remember that the goal of this project was to save money by having a common plane between air force and navy.

>>29379403
>Lockheed: we fucked up and cannot deliver
>DoD: don't worry, here's more money to burn, have fun

>>29379404
The F-111's flaws were the result of design by Systems Analysts instead of collaboration between the actual military and aviation companies. And guess who worked in OSD/SA around that time? Pierre Sprey.

>>29378531
>I disregard facts that don't fit my narrative

>>29379277
Just because something is not fully practical doesn't mean it's not useful. If that object is unique in it's useful qualitues, even more so. Explosives are impractical because they can be set off accidentally and wreck your shit, but, lol and behold, we now use them everywhere, even when we're not killing shit. We've mastered the tech to the point that we make explosives that are children's toys.

The first iteration is never the best iteration, but until for the development arrives, the first to do it is king. F-22 was just the tip of 21st century technology's dick. F-35 is making the world bite the pillow because fuck it, we're going in dry.

>>29379433
More like "the estimates we jointly had were unfeasibly optimistic and the program needs a complete reconfiguration."

>>29379351
my day job is programming.
you simply do not release any mission critical software with any unfixed sev. 1 defects. having 158 of them is insane. no privately funded company would get away with this without getting sued.

>>29379433
>a pre-estimate from before the program started overrides the fact that it has been on track for years

>>29379519
Note that released in this context is FOC.

>>29379519
>>29379552
And still plenty of time away. I don't even think the referred version is going to be current for the AF IOC, since that'll be the latest "test" version, Block 3i. But the upper linked dipshit is clearly confused, as if Block 2A/B are the end point of development, and not part of the evolution that needs physical testing more than sim and debugging like he's used to making dildo inventory management software.

>>29379465
>claiming the X35 will be a good plane in a decades time is a fact

Okay Mr time traveler, sir.

>>29379683
>still calling it the X-35
>"And here you can see my impressive collection of rare dildos and plugs from antiquity."

>>29379629
IOC means the plane is capable of being used in combat, although in limited capacity.

given the number and severity of published issues, the plane should be nowhere near operational. they're risking lives of pilots, and for what? so that Lockheed can claim the project is on schedule, even though everyone with half a brain can see it isn't?

>>29380601

>they're risking lives of pilots

Literally how is flying the F-35 a bigger risk than any other fighter jet? All the current issues are related to weapons. The basic flying software seems to be either done or very close.

>>29380655
>fly CAP in contested airspace
>radar crashes
>lose situational awareness
>get shot down while the radar is restarting

>>29380704

>Combat is dangerous

Who knew?

>>29380601
Name a single F-35 that has crashed midflight or actually killed its pilot. All these reports are coming out because it's these people's jobs to find issues so they can be fixed. Can't fix what you don't know about.

Go do some research on the F-16s early years. They were literally falling out of the sky in the dozens because they were rushed into production without anybody giving a damn about potential safety issues.

>>29380724

>they were rushed into production without anybody giving a damn about potential safety issues.

Why were they in such a hurry?

>>29380704
Wow, except having to reset the radar was
is an issue on f-15s as well

You detractors have no sense of perspective about developmental issues and bugs

>>29376007
behind schedule and over-budget is literally every government funded project ever

>>29380803
Because the Cold War was still a thing.

>>29380724
just because there was no crash yet doesn't mean it cannot happen.

the fact that they are still finding bugs in software of a plane thats already flying means that the testing was insufficient.
it is possible to simulate all conditions that the plane can experience in flight, on the ground. hell, you don't even need a real plane to test this.

File: a0P8dgz_460sa_v1.gif (3MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x225px

>>29380952
>it is possible to simulate all conditions that the plane can experience in flight, on the ground. hell, you don't even need a real plane to test this.

>>29380989
software processes inputs to produce outputs. it does not care whether these inputs come from the real hardware or not.

>>29380704
Having to reset the radar is a quirk that also occured on the best air superiority jet the US had produced before the F-22.

>>29380952
>>29380989
>>29381202

Interestingly enough, the need to "trick" the plane into thinking it is flying whenever they want to fire the gun because the plane simply won't allow the gun (or any other weapons system) to be fired if it thinks it is one the ground.

>>29381202
This is the dumbest fucking thing you could say. The F-35 is the sum total of it's hardware and software working together, and you can't simulate that and get good results because it rests on faulty assumptions about the hardware.

>>29376007
I can't believe we're building carriers to fit this pile of junk. We should just have navalised the Typhoon and stuck with CATOBAR. VTOL is fine if the plane works, but relying on American companies for anything other than being a money pit is just plain wrong.

>>29381311
If you could have afforded to navalize the Eurofighter you would have bought F-35C's and saved money.

>>29381311

The F-35 is literally designed around CATOBAR. What the fuck are you talking about?

Also, why would we buy a non-native plane that is more expensive, lacks parts commonality on part with the F-35, and has less ability and effectiveness in the long term?

>>29381311
>>29381389

You're talking about the RN, disregard >>29381389

>>29381311

You mean to tell me the F-15, the greatest A2A fighter in existence, and the F-16, the most prolific and effective multirole in western arsenals are disgusting money pits?

Man, I wasn't aware. You better tell the literally dozens of militaries that field them.

File: f35 is a piece of shit.jpg (187KB, 1280x1006px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1280x1006px

>>29376013
>first post
>The F35 is going to be amazing.

Yup it's an F-35 shillerooni thread.

>>29381577
>no argument but cries shill to have a faux moral high ground

>>29381311

God you are retarded.

>>29377994
many other country are nowhere near as rigorous in their challenging of their weapons system testing

File: JewingSince.jpg (59KB, 600x414px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 600x414px

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-24/f-35-s-1-trillion-support-cost-ticks-up-as-more-flights-seen

File: 1298568455349.jpg (256KB, 1280x983px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1280x983px

>>29382836
>rough guesstimate constantly bouncing between $800b and $1.5t shifted again
The horror!

>>29376007
>931 errors in over 8,000,000 lines of code, parts of which are written in garbage languages like ADA 83
I'm not even mad, that's fucking amazing

>>29383571
>F-35 coded in ADA
the horror

File: 1318985951895.jpg (228KB, 852x478px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 852x478px

>>29382836
Who would have thought that increasing the service life of something meant you spend more money on it overall.

File: 1458878036097.jpg (24KB, 297x303px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 297x303px

>>29383571

>parts of which are written in garbage languages like ADA 83

Dear God Why

>>29383571
>ADA 83
What's ADA 23?

>>29376007
>this is what non-maintainers actually believe

>>29376044

>What is mission creep for 3,000,000,000 Alex?

>>29376413
>X-COM (the original) was extremely ambitious, but it was so far behind schedule and over budget that it was ordered to be cancelled. The memo was simply never passed on to do so, and the person who was supposed to kept quiet about it. It was a huge success and is widely regarded to be one of the best games of all time.
and as we all know, modern fighter jet design and production is exactly the same as designing a video game in the '90s

>>29383936
the first version of the first object-oriented language ever. Pain in the dick to use for even simple things, let alone one of the most advanced software suites in history.

The only thing worse I could think of to use is Assembly.

>>29379474
>Explosives are impractical because they can be set off accidentally and wreck your shit,
That's not what impractical means you dipshit.

>>29384044
They use assembly too. It is mostly C++, though

File: 1457827876751.jpg (32KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x640px

>>29384215
>They use assembly too
dear god why

>>29384353
Maybe it's the most efficient code for that block?

>>29384765
If they cared about code efficiency, then the whole thing would be in Assembly, not Ada.

>>29385406
Eh, as long as it compiles and works right, who cares?

>>29385540
>>29385406
ADA is designed for high reliability systems. It will work where others like C, Java, Python will fail.

It specifically protects against severe code bugs or issues that would otherwise cripple other stuff written in other languages.

>>29383571
>>29383924
what's amazing is they written most of the code in shitty c++ to save money on developers.

should have been all ada. there's a good reason why it's pain in the ass to work with - it produces safe code.

>>29383571
>>29383924
>>29383936
>>29384353
why was this thread invaded by webdev millenials?

>>29387136
I'm actually 26 and I'm on a CompScience degree but I had no idea what ADA 83 was nor how useful that could be in a military software enviroment.

>>29382836
Is this post disinfo? The overall cost of the program has risen again but it's lost in a media blitz of failures and "milestones".

File: sparf_tcm9-162178.jpg (22KB, 530x298px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 530x298px

>>29389758
Why not the Sparrowhawk as the -35's bird?

File: 1458872100344.jpg (85KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1000x800px

>>29389968
Sparrowhawk does not quite capture the lardiness of F-35

>>29390034
>lardiness
Oh, hey, it's this idiocy again!

>>29385651
The relatively limited number of people who still know how to use ADA makes it harder and slower to develop and fix.

File: 1451621404908.jpg (725KB, 1200x914px) Image search: [Google]

725KB, 1200x914px

>>29376007

Is it accurate to say that the F-35 has a longer combat radius on internal fuel only than the F-14 Tomcat?

>>29390204
what's the sustained turn rate and thrust to weight ratio again?

>>29391008
110nmi more than the Cat.

>>29391204
>implying the F-16's maneuverability was ever that important
>implying the "fatter" F15 doesn't have a better combat radius
>implying the F-35's 50% fuel TW of 1.07 isn't solid
>implying you aren't a douche

>>29380803
Because there were over three million commies sitting at the inner-german border and nobody was entirely sure wether they'd just up and decide to take a holiday trip to the Biscaya one day.

>>29390660
ADA programmers usually don't advertise what they do. Majority are either government or infrastructure programmers who create things like air traffic control systems and guidance computers. Almost none will explain what they do.

You can literally leave an ADA written software for months or years without support or maintenance and still have it work as opposed to C based programs.

File: 9b9703342972652111a24e83291ead1f[1].jpg (106KB, 736x970px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 736x970px

>>29390034
The F-35 Canlift

>>29392997
First ever fighter that can lift 4 missiles, that's amazing bro.

>>29376007
CAPITALISM.

File: 1439973539251.jpg (486KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 800x1200px

>>29394543
>implying

It's a deep strike fighter not an air superiority fighter to begin with.

>>29397597
they try to sell it as an air superiority fighter too.
fuck, they want to replace f-15c with this pig.

>>29394543
Over 36,000lb of weapons and fuel

File: 130201-F-zz999-805.jpg (2MB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2100x1500px

>>29397623
>dem memes

Raptor was Eagle's replacement, and with 187, it has adequate numbers to do that. Lighting is to replace Vipers and Hornets, both legacy frames that are mainly used in the strike role. That said, Lightning performs its A2A mission adequately, enough to supplement Raptors, Eagles, and Typhoons.

>>29397629
How's that wing loading working out?

Guy I was just looking at gbu115's and found this

www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA307702


I'm scared to fuck with it

File: 1439995381855.jpg (97KB, 736x488px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 736x488px

>>29397700
How's that parasitic drag working out?

>>29397754
How's that induced drag from all the extra weight that the internal weapons bays added is working out?

>>29391585
I wonder how hard it'd be to remake a unix-like in Ada.

File: TotalDrag[1].png (9KB, 576x420px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 576x420px

>>29397820
Good, that 43,000lbf of thrust gives good low-end acceleration.

>>29376007
At this point I think the pentagon should just write a NSL forcing Lockheed to seize all payouts to shareholders and bonuses to employees and use those funds to fix or refund the f-35.

Shit will get fixed properly, and promptly.

>>29397689
>Raptor was Eagle's replacement, and with 187, it has adequate numbers to do that.
you cannot replace 600+ planes with 187, no matter how good they are

>>29397850
Doubtful. Unix is a operating system for multiusers. ADA is for embedded and real time shit.

Who uses ADA? Boeing, Airbus, Tupolev, Ilyushin, and Lockheed-Martin for commercial aircraft. For space agencies ESA and NASA uses it for deep space probes.

For military the F-16, F-15, F-111, F-22, Eurofighter, Gripen and the Tornado. MBDA uses ADA for its meteor missiles.

File: key cleaner.jpg (206KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 768x1024px

Let me preface this with the fact that I think the F-35 is pretty goddamn neat. I'll still get called "a detractor" by the slobbering dipshits who blindly fanboy all over this fucking plane, but I just want to state this for posterity.

>>29380655
>Literally how is flying the F-35 a bigger risk than any other fighter jet?
158 software errors that are severe enough to be considered dangerous. This is akin to having a rifle that has 158 issues that may result in the magazine detonating like a grenade, or the bolt being ejected into your fucking skull. That would never fly as an infantry weapon and you're an idiot to think it would.

>>29380724
>>Name a single F-35 that has crashed midflight or actually killed its pilot.
>babied test aircraft being carefully handled
>"oh this means that it's safe!"
>literally the same train of thought that gave us F-14s that exploded midair

>>29380819
>You detractors have no sense of perspective
This plane has been developed during a period in history that has seen massive, MASSIVE deescalation between major global powers and Lockheed-Martin has had all the time in the world to produce this aircraft. There's your fucking perspective, every other time this has happened it was during the Cold War and shit got rushed and still we wound up with successful combat aircraft on time. This was supposed to be flying years ago.

>>29390204
>gets mad when somebody points out the plane merely looks tubby, no commentary on maneuverability
>>29391397
>immediately pretends like it doesn't matter
>crying about cishet shitlords sustained turn rate shaming
Are you a fat chick on tumblr or something because that is the mental gymnastics you just flailed through in these two posts.

>>29385651
>>29387120
>>29387458
>>29391585
There was serious talk years and years ago about the F-35 using "off the shelf xD" (read: use off-the-shelf components to save money making it but don't change the price) components and by extension that's where the C++ shit came in.

>>29398289
Bet you cant even spot your doublethink

>>29398289
>posterity
But you're a nobody. The only reason to do this is to screenshot yourself and then drag it out in 10 years because you're debilitating autism won't let you forget.

>>29398413
My debilitating autism is more concerned with your questionable grasp on the English language than proving you wrong. I like how this is the only thing you could pick at in my post though, considering it's quite literally a throw-away comment I'm fine with your petulant bitching.

Additionally: what's great is you just admitted that ten years down the line we'll still be waiting for this plane and by then it truly will be a piece of shit. One of those "it should have been but never was!" and anons years and years from now will bitch about how we (people alive now) didn't just make the government make Lockheed Martin live up to their promises.

>amerifat: F35 IS BEST NPLANE EVER OK???????? ITS PERFECT EVERYONE WHO CRITIZISES IS WRONG IT HAS NO PROBLEMS AT ALL
>but it has some problems anon
>FUCK OFF/CHINA RUSKIAE WE WILL KIL U ALL F35 BEST NO PROB U SUCK LOLOLOL NIGGERS


amrifat retardness is what ruining this board

>>29398443
>implying there ever was something to ruin

File: 1447101285601.jpg (100KB, 1280x721px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1280x721px

>>29398441
>seriously implying that 2026 will not be flooded with smugposting from fanboys

It's the F-16 all over again. Except without lawndarts.

>>29398443

Literally, who are you quoting?

File: 1335506984536.jpg (14KB, 261x350px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 261x350px

>A scheduled electronic warfare mission that was to involve four F-35s with Block 3F software was cancelled when only two managed to make it to the range. The other two planes never took off, “due to avionics stability problems during startup.”
>The other two planes never took off

I can't believe people are making excuses when the fucking things can't even get off the ground half the time

>>29376354
hasnt it been all but cancelled at a stage where it can be considered a Su-27 body-kit at best?

>>29398441
>I think the F-35 is pretty goddamn neat.

>it truly will be a piece of shit.

Pick one.

File: 1454328507895.gif (3MB, 281x295px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 281x295px

>>29398691
>It's a new fighter, interesting design, definitely an upgrade
>Ten years from now the same technology will not be remarkable
>>PIG ONE :DDDDDDDDD

>>29398702
>Implying Block 4 and 5 aren't a thing.

>>29398708
>implying Block 4 and 5 are Block 1 and 2 but with new fancy numbers.

Let me dumb it down for you since your fifty extra chromosomes are getting in the way: If you delay the launch of a special something while everyone else are making their own somethings, that first something will eventually stop being special. You need to understand you said something stupid.

Remember, admitting you have a problem is the first step to killing yourself.

>>29398721
>Implying that other foreign 5th gens haven't been in development for almost as long with shit to show for it.

>>29398750
>implying foreign 5th gens haven't cost 10 times less than the X-35

>>29398774
Not that anon but thats true of every project when you pay your workers enough for a slice of bread a day and don't maintain workplace safety worth a damn.

Its shifting the goalposts like a madman, too.

>>29398774
>Implying the PAK-FA and J-20 are cheaper than the F-35.

>>29398787
>but thats true of every project when you pay your workers enough for a slice of bread a day and don't maintain workplace safety worth a damn.

Well it could be argued that the US has much more extensive R&D experience couldn't it?

Where's your excuses now?

>>29398820
Experience doesn't pay for unions and OSHA compliance.

>>29398814
they aren't cheaper, but more capable for the similar costs.

and before lockheed cheerleader bring up steel balls and whatnot, by more capable i do not mean best in every parameter, but more versatile and practical in real world conitions

>>29398873
>they aren't cheaper, but more capable for the similar costs.

(you)

and I'm abandoning this thread

>>29398873
They are substantially more expensive and years away from production
None of them are stealth so they aren't 5th gen

>>29376428
these are the same pinko commies that cant invent anything without making poorly copied examples from stolen US technology, right?

>chinese
>superior

pick one and only one.

>>29381202
you know how i can tell you dont know jack shit about product testing?

>>29387458
>compsci
>doesnt know ADA

lemmee guess you've never heard of FORTH or LISP either

your degree is shit

>>29398566
wake me up when its deployed. for now its in the development stage. why is this so hard for you half-wits to get both your brain cells wrapped around?

>>29380704
>Radar crashes all the time for anyone on any airframe it's ridiculous. Funny story though I was working a radar problem at Luke on our block 30 F-16s and one of the new F-35s taxied in-front of me. I gave him a lock and he instantly looked right at me and gave me a little handgun bang gesture. It was cute.

>>29400336
Actually it's in production.

>entering production before development is even halfway finished
>any year

File: F-35A_three-view.png (259KB, 1115x786px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1115x786px

>>29398289
>MASSIVE deescalation between major global powers
What the fuck are you smoking?

>>29376044
>how come there are no repercussions?
Because morons actually believe that the US needs shiney shit, and are willing to sacrifice education, roads, water, food, the hope for retirement, to let Lockheed-Martin post another 2.8% dividend.

>>29381241
>problem occured on a jet that was produced many years ago
>make a new jet decades later
>still has the same problem

Its like if you fucked up at work...and then several years later you made the same fuck up again and your boss askes you "Didn't you learn not to do this the first time round?".

>>29402399
>If F-35 is cancelled, costs for legacy aircraft over time will be 4x higher
>LM already has to eat any cost overruns over agreed unit price, and has had to do so since LRIP 4 was signed
>Implying Reagan tax cuts and current Republican tax asshattery aren't to blame for massive losses in tax intake that have lead to those problems

>>29402470
>be a normal company
>take a contract to do X in Y timeframe
>can't deliver
>tell client you need to increase costs/extend the delivery date
>do this repeatedly
>get sued
>court orders you to compensate the client for failing to fulfill your contractual obligations

>be lockheed martin
>do the same thing for decades
>be completely untouchable because your client cant afford to tell you to fuck off and go with one of your competitors after giving you billions of dollars
>never get blacklisted for failing to fulfill promises, keep getting contracts again and again
>procurement officers and politicans still believe your projected costs even though past history has repeatedly demonstrated them to be bullshit

I'm studying law and the double standard is very interesting...

>>29402492
One way of looking at it is that LM has to eat cost overruns over agreed unit price since LRIP 4.

Another way of looking at it is that LM got free money over agreed unit price before LRIP 4.

>>29402470
I know right, how is fighter radar STILL constrained by the horizon?

Its been years!

>>29402539
You say these things as if aircraft, especially fighters, can be cranked out just like a laptop.

A fighter jet is literally the Formula 1 of aviation, and requires a lot more than you imagine. In fact, it almost always requires a lot more time and money to properly develop than initial estimates or you get shit like the F-16 Lawn Dart.

>>29402562
Thats not a problem anon. Thats a technological limitation.

"I cant produce a radar that doesnt need to be reset constantly" is not a technological limitation.

>>29402549
It's actually a pretty damn new thing for any military contract to have that kind of pay structure.

>>29402580
Nah, they just didn't put enough work into it.

>>29402567
>our stuff is really complex so we NEED to have cost overruns! And we dont HAVE to fulfill our contractual obligations! Or follow contract law!

>>29402584
So before LRIP 4, every military contract basically allowed the contractor to make up bullshit figures and demand infinite money from the military?

Doesn't the pentagon have a lot of lawyers working for them? Didn't they point out how this might be a bad idea?

>>29398004

>you cannot replace 600+ planes with 187, no matter how good they are

The Raptor routinely goes 200:0 at red flag events.

>>29402597
The fault isn't (entirely) Lockheed's in this case.

The original budget and deadline for the JSF was set in the mid-90s, and since that time, the program has been hit with a fair degree of mission creep that the original projections never accounted for. The idea with most of the pieces added on to the program were that the JSF would mature quite a few technologies during the process of development, spreading the costs out over a production run of several thousand aircraft and allowing said technologies to be applied more cheaply on subsequent projects.

What that meant was the F-35 would run over budget and behind schedule while these additions to the program were developed. However, since the sole program restructuring that they've done, the F-35 has remained on budget and schedule.

More importantly, it's developed a ton of useful technology that can be fairly easily applied elsewhere, particularly in its sensors, software, and stealth coatings.

>>29402663
I would love to see an unrestricted red flag exercise where 200 enemy planes go up against 1 f-22 and lose.

>>29402687
All It has to do is pop chaff and rearm 25 times during the engagement you silly billy

File: ssf_lockheed_01.jpg (32KB, 550x400px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 550x400px

>>29402686

>The original budget and deadline for the JSF was set in the mid-90s, and since that time, the program has been hit with a fair degree of mission creep that the original projections never accounted for.

Considering that JSF started out as just trying to build a new STOVL plane for the USMC, this is absolutely true. The scope of the program is so much bigger now.

File: 138.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>29402717
>Considering that JSF started out as just trying to build a new STOVL plane for the USMC

nicely memed

>>29402751

Yes.

>>29402766
What you posted was the SSF, a precusor to the CALF program, which was already multi-service.

The CALF program along with JAST were precursors to the JSF program.

Saying the JSF started out as USMC only is retarded. It never was for one minute.

>>29402717
Not so much. While the JSF can trace its earliest roots back to the Harrier replacement program in the '80s, the projections they used when the JSF program came into being are from the '90s, when most (not all) of the requirements were in place.

The "unforseen" things are likely mostly software and sensor elements. What's probably fucking things up is that they're not just trying to get something that works well for the F-35, but something that'll avoid future issues and be applicable to other aircraft.

>less range and maneuverability than an f-22
>less a2a capabilities but somehow is the best multirole because it can lock onto the ground

this is such horseshit. had this money been dumped into a non-cancelled and non-restricted f-22 development phase where they could be exported, not only would we have a far superior plane, but we could have actually lowered costs significantly. you people are so stupid it hurts. how are you blind at your own fuck ups? it's like if you cut off one of your legs then you spend money trying to improve the left one.

>look we have the best left leg in the world!

it's so pathetic it hurts

>>29402892
>this is such horseshit.
Correct.

F-22's combat radius is significantly shorter than even the STOVL F-35B :^)

>>29402930

>F-22's combat radius is significantly shorter than even the STOVL F-35B :^)

The F-35B can go 500 NM and come back in one piece?

>>29402979
Higher chance than an F-22 going almost 100nmi outside of its combat radius and falling into the ground, sure.

>>29380704
>Radar crashes are exclusive to the F-35.

>>29402930
too bad it'd take hours for it to go through it while locking onto stones and getting hacked by the chinks :^)

>we can't export the f-22 because muh secret info
>f-35 still gets leaked info

lmao

>>29402624
Look up the section in Revolt of the Majors on the Pratt & Whitney F100 fuckery. The F-35 program is fucking saintly in comparison.

Or how the F-111 program's early builds cost the government the modern equivalent of $600 million apiece.

>>29403009
SHHH THIS IS THE FIRST AVIATION PROCUREMENT PROJECT TO GO WRONG

>>29380720
>>29380819
>>29381241
>this plane is the best
>its flaws are in other planes! stop nitpicking

make up your mind shills. you can't have it both ways.

>>29403023
Those things aren't mutually exclusive

>>29403023

>this plane is the best
>its flaws are in other planes

I'm not seeing the supposed contradiction here.

>>29403055
>>29403032
except for the fact that there are planes which don't fucking fall out of the sky with radar errors. which is better huh? a plane that has such advanced ground recognition, or one that flies? it's such a hard comparison i know, but bear with me.

>>29403067
I'm beginning to fear you may have schizophrenia

>>29403067

Name 1 F-35 that has crashed because of a radar error.

>>29403134
The active radar isn't even as important on the F-35 as it was on 4th gen planes.

>>29403146
the radar is what half the cost in R&D came from so i hardly believe it's not important.

File: do-israels-new-stealth-fighters-mean-stealth-is-going-out-of-style-1446825580.jpg (116KB, 2000x580px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 2000x580px

>>29376007

Every group that turned down the Silent Eagle must be laughing nervously at this point.

>>29403208
If buying the F-35 is betting on a horse with 2:1 odds, buying the F-15SE is betting on a horse thats been shot already

File: 1457898201211.jpg (94KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 960x720px

>>29403208
>Every group that turned down the Silent Eagle.

You mean literally everyone?

File: F-15SE cutaway.jpg (324KB, 1200x724px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1200x724px

>>29403237

Unfortunately, yes.

File: f35 death spiral.jpg (58KB, 770x430px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 770x430px

>>29401928
Ask how I know you're a millenial. Go on sport, ask.

File: 1455017482129.png (170KB, 575x350px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 575x350px

>>29403221
The fact that Sprey hates the F-35 is probably the biggest endorsement for how good it really is.

>>29377861
** J-31 you mean.

The J-20 is nothing like the F-35.

>>29403168
The radar on an F-16 or F-15 is pretty much their only means for detecting other aircraft if there isn't an AWACS around. For an F-35 there's also it's EOTS, its DAS and its Barracuda ESM.

>>29403005
>a portion of decade old technical data from subcontractors got leaked

Its funny because much of the tech that mskes the F-35 what it is was developed after the hack/leak.

>>29403023
This radar issue sure crippled the F-15