Why is the F-35 considered a failure? It has VTOL capabilities,

>>29574907
>Why is the F-35 considered a failure?

it isn't

>>29574907
noone educated on the subject or not a grumpy old man jaded over their failed lives considers it a failure tbqh senpai

>>29574907
Cost and the fact that they consistently have not delivered. They say they have these capabilities, but they can never seem to finish the damn product without a shitton more money.

>>29574922
got any examples of these non deliveries according to the current schedule they are right on time

>>29574907
basically it has costed a fucktonne

also even this far down it still has fairly low operational readiness

and just generally it isnt outstanding, like it is 5th gen but it definitely isnt the massive jump in capability that many though it would be

>>29574918
>>29574919
Critics argue that the plane is "plagued with design flaws," with many blaming the procurement process in which Lockheed was allowed "to design, test, and produce the F-35 all at the same time, instead of ... [identifying and fixing] defects before firing up its production line."[20] By 2014, the program was "$163 billion over budget [and] seven years behind schedule."[21] Critics further contend that the program's high sunk costs and political momentum make it "too big to kill."

I beg your pardon?

>>29574940
Do you know how much it has cost thus far by chance?

>>29574922
Yup head that, appereantly its the most expansive military tec program in history. My tax money at work...

File: Pierre Sprey in a nutshell.png (621KB, 934x1976px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 934x1976px

>>29574948
Lets take a look at the leading critic that's cited by everyone and what he thinks of other military procurement projects in the past.

I stand by what I posted.

>>29574948
>critics
care to post the links that wiki is using

>>29574950
US$1.508 trillion (total with inflation),
neat right?

>>29574922
>>29574940
>>29574957
ok this is some pretty blatant same fagging
what company are you shilling for

>>29574957

it's cheaper than the alternative of keeping beat-up old jets in the air

>>29574966

nope.

that's over 50 years for the total project (personally not sure that 50 years for a fighter is a good idea but whatever). i'm sure the F-15/F-16 has cost somewhere near that too over their lifetimes.

File: pierre sprey threads.png (288KB, 1236x888px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1236x888px

>>29574962
Take one single guess.

>>29574966
>he thinks that's what's been spent and not the lifetime cost over 40 yeras

>>29574934
They had the airframes too early to show that they were near done, however they had serious flaws and they weren't actually close to finishing. The software for the cannon targeting and the HUD has been riddled with problems as well.

It's also cost over $1 trillion. The government has basically been telling them they need to get this shit done now without any more delays.

Really, it's just like every government program, over budget and late.

File: 1440536197258.jpg (4MB, 8599x9829px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 8599x9829px

>>29574966
>US$1.508 trillion
oh man he actually did it he used the future projected cost

>>29574981
>what company are you shilling for
>in 4chan
pleb

File: 1280px-USAF_X32B_250.jpg (170KB, 1280x914px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1280x914px

>>29574981
obviously Boeing you fucking moron, we could have had the happy plane

>>29574997
Edit: Sorry, it's already cost many billion. Not trillion. Still, it's been a lot for R&D.

I like the plane, I was just citing why it was criticized. I hope the effort put in pays off.

>>29575032
oh man what a fuck up

>>29575035
I was just a little bit off. Trillion, billion, all the same to the government.

>>29574907
>It has VTOL capabilities
STOVL

>>29575061
I commend you. men like you are the reason we will put a man on the sun by the end of the century. god speed.

>>29575076

it could take off vertically. it would just be pointless to do so.

>>29575090
I just write software. No way I could mess anything important up. On an unrelated note, I might be looking for employment at NASA or Lockheed-Martin :)

>>29575177
well not entirely if they needed something to guide fire from the front they could take off will a small amount of ordinance and 25% fuel and refuel in the air.

>>29574918
>said the lockmart employee

>>29575295
>said the fired boeing exec after failing for the 2nd to last time

>>29574907

It was technically supposed to enter service in 2010. In all probability, it will not be ready for combat until 2022. That's basically it.

File: 1381192334269.png (2MB, 680x510px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 680x510px

>>29574948
>Critics argue
I'm sorry, are we discussing the oscars or a motherfucking instrument of warfare?

>critics don't know bout my aim9x
>critics don't know bout my massive range gainz over everything it's replacing
>critics don't know bout my hornet-tier nosepointing ability
do you see what I'm getting at?

>>29574907
Delays, delays and more delays. And basically the DoD freaks out and to the rescue every time the defense contractors get called out on their gross incompetence.

ITT: OP is the target audience by media that relies on ignorance to create the appearance of scandal

>>29576544
got any examples? or are you generalizing like the rest of the sprey acolytes who got stuffed in this thread.

>>29577075
Nigga, who the fuck brings factual backed arguments to an autistic swordfighting subsection of a mongolian sandpainting img board?

File: 1440537777376.jpg (107KB, 768x720px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 768x720px

>>29577181
this is a board for autists friendo.normies need not apply

>>29575020
>we could have had the happy plane

That idiot grin. That exposed fan blade.

File: f35 thread bingo.png (1MB, 1430x1352px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1430x1352px

>>29574907
>It has VTOL capabilities,
Two thirds of F35s do not have VTOL capabilities.

>>29574907

The VTOL capable B variant is an all around amazing upgrade to the harriers and it's a real game changer for the navies of our allies like Japan and UK. All the vitriol is directed to the C and A variants whose designs are plagued with compromises because they're based on the B model rather than being original designs. Not being the fastest or most maneuverable plane isn't that much of a detriment, though, because the mantra of air combat is changing. Dogfighting has no place in the future.

>>29578004
>C and A variants whose designs are plagued with compromises

outright false

not better at job than aircraft that it replaces or is shit ton more expensive.
also putting all your eggs in one basket is bag, if someone from F-35 partners fucks up and Russia/China finds weak spot you get most of you fleet comprised.

>>29577932
A lot of those are legitimate points

>>29578004
>Dogfighting has no place in the future.
We've heard that one before.

>>29575090
fucking kek'd

>>29578080

Being based on the B model is itself a compromise to justify the price of the project.

File: 1422025735305.png (3MB, 2532x1410px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2532x1410px

>>29574918
greece said their econ is not a failure too, so did companies like Kmart or Yahoo

>>29578157
Yes, you did.

40 fucking years ago.


Technology has progressed quite a bit since then, hasn't it my nice little tripfriend?


Why don't you read this and try to mke yourself a little less ignorant so that you can converse with the adults ;)))).

http://csbaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf

>>29578157

BVR combat is the future. F35 is gonna be the vanguard for drone controlled missile trucks because it can stealthily encroach on enemy airspace and guide missiles with it's networking capabilities and radar.

>>29574907
Costs too much money
Costs too much to maintain

>>29574907
It's not, that's just something liars have convinced retards of.

File: f35 vs sprey.jpg (36KB, 636x358px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 636x358px

>>29578151
And you're gonna leave us guessing as to which ones.

>>29574961
is this actually made by Sprey himself? I always thought it was a joke to highlight his stupidity on the F-35 program.

>>29575337
Reminder that that estimate was based on numbers run before the X-35 even flew.

>>29578207
Except they're all based on the A model, and the lift fan is an extremely efficient, elegant method to made it STOVL.

File: 5cc45d548cbeb82d6e127bb3e1c2d011.gif (2MB, 375x275px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 375x275px

>>29578157
>Can outdance in High AOA Super Hornets
>Can do better sustained turns than a Viper with full combat load

>Bad at dogfighting

>>29578373
Yep, it was an official POGO think tank published document that's pretty gloriously riddled with opinions, outsourced claims, and straight-up bullshit.

>>29578450
>outsourced
UNSOURCED, FUCK.

File: missile era a2a kills.jpg (209KB, 984x862px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 984x862px

>>29578157
tl:dr you are still a fucking moron

>>29574940
>and just generally it isnt outstanding, like it is 5th gen but it definitely isnt the massive jump in capability that many though it would be

Fuck off, the F35 produces so much data for what's going on around it most air forces have no way to process the data and so virtually wasting the true potenting of the F35.

File: 1455681105630.png (159KB, 689x512px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 689x512px

>>29578157

And generally speaking, it was correct.

>>29578578
*the true potential of the F35

File: ToasterFace.jpg (2KB, 125x95px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x95px

>>29578450
I had no idea, I need to sit down. Jesus, how far in denial do you need to be, and to think people still treat him the the sole designer of various aircraft when all he did was sit on a few of the teams. It's like if i helped implement the YouTube comments section as part of a team, then turn around and say I came up with and designed the entire idea of YouTube myself

>>29578653
As far as I can tell he didn't even do that. He, along with three other guys, came up with a series of design principles for hypothetical fighter to pitch to the brass. It'd be more like if you went around telling people you came up with and designed the entire idea of Youtube yourself when all you really did was suggest a comment section completely different than what was implemented.

>>29578653

The most hilarious part is where he suggests that it would be easy to shoot down an F-15 with a .22.

>>29578373
Oh, it's real.
http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/07.pdf

>>29578776
even worse t/b/h familia

>>29579078
>http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/07.pdf
this is delusional, does her realize that different things have different uses?
>cruiser vs destroyer
>comparing an escort to the literal backbone/firepower of the fleet
also FLIR on the F-15E doesn't apparently exist

>>29579085
Yeah, he's basically the idea guy no one in the business actually liked. The only reason he even has any credibility is because he spent much of the 80s crafting an image of himself as the rogue maverick fighting a corrupt bureaucracy and industry.

>>29579085
Tbh senpai?

>>29579111
>also FLIR on the F-15E doesn't apparently exist
He always thought fancy avionics were useless gimmicks so it might as well not.

>>29579112
He didn't even do that, a reporter he was associated with did that. He spent much of the 80s working in the water treatment industry.

>>29579158
Is there anything he can take credit for outside of a few jazz CDs?

File: cover gif.gif (2MB, 540x292px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 540x292px

Honestly who fucking cares. Everything worth talking about is classified and the knowledge in this thread extends to 40 year old technology.

Anyways, the F35 is clearly a response to the over reliance on runways and aircraft carriers.

The USA likely feels that in a protracted war, we want an airforce that can move with its troops deep into enemy territory. Unlike the germans who were unable to invade russia because its airforce couldn't reach the heart.

Furthermore, we can take out enemy airbases without impeding our own force.

In the case of a war in a third world nation, like africa, where airbases are near non-existent and likely ravaged early in a war. And resources non-existent to create them. The F-35 finds really shines.

This isn't some War Story, noone gets in a F35 for grandeur, all the American military cares about is logistics and spreading the might of capitalism.

>>29574922
par for course for government/military contracts

>>29579212
>Anyways, the F35 is clearly a response to the over reliance on runways and aircraft carriers.
>The USA likely feels that in a protracted war, we want an airforce that can move with its troops deep into enemy territory. Unlike the germans who were unable to invade russia because its airforce couldn't reach the heart.
>Furthermore, we can take out enemy airbases without impeding our own force.
>In the case of a war in a third world nation, like africa, where airbases are near non-existent and likely ravaged early in a war. And resources non-existent to create them. The F-35 finds really shines.
And this is why the USAF is purchasing B models, amirite?

Maneuvering tactics?

I just hope they don't get rid of the A-10

>>29579118
it should say
F

A

M

>>29579158
not to mention working with Kanye West, which is bretty cul

>>29579046
F-15
>shot down with a .22
He must be taking the piss. I haven't kek'd this hard in weeks.

Did that document come out after that one Israeli F-15 landed safely with half the fucking plane missing?
(Well one of the wings and a few fuselage bits but close enough)

>>29579304
Retirement starts in 2018.

>>29575295
>I'll just call him a shill

We do it for free

t. Lockheed Martin Internet Defense Force

File: Screenshot_2016-04-12-00-12-30~01.png (772KB, 1036x744px) Image search: [Google]

772KB, 1036x744px

>>29579334
Oh ya, this mother fucker.
Lockheed said that f35 is also capable of landing with 1 wing.

File: Sprey.png (28KB, 977x256px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 977x256px

>>29579334

>>29579255
Yes, I feel that way.

American military is scared of slash and burn tactics.

>>29579255
Nvm, its seems you were being facetious. But the Marine Core has ordered 340, and obviously their usage convenes with my theory.

Anyways, if you know more than I, I would be interested in learning. I can't find the numbers for the Air Force.

But I feel like the Air Force would be transitioned to long-range bombing and thus need escort planes which have better cruising ability. The problem is that mid-air refueling, I would expect to be a logistical nightmare for a extended military.

In my opinion, Helicopters are too slow and fat for aggressive modern warfare. The VTOL capabilities of the 35B kills 3 birds with one stone. Marines are now less reliant on air force, logistics issues are alleviated, and we have a fast moving gun ship.

>>29579558
The USMC will use both the B and C model.

>>29577932
Bingo

>>29574907

Member of the Australian Green Party repeatedly tries........and fails to stump Australia Air Force general on the F-35.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hV8W4EzXRU&nohtml5=False

>>29578504
Problem with 1990-2002 period is that (if we're talking US) there hasn't been an engagement with an enemy of parity whatsoever.

and lately it'll be even more skewed to BVR, but most recent shootdowns can't really be described as combat.

>>29579558
STOVL.

Its not meant to use VTOL operationally, and Lockheed has never, ever said it could.

Helicopters also fill a different niche and operate in different envelopes. Fixed wings of any type aren't a real replacement.

>>29579706
>fails

He makes some genuine points.

>>29578653
The character assasination of Sprey is incredulous and largely without foundation.
It is very much alike the MC2000 meme pictures in which Riper gets slaughtered while 80% of the background information is conveniently ignored.

Pierre Sprey was a very good mathematician and a highly regarded advisor that had a lot of say in both doctrine and design. He helped develop the CAS doctrine and rightfully claims the F-35 is not designed for the job. Even though it is labelled as an attacker.

File: large.jpg (20KB, 500x313px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x313px

>>29580089
2/10 Try harder next time

>>29579558
>Marine Core

>>29579822
The graph is for international air-to-air kills.

Also, helmet cueing and HOBS / LOAL missiles turn "Rear-Aspect AAM" and "All-Aspect AAM" kill scenarios into ones that don't require fighters to dogfight.

Note too that the 1980-1989 period contained over 400 air-to-air kills (1965-1969 had about 430, 1970-1979 had about 530, 1990-2002 only had about 60 - the 1980s included the Iran-Iraq war, the Falklands and Lebanon).

>>29579204
He made some pretty good cash off the royalties from a Kanye track.

>>29580089
Sprey is a public liar whose role in every military project he participated in in any way has been intentionally overblown, and who relies on ignorant, or in the case of RT, intentionally propagandist, media to push his opinions.

File: why.png (144KB, 992x746px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 992x746px

>>29579078
Is he actually taking himself seriously?

>>29580435
>Also, helmet cueing and HOBS / LOAL missiles turn "Rear-Aspect AAM" and "All-Aspect AAM" kill scenarios into ones that don't require fighters to dogfight.

NEZ is far smaller for a missile that has to waste delta-v turning 180

>>29580496
If you look at the surface area of a missile like an AIM-9X, they actually have very low wing loading (thanks to the square-cubed law), meaning that they don't waste as much energy as you might think turning 180 degrees.

Regardless, if you're close enough that dogfighting is a possibility within the next minute or so, you're within range of a missile being launched 180 degrees.

>>29580496

versus nonexistant rear NEZ than one that cannot engage HOBS?

>>29574907
$
1
.
5

T
R
I
L
L
I
O
N

>>29580551
F I F T Y Y E A R S
I
F
T
Y

Y
E
A
R
S

>>29580526
>>29580535

If you're firing a missile behind you, that means a fighter is beind you.

If he's behind you, his heaters are going to have you in their NEZ before yours do, because they're dumping energy having to turn.

LOAL eliminates the "turnfighting" battles people seem to think still happen, sure. But you're delusional if you think being able to fire a missile behind you really does jack shit

>>29580610
it's like thrust vectoring. it's not the answer to every situation, but it's the answer to some situations, and it's better to have and not need than vice versa. here's an example - it's publicly known that the -9X can engage targets behind the launch aircraft. so the russians have to take that into account in their tactics, which leaves exploits and holes for the US to take advantage of.

>>29580624
Well sure, its useful. Never said it wasn't.

Just that unless you're not detecting a fighter with its ass to you until its <30km away, its not factoring in, and that scenario is questionable.

>>29574907
Its mission profile presumes already having air superiority.

It doesn't have supercruise, thrust vectoring, or other current gen features

It's going to have to be replaced in less time than it took to develop

>>29580610
If you're a second or two post-merge, he can be behind you and not facing you (instead still be mid-turn trying to get you into his sight).

Also, I'm not the one that semi-strawman'd up the 'missile is turning a 180'; if you can fire at an opponent in any direction, there's almost negligible opportunity for an enemy to get on your six while you're still armed with missiles.

Gents, The F-35 was to be the answer to some serious problems within the military. 1. It was to replace two for one air frames, the F-22 and A-10. The F-22 had oxygen and payload (Post production Aim 9X mod to the aircraft) issues just to name a few. 2. The A-10 is old and the evaluation of cost of maintenance vs it's usefulness. It has proven it worth time and time again. My opinion is to keep it till a truly superior air frame is developed that can replace it. The F-35 can't hold the same payload (primarily quantity but inventory as well) nor provide the quality of support the A-10 can.
This thread is very interesting and I enjoy the views and opinions shared. Please keep it alive.

>>29580666
I think the real benefit is that is puts the NEZ pretty much around your entire aircraft (small blind spot directly behind you out to a couple hundred feet). If the enemy doesn't have HOBS cueing, you'll be able to fire on them when they can't fire on you, even if they have the positional advantage and are relatively behind you (not necessarily in your control zone)

>>29580551
$4 Trillion for legacy planes over the same time frame.

>>29580717
Who doesn't have HOBS these days

>>29580712

You're half right. It's replacing legacy fighters. The F-22 is literally the best air to air machine out there.

>>29580769
>The F-22 is literally the best air to air machine out there.

Could do with FLIR / EODAS

As well as not being insanely maintenance heavy

>>29580667
>Its mission profile presumes already having air superiority.
Literally wrong, it's designed around taking superiority.

>It doesn't have supercruise,
It was never designed for supercruise, but as it turns out it can still do it at Mach 1.2 for 150nmi anyways.
> thrust vectoring,
Thrust vectoring is an air show gimmick.
>or other current gen features
Like better stealth tech and sensor/comms suite than the F-22?

>It's going to have to be replaced in less time than it took to develop
>Still estimating 45+ years of service

>>29580763
The majority do have it, not everyone does. Some older aircraft in service still don't have it.

>>29580712
>A-10
>More payload than the F-35
Ha! Good one!

>>29580826
>inb4 ammunition weight

>>29580820
I don't think the aircraft that are old enough not to have HOBS would actually make it to the merge, but sure.

>>29580845
Things happen. There's a HUDtape on YouTube showing a flight of hornets flying over a small mountain and having a MIG-21 pop up right in front of them. This was during GW 1.0 I believe

I'm on mobile so I can't link it, but just look it up.

>>29580831
Still doesn't quite get it up to the 23,000lbs max payload the F-35's full pylon capacity has.

29580769
Aside from the plagued problems of the F-22, the air to air of the F-22 is good. However it needs more time to prove it's worth, in my opinion. The primary reason for the F-35 was to be a replacement though. Unfortunately it has become a money pit and a very serious problem in maintaining air sorority. The s l o w production and constant delays noted are due to software issues and quality in the product. These equate to safety for the pilot's and maintainers.

>>29580900
The F-35 does not replace the F-22, you moron. It's relieving the F-16, F/A-18C/D, A-10, and the AV-8B. The F-22 is the relief for the F-15C.

>>29580892
Wastes hardpoint 9/3 (2000lb) to a targeting pod, too.

>>29580809

Sure, but it's still the best ever

>>29580820
HOBS is also not well defined, like 'LO'. In general it means being able to shoot something like ~45+ degrees off bore sight (considerably outside of your HUD). So two planes can have HOBS missiles, but one can be considerably better at it.

Some planes (besides the F-35) can even shoot behind their wingline (ie, use helmet cueing and LOAL with HOBS), but there's issues there as to how reliably the missile will be able to achieve a LOAL; the seeker heads can swivel +/-90 degrees, but the actual sensor FOV is far smaller; if it looks in the wrong place, the small window of opportunity can be lost and the missile can be wasted. If you're relying on just helmet cueing data, your missile might be looking for a target 3 miles away at your 4 o'clock, instead of the real one 10 miles away and obscured by flares that someone deployed or other non-critical enemy or friendly aircraft.

With the F-35, you actually get targeting data in 360 degrees, so you can produce range, bearing and azimuth data on targets and then feed that to your missile constantly, meaning it can go longer without it's own sensor locked onto the target, without it becoming a lost cause.

Well OP. In short, it's outperformed in the most basic categories that matter the most.

It can't keep up with other 5th gen fighters.
It doesn't have the loiter time or the payload to be a good CAS platform.
It doesn't have the climb, top speed, or high-AOA turn capability to be a good A2A platform.
It has a smaller payload than an F-16 therefore it will be spending more time rearming.
It has a smaller fuel tank than an F-18 meaning it will have a shorter operational range.
It has a lower climb rate than an Su-34, increased maintenance costs, and an initial overall pricetag of what you could get 2 upgraded F-18s for.
It has no practical utility in modern air force and it does absolutely nothing especially well

>>29581601
Ah, and here's the post from bizzaro world, where literally every single thing you said is wrong.

>>29574907
I'll tell you why I don't like the F-35.
My issues are not primarily performance based.

1. It's not particularly cute or cool
2. It's pretty boring looking
3. It's going to replace more varied equipment with better aesthetics.

Similarly, the reason I'm not the biggest fan of the 737/A320 MAX series aircraft or to an extent the 737NG and A320-200. They let companies condense a large number of aircraft types into a singular model (DC-9, 717, 737-200, 737-300/400, BAC-1-11, Trident, 727-100/200, TU-154, etc > 737NG/A322, MD-80 pending replacement by A320NG and 737MAX)

Taken individually, the 737NG and A320-200 are nice aircraft. Similarly, taken individually there's nothing wrong with the F-35, but taken systematically it becomes a very ugly trade. You give up multiple aircraft to get one aircraft without as much appeal as any of the ones it replaced. In the civilian case, this is made even worse because the giant engines of the A320NG and 737MAX look ridiculous.

It's natural progress, aircraft exist for a purpose and not simply to be aesthetically pleasing, I understand and do not contest that - but I don't have to like it.

I wish I was good enough at lying to myself to tell myself it was a total lemon and that all the air-force needs is 10,000 F-5 Tigers, or bringing back the Avro Arrow, instead of simply preferring an aesthetic point of reference that's long gone.

>>29581703
>1. It's not particularly cute or cool
>2. It's pretty boring looking
>3. It's going to replace more varied equipment with better aesthetics.
So, your entire objections are around subjective aesthetics instead of the unprecedented capabilities and strategic advantages it has over 4th gen aircraft. Good to know we can just chuck your opinions in the trash, then.

>>29581730
I'd rather be honest than raise petty outlier cases where it's not as good as an F-16 at wearing the Thunderbirds paintscheme at airshows, and as a result we should build more A-10s.

My opinion was never that it shouldn't be built (as implied by)
>It's natural progress, aircraft exist for a purpose and not simply to be aesthetically pleasing, I understand and do not contest that - but I don't have to like it.
I'm merely unhappy with the aesthetics of progress. That doesn't constitute a practical objection.

>>29581786
Thing is, the F-35's looks have grown on me, and every line on it serves a carefully designed aerodynamic or VLO purpose, something even "can fly while still missing a wing" 70's lifting body planes like the F-15 can't claim.

File: 1451013644258.png (234KB, 397x355px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 397x355px

>>29580002

>He makes some genuine points.

Such as?

>>29582476
The wording of the announcement that was misleading, concerns over the fact that nothing is formally agreed, that the project is late as fuck, nobody answers his questions about how it will hold up to the future..

Lots of his points were perfectly reasonable. You could tell he really didn't believe in the procurement and that he was largely ignorant, but they didn't exactly do a great job of answering him and some his concerns were genuine.

>>29574961
Except that is true you fucking imbecile.
The Abrams is notorious for being finicky and the ones we're using now are literally so full of holes you can't sleep in them during the rain.

Thank God the a3 is coming.

>>29578605
>That B-52 that has gun kills in a dog fight

That gunner must have been the luckiest son of a bitch on that planet that day, how the hell do you get shot down by a bomber without it being WW2

>>29579204
>>29579158
>>29579204
>>29579321

>Kanye west

Wtf does this guys resume look like? This is insanity

>>29583021
>that the project is late as fuck
Based on stupidly optimistic estimates made before the X-35 flew? OK.

>>29583131
Absurd amounts of ECM support and NVAF pilots forgetting that the the B-52 has defensive guns as they went in for a gun kill.

>>29583153
Being overly optimistic isn't really an excuse.

If they were inaccurate and they knew it, that was a lie.

If people went into the project partly because of those estimates, it was a very large lie.

Note how its different from me saying the project is doomed and we should have them already, but they shouldn't make estimates that are "stupidly optimistic" in the first place.

>>29579293
Assuming this was meant to be a reply to >>29578605, it means the pilot managed to make the enemy fighter crash. It's also how the EF-111 managed to get a kill despite not having any actual weapons outside of its fuckhuge radar and jammer.

>>29583176
The stupid optimism was the result of them tacking on a bunch of extra pieces after the program was started without adjusting the schedule to account for it until well after the fact.

What fucked up all the scheduling and budgeting with the F-35 was the fact that they decided to mature a ton of technologies with it, the idea being that they could spread the costs out across a production run of several thousand aircraft and use those technologies for various other aircraft later on.

>>29583075
Maybe the ones we have are beaten up, but the Abrams will still absolutely trash it in a fight, it will be 73 easting all over again

>>29583176
>estimates made before they even had a production model roughly planned
>Should have known better

>>29583228
>>29583244

They either fucked up originally, or fucked up by not accounting for adding things and trying to get away with it.

Take your pick, its still a valid question for someone to ask. Especially considering its 5 years (?) later than when they originally planned.

Oh, and I love how they say its hitting every milestone, then shortly afterwards say Blk5F software is 6 months behind.

>>29583229
To be fair, I think it's trying to claim the M48A5 is more cost-effective rather than it actually being able to beat the Abrams in a straight-up fight. Still retarded given that any M48 would've have been beaten to shit even more 30 years ago, to say nothing of what they'd look like now.

>>29583249
>They either fucked up originally, or fucked up by not accounting for adding things and trying to get away with it.
No, once they realized that the original plan was completely untenable they rebaselined and have stuck to the current schedule admirably.

>>29583288
The rebaselining wasn't until years after the original delivery date.

>>29583271
It's Sprey's same old stupid "lots of cheap is better than a few expensive" bullshit that ignores human costs and both doctrine and history in favor of his personal opinions.

>>29583288
I think the criticism he's making is that they only recognized the program was untenable and restructured it once the original deadline hit and the aircraft was nowhere near being ready. It's not like they didn't know it was behind schedule for a while, but they didn't bother to restructure the program until like 2010.

>>29583296
Which, again, was physically impossible to achieve.

>>29583320
It really does not matter if it was or wasn't.

>>29583330
You're saying this as if it makes a difference. What could be delivered in 2010 wouldn't be the F-35 as we know it. At best it's be a repeat of the Lawn Dart early variants of the F-16.

>>29583346
Then they shouldn't have waited until 2010 to realize this, should they champ?

>>29583358
Why are you so childishly hung up on this?

People who haven't realised tha the procurement and testing processes have change after the Cold War think the F-35 is a failure because it still has issues. If the Cold War was still going, the F-35 would be in full mass production and service at this point and issues would be ironed out after causing serious accidents. Get the product out fast and expect to lose some pilots for the first five to ten years was how it owrked back then. Nowadays, we have the time to be massively more thourough before putting a new plattform into active service.

>>29578151
Yeah, like..... oh wait, absolutely none of them. Fuck off, Sprey shill.

>>29580816
>it's designed around taking superiority

It's a BVR missile platform. Its entire air to air order of battle requires it to be able to sit safely outside of enemy engagement range with no direct threats. It's a fucking glass cannon.

>It was never designed for supercruise
Every other fifth gen fighter was.

>Thrust vectoring is an air show gimmick.
Every other fifth gen fighter disagrees.

>>29574907
In my opinion it's just a stop gap. It's made to test, & perfect it technologies. Then will give em to our allies when we start making the next 5.5 gen aircraft.

I mean, we do have the tr-3b so.. Every aircraft is shit in comparison.

File: black man.jpg (57KB, 565x500px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 565x500px

>>29583936

>It's a BVR missile platform.

So like every other modern fighter? When is the last time an A2A gun kill occurred again?

>>29583936
>It's a fucking glass cannon.

Just like EVERY SINGLE OTHER JET FIGHTER EVER.

>>29583936
> Its entire air to air order of battle requires it to be able to sit safely outside of enemy engagement range with no direct threats

Does it?

>>29584017
Strike eagle.
A-10

Some can lose entire wings, & land back at base

>>29584110

But you're forgetting, the F-15E easily be shot down by 0.22 cal.

Compared to other 5th generation fighter jets, its payload is actually pretty small, its manuverability is actually pretty shit, top speed and acceleration is pretty low (power to weight ratio is 1.08 with other gen 5's being around 1.15), and stealth capabilities are not really that outstanding. Most importantly, cost, i know the F-35 must be hella costly compared to other jets. I would also add that vtol is useful but alot of planes now can be carrier launched

Before anons rip my ass apart, ive done my research comparing the
F-35 with the saab gripen

>>29574918
First post, best post as always.

File: 1459727501220.jpg (287KB, 640x555px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 640x555px

>>29584183

The cool thing about Saab is that their own internal memos put the F-35 above nearly every other modern fighter in terms of operational capability. According to them, the F-35 is dead even with the Su-50 in combat while also being cheaper than the Su-50.

>>29584110
A-10 was downed by an Igla (1kg warhead) 9M37 (5kg warhead) 9M31 (2.6kg warhead)

an AIM-9 has a 10kg warhead.
an AIM-120 has ~20kg warhead.

Kill yourself.

>>29583936
>Every other fifth gen fighter was.
You mean the F-22, built as a pure Air Superiority/Interceptor? That's exactly one plane with a completely different, complimentary role.

>>29584183
I don't know how you managed to be so incredibly wrong but you did it, swedeaboo

>>29584183
you're that faggot who keeps trying to use that trash video game that has knowingly falsified stats on the f35 to justify his retardation right. you make a thread every 2 weeks or so. neck yourself

>>29584235
I like how saab is using stats for the t-50's radar that hasn't even been built yet?

>>29584110
>F-35's fuselage produces enough lift to fly without wings
>The control systems have multiple electrical paths and are hydraulically isolated from each other
>Computer advanced enough to compensate for any damage that doesn't totally compromise airworthiness

>A-10s were a disproportionately larger amount of the total losses in Desert Storm

File: 1460005685604.gif (543KB, 512x502px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 512x502px

>>29584235
>Gripen
>Parity with Typhoon / Rafale

>>29579255

>germany didnt have aircraft carriers
>you can quickly build runways in a lot of places (africa)
>F-35 fragile vtol engine will likely suck up dust and pussy out in the field increasing repair and maintinence costs

>>29584478
FOD risk is no greater with the F-35 than any other aircraft.

>>29584235
>own internal memo
some marketing reps completely public power point slide to visualize his talking point about them "breaking the cost curve"

take it as is, don't over read it.

>>29580610

Guys you hear that!?!? Planes no longer turn fight!!! So if your enemy flies past you, dont worry, turning isnt allowed in modern air combat anymore!!!

You guys are so funny i swear

>>29580761

Where did you read this?

>>29584573
Are you having a stroke

>>29576432
>critics don't know bout my massive range gainz over everything it's replacing

wat? I get its an improvement over 30 year old planes but compared to any other current planes like the typhoon or super hornet its speed and range is arse.

>>29584649
>but compared to any other current planes like the typhoon or super hornet its speed and range is arse.

Take a moment to actually look up the numbers and post them for me.

Don't worry, I won't actually be expecting you to ever come back when you realize you're a moron.

>>29584649

Compare the range of a Typhoon operating without drop tanks to the range of an F-35 operating without drop tanks.

Compare the range of a Super Hornet operating without drop tanks to the range of an F-35 operating without drop tanks.

In both cases, the F-35 wins handily.

>>29584280
Being completely honest this is the first time i have ever posted on here so you got the wrong person, and i dont understand how actually reading up on the legit paper specs automatically means that i play some game

>>29578233
>>29578247
>>29578434
>>29578504
>>29578605
did you fggts not watch top gun? fucking casuals

>>29578233
tldr

>>29584269

How about you compare the specs of gen 5 jets instead of something older, then get back to me on how "wrong" i am

>>29584802

The problem is that most of the specs you'd be comparing would be largely irrelevant. On paper the Su-50 appears to dominate the F-35 by being faster and more maneuverable. In practice, though, they would be essentially even in a head-to-head fight, assuming that the Russians are able to furnish it with avionics on par with the F-35.

>>29584577
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/06/27/massive-cost-estimate-for-fighter-program-is-misleading/#7cacf6e32452

>>29584855
Okay thats respectable, i agree

>>29584711
I didn't do what you said to do but idgaf.
>believing fighters would operate without external fuel tanks in a modern combat situation
Maybe you are right. if you want to do the research go ahead. This debate personally affects me becuase I am canadian and in Canada we need something more of a long range interceptor and a strike fighter to serve our airforce. The f35 has crap range.

>>29584802
You're so stupid it hurts me.

It really does.

File: kkkkkkkkkkkkk.jpg (578KB, 2084x1066px) Image search: [Google]

578KB, 2084x1066px

>>29584980
forgot pic related

>>29585019
That's the F-35's range on internal fuel only.
The rest of them are using drop tanks.

>>29584980
>610nmi combat radius with clean config is crap
>Maybe another 300-400 with tanks

>F-16 gets 295, maybe 400ish with tanks
>Hornet: 400 with tanks
>Super Bug 390
>Typhoon 325
>Rafale

>>29585041
Can't find stats for f35 range WITH tanks tho.

>>29585096
You could do the math if you weren't a mouthbreathing retard.

>>29585113
I could do the math. Im lazy. you go do the math. Also how am I supposed to know what kind of tanks it will be using and how much fuel they will carry?

>>29585096
There's about 2750 pounds of fuel in each 426 gallon tank, So quite a bit.

File: 1451615172513.jpg (983KB, 2333x1556px) Image search: [Google]

983KB, 2333x1556px

>>29585019

Range isn't something that can be described with one number without context. The F-35 can fly a 600 nm combat radius with a full internal load of two 2000 lb bombs + two AIM-120D missiles. It can do this without any drop tanks or help from aerial refueling. That's a very good range.

The Eurofighter is able to fly a 750 nm air-to-air combat radius. It needs to carry three 1000 liter drop tanks in order to do this. How far would the Eurofighter be able to fly without the drop tanks?

>>29574922
They've delivered everything so far, it just hasn't been on schedule. The plane is fine, it's the program that has been sucking.

>>29585096

That's because no drop tanks for the F-35 have been produced yet. They are considered a low priority item. Israel is the only country that has really pushed for them so far.

>>29585127
How about you put the weed down and just get the fuck out instead

>>29575020
>exposed fan
>no internally carried 2000lbs bombs
>delta wing

why live

>>29585150
I'm actually pro F-35 just trying to play devils advocate without the stats to back it up. I understand why the F35 works for America but for other countries interested in purchasing new aircraft hoping that this multi role thing can solve all their problems. " two 2000 lb bombs + two AIM-120D missiles" isnt this kind of garbage? for example if the F35 was now the main operating aircraft for the RCAF than they would be flying out to do airstrikes with only 2 bombs?

>>29585240
Please nobody respond to this idiot.

I know you might be tempted, but its really easier this way

>>29585263
CF-18

Armament

Nine weapon/store stations (5 pylons: 1 under fuselage and 4 wing stations) carrying up to 13,700 lb (6,215 kg) of missiles, rockets, bombs, fuel tanks, and pods

2 LAU 116 on sides of fuselage: deploy AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles; 2 LAU 7 on the wing tips: deploy AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles

1 × 20 mm M61A1 Vulcan internal Gatling gun with 578 rounds, with a firing rate of 4,000 or 6,000 rounds per minute
Missiles and rockets:
Air-to-air: AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-7 Sparrow missiles
Air-to-ground: AGM-65 Maverick missiles, CRV7 rockets
Bombs: Mk 82, Mk 83 and Mk 84 unguided bombs; Paveway GBU-10, -12, -16 and -24 laser guided bombs; JDAM GPS bomb guidance kits; AGM-154 JSOW glide bombs.

>>29585295
Up to 13,700 lb ) of missiles, rockets, bombs, fuel tanks, and pods

VS

two 2000 lb bombs.

File: Untitled.png (364KB, 688x408px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 688x408px

>>29585295
>>29585315

I'm dying

Thats external load, leaf. The missile/bomb combo described to you was just the F-35's internal bays.

It can carry 15,000lb externally.

>>29585360
But of course if you put anything on a fucking F-35 you would ruin MUH STEALTH.

>>29585381
It would increase its RCS, yes.

But it would still be lower than legacy platforms.

Then you also have the fact that if you can't load external weapons because you're too detectable, nothing else is going to be flying anyway.

>>29585381
>stealth is on/off

>>29574918
HAhahahaha haha
Oh wait, you're serious, let me laugh harder
AHAHAHAHAHAH.
> Amerifat.

>>29585392
you win.

File: 1460397843324.jpg (67KB, 1259x797px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1259x797px

>>29585381

MUH STEALTH isn't an on-off switch. If you load the F-35 to the brim with missiles it will still have a much lower RCS than most modern fighters. Of course, you can minimize RCS even further by sticking with only internal payload. The F-35 is a versatile platform. You can use it however you want.

>>29574907
>Why is the F-35 considered a failure?
it's expensive as hell compared to similarly performing craft and occupies a role pretty much none of the countries buying it have a place for

it's a fantastic choice for the US Navy but I don't understand why literally any other country wants them over things like cheap SuperHornets/StealthHornets for Canada and Eurofighter-made things for EU countries. VTOL is just a gimmick when you're doing long range arctic patrols and airstrikes from established bases

why do people accept the handwaving 'stealth is irrelevant' shit

Stealth alone makes the F-35 better than any competitors
It's fucking invisible to them!

>>29585437
>it's expensive as hell compared to similarly performing craft

Care to quote some numbers, anon? :)

Gonna plop down a new retard argument. Is it maneuverable?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QBb712ImeI

>>29585450
It has excellent AOA characteristics, yes.

Not that a cobra is good for anything but stressing an airframe and killing you.

>>29585449
>one F-35
a gorillion billion dollars and another gorillion in training programs

>a guy in a gyrocopter from the 70s
12$ and a sandwich

>>29585381
>multirole airplane
Because sometimes you need to bomb some people who haven't even figured out indoor plumbing even further into the stone age, and stealth has no benefits against people with no radar.

Other times you need to dogfight chink-proxy 4.5th gen fighters with okay-tier radars.

>>29585463
the cobra video was a meme. I'm just curious is anyone willing to explain what happened in testing when from what I know in dogfights it was BTFO by basically everything?

>>29581703
>10,000 F5 arrows
>is how I would beat the F35 if I were china
>or 1,000,000 P51's
>Zerg them 'til all F35's out of missiles
>too many targets for them to deal with

>>29584416
I lost so hard at that.

>>29585474
>Other times you need to dogfight chink-proxy 4.5th gen fighters with okay-tier radars.
when has this actually happened

>>29585477
>from what I know in dogfights it was BTFO by basically everything?

It wasn't, is the short answer.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/norwegian-pilot-counters-leaked-f-35-dogfight-report-422552/

Essentially media gonna media.

>>29578233
read report, awesome analysis thanks! Does anyone else have some quality links about air warfare theory, or analysis of some air war?

>>29585150

CANARDS
A
N
A
R
D
S

Fuck me these dumbass f-35 fanboys are worse than Xbox.
> Muh F-35 is a tenth generation fighter.
> It can replace the entire air force.
> It can fly with no wings
> It can fly forever, powered by American idealism and the believe that huge politically funded corporations would never spend money without producing the best.
> It can carry an air craft carrier externally
> Its "steath" and also totally invisible, even to the eye
> It can shoot down enemy aircraft ever they leave the blueprint!
> It can dogfight, within visual range, a feature made solely to make dog fighting in movies legit and interesting
> It can zoom into a persons name tag and land a missile on them from orbit and not have any civilian losses
> It requires less maintenance than a swiss army knife.
> It can take off from ground to orbit in less then a second, vertically.
> It can hover, back up, hover upside down above girls in bikinis.
> It can fly forever and never needs the pilot to rest or eat.
Really guys? just watch Stealth, that's pretty much what you people are trying so hard to convince everyone is going on.

>>29585627
Are you done

>>29585627
Noone else in the world makes stealth aircraft
And stealth is still invisible to radar

Fuck me these dumbass f-35 fanboys are worse than Xbox.
> Muh F-35 is a tenth generation fighter.
> It can replace the entire air force.
> It can fly with no wings
> It can fly forever, powered by American idealism and the believe that huge politically funded corporations would never spend money without producing the best.
> It can carry an air craft carrier externally
> Its "steath" and also totally invisible, even to the eye
> It can shoot down enemy aircraft ever they leave the blueprint!
> It can dogfight, within visual range, a feature made solely to make dog fighting in movies legit and interesting
> It can zoom into a persons name tag and land a missile on them from orbit and not have any civilian losses
> It requires less maintenance than a swiss army knife.
> It can take off from ground to orbit in less then a second, vertically.
> It can hover, back up, hover upside down above girls in bikinis.
> It can fly forever and never needs the pilot to rest or eat.
Really guys? just watch Stealth, that's pretty much what you people are trying so hard to convince everyone is going on.

>>29585659
Joke reply: Or maybe they do make stealth, and its just so stealthy you cant see them!?
Reply: Thanks for proving my point. Take note, that in reality, the "stealth" doesn't stop "radar" and doesn't work in the rain, has to be reapplied constantly and wont work against more than half of the threats out there, currently.
ADHD: stealth is sci-fi, f35 will never fly in combat.
Proof: f22 which is still better than f35, had/has "stealth"

>>29583228
>the idea being that they could spread the costs out across a production run of several thousand aircraft and use those technologies for various other aircraft later on.

And just as planned, F-35 tech is already going into the F-22 and LRSB.

>>29585782
You think RAM doesn't work in the rain?

I think you're confusing the F-35 with Predator.

>>29585782
this isn't the 80's anymore
RAM is durable now
Noone has made a radar capable of targetting stealth aircraft, other than maybe the US, which is part of why they have such expensive ships.

>>29585855
>Noone has made a radar capable of targetting stealth aircraft

Now you're just going full retard in the other direction.

>>29579558
>Helicopters are too slow and fat for aggressive modern warfare
What should we replace them with?

>>29585866
*outside of extremely & unpractically close ranges

But maybe you think IRST actually works? lol

>>29585876
Gliders, duh.

>>29585886
Mmmno, they'll get detected before WVR. Its just that by that point, if its a legacy aircraft its already been detected itself, locked onto and fired on.

>But maybe you think IRST actually works? lol

..are you suggesting it doesn't?

>>29574907
Because its rivals (J-31 and Pak-fa) far surpass it already, both being in the trial phase of development. Even 4th gen fighters can easily dogfight it and defeat it, that's pretty sad for a "5th gen futuristic fighter".

The whole F-35 development shows the fall of American R&D.

>>29585920
>Because its rivals (J-31 and Pak-fa) far surpass it already

In what

> Even 4th gen fighters can easily dogfight it and defeat it,

They can't.

>>29585912
>they'll get detected before WVR
no they won't

>..are you suggesting it doesn't?
It has serious limitations to the point where, no, it won't fucking work

>>29585944
But they will. Nobody has ever claimed that they'll make it to ~40km or closer without being detected, and they won't. They'll make it closer, which is the entire point.

>It has serious limitations to the point where, no, it won't fucking work

So whats the point of EOTS? Moreover, you're arguing against the US, European, Russian and Chinese aerospace industries. Probably believe them more than your stupid ass.

>>29585931
>In what

Software simplicity, actual real world budgeting, aerodynamics, etc. the list goes on, really.

>They can't.

Funny considering all the official reports say how the F-35 under-preforms.

>>29585989
lel.

PAK-FA doesn't even have S-ducts or DSI, yet its got better aerodynamics? Not to mention no production engines.

Try again.

>>29585970
The point of EOTS is ground targets, since its a strike fighter
Not spotting stealth aircraft

Was the F-117 ever spotted on radar? No, was the B-2? No
They are essentially invisible and will get WAY closer than 40km

>>29585989
Non-stealth fighters lose by default to stealth
What do you expect to do with your non-stealth planes?
Fact: You can't hope to dodge missiles, this isn't the 60's anymore

>>29586040
EODAS, not EOTS.

>Was the F-117 ever spotted on radar?
..yes?

You know one was shot down, right

It's not considered a failure.

>>29586022
>Straw man

Nice.

S-ducts aren't needed because it has an advanced RAM coating and the intakes are partially hidden. For the engines, they are in the final phase of production/development, they'll use the latest in material science and be deployed at the same time the US maybe probably fields F-35's.

>>29586040
>Was the F-117 ever spotted on radar?

Serbia would disagree. Got shot down by a relic too. Ouch.

>>29586078
>S-ducts aren't needed because it has an advanced RAM coating and the intakes are partially hidden

Beautiful.

>>29586078
S ducts are required for stealth, those fans show up on radar tovarish.

>>29586056
It's door was open, thus not stealthy, there is a difference.

>>29586113
It was LESS stealthy.

Its also not what you said.

F-117s deployed in the gulf war were also always accompanied by E-111 Ravens. Why would they do that if they were invisible, familio?

>>29586094
>>29586056
They knew the location of that F-117, and were blind firing missiles at it, while it had a bomb bay door open increasing RCS
At no point was it detected or tracked

The point of EODAS is spotting inbound missiles, tracking ballistic missiles, general situational awareness, etc

Not as a counter to stealth planes, of which noone else is fielding any

>>29586101
The blades are partially hidden, the intake isn't completely straight. Designed like this, the Pak-fa doesn't suffer performance loses, compared to the F-22 and F-35. And then the RAM coating comes into play. At the end of the day - stealth intakes without severe performance loss of S-ducts. Best of both worlds.

>>29586134
For the other F16's/F18's/F15's/everything else that wasn't.

And that wasn't me, I'm new to this convo bro.

>muh PAK FA

If only there were plans to build more than six of them

>>29586160
>and were blind firing missiles at it

Thats not how missiles work.

>The point of EODAS is spotting inbound missiles

So it can detect a missile a few inches across from a range where it would have time to react to a mach 2+ projectile, but not an aircraft?

fucking. lel.

>>29586181
The F-22/F-35 don't suffer performance loss due to S-ducts.

Moreover, the PAK-FA uses an intake ramp that DOES make performance suffer.

>>29586200
There were engagements with JUST Ravens and F-117s.

>>29586056
Not that guy, but EODAS is mainly a visual/IR missile tracking component of the F35's complete MAWS package, and for WVR HOBS tracking. It's not for detecting and tracking enemy aircraft BVR (it doesn't have the resolution to do so). The EOTS does, but it doesn't have the field of view to do it efficiently. The primary sensor for BVR target detection and tracking is still the radar, and consequently, optimizing radar stealth is still top priority.

>>29586181
Actually no, it's alpha is worse than the F35 and F22 and it's less stealthy, exposed fans are exposed, they move and reflect radar no matter what you do, that's why they have to be ducted.

It's a new flanker, CY shouldn't have been given the 5th gen contract, they're not the best at fighter design.

>>29586209
>missile a few inches across
>not the meters long exhaust plume

>>29574918
Truth.

>>29586206
>More Pak-fa's will be operational in 2020 than F-35's

>Capacity to build 200 a year if the need arises

At least you tried.

>>29586209
Ravens do SEAD.

>>29586220
>it's alpha is worse than the F35 and F22 and it's less stealthy

Source your asshole.

>>29586230
A missile's rocket motor burns for a very short period of time. When its impacting its target, it is purely gliding from already generated delta-v.

There is no exhaust.

>>29585627
>>29585659
>>29585782
>>29585855
>>29585920
>>29585989
You're all fucking retarded.
"Stealth" aircraft are still visible to radar. Their advantage is that they are visible only when they're much much closer than a normal aircraft is, and that keeping a lock on them is far harder. I don't know where all this "Stealth doesn't work in rain" shit comes from, but it's simply not true. Unlike the F-117 and (previously) the F-22, the F-35 doesn't need its coatings reapplied after a handful of missions, save for things like seam covering tape. Multiple countries make low observable aircraft. The J-31 has barely left paper, and it's insane to say that something that china is paying less attention to than the J-20 is in any way going to rival the F-35. The J-20 has several shortcomings compared to the F-35. For a country that was barely past making soviet knockoffs 20 years ago, it's an impressive step, but compared to the F-22/F-35, it's inferior. The same goes for the pakfa, which sukhoi designed from the beginning to be relatively affordable. Even sukhoi has admitted that it will perform worse than the F-35 in some areas.
>Official reports say the F-35 under performs
Can you show me these reports? From what I've read, the performance isn't the problem. The issue now is working through all the various small engineering issues before the A and C are ready for service. The F-117 was spotted on radar and even shot down once, although that was due to abysmal planning on the USAF's part, mechanical failure, the F-117s lack of countermeasures, and the missile battery operator being exceptionally skilled.
>>29586078
>Advanced RAM coating and material science
Those only go so far. You're still going to get larger returns off of a traditional inlet, than you would with a S-duct.
>>29586101
They aren't strictly required, although they're the superior choice.
>>29586181
S-ducts don't cause "severe performance loss," I really don't know what else to say.

>>29586244
If F-117s couldn't be detected by radar, why would you need SEAD?

>>29586247
No, not really.

Even the Russians say its RCS is comparible to legacy aircraft, at around 0.5m2.

File: 90769F3761AEF454363E70EE86835_h316_w628_m5_cEHRgDDHW.jpg (27KB, 628x316px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 628x316px

>>29586233
>capacity
>only 5 prototypes actually built of PAK FA
>171 F-35s as of March 2016
>mfw

TW raito, Raptor and 35 is >1.

PAKFA is <1

(all at 50% fuel)

As for where I'm getting this, you can call CY and LM if you speak Russian and English.

>>29586264
The F-117 didn't carry HARMs.

The fighters I mentioned earlier want to fly there later tovarish.

>>29586248
WVR, the launching aircraft and launch plume will be visible. BVR is the realm of the RWR, not the EODAS.

>>29586262
At practical combat ranges the stealth aircraft are simply invisible

Since they will always spot the enemy before they get spotted, they can keep their distance

>>29586286
E-111s don't carry weapons of any kind.

>>29586262
>Official reports say the F-35 under performs

>http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/209247-new-report-claims-f-35-outclassed-by-40-year-old-f-16-government-disagrees

>http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/222380-the-pentagons-official-f-35-bug-list-is-terrifying

I normally don't like to spoon feed, but you seem to be very lacking knowledge about this program. Have you done any research at all?

>>29586304
Yes they do.

How come the PAK FA program cost is only $8-10 billion. I get there are way less in production plus not the same technologies used but holy shit the price difference.

>>29586307
>posting shitty blogs
>official reports

>>29586310
"The EF-111 was unarmed. Its speed and acceleration were its main means of self-defense. It was not capable of firing anti-radiation missiles in the lethal Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) role, which was a tactical limitation"

>>29586307
>he actually brought out the maneuvering test with the F-16
I can literally guarantee that you didn't read the released report on that test.

>>29586320
It's basically a 4.5 gen, it's not stealth and it's payload isn't anything to write home about.

So it's gonna be cheaper.

>>29586307
>f-16 beating an f-35
clearly you are very poorly informed. that shits been debunked for awile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9re9tJckTlk&nohtml5=False
educate yourself

>>29586320
Because we already have close to 200 F-35s and they only made 5 prototypes for the PAK FA

>>29586320
Bribing lawmakers and shuffling money into Lockmart shareholders wasn't required for development.

>>29586334
Yes, it is capable of firing Anti Radiation missiles.

>>29586360
>not capable

Your reading skills really could use some work, friend.

>>29586367
I'm telling you it is, and that quote is wrong.

You're reading it correctly, your quote is wrong.

>>29586378
Can you find a single image, quote or scrap that says otherwise?

>>29586384
The Flight Manual.

>>29586353
Ok, but even the F-22 is only $66.7 Billion for the 195 built

>>29586419
The amount spent thus far is supposed to cover them over their operational lifetime and a total of 2400 units produced. Just sayin'

>>29586419
the f22 doesnt have 3 different varriants to be designed and tested, and has no where near the manufacturing base

>>29586443
Oh I wasn't aware that the cost wasn't just for the current operational aircraft and testing until this point. Good to know

>>29586486
At lost of folks have been confused about that, the idea of paying forward on the project does seem a bit wonky but that's what the oodles spent was for.

>>29586500
Makes more sense now. I'm in the chair force and got roasted by my grandma about the cost of the f35 project and didn't have anything to fire back with.

>>29586443
>>29586486
>>29586500
>>29586544

The money is gone. I don't get why people don't see how lock is just a vaccum for money.
They even got special extra funding which they didn't have to declare in their costs for refitting weapons to work on the new f-35, they got super creative, took millions to refit WW2 era dumb bombs, knowing they can take the money, and no one will ask questions, and not have to produce anything at the end of the day. Which is pretty much their company motto.

>>29586443
That's not correct, the $66.7 billion is for R&D + acquisition; it doesn't cover any amount of O&S.

>>29586744
>>29586500
The money is pay-as-you-go, or rather, it's only paying forward 1 or 2 years for acquiring some jets. In total 'only' some ~$100 billion has been spent, including O&S up until now. The other $1.4 trillion gets paid in parts, year-to-year for the next 54 years.

>>29586744
>>29586849
>This is true because I said so
>what are contracts?

Spreyfags plz go

>>29586352

oh hey, Lt Col Mau. lotta my friends know her.

>>29584110
Having a chance to actually only be mission-killed instead of catastrophically killed (and having to write off the airframe if you make it back) from a single solid hit every once a while doesn't make you not a glass cannon.

can't wait until i go to test pilot school in a few years so i can look back and see how stupid everybody is.

>>29587059
>Wut is LRIP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc
>Wut r annual budgets

>>29587059
Amerifat please l2internet.
> I did no research or fact finding at all
> Fox news and media tell me A = B
> I'm smart, A = B

>>29587165
>using blogs for information

Yuropoor plz

>>29574907
Because its gone incredibly overbudget, is immensely more expensive than existing generation planes, and doesn't provide the significant effectiveness bonus that was hoped for.

It does seem generally better, but its not a hand over fist improvement, its more... Incremental. $163 Billion over the initial budget is a shitload to pay for incremental upgrades.

So that's why its considered a failure. It just doesn't improve on enough matters to justify the massive cost.

>>29587117
>less than 8 years since AF-1
>less than 7 years since production prototypes
>171 produced
>Low Rate Initial Production

>>29587281
>6x more effective
>10-20% more expensive
>failure

>>29587332
Six times? Bullshit. Cite some proper studies, and I might agree with you.

>>29587345
>ctrl+f "six to one"
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F3cb4e326-70e4-4abd-acb7-609a16072b70%2F0001%22

>>29587500
>>Mr Liberson : Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six to one relative loss exchange ratio against in four versus eight engagement scenarios—four blue at 35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.

>>ACTING CHAIR: What are those advanced threats?

>>Mr Liberson : I cannot get into the specifics of those advanced threats. They are classified.

>>ACTING CHAIR: This says Su27. My concern with that is that Su27 is an old aeroplane. You could be analysing it against camels. How are we supposed to take this when you are saying, 'We're not going to tell you what threats we're analysing'?

Six to one loss ratio against a plane first flown in 1977 is not exactly a significant achievement, and a six to one loss ratio against old planes absolutely is not a "6x more effective" plane over existing models.

>>29587691
https://www.scribd.com/doc/261728653/lockheed-martin-defends-jsf-s-close-in-capabilities

>The counterpart aircraft were given the benefit of the doubt wherever platform and systems performance were not clear - as, for example, in the assumption that all five would have active electronically scanned array radars operational within five years.
>Modelling based on operational experience and simulation showed that 72 per cent of future engagements would be BVR, 31 per cent would be at transitional range (between 8 n miles and 18 n miles) and 7 per cent WVR. Mazanowski acknowledged that these figures did not take account of BVR engagements that might develop into WVR engagements.
>Taking all salient aircraft characteristics into account and utilising the Brawler modelling and simulation tool, the F-35 showed a better than six to one relative loss exchange ratio while the other aircraft scored less than one to one. This was in a four-versus-four scenario against what Mazanowski described as a "threat aircraft in the not-too-distant future".
>He attributed this almost entirely to the F-35's superior stealth and situational awareness. In a WVR engagement, the differences in the capabilities of the various aircraft were barely measurable. Although the F-35 was assumed not to be carrying externally mounted short-range AIM-9X missiles to avoid increasing its radar cross-section, Mazanowski praised the short-range performance of AMRAAM.
>"The WVR environment, once you get there, is very awkward and very lethal. We think the F-35 may have some limited advantage in situational awareness with its DAS [distributed aperture system] and hopefully there would be enough wingmen to work their way out of the situation," Mazanowski said.
>He added: "One guy has a little bit of an advantage in WVR and can shoot first, but both folks end up not doing well."
tl;dr: 6:1 against Sukhois with a better radar than the Su-35; "Su-27" was Dr Jensen ignoring details.

>>29587831
Well, even going "top of the line" Su35s are just a 27 variant, so it's whatever the country we did exercises with had, so it's easy to see where the Su27 bit came from.

>>29587831
>>29587987

But that paper again specifies some unknown and mysterious future aircraft. Good radar is a good thing to test against, but they've still told us nothing about the rest of the specifications. Is it a proper stealth craft they are comparing against? Are they assuming that its Missile load is also modernized and improved? So on and so forth.

The solid numbers they provide in that second reference near the beginning, comparing to the other craft, is fairly useful though.

>On an air-to-air mission with a radius of 200 n miles, no external fuel tanks but the same missile load and a requirement to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft, the F-35 was shown coming second best.

Second best to who?

Like, I would love to believe Lockhart on the superiority of the fighter, but they keep avoiding providing significant, hard numbers on the simulated targets they defeat, and these numbers seem inconsistent with the numbers they show against current generation craft. Ultimately, until a number of nations militaries agree/provide studies supporting this, I'd be hard pressed to believe them, as they have a massive incentive to prop this thing up and make it look like the next god of the skies.

>>29588222
>Is it a proper stealth craft they are comparing against?
It's essentially a Su-35++; not a PAK-FA (although is there that much difference?)
>Are they assuming that its Missile load is also modernized and improved?
Presumably modern R-73s and R-77s.
>Second best to who?
My bet is on the Typhoon.
>they keep avoiding providing significant, hard numbers on the simulated targets they defeat
Obviously because of OPSEC; you don't want to be setting the bar for the enemy and annotating your exact strengths and weaknesses. It'd be interesting to see Russia and China provide some figures for once.
>Ultimately, until a number of nations militaries agree/provide studies supporting this
Evidently at least the USAF and Australia agree on the data. Norway's MoD has been pretty vocal in their advocacy of the jet as well.