F-35 HATE THREAD

>>29590785
Dumb cunts who know nothing about the F-35 yet have very strong opinions about it.

>>29590785

The gun. It doesn't need one and yet it has one anyway. They should remove it.

That's literally the only thing I would change.

>>29590785
http://www.clickhole.com/article/6-things-couldve-been-bought-15-trillion-governmen-2407

I would have traded it for 10,000 F-22's

File: 1449133724154.gif (98KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 250x250px

>>29590810
>t. F-4 Phantom design team

File: zdf4dm8mfxbr3mxi5zog.jpg (23KB, 530x295px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 530x295px

I also think that the F-35B is an over-complicated piece of machinery. The technology behind it is incredible, but I feel that the F-35A is where it will be the most effective.

One final thing, I feel that people don't take a step back and take the aircraft for what it was designed for. They have unrealistic expectations for it, and when it cannot do the impossible they point to the price tag and ask why it isn't a be-all-end-all for air combat.

>>29590785
The people working on it. It's amazing on paper and paper only. They sold us an idea and it's still in the idea phase cause shit don't work

>>29590810
I hope you neck yourself in the near future

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

57KB, 565x500px

>>29590908

When's the last time there was an A2A gun kill again?

The gun isn't really a problem but it isn't really necessary either. It also creates on a bulge on the side of the aircraft and adds weight to the design.

It's a minor gripe but a gripe nonetheless.

>>29590926
>F-35B still in training phase
>F-35A/C haven't been phased in yet
>"shit don't work"
Sure, I guess you can judge a plane before it has had any chance to prove itself

>>29590985
Not the other guy, but

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

The cannon isn't exclusively for AA purposes.

>>29591021

They should have gone with the original plan for a 27x145mm revolver cannon. It would have fit better into the design, avoiding a bulge.

Still a minor concern.

>>29590908
Read about the topic you intend to discuss before you post. Adding the gun did almost nothing to improve A2A performance for the Phantom, what fixed their problem was improved pilot training.

>>29590909
?
the f-35A and B are literally the same
except the B trades fuel range for a lift fan. Which is only needed because marines are dumbasses who won't buy supercarriers

>>29591070
I remember hearing about some dude that couldn't take out an attacker because the plane was too close for the missiles to arm.

Which, yeah, it's not exactly a common situation, but it'd be pretty embarrassing for a 3000000+ dollar plane to get taken out by a MiG-17 because "Whoops, he was to close to me".

>>29591070
And an improved wing shape

>>29591084
Y..yeah? I feel the F-35A with the extended range is a pretty important factor when designing a stealth strike fighter. I think it will be more effective when operated from fixed bases or a proper carrier (F-35C)

>>29591109
>I remember hearing about some dude that couldn't take out an attacker because the plane was too close for the missiles to arm.

That happens in Top Gun. And much like 5'3" navy aviators, it just don't happen in real life.

>>29590908
>He doesn't know that most A2A combat this side of 1960 is done with missiles at BVR
Get a load of this dummy.

>>29591084
The B variant has a shorter range (as you mentioned), lower maximum G load (7G vs 9G), has extra drag (increasing it's transonic acceleration time), has increased empty weight and can't hold 2000lb bombs internally (only ~1000lb).

>>29591021
sounded like that f-16 was taking a fat shit over that village

>>29590985
>When's the last time there was an A2A gun kill again?

When's the last time the US faced an enemy of near parity or at the very least not arab shits in air combat?

>>29590785
Its chubby.

>>29590985
>It creates a bulge
OH SHIT, SHUT THE PROGRAM DOWN!

>>29591127
You're just jealous because you'll never be on the highway to the danger zone

The part where its outperformed by every aircraft its supposed to replace in most basic categorties that matter the most.

>>29591881
so the fictional elements

>>29590785
Ill-informed idiots hating on it.

>>29590908
>Reminder that the Navy never put guns on the F-4 and had a far superior kill:loss ratio than the Air Force

>>29590785
>WHAT'S THE WORST PART ABOUT THE F-35?
The fact that it spawns an endless cascade of shitposting on a Laotian shadowpuppetry board.

>>29590985
It's an A2G gun anyways, if it were for A2A they could've just stuck with the M61 Vulcan. And it's why the B/C models only mount it as needed.

>>29591329
Less BRRRT, more pfrrrt

>>29590785
>WHAT'S THE WORST PART ABOUT THE F-35?
It's cost. inb4 F-22's cost the ~same for dev and etc.

What is the point in absurdly expensive fighters when they are just used for support?
Why don't we just mass produce reasonably priced support aircraft and let fighters be fighters?

>>29591881
>what is electronic warfare

>>29593583
Just use roms?

File: comic magneto is french-canadian jared hindman.jpg (90KB, 517x509px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 517x509px

>>29593568
>7 billion less for the dev program to produce three different takeoff and landing profile variants
>Plane is nearly half the cost of an F-22
>Has massively better sensors and comms
>being this dumb

>>29593611
try reading

>>29593641
I corrected your misconceptions, don't try to pull that "reading comprehension" shit you toolbox.

>>29593568
Because the F35 is a fighter being a fighter? We can't afford to have F22s everywhere, and the F35 is more capable in many areas anyways.

>>29591664

Every fucking year at red flag events.

>>29593703
Great practice, not necessarily going to happen in combat.

>>29593681
But you strawmanned me, then and now... Either stop shilling, or respond to the content of my post like >>29593681 did.
I was specifically referring to dev cost, not maintenance/production.

>>29593686
The issue I'm trying to bring up is that for more than a decade we have been using fighters as support aircraft. Why don't we just build support aircraft?

File: cuteshark.png (771KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

771KB, 960x960px

>>29590810
>Former AFROTC detachment commander was an F-16 pilot, weapons school grad and wrote a decent portion of the F-35s SEAD/DEAD manual.
>Goes on a huge rant about the gun and how it is the perfect example of creep on the program and people with no knowledge interfering for the sake of 'common sense'.

>>29593723
So was I, you're lying or ignorant if you claim the F-35 is in any way more expensive than the F-22 at any stage.

>>29593723

>Why don't we just build support aircraft?

Because you could just build fighters and use them as support aircraft?

>>29593747

Did he happen to write this shit down? I'd love to have that as a resource.

hey, can anyone recommend some good air warfare documentaries? none of that history channel bullshit.

>>29593759
The issue isn't the comparative cost, its the cost.
Which is why I said that I knew it was comparable to the f22 dev cost. (use real dollars, not dollar vs dollar)

>>29593761
Isn't that like giving the coast guard a carrier?

File: ce.jpg (316KB, 768x1892px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 768x1892px

>>29593767
Sadly no, it was a verbal rant during one of our AS classes. We got into a conversation regarding working with civilians and changing mission requirements for long term projects and he used it as an example. Additionally, he's very much in love with the aircraft but it's fallen victim to very poor contract work on AF requisition's side. It's the 'leap' in capability that the Airforce has promised and is an absolute upgrade, we're just going to have to pay out of the nose for it because AF officers failed in contracting.

>>29593611
>Literally 10 times the production number
>Half the price
That's actually pretty fucking garbage, it would be unbelievably expensive if it was purchased in F-22 quantities

>>29593813
Not a video, but Revolt of the Majors should be considered required reading for anyone intending to talk about American air warfare, doctrine, and procurement.

>>29593820

So what happened? Did it originally not have a gun but one got added because some senator demanded it?

>>29593703
Its training.

As such its designed to encompass scenarios where you would need to use a cannon, if only to practice it.

Its not just a case of splitting into two groups and "having at it"

>>29593815
And, again, it's a plane replacing four others, not just one, with major improvements over the previous plane developed.

>>29593835
And ~$20m less than contemporary eurocanards and barely more than a brand new Super Bug or Block 50/60 Viper, what's your point?

>>29593840

Thanks! will read.

>>29593876
>$20m less than contemporary eurocanards
Not sure about your use of a suffix here is as the Eurofighter is the only canard more expensive than the F-35.

>>29593895
The Rafale is more expensive.

>>29593815
It's more like turning the coast guard into the navy, if you're suggesting disbanding the navy because all they do it guard our coasts.

Like it or not, the US is a global imperial power and its economy depends on things staying that way. Less capable aircraft will be bullied by more capable aircraft. Maintaining a large fleet of advanced aircraft serves to allow the US to exert its will upon nations which will not or cannot afford to do so, without resorting to nukes.

It's an economic deterrent to open war with a major power and an overwhelming military tool against a minor one.

>>29591126
Literally the only reason the F-35B exists is so MUHREENS can use them to replace Harriers on their retarded fucking babby-carriers that are too small for catapult launches.

>>29593903
To which customer?

>>29593911
..Everyone?

Dassault are jewy fucks that hike up the price after your interested, as well. Price creep was insane with the Indian deal.

>>29593907

Um....yeah? What's your point? Is there some problem with the USMC operating a STOVL fighter?

>>29593895
Typhoon Tranche 3 is around $103m, Rafale at $108m, and Gripen NG in that range. F-35A will be $85m.

>>29590785
the memes

>>29593925
>..Everyone?
No. And to apply the same price to every customer is drop dead retarded. The F-35A will not be the same price for the USAF as it will the IAF

Prices for primary partners:

>Unit cost for Rafale C for ADL (with engine)
US$94 million
http://www.senat.fr/rap/a13-158-8/a13-158-813.html#toc178

>LRIP 8 Unit cost for F-35A for USAF (without engine)
US$94.8 million
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSKCN0J52DJ20141121

>Indian deal
Please quote a cheaper offer they would have gotten from the F-35.

File: Untitled.png (150KB, 1260x694px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1260x694px

>>29593977
LRIP price and guaranteed full rate production price are different things entirely, and I can't seem to find any of this pricing stuff on the Rafale in your document.

>>29594004
>guaranteed
It's a projection last updated in 2012. The same thing was done after the ATF in 2000 and the F-22 exceeded it by US$15.8 million.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-03-28/pentagon-approves-lockheed-f-35-for-continued-development

>Projet de loi de finances pour 2014 : Défense : équipement des forces et excellence technologique des industries de défense" (in French). Senate of France. 21 November 2013. Retrieved 2 July 2014. Avant prise en compte du projet de LPM, le coût total du programme pour l'Etat était de 45,9 Mds €2013. Le coût unitaire (hors coût de développement) de 74 M€2013 pour le Rafale B (pour 110 avions) de 68,8 M€2013 pour le Rafale C (pour 118 avions) et de 79 M€2011 pour le Rafale M (pour 58 avions)."
Translated: Before taking into account the draft Trademark Law, the total cost of the program for the state was 45.9 billion € 2013. Unit cost (excluding development costs) of €74M 2013 for the Rafale B (110 aircraft) €68.8M 2013 for the Rafale C (for 118 aircraft) and 79 M € 2011 for the Rafale M (58 aircraft)