F-35 BTFO in a Senate report

>>29813004
How do they fuck up that bad anyway? Is this what cronyism looks like?

File: 1461337514433.jpg (37KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x600px

>>29813004

File: f35 bingo.jpg (173KB, 1024x905px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1024x905px

Roll up folks, roll up, let's call the numbers.

File: f35 bingo2.jpg (627KB, 1430x1352px) Image search: [Google]

627KB, 1430x1352px

And a bonus round!

File: 3 cuties gate.jpg (135KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1280x720px

When viewing the F-35 through the lens of a defense project, it looks silly. You must also realize that this is also an indirect federal jobs program. When the F-35 would replace other aircraft and their roles, the bases, parts suppliers, and ...sub contractors those people had to be kept employed. No member of Congress wanted to say don't add that or build that if it would hurt their district. So much backroom dealing goes on with projects like these its embarrassing.

>Army: We need 3 different planes

>Government: Why not build one plane that can do 3 things? it will be cheaper.

... it turns out it isn't.

>>29813156
Still 4 IPs in this thread.

You're embarassing yourself.

File: quarters.jpg (21KB, 310x207px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 310x207px

>>29813102
>>29813114
here's your two quarters, Lock-Mart shill. spend it wisely.

Sounds alot like the new Increment 2 signal gear the Army has been getting the last few years. Never started up right, some router fucking up, GPS thinks its in Malaysia, ect. And the MATVs equipment that's meant for Infantry to use had a 20+ step startup and shutdown procedure so it always broken and having to call the contractors to fix every time its turned on.

>>29813156

Dumb GATE poster

>>29813172
I love how you never actually refute what is said.

>>29813004
extremley relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46uEYceNhPE

>>29813339
These defense contractors are fucking disasters, all union employees, all incompetence
And the military just accepts being scammed because the Generals are on the payroll of the companies

>>29813028
>>29813102
>>29813114
>>29813382
>attempting to damage-control this hard
umm, have you noticed that this report is factual?
or will you accuse a senate committee of being vatniks?

>>29813156
>... it turns out it isn't.
yet again. i would have thought they'd learn from the f-111 debacle.

Don't know how anyone can still defend this piece of shit. I guess they're either shills or morons, possibly both.

>>29813165
A Boeing shill and 3 random anons?

Of course McCain tooting his horn made more news than fresh insights into just how badly this program shit the bed.

Can't wait to pour through another report from
J. Michael "going spartan on Lockheed Martin" Gilmore.

>>29813004
this program is such a waste of money. 1.5 trillion for these useless planes. They should have just made more F 15/16/18s

File: %BA%F1%C7%E0%B0%ED49-1-1.jpg (289KB, 900x2454px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 900x2454px

>Success of Block 3F mission systems depends on the program resolving the problems with Block 3i. The stability and functionality problems in the initial versions of Block 3F, including those inherited from Block 3i and problems caused by new Block 3F capabilities, were so significant that the program could not continue flight test.

The New f-35 which will fuck every single Russian and chink to death and ensure a glorious future for America had a snowflake land on it today during a test flight, and had to land due to catastrophic system failure.

File: 220px-The_Pentagon_Wars.jpg (23KB, 220x313px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 220x313px

F-35 is just another Bradley.

Watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA&feature=youtu.be

>>29814070
HAHAHA LMFAO LOL IVE NEVER SEEN THAT BEFORE XXXXDDDD

>Many pilots consider the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) on the F-35 to be inferior to those currently on legacy systems, in terms of providing the pilot with an ability to discern target features and identify targets at tactical ranges, along with maintaining target identification and laser designation throughout the attack. Environmental effects, such as high humidity, oftenforced pilots to fly closer to the target than desired in order to discern target features and then engage for weapon employment, much closer than needed with legacy systems, potentially exposing them to threats around the target area

Well this is awkward...

>>29813963
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/04/26/f-35-chief-software-bugs-no-longer-threat-ioc/83553372/

>>29814155
This is hilarious, if you actually knew what the EOTS was.

What "legacy" system is better, pray tell. The only thing EOTS cant do is laze targets for ground ident and LGBs.

>>29814155
sounds like bullshit to me
or maybe something fixed with a software patch

>>29814155
>yfw you realize it is a comparison of F-35's in high humidity conditions to targeting pods in dry conditions

at least it isn't an M1161 Growler

>>29813025
I think 'delicate' is the word to use to describe the technology used in the F-35

File: 1424407940756.jpg (46KB, 480x465px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 480x465px

>>29814155

>>29813415
There shills probably from MCAS YUMA I've seen them, do noting but sit on their assholes.

File: Pentagon Wars.jpg (470KB, 1446x952px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 1446x952px

>>29814070
Oh wow I thought I wouldn't get a chance to post this.

Also

>Using Pentagon Wars as a source

>>29814225
Litening SE, for example.

also, F-35 can't do VDL or IR marker

the problem here is, a) EOTS is based on hardware that was cutting-edge in late 1990 and b) threre's no space in the airframe for additional hardware that normally fits into the pod.

>>29814155
Lol prefacing evidence with "many pilots consider" is something that wouldn't even make it on wikipedia.

File: f-22 1445984844917.jpg (249KB, 900x1099px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 900x1099px

>>29813755
>They should have just made more F 15/16/18s
... and don't forget F-22s! It would have been cheaper restarting F-22 lines than making F-35.

F-35 will be fully combat ready in 15+ years time. If they rush it, people will die in accidents. F-35 is a flying computer and it's full of bugs. It will take decades for those bugs to be found & fixed and that will cost lives.

>>29814166
>defensenews

>>29814342
>If they rush it, people will die in accidents. F-35 is a flying computer and it's full of bugs. It will take decades for those bugs to be found & fixed and that will cost lives.

Yep, because those F-35s are just falling out of the sky and killing pilots by the dozens, right? Completely unlike the F-16 in its early years!

>>29814233
>or maybe something fixed with a software patch
Fixing optics with software? Now that is awesome.

>>29813004
Seems like this report is just rehashing the GAO report in a form that Senators can actually understand.

>>29814338
Why lie?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-reveals-advanced-eots-targeting-sensor-for-416631/

>>29814349
Yes and?

File: longliveBelka.png (6KB, 350x250px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 350x250px

"This continues to be the case, as the program
recently deleted Block 3F test points and added test points to address Block 3i deficiencies in
mission systems performance and stability. Because of a change by the program in defining
growth in test points, the amount of this re-defined growth was less during the last year than in previous years."

page three

>>29814338
>Litening SE, for example.

What exactly do you think EOTs actually is?

Furthermore, Litening SE is not a legacy piece of equipment.

>>29813004
>a new aircraft is having problems during testing
>HURRRRR ITS SHIT, ITS SHIT, BTFO LOCK-MART SHILLS, BTFO, DURRRRR
Go suck start a shotgun cunt.

>>29814429
Worked for the Hubble telescope

>>29814342
>It would have been cheaper restarting F-22 lines than making F-35.

Fucking 100% false.

>>29814513
In what way? I dont know much about the f35 or the f22. but what I do know is that you are not adding anythng to the thread by typing "false" without even so much as an opinion to go along with it

I don't want to be a cunt but seriously why did they build so many aircraft before end of testing?

Why not a reasonable batch to cover all critical systems and polishing them to perfection so that full production can kick off no problem?

>>29814626
Because they're in a hurry to deliver what has already been agreed upon.

>>29814588
>pointing out my unsubstantiated claims adds nothing to the thread

>>29814626
Because things like the F-16's tail that had to be redesigned after hundreds of planes were built.

"Cybersecurity testing on the next increment of ALIS – version 2.0.2 – is planned for this fall, but may need to be delayed because the program has not been able to resolve some key deficiencies and complete content development and fielding as scheduled."

J. Michael "we need better weapons to kill more" Gilmore

>>29814662
This makes zero sense

I agree with this thread. The US should've just rolled back to the P-51 Mustang. I mean, what is the point of these useless planes they keep making?
Also, the US should scrap their Carriers, they're useless nowadays.

>>29814626
They did do this, for covering critical systems and technologies.

What they're building and testing now are LRIP aircraft that are designed to work up our ability to manufacture, operate, and maintain the fleet of aircraft before committing to tooling up full rate production. You'll notice none of the flaws pointed out in the GAO report are going to ground the entire fleet because of critical problems such as >>29814662, they're more problems with refinement and optimization for effectiveness rather than root functionality.

>>29814588
>In what way? I dont know much about the f35 or the f22.

You dont know shit and are a newfag. YOU dont know shit, YOU add nothing with your ignorance. Lurk more. This very topic has been explained adnasum.

Fuck, there are news articles on it.

Kill yourself immediately.

Quick question. what about F-35 and SEAD/DEAD role? Is it capable of carrying HARM-type munitions?

>>29814706
You upgrade as you go.

Got a problem? Only 19% of the planes are effected rather than 100%.

>>29813004
>50 blyats has been deposited into your account, cyka

File: fullyinititiallyoperational.jpg (39KB, 816x816px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 816x816px

>>29814775
Externally.

Yeah, obviously given the size of Harm missile. But external carrying means compromising stealth. BTW have externally carried bigger missiles been tested on F-35?

>23% death probability upon ejection for light pilots
>program and services deemed the figure acceptable

This is bizarre...

>>29814775
HARMs are just one tool in SEAD/DEAD.

F-35 would be carrying MALD / JSOW.

>>29815061
F35 doesn't cater to manlets :^)

>>29815038
They have to reinforce the wings so that they don't fall off from carrying Sidewinders first.

>>29815061

>Getting blasted out of a moving object was ever a safe thing to do.

File: 1454978671215.jpg (115KB, 725x497px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 725x497px

>>29814775
I think the current plan is to use SDB II or other glide munitions for SEAD/DEAD, although I'm sure they're working on some kind of HARM solution.

File: F-35-2010-languages.jpg (20KB, 517x354px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 517x354px

>>29813025
Here's how. Aside from some minor bits cribbed from the F-22, this thing is simply being programmed in the wrong languages with the wrong development methodology.

>>29815061
It literally only effected like 1 pilot
And it was all a statistical "possibility" thing, aka a non-issue

>>29815137
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon

File: 1449734995035.jpg (70KB, 752x144px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 752x144px

>>29815165
>mfw JSOW-ER soon

I have never been so erect.

>>29815137

Can the F-35 deploy LRASM from internal bays?

>>29815240
Lrsam is a stealth missle so the f-35 does not lose much from slinging it.

>>29815270

So is that a no then?

The Joint Strike Missile can be deployed from internal bay. But the US isn't going to buy that (probably not anyway). So I just want to know if there is going to be another anti-ship missile that the F-35 can use from the internal bays.

>>29815164
>which accounts for approximately 27percent of the pilot population.
>1 pilot
>

>>29815240
I'm not sure. It is a 1000 lb-class weapon though, so I'm inclined to say yes.

>>29815319
The warhead is 1000lb. Weapon weight is over 2000lb. Dimentions are likely too large as well.

>>29815294
The LRASM is specifically designed not to comprimse on performance by having to stuff it into an internal bay by being VLO itself.

>>29815061
Ejecting has never been safe for small people, but for some reason the F-35 was the first time a stink was made about it.

>>29815153
From this chart am I supposed to learn that object-oriented languages can't be used safely?

"I highlight here, with respect to IOT&E readiness, that if the program is only able to
achieve and sustain its goal of 60 percent aircraft availability, the length of IOT&E
will increase significantly because a combat-ready availability of 80 percent is
planned and needed to efficiently accomplish the open-air mission trials with the
number of aircraft planned for IOT&E."

File: Fairchild-a10-thunderbolt2-warthog.jpg (58KB, 800x526px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 800x526px

>>29813004

The bottom line is that no aircraft can ever replace the A-10. We need a new law requiring the Air Force to maintain a fleet of at least 200 A-10's. If the number of A-10's drops below 200 they are required to put out a contract to build more.

>>29815476
No

>>29815476
McCain pls

File: Design_by_contract.png (175KB, 2000x1961px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 2000x1961px

>>29815395
If you're writing software for a critical application like this, where it has to work right every time, you don't write it in those languages. You use something like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARK_%28programming_language%29

The tiny little slice of that pie labeled ADA is written that way - the rest is not. Little if anything that's been written since 2010 is. They're doing this using standard languages and methodology suitable for a desktop application where buggy/crashy behavior is an annoyance, not for use where it could kill people.

>>29815480

Yes. The A-10 has proven itself over and over again but the Air Force keeps trying to kill it. It's time for civilian oversight to step in.

>>29815061
This has been the case since ejection seats were first invented.

It's only an issue now because of the emphasis on putting 100lb women in combat roles.

>>29815522
The A-10 is an old workhorse being shoehorned into a world its not designed for. Its beat in every metric by the reaper.

Its time to put it to pasture.

>>29815550

The A-10 was designed to operate in the most hostile battlefield conditions imaginable. Stop parroting this outrageous lie that the A-10 is only good for low-intensity combat. The A-10 was designed to charge the front line against the Soviet Union if they ever invaded from Eastern Europe. No battlefield could ever be more intense than that.

>>29815522
Only thing it proved is that F-16s do its job better.

>>29815240
No, just the JSM, and that required some modifications from the original NSM specifically for that purpose.

I would not be terribly surprised to see a split buy--LRASM for bombers and legacy aircraft, and a smaller JSM buy for F-35 internal carriage. It also would provide a hedge in case of a weakness or defect in LRASM.

I expect the RGM requirement to be pure LRASM, though, *unless* JSM is chosen for LCS (which makes about as much sense as using a speedboat hull for a ~4kT combatant).

>>29815600

I wouldn't expect the Pentagon to buy JSM at all. The JSM was designed in Norway, and the Pentagon has a very firm "made in America" bias.

>>29815588
No, it wasn't designed for that, it was shoehorned into that role.

>>29815588
The A-10 was designed to operate in permissive environments based on experiences in Vietnam and has a poor record when functional A2/AD is present.

>>29815589

That's because the A-10 is always last in line for upgrades. If the Air Force would stop trying to kill it, the A-10 could be updated in many ways to expand its capabilities while maintaining the inherent strengths of the platform.

>>29815683
What inherent strengths?

>>29815620
You have a very limited understanding of the 'made in America' bias. Especially when America buys a lot of what Kongsberg makes.

>>29815370
>>29815528
>>29815113

Not that guy, but why is being small a bad thing in regards to ejecting? Less muscle/fat to protect you from the g-forces?

>>29815728
The ejection motors aren't tailored to your weight, they're standard 'strengths' that work for the normal weight range of pilots and accelerate them as fast as is considered safe.

Under that weight limit? You accelerate too fast.

File: a-10-thunderbolt-ii_003.jpg (119KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1200x800px

>>29815689

>The ability to safely and effectively conduct troops-in-contact/danger close missions or missions in close proximity to civilians in the presence of the air defenses found with enemy ground maneuver units.

>The ability to effectively target and destroy moving, camouflaged, or dug-in troops, artillery, armor, and armored personnel carriers.

>The ability to engage, target, and destroy tanks and armored personnel carriers, including with respect to the carrying capacity of armor-piercing weaponry, including mounted cannons and missiles.

>The ability to remain within visual range of friendly forces and targets to facilitate responsiveness to ground forces and minimize re-attack times.

>The ability to safely conduct close air support beneath low cloud ceilings and in reduced visibilities at low airspeeds in the presence of the air defenses found with enemy ground maneuver units.

>The capability to enable the pilot and aircraft to survive attacks stemming from small arms, machine guns, man-portable air-defense systems, and lower caliber anti-aircraft artillery organic or attached to enemy ground forces and maneuver units.

>The ability to deliver multiple lethal firing passes and sustain long loiter endurance to support friendly forces throughout extended ground engagements.

>The ability to operate from unprepared dirt, grass, and narrow road runways and to generate high sortie rates under these austere conditions.

>>29815745

Oh shit, that makes perfect sense. Thanks.

>>29815728

>why is being small a bad thing in regards to ejecting?

The danger is that you over-accelerate and snap your neck like Goose in Top Gun.

>>29815752
Kek, that fucking list.

Doesn't even dignify a proper respnse.

>Can target APCs!

Yeah, like every other aircraft flying.

>>29815774

Not with the efficiency of the A-10.

>>29815752
>The ability to safely conduct close air support beneath low cloud ceilings and in reduced visibilities at low airspeeds in the presence of the air defenses found with enemy ground maneuver units.
No, they learned that the hard way when they let A-10s go low for gun runs on Republican guard units and lost 3 in a day.

>>29815620
Hope you're aware American tanks fire German cannons and grunts run around with Belgian machine guns

>>29815789
>Not with the efficiency of the A-10.
No, pretty much every aircraft that can carry guided munitions can kill things just as well as the A-10 can.

>>29815789
Its a list of shitty reasons that aren't even true, anon.

Let it go.

>>29815752

A-10 is outdated and built around a weapons system that no longer makes sense on the modern battlefield.

Look, I think it's cool too, but when half of its payload and airframe space is taken up by an obsolete weapons system that's impossible to de-integrate from the airframe, it's time for a new plane.

>>29815804
>>29815814
>>29815815
>>29815822

Time and time again, ground troops from air controllers to ordinary grunts to pilots have unanimously testified that no other plane can do what the A-10 does.

I agree that it is technically obsolete but that's because the Air Force always puts it last in line for upgrades. All it really needs is better sensors.

>>29815874

You say that as if ground pounders have any idea at all what they're talking about, ever.

The A-10 has psychological effect. That's why FACs and grunts like it.

>>29815891

Part of the Air Force's mission as defined by the Constitution is that they have to provide close air support for the grunts on the ground. The A-10 was created specifically to fill this mandate, to serve the interests of the grunts. So the fact that they say it is the best plane for doing that really does matter.

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

170KB, 575x350px

>>29815874
>Time and time again, ground troops from air controllers to ordinary grunts to pilots have unanimously testified that no other plane can do what the A-10 does.
>Using ground troop erection counts to determine major procurement decisions

>>29815935
>So the fact that they say it is the best plane for doing that really does matter.

It really, really doesn't.

>>29815935
>The A-10 was created specifically to fill this mandate
Nope, it was designed as a crappy dumb bomb/cluster bomb slinger with a big gun a couple years before the entire Air Force shifted to modern tech and tactics.

>>29815935

The A-10 was designed to kill BMP's and T-54's after a safe environment was created by SEAD and air superiority fighters.

A role that was obsolete pretty shortly after its inception. We already had a bunch of them though because of being scared of commies so we had to figure out a way to use them, and they got shoehorned into a bunch of roles they performed sort of well.

A new aircraft carrying guided weapons and high velocity rocket pods would do what the A-10 is doing now twice as well.

>>29815752
>safely and effectively conduct troops-in-contact/danger close missions.....in the presence of air defenses
So can other aircraft. Not to mention that using its gun is inherently more dangerous and using guided munitions is something any other aircraft can do. As for the air defenses part, well look at Iraq.
>The ability to effectively target and destroy moving, camouflaged, or dug-in troops, artillery, armor, and armored personnel carriers.
Not unique to the A-10.
>>The ability to engage, target, and destroy tanks and armored personnel carriers, including with respect to the carrying capacity of armor-piercing weaponry, including mounted cannons and missiles.
Carrying missiles is not unique to it and the cannon is pretty much useless against modern tanks.
>The ability to remain within visual range of friendly forces and targets to facilitate responsiveness to ground forces and minimize re-attack times.
So can other planes. Other faster planes that can return and re-arm far quicker than the A-10.
>The ability to safely conduct close air support beneath low cloud ceilings and in reduced visibilities at low airspeeds in the presence of the air defenses found with enemy ground maneuver units.
Low air speeds+air defenses=one crippled/downed A-10.
>The capability to enable the pilot and aircraft to survive attacks stemming from small arms, machine guns, man-portable air-defense systems, and lower caliber anti-aircraft artillery organic or attached to enemy ground forces and maneuver units.
If you're being hit by small arms, you're doing it wrong. Other aircraft avoid the manpad problem and light artillery by not flying low at 300 knots, which is retarded.
>The ability to deliver multiple lethal firing passes and sustain long loiter endurance to support friendly forces throughout extended ground engagements.
So can other aircraft, if you're looking for better loiter time, use a helicopter.

Can't believe I bothered. Where'd you copy and paste this shit from?

>>29815620
dude. that same company makes the AA system that protects the white house.
they are partnered with raytheon on the american missile stuff anyways, (jsm and nsm)

>>29815935
Fucking hell.
CLOSE AIR SUPPORT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE SUPPORTING AIRCRAFT TO BE CLOSE TO THE GROUND, THE TARGET OR FRIENDLY TROOPS.

IT PERTAINS TO THE CLOSENESS OF FRIENDLIES TO THE TARGET.

Fuck me, why do people keep cocking that up.

>>29815935
>the Air Force's mission as defined by the Constitution

>>29816070
Because they see "close" and herp so hard they derp.

>>29815935
>Constitution was ratified in 1789
>Air Force was founded in 1947

I mean, the rest of your post was dumb too, but this stuck out at me.

>>29816090
I really rustles my jimmies.

>>29816043
To be clear, I'm agreeing with you here, on effectively all points. I do love me the A-10, in a old hunting dog sort of way. Newer pups are going to do the job better, and eventually you gotta put the dog down.

Just about every single thing the guy your answering could be covered by other series aircraft. F-15 has a remarkable payload, gets there fast as hell, has some loiter time left, and can carry pretty much the entire AF stores load. Standard manpads can't do shit against a 15 at speed/altitude, and at altitude, the only system that the 15 is no longer able to effectively employ is the gun.

The only quibble I have is centered more around cost of maintenance and support from a cost/flying hour perspective.

Looked at through the lens of cost per hour, is the A-10 worth keeping around as a low intensity airframe to reduce flight hours on other, legacy conventional aircraft with much higher costs of operation, that can do the 10's job in more dangerous environments?

I use the 15 as an example because of my personal experience ordinance side with both the 10/15.

File: 132516ngo9uolllxdlt19g.jpg (198KB, 1260x1112px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1260x1112px

By the time the last F-35 is delivered, China already has their 6th gen fighter ready.

>>29816198
It's a cool aircraft, unfortunately that's not a reason to keep it in service.

The cost isn't either. It's only going to get more expensive and they don't even make them anymore, so you're going to have to individually craft new parts when/if you've run out of spares. Not to mention that its maintenance is going to become more and more expensive, the older it gets.
Really though, cost shouldn't come into it all that much, you can afford to replace it.

>>29816245
I love how these threads are always filled with china stronk faggots

That is why these threads will always continue to be shit

>>29816245
They're behind the JSF program, let alone the F/A-X program.

File: A6-Low.jpg (47KB, 1047x424px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1047x424px

The A10 isn't the end all and be-all of CAS aircraft. This one would have probably been better to keep around in fact - it already had excellent sensors.

I'm concerned about the F35 but even more concerned about making the A10 into a meme plane. This isnt about the A10, it's about the F35 being shoehorned into an important role that it's ill equipped to play.

>>29816247
Oh, cool factor isn't in the equation for me here.

As the data is a pain in the dick to get, because the services don't have any interest in transparency on how much it costs to keep the fleets in the air... Google is the source, and depending on that info, the 10 runs between 2-14k per hour. The average next cheapest manned combat fixed wing aircraft is pushing between 14-27k per hour. With most active frames accumulating 300+ hours per year and demanding a major maintenance cycle at least once, CPFH is not an inconsiderable metric to track.

Since there is already a sunk cost, a parts stockpile, and several years worth of pilots for most all legacy combat aircraft, I don't see the ballooning cost of maintenance making them cost ineffective within anything sooner than the next 10 years.

That said, the numbers are NOT reliable for the CPFH for the new frames. The 22s are rumored to be over 52k/hour, and the 35s are already pushing 70k. With those numbers, having less capable (read: not necessarily the A-10) aircraft to reduce the cost seems valid?

Am I missing something here in the concept, or is there economic factors I'm missing that makes the projected CPFH vs actual quoted make full replacement immediately viable/desired?

>>29816331
Except the F-35 isn't ill equipped for CAS. It can carry a number of SDBs, has that insane sensor... thing on the nose (sniper pod, I think but I'm not sure) and a friend of mine who worked for Lockheed (he is an engineer and former F-14 guy) told me that they were/are working on even smaller anti-personnel bombs that were laser guided for CAS.

>>29816331

>it's about the F35 being shoehorned into an important role that it's ill equipped to play.

And what's that?

>>29816245
Not sure if this is right place to ask but
What's up with US and China

>>29816271
No, no....that is just one reason these threads will always be shit.
The main reason is that they're posted in the first place.

>>29816389
China is a nascent global power trying to flex its muscles in the Pacific. That immediately puts them at odds with the US because it makes the Chinese a destabilizing element.

>>29816378
Maintenance costs shouldn't be a factor in 5th generation aircraft, you're the USA, not Uganda or Belarus etc, you can afford to maintain the F-35, the money you'd saving keeping a few hundred A-10's about isn't worth the hassle, it really isn't.

>>29813004
A reminder that the guy that wrote the report also said this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDJzgqZ4bKg

File: F-35 the best.png (377KB, 1198x800px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1198x800px

>>29816393
This thread is no longer shit.

>>29816402
And how does China do that? I heard something about debt, but I have no clue how World Debt works, and you don't hear China very often in the news, doing something or going somewhere
Sorry for the ignorance

>>29816430
It's not even about A-10's costing less, its the fact that maintaining 3-4 different supply chains up are always going to be more expensive than keeping a single large chain. That's the biggest, and most ambitious goal of the JSF, it's a logistics thing. ALIS being the cornerstone of that logistical feat.

>>29816451
>anime
>making it good
No, its still shite my friend.
Maybe if it was some good 80's anime, Royal Space Force or Grave of the Firefly's, not that degenerate new shit.

>>29816507

FHS is Korean not Japanese it is not Anime.

>>29816459
The debt is less of a factor than you think. The Japanese own more of US debt that China and China is so dependent on us for trade they don't dare think about collecting.

They flex their muscle with their navy which has been built up a fair bit in the last twenty years. They harass US Navy ships, try and assert territorial claims that violate international law, and make themselves a nuisance wherever they can.

>>29816459
China owns around $1.5 trillion of the total $19 trillion of US debt.

>>29816459
>China sends ships and planes into the South China Sea to start pointless pissing matches
>dumb proles concentrate on the evil white imperialists instead of their own shitty government
>the foreign policy situation of the PRC worsens significantly, but nobody in charge cares because Chinese leaders spend all of their time figuring out how to control China, everything else is icing

>>29815137
l-lewd!

>>29816551
So china is tied up to US
And US is kinda tied up to China?

>>29816489
A very good point there, one that I should have considered. Simplifying your supply chains is always a good thing.
>>29816521
Meh, it all the looks the same to me.

>>29816489
Fair enough. My understanding of how Supply is... well... supplied, is weaker than it should be. Different house, not my job situation. I'll add it to my shit to get educated on list.

Quick google is already pushing beyond my drunk capability to understand, but the raw numbers are... disheartening for the validity of maintaining multiple legacy systems for anything other than no shit goddamned real reasons.

One last question for the non fuckheaded: Current airframe numbers and expected final procurement numbers do not match 1to1. There are no projected expansions to the force. This means higher ops tempo, higher/longer deployment rate and more flight hours per airframe in order to keep aircraft that already have a much higher maintenance backend flying.

Does the new supply system that's projected for the 35 (and isn't implemented for the 22) make up for this? Does the new system have the possibility that it will make up the higher manpower per hour flown cost that these frames are currently experiencing?

Or am I just too stuck on the maintenance backend and need to schlep my drunk ass to bed?

>>29816575
>>29816596
That sounds like china trying to look cool to their mother, with pocket money their mother gave, right?

>>29816607
Kinda sorta. This explains better than I can.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080615/china-owns-us-debt-how-much.asp

>>29816635
Thanks a lot to you, for your time!

>>29816627
More or less, except they have a lot of pocket money.

China's economy is the second largest in the world now, and they've been ramping up military spending rapidly.

The good news is that it makes it easier for the US to operate in the region, because now everyone is turning to the US orbit rather than the Chinese.

The downside is that there's always the possibility of somebody doing something stupid.

>>29816646
No problem, fampai

>>29816607
You fail to understand, every major country is tied together through corporations and banks with no boarders. If you think WWIII is gonna happen before the earth's oil or food supply completely runs out, you are a fucktarded fool. Every top country's elite-upper class is in bed with each other, and they do not want any sort of disturbance to their comfy extravagant lifestyle.

My real question is what is going on with Africa and Antarctica.

>>29816247
>The cost isn't either. It's only going to get more expensive and the manufacturer doesn't exist anymore
FTFY

>>29816624
I'd stop fixating on maintenance, the A-10 will end up being a money pit if they leave it, the airframes will get older, they'll fail more often and parts will have to be manufactured as bespoke items, it'll be a nightmare.

>>29816659
Antarctica has a fair few treaties, etc protecting it for now. Africa is massive and ripe for the taking though, which is why China has been investing heavily in it. As soon as cheap renewable energy and global internet comes around, Africa will start becoming less of a shithole and opening a ton of economic opportunities.

>>29816459
China is actually involved more and more all around the globe.
Aside from having ever stronger grip on south east Asia they also throw their weight around Africa, Middle east, eastern Europe and even anglosphere countries like Australia and Canada. Their military is also going round the world.

>>29816666
Yeah, I should have been more concise and just put that, apologies.....

>>29816383
>SDBs
It needs SDBIIs, it's supposed to have had them already, last I saw they say hopefully by 2022....

File: 1439751841352.jpg (46KB, 691x624px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 691x624px

>>29813004

>Not creating the ultimate meme air force with a high-low mix of Silent Eagles and Textron Scorpions.

>>29816799
>it's supposed to have had them already
How is that when the SDB II is still in development?

>>29816245

But how can they build a 6th gen if we haven't designed one yet?

>>29814749
soo basically, what you are saying is, you are a 35 fan boi and despite a congressional hearing calling the 35 a POS, all this fail is normal and we should stay the course no matter how overinflated the program becomes?

>>29816850
See >>29816450
Same guy that wrote the report also believes the F-35 is super important

>>29816845

The characteristics of what defines a 6th gen fighter haven't even been established yet.

All we have is vague ideas like variable bypass engines, laser defenses, cyber-warfare resistance, etc.

>>29816874

Tone doesn't come through very well in text format.

It was supposed to be a "how can China pretend to build something when we don't even have it to steal?" Meme.

>>29816869
honestly, from my perspective the 35 seems like a great airplane that got fucked up like the manned mars mission.
>Man on Mars mission
concept is this:
>use off the shelf tech to get a man on Mars by 2015 (sic)
>similar to lunar program
>simple, effective, ready to go in a short ammount of time as cheaply as is safely compatible.
>rocket goes up, heads straight to Mars, lands, returns
what ended up happening as soon as NASA got the green light
>every pet project wants in
>plan now has added space port
>and moon base
>and moon minning operation
>and midway refueling point
>and robots
>and...well you get the point
basically everyone managed to get their fingers into the pot and caised the budget to bloat to the point where the whole mission got scrapped.

I see shit like this all the time. Civilian contractors get jobs Soldoers could do cheaper. The 35 is just the airforce version. Too many soecial prods thrown in

>>29817005

>off the shelf tech

That's where you fucked up.

Nothing in the JSF program is off the shelf. It was all cutting edge developing or experimental tech that was flushed out specifically for the plane and other programs that will inevitably piggyback off the JSF program.

The JSF program is *creating* the next generation of off the shelf tech. That's what this is. The LRSB is going to use a ton of F-35 tech, same with the F/A-X program.

The F-35 is the breakout program to establish tech to be used for 5th gen fighters and next gen bombers for the US and it's allies globally.

>>29816799
You know that the IIs are a far more expensive, specialized version primarily for engaging moving targets, right?

>>29816850
>Non-final software version has issues
OH NOES!

>>29817060
Huh. Pity that there wasn't an already existing program for that. With lower cost per unit. Using 70% of existing stockpile items. Reducing effective unit cost even more. GBU-54 say what?

Smartassery aside, the SDB II is getting 4 per large unit position on the racks/bays, and is about as effective as the -54 on a per unit accuracy rate. Of course, we have one now, and the other is looking like another decade for full rollout.

>>29815588
The entire A-10 fleet was expected to be shot down in a week if they were used in a general war in Europe.

>>29817005
What does a manned mars mission have to do with the F-35??

>>29817058
but didnt we already have the F-22?
Besides, off the shelf wasnt the point, it was that "you cant be everything to everyone." If you want a Gen 5 F/A airplane, take what works with Gen 4 and improve, dont re-invent the wheel as ot were.
Christ the multi-role aircraft is essentially a meme at this point. CAN an F-16 do CAS better than an A-10? PROBABLY! But all the F-16's are busy doing other missions so the A-10 is the one that usually does the CAS.

File: pierre-sprey-575px.jpg (28KB, 575x350px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 575x350px

> A rich corrupt LockheedMartin project manager was giving a conference presentation on over-budget and poorly designed 5th generation fighters.

> "Before this presentation begins, you must get on your knees and praise SVTOL and accept that no price is too high or delays too long for the F-35!"

> At this moment, a highly experienced, genius, pro-CAS aerospace engineer who designed multiple military aircraft and understood the necessity of high maneuverability and flying slow enough to hang around ground troops stood up and spoke.

> "How many different kinds of missions should a fighter aircraft be able to perform, you turkey?"

> The LockMart shill smirked quite bureaucratically and smugly replied "How ever many each separate branch of the military needs, you stupid luddite."

> "Wrong. As Soon As You Go To Design A Multi-Mission Airplane You're Sunk."

> The project manager was visibly shaken, and dropped his powerpoint laser pointer and multiple bags of pork barrel kickback money. He stormed out of the room crying those shill crocodile tears. The same tears F-35 fanboys cry for the whole of the military industrial complex (who today live in such luxury that most own unsolicited R&D programs). He wished so much that he had a gun to shoot himself, but the F-35's tiny gun is too small for it to kill him!

> The other attendees applauded and all petitioned to keep the A-10 indefinitely that day and accepted the Mig 21 and F-16 as the best fighters to have ever been created. An eagle named “Single purpose” flew into the room and perched atop the projector and shed a tear on the conference swag. The mantra "Stealth is a scam!" was read several times, and WWII radar operators showed up themselves and set up long wavelength radar to guard american skies for all time.

> The shill lost his position at LockMart and was fired the next day. He died of a cholesterol-fueled heart attack like the corporate fat cat pig that he was.

>>29817131
>hey look! They have money!
>lets get it!
I am saying the F-35 program is being used to try out new shit when proven shit is around

File: CloseAirSupport_chart2B[1].jpg (331KB, 595x1382px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 595x1382px

>>29817156
>If you want a Gen 5 F/A airplane, take what works with Gen 4 and improve, dont re-invent the wheel
That's more or less what they did. They looked at what worked on 4th gens, cut away the useless stuff like Mach 2 top speeds and upgraded all the stuff that was important like radar and embedded targeting.

>But all the F-16's are busy doing other missions so the A-10 is the one that usually does the CAS.
Wrong

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

288KB, 1236x888px

>>29817171

>>29817116
You can't launch a laser JDAM from 45 NMI out. You can't coordinate targeting on an entire 8-bomb volley at a convoy over a 2-way link. SDB-II is pretty fucking awesome, but the I model is cheaper and more flexible for most applications.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ff3fKXx50Zs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyaIrhGrCzo

>>29813004
>inb4 past programs sucked so it's okay if this one sucks as well

>>29816245
how can they possibly have a 6th gen fighter read when have no working 5th gens and are have difficulties with G4.5s? also

>6th gen
>cockpit
top kek

File: guesswho.gif (10KB, 600x694px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 600x694px

>>29817118
> shilling to cancel the A-10
Good little goy, 3 shekels have been deposited into your account for helping to weaken the Aryan race.

>>29813382
But literally nothing was said but a random image macro.

>>29817156

No, B-1Bs do most of the CAS, theN F-16s and F-15Es, then A-10s

Also, if we keep churning out Super Duper Hornets and F-15Qs eventually, in a long time albeit, we will be eclipsed.

You continue to innovate and create because that's what keeps us competitive and dominant in the field.

Nobody running a marathon and winning goes "nah man, I'm gonna slow to a brisk walk.. or a crawl.. fuck it I'll sit down"

The F-22 is over 20 years old now, with 20 year old tech. It is NOT a 5th gen.

The F-22 when created was top of the line, cutting edge and experimental tech, and you admit it is good, even after the "oh noes it suffocates pilots and can't fly in the rain" memes everyone that hates the F-35 forgets. Now all of a sudden bleeding edge tech is bad?

>>29814166
>T-trust me guys! It's all fine!

File: 1447438414079.jpg (12KB, 258x245px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 258x245px

>>29817171
>He wished so much that he had a gun to shoot himself, but the F-35's tiny gun is too small for it to kill him

>>29817171
>starts with image lying about credentials
>continues with stale, stupid copypasta that was retarded when it was fresh

>>29816844
The original timeline has been pushed back multiple times. Currently it's being loaded on F-15s for testing and should be available on the F-15 for combat use next year, but deploying it on the F-35 is delayed until at least 2022 because the necessary computer programming won't be available until (at least) then.

>>29817060
You realize that reliably engaging moving targets is one of the A10 capabilities we're concerned about losing?

>>29814282
That doesn't sound like the description of a weapon to me. Sounds more like someones hobby project.

>>29814502
Who are you quoting mr. Autist?

>>29817277
>You realize that reliably engaging moving targets is one of the A10 capabilities we're concerned about losing?
You realize that the F-35's computer-controlled gun will likely be even better at that task?

And if you mean any of the other ordinance you are super full of shit.

>>29817277
>Implying that LGBs and cannons on other aircraft don't exist

>>29814815
>sourced straight from the US senate committee report on the F-35
>HURDUR RUSSIAN VATNIK SHILL LIES LIES PROPAGANDA

>>29817254
The US dominates through budget, not innovation or anything like that
If anything the US greatly lacks in innovation.

>>29815164
>affects 23-27% of pilot population
>"literally one pilot!"

>>29817328
>this illiterate

>>29817313

>maintains the, hands down, most advanced arsenal in the world
>lacks innovation

Yeah okay stupid. Have anything else to lower my IQ with?

>>29817328
>23% death probability upon ejection for light pilots
>affects 23-27% of pilot population
Only 1 pilot out of ~200 was a lightweight <136lb pilot.

File: meme military.png (274KB, 430x322px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 430x322px

>>29817313

>If anything the US greatly lacks in innovation.

Compared to what?

>>29817241
In a conflict against the Soviets, the Air force expected at least 50% loss rates for their A-10s. Today, with even more lethal MANPADS and self propelled anti air systems, it would be even higher. Take your /pol/ memes elsewhere, faggot.

>>29816271
This is obviously a troll.

>>29817363
To be specific, they expected the entire A-10 fleet to be dead after 2 weeks.

>>29817313

So if we lack in innovation so much why are you arguing for us to be even less innovative?

You've got to be Chinese or Russian or something. Seriously.

>>29815395
No, high level languages can't, though it has to do more with programming practices and quality assurance than the language used.

>>29816271
This is obviously a troll. >>29816648
>The good news is that it makes it easier for the US to operate in the region,

Not really. Our alliances are the exact same as they have always been in the region. And we were based in Japan, Korea, and Australia already.

>because now everyone is turning to the US orbit rather than the Chinese.

No. Vietnam is about the only nation that has moved closer to America militarily. The rest are still overtly neutral. But... In a few years if China keeps being retarded the rest may follow.

>>29817218
Oh thank fuck, someone who actually has some data.

Without going into the standard opsec arguments and who has more seecrut squirral infos dat dey can talk abouts...

The SDB I does have a much longer standoff range, and a similar CEP window to the 54, with a similar cost per unit. The 54 does not require a specialized load/support rack with its own attendant cost/maintenance issues, and has broader legacy airframe support. For an interim weapon system, the 54 is my clear pick for the current operations. Long term, the SDB/AGM style is the route we're going, for good or bad.

The cost per unit argument really comes into play when the difference is more than just 5-10k per unit. The complete 54 is about 34k, SDB 1 is 40k, SDB II is 250k.

Jegus. Fuck. Single sortie with a 35 running a total of 8x SDB II+2x A2A that runs a fairly standard CAS mission expend of 50% is going to run a cool 1 Mill USD for A2G. Full stick of 54s is 4 (by google) and runs just under 200k. Fine. Multiply by multiple AC, multiple AC per day, by number of days in expected to support. That 6x greater cost per unit adds up quick, leading to a further ballooning cost of operations

>>29817377
Pretty much this. The Soviets would be devastated, sure. But there'd be no more A-10s

>>29817233
>how can they possibly have a 6th gen fighter read when have no working 5th gens

Ummm.... Have you been reading the news recently?

>and are have difficulties with G4.5s?

As much as other nations have and are having, so, not really. They have a number of 4.5 gen planes.

>>29817436
Isn't the $250,000 cost for the SDB II only for early production lots though? I'd assume they could get a fair bit cheaper once they're going into full scale production

>>29817308
>Conflating "this is the current list of issues to resolve" with "hurr durr broken forever!"

>>29817306
When? 2018? 2022? 2025 when we have a significant amount of F-35's?

If we retired the A-10 in 2008 like the Air Force originally wanted, there would be some serious gaps in America's CAS defense.

I personally think they should be retired once 100 or so of the replacements (F-35A) have reached true operational capacity (not IOC). That would mean about 2019-2020.

File: dont-change-the-subject.jpg (91KB, 335x335px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 335x335px

>>29817306
The F-35 carries a 25mm cannon with a cyclical rate of 3300rpm and will carry no more than 220 rounds of ammo (less on the AF version.) That's about 4 seconds of fire before it is out of ammo.

By comparison, the A10 carries a 30mm with a rate of fire of 3900 rounds per minute and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition - that's more powerful round per round, more rounds per second, and about 5 times the effective firing time.

>>29817307
>feels he is losing the current argument.
>wants to change the subject.

>>29817337
Someone didn't read the report.

>>29817354
I didn't read that in the report. And I read the whole part about that specific issue.

Nonethless, I could be wrong.

But 23-27% is still way more than 1 pilot as the anon I responded to said was at risk.

>>29817422
Picking the right language is no guarantee of proper programming practices, but picking the wrong language is a certain guarantee you won't get it.

>>29817513
Hasn't happened yet with the previous generations of production AURs and kit mod packs. Look at the CP/U for the AGM 154/158. The JDAM series has seen a small reduction in cost, adjusted for garage math into an approximate 20% reduction in cost per unit now vs the initial 1990s production models.

I'd be amazed (and pleased) if the SDB II made it into sustainment production for 200k.

>>29817527
Who are you quoting mr. Autist?

See, I responded to an anon responding to OP. And no where did our posts have to do with what you are quoting.

>>29817281
>autist
This, along with 'cuck', is one of the must incorrectly used words on here.

>>29817535
You do realse that the 220 rounds in the F-35 will be more effective than the 1000+ on the A-10 due to it being vastly more accurate, right?
There's a reason the A-10 needs a 1,000+ rounds and that's to guarantee a hit.

Really though, this is a small point since guns aren't as good at performing CAS as other munitions.

>>29817531
There's already 171 built, and LRIP-9 is building 55 US and 21 for foreign buyers. LRIP 10 is expecting 96 built. And FRP-1 is planned to be 107. There'll be 2.5x as many F-35s as F-22s built once all three services are already deep into the IOC process.

File: 1448321675814.jpg (67KB, 787x544px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 787x544px

>>29817535

Even for the A-10, the gun is just a back-up weapon in case it runs out of bombs. The range is too short for that to be its primary means of engaging targets.

If we're talking about a conflict against an actual military (not terrorists) then F-35 is simply more valuable than the A-10 as an overall package. If you isolate certain characteristics, you can point out areas where the A-10 is better. But if you look at the whole deal together, the F-35 (or any other modern general-purpose fighter such as the Mirage 2000) is better.

>>29817559
Back in real world, you have to use what you can get.

F-35 uses mostly C/C++ not because they were a good choice, but because they couldn't find suitable programmers for their ridiulous esolangs. I wonder how many autists it took to write the asm portion of F35's software.

>>29817535
>The F-35 carries a 25mm cannon with a cyclical rate of 3300rpm and will carry no more than 220 rounds of ammo (less on the AF version.) That's about 4 seconds of fire before it is out of ammo.
>By comparison, the A10 carries a 30mm with a rate of fire of 3900 rounds per minute and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition - that's more powerful round per round, more rounds per second, and about 5 times the effective firing time.
>I don't know what computer-controlled bursts are

>>29817591
Then what should I use to describe someone who reads something I didn't say?

Autists are known for interpreting written language into completely incorrect meanings, and then getting irrationally angry about it.

>>29817577
Newfag detected.

File: 6233.gif (3MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x225px

>>29817645
>Then what should I use to describe someone who reads something I didn't say?
>Implying greentext is used only for direct quotes
>Implying you aren't a newfag

File: image.jpg (36KB, 640x656px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 640x656px

>>29817619
Sorry but gonna need a source.

>>29817623
In 2020 there will be 106 F-35A's in operational capacity.
And no, IOC is not true operational capacity in my book. If the plane can't use half its designed weapons, it's not truly operational.

>>29817645
Well I'd just call a person who does that an idiot or too impatient to read the full post. I don't think you know what an autism is.

Anyway, in response to your point I was replying to the green text in the OP referring to problems then I was making an [attempted] humorous jab at the inevitable wave of anti-F-35 retards who'd jump on something completely normal for an aircraft this new as meaning its utter dogshit.

>>29817673
So we'll still have 293 more 5th Gen planes in service than anybody else.

>>29817656
No argument detected.

>>29817670
>literally putting quotation marks around what was supposely said
>"B-but it w-wasn't literally a quotation mommmmyyyyy"

Faggot detected

File: gross.png (123KB, 622x375px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 622x375px

>>29813004
The F-35 is FAT.

A true American Aircraft.

>muh stealth curves.

FAT

>>29816659
>Antarctica
Recherche bases and a whole lot of nothing, Its still too damn cold and too damn far away to economically extract anything from the region. The Arctic is far more interesting geopolitically, since its a lot closer to populated areas and its resources are better explored. Its still not economic to do much there yet, but its a decade or two away as opposed to quite some time for the antarctic

>>29817673
>computer controlled
>its more accurate than a person
>I NEED PROOFS
Common sense motherfucker, do you have it?

>>29817689
>because older programs developments were shit, it's okay that this one is shit

I hate this "argument"

File: fat.jpg (31KB, 622x375px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 622x375px

>>29817694
Further illustration.

>>29817693
Yep, new as a fucking baby. Where's you get here from, reddit? War Is Boring? Web Brigades?

>>29817694
>Landing gear bay
>Helps boost body lift
>Implying you aren't completely retarded

>>29817693
No, I don't think you understand how greentext works mate, just lurk for a few more months then maybe start making the odd post.
Jumping in fresh like you have just makes you look like a drooling, piss reeking retard, which is best avoided.

File: fatass.png (62KB, 622x375px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 622x375px

>>29817723
>>29817728
For the slow children.

>>29817691
You're literally moving the goalposts.

I said if the Air Force retired the A-10 in 2008 like it wanted, now after all the F-35 delays the US CAS capability would have a couple gaps.

I'm not saying we won't have a lot more 5th gen than other nations.

In a way, Congress being retarded baby boomers paid off.

>>29817714
I think you've replied to the incorrect person.

>>29817738
How incredibly persuasive. Two different aircraft have different designs. I'm convinced.

>>29817708
Are you actually telling me the A-10 gun is not computer controlled ? Because that's what this post implied>>29817619

>>29817619
>You do realse that the 220 rounds in the F-35 will be more effective than the 1000+ on the A-10 due to it being vastly more accurate, right?

That's the theory. I'm not the only one that is skeptical of it.

>There's a reason the A-10 needs a 1,000+ rounds and that's to guarantee a hit.

No it needs 1000+ rounds to be able to exploit it's long loiter time. It can stay in the area and provide support, which is exactly what it was designed to do and what we want it to do, but it needs sufficient ammo to keep fighting throughout the mission or is there is no point, see?

>>29817631

Ah the endless circle of F-35 apologetics. It doesn't carry the best missiles, and not many of the ones it does carry' 'It doesn't matter it's got a better gun when it runs out of missiles' 'well, no, it's a good gun but it's not as powerful and it has a lot less ammo' 'it doesn't need a gun, it has missiles'

:facepalm:

The F35 or any modern multi-role like the Mirage 2000 is better at A2A, yes. The A10 isn't supposed to do A2A. It does CAS, period.

The F-35 is sold as the fighter that does it all, so it's not unfair to expect it to really do it all, and it's just more goal-post shifting for you to jump in at this point in the conversation and want to talk about A2A instead, that's just stupid.

>>29817633
Good programmers are hard to find, it's true. But there is no substitute. Thinking you can just use C++ guys instead because they are cheaper is absolutely boneheaded full retard bullshit. It doesn't matter how cheap they are, you're going to give 10 times as many programmers 100 times as many man-hours as you would have needed to do the job right, but you'll never get the job done right. It cannot be done right without proper tools.

And the utter absurdity is worth pointing out. This is a project with a total cost estimated at over 1.5 TRILLION dollars, and they can't afford to pay real programmers to write their code?

Doesn't pass the sniff test anon.

>>29817723
>Body is just as wide
>No diverterless supersonic intakes
>Barely more fuel than an F-16 to feed twice the engines
>Only uses special snowflake frog munitions

File: 1458066097222.jpg (825KB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

825KB, 2560x1920px

>>29817764
One has a sexy design. The other has a FAT design.

File: F-14 vs F-35Csplit.png (320KB, 1794x1103px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1794x1103px

>>29817551
There is only 1 pilot not allowed to fly the F-35, as there was only 1 pilot (a male) that weighed <136lb.

The 27% of pilots that have a 23% of fatality are for pilots that are in the mid-light range. They're not prevented from flying because a 23% fatality / serious neck injury rate is only about 1.5x that of a conventional flight seat (~15%).

>>29817619
>the 220 rounds in the F-35 will be more effective than the 1000+
That's uncertain / unlikely. Both guns are rated for a 5 milliradian / 80% dispersion. The F-35's software might help, but there's only so much you can do. The F-35's gun will be effective (maybe twice as many rounds will land on target as with the A-10), but I find it unlikely it'll be as useful (as useful as aircraft cannons go) as the A-10's GAU-8.

>>29817673
Does it really matter when Block 3F arrives ~12 months after IOC?
Also
>Implying F-35Bs, F-35Cs and partner nations F-35s won't exist

>>29817748
Nope

Here's the post>>29817689
>the inevitable wave of anti-F-35 retards who'd jump on something completely normal for an aircraft this new as meaning its utter dogshit.

>>29817744
The A-10 retiring today wouldn't really leave any gaps. It's been outdated ever since Creech's tactical reforms, and clumsily shoehorned into use so it's not a paperweight in the budget.

>>29817728
If you are going to greentext in response to someone, either it is to quote them, or you're being a total faggot only sowing more hate and idiocy on 4chan.

>>29817734
I know perfectly well how it works. I've seen faggots use it improperly hundreds of times.

Doesn't make me a newfag when anons like this one>>29814815
use greentext improperly to showcase their butthurt.

File: Fairchild_Republic_A-10A_Thunderbolt_II_cockpit_USAF.jpg (276KB, 1746x1189px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1746x1189px

>>29817772
It's not. The A-10A didn't even have self-compensating gunsights, while the GAU-22 with have burst control and the ability to optimize POA based on all of the sensor data from the F-35.

>>29817785
>There is only 1 pilot not allowed to fly the F-35, as there was only 1 pilot (a male) that weighed <136lb.
>The 27% of pilots that have a 23% of fatality are for pilots that are in the mid-light range. They're not prevented from flying because a 23% fatality / serious neck injury rate is only about 1.5x that of a conventional flight seat (~15%).

Oh and surely that means there won't be more?

Just because one person is currently extremely affected, does not mean only 1 will be affected as the original anon said.

>>29817783
What, are you gay or something? The F-35 is sexy.

>>29817775
>This is a project with a total cost estimated at over 1.5 TRILLION dollars
Out to 2065. Versus $4t for legacy aircraft.

But hey, good to know we can ignore everything you say because you're trotting that tired meme out.

>>29817775
>Thinking you can just use C++ guys instead because they are cheaper is absolutely boneheaded full retard bullshit.
I said nothing about cost...? What the fuck is wrong with F35 threads?

The problem is precisely the polar opposite of that. They simply can't find enough QUALIFIED programmers to work with their ridiculously rare esolangs.

If they could use any shitty programmer as their workforce, they'd probably have the whole plane, including its OS, written in brainfuck by now.

>>29817785
>Does it really matter when Block 3F arrives ~12 months after IOC?

Planned to. No guarantees, at least according to this official report.
And Block 3F does not provide operational capability to even 70% of the weapons.

>Implying F-35Bs, F-35Cs and partner nations F-35s won't exist

??? What's your point ???? Are Israeli F-35's gonna be blowing up Russian tanks in Poland???

>>29817856
There won't be because the fixes are arriving by November this year; in the mean time they just simply won't stream any super light pilots towards F-35s.

>>29817843
This belongs on /d/.

>>29817857
Gross.

>>29817825
>If you are going to greentext in response to someone, either it is to quote them, or you're being a total faggot only sowing more hate and idiocy on 4chan.
>Still newfagging it up.

>>29817772
Yes.
>>29817775
>it needs less than 60 seconds worth of fire for its long loiter time
No, it needs it because its inaccurate.
>which is what it was designed to do
Except that it wasn't, its design origins have been discussed countless times, I don't feel the need to tell you again, educate yourself.
>>29817788
Oh sorry, its just that you put
>because older programs developments were shit, it's okay that this one is shit
When what I said can be summed up as
>every single new military vehicles has had teething problems at the start, it isn't something to sperg about

>>29817869
>versus 4trillion

I mean, since the legacy planes will literally be in peices by then, yeah.

Is that supposed to somehow make the F-35 cost better?

File: 5124521435123.jpg (74KB, 500x373px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 500x373px

>>29817825

>>29817881
>future tense being used without qualifying words

Suspicious in F-35 threads

>>29817890
>using greentext improperly to showcase my butthurt is okay because I say so

>>29817785
>>29817813
Single engine planes should not be this comparable to the F-14 and F-15

>>29817913
It can be assumed similar $4t cost levels or higher with separate programs instead of the JSF. And this is important, that's at the very high end of an 800b-1.5t guesstimate that has never been run on any other fighter before. The fact that you are parroting it as if it's money spent shows your absolute, willful ignorance here.

>>29817904
>every single new military vehicles has had teething problems at the start, it isn't something to sperg about

So because other programs had a lot of programs, it's okay that this one has a lot of problems?

File: F-15A vs F-35A.png (1MB, 2885x1996px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2885x1996px

>>29817879
>Planned to. No guarantees, at least according to this official report.
True, but the threshold date is Jan or Feb 2018. Lockheed will do anything it can to avoid passing that for profit purposes. As it sits though, Block 3i forms most of Block 3F, Block 3F has been 100% written and is in flight test, and there's currently only about 2-4 months of delay anticipated, which may or may not be caught up on (they did it with Block 2B by cutting away optional testing).
>And Block 3F does not provide operational capability to even 70% of the weapons.
Block 3F is defined as the 100% weapons capability. What would 70% be of?

>>29817933
>Suspicious in F-35 threads
It's unavoidable when you're talking about something *in development* (I wish we had italics)

>>29817949
The F-35C indirectly replaces the F-14 (even if the Navy insists the Super Hornet is its successor) and has some similar kinematics (ie range).

File: tumblr_morcmjz5Ob1r3jsrko1_500.jpg (32KB, 460x317px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 460x317px

>>29817933

>>29817904
>every single new military vehicles has had teething problems at the start, it isn't something to sperg about

So because other programs had a lot of programs, it's okay that this one has a lot of problems? >>29817954
>It can be assumed similar $4t cost levels or higher with separate programs instead of the JSF.

Gonna need a source.

And I am someone who jumped in just one post ago.

File: 1443887150055.jpg (66KB, 956x631px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 956x631px

>>29813004
How much does Russia pay to shill against NATO projects these days anyway?

>>29817965
>Block 3F is defined as the 100% weapons capability

What is this definition? Because I can think of a number of US weapons that were planned for the 35 and that will not be ready by then.

Is it a new definition? See I read this back in 2012-2013.

>>29817957

>it's okay that this one has a lot of problems?

Until somebody comes up with a better alternative, yes. I'm sure that with the advantage of hindsight, you could have developed a project plan that would have gone smoother. But it is what it is. There is no turning back now.

>>29817985
>US senate committee official report
>le Vatnik shills ruining my dreams!

>>29817957
>0 crashes
>0 fatalities
>Only 1 minor fire due to now resolved engine failure
>LRIP runs since 4 have all been under the target unit price
>Stuck to the realistic, physically possible schedule
>Implying this hasn't been the best-run fighter program ever

>>29817985
They've got people doing it as a full-time job.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrU1hZxSEXQ

>>29817472
Yes I have, all about how the Chinese are faking it, the planes are shaped wrong, the engines are having obvious problems form the color of the smoke coming out and they are unable to move quickly, agilely or do much of anything well. Mostly on account of the Russians are STILL mad they stole the tech off the Su-27 and didn't pay for it.

Speaking of the Russians, last I heard the T-50/PAK-FA or whatever they are calling it was still having serious issues as well, since making a 5th gen fighter is hard as fuck.

>>29817869
So? Point was there's plenty of money in the budget, there's no excuse for gutting the whole thing rather than pay some old guys a few hundred k to write the goddamn nerve-center of the entire plane so that it works.

>>29817871
Do you work in HR? Because this sounds like the kind of stupidity I expect from HR.

First off there ARE folks out there available to hire that know how to program properly, even if they're massively outnumbered by programmers that don't they do exist, they can be recruited, they can be hired.

Second, even if that were not true, you would without any doubt be better off to hire the same guys they have now but TRAIN them to use the proper tools for the job before they start producing code, instead of having them do it in an inherently unsuitable manner from the start.

>>29818019
Vatnik shills have been shitposting about the F-35 for a year at least

>>29818002
So because we sucked in 1965 when room-sized computers were a thing, it's not okay to complain in 2016 when my Iphone has more processing power?

We haven't progressed at all? Every program is going to have significant delays and problems?
So just don't complain because it happened in the past.

>yo French men
>you're army sucked in 1870, so don't complain about it sucking now
>you guys can't do any better so there's no point!
>tax payers dollars are gonna be wasted no matter what. That is one thing you can guarantee!

>>29817979
>Gonna need a source.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/06/27/massive-cost-estimate-for-fighter-program-is-misleading/#111173fd2452

>>29818024
Well why is the F-35A not operational today like it was supposed to be?

>LRIP runs since 4 have all been under the target unit price

Hahahaaha gonna need a source.

>>29818042
>because some people shill for money, anyone who disagrees with me and posts official sources that disagree with me are boogeymen

>>29818051
>Yes I have, all about how the Chinese are faking it, the planes are shaped wrong, the engines are having obvious problems form the color of the smoke coming out and they are unable to move quickly, agilely or do much of anything well. Mostly on account of the Russians are STILL mad they stole the tech off the Su-27 and didn't pay for it.

You seem to know more about it than the CIA, Janes, and US military analysts.

I would love to see some official reports on the J-20. You sound like you have them. Come on. Post them for everyone please.

>>29813004
>had to restart shit until we figured out what the problem part was

>oyy veyy 27 times!

File: f35%20weapons%20ctol[1].jpg (154KB, 1200x927px)

154KB, 1200x927px

>>29817999
>What is this definition?
The one being used for FOC by a number of services. The USAF will probably be on a version of Block 4 by 2021 / 2022 when they intend to declare FOC, but that's not a requirement.

>I can think of a number of US weapons that were planned for the 35 and that will not be ready by then.
Do you mean this chart? There were earlier weapon charts that indicated it'd carry a heap of different weapons, but those were before the 2011 rebaseline, with a lot / most being cut from Block 3F. Many of them will never be integrated simply because some of those weapons only fill niches / are pretty much obsolete already.

For example, I have no fucking idea why you'd put a Mk-84 ballutes (bombs that deploy high-drag balloons after being dropped) on an F-35, other than to just use them up.

File: IdiAmin_is_amused.gif (2MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x150px

>>29818042
>that ending
every time

>>29817852
>F-16's are longer than F-35's

well that was unexpected

>>29818062

Our tools are better but our goals are more ambitious as well.

>>29817933
the only thing suspicious is the grasping of straws by F-35 detractors

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/04/19/first-light-f-35-helmet-test-success/83230588/

>>29818078
>Well why is the F-35A not operational today like it was supposed to be?
Note I said "physically possible schedule", not "the fairyland one developed right after they got approval to create the final F-35."

>Hahahaaha gonna need a source.
http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Low_Rate_Initial_Production
LRIP 1-3 over target. 4 at target, and LM would've had to eat overage at that lot. 5-8 were consistently falling in price and all below target price.

>because some people shill for money, anyone who disagrees with me and posts official sources that disagree with me are boogeymen
>Implying the Vatnik state-operated propaganda networks aren't real and even have TV channels

File: image.jpg (196KB, 640x1060px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 640x1060px

>>29818073
He cites literally nothing for his claim. He just says it costs $4 trillion.

And he says he's a guy with monetary interest in the F-35 in his first paragraph.

Also, is his claim in this picture bait? Did we actually not have any American pilots killed by hostile planes in Vietnam?

>>29818102
So you're telling me they cut their goals to make it easier for the F-35 to become "fully operational"?

Well. Thank you.

>>29818042
Now that was the type of video youtube was made to deliver directly to my home on demand.

>>29818078
>Well why is the F-35A not operational today like it was supposed to be?

The F-35A is not supposed to be operational yet.

>>29818142
>F-35 flying since 2006
>finally in 2016 the first modified helmet test is "successful"

Wow that's great news!

>>29818160
It's based on the same guesstimate factors used for the trillion number, which in and of itself is questionable in value.

>>29818176
Well, that's certainly a backwards way to interpret that post.

>>29818142
>F-35 flying since 2006
>finally in 2016 the first modified helmet test is "successful"

Wow that's great news!

>>29818144
But the "fairyland" prediction was official until 2012.

>5-8 were consistently falling in price and all below target price.

?????????????????????????????

No where in your source is this "target price" specified.

LM has repeatedly said sub $80 million for a flyaway F-35A in FRP 1 is their target price by the way.

>>29818176
Yep and no worries - I'm well aware that it's not ideal, but when they define operational readiness, they don't ask for a jet to be capable of dropping bomb type A, B, C, ..., Z. Instead, the requirements call for it to be able to do things like destroy moving land or sea targets with PGMs, engage advanced enemy aircraft, etc. If it can do that with GBU-12s instead of GBU-16s, or GBU-31s instead of GBU-10s, or SDBs instead of Brimstones, then that's acceptable.

>>29818184
>F-35 flying since 2006
You mean the test models they built to verify design changes and plan the actual production model?

>>29818182
You seem to be new to this program.

>>29816378
>>2-14k per hour
>300+ hours per year
>laughing MQ-9 sluts.jpg

>>29818197
Which he somehow did on the back of his napkin that morning over a cup of joe?

Also, is his claim in this picture true? Here>>29818160
Because I have multiple sources that say he's wrong. That seems to toss all his claims in this article into suspicion.

>>29818215
>But the "fairyland" prediction was official until 2012.
And it was still based on nothing real.

>No where in your source is this "target price" specified.

>LM has repeatedly said sub $80 million for a flyaway F-35A in FRP 1 is their target price by the way.
Final, full-rate production. The LRIP target prices are stairstepped down towards that goal.

>>29818160
>He cites literally nothing for his claim. He just says it costs $4 trillion.
>if the same assumptions used to project F-35 support costs are applied to legacy aircraft

>>29818220
Yes but even with redundancy and mistakes added in, it is still seemingly 95% of the capability that they originally wanted.

The F-35 program has been consistent delays, goalposts being moved, and redefinitions.
But I still think it is too big to fail.

>>29818251
Goalposts are moving faster than a Mig-31.

File: 1446255761554.jpg (38KB, 736x491px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 736x491px

>>29818184
>>29818215
>I am not a shill

>>29818264
>Yes but even with redundancy and mistakes added in, it is still seemingly 95% of the capability that they originally wanted.
Welcome to the realities of procurement. It's still significantly better than the planes it replaces.

>>29818280
Yes, you are moving them quite quickly.

>>29818255
Ummmm.... He has no source or citation in his entire article. He just claims it with nothing else.

He also makes a factually incorrect claim in this picture>>29818160
which casts all his claims into doubt.

>>29818280
No, no goalposts being moved here, just trying to fill the gaping abyss that is the "things you actually know about the F-35."

>>29818264
> it is still seemingly 95% of the capability that they originally wanted

It is far beyond the 'capabilities originally wanted' in the 90's.

>>29818281
?

>>29818295
Point them out.

Here was your claim>>29818144
>5-8 were consistently falling in price and all below target price.

And there's literally nothing in the source you posted in response to my claim for one on the F-35 target price, that deals with a "target price" for the F-35 LRIP's.

The only target price announced officially is LM's sub-$80 million claim for FRP.

>>29818264
Sure, but they also wanted a jet that cost something like $45 million in today's dollars. The rebaseline changed a lot of that.

>The F-35 program has been consistent delays, goalposts being moved, and redefinitions.
While true, something I've been trying to stress is that 99% of those delays and changes in goalposts happened prior to the rebaseline. Since then, USMC IOC happened on time (even if Gilmore wasn't super happy that they didn't re-enact a WW3 scenario for it), USAF IOC and Block 3F are very likely to fall within their threshold dates.

Also, the only weapons configuration changes that have happened since then was that the British screwed around with the B variant -> C variant -> B variant and forced the British side of the program to move internal ASRAAM integration into Block 4.

Also
>>29818317
This is true; back then they didn't anticipate companies to bring in stuff like the HMDS.

>>29818327
There are internal timelines that costs, etc are meant to align with. I've never seen the ones that correlate with LRIPs, but you can look up the F-35 SARs to see what jets are meant to cost each financial year (just don't get mixed up thinking that (eg) FY17 = LRIP 9 or whatever).

>>29818304
Except the goalposts were definitely moved.

Anon claimed that the LRIP F-35's have been under "target price" for LRIP 5-8.
Here is his post>>29818144

Yet no where in the world has a LRIP unit "target price" been announced.

When I pointed out his lies here>>29818215

He responded with moving the goalposts here>>29818251
and claiming
>The LRIP target prices are stairstepped down towards that goal.

Until he proves this with a source, he has moved the goalposts.

>>29818296
I assume you are referring to the Hornet that was shot down by a SAM but claimed to have been shot down by a MiG-25 in Desert Storm.

>>29818304
Except the goalposts were definitely moved.

Anon claimed that the LRIP F-35's have been under "target price" for LRIP 5-8.
Here is his post>>29818144

Yet no where in the world has a LRIP unit "target price" been announced.

When I pointed out his lies here>>29818215

He responded with moving the goalposts here>>29818251
and claiming
>The LRIP target prices are stairstepped down towards that goal.

Until he proves this with a source, he has moved the goalposts. >>29818360
>There are internal timelines that costs, etc are meant to align with. I've never seen the ones that correlate with LRIPs, but you can look up the F-35 SARs to see what jets are meant to cost each financial year (just don't get mixed up thinking that (eg) FY17 = LRIP 9 or whatever).

And the fact he posted a source that had nothing to do with "target prices" for LRIP shows that I am correct about him making up shit. Unless he has access to information we do not???

Thank you and goodbye.

>>29818374

Dragon029, I humbly request that you occasionally stop by a blog named Snafu-Solomon and work your magic. Your knowledge would be greatly appreciated there.

>>29818363
You need to learn what moving goalposts means if you think that qualifies.

>>29818406
No use, Solomon tends to ban people that disagree with him.

>>29818406
Solomon will just ban him, as he has threatened others like Spudman with when they rain on his parade.