Was the F-35 program a big mistake /k/? I heard recently that

>>30573426
stealth is a meme

>>30573426
I"m more worried about its engine's IR signature being second only to the sun, to be honest.

It replacing the A-10 really triggers me

>>30573508
A-10 a shit

>>30573455
>I"m more worried about its engine's IR signature being second only to the sun, to be honest.

It's probably not all that bad, honestly. The engine core is very similar to the F-22's, and there's only one of them.

File: 4A9OKVO.gif (134KB, 340x340px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 340x340px

>>30573426
F-35 lost to a F-16 in a wargame like a year ago

>It can be detected so it's shit.
What if it greatly increases standoff distance in comparison to legacy aircraft and can engage targets that existing aircraft wouldn't safely be able to?

>>30573580
>hurr durr I'm retarded

>>30573426

>I heard recently that now Russian new radar can see it so there goes stealth.

Which radar(s)? Name it/them.

>>30573455
>>30573532

The F135 is larger in diameter then the F119 and is hotter because it has to produce more thrust. This results in that the F-35 has a large IR plume which is smaller then the F-22A but larger then the F-16, F/A-18 and the Harrier II (Both the American and British versions).

>>30573824
>F-35 has a large IR plume which is smaller then the F-22A but larger then the F-16, F/A-18 and the Harrier II (Both the American and British versions).

Any numbers behind that

File: F-35 Program in a Nutshell.png (412KB, 480x320px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 480x320px

this garbage is bad when it's being forced on every branch to "Save Parts"

File: ORD_MALDs_Loading_Raytheon_lg.jpg (119KB, 1106x768px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1106x768px

>>30573426
Still strong versus X-band radar which means that it will be very hard to shoot it down.
L-band and VHF radars may detect but they lack resolution and altitude data making targeting impossible.
In addition, advanced decoys can be carried by the F-35 which will make things even harder for IADS.

>>30573884
Learned English good you!

File: 1467483668826.gif (208KB, 323x221px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 323x221px

>>30573426

>>30573632
But it can't. Carrying any decent weapons load just ruins its stealth even more, to the point where it's no less visible than a F-16 with the same armaments.

>>30573778
not an argument

>>30574072
>Carrying any decent weapons load just ruins its stealth even more, to the point where it's no less visible than a F-16 with the same armaments.

Not the case at all, my friend.

Nor is it the case that it can be detected outside of standoff range with X-band

Nor is it the case that it isn't VLO/LO enough to operate effectively in conjunction with other SEAD assets to dismantle IADs.

>>30574072
It carries more weapon payload internally than an F-16 can on full combat load.

>>30574072
>But it can't. Carrying any decent weapons load just ruins its stealth even more, to the point where it's no less visible than a F-16 with the same armaments.

>fly in with only internal loadout
>destroy radars who are unable to lock you up in time
>second wave comes in just behind you loaded to the brim and blasts the fuck out of the targets
>sail a carrier up the river of F-35 hater tears

File: 1467478427446.jpg (117KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 720x960px

This has probably been answered in one of the daily fucking threads about this plane, but I thought the F-22 was the best we had. Maybe Transformers and knowledge from 5 years ago memed me, but why does this need to be built? Was the F-22 scrapped?

>>30573580
>>30574072
That "wargame" has been discredited by literally everybody with a shred of common sense.

>>30574168
I think it was mostly due to their high unit cost, but the F-35 program is projected to cost over $1 trillion now, so the whole thing's been pretty pointless

>>30574168
The ghost of McNamara appeared and possessed the high brass making them forget that designed multi-roles like the F-111 is always a fucking bad idea.
They killed the F-22 because Muh commonality. Turns out things might just have worked until the muhreens came demanding a special snowflake version, fucking up the entire program despite ordering less than 10% of the uniits.

>>30574168
The F-22 had the poor luck of being far too ahead of its time, coming out after the Cold War ended, having no credible opponent at the time, and having a very narrow and specialized role.

>>30574246
>Shits on the F-111
>Completely ignores the success of the F-4

It's fucked not because they can see it now but because it's taking so long that even fucking CHINA has caught up in the technology curve.

At this rate, the North Koreans will be showing up with a knock-off of near equal performance.

>>30573824

Whoops, the F119's diameter is actualy larger then the F135's (120cm VS 117cm).

>>30573850

Its the ratio of engine diameter/length VS the thrust generated. The F135 produces more thrust then the F119 while not being larger then it and thus has to burn hotter to increase the thrust.

You can diffuse the IR plume a bit by redistributing the heat over a larger surface area of the plane but in total heat emitted, it will stay the same.

>>30574244
>harping the $1 trillion meme

Yeah no

>>30574171
[citation needed]

>>30574291
It ain't no meme, kiddo
http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20160324_Fact-Sheet.pdf

>>30574246
But the F-111 was awesome.

>sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory

>>30574284
There's no indication the J-20 is anywhere near the F-35's capability.

>>30574171
Yeah discredited because it just showed a 400billion + program failed to make a better jet and lockheed will lobby everyone to make it look like th ebest

>>30573455
Just because it has a large engine doesn't mean it has a comparably larger IR signature vs. a falcon or something.
Strange as it may sound LM engineers actually did some shit to reduce the IR signature of their stealth plane.

>>30574301
You realize program and acquisition cost are two completely different things?

>>30574293
Literally every milsite that isn't war is boring, foxtrot alpha, or dumb enough to believe what the latter two sites say.

>>30574304
>F-111
Still waiting for my interceptor version. And the air superiority one as well.
It's amazing that they managed to salvage anything at all from that mess.

>>30574339

This. The JSF is the first program where its critics have factored the operational life expenses into the program cost. These kinds of figures do not exist for any other aircraft.

>>30574155
That's wrong. What you were probably thinking of is the F-35 can carry more fuel internally than a G-16 can with external tanks.

>>30574321
Go back to bed, Sprey.

>>30574301
Do you, Mr. Shitlord, realize that such total lifecycle costs being estimated is a new thing and that they didn't calculate the figures for previous fighters?

File: expensive.png (27KB, 933x283px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 933x283px

>>30574339
Did you even open the link?
>inb4 I have to tech you how to do basic subtraction

>>30574321

The "wargame" in question was validation of the control law software. The actual performance envelope was strictly limited for that exercise to prevent the pilot from fucking things up when all they were trying to do was make sure that "roll left" actually made the aircraft roll left, "pull up" actually made the aircraft pull up, etc.

>>30574290
So no, you don't have any numbers to actually back that up.

File: scrambled.jpg (73KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x500px

>>30573426

scrambled/10

>>30574336

>Just because it has a large engine doesn't mean it has a comparably larger IR signature vs. a falcon or something.

It has. Its engine isnt physicaly larger then the one on the F-16 but has way more thrust which can only be done by its engine burning hotter to increase the thrust output.

More heat = larger IR plume. You can only diffuse the heat by spreading it over a larger area to make the temperature spike less focussed.

>>30574390
[source]

>>30574354
Other sites failing to make a claim is not a refutation of that claim

Also:
>the citation is every site other than the ones that disagree with me

>>30574390
If true, why would they need to have it set up as a wargame exercise? Just let the pilot fly his plane around and see if it does what it's supposed to do.

>>30574387
Did you even read what O&S is? That's the projected cost of maintaining the entire fleet over the course of their lifetimes. This is a cost that has never been factored into any previous fighter, and is only brought up by uniformed or malicious critics who want to fool people into thinking the F-35 is more expensive than it actually is.

>>30574387
So the price of planes went down 3.2%, but the total cost of the program went up 6.8%.
>Cost of plane is in BillionsUSD
>Total cost of program is in TillionsUSD

yea, its totally cheaper nao! Never mind countries are dropping it like shit from a camel each passing fiscal quarter.

>>30574449
Honestly it's been a while, but iirc, it was mentioned in the paper itself what the exercises' purpose and restrictions were, and that was to validate the control software under aggressive maneuvering against a human adversary, with a conservative flight envelope to make sure that nothing broke.

Moving onto different material, one of the example systems that could have broken is the hydraulic systems, which under certain G-loads could over-pressurize and fail.

>>30574487
They were using the F-16 as a measuring stick because all of its control and flight characterstics are pretty much completely known by this point.

>>30574427
>It has. Its engine isnt physicaly larger then the one on the F-16 but has way more thrust which can only be done by its engine burning hotter to increase the thrust output.
You fail to mention is is still the same fuckin engine P&W puts into the F15 and F16, but with a different intake and turnable asspipe.

>>30574487
>If true, why would they need to have it set up as a wargame exercise? Just let the pilot fly his plane around and see if it does what it's supposed to do.

See >>30574507

>>30574506
>yea, its totally cheaper nao! Never mind countries are dropping it like shit from a camel each passing fiscal quarter.

[citation needed]

>>30574528
>[citation needed]
Just in the past month, Norway or Sweden or whereever decided they are gonna get Eagles and Hornets instead of this boondoggle and the headache that will ensue.

Canada was still on the fence last I checked, more than likely just gonna get just a handful so they can see their investment as something besides a total loss.

>>30574552
>Just in the past month, Norway or Sweden or whereever decided they are gonna get Eagles and Hornets instead of this boondoggle and the headache that will ensue.

What are you talking about? Sweden never buys foreign jets, and Norway's still on board with the F-35.

>countries are dropping it like shit with each passing fiscal quarter

[citation still needed]

>>30574552
Norway is still committed to buying F-35s, and already has 22 of their planned 52 plane order funded.

Neither Sweden nor Canada had ever confirmed or committed to F-35 purchases.

>>30574487
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/norwegian-pilot-counters-leaked-f-35-dogfight-report-422552/

How about a report from a Norwegian fighter pilot who's flown both the F-35 and F-16 who has nothing but praise for the F-35?

>>30574613
>Norway's still on board with the F-35
Only discussion here in Norway is about the stupidity in our contract. For some reason our DoD never thought about fluctuations in the Dollar/NOK and the sudden drop in oil prices and subsequent fall in NOK exchange rate mate the planes like 10 billion NOK more expensive.
How people in that department keep their job is fucking beyond me

>>30574398

>So no, you don't have any numbers to actually back that up.

Here you go then:

>F119.

Length: 516cm.
Diameter: 120cm.
Maximum AB thrust: ~39.600lbs (18 metric tons). I am being generous with this number as the official one is stated to be 35.000+.

Engine volume: 5835823cm^3.

That is 147cm^3 per pound of thrust.

>F135-PW-100:

Length: 559cm.
Diameter: 117cm.
Maximum AB thrust: 43.000lbs (19,455 metric tons).

Engine volume: 6009985cm^3.

That is 139cm^3 per pound of thrust.

Conclusion: The F135's engine produces more thrust per engine volume and thus emits more IR as it burns hotter then the F119. Any other engine will produce a far smaller IR signature as their thrust levels are much smaller.

Sources:

>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F119#Specifications_.28F119.29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F119#Specifications_.28F119.29

+

>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F135#Specifications_.28F135-PW-100.29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F135#Specifications_.28F135-PW-100.29

>>30574664
how much did lockheed pay them and you to shill for it?

>>30574689
>Hurr durr he's bringing up facts I don't like, better call him a shill!

>>30574708
>hurr durr corruption never happens with lockheed

>>30574687
Wasn't talking about thrust, you said the plume was larger.

They're not necessarily directly correlated.

File: FA-28 Ultra Hornet.jpg (34KB, 822x313px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 822x313px

>>30573426

Bitch please.

>>30574689
Yeah. All those European countries shilling for LM.
I'm sure in the future LM will even pay off hostile nations to lose to the F-35

>>30574732
Boeing please go

>>30574720
How would paying someone to shill for Lockheed on 4chan shore up their business model better than telling than paying the same guy to schmooze up a Congressional rep?

>>30574740
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-map-explains-the-f-35-fiasco-2014-8

Yeah no one would be bribed to endorse this money maker

File: 1440968856673.jpg (50KB, 636x477px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 636x477px

>>30574366
F-16's have to carry tanks if you want to do anything.

>>30574708
>hurr durr he found sources saying the F-35 is bad, better call them memes

>>30573426

they can "see" it... but it all comes down to signature. There have been multiple times in history were nuclear annihilation has been scratched off by stealth, or radar signatures.

Your question comes down to, can it be written off by geese? Fun fact a modern "stealth fighter" provides the radar signature of a Canadian Goose. Do you launch missiles at a gaggle of Geese?

File: 1453550237974.jpg (152KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 800x600px

>>30573455
I wonder if anyone has accidentally shot the sun....

>>30574725

They ARE correlated. If you need more thrust from an engine that isnt significantly larger then its predecessors, then it HAS to burn HOTTER to increase its THRUST. As shown, the F135 gets more thrust per engine volume then the F119 so it IS hotter and more heat means a larger IR plume. You can only diffuse the heat by spreading it over a larger area but the total amount of heat stays the same.

>>30574784
Measuring fuel in pounds isn't really meaningful since they may burn fuel at a different rate. Better to just use a radius vs payload figure.

>>30574765
>2014

Even your Lord David Axe has started backpedaling now
You better follow your master.

http://theweek.com/articles/633404/americas-new-super-jet-crushes-all-foes-war-game

>Luftkamp med F-35 – en oppdatering! Air Combat in the F-35 – An Update!
http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2016/07/10/luftkamp-med-f-35-en-oppdatering-air-combat-in-the-f-35-an-update/#more-1833

>>30574810
>it IS hotter and more heat means a larger IR plume

Prove it :)

>>30574720
I like how you changed tactics after your grasp at a faux moral high ground was called out.

>>30574815
Oh what's that this wargame is valid but the other isn't?

I'm sure all those F-15s and F-16s are the foes of the Americans F-35...

>>30574840
Why don't you tell me how you expect to get more thrust out of a similarly-sized engine without increasing the temperature?

>>30574869
The fuck are you smoking.
It is certainly more valid to wargame with the actual fighter than some basement nerds doing Harpoon sims.

>>30574840

The FAE already did

http://tx.technion.ac.il/~jetlab/7AIJESpresent/4.-%20Arvind_AIJES.pdf

>>30574812
Which is still in the F-35's favor.

>>30574815
>During mock combat, the F-35s reportedly shot down eight twin-engine F-15Es, for no losses of their own — this despite the 2015 revelation that the F-35 is inferior to a single-engine F-16 in a simulated dogfight. It's possible that the Lightning pilots have devised special air-combat tactics that take advantage of the F-35's stealth and cutting-edge sensors.

>According to Redmond, it's hard to adequately stress the F-35 and F-22 in a simulated combat environment. "Very difficult to generate the threat density and complexity to meet fifth-gen operational test requirements," he complained.

>"Creating a complex, threat-dense environment is key," Redmond stressed. But with its existing operational test assets, the Air Force simply can't put up a hard enough fight to discover the F-35's true strengths and weaknesses, he claimed.

Impressive

All the F-35 BTFO treads has taught me this:

Anyone with first-hand experience, knowlege or direct insight into the F-35, including actually flying the damn thing = Obvious LM/MIC shill, no matter what they might say. And especially if they refer to numbers or stats

>>30574881
> than some basement nerds doing Harpoon sims.

You're telling me the military let basement nerds on a harpoon sim take out the F-35 several years back?

>>30574889
Cool, thats what I was looking for.

>>30573522
Braaaaaaaaaaaaap

>>30574911
At this point according to these people, Lockheed Martin is spending more on shilling the F-35 than they are on the F-35.

>>30574930
A shill post on 4chan is only worth $0.10.

>>30574920
No. I am telling you now that you don't have a fucking clue about anything.

>>30574939
If it was I'd be pretty well off.

>>30574930
LM made $3.6 billion in profit last year.

The F-35 is bankrolling them and will do so until 2040.

>>30574284
Jebus

Potato much?

>>30574930
Shit, I should start sending in my shill-sheet soon. Gonna get me some of that sweet sweet cash

>>30574952
No it won't. Manned jets are a thing of the past. By 2030 we'll probably only have a fleet of unmanned drones which can maneuver way better and have no human loss risk.

>>30574985
Will they be gliding BBs?

>>30574809
Other than the Best Korea?

Nope

T-50 > F-35

>>30574993
Unmanned gliding BBs screened by PT Boats with VLS Cells (also unmanned) which themselves were launched by an unmanned aircraft carrier submarine, all of which are carrying modern STuGs for COIN operations.

>>30575039
With railguns, right? Cant have BB's without railguns!

>>30575064
Oh yes, most certainly. How else would we launch the STuGs into battle?

F-35A as as a A-10 replacement is awful. Next generation troops will have horrible ground support from the airforce because of the arrogance of the airforce and their desire to not do ground support anyway.

>>30575070
With Hitler's undying hatred?

>>30574894
And since those statistics haven't been provided, I guess I just have to take your word for it.

File: 1448456530289.gif (605KB, 558x418px) Image search: [Google]

605KB, 558x418px

>>30575094

File: PROOFS 6.png (33KB, 899x547px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 899x547px

>>30575094

>>30574930
Maybe that explains why the F-35 program is having so many problems. You see this happening a lot these days: companies would rather spend money on advertising propaganda to make people think their product is good, rather than putting money into making a good product in the first place.

>>30575117
>I can't do math

fascinating

>>30575134
>being able to solve an equation with two unknowns means you can't do math
wew lad

>>30575148
*unable

Boeing should have won the competition. Lockheed couldn't even play by the competition rules and overran their budget from the start but were givne the pass on it..

>>30575148
>fuel capacities, combat radius, ferry range, payload are all unknown

facinating

>>30575171
>a plane that didn't work as advertised should have beaten a plane that was already able to STOVL and go supersonic in the same flight

The KC-46 is a great representative of Boeing's work ethic.

>>30575211
you mean just like the F-35 in other aspects?

File: 1280px-F-106A_from_rear_right.jpg (195KB, 1280x836px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1280x836px

>>30575171
Boeing couldn't play by the program rules, was overbudget, and was given a pass on those things. It wasn't given a pass on being far behind the -35 in development cycle, it wasn't given a pass on the expensive monowing, and it wasn't given a pass on offering fewer gizmos and less performance compared to -35.

Get over it, the Happy Plane deserved to lose.

File: Boeing_X-32B_Patuxent.jpg (2MB, 2729x1684px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2729x1684px

>>30575265
But anon, look at it! It's so cute, right?

>>30575265
>Boeing couldn't play by the program rules, was overbudget, and was given a pass on those things.

Just like LM!

Right after Boeing lost the competition that magically got a huge contract to supply the airforce with drones.

Corruption? Yeah

>>30574732

cuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuute!

>>30575251
No.

>>30575287
dat selective reading

>>30575133
Every fighter program has been plagued with serious issues in their development phase. The only difference now is that LM is actually publicly publishing all of the results in the internet age.

Look up all the GAO reports on previous fighter generations, and you'll find them saying the exact same shit they've been criticizing the F-35 for.

>>30573426
>single engine
what were they thinking

>>30575382
One jet fits all!

>>30575382
That "single engine unreliability" is a meme

F23 should be here

Non delta wing was a mistake

>>30575477
F22 vs F23 is kind of analogous to F35 vs F32

In both cases the more mature product, the product with fewer untried technologies, won. Admittedly there was much less of a gap in the F22 - F23 comparison.

>>30575287

you have no idea how fucked the x-32 program was.

> the STOVL version was on a specially lightened frame that had no avionics.
> even the lightened frame was too heavy to go supersonic after a vertical takeoff. X-35B could do that.
> Boeing decided to completely redesign the wing and make it a one piece composite to save weight.
> Wing is plagued by manufacturing problems, after 4 months Boeing could not produce a single use-able wing
> By this point Boeing had far exceeded the allotted R&D budget, Lockheed was still under budget.
> When the decisions was made, Boeing still didn't have a single supersonic VTOL test because they didn't have the "completed" X-32 B that could do it.

The X-35 program was doing pretty well, it got bogged down once it won and had to go through the process to turn it into F-35.

>>30575578
that's a nice propagandaized version of the competition.

LM exceeded their budget well before Boeing did.

>>30575578
Please educate yourself LM shill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRkqlQlJ3cY

>>30575647
Christ please no

American "Documentaries" have got to be the worst thing I'll ever experience.

Not that anon, but the X-32 was a piece of shit that ingested its own exhaust and failed to meet deadlines. Its not really a surprise it wasn't picked, it was garbage.

>>30575676
Right, discard it as trash despite having reps from both sides and the military showing the progress all because you think it's some shitty history channel documentary.

>>30575693
Its trash.

Its like a godamn monster truck commercial.

>THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
>JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
>JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

ONLY THIS SUNDAY!

>>30575719
Typical ignorant banana republic supporter

>>30575729
kek, what

Its cut like a entertainment show because it is.

>>30575747
Except it's not.

>>30575750
t. viewer who thinks Hitler might have had a UFO!

>>30575762
t. ignorant banana republic citizen

>>30575647
>Battle of the X-Planes

File: Lockheed_Martin_F-22A_Raptor_JSOH.jpg (4MB, 2736x1822px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2736x1822px

>>30573426
I did the math once and for the cost of developing and procuring the F-35, the US Air Force could have procured an additional 2000 F-22.

>>30576420
and?

>>30576682
Seems like it would have been a better buy.

>>30576420
>for the cost of developing and procuring the F-35, the US Air Force could have procured an additional 2000 F-22
Are you using the muh 1.6 gorillion number? Because that's not money already spent, procuring that many F-22s would cost a hell of a lot more than that over a similar timeframe.

>>30576692
Really?

The F-22 would have been a good buy to operate off of CATOBAR Ford Class?

The F-22 would have been a good buy to operate off of Wasp Class?

The F-22 would have been a good buy for strike/interdiction/CAS when it has no method of targeting weapons past GPS/INS?

Basically, fuck no.

Its also disingenous, because R&D on the F-35's RAM, EODAS, EOTS, etc are all getting rolled into future aircraft (including possibly the F-22) as well as ignoring the fact that F-22's cost as much to run as strategic bombers.

>>30576719
Wasn't the plan a few years ago to replace ALL planes with f-22s, anyway?

>>30574168
The F-22 is supposed to be a dedicated air superiority fighter that also has strike capabilities because it can carry bombs. The F-35 is a multirole plane. Basically, the F-35 is to the F-22 what the F-16 is to the F-15.

>>30576828
>replace ALL planes with f-22s
All the F-15Cs, maybe. The F-35 has been in the works for a while and was meant to replace many of the rest.

>>30576420
Then you might be retarded.

So far we've spend 7.4 billion dollars on R&D and pre-production on the F-35, and now that we are in production, the F-35A costs $110 million each (including engine), the B costs $122 million each (also including engine), and the C $118 million (yup)

The lowest cost of a F-22 was $153 million, but let's be generous and assume that the goal of 133 million would be met if we didn't cut the program (and we'll also ignore the line restart costs, which would probably approach a billion dollars before unit 197 was produced).

This tells us that we would have a 53 airframe head start if we use a time machine to go back and kill the JSF before we've spent a dime on it, but that by the time we've reached 2196 airframes, we've spent 260 billion on acquiring the 1947 airframes not already produced or paid for with the 7.4 billion dollar development budget, and the Navy and Marine Corps have shuttered their aviation wings for lack of a tactical fighter.

The Marine Corps is buying 340 Bs and 80Cs, while the Navy is buying 260 Cs, while the Airforce is buying 1763 As, but since we want 2000 additional F22s leaves the US without any naval aviation at all, let's just pretend buy 2000 As.

Weird, that costs 40 billion dollars LESS than 1947 F-22s!

And here's where you really get stupid:
The F-35's more mature stealth coatings and seam covering kit means you save almost a thousand dollars a flight hour just on RAM maintenance compared to an F-22.

So when you get to the end of life costs in the 2050s, then you're really looking at a big kick in the balls compared to the 1.5 trillion dollar figure in the F-35's total program cost projection.

Hell, you could cut airframes from the airforce to maintain our Naval aviation and Marine aviation programs and hold to the 2000 airframe blurb, and still come in close enough to the 1947 F-22 airframe costs that you'd still be saving money in the long run because of reduced operating costs.

Can't we all agree that there should have been three separate competitions for three separate planes?

That said, the F35, all versions, are good planes and will be the best in their class for a good portion of their life cycles. The F35B will probably always be the best, and only, aircraft in its class.

Thoughts?

>>30577024
It's too stealthy, can't see it.

File: Serbian_poster_-Sorry_we_didn't_know_it_was_invisible-.jpg (653KB, 1224x1632px) Image search: [Google]

653KB, 1224x1632px

>>30577024
Forgot pic

>>30574364
And by the same calculations, not putting it into service with cost $4 trillion out to 2065.

>>30577049
It doesn't matter. They are all sleeping peacefully now in their comfy hangars.

>>30574812
>Better to just use a radius vs payload figure.
F-16: 400NMI
F-35: 600

>>30573426
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlWQsW4ZZfQ

it was always a joke

>>30577110
It kinda matters because then state of the art stealth plane got shot down by a garbo 1960 SAM system.

>>30574899
It's neat how he gets around it while sticking to his bullshit explanation of the C-LAW test.

>>30577200
Depends on your perspective.

What really happened was that a plane developed with 70's technology on 60's theory was taken down by a missile designed with 60's technology and theory.

>>30577243
And even then, it required a specific set of circumstances and quite a bit of skill and luck on the SAM operator's part. It's not a feat any random slav with a microwave and an SA-2 could easily replicate.

>>30577049
>3
I thought it was only one and the pilot survived anyways.

>>30577178
>Rafale is ghost

How does it look like that?

>>30577282
They shot at a total of three planes. They brought one down, and one of them wasn't even an f-117.

>>30577299
maybe it's more aerodynamic and heats up less maybe the video is bullshit?

>>30577049
>Only one combat loss

>Perfect convergence of complacency, luck, and balls

>>30577049
Serb's are still asspained about the humiliation they received.

>>30577299
Comparison of a Rafale at night (no sunlight to heat up the planes skin) with a low quality thermal camera vs various aircraft flying during the day and high end targeting cameras.

>>30577455
Yeah, it was an impressive feat, nothing wrong with that. It's when shitposters try and make it out to be more, which usually takes the form of 'Serb discovers one simple trick to shoot down stealth fighters! Lockmart hates him!'

>>30573426
Cancelling the YF-23 was a mistake too.

>>30576882
Good answer. I miss the F-15, that was a sweet plane.

File: f-16i.jpg (64KB, 970x728px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 970x728px

>>30574784
Unless you're an F-16I, in which case conformal fuel tanks ... but you would still need your missiles/bombs out there

>>30577921
F-15s are still going to be around for a long while.

>>30574390
That doesn't sound right. Flight dynamics testing would come way before they would ever let a war-game scenario take place. I.e., what you are saying is that essentially it was literally not a war-game at all. In which case, why would there even be a simulated conflict with an F-16.

Doesn't make sense.

>>30577973
Because it wasn't a wargame, it was a flight control test. War is Boring ignored the context of the report and the test and assumed it was a combat simulation just because two different aircraft were in the air.

>>30574810
Dude, do you actually know what you're talking about? To get more thrust, you essentially need higher velocity exhaust gas and higher mass outflow from the engine. Burning hotter is one way to get more thrust, but (correct me if I'm wrong) this may not all necessarily be what's different with particular case. The carnot efficiency goes up if you burn hotter, but again, there are plenty of other ways to get more thrust without burning hotter, the simplest among them being to burn more fuel, or have a better optimized inlet, turbine, compressor, combustion stages.

>>30577876

>Cancelling the YF-23

They never ordered any to begin with.

>>30577921

>I miss the F-15

The Eagle is gonna be with us for a long time from now.

File: f35bingo.jpg (182KB, 1024x905px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1024x905px

>>30573426

>>30577952
Conformal fuel tanks still take up payload, their advantage is less drag and free pylons.

>>30579400
What do you mean? They don't take up payload, that's like saying that the internal fuel tank of the F-16 takes up payload ... perhaps true by technicality, but senseless to look at it that way

>>30579720
They still count against total load capacity, just not the same way the drop tanks do. The F-16 was never designed to carry that much extra weight on top of a maxed payload.

>>30579720

It does because CFT's still take up some of the difference between empty weight and MTOW.

Anyone that bitches that it is a jack of all trades master of none completely ignores that is the way it's been since ww2 except a short period in the 60s.

>>30579867
You're assuming that they didn't design the CFT's and the CFT equipped versions with payload considerations in mind. The CFT's only weight 900 pounds on a 20,000 pound fighter, with 4000 more pounds for fuel. The engine makes more than enough power to carry this in addition to the regular payload of a non-CFT equipped fighter.

Btw, you're going to have to provide some kind of source to argue your point, because otherwise it's not convincing at all. The engines on military fighter jets are so over-powered for the airframe that the payload weight is effectively just limited by the number of pylons and the desirable range.

>>30580020
Just to further elaborate on this, MTOW is listed as 48,000 pounds, whereas full weight with CFT's is 28-30,000. You would fracture the airframe with the weight of the payload before you exceeded the MTOW with CFT's.

>>30576719
>Really?

>The F-22 would have been a good buy to operate off of CATOBAR Ford Class?

>The F-22 would have been a good buy to operate off of Wasp Class?

>The F-22 would have been a good buy for strike/interdiction/CAS when it has no method of targeting weapons >past GPS/INS?


Sigh, sounds like the navy should have went for their own strike fighter & f-22 Blue waters edition.

>>30580074
They did. The f-35c and super hornet.

Face it, the f22 is great but the tech just wasnt ready for mass production.

It's replacement is already being designed based on f35 development.

>>30574506
>So the price of planes went down 3.2%, but the total cost of the program went up 6.8%.
Because they decided to operate the jets until 2070.

>>30576420
In the last 3 year of its orders (to get a better view of support and non-recurring costs), the procurement cost of the F-22 (not just flyaway) averaged at $166.2 million. Let's round that to $150 million to be nice. That's $300 billion in 2008 dollars. To account for inflation, we'll bring that to 2012 years (the F-35's program baseline year), bringing it to $320 billion. That price also does not include R&D.

So that's $320 billion for 2000 F-22.

For $257.2 billion, you get 2443 F-35A/B/Cs.

Add in R&D for both programs and those figures go to $361.83 billion for the F-22s and $316.4 billion for the F-35s.

>>30574246
>fucking up the entire program despite ordering less than 10% of the uniits.
Considering the massive number of F35A's being ordered, you could say the same of the C variant since ONLY the US Navy will be ordering that. The B variant is likely to be bought by any nation that runs a STOVL carrier.

>>30580057
>>30580020
CFT do not increase an aircraft's MTOW, having 6000 lbs of fuel in CFT instead of under the wings is still 6000 lbs that you cannot use for munitions.

>>30576420
You didn't do the math very well then.

And I would take 2.5k F-35's over 2k F-22's any day.

>>30573580
The F-35 beat 10 F-15Es a few weeks ago with zero losses.

>>30580243
A jet's MTOW is just the jet's empty weight + internal fuel + max external payload (being limited by the wings and pylons). It's not the maximum amount of lift + thrust that the jet can produce (after all, you still have to have a half decent climb rate at MTOW).

>>30580268
8 wins against F-15E (we don't know how many jets it was; there were likely 4 F-35s in the air and an equal or greater number of F-15Es).

Arguably even better though: www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/07/06/clever-girl-3-star-general-compares-f-35-jurassic-park-velociraptor/86774970/

>The Marine Corps recently put the F-35B Lightning II through its paces in a highly-contested airspace combat scenario. The result? The joint strike fighters were able to destroy all 24 enemy targets without taking any losses.

>Speaking before the House Armed Services subcommittee on readiness Wednesday, Davis said that fourth-generation aircraft like the F/A-18 Hornet and EA-6B Prowler would get shot down by their pseudo aggressors when running similar training scenarios.

>“We just ran a normal scenario we would have with our legacy aircraft," he said. "Generally about half to a third of the airplanes don’t make it through.”

>>30580243
No, I didn't say that. The MTOW is 48,000 pounds. Add 4000 lbs (not 6000, that's wrong) of fuel plus 900 for the tanks themselves, and that brings your payload down from 23,000 to 18,000 pounds. But there are only 5 major load bearing pylons that can carry a 2000 pound bomb each; say it takes this, that brings payload down to 8,000 pounds. Add a few missiles on the 4 leftover pylons, 500 lbs each.

You still have 6000 pounds of excess payload capacity with CFT's. Payload weight is not affected.

File: 1406407637570.png (34KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 700x700px

>>30580333
900 gallons of fuel is more than 4000 lbs, although it is a moot point.

>>30580378
Are you literate? Where you got 900 gallons from, I have no idea.

>>30580396
Two 450 gallon CFT.

>>30580534
Both CFTs together hold 450 gallons, not each one.

>>30580615
>>30580534
And for a source, here's a copy-paste of an old Lockheed article:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lockheed-martin-and-us-air-force-complete-flight-testing-of-f-16-conformal-fuel-tanks-76984572.html

> A shipset of two CFTs provides about 450 gallons, or approximately 3,050 pounds of additional fuel for the F-16.

>>30580635
That explains why Israel still has to use wing tanks, which negates the whole idea that CFT free up the inner pylons, which means the F-35 still carries as much internally as a F-16 does in a normal loadout.

>>30580712
Where the fuck does the F-35 fit that fuel exactly? I mean it's fatter than the Viper and Hornet by far but jeez.

File: image.jpg (36KB, 280x383px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 280x383px

>>30576926
Good work anon

File: Joint strike fighter fuel tank layout BAE.gif (46KB, 710x481px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 710x481px

>>30581348

>>30581396
Jesus christ there is fuel in the vertical stabilizers?! The madmen! Just fill me up senpai.

>>30581396
>FlyingFueltank.jpg

>>30581396
That is very impressive engineering.

>>30581396
They also optionally let the cockpit fill up to the neck-level.

>>30581396
>5,000lb of firefighting equipment needed.jpg

You all wish you were as multirole as me

>>30581593
Dos Gringos?

File: IMG-20160710-WA0079.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>30581722

>>30578698
With its short nose and fat belly it's ugly as sin.
LOCKMART SHILLS REKT!

Seriously, I'm sure the plane is alright, but dear god it looks horrendous.

>>30575382
I know right, the F-16 is such a turkey. We should just build more F-4s instead amarite

>>30581951
>Seriously, I'm sure the plane is alright, but dear god it looks horrendous.
To you maybe. If it actually understand the design it's a beautiful aircraft.

>>30582130

The F-16 is a relatively lightweight fighter though. The F-35 is anything but lightweight. The F-35 is too heavy for a single-engine fighter. There just isn't enough thrust behind it to make it a good fighter.

The F-15, F-16, and F-22 were all designed so that they would have a loaded thrust/weight ratio of 1.0 or greater. The F-35 is much lower than that at 0.87. There is simply no way that the F-35 will be able to match the performance of older fighters.

>>30584824
>There just isn't enough thrust behind it to make it a good fighter.
>1.07 TWR at 50% fuel

You're a fucking idiot, you know that, right?

File: mcdonnell-douglas-av-8b-harrier-ii-night-attack.jpg (45KB, 600x315px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x315px

>>30584824

>mfw when the AV-8B with the current -408 engine is running a 1.27 T/W with 50%. That thing must fucking haul low level.

>>30585869
It also can't go supersonic, has crap payload and range, and is a bitch to handle in STOVL. Raw TWR is meaningless.

>>30585869
Do you have a source on that? With a loaded weight of 22,950 lb, MTOW of 31,000lbs STO and a -408 thrust rating of 23,500lbf, that seems a little high.

>>30585869
That AV-8B variant still only has a 9,200lbs payload including fuel bags with a 300nmi combat radius. The full loaded weight of the aircraft is just under 23,000lbs. The F-35B has a useful payload of 18,000lbs, which is most of the way to an entire combat loaded AV-8B, plus 450+nmi combat radius on internal fuel. Something to think about.

>>30584824
Lol those stats are for no external wing loads. Aka worthless.

File: 2560x1440-desert_military_harrier_airplane_aircraft-3044.jpg (311KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 2560x1440px

>>30585986

Meh, range and payload is on par with a legacy hornet. Supersonic? Again, meh, it's a CAS driven platform. I'd be more interested in acceleration rather than top speed. I've been told by Harrier/18C drivers that the AV-8B will out accelerate a hornet in full blower down low. No doubt it's outperformed by the F-35, was just an interesting stat, I bet it'd be a blast to fly.

>>30586006

50% fuel. Empty weight is just short of 14,000. 50% fuel would be 4.5k putting it at 18,000 TW.

>>30586048

Wasn't comparing it to the F-35 because they aren't comparable. I just think the AV-8B would be a blast to fly. A pilot's airplane if you were.

>>30585869
>>30586048
Oh, and it's supersonic with limited supercruise (150mi max). And designed for standard operation (cruise, fight, etc) 12,000ft ABOVE the AV-8B's flight ceiling of 38,000ft (60,000ft+ service ceiling for the F-35).

All that shit's just the basic stuff, though. The passive sensor array, LPI high-bandwidth datalink, sensor fusion and VLO properties are really what makes such a massive difference.

>>30586101
>50% fuel would be 4.5k putting it at 18,000 TW.
No, anon. Loaded weight includes munitions. That aircraft does not carry 9,000lbs of fuel.

>>30586101
>Meh, range and payload is on par with a legacy hornet. Supersonic? Again, meh, it's a CAS driven platform. I'd be more interested in acceleration rather than top speed. I've been told by Harrier/18C drivers that the AV-8B will out accelerate a hornet in full blower down low. No doubt it's outperformed by the F-35, was just an interesting stat, I bet it'd be a blast to fly.
I didn't realize they were that good below 10,000ft. Pretty neat.

Of course, no modern jet is going to be flying that low, but they might have been fun for pilots.

I did hear, though, that AV-8Bs have by far the highest pilot workload of any gen 4 fighter, which might make piloting them more of a chore.

>>30573426
Don't believe Russia.

Also the F-35 is a good plane.

>>30586101
AV-8s carry 7,800lb of fuel.

>>30586101
>Meh, range and payload is on par with a legacy hornet.
>payload

You realize the Harrier can only carry 2 harpoons or 2 HARMs or maximum 6 Mavericks, right? Also, the legacy bug has a 100nmi greater combat radius (33% more).

>>30586172

You left out the (on air-air mission)
Strap that fucker with some iron and see what happens.

>>30584867

>At 50% fuel

>>30586201
The 300nmi combat radius for the Harrier is also with an A2A load on the AV-8B+. Loaded for A2G, it drops under 250nmi. I mean, shit, if you just give it two AIM-9s and two bags, the harrier will make 627nmi for a combat radius.

However, load it with 12 Mk82 Snakeeyes and require it to loiter for an hour, and that combat radius drops to 90nmi.

>>30586118

mea culpa, but it's still at 1.2 then, which is straight retarded. That makes it the most overpowered platform in the naval inventory.

>>30586261
I think I'm right in thinking that due to the nature of the AV-8s engine and nozzle arrangement, its T/W ratio isn't quite as easily applied to just thrusting forward as normal jets.

File: F35 - USMC & RAF Typhoons.jpg (484KB, 1280x1920px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 1280x1920px

This thing will be a beast once all the kinks are worked out. When combined with a dedicated air to air platforms like the F-22, Eurofighter or F-15 it will ensure Western aerial superiority for the next 20+ years.

>>30575070

via directed energy weapons, to support power armored special forces troops breaking through front lines.

>>30586261

It's one of the most overpowered platform ever, definitely the most in the US Navy/USMC.

>>30586280

Not really sure how'd you'd come to that conclusion, that lbs of thrust rating is pretty standardized, in optimum ICAO conditions, otherwise there'd be no point in using it as a comparison across platforms.

>>30586219
Which is still more than an F-16 can carry internally.

I assume we are trying to compare apples to apples.

>>30573426
how many mars missions could have been paid for by the f-35 overall?

>>30586803
..Because it doesn't have a standard nozzle and engine setup?

>>30586860
None since the government doesn't give a shit about NASA.

>>30586860
Same argument could have been made for the F-4 or F-15. The answer is zero if the US cannot protect interests abroad and worldwide trade is crippled or the US completely loses all ability to influence world politics and Europe/East Asia decide to go full fucking retard again.

The second half of that answer is probably no more because that money would just go somewhere else. If the US government, politicians and ultimately the US people wanted to go to Mars badly enough, it would have full funding tomorrow. Period.

>>30586219

You know what's the T/W of a 2 bag viper?

0.97

That's with no ammo, no missiles, and no pods.

An F-16 with no pods is pretty vulnerable.

>>30586937

So what you're saying is that even when carrying two fuel tanks, the F-16 has a t/w of nearly 1.0, whereas the F-35 needs to go down to less than 50% fuel before it can get above 1.0?

Really makes you think.

>>30587448
>whereas the F-35 needs to go down to less than 50% fuel before it can get above 1.0
This is incorrect. The F-35 carries more fuel internally (18,498lbs) than the F-16 does with two bags, and still has a T/W ratio of .9 with just that fuel. So, yes, the F-16 has a slightly better T/W ratio with just the bags, but much less range and much more aerodynamic drag from them, not to mention the kinematic limits from having those pylons loaded. The F-35, meanwhile is aerodynamically clean with no G-limits. You will also find that their straight line and climb acceleration numbers are much closer than that .07 t/w difference might suggest.

>>30587448
>>30587552
Oh, and that F-35 is STILL carrying more sensoria and comms gear than a fully podded-up F-16J.

>>30587448

I actually did the math wrong, the actual T/W of a 2 bag F-16 is 0.93. Left off one of the tanks.

Mind you a 2 bag F-16 still carries less fuel than F-35, 12,800 pounds vs 18,500 pounds. In combat, fuel is a very important limitation. In that famous video of an F-16 dodging SAM's, the pilot didn't use afterburners because he was worried he won't have enough fuel to make it home.

File: container-image04.jpg (128KB, 800x566px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 800x566px

>>30573426
http://sputniknews.com/military/20160710/1042734198/f35-engine-radar.html

http://sputniknews.com/science/20160702/1042341025/russia-podsolnukh-radar-f35.html

So, ruskies are not afraid of F-35s. They already have OTH radars that can detect them and give them weapons-quality track. And they probably already have IR systems that can detect F-35s 'hotter than hell' exhaust.

>>30587600
>They already have OTH radars that can detect them and give them weapons-quality track.
>OTH
>weapons-grade track target resolution

anon, do you actually understand anything about what you're talking about? holy fuck.

>>30587600
>They already have OTH radars that can detect them and give them weapons-quality track

HAHAHAHAHAHA

File: 1468184442490.jpg (9KB, 175x175px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 175x175px

>>30573426
>Spend gazillions of dollars on the F-35
>Get butthurt and try to cancel nuclear weapons programs that are far cheaper.

Security has always been rooted in the ability cause reciprocal harm to the offender. Its just literally blown up on a societal scale. So what if their less discriminate.

having a reputation of being not averse to a little gore as opposed to spending outrageous amounts of money for surgical instruments when a "saw" will do is dumb.

>>30587684
You're probably less informed on the topic than the child in your image, anon.

>>30587615
>>30587649
samefag indoctrinated retard.

>>30587710
>Irony, the post

>>30587710
kek. no. just an anon who has a clue how radar in different bands actually works. you want to throw around the word "indoctrinated", maybe you ought to look closer at your own dependence on Sputnik news and Russian MoD press releases, instead of seeking to gain a working knowledge of the technologies involved.

>>30587724
>>30587727
ha! good job, supposedly samefagged me!

>>30587684
>Nuclear
>Ever cheaper or more effective
SACfag detected.

File: Russian Meme Face.png (46KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 300x300px

>>30587700
Nobody started wars with the Hittites or the Mongolians willingly because if they lost, they killed off your town.

Nowadays, actors ruthlessly abuse our societies aversion to causing "Civilian casualties" or "collateral damage".

>>30587759
Yeah yeah, thats great anon.

I'm sure slinging nukes around would never bite us back in the ass.

>>30587750

> Who the fuck needs an Army, Navy, or Marine Corps.

- Louis A. Johnson

>>30587759
>Nowadays, actors ruthlessly abuse our societies aversion to causing "Civilian casualties" or "collateral damage"
That's fine. Let them keep escalating. Let them forget what we did to Iraq (twice) or Afghanistan or Serbia, which weren't even existential threats. Let them keep raising the table until we decide to call a bet they are unable to back. Let them remember what it is to seriously threaten the only country in the history of mankind to actually use nuclear weapons in anger.

>>30587775
And the Vietnam happened and SAC got BTFO.

>>30587893

Louis Johnson ate his words significantly earlier.

he was the Secdef in charge of the post WW2 drawdown. In 1945 the defense budget was 600 billion dollars, in 1948 the budget was 60 billion dollars. Truman and Johnson believed nuclear deterrance was all that was needed, and funneled more money towards SAC.

You can imagine what that did to the readiness of the conventional forces. The first batch of tanks in Korea were driven off of war monuments, because the US forces in Japan simply didn't have any.

When Truman ordered a blockade of North Korea to prevent Chinese/Russian supplies from getting there, the navy responded.

> "We do not have sufficient forces available ... Our force are operating south of 40 [degrees]... This leaves us with a "paper blockade" of the Northern Parts of the Korean coast.

This is the "same" Navy that blockaded all of Japan less than 5 years ago. The Navy had mothballed/scrapped 90% of it's surface combatants since 1945.

>>30588023
Even then SAC had total supremacy within the AF until TAC Vietnam vets started getting promoted way faster and got into position for major cultural change.

>>30587684
>>30587750
>>30587775
>>30587893
>>30588023
>>30588303
Actually, there were many signs that all was not well in USAF training and procurement before that. Even SOP tactical issues like their 4-ship formation. USN pilots performing at a higher level than the USAF (gun or no in the F-4) throughout Vietnam was one big "red flag" if you'll pardon the historical pun. It was a complicated time, and this discussion has a lot of moving parts.

For those interested in how USAF procurement and training was completely jarred out of complacency and then restructured and refocused through the 70's and early 80's, this is a good read:
http://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf
It's long, but you will learn a lot about USAF effectiveness in Vietnam, a window on how procurement really works from the DoD side of the street, and how OPFOR-focused training and high-tech focused procurement changed the face of the US military, then see it all come together in Desert Storm.

>>30576926
I love this type of posts, sadly they are often overlooked or wasted on idiots, who instead getting they were wrong, just make the next stupid question or claim and. ignore it.

>>30588487

Honestly, we should have Revolt of the Majors stickied and somehow force people to read it before they're even allowed to comment on anything air force related.

>>30588615
Damn straight.

However, they wouldn't be shitposters if they actually read shit, and it wouldn't be 4chan without shitposters.

Facefucking them with fact (but not tact) after they shit the bed is the /k/ way.

>>30588487

The air force pilots who flew F-4's during Vietnam were the same caliber of material as the pilots who flew WW2 and Korea, but not trained for the same objectives.

Note that one of the biggest Air Force triumphs during Vietnam was planned by Robin Olds, a WW2 pilot who cut his teeth fighting the Luftwaffe under Doolittle.

>>30588908
>The air force pilots who flew F-4's during Vietnam were the same caliber of material as the pilots who flew WW2 and Korea, but not trained for the same objectives.
Not really. The Air Force believed that a pilot was a pilot, and often sent bomber, cargo, and other pilots to fly fighters in Vietnam with only a crash course in operating it.

>>30588908

Simply put, the Air Force at the time was ruled by the Bomber Mafia and so no money or effort was getting put towards actually teaching fighter pilots how to fight.

>>30588908
>The air force pilots who flew F-4's during Vietnam were the same caliber of material as the pilots who flew WW2 and Korea, but not trained for the same objectives.
Not even close. The pilots that flew in Korea were to a man either WWII veterans or trained by WWII combat veterans who understood the necessity of dissimilar/OPFOR training.

The pilots who flew in Vietnam were, for the most part, not. Their training was flat deficient. Hell, by 1968, they were pulling flight crews out of SAC, bomber pilots, giving them a couple months turnover training and then sending them to Vietnam in fighters. There was no culture of careful study of and practice against enemy capabilities. Even their basic tactical foundations, like the 4-ship formations they flew, left gaping holes (a 30-degree plus blind spot to the aft in the case of the 4-ship formation, for instance, which GCI MiGs exploited to great effect).

>Note that one of the biggest Air Force triumphs during Vietnam was planned by Robin Olds, a WW2 pilot who cut his teeth fighting the Luftwaffe under Doolittle.
He had combat experience and two dozen years in a fighter cockpit. He is NOT the standard level of training and experience for the USAF circa 1968.

Read >>30588487
Learn something.

>>30588023

>The Navy had mothballed/scrapped 90% of it's surface combatants since 1945.

Damn.

File: Argentina_Air_Force_Lockheed_Martin_A-4AR_Fightinghawk_Lofting-2.jpg (389KB, 1280x849px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 1280x849px

>>30573426

The F-35 claims another victim.

First eagles.

Now skyhawks.

Who dies next?

https://theaviationist.com/2016/07/11/f-35-pilot-explains-how-he-dominated-dogfights-against-multiple-a-4-aggressors-every-time/

>F-35 against A-4, might not be fair. Still, the A-4 started as the offensive part every time. At the end of each set, I was pointing at the A-4. Every time

>>30588974
To be fair, in August 1945 they had 6,768 total ships including auxilliaries (more than the rest of the world combined). Of those 833 were surface warships (plus another 232 submarines). The anon's comment above is accurate if you count ALL ships, but not just surface combatants, which were down to 180 in 1948 with 74 subs and 737 total ships (still a huge 78.4% reduction in surface warships, but not quite 90%).

>>30589043

But just imagine if that happened today.

I feel like the Navy would literally revolt.

>>30588615
It's been my number one go to for posters who are absolutely clueless.

>>30588908
Just plain no.

>>30588968
>>30588945

I said same material, but lacking training in the right stuff.

The Vietnam fighter pilots weren't inherently less talented than their WW2 and Korea counterparts, they just lacked the kind of training and experience their older counterparts got.

It's out of these "poor" Vietnam pilots that the reformers came to be. After the Air Force changed their fighter training program and tactics, AF pilots also went heavily positive against the Vietnamese.

It's like the tank battalions in Italy. At the start, they were going multiple losses/kill against the Germans, but then TD crews were brought over to instruct them in anti-tank tactics and the tankers went multiple kills per loss. Failure for a unit to perform is almost never because "they were cowards" or "they were untermenschen", but rather "they weren't trained/prepared for the task at hand".

>>30589061
>I feel like the Navy would literally revolt.
At the end of WWII, the US had almost as many warships either just completed or being built than most navies in the world had in total force levels. The USN was both absolutely enormous and the most technologically advanced. The next largest navy in 1945 was the RN, with 375 total surface warships vs 833. Lets compare:
USN - RN
>Battleships/BCs: 25-5
>Fleet Carriers: 28-6
>Escort Carriers: 71-52
>Cruisers: 72-66
>Destroyers: 377-184
>Frigates: 361-?
>Submarines: 232-178
Keep in mind that a very large portion of the Escort Carriers, Destroyers and Subs in British service were US built at this time. Also keep in mind that, for instance, the British fleet carriers were almost all structurally unsound by late 1945 due to the armored flight deck and how battle damage affected structural supports in the hangar deck.

Even after the drawdown, the USN still had more serviceable ships in mothballs ready to return to service than most navies on the planet had total available combatants. During the drawdown, even in 1948-1949, the USN was still MASSIVE compared to other navies in the world.

It's all about relative force levels. You are, however, correct in that the cuts went a bit too deep; they pulled many, many ships out of mothballs for Korea and didn't make the cuts quite so drastic after that war.

>>30589158
Anon. You've got some of the broad strokes, but not others. Many of your details are cocked up. Start with reading Revolt of the Majors, above, and then read some more. Don't let the autism keep you here dickwaving when you could be refining your understanding.

>>30589204
Was just looking at the major warship loss numbers for WWII; shit's pretty interesting.
Killed by USN - Killed by RN
>German Navy 61.7%-36.5%
>Italian Navy 27.2%-66.7%
>Japanese Navy 95.4%-3.6%

I didn't realize the USN had that big a chunk of the KM.

>>30589300

It's all subs.

http://uboat.net/fates/losses/cause.htm

The Kreigsmarine lost a handful of surface ships and 700 Uboats. The RN was responsible for most of the surface ships, the USN for most of the Uboats, since they provided most of the convoy escorts. The RN number would be even lower if you count out kills made by the escort carriers they borrowed.

After a certain point, being a Uboat crew was basically a death sentence.

>>30589300
>I didn't realize the USN had that big a chunk of the KM.
It was our cargo ships they were hunting.

>>30589508
>It was our cargo ships they were hunting.
Right, but I had assumed those 50+ British CVEs and all their destroyers being convoy escorts would give them at least 50% of the subs. I guess a lot of them were deployed elsewhere.

File: p-61 black widow.jpg (137KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1920x1080px

>>30576957
> Can't we all agree that there should have been three separate competitions for three separate planes?

No we cannot.

We don't hold separate competitions for day fighters and night fighters anymore either.

The F-35 is actually awesome.

The radar that can see stealth takes 40 minutes to tear down, is fucking massive, and can only "detect" the thing from much closer than it can an aircraft like an F-16, F-18, Harrier, etc.

The F-35 is actually good. Don't get it twisted.

>>30586860
If you want to pay for Mars missions, kill SLS; it's a complete waste of money intended to accomplish nothing but pay off Richard Shelby's friends.

Each year it gets more money than SpaceX has spent *to date*, and it is years away from flying.

>>30581544
Silly anon, that's LCL, not fuel.

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

148KB, 1107x699px

>>30573426
>Hurr, stealth is binary, either works or it doesn't
When will you fuckers learn?

>>30577299
Because every shot is done with a different imaging device. The video has no credibility at all.

>>30593348
Don't be fucking retarded. SLS has a massively larger launch payload than anything SpaceX has in the pipeline, including Falcon Heavy.

>>30593430
Not the Mars Colonial Transporter.

>>30593485
Not even anywhere close to being designed or built, unlike SLS.

>>30593606
The SLS will be in service before the MCT, but not by all that long; the MCT design is being unveiled this year and SpaceX works pretty fast.

>>30593743
and by the time SpaceX is actually doing anything to make it, it'll be spending more than it is now.

>>30593758
Probably, but it'll almost certainly be achieving a better $ per pound of payload than the SLS.

>>30576882
That is such a shit example.
Both the F-15 and the F-16 started as fighters. One focused on BVR, the other on WVR. They just had decades of upgrades poured into them to make them multi role.

>>30593820
The F-16 could carry and drop bombs from Day 1.

File: 1455015619098.jpg (100KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 900x600px

>>30574246
I heard you were talking shit about my waifu

>>30576420
Please die, your absence from the gene pool would advance humanity by 100 years

>>30578521
Do you reckon they will start making Silent Eagles if the F-35 falls through?

File: tmp_14124-bagdad-bob1369519608.gif (41KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 300x225px

>>30593882
>if the f-35 falls though

>>30574809
Early IR seekers on missiles didn't have the ability to filter out the sun properly, so in some cases the pilot would lockup a target, fire only to see his missile streak off towards the sun.
Its pretty easy to see happening because the sun is the largest IR signature in the sky.

>>30580235
The B version with the lift fan fucked the whole thing up. The A and C version have less problems than the B version but many få the problems they face is because problems shared with the B.
Ohly the UK will order the B version besides the marines and they only did so because they foolishly thought it would be cheaper with a ski ramp. Had the B version not existed they would have built a CATOBAR carrier like everyone else.
So not only did the marines fuck up the F-35 as a whole, they also fucked up the Royal Navy carriers as well.

>>30593856
It's only natural to talk shit about shit.

File: 1642487.jpg (255KB, 1280x934px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1280x934px

>>30593992

>>30593986
Specifically, what did the B version fuck up on the A and C?

>>30593998
The airframe and engine sacrifices made to fit the lift fan mainly.

>>30594009
>Ask for specifics, get vague responses, as usual when this is brought up

facinating

>>30594009
Single engine was a USAF demand to carry over tech from the F-22's F119 and to make it cheaper to maintain. The airframe size / shape is ~90% caused by the internal weapons and Navy elevator length / width limits. The only difference if the lift-fan wasn't going to be there would be that it'd probably carry a bit less fuel and the cockpit canopy might be a little bit more like the F-22's.

>>30593842
As could the F-15. Was it ever meant to do so ?
Not in the slightest. They still call it the F-16 and not the F/A-16 for a reason.
Goals was to carry AIM-9's errywhere.

>>30594074
>As could the F-15. Was it ever meant to do so?
The fact that the F-16 was certified and capable of dropping bombs at it's introduction to service quite definitively means that yes, they did mean for it to do so.

>They still call it the F-16 and not the F/A-16 for a reason.
Because the designation system has long been broken?. F-117, F-4, F-111, F-105, etc.

>>30594074
>Goals was to carry AIM-9's errywhere.
That was the YF-16. The moment that was picked it was then redesigned to be bigger, longer, have more pylons and payload, better avionics, and be a multi-role fighter-bomber. You're believing Sprey's bullshit.

>>30573426

> I heard recently russian radar could see it

If the F22 not being allowed to fly anywhere close to Russian radar didn't tip you off, I don't know what did.

> 5th gen

lmao amerifats step up, Russia's already planning 6th gen hypersonic drone swarms.

https://www.rt.com/news/350736-russian-fighter-jets-drone-swarm/

>>30595025
Stealth doesn't magically make you invisible. It just makes you really hard to spot. Can low band radars detect stealth from a lot further out than X-band? Sure, but you aren't getting any useful tracking data.

And let's be blunt here: why the fuck would you give away your best advantage before you have to? It'd be dumb as fuck to be giving the Russians data they can use.

>>30595042
>rt.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp7mM2TP_1A
Considering that the Russians can barely get a Gen 4.5 prototype flying I'm not that worried.

>>30574336
>Strange as it may sound LM engineers actually did some shit to reduce the IR signature of their stealth plane.

You are right. This sounds strange. On par with perpetuum mobile. So please tell us all how they violated basic physics.

>>30595657
>So please tell us all how they violated basic physics.
So dumping processor and sensor waste heat in heat reservoirs and radiating aft when tactically prudent is violating the laws of physics? Taking pains to remove as much wide angle frontal-aspect IR radiation as possible is violating the laws of physics? Taking pains to disguise and shield peak nozzle temps with a specially designed shroud and nozzle is violating the laws of physics?

Do you even physics, bro?

>>30595657
>>30595694
Also, another example, the chined exhaust, although it's main purpose is for a reduced RCS, has fairly significant benefits for reducing the total IR output of the exhaust plume: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIKZjARXcos
Chevroned exhausts blend the hot and cold air quicker and smoother, which is also why you'll find some airliners using them (to reduce noise by smoothing the interaction of those airstreams). The main reason they haven't been used as much in the past (besides things like thermal cameras not being available for experiments) is that the chevron tips are more susceptible to vibration and can crack and break easier. Advances in alloys have made them more practical.

>>30574689
>how much did lockheed pay them and you to shill for it?
The US has sure applied a lot of pressure on the smaller countries. In one trade negotiation about 10 years ago they threatened to withdraw from their NATO obligations but seem happy to have Norwegian servicemen in Afghanistan with them, dying there. The Russians are paying attention to the US reticence and are edging close to the borders here so the US is basically going all out in blackmail.

Funding fort all 52 is unsure as the price is huge and currency exchange rate is going in the wrong direction.

>>30595042
>6th gen hypersonic
Good luck avoiding detection with hypersonic aircraft.

And a detected 6th gen is a dead 6th gen, because LOL laser threat environment.

File: 1441411464244.png (12KB, 437x407px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 437x407px

>>30574732

File: X-32B[1].jpg (32KB, 595x398px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 595x398px

>>30596649
>Modern Boeing fighter design