F-35A catches fire at Mountain Home AFB

>>31436370

>Dragon beating all the vatniks to the punch by just posting it himself.

I like the way you operate.

Wait... what? A malfunction occurred with an aircraft that's still basically in the prototyping stages of its life?

WHEN HAS THIS EVER HAPPENED??

>>31436370
Excessive fuel flow should make it run cooler, though. You're only going to burn as much fuel as you have air available, and the rest evaporates and takes heat with it.

>>31436809
The problem however is that there's plenty more air than fuel (hence why afterburners work); bypass air is critical in keeping the turbine and combustion chamber at acceptable temperatures. If it was a hot start it would have also happened after the fan / compressor had already started moving as well (just not fast enough), so it's not as if the engine would have just filled up with carbon monoxide, etc and self-extinguished.

>>31436883
new bustings myths when

>>31436783
This right here.

We really ought to just cancel the program.

File: F35 damaged.jpg (22KB, 680x385px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 680x385px

>>31436783
>Wait... what? A malfunction occurred with an aircraft that's still basically in the prototyping stages of its life?
>WHEN HAS THIS EVER HAPPENED??
It's over a fucking decade late now. And it's not exactly the first time it's happened.

>>31437188
5 or 6 years late depending on the measurement you use.

>>31437002
Possibly in the next 36 hours, but otherwise after next week. I feel a bit meh about this next episode, but we'll see what the public thinks; I'm probably just a bit jaded on having it sitting around for months.

>>31436883
That's assuming it's not just a leaking fuel pipe.

>>31437126
>choose to make most complex aircraft ever
>quit because it is hard

Really it would be better if unrealistic expectations weren't demanded then correspondingly set at the start. We should recognize we are doing things that have neva been done befo and accept, and communicate, that there will be failures along the way.

>>31437442
Agreed; one thing of potential concern is that this could be a nozzle fueldraulic issue - to preheat the fuel (and make it burn more efficiently), reduce IR signature and eliminate another hydraulic system, fuel is used to actuate the engine exhaust nozzle. That system has been working fine since 2006, but it's possible that either a maintenance error or just a random failure of some component could have leaked fuel at the nozzle.

Why even waste money on this project when they are just going to be grounded in favor of drones

File: QF-35.jpg (28KB, 764x284px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 764x284px

>>31438322

They would just convert the planes into drones and keep flying them.

>>31437374
Kinda funny how there's always someone in these treads throwing around random numbers

>OVER AT FUCKING DECADE!!!
>more like 5-6 years....

>400 gorillion dollar project
>nah, more like "insert much lower price here" that covers the whole lifetime, with fuel, munitions and so on

>IT COSTS 250 mill per plane!
>no...closer to 100, going towards 80-ish

And so it keeps going

>>31436370
I swear to god, the F-35 will be the best airplane of the world soon, every error or problem is debated by thousands of people on the internet, which helps in solving or finding solutions for all its problems. In a few years we will have a wikipedia page about it:
The F-35 effect

>>31437188
Anyone knows what happened to this F-35?

>>31437374
>>31437002
We Episode 4 now: >>31438577

>>31437374
And using contemporary programs for comparison the F-35 is "right on time."

>>31438579
No and we probably won't know for a few days or weeks. A full accident report will likely take several months.

>>31437506
Hell, at least they aren't fucking crashing and killing pilots like every other program.

File: f-35 lemon.jpg (9KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 250x251px

>>31436370
Did some pesky Russian lit a match under it or something? Clearly, that's the cause of this fire. In no way shape or form is this the fault of LockMart.

>>31438635
>Up to 18 Crashes a year
>F-16 Still one of the best fighters ever

>2 non-fatal ground fires
>Hurr fail-35

>>31438437
A 1.5 trillion dollar project. What a waste

>>31436370

i swear, only in the F-35 is a hot start national news.

they're unusual, but they're not unexpected. there will probably be some note or warning in a checklist once they figure out that if you have these combination of issues, you can get a tailpipe fire.

I had a hot start/engine fire in a super hornet, and those have probably had millions of starts. The FADEC should have stopped it, but it didn't. I was in the heat of mid day as well as the exhaust of everyone in front of me because I was right in front of the tower. During start the APU over heated and shut down, but fuel had already been introduced. The rpm stopped increasing and I saw the EGT increase rapidly. I was luckily paying pretty close attention, and shut it down. But had to get out to allow an inspection.

The point is: even mature aircraft can have issues like this. We just don't make the news when it happens.

File: 1471459654699.jpg (30KB, 720x734px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 720x734px

>>31438679
you're comparing crashes of planes with thousands of flight hours to brand new planes catching fire while on ground??? nigger, are you fucking serious???

AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

> $0.50 has been deposited into your account. thank you for shilling L-M.

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

1MB, 1430x1352px

>>31438437

>>31438691
>Over 50 years of operation
>Extreme high end of estimate
>Current fleet would be $4t
>Your a fuckwit for repeating this meme

>>31438702

what engines do y'all have in the Rhino?

the -220s i fly with aren't prone to hot starts, but one is in basically every EP sim i've ever had.

>>31438724

when they were new, the F-16 crashes were like 30 per year.

a F-35 has yet to crash.

>>31438724
The F-16 was at Pre-LRIP maturity during those crashes, yet in mass production already. Learn your fucking history.

>>31438724
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r05etLdeonY

kek

>>31438724
Tell us more how you know the flight hours of the aircraft in question, bonus points if you can come up with a non handwave answer.

File: 1473624582253.jpg (6KB, 227x222px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 227x222px

>>31438782
>a F-35 has yet to crash.
yeah, coz no one flies those pieces of shit. once thye get deployed, in 10-15 years from now, they'll be dropping like flies.

>>31438782
slaviboo's btfo

>>31438811

i actually know several dudes who fly the F-35 now.

>>31438724
>>31438811
F-35's have flown about 70,000 flight hours so far, with 20,000 having been achieved just since February this year; there's also about 200 F-35s now flying (or grounded heu heu)

To give a comparison, the YF-16, the rough equivalent of the X-35, flew in 1974. Then in 1976 the equivalent of the F-35A, AA-1 (the first test F-35) flew. Then in December 1978 the first production F-16 flew and the F-16 entered service.

From 1976 to 1986, 120 F-16s had crashed - most had been from pilot error or unknown reasons, but at least 32 were attributable to design-related issues (engine failures, EPU failures, fuel pump failures, fly-by-wire sensor failures, etc).

>>31438811
>Hmmm, F-35 hit 50,000 fleet hours in February, which puts A at 2.00 (1 incident), unknown B, Fatal rate of 0.00, and with first flight close enough to 9 years prior, and ~5,555 hours a year, though that'll change as production and entry to service picks up.
Nice get. Comparing this to:
>F-15 at 50,000 flight hours - 7 total Class As, rate of 14
>F-16 at 50,000 - 14 total Class As, rate of 28
>F-22 at 50,000 - 4 Class As, rate of 8
>A-10 at 50,000 - 7 Class As, rate of 14

The F-35 dev program, testing protocols and LRIP plan starts looking really, really good.

>>31438838
>i actually know several dudes who fly the F-35 now.
fly =/= deployed

these things are lacking so many features, theyr'e not even ready for combat.

File: Spacey Unimpressed.gif (891KB, 325x252px) Image search: [Google]

891KB, 325x252px

>>31438905
>these things are lacking so many features, theyr'e not even ready for combat.
nice meme

File: 1472569181643.gif (897KB, 800x430px)

897KB, 800x430px

>>31438898
>>31438845
>>31438809

>buttmad lockheed-martin shills got triggered hard
wew lads

>>31438905

... i don't know how to respond to such stupidity.

if i was at work i could just yell at you and tell you to fucking fix yourself because that shit is unsat, and you have a fine future in front of yourself outside of the Air Force.

>>31438916
What's hilarious about all that crap about the F-35 not already being in combat is that outside of Israel's wars the teen fighters didn't see any real warfare until the Gulf War.

>>31438927
>facts and actual data scare and confuse me, so I substitute my fantasy for your reality

>>31438927
>durr fact make my head hurt so I'll just insult the opposition

>>31438927
>only pretending potato guize etc ad nauseum

File: 1458434342783.jpg (85KB, 480x319px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 480x319px

>>31438987
>>31439004
>>31439014
mah niggahs with the mothafuckin hive brain

>>31438927
>someone is refuting my memes so i will just stick fingers in my ears and go nanananananananananana

>>31436783
It's happened before

>>31438845
>2016 planes should be held to the same standard as 1976 planes

Hmm

>>31439833
>A plane with two minor, non-fatal incidents
>Not valid to compare to how it was done in 4th Gen

>>31436783
I think everyone totally missed the sarcasm in my comment...

>>31438322
The engines and avionics tech can be transferred to other platforms which is what they're doing with the B-21.

>>31439833
>>2016 planes should be held to the same standard as 1976 planes
We don't. The F-35 had a record at 50,000 fleet flight hours 14 times better than the F-15 at the same point, 7 times better than the F-16 at the same point, 4 times better than the F-22, and 7 times better than the A-10.

See >>31438898

I'd recompute for 70,000 hours, but it'd still be by far the safest modern fighter program in terms of Class A mishap rates in history, and you won't recognize facts anyway.

Who's "comparing" it to 1970's aircraft? We've left them in the fucking dust.

>>31439872
That can happen, yes. I think you may have hit a bit close to home, with regards to the usuall shitposting that comes in these treads...

>>31436783
Piss off vatnik, it's no longer a prototype as it's in service and fully capable of combat

>>31440224
>Didn't notice me being sarcastic

At this point, we have literally defended the F-35 for 4 years straight with no proof of this thing being useable.

Why do people keep defending it?

>>31440554
>with no proof of this thing being useable
what does he mean by this?

Holy Shit burgers

Get your dogs out of the exhaust!

>>31440597
>what does he mean by this?
That he's fucktarded.

File: 1310498381546.jpg (28KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 400x400px

>>31436783
>an aircraft that's still basically in the prototyping stages of its life?
Behold, the same fatniks that were claiming F-35 is totally operational, finished and is absolutely not late, taking 16 years to fix are now backpedaling to "an aircraft that's still basically in the prototyping stages of its life". Comedy gold.

>>31440644
>Still in LRIP
>Not in FRP and FOC
>Still capable of fucking up any Russian fighter
>Go choke on your borscht

>>31438845
>but at least 32 were attributable to design-related issues
So it took 10 years of fully operational service for a mass-produced aircraft to crash 32 times because of the design issues. Call me back when F-35 will be mass-produced and in fully operational service for at least 10 years and we'll see its record. I'm sure it will be less than three dozens aircraft lost and I'm sure it will be far from zero.

>>31440695
>So it took 10 years of fully operational service for a mass-produced aircraft to crash 32 times because of the design issues. Call me back when F-35 will be mass-produced and in fully operational service for at least 10 years and we'll see its record. I'm sure it will be less than three dozens aircraft lost and I'm sure it will be far from zero.
Once more for the fucking potato, see >>31438898 for a complete comparison between the F-35 Class A mishaps up to 50,000 fleet flight hours and the F-16, F-15, A-10 and F-22 at the same exact points in their service lives.

Then tell me about how the F-35 is falling out of the sky or falling apart.

>>31436370
Thread seems oddly quiet. I'd have expected a shitstorm by now.

>>31440695
That was 10 years from the first production test aircraft flying, not from IOC or FOC (speaking of which, the F-16 at FOC was 100x less capable than an F-35 in IOC is today). The first production aka LRIP F-35 flew 10 years ago.

>>31440761
Most reasonable and well-read anons realize that the F-35 project has been remarkable quiet as far as Class-A mishaps are concerned. Incidents like this are to be expected when bringing a new fighter online. Same as the Zumwalt propulsion shaft packing leak engineering casualty they're currently repairing.

>>31440761
It's only 10AM in Russia, I find that they become most active at around 7-9PM Moscow time.

>>31440658
If you'll keep backpedaling this hard you may as well just turn around and walk in that general direction, dear.
>>31440721
How many of these F-16's 50000 flight hours were during mass production in fully operational service? How many of these F-35's 50000 flight hours were during mass production in fully operational service?
>tell me about how the F-35 is falling out of the sky
Tell me about how it is "still basically in the prototyping stages of its life". Or "fully operational". By now it seems like F-35's operational status is changing in regards of the benefits it provides for a fatnik arguing at 4chan.

>>31440800
I think a better question is what impact there is to a jet being fully operational, especially when these losses being counted aren't combat losses?

"still basically in the prototyping stages of its life" isn't the most accurate way to put it, but it's not technically wrong; a prototype is simply something that hasn't been fully developed yet and the F-35 doesn't finish development until around November 2017.

At the same time, a prototype can still see IOC and/or still be used in combat; just look at the XM-25 airburst grenade launcher for example; it was used in combat in Afghanistan in 2010, yet it doesn't officially enter service until next year.

Overall, the F-35 is in service, has reached IOC in two services, is being operationally deployed next year and will likely either see combat later next year or in early 2018, assuming that Syria doesn't suddenly see peace in the next 12-18 months. There are also around 195 F-35s currently flying (technically ~180 if you factor in the 15 that are grounded). The F-35 isn't mature yet (it officially become mature at 200,000 flight hours; right now we're at 70,000 and rising exponentially with the rate right now being roughly 30,000 flight hours a year), so it won't officially be mature until probably some point in 2018.

>>31440597
>>31440618
Why does it keep catching on fire though?

>>31440891
There's quite a difference between the service of a prototype in testing and a fully operational aircraft in mass production. Namely, the more aircraft you produce and the more you operate it the higher is the probability of issues emerging.
The point about it being or not being it its prototype stage is that regardless of how it is in reality fatniks will claim whatever suites them of the sake of supporting their argument. Another day one told me Sukhoi is "struggling to meet deadlines with T-50". When reminded that it has only been 6 years since its first flight, while it took 15 to adopt F-22 in service and with F-35 it is by now 16 and still going he resorted to claiming that "F-35 is fully operational bruh". But as soon as an accident happens a fatnik claims it "still basically in the prototyping stages of its life".

>>31440800
>How many of these F-16's 50000 flight hours were during mass production in fully operational service?
Tell me how this is relevant in Class-A mishap rates. Flight hours are flight hours, and while some testing regimens are markedly low stress, so are standard patrol flights. Not to mention the fact that more F-35s currently being in the air than the total number of F-22s in existence more than makes the argument for this being statistically relevant data. Cycles and hours are what they are. Someone from within the aviation field would recognize this.

>Tell me about how it is "still basically in the prototyping stages of its life".
I never said any such thing, but if we are on the topic, one can argue very successfully that either the F-35A and B are more operationally capable than the F-16, F-15 or F-14 were 5 years into their operational life or they were still prototyping 5 years after service introduction. Both of which are true, by the way, as militaary airframe development and upgrading never really ceases and the only line between "development" and "service" is a nebulous area where basic capability is declared. Which it has been for two variants.

>By now it seems like F-35's operational status is changing in regards of the benefits it provides for a fatnik arguing at 4chan.
See above. Tell me what front line aircraft is ever completely development frozen, and I'll show you an aircraft which is about to be completely retired.

>>31441109
>Namely, the more aircraft you produce and the more you operate it the higher is the probability of issues emerging.
Sure, but you have to also factor in how programs a run - the F-35's test program is far, far more comprehensive and lengthy than the F-16's; partly because of the complexity / more capabilities of the F-35 and partly to reduce the chances of having F-16-like loss rates. Ultimately, however you compare them the F-35 has a considerably safer program of record. For example, assuming every F-16 delivered prior to a year flew 300 hours and the jets delivered in that year flew 150 hours, we'd be roughly up to something like Q2 1981 in terms of flight hours, at which point there had been around 7-9 crashes attributable to design issues.

>>31441109
>Namely, the more aircraft you produce and the more you operate it the higher is the probability of issues emerging.
Which is the entire fucking point of extending the testing and evaluation period with lower production tranches with the LRIP process. By doing so we uncover and address the issues that plagued the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-111, F-22, etc. before the aircraft are fully mass produced and three years into service and require massive refit programs instead of proactive solutions on the front end.

>The point about it being or not being it its prototype stage is that regardless of how it is in reality fatniks will claim whatever suites them of the sake of supporting their argument.
Are we now implying that EVERYONE doesn't do the same? Are we now forgetting that some of the most spectacular examples of doublethink arise from Russian justifications for Ukraine and actions in Syria?

Glass houses. Stones. Throwing. Etc.

>Another day one told me Sukhoi is "struggling to meet deadlines with T-50".
This is manifest and provable fact, just as the F-35 at times has been pressed to meet the program schedule.

>When reminded that it has only been 6 years since its first flight, while it took 15 to adopt F-22 in service and with F-35 it is by now 16 and still going he resorted to claiming that "F-35 is fully operational bruh".
Going by published program dates for the PAK-FA, plus early budgets, it is not completely on the rails. Just ask the Indians. Whataboutism does not change this fact.

>But as soon as an accident happens a fatnik claims it "still basically in the prototyping stages of its life".
Why are you so hung up on this perceived injustice? The aircraft is not yet finished with development. On the otherhand, the aircraft also displays and is certified significant combat capability. If you're trying to imply that it is an absolute black and white in this issue, you do little but show your own ignorance.

>>31438579
No details, but something:
https://warisboring.com/the-f-35-can-just-catch-on-fire-sometimes-eecce430792b?ICID=ref_fark#.i0wx8a9ft

File: sensible chuckle.gif (2MB, 320x384px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x384px

>>31436401
preemptive damage control countermeasures

File: 1470353606525.jpg (34KB, 385x368px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 385x368px

>>31440554
>planes should be designed, tested, purchased, built, and have 80,000 flying hours within 4 years

>hurrr durrr im a retard

>>31436783
It was a prototype 10 fucking years ago.

This is a production line, mass produced F-35A.

>Lockheed Martin won the F-35 contract in 2001, Sukhoi won the PAK FA contract in 2002

Vatniks BTFO

>>31441314
>Ultimately, however you compare them the F-35 has a considerably safer program of record
It is. Like I said right away, I'm sure it will have better safety record than 4th gens from the second half of the last century, as well as I am sure it will not be perfect, with more units built and much more people getting involved into operating them around the world.

>>31441328
>EVERYONE DOES THE SAME! What about Russia, and Ukraine, and Syria, and whatnot...
Whataboutism is a Russian invention, stop violating copyright law immediately before you are fined for $12000 and three months in prison.
>>31441901
X-35 first flight - 2000, T-50 first flight 2010. Leave.

>>31441032
Twice in 70,000 hours on 2/180+ airframes isn't "keeps catching on fire."

>>31441786
>War is boring
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k0SmqbBIpQ

>>31439833
>>31440695
>>31441032

Ah, the gentle scraping sound of moving goalposts...

File: carlos.png (138KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 350x350px

>>31441328
>Are we now implying that EVERYONE doesn't do the same? Are we now forgetting that some of the most spectacular examples of doublethink arise from Russian justifications for Ukraine and actions in Syria?

don't overheat with all that impotent rage. would hate to see you spontaneously self-combust

>>31444676
No, it's ok. Don't bother with an actual argument or reference to real world facts. Memes and le punning brown trollface will totally salvage a completely bankrupt intellectual position on the relevant matters.

>>31438679
There are not 18 F-16 crashes per year. 2016 has had 2. Out of the roughly 4,000 currently operating. Jesus, it's like anyone can get on the internet and just say whatever they want.

>>31438724
>shilling L-M

Uhhh...you're aware that both of those planes are made by Lockheed Martin, right?

>>31445047

Not who you were replying to but globally, there are usually quite a few serious F-16 incidents a year, even if this year seems not too bad.

http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/mishaps-and-accidents/

>14 incidents in 2015
>12 incidents in 2014
>13 incidents in 2013

>using egress as a verb
Why do milfags try to sound smart? They end up sounding like uppity inferiority complex blacks.

>>31440787
ooh, source on the Zumwalt-thingy? havent heard anything new since they left for Norfolk

>>31445184
>Them derm werds hurt mah head

>>31445184

egress is the standard term for it in the Air Force. we all know our emergency ground egress procedures, and the command of execution of it is "Egress, Egress, Egress". on the third one, you get the fuck out of the jet.

tl;dr shut the fuck up.

>>31440644
hows that PAKFA coming along?

>>31438735
In all honesty though. Every single one of those is true. haha. Should have gone with the f-23

>>31449082
A plane with the structural stiffness of a slightly dry twig?

File: 1473747213565.jpg (429KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 1920x1200px

>>31441314
>>31440891

Dragon, can I just say that you really need to post on Breaking Defense more often? We could really use your knowledge there.

Pic-unrelated.

>>31445047
Historically, jackass, it hit that in the '80s.

>>31449082
Except that was made because every single square was a common item of complete bullshit argument by haterade drinkers.

File: 1458436128282.png (402KB, 452x510px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 452x510px

>>31449082
>Should have gone with the f-23
>F-23
>competition for the F-35

Please accept this picture to elucidate my feelings upon reading your post.

File: X-35.jpg (590KB, 2400x1912px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 2400x1912px

>>31436370

The F-35 will eventually turn out fine, but you have to admit this program was mismanaged to an outrageous degree. Making a stealthy F-16 replacement should not have taken this long. Let's remember that the original X-35 demonstrator flew in 2000, so 16 years later they still are having significant issues.

>it's over the f-35 is finished

>>31449641
>F-22 had same 15 year dev time for just one variant from YF first flight to IOC
Can we let this stupid meme die already? The only mismanagement was the stupid planning before the F-35 design was even finalized that have it that timeframe

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

36KB, 636x358px

>>31441786
>https://warisboring.com/the-f-35-can-just-catch-on-fire-sometimes-eecce430792b?ICID=ref_fark#.i0wx8a9ft
"A new report by the U.S. Air Force’s Accident Investigation Board shines new light on what exactly happened with America’s hottest new warplane."

They're clearly having fun with that one.

File: 1469332883407.jpg (26KB, 500x378px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x378px

>>31449082
>Comparing ATF program to JSF

>>31441786
>>31438579
The full accident report was released in early 2015:
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2015/06/F35%20AIB%20Final%20Report%2017%20Mar%2015.pdf

File: Fminus35.jpg (40KB, 312x229px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 312x229px

There's not a whole lot of love for this bird is there.

>>31453330
There's plenty, you're just only listening to the twats.

>>31449834

Do you truly believe that it is acceptable to wait so long for a new fighter jet? Come on man, all the services are being hurt by this: they're losing falcons, hornets, and harriers because the air-frames have reached the end of their lives but they have to keep flying them because the replacement isn't ready yet! And many are saying that the F-35 won't be truly ready until after 2020!

>>31456117
This might come as a shock to you, but the F-35's development time has been comperable to the Eurofighter and Rafale.

And if an airframe has reached the end of its life, it does not fly at all.

>>31456117
>Do you truly believe that it is acceptable to wait so long for a new fighter jet?
Typhoon, Rafale, etc. all took just as long.

It takes a long fucking time to get a modern fighter into service, anon. It's not like it was back in Gen 3, even in Gen 4 they didn't get those completely ironed out with full designed capabilities until well into their service lives. For instance:

>F-14 first flew 1970, didn't finally overcome the compressor stall issues and achieve designed kinematics until the GE F110-GE-400 with the F-14B along with the essential RHAW systems, 1987.
17 years to program defined full capability.
>F-15 first flew 1972, didn't finally overcome the engine issues with concurrent high loss rates until almost 5 years after it was introduced in 1976 and didn't fulfill what would be considered full capability for the F-35 program until the F-15C was introduced in 1979.
7 years to program defined full capability.
>F-16 first flew 1974, didn't fix the engine issues for several years after introduction in 1978, and the horizontal stabilator issue wasn't addressed until Block 15 in late 1981. It didn't achieve full capability all-weather status until Block 25 in 1986, when it also finally upgraded the engines.
12 years to program defined full capability.
>F-111 first flew 1964, didn't come close to achieving program designed goals until the F-111F in 1970, and even then was deficient in some requirements.
6 years to program defined fullish capability.

For reference, the F-35 is so much more complex in numbers of systems per volume, software complexity per aircraft and overall technological risk that comparing it to the Block 0 F-16 is like putting a 1967 Mustang GT next to a current year Porsche GT3 RS. They're both sweet rides, but not even in the same ballpark really.

>>31456321
>>31456399

With modern CAD software and engineering tools the amount of time needed to develop a new aircraft should be shrinking, not growing.

>>31456895
>With modern CAD software and engineering tools the amount of time needed to develop a new aircraft should be shrinking, not growing.
Not when number of systems, systems integration requirements and systems complexity are all growing exponentially it shouldn't. Also, physical design of the airframe is by far the simplest and fastest completed part of the process. The time sinks are the software writing, electronics hardware design and integration, material science across the airframe, VLO features and engine and production flow optimization.

>>31456960

Then at some point the question must be asked if these new features are important to justify the increased complexity. Otherwise you'll end up with a smaller and smaller air force as time goes on.

>>31456973
>if these new features are important to justify the increased complexity. Otherwise you'll end up with a smaller and smaller air force as time goes on.
Considering the capabilities they bring, the demonstrated dominance of the F-22 and the recent displays of A2A and SEAD dominance displayed by the F-35, I'd say that question more than answers itself.

Read the following for an in-depth and well written analysis of low-cost high numbers procurement philosophy VS high-tech procurement philosophy, as it was surrounding the various controversies with the introduction of the Gen 4 aircraft:
http://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf

Furthermore, the USAF alone is procuring 1,700+ of the F-35s. That means that in F-35s alone the USAF will be larger than any other entire air force in the world. Hardly smaller numbers compared to others. Finally, after a certain point the costs themselves become very close to equivalent between 4+++ gen and 5th gen fighters. See: Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen NG/E vs current and projected F-35 prices.

TLDR: both the F-22 and F-35 have shown themselves to be massive force multipliers, so the answer to the question is an emphatic yes, it makes sense up to a point.