JSF vs. Single role aircraft

Kill yourself. Airfags are literally so brain dead they need a internet image board to help them do their "job".

Stop eating Cheetos and do whatever simple task you were giving, airturd.

>>31533097

>Alright /k/, I'm giving a briefing on the JSF vs. a single role aircraft.

Each different version of the F-35 should be thought of as a separate type of aircraft. As in, the three different variants are distinct aircraft that share a degree of commonality between all of them. Originally, the goal was to have 80% commonality of parts between all three variants. However, this turned out to be ridiculous and impossible, so the commonality goals were gradually reduced over time and at this point in time there is roughly 20% parts commonality between the different versions. If the commonality goals had been more realistic from the beginning, then there is a chance that the program would not have run into so many delays. To be absolutely clear, I am not saying that all commonality is bad. It is not. Commonality is essential in a project like this. But it has to be done in a smart way. Having a common engine between all three variants was a good idea. However, at the same time trying to get 80% parts commonality throughout the entire airframe was a very bad idea that led to many unnecessary delays.

For more information, you should probably just read this:

http://etd.auburn.edu/handle/10415/595

>>31533097

>Alright /k/, I'm giving a briefing on the JSF vs. a single role aircraft.

Single-role aircraft? There is no such thing.

>>31533112
>>>31533297
Salty retard,
Just stop it and try to have a civilized conversation for once.
Thank you,
Someone who actually has two brain cells to rub together.

>>31533097

>Alright /k/, I'm giving a briefing on the JSF vs. a single role aircraft.

To who?

>>31533461
This is kind of important.

>>31533097
>Alright /k/, I'm giving a briefing on the JSF vs. a single role aircraft.

If you are a professional, lol at coming to /k/ for advice.

If you are at a DIA CAE, breddy gud.

File: air force male.jpg (10KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 275x183px

>air force
Why don't you just do your job instead of going to 4chan?

>give me everything you've got on why developmental clusterfuck for free different branches with bizarre demands for pointless toys like SVTOL is better than a dedicated aircraft

you can be set for life if your dad happens to work inside the bloated, cozy mil-industrial-congress complex responsible for regurgitating something like jsf

>>31533508
>Implying the F-35 hasn't resulted in a lower-cost fighter with far lower dev costs than three separate programs
>Muh corrupt MIC meme

>>31533508
>muh MIC

Neck yourself; I bet you don't even get what Eisenhower was worried about.

File: 160928-M-VO695-0143.jpg (224KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1600x1067px

>>31533508

I'd really like to see you explain how you think the USMC would be able to function without STOVL aircraft. I mean, helicopters are great for CAS, but they are useless for SEAD, and the marines need SEAD to conduct an amphibious assault.

>>31533544
>>a lower-cost fighter
>branch commonality was supposed to save money, yet program has exceeded cost of each branch developing their own jet

>>31533620
>branch commonality was supposed to save money, yet program has exceeded cost of each branch developing their own jet

You can, of course, substantiate this claim?

>>31533620
>Compared to Eurocanards and modernized 4th gens it costs less
>dev program cost less than the F-22
Keep up that imagination, buddy.

>>31533630

>You can, of course, substantiate this claim?

Not him but:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1225.html

http://www.rand.org/pubs/periodicals/rand-review/issues/2014/spring/aircraft.html

>>31533662
>History has shown that joint fighter programs ... necessitate major compromises in requirements and capability, while possibly damaging the industrial base and leading to increased operational and strategic risk.

I don't think they adequately substantiated this set of claims

>>31533683

Did you even download the report? The article on the website is just a summary of the report.

>>31533713
Woops. Missed that link. I'll go read it.

>>31533097
>>31533215
>Having a common engine between all three variants was a good idea. However, at the same time trying to get 80% parts commonality throughout the entire airframe was a very bad idea that led to many unnecessary delays.

Makes zero sense.

Common engine between a STOVL and CTOL make no sense since there are several different engines already on the market and tested which can fit the plane nicely.

Common airframe would make sense though, except it's badly dimensioned and riddled with internal bays and caloducs and other muh passive stealth stuff hence weight thus a PITA to develop 3 versions out of it and a single engine plane heavier than a freaking F-15.

There should have been an F-33, an F-34, and an F-35. With commonality centered around key elements and sub-elements, then adapted to each aircraft.

The extra money spent into making 3 different airframes with 3 different FCS would have saved dozens of billions. Instead, LM was greedy as fuck and took all of the cake, scamming several airforces in the process with "look it's the same plane people, totally not a scam !"

Don't fucking tell me designing 3 different airframes would have been difficult because "muh stealth". In fact it's quite the opposite. It would have accomodated each role way better than now.

Also ; twin engine dual F-414 for air force and navy. Period. Engine with the best growth potential in the US, and I'm talking about making it variable cycle and thus saving lots of fuel for the same performance. The F-135 makes zero sense in that regard since it should be even more heavier to just fit the specs in the first place.

File: commonality.png (18KB, 481x342px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 481x342px

>>31533737

I really don't expect you to read the entire thing (it's pretty long) but they definitely explore the issue in depth.

>The initial goal of JSF was to achieve 80-percent commonality among service variants. However, as shown in Figure 3.5, airframe commonality by structural weight has declined over time.16 At MSB, the three variants (the CV [aircraft carrier capable], STOVL, and CTOL) ranged from between about 45 to 70percent commonality by airframe weight. Weight growth on the STOVL variant and various design changes have reduced airframe commonality to a range of about 27 to 43percent by July 2008.17 As of this writing, it is not clear how common the mission systems, avionics, software, and engine will be among the three service variants because many of these items are still under development or continue to evolve.

>>31533788

>There should have been an F-33, an F-34, and an F-35. With commonality centered around key elements and sub-elements, then adapted to each aircraft.

No objections.

>>31533793
Even if I disagree, I'm happy to read the whole thing to expand my knowledge.

>>31533097
>I'm giving a briefing on the JSF
Can the L-M shilling department afford the continuous stream of damage limitation that follows this stream of JSF threads?

>>31533296
>Single-role aircraft? There is no such thing.
I think he mean *single roll*.
After a single roll the aircraft has to return to factory for Synergistic Evolutionary Recombinant Versimillitudinally Intensive Care Execution.


>>31533544
>fighter with far lower dev costs
Cost is only a small part. Cost-benefit analysis and risk analysis is what counts. And until it has been tried in war there will juts be a flood of words, very much like the uselessness of this thread. There is just never anything new here just a general thread.

>>31533831

Every joint project ends up under-performing compared to expectations. I'm really not sure what the counter-point is. Right now, the three F-35 variants only have around 20% commonality, and they are likely to drift further apart as the design is refined. At some point you have to admit that if a joint program completely and utterly fails its commonality and performance goals as they are wont to do, then it just isn't worth it to have them combined in the first place.

>>31533461
>>31533468
A cranky Lt Col who is going to try to rip me a new anus. I've already done my research, I just came here to see if anyone had any obscure citable information that i could blindside him with.

>>31533855
Nah, I meant the military definiton of an Aircraft's purpose. I.E. the B-52 is used for high-altitude bombing. Not much else.

>>31533925

Which side are you supporting?

>>31533788
>I don't know anything about the F-35 or fighter development and I'm going to be loud about it!

There is literally nothing in this post that is correct.

>>31533943
I was tasked with supporting the JSF program. This is for a class, not for my job.

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

137KB, 1920x1080px

>>31533097
>Give me everything you've got on why the concept of a JSF is better.

Give me everything you have on why the concept of a dedicated night fighter is worse.

>>31533855
>Consistently outperforms 4th Gens in every way in exercises at Mountain Home and Green Flag
>Less to develop three variants than the F-22
>significantly lower unit price than contemporary 4.5s
Keep crying and moving the goalposts on when it can be called "good."

>>31533924
So it didn't hit early, imaginary project goals but has still produced an excellent three-service base design? Stay mad.

>>31533976
That's actually a really good point. That kind of thinking creates vulnerability and windows of time when the aircraft isn't able to be used effectively.

>>31534024

I'm not sure why you're now claiming the 80% commonality goal was imaginary. It was a core goal of the program. Right now, the three different versions only have about 20% commonality. So if the commonality is so low at this point, what was even the purpose of having a joint program in the first place? Might as well have let each service manage its own fighter program.

Other countries more willing to buy, I guess? Buying 1 aircraft to do various jobs kinda makes sense economically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO69gazQU1c
On another note, Japan's F-35 looks pretty good with their roundel.

>>31534107
Are you trying to argue that a program that, by all reasonable measures is a success, should have been replaced by three separate dev programs?

Stealth is not optional anymore. And the F-35A base design had tons of space for the STOVL system with only minor compromise of range and payload (and still a massive upgrade over the Harrier) and the C basically just has longer wings, a tailhook, and reinforcement. In what reality would it cost less to run three separate competitions, dev programs, and then production lines?

>>31534208

>Are you trying to argue that a program that, by all reasonable measures is a success, should have been replaced by three separate dev programs?

It would have made more sense to run the programs separately, yes. They have the aircraft pretty close to working now, generally speaking, but only because they relaxed the commonality goals to make it possible. The original goal was to have the three different airframes share 80% parts commonality between them. This did not occur. The three different variants now have only about 20% parts commonality between them. So with that in mind, it would have made sense to just let each service manage its own fighter program. There would have been fewer delays, and the overall lifecycle cost would be less than what actually happened.

>In what reality would it cost less to run three separate competitions, dev programs, and then production lines?

I have provided detailed sources for my claims. When the RAND corporation says that joint fighter programs consistently under-perform compared to single service programs, you should listen.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1225.html

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9759.html

>>31533608
The same way they fucking operate now. The harrier is almost completely worthless.

>>31534347

>The harrier is almost completely worthless

Tell that to Las Malvinas.

>>31534343
I'm more willing to believe actual exercise results than one think tank's opinions that were almost entirely theoretical.

>>31534400

Can you provide a source to support this?

>>31533788
>scamming several airforces in the process with "look it's the same plane people, totally not a scam !"

I doubt anyone other than the US would buy any variant that isn't the F-35A.

>>31533951
Elaborate then.

>>31534439
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/06/21/f35-software-mountain-home-deployment/86191386/
http://www.defensetech.org/2015/07/14/f-35a-flies-close-air-support-missions-in-first-green-flag/
>>31534449
Why? Nothing in the post was correct in any way, so why waste energy on someone who likely doesn't want to learn anything against his beliefs.

File: JSF-AMRAAM-490x277.jpg (12KB, 490x277px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 490x277px

>>31534537

Neither of those sources seem to touch on the topic whether or not it would have been better to let each service manage its own fighter program.

You seem to be ignoring the key point here: the three F-35 variants were supposed to have 80% parts commonality between them. They don't. Not even close. So then what exactly was gained by making it a joint program?

>>31534537
That's some good stuff man, thanks!

>>31534617
So I'm not really talking about that. I'm more addressing the ability of the JSF to perform tasks that multiple different aircraft could do.

>>31534449

bongs are buying a ton of Bs

>>31534617
You also seem to be ignoring a key point here. Despite low commonality, this joint program has produced 3 distinct aircraft which:
-each fulfill their requirements for each service and allies
-can outperform previous and contemporary non-joint developed aircraft
-has lower development cost than comparable non-joint developed aircraft
-has lower full rate unit cost than comparable non-joint developed aircraft

Are there any examples of the major powers of the world collectively buying into a "meme" technology that turns out to not actively be very effective in practice?

I want to handwave away the fact I'm worldbuilding a place for cool air-combat, which requires the governments of the world collectively bowing to Pierre Sprey figures who tell them to buy F-5s instead. (And seeing other countries do this, instead of doubling down on research into F-15s and SU-27s, they instead follow the leader and turn out MiG-21s)

Or would it be best to just leave that fuzzy and go "lol politics" instead of coming up with a more detailed system of how the figures were fudged and the memes bought?

File: 1465574706227.jpg (143KB, 1600x673px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1600x673px

>>31533793
>>31533924
>Commonality is abandoned to meet performance requirements
Where have I heard this story before?

>>31533215
>roughly 20% parts commonality
Just to expand here, the commonality of actually serviced, replaced, rebuilt, refurbished and other types of depot-maintained parts between the variants is much, much higher. I don't have the actual percentage in front of me, but commonality percentage between factory installed parts is far, far less cost-impactful than commonality between the most serviced or replaced parts over total service life, and this is one area in which the F-35, especially the A and C models, but even the B models to a significant extent, was very successful as a long-term planning exercise.

>>31534680
Oh yeah, I forgot about the Brit. They only buy B variant. I wonder if they are going to have their own 5th gen development.

Italy is buying B too. Singapore could be potential buyer of the Bs.

>>31533620
>yet program has exceeded cost of each branch developing their own jet
I'll just wait here until you actually produce a well-researched study or source to substantiate this.

>>31534705
>Are there any examples of the major powers of the world collectively buying into a "meme" technology that turns out to not actively be very effective in practice?

Yes, WW2 battleships

>>31533793
Again, this % by airframe weight metric for parts commonality is exceedingly deceptive when you're actually looking at total airframe life cycle cost. The most important metric, by far, is % of serviced/replaced parts commonality. Neither of those sources address this metric.

File: 1446647269737.jpg (383KB, 1283x855px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 1283x855px

>>31533097
>MUH SINGLE ROLE AIRCRAFT IS THE BEST THING EVER!! MULTIROLE IS AWFUL!!

Just for some perspective:

Naval combat aircraft used concurrently in Vietnam:
>F-4
>F-8
>A-1
>A-3
>A-6
>A-7
>RA-5C
>EF-10B/EA-6B
>E-1/E-2
>C-1/C-2
>S-2
And I'm probably missing an aircraft or two.

Naval combat aircraft used concurrently in Iraq/Afghanistan:
>F-14B/D
>F/A-18,F/A-18EF
>S-3
>EA-6B/EA-18G
>E-2
>C-2

That's a pretty marked trend, and I don't think anyone would argue today's naval aviation is in any way less flexible or capable compared to Vietnam War naval aviation. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find one area where they are not now MORE efficient and flexible.

>>31534774
>I wonder if they are going to have their own 5th gen development.

We did, but we enrolled it into the JSF.

>>31534694

>each fulfill their requirements for each service and allies

This could have been achieved with three separately managed programs.

>can outperform previous and contemporary non-joint developed aircraft

This could have been achieved with three separately managed programs.

>has lower development cost than comparable non-joint developed aircraft

This is a statement which requires proof. I have provided detailed sources which suggest that it would have been better overall to have three separate fighter programs.

http://www.rand.org/multimedia/video/2014/03/28/do-joint-fighter-programs-save-money.html#in-brief-mark-a-lorell-on-do-joint-fighter-programs-save-money

>has lower full rate unit cost than comparable non-joint developed aircraft

This is a statement which requires proof. I have provided detailed sources which suggest that it would have been better to have three separately managed fighter programs.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1225.html

>>31534343
>http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1225.html
You do realize that the only programs that is looking at are the F-111, F-4, F-16/F-18 and A-7, every single one of which was solely developed for a single service and then "modified" for use by another service, often catastrophically from a cost perspective. The lesson, again and again, is that it is an enormous cost and time pain in the ass to adapt an existing airframe to perform in ways in which it was not initially designed, i.e. catobar F-111s, etc. This is borne out in other programs NOT suffering from multi-service blues. See: F-14.

They answer the question of whether or not it makes sense to modify existing aircraft tuned to one service's needs for another service with very different needs, and the answer is generally no.

They do not answer whether or not a project like the F-35, which was designed from the beginning with input from ALL THREE services with which it will serve, will be an effective solution from cost and dev time perspectives.

>>31534827
The comparison seems somewhat unfair since you're comparing different technologies as well as different roles.

The capability comparison would need to be modified to account for the fact the F-14 is more advanced than the F-4, for example.

>>31534449
>Why? Nothing in the post was correct in any way, so why waste energy on someone who likely doesn't want to learn anything against his beliefs.

"I don't have anything to say guys", the post

>I doubt anyone other than the US would buy any variant that isn't the F-35A.

Hello there, britbongs are ONLY buying F-35 Bs.

Japs would buy ONLY F-35 Bs for their Izumo carriers.

Italy will buy Bs for their Cavour carrier.

You doubt very badly.

>>31534694
aaaand none of this is true.

>>31534827
Considering the fact that remotely precise bombing in Vietnam often required dedicated bombing systems and a second systems operator, just like high-end A2A BVR engagements, this is a ridiculously false comparison. Any US fighter in the air today is an order of magnitude more precise and demonstrates a lower CEP than even the specialized A-6 strike aircraft of Vietnam. Same story with all-weather strike and A2A operations, of fleet CAP or ASW needs or EW/recon needs.

>>31534916
>Japs would buy ONLY F-35 Bs for their Izumo carriers.

But the Izumo would require some serious overhaul for F-35s. They really are just helicopter carriers

>>31534751
I love it how the whole thread just ignores this well-considered and important point, and pretends it doesn't exist.

>>31534916
>Japs would buy ONLY F-35 Bs for their Izumo carriers.

No, they don't

>>31534930
>Considering the fact that remotely precise bombing in Vietnam often required dedicated bombing systems and a second systems operator, just like high-end A2A BVR engagements, this is a ridiculously false comparison.

Are you retarded?

Are you implying that you needed an entirely different type of aircraft to paint a target for another to engage it? The first truly successful use of guided bombs like you're trying to say involved F-111s exclusively.

Try harder next time you want to make a false equivalency.

File: commonality 2.png (33KB, 386x510px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 386x510px

>>31534891

The F-111 had three separate missions assigned to it when it was first pitched:

1. Land-based interdictor
2. Land-based CAS aircraft
3. Carrier-based interceptor

There were to be three different variants, each with 70% commonality between them.

The CAS variant got axed pretty quickly because apparantly somebody realized the inherent silliness of building a supersonic swing-wing bomber just for CAS. After the CAS variant was axed the Air Force created a seperate program which resulted in the A-10 which has nothing in common with the F-111.

Then the carrier-based interceptor variant was cancelled because there was just no way to make the F-111 light enough to take-off from a carrier without compromising on commonality. So after lots of bitching from McNamara, the F-111 carrier variant was also cancelled and replaced by the F-14, which had very little commonality with the F-111 but was much more suited for the role of a carrier based interceptor.

The only survivor of the F-111 program was the F-111 land-based interdictor variant, which eventually became quite successful in its role once the other two variants were finally out of the way.

So the lesson here is that when you put too much emphasis on commonality, you end up wasting a lot of money.

>>31534970
>Are you implying that you needed an entirely different type of aircraft to paint a target for another to engage it?
No, dipshit. I was referencing the presence of back-seaters and side-seaters in the A-6, F-4, A-5, F-111, etc.

Now the only second seat we need in tactical aviation is in specialized cases involving large strikes, EW (growler) and our highest-end full multi-role interdiction/CAP/strike/CAS USAF platforms, the F-15E.

>>31535005
>The only survivor of the F-111 program was the F-111 land-based interdictor variant, which eventually became quite successful in its role once the other two variants were finally out of the way.
>So the lesson here is that when you put too much emphasis on commonality, you end up wasting a lot of money.
Look at the actual program progress and development dates for the F-111, and you will find a primary and early emphasis solely on the land-based interdictor model as that was the most urgent need. The others were always secondary and planned to be follow-on adaptations, not near-simultaneous, once the F-111 primary systems were well on their way to in service.

>>31534680
And the Italians. Nobody else has CATOBAR carriers, so overall the only version that's big-picture important is the A, as that's the one with somewhere near 2500 total orders versus 6-800 of the other two combined.

>>31534368
>conflict 34 years ago is proof that my meme plane is relevant

>>31533793
>Why can't this aircraft become VTOL by just swapping out a couple parts???
>t. Joint Geniuses of Staff

File: 1461546711385.png (263KB, 520x377px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 520x377px

>>31535047
>b-b-b-but having fewer planes is different because thees new planes don't have multiple crewmen that proves that single role airframes are superior!

You got me, bravo.

>>31534705
Low-band radars in modern IADS, though that may as much be a panic reaction to how effective stealth is or a propaganda campaign to convince their own people that they're keeping up.

>>31535325

And what has changed since then that makes you believe that STOVL aircraft are no longer worthy of development?

>>31534751
It's something like 1/3 are identical, and another third are "cousin" components.

>>31534970
They had the Pave Knife LGB systems on F-4Es.

>>31535331
>Three-bearing swivel and drive shaft cold air fan easily fit into an almost identical airframe
>X-35B could do a VTOL flight and go supersonic in one flight without any changes

Stay mad that progress has made your opinions irrelevant.

>>31535325
>HURRR NOTHIN TO BE LEARNT FROM THE FIRST AND ONLY MAJOR A2/AD CONFLICT
what a stupid comment

>>31535460

>Three-bearing swivel and drive shaft cold air fan easily fit into an almost identical airframe

20% commonality is not "almost identical."

>>31535488
Those are "exact same" parts. There's another ~33% cousin components.

And again, not really enough Bs will be built for that to be a serious issue. And if you had more than one source we might take you more seriously, but you have yet to present any valid criticism of the F-35.

>>31535586

>And again, not really enough Bs will be built for that to be a serious issue.

Which begs the question why the B wasn't a separate program to begin with.

>And if you had more than one source we might take you more seriously

As far as I can tell, I'm the only person who has provided any sources at all. And besides, if you actually read my sources you'd realize they were all written by several different people, not 1 person.

>but you have yet to present any valid criticism of the F-35.

My online criticism so far has been that it would have been better to have three separate programs instead of trying to magically get three different aircraft to have 80% commonality. I have provided several detailed sources to back this up and so far, nobody has done anything to prove otherwise.

>>31535460
>X-35B was able to be made into a VTOL aircraft by adding the VTOL equipment it was originally supposed to have
Wow, I'm BTFO!!!!!

Because a supersonic VTOL stealth jet would cost to much on it's own. Dumping it's development cost into the F-35A model makes sense.

>>31535726
>Because a supersonic VTOL stealth jet would cost to much on it's own
If only such a thing weren't absolutely necessary! How else am I gonna do half-assed """""CAS""""" runs during beach assaults without a shitton of already-obsolete stealth features?

>>31535767
Yes because thats all its for.......... fucking moron.

>>31535726

>Because a supersonic VTOL stealth jet would cost to much on it's own.

Hiding the cost be clumping it together with something else doesn't actually make it less expensive you know. If anything it made it more expensive by over-complicating the design phase of the F-35A. The F-35A is the version that is most important by far because that version is being procured in larger numbers than any other others and it is the most important for various strategic partners of the United States. Forcing it to have 80% commonality with a STOVL jet was downright stupid. Thankfully, the commonality requirements have been relaxed since then, but the time and money wasted can't be recovered.

>>31535641
You have yet to actually back up that it would have had better results from separate programs at all in three airframes with similar capabilities AND some how cost less.

>>31535671
See, the difference is that the B is a modified version of the A, not a purpose-built STOVL plane like the Harrier.

>>31535820
>Still yet to provide proof that a program with lower dev costs than the F-22 at half the unit price for the variant in largest production number would somehow be cheaper as three separate programs

>>31535839

>You have yet to actually back up that it would have had better results from separate programs at all in three airframes with similar capabilities AND some how cost less.

I have provided numerous sources to this effect. You simply haven't read them.

>>31535915

>Still yet to provide proof that a program with lower dev costs than the F-22 at half the unit price for the variant in largest production number would somehow be cheaper as three separate programs

I have provided numerous sources to this effect. You simply haven't read them.

>>31535942
You've pasted multiple papers by one think tank that doesn't even actually back up that the F-35s program produced what you claim: A bad or expensive aircraft.

>>31535816
You're right, the F-35B is totally going to be used by muh Marines as a standalone air superiority fighter.

>>31535988

>You've pasted multiple papers

Thank you for FINALLY admitting it. Was that really so painful?

>by one think tank

RAND is by far the most important think tank as far as military research goes, so it is the best possible source. Perhaps if you actually read the reports you'd understand why.

>doesn't even actually back up that the F-35s program produced what you claim: A bad or expensive aircraft.

Except I never argued either of those things. The only claim that I've really made is that trying to get the three different air-frames to get 80% commonality was stupid. And RAND definitely agrees with that.

File: rankings.png (160KB, 591x490px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 591x490px

>>31536082
>RAND is by far the most important think tank as far as military research goes, so it is the best possible source.

Nah

CSIS > everything

>>31536147

Then give me a source from them that vindicates the joint fighter development program. Keep in mind, it isn't enough that it simply talks about how good the F-35 is. It must specifically address the development process, especially the commonality requirements.

>>31536175

I'm not that anon you are arguing with, I was just making a point about RAND.

>>31536175
You keep saying this as if the end result or overall dev costs were bad. They are neither.

>>31536020
Maybe not but now they can. And the royal navy, and the spanish navy and the italian navy.

Think for 5 seconds.

>>31536207

But they obviously could have been better. I have provided numerous detailed sources that suggest this.

>>31536232
>they can
but won't.

>>31536232
>Think for 5 seconds.
No U

>>31536241
By what measure, exactly? Again, the dev program for three variants was $7b less than the closest technological equivalent, the F-22. The A is $20m less than modern 4.5s. The three variants have massive advantages over everything they replace.

How, exactly would separate programs actually be better except to spend a lot more money across multiple prime contractors?

>>31535338
When they perform the mission better with a single crewman than a Vietnam-era airframe did in the same mission with two, then yes, it is very much a valid point. Especially when they're now not just performing better but performing orders of magnitude better, especially in strike missions.

>>31535375
Do you have the source on that? It sounds ballpark correct, if a smidge low. I can't find my notes on this that included open dissemination sources on that, and I'd love to find it again.

>>31536571

>How, exactly would separate programs actually be better

Because you wouldn't have the costs and delays associated with trying to get 80% commonality out of the three different variants.

>>31536631
Nope, instead you'd have three programs that cost nearly as much individually and have zero commonality.

>>31536652

Do you have a source for that? I have provided multiple detailed reports that suggest that it would have been better to run three separate fighter programs. Please provide an equally detailed source that says otherwise.

>>31536631
Also, YF-22 first flight and F-22 IOC had the same 15-year time span as the X-35B to F-35B. Eurofighter had a similar time span. The "delays" were dye to bad project projections, not to reality.

>>31536631
>Because you wouldn't have the costs and delays associated with trying to get 80% commonality out of the three different variants.
Except that you completely ignore the simple fact that the vast majority of "costs and delays" over the top of the projected process 15 years ago have been in the highest-risk tech systems. That's software, systems integration, sensor fusion, HMD/DAS/EOTS integration, LPI MADL integration including playing nice with legacy systems, and other wrinkles inherent in building a cutting edge 5th gen with more processing power needs than any other tactical military aircraft ever built in history COMBINED.

Commonality didn't drive even 15% of overall time and cost overruns.

You've made this argument in at least two threads now, and you keep moving goalposts as you make it. Frankly, I'm starting to believe you simply cannot be fucked to retain facts which do not agree with your perspective. If you won't maintain a passing acquaintance with reality, I see little need to continue trying to educate you.

>>31536699

>Commonality didn't drive even 15% of overall time and cost overruns.

If that is true, then why don't the current versions of the aircraft have 80% commonality like they are supposed to?

>>31536682
>I have provided multiple detailed reports that suggest that it would have been better to run three separate fighter programs
As has been pointed out multiple times ITT, they simply don't have enough data to make that determination. No other program has ever been:
>designed from the start fully on computer modelling and CAD-analogue programs
>no other joint project has ever been completely joint from inception with equal input from the participating services
>no other tactical fighter has been so heavily dependent on software and soft systems integration as opposed to kinematic requirements
These three things alone mean that RAND projections from 2-10 years ago must be re-evaluated frequently as the F-35 project progresses.

>>31536747

I have provided sources for all of my claims. You still have no source.

>>31536723
>If that is true, then why don't the current versions of the aircraft have 80% commonality like they are supposed to?
Not having commonality and choosing not to waste time and resources forcing commonality relatively early in the final acceptance process are not the same thing. The fact that you believe they are underlines how little you understand about massive project planning and modern engineering and design process.

>>31536774

Do you have a source for this?

>>31536723
Why the fuck are you so obsessed with this very early 80% figure as if that's the only factor that matters?

>>31536760
The entire fucking point is that we don't know enough yet, and won't until the F-35 is a few years into FRP. That's why the RAND study is based on aircraft and technologies literally decades old.

There is no conclusive data recent enough yet to make a full accounting of cost and benefit when it comes to the F-35 program. Early signs, however, are so far very positive and nothing but more positive every day that the program will be an overall success. The only question is to what specific degree the project beat the alternative.

Waving insufficient or downright misleading sources in the air and acting as if they are definitive on the issue is the sign of a biased and weak grasp of the operating issues at hand. Not even RAND is claiming that the F-35 would definitely have been cheaper, no question, than separate programs. They tentatively suggest that it might have been based not on evidence from the program of record but on a comparison with programs 60-40 years old in design terms, and they strictly avoid unqualified and definitive statements.

>>31536723
>>31536760
Do you have any source other than a highly outdated RAND think piece that doesn't match current reality?

>>31536789
Because he's one of the long term "muh evil MIC/F-35 blows" anons on /k/, and this last detail is the very final fingerhold he has to shit on the program.

He's a contrarian fuck, and he expects no one will challenge him if he throws flawed sources around and tries to sound like he knows what he's talking about

>>31533097
It's 1.508 trillion, the fuck benefits would ever be worth that

File: Sagan Science.gif (2MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x225px

>>31536870
Nail head, meet hammer.

>>31536883
Wow. That bullshit number which is over 33% higher than the actual 50+year program lifetime budget

>>31536913
I'd rather have a fuck load more a-10s and f-16s that the 35, the unit price alone is what 7 a-10s?

>>31536841
Don't forget that RAND doesn't even bother to acknowledge the inflation-adjusted exponential increase in cost per airframe per generation of tactical aircraft, the exponential increase in software/sensor/comms sophistication per airframe, of the exponential increase in software coding requirements per airframe.

Instead, they pretend as if the same engineering problems a program faced in 1960 with the F-4 are still completely relevant today, when 90%+ of the things making modern fighters take longer and cost more to develop are on the software side of the street where it's far easier to design for and account for variants at the beginning than it would be to write brand new system environments and the systems themselves for a brand new jet.

>>31533112
>People pretending to be airfags are so brain dead they need an internet image board to help them
ftfy

File: Meaning-of-vault-boy-thumbs-up-jpg.jpg (116KB, 600x410px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 600x410px

>>31536841
>>31536841
>>31536853

If you don't end up with a high degree of commonality then what is the point of having a joint program in the first place? As it stands there is no evidence at all that working the F-35 as a joint program has reduced costs. RAND has studied the subject in detail and concluded that joint fighter projects have historically under-performed compared to program goals and the F-35 has not been an exception to that.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9759.html

Rand is an excellent source and there is no reason why I should stop posting their research. Unless of course, you are able to provide your own source of equal or greater credibility that disputes their conclusions, which you are unable to do because if you were capable of such a feat, you probably would have posted a source by now.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1225.html

>>31536948
It's less than 5 A-10s and less than 2 of the most recent F-16 variants, anon. Why do you just throw out meaningless bullshit numbers?

And this is why you are completely and unreservedly unqualified to comment on the program. If you honestly believe 5 A-10s or 2 F-16s would be worth the same exact thing as a single F-35 in a modern A2AD battlespace, then you are irredeemably retarded and should consider staying over at WarIsBoring and just comment on the pieces of "journalism" over there. Leave us the hell alone.

>>31536948
Adjusted for inflation? 2 at best and the F-35 can haul more, hit with far more accuracy, and perform the roles of air superiority, recon, EWO, and so on as well. And it has a similar payload to the F-16 in full stealth.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/08/operational-assessment-of-the-f-35a-argues-for-full-program-procurement-and-concurrent-development-process
And by the people flying it it is superior to 4th gen almost universally.

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

311KB, 2560x1440px

>>31534347

How the fuck do you figure? Harriers are still dropping mad ordnance over in Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan.

If you mean in a high density/non-permissive conflict with Russia or China, guess what, anything that's not an F-35 or F-22 is going to be toast by like D+3.

AV-8B II has the avionics upgrades that make it bretty good against a majority of the worlds air forces. We AAMRAM shooters now breh

>>31537018
>If you don't end up with a high degree of commonality then what is the point of having a joint program in the first place?
Because the software and the engine, you dumb shit. Pay attention.

>>31537018
>RAND has studied the subject in detail and concluded that joint fighter projects have historically under-performed compared to program goals
Find a single Gen 3 or Gen 4 project that performed exactly to program goals from the start of FRP. A. Single. Fucking. One.

>the F-35 has not been an exception to that.
They have neither current nor comparable numbers on the F-35, which is why they are forced to focus on projects 60 fucking years old when a goddamn slide rule was an essential engineering tool, you fucking idiot.

>Rand is an excellent source
Yes, it is. When used correctly, just like any other fucking source. What you're doing is trying to employ a fucking hammer to do brain surgery.

>you are able to provide your own source of equal or greater credibility that disputes their conclusions
WE. DO. NOT. KNOW. ENOUGH. YET. Period. End of line. Or the studies would be out already. Are you really this fucking stupid?

Also, why even provide our own sources when you can't help but consistently misrepresent your own sources?

>>31537039

I'm sorry anon, but your post seems to be missing something very important known as a "source." Can you provide such a thing?

>>31537100
>your post seems to be missing something very important known as a "source."
Anon, even the morons reporting on the PAK-FA for the western media, much less the mouth-drooling retards over at WarIsBoring, realize that the engine development cycle and planning horizon for the F135 and the F119 before it were, overall, far, far longer than the project length for the aircraft the engines eventually went into from contest win to FRP.

But you, you pernicious little shit, you can't be fucked to learn even this most basic fact about modern aircraft design.

File: face-with-tears-of-joy.png (58KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 256x256px

>>31537140

>Still no source

>>31537100
>>31537148
And now that you've been BTFO you're just going to keep screaming "SOURCE SOURCE SOURCE" as if it invalidates anything you've been rekt on. You clearly aren't here to learn anything, you're here to get your beliefs validated.

File: 1461962798086.png (22KB, 502x429px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 502x429px

>PROOFS PROOFS PROOFS

Where have we heard this before?

>>31537148
Here. Educate your retarded ass:
http://www.pw.utc.com/F135_Engine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F135
>began development in 19-fucking-86 as part of a DARPA program in conjunction with the Marines, and is a direct outgrowth of the F119 program
Still not even in FRP, still being lightly tweaked in LRIP. 1986. There wouldn't even be a JSF PROGRAM for another decade, much less an actual prototype. But they were already working on the fucking engine and lift fan.

As for the F-119,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F119
http://www.pw.utc.com/F119_Engine
Began development in 1983. That's the same fucking year the F-117 hit operational service. The YF-22 and YF-23 wouldn't EXIST for another 7 years. But they had already been working on the engine for years.

This is basic aeronautic engineering history 101, you stupid shit. Educate yourself.

File: Valve-Source-SDK_1344259299.jpg (15KB, 610x250px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 610x250px

>>31537209

I keep asking for sources because you keep failing to provide sources. And I shall continue to do so.

>>31537237
You are dependant on one source that doesn't accurately reflect reality. Stop pretending you're any better.

File: 4705.jpg (32KB, 864x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 864x480px

>>31537234

OH MY GOD.

Could it be?

No.......it's not possible.

But it is. AN ACTUAL SOURCE.

Wow. I mean, wow. Granted, I don't accept wikipedia as a source but P&W is a legit source.

I mean wow. I didn't think you had it in you. But you finally pulled it off. Good show, good sir, good show. Keep in mind I haven't actually looked at the source yet but I'm just amazed, just truly amazed that you FINALLY managed to bring SOMETHING to the table. Good job, man. I mean, wow.

>>31537279

The other anon was able to man up and provide a source. Can you live up to his example? Can you rise to the challenge?

>>31537289

I don't know who you are doing this song and dance to, but everyone can see how retarded you are.

>>31533097
The whole point of the JSF is you make the base model, and then you make one that can land on carriers and then make one that the marines are willing to overpay for.

But when you make the Navy and Marine versions, you don't have to start from scratch.

Also you don't need 3 different factories for 3 different airplanes because some parts are common. But you still need 3 assembly lines.

Its all about getting to something that is good enough, and then not reinventing the wheel.

>>31537289
Left the wiki source there for you because I knew you wouldn't actually spend the time to fully research the PW page, which was literally a 10 second google search, first result on the page away from your lazy, incredibly worthless ass.

It's literally the fucking PW product page and wiki. The first two results in the search. And you couldn't be fucked because it might interfere with your bias.

Go fuck yourself. I'm done.

>>31533296
what other role does the A-10 fill other than CAS?

>>31537331

Congress's top tool for pissing off the air force.

>>31537331

>what other role does the A-10 fill other than CAS?

Forward Air Control
Anti-Armor Interdiction
Combat Search & Rescue

>>31537148
>>31537234
>>31537289
>>31537322
Since that anon's so disgusted he's not going to continue beating sense into your hollow head, I'll go ahead and provide a source on the software side for the F-35. Read the following, and count how many issues were pointed out and subsequently resolved on the software side, how much of the operational testing revolved around validating software builds, and how focused they are on getting capabilities integrated in each major software tranche. Then tell me it's not software they're spending most of the time on at this point.

>2012 JSF DOT&E
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/fy2015/pdf/dod/2015f35jsf.pdf

>2013 JSF DOT&E
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2013/pdf/dod/2013f35jsf.pdf

>2014 JSF DOT&E
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/fy2014/pdf/dod/2014f35jsf.pdf

>2015 JSF DOT&E
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/fy2015/pdf/dod/2015f35jsf.pdf

You can do the same thing with the GAO reports, and come to exactly the same conclusion. Your focus on factory build parts commonality has little to nothing to do with the current issues and challenges in the program, or the bulk of past challenges. It's a red herring you invented just to wave your tiny dick at the F-35 program.

>>31537441

I'm going to congratulate for finally providing sources, but all of those are from more recent years and thus they don't show the problems caused by excessive commonality.

>>31537366
Are we pretending the F-35 can't do every single one of those better in every respect?

>>31537466
>thus they don't show the problems caused by excessive commonality.
Neither do your RAND reports. Feel free to provide specific quotes from RAND suggesting even a large chunk of current budget and schedule overruns for the F-35 are due to "commonality" within that specific program.

Stop misquoting your own sources. It's annoying and it makes you look like a moron.

>>31537480

>Are we pretending the F-35 can't do every single one of those better in every respect?

The question was: What roles does the A-10 fill other than CAS? The question was answered. The F-35 was not involved. But now that we're talking about it, no, I don't really see any issue with the A-10 being retired. It had a good run, but it is time for it to leave.

>>31537466
Here's 2011:
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2011/pdf/dod/2011f35jsf.pdf

Do you notice a trend yet? Literally change two numbers in the address to get any year you want, the year after FY and the year in the report name at the end. Go all the way back if you want. Won't change anything.

They've spent 100 times as long refining flight control software laws than they ever spent in airframe design or weight reduction or adjusting "commonality" issues combined.

File: 1458434835116.jpg (99KB, 534x480px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 534x480px

>>31537531
Well. That's a relief. Cheers, mate. Does this mean we're friends now, or do we have to share some trap porn or something first?

The US navy should be all chinese built, commercial standard, super carriers flying F-35C's.

Everything else can be done by small boats towing sonars, unmanned subs/boats/planes operating from the carriers, or by land based assets.

>>31537366
I'll give you CSAR as being different than CAS, but forward air control is CAS and so is anti armor interdiction.

>>31537796
>interdiction.
No. Interdiction is, by definition, striking targets well behind the lines to either degrade logistics/C4SIR capability or intercept units before they get to the front. It's literally what the USAF, USN and USMC try to do to avoid having to do CAS which is more dangerous to our own troops and less effective overall.

>>31536612
So what you're saying is that a single aiframe can do the job of MULTIPLE ones?

Oh my god, that's incredible!

>>31534827
Naval aviation is now much less flexible, the loss of the KA-6D and the f-14 represents a huge loss in combat radius of the air wing.

File: Make Bait Great Again.jpg (37KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x600px

>>31538074

>>31538088

I'm not sure why you think that's bait. He's absolutely right.

>>31538156
>there are no such things as buddy stores
>the f-14, THE hangar queen of the entire military was a huge loss
>despite it no longer having a mission
>despite it being expensive to operate
>despite it being worse at everything the navy needed it to do than a fucking superbug
>bbbbbbut muh obsolete giant missile that never hit anything

bait/10

>>31538191

The F-14 was more expensive, but it had longer range and higher performance overall. It may not be a big deal, but there is undeniably a loss in capability, at least until the F-35C and its unmanned drone tanker sidekick roll around.

>>31538074
>Naval aviation is now much less flexible, the loss of the KA-6D and the f-14 represents a huge loss in combat radius of the air wing.
Well, the F-35C has 113nmi wider radius, so they're getting it back.

>>31537875
Okay. So when I give this brief I should restate single role aircraft to be something else? Or just clarify that the A-10 barely doesn't fall under that bracket?

>>31538528
>Okay. So when I give this brief I should restate single role aircraft to be something else? Or just clarify that the A-10 barely doesn't fall under that bracket?
Single-role only exists for modern aircraft in the broadest terms, i.e. strike or air superiority, etc.

However, the A-10 was never meant to be a deep interdictor. That's what the F-15E is for. The A-10 is about as close as it gets for single role these days, aside maybe from the F-15C and F-22 in air superiority, and even the F-22 drops bombs now. EW aircraft like the Growler would also be single-role in a sense, but since they attack everything from land-based AAA to warships and perform a shit ton of EW stuff in between, that's a hard argument to make.

There haven't been true "single role" aircraft since before Gen 4, and most of the Gen 3 aircraft were in fact multi-role to one degree or another.

The argument about the F-35, at least among halfway intelligent and informed observers, is not whether multi-role is desirable. It's whether multi-service, multi-take off/landing profile requirements for the same bird was a good idea, i.e. CTOL, STOVL and CATOBAR. Multi-role has been the way to go for a long, long time now.

>>31538897
That's the context I'm using single role in. Thanks for the info, I'll be able to use most of that fairly easily. As of now my approach to this is to take the postion of pro F-35 integration using parts commonality, diversity of missions capable of being performed, and advanced aircraft capability (maneuverability at high and low speeds, stealth capability, and payload variety). Anything else I should cover?

>>31538191
>range payload performance isnt something the navy needs
>buddy stores are a replacement for organic tanking ability
yeh

File: BG-F35A-overview-chart-2.gif (61KB, 400x1020px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 400x1020px

>>31539147
>(maneuverability at high and low speeds, stealth capability, and payload variety)
Those are three of the LEAST impressive things about the airframe.

Sensor fusion, LPI datalink bandwidth, native LPI sensor capability, Day-1 of war capability against modern A2AD systems, all of these are far more impressive.

For a basic starter on this, watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0

Ease of maintenance from a marine maintainer:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/absolute-youngest-marine-in-the-f-35-test-force-shares-1716981177

Actual performance rundown from various perspectives by pilots transferring into the F-35 from gen 4 aircraft, also pic related:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/08/operational-assessment-of-the-f-35a-argues-for-full-program-procurement-and-concurrent-development-process#_ftn28

Raw kinematics and munitions integration is nice, but it's old news. Gen 5 is about doing that and taking everything else an evolutionary leap forward to boot.

>>31539308
Well damn. I'll definitely add that in, especially the stuff with A2AD systems, the Col I'm briefing especially likes things being related to Russia. They still have the best systems in that field right? It's been a while since I read up on it.

>>31539355
Son, are you JROTC or something? If you're giving some kind of class project or briefing to a Colonel on the F-35's capabilities, and you're not sure whether or not Russia builds best of breed IADS amongst possible US antagonists, you've got a lot more reading and studying to do.

This is a massive topic. I could write a few hundred pages on operational capability mission sets and still not be very drilled down on details. What are you supposed to be focusing on here? What is the actual topic of the briefing? Because if you don't figure out where your bailiwick is and focus down, you're going to get an assreaming after you give a shotgunned presentation where you're all over the board, saying a lot of disjointed shit and not presenting a clear picture.

>>31539147
The sensor suite, sensor fusion, and datalink integration is probably the biggest set of improvements over 4th Gen. It's a mobile, forward mini-AWACS node.

It's got a primary targeting camera that has an insanely high quality imaging range. It's 360x360 field IR camera array can detect a ballistic launch from very far away (Falcon 9 from 800 miles) and can locate and ID air and ground targets based on several hundred parameters. The passive RF suite can pick up and track pretty any active signal in the battlespace.

And the computer takes all of this and coordinates it so it's easy for the pilot to understand.

And communicates it with the other nearby F-35s, synchronizing all of that into an even better picture.

Consider this: The F-35 and F-117 are tasked with a same mission. A deep strike on night zero through an IADS network.

For the F-117, they spend months probing the network's coverage, carefully working out the optimum target for the two bombs it carries. It flies a pre-planned course, drops a pair of LGBs on its target, and follows a pre-planned evasion route back out.

For the F-35, they ID the target and load it up with the best bombs for the target, maybe a pair of 2k/1k JDAM or LGB, or 4 500s, or 8 SDBs. Then launch that night and it can actively map IADS threat hemispheres and avoid them, or at least minimize risk of detection. Hits the target, and maybe even hits some targets of opportunity on the way out and doesn't blunder through any pop-up anti-air.

>>31539416
I'm regular ROTC, and this was sprung on me last week. I'm also a mechanical engineering major so I don't usually devote a ton of my free time to reading up on Russian air defense systems. The stuff I do get is usually from here, and it takes a while to glean what's fact and what's neckbeard opinion. The actual topic is what's in the OP, which is pretty broad. I had a few talking points and I'm still researching, which is why I don't have a super coherent set of points lined up yet.

File: f35_technology_commonality[1].jpg (180KB, 1203x735px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1203x735px

>>31533215
Something else that's important to keep in mind is that while commonality is 30-40% (depending on which two variants you compare), there is also a significant (another 30-40%) of parts which are "cousin" parts - parts that are not identical, but which share the same production line.

So for example, the F-35A/B vs F-35C do not have common actuators for their flaps, because the F-35C uses longer pistons. However, everything else about the actuator is identical, so they share the same production up until the point where they install and seal the push-rod pistons.

The end result is that about a third of the F-35's parts cannot be freely swapped between variants for easier logistics, but do have cheaper manufacturing and assembly costs.

I think the fact that the F-35 is as advanced and capable as it is, has 3 different variants, yet costs what it currently does (compared to other aircraft on the market) is testament to the fact that joint programs sometimes do work.

>>31539308
>this video

this is fascinating. Thanks anon.

>>31539510
If it's just single role VS multi-role within the USAF context, that's easy. Here, read this:
http://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf
It will give you all the history behind why the USAF has concentrated on operational high-technology multi-role platforms (with the notable exception of the air superiority mission) over single-mission platforms (for instance, why the F-16 is a multi-role all-weather fighter-bomber instead of a radar-less short range day-fighter). Within you find many, many sources in the bibliography to further your understanding on specific points.

This is not a discussion which started with the F-35, and in fact the trends were set for TAC during and shortly after Vietnam with the development of the F-15 and F-16.

You also might point out that the Soviet/Russian persistence in single-role aircraft (MiG-29 as a short-range point defense fighter, MiG-31 as an interceptor, etc.) has completely broken down and almost all of them are multi-role now as well and think about why that might be.

Point out that air superiority and arguably EW are practically the only jobs left which require heavily dedicated air frames to service at the highest level, and that with modern PGMs and sensors suites, CEP is no longer affected by altitude and target acquisition and prosecution is similarly unaffected by getting "eyeballs on target" at low altitude.

Start with the above link (skip to chapter 3 and pick up the first two chapters from context if you must). It's a doctorate level thesis partially on this very topic. Then apply what you learn about USAF history, policy and internal politics to what is presently developing with the F-35 program.

>>31539533
Cool, thanks.

>>31539674
Thanks, that should do well!

>>31533788

The engine was already made for the F-22, they just shoehorned it into the F-35

>>31540151
>they just shoehorned it into the F-35
This is an excellent example of "reduction unto meaninglessness". Going reductionist that hard on the F135 development project is like calling a modern F1 car a "Model T Ford with a big engine".

>>31540151

This is completely wrong though.

>>31537222
checked

>>31537796

>never looked at the JFIRE
>tells you what is and isn't CAS

>>31540151
where are you getting this?

>>31543311
It's probably because the F135 is a technological follow-on from the F119, but he's massively oversimplified it.

>>31539308
>even memetrotalpha likes F-35 now

Spreyfags on suicide watch

>>31543896

wtf i like the JSF now

>>31543896
Remember, Gizmodo Media sites let basically anybody write for them, and FTA is a mix of David Axe-grade idiots and guys who do really cool interviews with people who know what they're talking about.

>>31534208
>f35 program
>successful

Yea, they got the fucking thing done but it cost way more and took way longer to complete than it should have. At this point its like saying you successfully put out a kitchen fire with 2 tons of dirt instead of just using a fire extinguisher

>>31544463
>Yea, they got the fucking thing done but it cost way more and took way longer to complete than it should have.
Only if you use imaginary, super-optimistic and unrealistic early goals as your meter stick.

>>31534014
If you add "... said the actress to the bishop" to what someone else said it gets immediately a shade of lewd. Lets us try something similar here.


>>Consistently outperforms 4th Gens in every way in exercises at Mountain Home and Green Flag


>>Less to develop three variants than the F-22
... in simulators

>>significantly lower unit price than contemporary 4.5s
... in simulators

See? Until they do more than gun down unarmed camels in the Middle East we are just talking about simulators.

>>31544952
>... in simulators
You're a special kind of retarded, aren't you?

>>31544463
Feel free to point out a single fighter produced since Gen 3 which does NOT fit this particular talking point.

Modern fighters are expensive and extremely complicated. If you don't carry significant tech risk into the design, you end up with an aircraft which is or will soon be obsolete as soon as it hits service. But with high risk comes challenges, delays and cost overruns. The US has always believed that these risks and the associated problems were justified by the average quality of the final products, occasional failures included. And ultimately, it's how the US has stayed ahead. It's how they did more with less before the late 1800s, and how they stayed on top of the pile after WWII.

See:
>Original six frigates being designed and built more like 3rd or 4th rate razees rather than traditional frigates
>Early efforts at submarines
>Ironclad/monitors in the mid 1800s
>extensive aviation research in the early 1900s
>high-risk naval technologies in WWII like radar-directed FC being integrated with remote power turrets through central FC computers
>gambling by throwing far, far more resources at carriers rather than BBs shortly before and early in WWII
>strategic bomber and long-range escort aviation development foci
>Manhattan project
>nuclear naval propulsion
That's just the greatest hits up to the 1950s. I'm sure you can see where this is going.

If you were an actually informed and serious student of history, military history and military procurement, you'd be suggesting a better mode of operation and focus, and backing it with historical precedent and plausible modern contextual support. Instead of just pissing and moaning without bothering to analyze it in further depth than the average weekday fashion reporter doing a weekend F-35 story on a blog.

>>31545709
The US did nothing special at all other than never having to fight a war on their own soil, never at risk of invasion forcing them to maintain standing forces, and having more money to throw at shit.

Their ground vehicles were always inferior up until the USSR & all relevant competition collapsed.

Their aircraft were inferior.

Their infantry weapons were inferior.

The modern US dominance in military tech is a VERY recent thing, it didn't exist in the 80's.

>>31548317
>Their ground vehicles were always inferior up until the USSR & all relevant competition collapsed.
>Implying the M60 was a bad tank
>Implying the M1 was

>Their aircraft were inferior.
US 2nd and 3rd gen fighters maintained mostly positive K:L ratios overall, while Soviet were negative. And the imbalance was massively higher in 4th.

>Their infantry weapons were inferior.
>First mass-issue semi-auto rifle in common use
>great SMGs
>M16, once updated, has been an excellent rifle

You're full of shit.

>>31548317

>Their aircraft were inferior.
>Their infantry weapons were inferior.
>Conveniently ignoring Naval Strength

File: THE-COMBAT-STATISTICS-FOR-ALL-THE-AIRCRAFT-CURRENTLY-IN-USE-Air-to-air-kills-–-Air-to-air-losses-–-Losses-to-ground-fire.png (2MB, 2473x4847px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2473x4847px

>>31548317
>Their aircraft were inferior.
With the exception of the F-104, which barely saw any A2A combat at all, you have to go back to pre-Korea Gen 1 jets to find a US-built fighter with a negative kill to loss ratio in combat. With the exception of the Su-27, which has only ever shot down Soviet aircraft (6-0), you have to go back to before the MiG-15 to find a fighter with a positive kill to loss ratio.

Tell me again about the Soviet superiority in combat aircraft.

>The modern US dominance in military tech is a VERY recent thing, it didn't exist in the 80's.
The US had, in 1980:
>a huge advantage in tactical aircraft, including the operational VLO program which would bear fruit with the first flight of the F-117 in 1981
>a massive advantage in hulls, tonnage and technology with surface naval vessels, not the least of which were supercarrier and naval aircraft force levels
>another massive advantage in combat capability with submarines, especially in noise radiation and sonar detection threshold ranges against Soviet boats
>a large and growing advantage in PGMs, SEAD and EW across the board
>a large advantage in nuclear forces across the board, and especially in the quality and quantity of SLBM forces

You should spend more time actually reading books and less time sucking at the teat of Putin's media.

Holy shit, why is this thread still alive

File: od.jpg (194KB, 728x1982px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 728x1982px

>>31549335

>>31533097
We have 25 year old designs that do the same fucking thing these do.
Yes, they make my dick hard when I get a passing glance.
Yes, these designs are incredibly advanced and better than older designs.

But a Sidewinder kills a Mig the same whether fired from a 10 billion dollar flying computer or a 2 million dollar last gen fighter.

>>31549479
>But a Sidewinder kills a Mig the same whether fired from a 10 billion dollar flying computer or a 2 million dollar last gen fighter.
Yeah, no. It's the difference between the MiG having a fair chance and seeing death coming, and exposing the USAF to as few losses as possible while wiping the skies (and the ground) clear. Big goddamn difference.

There aren't many single role aircraft left.

>>31550618
Thank you, this has been discussed at length already

>>31549479
And a bullet will kill someone whether or not it's fired from a fit young soldier or an arthritic old veteran, what's your point?

>>31549479
>We have 25 year old designs that do the same fucking thing these do.
wtf I hate the F-35 now. Guess there was no point in progressing past the F-4 then.

File: f86-20a.jpg (51KB, 600x432px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x432px

>>31550953

>Guess there was no point in progressing past the F-4 then.

>Implying the F-4 wasn't a useless turkey
>Implying we shouldn't have just kept using the F-86 sabre

File: F8F_Bearcat_(flying).jpg (33KB, 750x457px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 750x457px

>>31551003
Jets are a meme, there's no reason we had to move from prop fighters aside from the influence of the jet mafia.

>>31551129

>Implying that planes even need engines

>Implying gliders aren't the master race

File: F3F-1_4-F-7_Jax.jpg (126KB, 1200x758px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1200x758px

>>31551129
Bud, monoplanes can't turn and can't fight. We'd still be using biplanes today if it wasn't for the peashooter mafia pushing a lemon onto the army air corps.