Lockheed awarded LRIP 10 contracts, F-35A potentially down to

>>32096912
Funny how one plane can cost so much and barely compete against cheaper, more accessible platforms
What where they thinking?

>>32097479
El oh el.

Which fighter is cheaper than this by any noticeable margin?

>inb4 Gripen, Eurofighter, Rafale, or legacy fighters that are either more expensive, have increased in price past what you think they have, or both of the previous reasons in addition to the fact that they're also inferior.

>Hurr durr MiG-21 better than F-35 am I right guys? XDDDD

File: sprey.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>32097479

>>32096912

So when it floats upwards, how far can it go before it needs to change?

>>32097604
Yes,all those you named are superior options
Face it,the plane is a failure both militarily and economically
Not even Canada wants this waste of money

File: f35waspstovl.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>32097621
How high can it hover? Maybe up to around 1km; it's designed to land vertically at just above sea level. While it can, it's not meant to take off vertically, just land vertically.

>>32096912
Yeah I don't think you are reading the statement properly. Looks like the $95 million number is closer to the fly-away cost for an A.

File: F35A IOC audience participation.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>32097656

>>32097678
You're probably right, there's still LRIP 11 before we get to the ~$85 million price with LRIP 12 but still, the wording states that the $7.19 billion is a modification of the previous contract, not an a supplement, etc, while other news articles like that of the $1.3 billion UCA state that the total contract is $7.19 billion.

>>32097662
>all those gaps in the frame

What was all that bullshit about sub-millimeter precision fitting again?

File: 1477766817207.jpg (282KB, 1365x2048px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1365x2048px

>>32097681
To bad Americans side with jihads and have lost almost every war since ww2
But still,the f35 is shit and your lying to yourself if your say otherwise
Don't reply unless you come up with a competent platform

>>32097755
When you have moving parts you need to leave gaps to account for flex and thermal expansion, etc. It's the fixed / structural components / skin parts of the jet that are sub-millimeter aligned. Get up close with a typical 737 airliner and take a look at the gaps in its panels and doors; they liberally use putty and rubber gaskets to make do.

>>32097783
>8-nil victory against F-15s at Mountain Home
>100+ air-to-air kills against F-16s, F-15s, etc at Northern Edge
>Has had to turn on FAA transponders to allow S-300 emulators to provide a minimum training benefit
>Has been filtering out SAM-emulators because it's too accurate in knowing that they're not the real deal

>>32097479

corruption

>gief moniez plox

File: leah.gif (1MB, 207x207px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 207x207px

>>32097605

>>32097841
>bla bla bla huur huur durr

File: USwars.jpg (944KB, 2023x1886px) Image search: [Google]

944KB, 2023x1886px

>>32097783

Salty you can't make better planes iih

File: 1476404811011.png (59KB, 576x507px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 576x507px

>>32098058
You idiots can't even sell them kek

>>32098077

Really? Cause as far as I'm aware most of the western world is using our aircraft

File: 1476661391606.png (650KB, 792x658px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 792x658px

>>32098095
Yes but not the f35
Look namefag,I don't hate the f35,but sometimes things don't work,and the aircraft in question has not provided anything to justify it price tag
There's simply better options for cheaper
Get over it

>>32098077
What country are you from.

Also, the only country that had backed out at all has been Canada and that's only because their pm is a liberal retard that made a dumb promise during his campaigning and now won't back down because he doesn't want to appear wrong. The Canadian military wants it but the liberal politicians do not. They still will probably buy some airframes later down the line.

>>32098151
Which options are better you fucking retard.

At least give us something to argue instead of shutting your ears and yelling
>NANANA F-35 IS BAD OTHER PLANES ARE BETTER I CANT HEAR YOU

>>32098151

I don't think you know what a namefag is

And you are right, there are simply cheaper options, if your country can't afford it that's fine, we'll happily sell you our old cheaper aircraft, like the F-18, F-16, or F-15, it's better than just about anything else out there still anyways.

Norway, Japan, Israel can.

>>32098155
Canadian is Sweden 2.0
It doesn't matter what country I'm from
Although we did buy many American jets from the 50' up to the 70's

>>32098168
Finally a actual argument
Yes,if anybody wants a f35 over any other option,that's fine
But it's a bad deal

>>32098201

Some people are willing to pay more for the best.

>>32098151
I'm not him, I have no issue putting my trip to my posts. The F-35 is being purchased by:
US
UK
Italy
The Netherlands
Australia
Denmark
Norway
Turkey
Israel
Singapore
Japan
South Korea
and there's a decent chance that Canada, Finland, Belgium, Spain, and others will get it too.

The F-35 is outright superior to every 4th / 4.5th gen out there, while being about the same price / cheaper than competitors. Even against other 5th gens it's very well equipped; moreso than the F-22.

>>32098167
Don't fall for it so hard

>>32098210
They would buy a f22...oh wait....

>>32098226
[Citation needed]

>>32098239
>basic Google

>>32098230

America has no obligation to sell anyone anything

>>32098255
>doesn't give citation
How many planes did they buy?
Probably less than 100 altogether
So much money blow on a jet that will be surpassed by every margin in 4 years
Give me a break

>>32098298
britain alone getting 138
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-to-purchase-138-f-35s/

planned foreign sales are around 800

do you live under a rock ?

>>32098045
"And here we see the Spreyfag revert to his natural state."

>>32098388
Oh shit!
Those countries really like wasting taxpayer's money
Oh well,if they want trash they can have it

>>32098439
>Cheaper than lower capability Eurocanards
>Wasting taxpayer money
Awww, it's nice your caretaker lets you shitpost each night.

>>32098461
Sorry but the f35 is still a disaster
There's no fixing it

>>32098298
US is buying 2443
UK is buying 138
Italy is buying 90
Netherlands are buying 37
Australia is buying at least 72 but may get 100
Denmark is buying 27
Norway is buying 52
Turkey is buying 100
Israel is buying at least 20 but may get 75
Singapore is unknown at this point, their F-16s don't need replacement for another decade.
Japan is buying at least 42
South Korea is buying 40

>>32098439
well considering only single fighter on the market in same class is cheaper (su-27 family craft )

and everything else in same class is as expensive, yes they do waste money

care to move your goal post even more ?

>>32098483
Yeah sure
Have a (you)

>>32098471
By what measure?

Unit price has fallen well and dev costs are below the F-22's, with it on current schedule.

In exercises it has already proven to be a massive leap over 4th Gen.

Pilots overwhelmingly consider it the superior plane in most aspects.

How, exactly, is it a disaster?

>>32098495
aww, and i thought you will provide some argument

fallowing your posts, there's nothing

come one you can do better than that

why ? and this goes to any of your posts

File: 1479581781402.jpg (29KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 499x499px

Boy oh boy when I say this thread I knew there would be a few retards defending their little plane not matter what I said
Jesus guys,this is too easy

>>32098662
Just pretending to be retarded, right?

>>32098694
And another one

>>32098662
>>32098708
>I have no arguments or facts to back up my hate of the plane so time to be retarded

>>32098662
but you said nothing,
come on trolling is easy, learn from battleship fag

step one - have sufficient knowledge on subject to spin it for your narration

step two - ignore arguments or cheery pick counter arguments

step three - repeat

>>32098480
Aerospace assembler here, we were told that 2,300 f35s was the number they wanted.

>>32098718
Yeah the plane is expensive trash that will be replaced very soon by another expensive mess
Wow your really showed me!
>>32098741
Implying I need those trolling tactics to piss some anon off

Does the 90m include the upgrades necessary on the already produced LRIP units? Ie software, asphyxiation and other problems that they haven't solved yet after LRIP.

File: 470ad29f69d68e8970189b318e33ea94.jpg (85KB, 492x496px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 492x496px

>>32098754

>>32098176
yugoslavia?
Iran?

>>32098760
>Implying the entire fleet isn't already at at least LRIP 8 standards
>Implying Block 3f isn't a solid operational software version

File: you.gif (973KB, 225x202px) Image search: [Google]

973KB, 225x202px

>>32098790

>>32098754
>Yeah the plane is expensive trash that will be replaced very soon by another expensive mess

oh look we are getting somewhere,

well all previous usa 4th gen craft had long lifes got 30-40 years in most cases

why would f-35 (a more expensive option that requires bigger infrastructure investments ) would serve any less and if so what exactly will be replacing it ?

>Implying I need those trolling tactics to piss some anon off

well you really don't and we are on /k/ so i require some rage from you, do your job better nigger

>>32098814
Oh, hey, you gif'd a video of yourself, that's nice.

File: Screenshot_2016-08-11-00-27-50-1.png (320KB, 933x603px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 933x603px

>>32098754
I know this is bait, but the first squadron of f35s is ready for combat.
Can preform the viper maneuver
Several of the BVR missile tests have been successful.
F35s can lock on to targets and send the info to drones or ships.

F35s are more like mini bombers and UAVs than fighters.

Shit works fine senpai

>>32098891
>>32098839
>>32098850

>>32096912
That's like what, 100 miles of rebuilt interstate? A few new major bridges?

>>32098754
Why is it trash?
Also, what is the other "expensive mess"?

>>32098752
2443 (2457 if you include the 14 test aircraft) is the official number through to 2038. Many of the international aircraft will be built at Fort Worth, some however will be built in Italy and Japan.

>>32098155
>the only country that had backed out at all has been Canada

Setting aside that Canada will buy F-35's as soon as dudeweed is out of office.

>>32099029
You won't get a fact based non meme answer from him.

>>32099274
Hell, they'll probably still buy them, as it'll easily win any competition it has to go into.

>>32099378
Canada may end up being the first exception; Boeing's will have 30% of their proposal cost subsidised by Canada's interim buy.

>>32098058
Didn't we actually win in somalia?

>>32099503
Massively lopsided casualty figures and a politically motivated withdrawal from the UN efforts. Not really a loss, but no effort to win, either after the Battle of Mogadishu.

>>32099503
It's really more complicated than a win/lose.

>Somalia descends into civil war after the commie fuck running it ran out of Soviet communismbux and got ousted by tribal leaders
>GW1 decides that having a country literally turn back into a tribal patchwork is something bad
>US launches military campaign to protect aid organizations, prevent a famine, and allow an interim government to restore order
>campaign is reasonably successful, and then something terrible happens
>things get turned over to the UN
>guy in charge of the UN is some asshole Egyptian
>asshole Egyptian simply refuses to let Aideed participate in the peace process, despite Aideed being the most powerful warlord in Somalia
>clashes end up happening between the UN and Aideed, it's never proven who started it
>US contingent ends up getting used as errand boys for the UN
>rangers and D-boys try to seize a bunch of Aideed's lieutenants, two helicopters get shot down
>Clinton decides to pull the plug on the operation
>Somalia remains permafucked until Kenya and Uganda start to send in their own armies like ten years lated

>>32098226
>Finland
Will be getting Gripens to be compatible with Sweden.
And Sweden ain't getting F-35 for sure.

>>32099625
White people should not be in third world countries trying to "help" them, while our countries are being overwhelmed by foreigners

Hopefully we can buy some F-35s since we voted against the Grippen. Why can't Switzerland just get a decent military for once since forever ?

>>32102160

That was the point of the intervention of Somalia, it was supposed to try and stop it turning into the failed state that it did, causing a stream of migrants to leave it for the west as we have now.

Relatively small interventions have stabilised countries with a modest cost of lives and money compared to the alternative. Consider France in Mali (and much of Africa), UK in Sierra Leone, Australia in East Timor, and the USA in Bosnia. Interventions are not always bad or always good, they should each be judged on their own merits.

>>32102208
>implying that Swiss who voted for retiring the F-5 with no replacement, because even the Gripen was too expensive for their tastes, will ever accept the overpriced guinea pig in its place

File: 00014859.jpg (118KB, 1022x672px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1022x672px

>>32102363

The defense department just announced that they will not retire the F5 and refurbish our hornets until a replacement comes around.

Theyre also restarting an evaluation where the gripen will probably emerge as the winner again.

Also the next referendum will pass simply because next time the question will be:

Either we buy a replacement for the f18 and f5 or we end up with no airforce.

Last time the opponents of the program could at least argue that even if we dont buy the gripen we will still have our f18s. And so some fiscally conservative right wingers voted against it because of costs.

These people will not strike down the next buy if the question is whether we continue to have an airforce or not.

>>32102414
why wont switzerland buy supertoucanos?

File: 1479176654235.jpg (250KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 640x427px

F-35 = HK VP9 the jet company. Over priced underwhelming while under delivering. The future of fighter craft is three-dimensional thrust-vectoring.
>>32102414
The U.S air force is comatose and the only notion of superiority on a global stage comes from propaganda nothing else. AREA 51 needs get start cranking out some new designs if america has any hope of maintaining the status quo.

File: indiana-jones.gif (2MB, 360x246px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x246px

>>32102472

Your reply is totally nonsensical and isnt actually a "reply" to what i just said.

also:
>The future of fighter craft is three-dimensional thrust-vectoring

So your choosing to be the guy with the sword.

>>32102414
switzerland could team up with brazil to share the development costs of the SeaGripen

File: holiday.jpg (434KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 1024x768px

>>32102499
>So you're choosing to be the guy with the sword.
Are you implying drones with 3d thrust vectoring and stealth capabilities would not be beneficial?
>>32102472 ment to reply to OP
It's all good on thanksgiving.

File: aim9x.webm (368KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 480x360px

>>32102546
>Are you implying drones with 3d thrust vectoring and stealth capabilities would not be beneficial?
I'm not him, but we already have those today - to make them more manoeuvrable we also gave them just enough fuel to fly a short distance at supersonic speeds:

File: GripenXMLU-2.jpg (33KB, 1024x422px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1024x422px

>>32102414
Make Swiss Great Again

>>32102546
3d thrust vectoring is really fucking cool. Especially when it comes to anime. But it means nothing when dog fights have many miles between the aircraft. Is this statement incorrect?

>>32102221
Should have just fought the communists in africa in the first place then
Or in Cuba, or south america
Lets not pretend the US has any moral high ground to stand on.

>and the USA in Bosnia
the US intervening to aid muslim terrorists is not stabalizing anything. Then they provided weapons/air support to muslims while they ethnically cleansed serbs.

>>32102434

As a trainer, they would almost certainly favour aircraft from Pilatus, an indigenous company whose aircraft they already operate.

As a combat aircraft, it is also unlikely because the purpose of the Swiss Air Force is to defend Swiss neutrality by being an effective deterrent against air space intrusions by military aircraft from other countries. Most European air forces operate fast jets which cannot be deterred by a small turboprop COIN aircraft.

>>32097604
Does anybody have a source on Gripen NG actually being more expensive then F-35?

>>32102472
>I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about and I'm going to tripfag so you know to discard my opinions

>>32101617
>Winlan
F-35 is out as US/LM can't offer the level of independent maintenance/operation that they are looking for
SH and EF are out because not enough new orders to keep the production lines open to 2025
That leaves just Rafale and Gripen which both surpass the performance criterion, so it'll be down to how the cost/performance equations are weighted

>>32102625

Oh shit, I didn't realise you were a butthurt slavposter, carry on pretending I said things that I didn't.

>>32102625
You do realize Yugoslavia was more over independence more than anything else, right?

>>32102819

Aircraft deals are an arcane topic, where it isn't as simple as dividing the value of the contract to determine how much each aircraft costs.There is industrial offset in the buyers country, which will make it more expensive but brings money and jobs back to the buyers country. Operating the aircraft will require pilot & ground crew training, spare parts, and munitions. The time scale over which the deal is paid might vary which then needs to account for inflation and interest.

That said, the USA is aiming to get F-35A manufacturing costs down to $80m USD each by full rate production in 2019-2020. The economies of scale involved here means it is doubtful that a full specification Gripen NG will manage to be much cheaper.

http://www.defenseone.com/business/2016/05/f-35-production-set-quadruple-massive-factory-retools/128120/

>>32097479
>barely compete against cheaper, more accessible platforms

Name 'em

>>32098058
>Iraq War
>Win

>>32102414
Just say it's to prevent a muslim invasion, the swiss germans would buy it.

>>32097656
We want it, but we have the most horrific, thunderously fuckheaded procurement system. Items/contracts get purchased, cancelled, repurchased at higher rates when they realize they fugged up, corruption is widespread, constantly we see inferior products chosen so it can me made in fucking Quebec or something and it goes on and on and fucking on while the rest of the world laughs at us. And the whole time the government is likely slashing budgets to give each other enormous payouts or to throw at Natives, while we struggle to compensate for our ancient gear by being exceptionally well trained.

>>32097841
Dragon I am by no means challenging you on this, but can you provide links for those claims? I always thought F-35 training ops were classified to all hell, other than the F-15E simulation that was published recently

>>32104341
They do press releases with general gists of the results.

Canada is buying 18 Rhinos, essentially replacing Hornets that are fucking worn to nubs at this point.

>>32105029
>Rhinos

RHINOS!
THE COWARDS! THE FOOLS!

>>32104418
Any links or am I on my own?

>>32105290
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/06/21/f35-software-mountain-home-deployment/86191386/
https://theaviationist.com/2015/07/01/f-35s-role-in-green-flag/

>>32104341
Sure;

The F-15 8-nil:
https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/27/f-15e-strike-eagles-unable-to-shoot-down-the-f-35s-in-8-dogfights-during-simulated-deployment/

More than 110 air-to-air kills at Northern Lightning (a :
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/208740/f-35a-completes-largest-deployment-date

Having to turn on FAA transponders:
https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/07/31/f-35-so-stealthy-produced-training-challenges-pilot-says/87760454/

Note that the (at least baseline) "high end IADS" tends to be the S-300 - Denmark's fighter evaluation had competitors face off SA-10/11/15s and Su-30s/Mig-29SMTs on paper: http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/8356

And then as for the too-smart-for-emulators:
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/11/f-22-f-35-outsmart-test-ranges-awacs/

File: Alligator Happy.jpg (65KB, 600x394px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x394px

>>32107441
You are a saint.

>>32107441
Greatly appreciated

You truly are the Oppenheimer of military aviation threads

>>32096912

I can't get over how space-age the F-35 looks, especially from that angle.

File: Superman.jpg (4KB, 85x125px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 85x125px

I know nothing about the F-35 but what is going on? Is the plane suddenly dramatically and significantly cheaper now?

Is it even a good plane? The only consistent bad thing I remember from what little I know was that it cost way too goddamn much

>>32107943

>The only consistent bad thing I remember from what little I know was that it cost way too goddamn much

Anytime you introduce something new, the first few prototypes are always ridiculously expensive.

>>32107943
Fucked up at first

Program was restructured in 2012ish

Some hiccups throughout development but its expected from brand new technologies that was over exaggerated by the media

As for how capable it currently is, read >>32107441

File: bob4.jpg (122KB, 852x683px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 852x683px

>>32107943
>I know nothing about the F-35 but what is going on?

Despite the desperate flailing by its detractors the F-35 has been doing very well since ~2010.

>Is the plane suddenly dramatically and significantly cheaper now?

It was always known to be heading towards this price, its detractors use ignorance to create the appearance of scandal.

>Is it even a good plane?

Take an F-22. Trade the top speed for significantly better sensors, networking, proper air to ground ability and STOVL/carrier variants and you get an F-35.

>The only consistent bad thing I remember from what little I know was that it cost way too goddamn much

See above.

>>32103187
Until the government we set up falls it's not at loss.

File: 9777371443_a59afeab16_b.jpg (113KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1024x683px

>>32108249
Also trade the maneuverability out for meme angles.

>>32108534
>Implying High Alpha isn't a valid maneuverability type that favors snap shooting over extending turning fights
>Implying the AIM-9X doesn't render a lot of dogfighting meaningless

>>32109061
High alpha won't help you evade a missile.

>>32109267
Not giving the enemy the first shot is always better.

>>32109279
High alpha isn't involved in that.

>>32109286
Disagree. If you can turn inside a foe they're not able to line up a solid shot.

Also, let's consider a brief scenario- You're in a circle fight, with both parties at opposite sides of the circle. If one doesn't have a significant advantage in turning radius, the one which burns up energy faster will end up losing. However, if you can indeed turn inside the other guy, you can wind up on his tail. Also applicable in scissors.

Of note that while these high alpha maneuvers burn energy like a mofo, the F-35 is specifically named as a very fast accelerator. It should be able to regain burnt energy pretty quickly.

>>32109506
And the A is a 9G bird like the F-16, and won't have a ton of shit hanging off it if air to air engagements are likely.

>>32109518
A number like that is fairly meaningless. You need several charts in order to show all the relevant information.

>>32098760
>asphyxiation
Anon, you have a long way to go if you can't tell the difference between F-22s and F-35s.

>>32098891
>Can preform the viper maneuver
Do you mean a Cobra? Who cares? I mean, the high Alpha is cool, but it's airshow bullshit in actual combat.

>>32109267
>1976+40
>evading missiles, especially short range missiles
Get a load of this guy.

File: 1475050921685s.jpg (5KB, 249x249px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 249x249px

Do people unironically think the F-35 is a bad plane?

>>32107441
>tfw too smart for testing

>>32110281
Evading missiles is perfectly possible though. Its literally how BVR combat is done; going defensive and maneuvering to burn a missile's Delta-v

File: 1455672269833.gif (835KB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

835KB, 300x169px

>>32110744
>Physically evading missiles than can pull more G's than the human body could ever take.
Pls stop.

>>32110755
>Missile pulls 20Gs in a turn to intercept
>Aircraft pulls opposite direction
>Missile pulls 20Gs in a turn to intercept
>Aircraft pulls opposite direction
>Missile pulls 20Gs in a turn to intercept
>Aircraft pulls opposite direction
>Missile has now lost all delta-v, is travelling at a speed lower than your IQ

Simplified it for you, champ. This isn't new, this is how BVR is done.

>>32110767
I mean, most people just beam the missile or turn around entirely. Much easier that way.

>>32110767
The missile doesn't need to do much of a turn if you keep turning around.

>>32110755

A rocket powered BVR missile may have around 8-12 seconds engine burn time, after then they are gliding, and constantly losing energy. Forcing the missile to change course will make it use energy to change course and reduce its range.

This is why there are people jerking over the Meteor missile "no-escape zone" (NEZ). because it has an air breathing, motor with a variable burn rate, it can keep burning for the entire distance on long range shots.

>>32110767
>>32110993
Due to the geometry of an intercept, a missile is only going to be pulling low Gs until it's all but a kilometer or so away, at which point you only have time for one turn, at a slower rate than the missile can achieve. For example, from as little as 5km away, if you pull a minimum radius turn, the missile only has to adjust course by about 10 degrees over the course of a couple of seconds; that kind of turn won't take 20Gs, while your turn would have eliminated quite a bit of airspeed.

You are correct that a missile will continue to lose energy, but again, this is like a sniper having to adjust their aim at an enemy running back and forth a kilometer away; they hardly have to adjust their body.

Turning around and flying away from the missile is quite effective, but only if the enemy launches from near the maximum range of the missile and only if you detect the launch or the missile's presence early in its flight. Chances are you won't notice anything until your RWR starts toning / flashing and the missile is ~10km away from you.

Don't get me wrong, turning does often have its use in avoiding missiles, but more as a method of maximising the effectiveness of your countermeasures.